Post a reply

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby Wildey

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:If you're being technical, some of the old PTCs of old were referred to as 'minor ranking events' at the time. With the others being 'full ranking events'. So, technically you could say that they weren't full ranking events.

But they seemed to have dropped that distinction now.

They shouldn't have dropped it.

PTCs or minor ranking events as they were called are not proper ranking events.
So Tom Ford still has ZERO in my eyes.

theres minor ranking events like Gibraltar Open, Paul Hunter Classic etc then theres Scraping the rubbish off the bottom of your shoe Ranking event like rubbish out

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby SnookerEd25

Do we get Ranking Points for putting the rubbish out? :chin:

Why aren’t I on the Ranking List then? :sad:

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby SnookerFan

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:If you're being technical, some of the old PTCs of old were referred to as 'minor ranking events' at the time. With the others being 'full ranking events'. So, technically you could say that they weren't full ranking events.

But they seemed to have dropped that distinction now.

They shouldn't have dropped it.

PTCs or minor ranking events as they were called are not proper ranking events.
So Tom Ford still has ZERO in my eyes.


He'll be gutted to hear this.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby Acé

ranking events should ALWAYS have a multi-session final

END OFF

rest of the stuff should be called minor-ranking events which of course give you ranking points but they'd be called minor-ranking events

how can you have Champion of Champions or the Shanghai Masters as invitational but shoot-out as a ranking event? how does that make sense?

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby HappyCamper

Ranking doesn't necessarily mean more important. Just means it gives ranking points. So as long as all the tour have the same chance to enter it gets to be ranking.

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby Acé

HappyCamper wrote:Ranking doesn't necessarily mean more important. Just means it gives ranking points. So as long as all the tour have the same chance to enter it gets to be ranking.


why can't the snooker tour make things simple like the ATP Tour?

Grand Slams
Master 1000s
ATP 500
ATP 250

:dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

all offer ranking points but each one more important than the other

snooker really should have a series like that

Re: How should we count ranking titles?

Postby csprince

Acé wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:Ranking doesn't necessarily mean more important. Just means it gives ranking points. So as long as all the tour have the same chance to enter it gets to be ranking.


why can't the snooker tour make things simple like the ATP Tour?

Grand Slams
Master 1000s
ATP 500
ATP 250

:dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

all offer ranking points but each one more important than the other

snooker really should have a series like that


they did under the previous points system 10000 8000 7000 5000 and the ptc's at 3000 and 2000 to the winners.