Rankings

Deewee wrote:

csprince wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:It only since 2010 that Snooker updated it's rankings more than once a year. I don't think they would be anyway capable of the complicated system Golf has.

true but it isn"t difficult to come up with a fair system which the current one isn"t. was checking last night if shaun murphy wins the worlds he could be provisonal no1 given the season he"s had that would be a joke

Third at the highest at least by my count

i meant the one year list which becomes the provisonal after the worlds

Dan-cat wrote:

csprince wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:It only since 2010 that Snooker updated it's rankings more than once a year. I don't think they would be anyway capable of the complicated system Golf has.

true but it isn"t difficult to come up with a fair system which the current one isn"t. was checking last night if shaun murphy wins the worlds he could be provisonal no1 given the season he"s had that would be a joke

That is skewed.

not skewed i meant the one year list which becomes the provisonal after the worlds

I’m not sure I’d say the rankins are unfair to the players exactly. Everyone knows what the big money tournaments are and has access to them.

I don’t think it’s much of an issue really unless you’re scrapping it out for a top 16 place prior to the Worlds.

Rankings certainly aren’t as important as they used to be.

Iranu wrote:I’m not sure I’d say the rankins are unfair to the players exactly. Everyone knows what the big money tournaments are and has access to them.

I don’t think it’s much of an issue really unless you’re scrapping it out for a top 16 place prior to the Worlds.

Rankings certainly aren’t as important as they used to be.

i meant a fairer system under the points system the runner up got 80% of the winners points now it"s less than 50% the qf got 50% of the winners points at the worlds the qf gets 10% of the winners points at the china open the qf gets 12% of the winners points not exactly fair. you should get a certain percentage per round rather than how much money the sponsor offers

csprince wrote:

Iranu wrote:I’m not sure I’d say the rankins are unfair to the players exactly. Everyone knows what the big money tournaments are and has access to them.

I don’t think it’s much of an issue really unless you’re scrapping it out for a top 16 place prior to the Worlds.

Rankings certainly aren’t as important as they used to be.

i meant a fairer system under the points system the runner up got 80% of the winners points now it"s less than 50% the qf got 50% of the winners points at the worlds the qf gets 10% of the winners points at the china open the qf gets 12% of the winners points not exactly fair. you should get a certain percentage per round rather than how much money the sponsor offers

I see your point. That’s more an issue with prize distribution than the system itself though.

Iranu wrote:

csprince wrote:

Iranu wrote:I’m not sure I’d say the rankins are unfair to the players exactly. Everyone knows what the big money tournaments are and has access to them.

I don’t think it’s much of an issue really unless you’re scrapping it out for a top 16 place prior to the Worlds.

Rankings certainly aren’t as important as they used to be.

i meant a fairer system under the points system the runner up got 80% of the winners points now it"s less than 50% the qf got 50% of the winners points at the worlds the qf gets 10% of the winners points at the china open the qf gets 12% of the winners points not exactly fair. you should get a certain percentage per round rather than how much money the sponsor offers

I see your point. That’s more an issue with prize distribution than the system itself though.

prize money and ranking points should be different in my opinion. pay the players whatever the sponsors are willing to pay i have no problem with the prize money but don"t rank the players on money won. even golf has moved from money to points in there order of merits (usa and european tours)