Post a reply

How should we count ranking titles?

Postby gninnur karona

How many ranking events has Tom Ford won?

Clearly if counting all events that award ranking points the answer is 2, a figure that Tom Ford himself confirmed he agreed with during a WST podcast towards the end of last season. Yet many people still regard Tom Ford as having never won a ranking event.

How many Paul Hunter Classics have been ranking events?

Clearly if counting all events that award ranking points the answer is 9, a figure that should be indisputable given that all 9 tournaments were open to amateurs and best of 7s throughout. Yet many people have chosen to credit Mark Selby, Michael White and Kyren Wilson with one ranking title whilst discounting the other 6 tournaments. More strangely those people don't consider the three Paul Hunter Classics that attracted the most professional players as counting for ranking title purposes yet do count the Paul Hunter Classic that featured the least professional players.

Should the ShootOut be a ranking event?

Many people say no. In reality, though, why does anyone care? A ranking event should be any event that awards ranking points. Simple.

That's an excellent point, possibly, but then why not class the ShootOut as invitational?

Frankly, I'm more concerned about righting the injustice that Tom Ford is suffering.

Events have different significance. Whilst the World Championship is evidently the most important I am aware that the majority will disagree with my opinion that the Tour Championship is the second most prestigious event on the calendar.

Let's see what list an alternative system of evaluating titles would produce. I have trawled through each of the events awarding ranking points since the beginning of 2010-11, the debut of the Barry Hearn era. With the exception of the Pro Series, which had no final and for which I have credited Mark Williams with 2 points, I have awarded each winning finalist a number of points equivalent to the number of frames they won in that final.

The result is (subject to being corrected if any errors):
240 Mark Selby
233 Judd Trump
213 Ronnie O’Sullivan
178 Neil Robertson
111 John Higgins
103 Ding Junhui
78 Mark Allen
75 Stuart Bingham
71 Mark Williams
63 Shaun Murphy
33 Allister Carter
31 Stephen Maguire
27 Barry Hawkins
26 Kyren Wilson
24 Ricky Walden
22 Luca Brecel; Marco Fu
21 Joe Perry
19 Zhao Xintong
13 Liang Wenbo; Martin Gould
12 Stephen Lee
10 Fan Zhengyi; Peter Ebdon; Ryan Day
9 Anthony Hamilton; Jimmy Robertson; Jordan Brown; Mark King; Michael Holt; Michael White
8 Tom Ford
6 Anthony McGill
5 Matthew Selt; Yan Bingtao
4 Andrew Higginson; Barry Pinches; Ben Woollaston; Dominic Dale; Ju Reti; Marcus Campbell; Rob Milkins; Rod Lawler; Rory McLeod
3 David Gilbert
1 Hossein Vafaei; Michael Georgiou; Thepchaiya Un-Nooh

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby HappyCamper

gninnur karona wrote:How many ranking events has Tom Ford won?

Clearly if counting all events that award ranking points the answer is 2,


the correct answer.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby gninnur karona

Holden Chinaski wrote:Seems like you tried hard to come up with a system that puts Selby on top.


That wasn't the purpose at all but FTR if counting the number of titles, either including all events awarding ranking points or just those included by WST today the order is 1 Judd Trump 2 Mark Selby 3 Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby SnookerFan

HappyCamper wrote:
gninnur karona wrote:How many ranking events has Tom Ford won?

Clearly if counting all events that award ranking points the answer is 2,


the correct answer.


+1

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby LC

Holden Chinaski wrote:Triple Crown titles are the stats that matter.


TC and TP, triple crowns for top players tin pots for lower players,

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby McManusFan

The issue with going back and reclassifying those PTCs that Ford won as ranking events, is that at the time they were classed as 'minor ranking events'. They weren't treated as full rankers at the time, and this will have had ab effect on who participated, and what their attitude to it was.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby Wildey

There is definitely imbalances here if The Shootout and Championship league is included as Full Ranking Events then PTC should have a countback now.


I believe a ranking event Should have a Criteria.

2 session Finals
at least Best of 9 Semi Finals

Whatever doesn't fall in to that Should be scraped as a Ranking Event or to be fair every Event carrying ranking points is included

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

The term Ranking Event is a bit of an anachronism from the days when there were a huge number of Invitational events on the calendar. It's silly that a tournament like the Masters doesn't count while the Gibraltar Open does.

Even sillier that the PTC tournaments which had ranking points aren't considered Ranking Events. They were considered Minor Ranking events and I don't think the ones in Sheffield behind closed doors should count but the European ones were shown on Eurosport and played in front of good crowds. This was in the early part of the Hearn era when there were no ITV events or Nations Series tournaments so the importance of these events were fairly high and it was mainly top players that were winning them.

The PTC/European Tour tournaments that survived gained Ranking status but were less prestigious then they had been previously and have mainly faded away.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby lhpirnie

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The term Ranking Event is a bit of an anachronism from the days when there were a huge number of Invitational events on the calendar. It's silly that a tournament like the Masters doesn't count while the Gibraltar Open does.

Even sillier that the PTC tournaments which had ranking points aren't considered Ranking Events. They were considered Minor Ranking events and I don't think the ones in Sheffield behind closed doors should count but the European ones were shown on Eurosport and played in front of good crowds. This was in the early part of the Hearn era when there were no ITV events or Nations Series tournaments so the importance of these events were fairly high and it was mainly top players that were winning them.

The PTC/European Tour tournaments that survived gained Ranking status but were less prestigious then they had been previously and have mainly faded away.

Yes I agree. In the future they will re-evaluate everything, once they've abolished this 'ranking' and 'non-ranking' nonsense, terms that are only used in snooker, because the feeble-minded system can't cope with tournaments like the Masters and Champion of Champions.

It's possible to measure the strength of tournaments, according to the strength of participants and number of frames. Tournaments can be assigned as Category A, Category B, etc. from which you can get a decent measure of a player's career achievements.

But in general, I don't really value 'historical comparisons'. Times change, even in snooker, and a player's contribution to the game isn't really measurable. It always ends up being too subjective.