How much prestige is attached to the PTCs?

The title of this probably sounds shocking, but before anyone starts I'm not a PTC hatah. The PTCs have been a god-send in many way, especially for the players. Only two seasons ago the "part-time professional" tag was being bandied around, now players are playing every weekend almost. And that makes their standards higher come the traditional full ranking events. It wasn't easy to watch them last season, of course, due to none of them being on television and few of them allowing fans in live, but that is being addressed this season.

My question is though, where in the order of prestige do you put winning an individual PTC event. Obviously, these aren't as presitigious as, the three majors. But I personally put them a tad behind other ranking events too. Personally, I would think even events like the Welsh Open and Shanghai/China tournaments are more prestigious due to them being full rankers. I expect other people see that differently.

Where in terms of prestige, do people see the winners of each tournament? Are they a tournament you think all players want to win, or just a way of keeping busy when there aren't any full rankers on?

I agree they are less coverted than full rankers and I think a player's view of their importance will be coloured by their previous sucesses (or lack of ). I also think that even though all the PTC events carry the same ranking point value, they are not all of equal prestige. The Paul Hunter Classic has higher status than PTC5.

They Aren't Ranking Events.

All they are is Qualifying for the Main Event.

its like the Football League played over a season.

Basically its a £850,000 Ranking Event with Potential £180,000 and 27,000 Ranking Points to the Winner so the over all thing is very prestigious.

as individual events its a means to an end.

in terms of What Andrew Higginson won Yesterday its slightly Higher than the Championship League and the Shootout and on a Par with The Prem League.

sundaygirl wrote:I agree they are less coverted than full rankers and I think a player's view of their importance will be coloured by their previous sucesses (or lack of ). I also think that even though all the PTC events carry the same ranking point value, they are not all of equal prestige. The Paul Hunter Classic has higher status than PTC5.

Yes The Paul Hunter Classic is the Most Prestigious within the PTC Series with others with a chance to Grow as for Boxes in Sheffield they have no Potential to Grow so the 3 won by Ronnie,Woolaston and Higginson with one to come is the Least Prestigious of the Lot.

sorry but what a silly topic

you ask an obvious question then you give the obvious answer

of course there not as prestigious as the majors and normal rankers

they do exactly what they say on the tin. get the players playing on a regular basis.

for me the FUTURE of the PTCs is a far more intersting topic of debate.

Witz78 wrote:sorry but what a silly topic

you ask an obvious question then you give the obvious answer

of course there not as prestigious as the majors and normal rankers

they do exactly what they say on the tin. get the players playing on a regular basis.

for me the FUTURE of the PTCs is a far more intersting topic of debate.

I find when it comes to this sort of thing, opinions tend to vary.

Wild's response for example is a milder response of what I expecting him to say. (Ie. I expected a 'buck You, every snooker is prestigious you bucking pin end). Whereas, others on here seem to act that almost every tournament is a tin-pot.

I remember before break-off became break-down, there was a discussion on "What is more prestigious the Welsh Open or the China Open?" I was under the impression both are of equal prestigie, but people were arguing that this was the most important issue in the world.

Pointless discussion to be fair, but I found how people view them as kind of interesting as different people seem to have different opinions on each tournament these days.

They are ranking events because they carry ranking points and the field is open to everyone. I wouldn't class them the same as a standard ranking event like Australia or Shanghai, but one rung below in terms of achievement.

I must confess, I'm tempted to have Friday off to sink some beers and watch PTC 6 on Eurosport... But already have the UK and Masters booked off, so will leave it I think.

no point, youll still catch the first round when you get in from work anyway prob if the schedulings similar to it was this weekend haha

Witz78 wrote:no point, youll still catch the first round when you get in from work anyway prob if the schedulings similar to it was this weekend haha

True.

Witz78 wrote:no point, youll still catch the first round when you get in from work anyway prob if the schedulings similar to it was this weekend haha

theres 10 Tables the last batch of 1st Round matches due on at 1pm UK Time not 3pm and the last batch of Matches due on at 6.30pm UK Time not 9pm.

Put it this way, when people say Dominc Dale (for a unexpected example) has only won 2 rankers, Id say hes won 3, because of the PTC. As for anyone who has won a PTC. I class them as a ranking title myself. They are extremely hard to win considering the amount of snooker you have to play to get the title.

there harder for the top 16 guys than a normal ranker cos theres 7 games to win instead of the normal 5

they are tp events

FACT

they are in no way ranking events thats for sure infact i strugle calling the World Open Robbo won ranking.

Wild wrote:they are in no way ranking events thats for sure infact i strugle calling the World Open Robbo won ranking.

World Open

7,000 ranking points

ALMOST AS MUCH AS THE UK

100,000 pounds to winner

3 TIMES THE WELSH OPEN WINNER

You still struggling to call it a ranker

BBC3

00.15am

NEW NEIL ROBERTSON DOCUMENTARY

DONT MISS IT GJ !!!

Challengers

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:they are in no way ranking events thats for sure infact i strugle calling the World Open Robbo won ranking.

World Open

7,000 ranking points

ALMOST AS MUCH AS THE UK

100,000 pounds to winner

3 TIMES THE WELSH OPEN WINNER

You still struggling to call it a ranker

Yeah, there was a lot of ranking points there for it, so by definition it was a full ranker. And I'm saying that as somebody who thought the shorter match format began to drag by the end of the week.

SnookerFan wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:they are in no way ranking events thats for sure infact i strugle calling the World Open Robbo won ranking.

World Open

7,000 ranking points

ALMOST AS MUCH AS THE UK

100,000 pounds to winner

3 TIMES THE WELSH OPEN WINNER

You still struggling to call it a ranker

Yeah, there was a lot of ranking points there for it, so by definition it was a full ranker. And I'm saying that as somebody who thought the shorter match format began to drag by the end of the week.

shorter format began to drag

kinda contradiction surely

Witz78 wrote:shorter format began to drag

kinda contradiction surely

Alright, smart-arse. What I meant was that I lost interest half way through the week, due to the matches not keeping my attention.

Shorter Matches are to one dimension

"hooo Neil Robertson is 1-0 up can Ronnie O'Sullivan make a come back to win"

no scope in them to be interesting all matches has a comeback on the cards once someone goes 1-0 up.

Wild wrote:Shorter Matches are to one dimension

"hooo Neil Robertson is 1-0 up can Ronnie O'Sullivan make a come back to win"

no scope in them to be interesting all matches has a comeback on the cards once someone goes 1-0 up.

That is kind of what I meant though. The most exciting thing that could happen was somebody going 2-0 down, and their opponent winning three in a row. And it took them several days before even that happened. I got sick of Hazel Irvine pretending somebody winning three frames in a row was a Doherty vs Hunter style massive comeback.

I have nothing against matches that are best of five, but they should be in exhibition matches only. After three or four days, you've got bored of watching them.

and a joke how winning the World Open was seen as more prestigious than germany or wales just because there was 100k and 7,000 points to the winner

I don't think they hold any prestige for the top players in the sport, they are a means to an end - keep up a decent ranking and maintain match sharpness.

However for the likes of Higginson and Pinches they are a massive achievement - and rightly so.

Witz78 wrote:BBC3

00.15am

NEW NEIL ROBERTSON DOCUMENTARY

DONT MISS IT GJ !!!

very old witzy boy

GJ wrote:

Witz78 wrote:BBC3

00.15am

NEW NEIL ROBERTSON DOCUMENTARY

DONT MISS IT GJ !!!

very old witzy boy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Facebook/