Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

I just think ranking points should be earned by winning matches, and having everyone come in at the same stage is the only way to achieve that. Currently, each group of players (whether it be top 16, 17-32, 33-48 etc) is guaranteed a minimum amount of points for each event on a sliding scale. For example, the top 16 are guaranteed about 7500 points if they stay there for a season, whereas anyone below 64th is only guaranteed just over 2000. It's hard enough starting out as a new pro without having to bridge a points difference which is unfair (there is no other word but "unfair" I'm afraid).

We all know that guys down around the 81-99 region can win 5 matches, all against players ranked higher than them, and come away with less points than a top 16 player winning only one game (against someone ranked lower than them). The tiering system makes it hard for any ranking system to work, but a flat 128 makes it easy. OK, you might end up with the same top 32 players, but at least it would be based on actual points earned rather than elitist guarantees.

Consider this situation: player A is ranked 16th at the December cut-off point and player B is just 10 points behind in 17th. Player A can now expect to gain 2660 points from his seeding in the Welsh, China & World Open events, whereas player B can only gain 2185....all of a sudden, without a further ball being struck, the difference is now 485 points(!) Totally unfair, and another reason why we need a flat ranking system.

Getting back to the World Championship, for the 128-man draw to work, some sort of gap would have to be incorporated into the event....players already complain about burn out by the semi finals as it is.

As for a 128-man draw for the other ranking events....I'd love it if all 128 played at the main venue, even for China/Australia, but I don't see that many pros embarking on that kind of journey, especially if the last 128 losers get no cash. I also can't see WSA subsidising that many players travel anytime soon. Which means qualifying in Sheffield or Gloucester....even for Ding/Liang/Xiao etc (another ludicrous scenario I hope Barry Hearn addresses soon).

The move away from an elite top 16 is a massive step in the right direction for snooker; I look forward to the elite 128 taking shape.

PLtheRef wrote:Witz, for your idea to work it would take eight days, unless you mean just having 32 first qualifying round matches or heaven forbid making matches best of 11 frames.

That said an eight table venue would take eight days which is less than what the qualifiers are for Sheffield at the minute.

you obviously didnt properly read what i said mate

half of the qualifying would be played at Sheffield and half would be played at SWSA.

basically the 16 most attractive 1/32nds of the draw would be held at SWSA so fans could attend.

alternative for WC i suppose would be playing it all at SWSA and over 8 days so fans could see all games.

the qualifying set up as it is at the moment is as follows.

3 players have to play FIVE qualifying matches to get to a venue
32 players have to play FOUR qualifying matches to get to a venue
16 players have to play THREE qualifing matches to get to a venue
16 players have to play TWO qualifying matches to get to a venue
16 players have to play ONE qualifying match to get to a venue
16 players automatically qualify for the venue.

WHEN the tour goes up to 128 players, if the current teired set up remains then the farcial scenario of 32 players having to play SIX qualifying matches, 16 play FIVE and so on will exist.

The biggest problem with this tiered system is that is stagnates the prospects of progress for young players as they are basically cutting each others throats in the early rounds.

Plus with 6 x 16 games under this set up that would be 96 games, the same as is required using a flat 128 set up to reach the last 32.

and as Monique says the players can get nothing for winning a few matches presently, at least ALL players would know where they stand under this system, win and your rewarded, lose and your not.

Witz78 wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:Witz, for your idea to work it would take eight days, unless you mean just having 32 first qualifying round matches or heaven forbid making matches best of 11 frames.

That said an eight table venue would take eight days which is less than what the qualifiers are for Sheffield at the minute.

you obviously didnt properly read what i said mate

half of the qualifying would be played at Sheffield and half would be played at SWSA.

basically the 16 most attractive 1/32nds of the draw would be held at SWSA so fans could attend.

alternative for WC i suppose would be playing it all at SWSA and over 8 days so fans could see all games.

Ah, that makes more sense though it would be a strain on referees in terms of needing 16 at least to work each session.

I would recommend using the SWSA having had the pleasure of reffing there. - The only problem being no dividing wall and though players have gotten use to this in the biggest event of them all I think the players would want it - certainly considering that the last 32 would make need of it @ the Crucible.


I don't buy the Wimbledon rule in terms of squeezing matches into a shortspace of time because that is the norm for tennis - but not snooker. In addition, there is very little variation between tennis formats , it is for all but five tournaments a year best of three sets (and with the above exception tiebreaks in all) in Snooker we have different lengths throughout - i.e. the final of this event will need to win 2.25 times the number of frames in a first or second round match.

we have NO dividing wall at the venue for the 2nd biggest ranker the UK so WC qualifiers with no curtain isnt an issue at all IMO

what do you suggest then? that all rounds should be the same length at the WC?

No witz, quite the opposite. It's the point I raise with anyone who believes that we could operate a bo19 frame WC throughout because Wimbledon's the same.

whats Wimbledon and tennis got to do with it

we can adopt the flat 128 structure easy enough BUT still have the match length increasing per round, not sure what your point is tbh?

I keep comparing to Wimbledon, but the comparison begins and ends with the logistics of running the tournament based on the number of matches and the size of the playing area.

Wimbledon has over 600 matches in it's fortnight, some of which will last 45mins, and some of which will last 6hrs. Getting 127 snooker matches played in 2-3 weeks in a couple of venues that can hold in total 16 tables, OVER AT LEAST 19 FRAMES, is very very do-able in comparison.

Dannyboy wrote:People are saying about people turning up and half not winning any money - err... that's the same now isn't it? Prize money is only rewarded down to the L64.

Quite, and if the Tour can't support 96 (or 99) players now then how can it possibly support 128 in the next couple of years? I don't agree with Hearn's sink-or-swim view, I think that the lower ranked players need some guarantees about the amount of money that can win - or at least enough financial support to cover their expenses for the year. It doesn't make sense to have 128 players on the Tour in the knowledge that many won't even be able to fund a single year, let alone develop a career around it.

I dislike the current system as much as anyone, but there are other options available. An interim option would be to stick with 96 players but then have the bottom 64 play in Rd1, with the remaining 32 receiving byes to Rd2. Plenty of other options too. It's a great opportunity for Snooker at the moment and I just hope that World Snooker consider all the options properly and make sure the solution they choose works for everyone.

Thats not such a bad compromise Snooker Analyst, but we know Hearn wants 128, and he'll push ahead with that.

I think there needs to be first round loser prize money if this happens.....in fact, rather than a £1 million first prize, how about a £900K first prize and the other £100K distributed amongst first round losers? £900K would still dwarf snookers biggest ever first prize(!)

JIMO96 wrote:Thats not such a bad compromise Snooker Analyst, but we know Hearn wants 128, and he'll push ahead with that.

I think there needs to be first round loser prize money if this happens.....in fact, rather than a £1 million first prize, how about a £900K first prize and the other £100K distributed amongst first round losers? £900K would still dwarf snookers biggest ever first prize(!)

I doubt it will happen. Hearn believes that people care more about price at the top than at the bottom. Plus giving money to the losers doesn't seem like his philosophy. In my opinion, the lower down pros should probably try and do more exhibition like the early pros did and try to find sponsors instead paying for all expenses out of their own pocket.

SnookerAnalyst wrote:

Dannyboy wrote:People are saying about people turning up and half not winning any money - err... that's the same now isn't it? Prize money is only rewarded down to the L64.

Quite, and if the Tour can't support 96 (or 99) players now then how can it possibly support 128 in the next couple of years? I don't agree with Hearn's sink-or-swim view, I think that the lower ranked players need some guarantees about the amount of money that can win - or at least enough financial support to cover their expenses for the year. It doesn't make sense to have 128 players on the Tour in the knowledge that many won't even be able to fund a single year, let alone develop a career around it.

I dislike the current system as much as anyone, but there are other options available. An interim option would be to stick with 96 players but then have the bottom 64 play in Rd1, with the remaining 32 receiving byes to Rd2. Plenty of other options too. It's a great opportunity for Snooker at the moment and I just hope that World Snooker consider all the options properly and make sure the solution they choose works for everyone.

expenses for playing in qualifiers at Sheffield or SWSA will be minimal

worst case scenario in a smaller funded ranker

win 1 game and your making money

win 2 games to make it to the venue and your expenses will more than be covered for going to the venue etc.

by adopting this flat 128 system tour newcomers have 2 years to find out if they can cut it as a pro and they will find out fairly this way instead of the current teired system which is totally flawed.

the luck if the draw in round 1 means they could draw Selby or they could draw Song but the experience instantly gained playing higher ranked players instead of similar young newcomers will be invaluable, plus with it being a level playing field, its sink or swim for ALL players, the top guys plus the established deadwood no longer have the safety of the pyramid system, they are all starting at the bottom rung of the ladder so its simple, win a game and earn some money. Lose and you dont deserve a penny.

I wont reward mediocrity was Hearns pledge when he took over.

Under this system he can fairly implement this.

And the young guys will now only have to win TWO qualifiers instead of FOUR or FIVE which they presently have to to make a venue. The confidence gained from playing in a venue, which at the moment is a total long shot for guys in the 1st qualifying round could boost their career a lot

PLUS

also they can earn money from winning ONE game instead of the present where they have to win TWO or even THREE games first before they make a penny.

I'm not sure how manageable it would be to have 128 players in every ranking event. It's already laughable how China Open qualifiers are held thousands of miles from where the event is held but having the first couple of rounds proper would be even worse. The current system definitely has to change but it seems very ambitious. Having 64 players would be better with maybe a couple of events with 128.

I'm not sure what you would do with the World Championship. Having the first two rounds played early would be far too long drawn out. Playing the event in 17 days with eight tables would be a lot better but there would still be a couple of problems. You would need to move to a bigger venue like the Ally Pally. While there's place in Sheffield I don't think you should have some matches played in one venue and most of the others in a completely different building. Plus there is the prospect of some very one sided matches early on with journeymen who would never qualify normally suddenly up against an O'Sullivan or Trump in the main venue. The likes of Stuart Pettman losing 10-1 would become more common.

of course it would be managable

4 days would see normal rankers reduced down from 128 to 32. 3 x 8 sessions per day = 24 x 4 = 96 (64 R1 + 32 R2)

and just cos the big guns would start in last 128 this would still be the 1st qualifying round, not the start of the tournament, In that case you could argue that the current set up, tournaments beginning at the 1st qualifying round.

if matches are one sided so be it, the best player should win. end of. Other people moan that formats are being shorted to level things up, your almost moaning the opposite way that you dont like the best player winning.

no need for the first 2 rounds to be played at THE VENUE as such, as i said earlier, could easy play 1st 2 rounds at SWSA so fans can see games before the real action starts at the last 32 stage.

look at that PTC12 where there was effectively THREE rounds of qualifying then the last 16 went to Germany, everyone said that worked and i along with others cited it as an example of what the new flat 128 set up for full rankers would be like.

the things the critics against it are clutching at are lame to be honest.

Hearns way or the highway. It just so happens me and him seem to be singing from the same hymnsheet on everything just about. This another idea ive long championed and im glad to see it beoming a reality.

What I'd be in favour for, which would also appease the TV companies is that have a full 128-man tour, but the Top 16 still get a bye to the L32. BUT everyone else goes into the 1st round qualifying. The rankings will be a darn sight more competitive and a lot of protection will still be lost.

And it would reduce massively the workload of players at the bottom of the rankings to get to the TV stages - possibly 2-3 matches.

Dannyboy wrote:What I'd be in favour for, which would also appease the TV companies is that have a full 128-man tour, but the Top 16 still get a bye to the L32. BUT everyone else goes into the 1st round qualifying. The rankings will be a darn sight more competitive and a lot of protection will still be lost.

And it would reduce massively the workload of players at the bottom of the rankings to get to the TV stages - possibly 2-3 matches.

sod the top 16

thatd be 112 players fighting it out for 16 places

basically thatd be a 14% for each player to make it to a venue

the elite have had it too good for too long in their cosy little shut shop, times are a changing. Lets face it if there as good as they think they are, then they will win 2 games and make it to the venue. And if they dont qualify, then tough luck, thats the only way were going to get to see new stars in the game if new faces actually get some exposure. Its just so stale at the moment with the same old faces at the top end of the rankings, No teenagers in the top 64 is a joke.

God knows how it will work if it happens, venue, frames all need to be thought out. 128 players will take for age, especially at the Crucible he said he wouldn't change the venue to abroad, they even have a contract until 2015 isn't it or 2017. There simply isn't enough room in the Crucible, unless he changes the format so the matches are quicker. Like first to four like at the Welsh Open, but then it would simply spoil the World Championship tradition, best of 19 frames at the start is long but it's fun and it's what the World Championship is all about, if he keeps chop changing formats to the main events some fans and players will get very unhappy.

Plus there is a slight bet that he will change his mind on the venue aswell, and move to flaming China like it was mentioned last year or so. That would be damn right ridiculous.

128 players, a Wimbledon style draw and 1 million prize money, is exciting but he should do that for a different tournament instead and leave the World Championships how it is.

Plus it says Higgins and O'Sullivan have had it easy for too long, if he goes ahead with this plan who says they won't win this 128 man tournament anyway, then all that effort would go to waste just to see a player, he seems fed up of winning everything, winning this event haha.

I also wouldn't like the thought of a possible World Championship/Snooker Slam winner in the name of Thanawat Thirapongpaiboon or Barry "Sruffy" Pinches", if Barry Pinches won it, I wouldn't want to put my hands on that trophy, god knows where that tramps hands have been, not a nice thing to think about either.

Just been trying to do some sums - I think a £2m prize fund (£500,000 winner) isn't far away.

But how far is Uncle Barry going to go with prize money? Surely it isn't that sustainable in the long term to continue raising the threshold - what if the sport falls out of favour in China for instance. Seems to be going up a £1m a year.

Dannyboy wrote:Just been trying to do some sums - I think a £2m prize fund (£500,000 winner) isn't far away.

But how far is Uncle Barry going to go with prize money? Surely it isn't that sustainable in the long term to continue raising the threshold - what if the sport falls out of favour in China for instance. Seems to be going up a £1m a year.

well considering the rise in prize money is more down to new events added to the calendar rather than prize money for individual tournaments going up, of course its sustainable.

infact if you look at all the main tournaments, not even taking inflation into account, the prizes have stayed stagnant for 10-15 years and its high time prizes started going up.

the World Championship should easily jump up to a £2m prize fund with £500k for the winner. the overall prize funds actually been decreasing over the last10 years.

as for the sport falling out of favour in China i cant see that happening now, the donkey work has well and truly been done and the sports here to stay in China. Unlike other old foreign favourite regions such as Canada etc, theres more than just a few pros in place, the infrastructure and fanbase is there in a big way so the sports only going to grow even bigger there.

gallantrabbit wrote:

Monique wrote:Did you read it properly?

I think that a flat draw with best of 19 from the start would make sure the best players come on top. It would help the talented young to climb faster and would be much fairer to them. It would make rankings rather irrelevant which I'm all in favour of because it would effectively defeat the current ranking blackmail scheme and allow the players to manage their season taking their private life and personal needs into account. It would also mean that pointless events with little prize money will soon disappear because no one of interest to the general audience will compete in them.
I don't think that MJW would be ready to travel 2x over 24h in a plane to play in Australia in the dead of the winter again for the prospect of earning less than 10000 £ IF he manages to reach the final if such a system was in place. And he would be absolutely right not to.

MOnique - pointless events with little prize money will disappear anyway. We're in the test phase. And if Hearn has to blackmail top players into testing the far flung markets for little prize money for a couple of years they've only got themselves to blame for sitting on their behinds for ten years waiting for Sir Rodders to put up more than 6 events per year. Snooker is still a baby compared to other sports and Hearn has to use the big boys to help him. He cannot revoutionise alone.

hear hear bloody sense at last