Acé wrote:Just look at the amount of points he has compared to the #2 player, it's unheard of

I'm glad you brought up some meaningful statistics, it shows a sense of genuine perspective.
Now, using your own grading system for assessing the quality of a player, let's compare Mark William's 22 Rankers with Judd's 22 Rankers shall we?
This might prove difficult as Williams played and won a lot of titles 20 years ago, so the prize fund wont necessarily match with today's prize fund - Judd too has some old titles. So for a sense of fair perspective lets value all of their titles by what the prize fund is for this years event. Ok? Good.
For the events that are no longer being played or just didn't get played this year, let's just use the prize fund value as it was at the last time the event took place. This will still give Judd a slight advantage, but only marginally. Ok? Good.
The accumulated value of all of Judd's 22 Rankers = £2,875,000
The accumulated value of all of William's 22 Rankers = £3, 857,500
Ok?
I have no horse in this race and I don't have the personality for entrenched fanboy conflicts, I was just genuinely curious what would be the result if I tested your own methodology upon your own theories, because, you know, it's so easy to just say stuff in the heat of the moment isn't it. You know, without thinking about it much beyond the previous post.