Rankings

Koninkaulus wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I agree Konni. Some very clueless posts on here from Iranu and Snookerfan.

Apart from the fact that Williams hasn't won 5+ rankers in the last few years and Ronnie's tally of titles isn't exactly comparable without the World title, I don't think Iranu's post was that clueless. He just explained the "confusion" from the point of view of the most casual fans.

Haha yeah I was a bit lazy with that. I think my brain was including the Six Reds even though it's not a ranker, because I'm an idiot.

I wasn't really referring to casual fans as such. I for example hate watching snooker matches if they're not live. The tension and excitement completely dissipates if I know there's already a set result (even if I don't know what the result is).

That doesn't mean I don't keep up to date with the tournament and watch what I can, but those tournaments tend to stick less in the mind because I haven't physically watched as much of them, even if I'm well aware of the results and scorelines/breaks etc. Whereas the UK and Europe tournaments where Selby has barely performed for nearly 2 years dominate my memory. They also still dominate the tour in terms of numbers which doesn't help matters.

Fair point. More of a casual fan than clueless. I take it back.

More Dennis Taylor than Dave Hendon

I guess I get your point about not being able to watch everything...What I often do is record matches and fast-forward through parts of them. It's not like I've got six hours to watch snooker every day either. Even if I do, I rarely watch full matches live.

SnookerFan's point about consistency is only partially true, though. Yes, Williams has made more quarter-finals in the last two years, but the same number of semis as Selby. Quarter-finals don't get you to the top of the rankings. O'Sullivan has been more consistent in the tournaments he's played in, but it's not like he has reached the quarters or semis much more frequently than Selby.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the Chinese tournaments that Selby's won carry a lot more prize money/points than, say, the Home Nations events or the German Masters (apart from the 2017 China Open, which was only slightly bigger). Last season before the World Championship Williams had won two ranking titles for a total of £150k, whereas Selby had pocketed £375k from his two wins. I've read people on here saying that the Home Nations events feel "more prestigious", which is just wrong. They carry only slightly more ranking points than the Indian Open or the Riga Masters.

The other point is of course that Selby has won the World title within the last two years. The only player you maybe could have expected to surpass him is the other guy who has, but Williams didn't have a very good 2016/17 and hasn't been better than Selby this season either. For O'Sullivan to reach the top spot without winning the WC would be a decent feat considering how much it counts in the rankings.

Btw, if you have to shorten my username, I'd suggest Koni instead of Konni, which doesn't really mean anything as far as I know. Ha.

D4P wrote:Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

D4P wrote:The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems that Ranking Points™ are based on prize money, on a one-to-one basis. Prize money is a function of sponsorship, which really has nothing to do with the difficulty of winning the event. There's no good reason why winning an event in China should give a player 3 times the Ranking Points™ that he gets when winning one of the many events in Europe.

I understand that Hearn can't get more money from the European sponsors, but that doesn't have to mean that events in Europe should get fewer Ranking Points™ than events in China. There's no obvious reason why the Ranking Points™ couldn't be separated from the prize money. It's fine to allow the prize money to vary across events, but the Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

All very true. But it should be noted that world snooker do regulate the prize money somewhat so that they do scale with the tournament difficulty. Ie longer matches.

(The shootout being a notable exception which is overweighted).

D4P wrote:The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems that Ranking Points™ are based on prize money, on a one-to-one basis. Prize money is a function of sponsorship, which really has nothing to do with the difficulty of winning the event. There's no good reason why winning an event in China should give a player 3 times the Ranking Points™ that he gets when winning one of the many events in Europe.

I understand that Hearn can't get more money from the European sponsors, but that doesn't have to mean that events in Europe should get fewer Ranking Points™ than events in China. There's no obvious reason why the Ranking Points™ couldn't be separated from the prize money. It's fine to allow the prize money to vary across events, but the Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

I disagree. It's as good a way as any, and apart from Worlds, UK and Coral series, the prestige of ranking tournaments will pretty much be down to how much money's on offer.

Koninkaulus wrote:

D4P wrote:Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

I'd suggest a system which takes the number of frames required to win the championship and factors by an expected quality of opponent - eg a flat 128 could be x as that has all sorts of numpties, then selective events like the Crucible or the Players Champ could be 2x or whatever numbers makes sense.

And maybe give a little extra boost to the UK and Worlds to keep the traditionalists happy.

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:

D4P wrote:Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

I'd suggest a system which takes the number of frames required to win the championship and factors by an expected quality of opponent - eg a flat 128 could be x as that has all sorts of numpties, then selective events like the Crucible or the Players Champ could be 2x or whatever numbers makes sense.

I think the last thing we need is for the "top players only" ranking events to be weighted for being "top players only".

Koninkaulus wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:

D4P wrote:Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

I'd suggest a system which takes the number of frames required to win the championship and factors by an expected quality of opponent - eg a flat 128 could be x as that has all sorts of numpties, then selective events like the Crucible or the Players Champ could be 2x or whatever numbers makes sense.

I think the last thing we need is for the "top players only" ranking events to be weighted for being "top players only".

You asked for an objective measures of prestige. Top player tournaments will be more prestigious naturally.

In any case this would be counteracted somewhat by the fact there are fewer frames needed to be won in the WGP etc as there are fewer rounds versus flat 128s.

D4P wrote:The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems that Ranking Points™ are based on prize money, on a one-to-one basis. Prize money is a function of sponsorship, which really has nothing to do with the difficulty of winning the event. There's no good reason why winning an event in China should give a player 3 times the Ranking Points™ that he gets when winning one of the many events in Europe.

I understand that Hearn can't get more money from the European sponsors, but that doesn't have to mean that events in Europe should get fewer Ranking Points™ than events in China. There's no obvious reason why the Ranking Points™ couldn't be separated from the prize money. It's fine to allow the prize money to vary across events, but the Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

I think it is understandable that the Home Nations tournaments are not considered very prestigious from a ranking perspective when most of the matches played are just best of 7s. At least the Chinese are taking their tournaments seriously with best of 11s (or more), and the high prize money seems the best way to attract the top players.

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:

D4P wrote:Ranking Points™ should be determined separately, based on the prestige of the event, the quality of the field, etc. ...

How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

I'd suggest a system which takes the number of frames required to win the championship and factors by an expected quality of opponent - eg a flat 128 could be x as that has all sorts of numpties, then selective events like the Crucible or the Players Champ could be 2x or whatever numbers makes sense.

I think the last thing we need is for the "top players only" ranking events to be weighted for being "top players only".

You asked for an objective measures of prestige. Top player tournaments will be more prestigious naturally.

In any case this would be counteracted somewhat by the fact there are fewer frames needed to be won in the WGP etc as there are fewer rounds.

Yeah, I get the second part. I was trying to work out some of the math in the system you suggested and I'm not convinced it could be better than the current one. I agree with Iranu that the money list system works fine, and I would add that I actually like the clarity of it.

I don't think top player tournaments are automatically more prestigious, so I reject the notion that that would be an objective measure. All the top players can enter any 128-player tournament and often do apart from one or two guys. In my opinion, these limited-field events are not more difficult to win for the top players than those with 128 guys.

Koninkaulus wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:
How do you objectively determine the prestige of an event if not by the prize money on offer?

The quality of the field can't have anything to do with it. The number of ranking points on offer cannot be decided after players have entered.

I'd suggest a system which takes the number of frames required to win the championship and factors by an expected quality of opponent - eg a flat 128 could be x as that has all sorts of numpties, then selective events like the Crucible or the Players Champ could be 2x or whatever numbers makes sense.

I think the last thing we need is for the "top players only" ranking events to be weighted for being "top players only".

You asked for an objective measures of prestige. Top player tournaments will be more prestigious naturally.

In any case this would be counteracted somewhat by the fact there are fewer frames needed to be won in the WGP etc as there are fewer rounds.

Yeah, I get the second part. I was trying to work out some of the math in the system you suggested and I'm not convinced it could be better than the current one. I agree with Iranu that the money list system works fine, and I would add that I actually like the clarity of it.

I don't think top player tournaments are automatically more prestigious, so I reject the notion that that would be an objective measure. All the top players can enter any 128-player tournament and often do apart from one or two guys. In my opinion, these limited-field events are not more difficult to win for the top players than those with 128 guys.

So you think a tournament with the top 16 players would not be more prestigious than one featuring 16 random players? That makes no sense.

I doubt my system with sensible parameters would work out very much different from the current prize money anyway. Beyond a couple of outliers like the Shootout.

The current system is good. If a tournament has ultra high prize money the best players will enter. For lesser tournaments it gives lower ranked players a chance to earn some dosh

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:Yeah, I get the second part. I was trying to work out some of the math in the system you suggested and I'm not convinced it could be better than the current one. I agree with Iranu that the money list system works fine, and I would add that I actually like the clarity of it.

I don't think top player tournaments are automatically more prestigious, so I reject the notion that that would be an objective measure. All the top players can enter any 128-player tournament and often do apart from one or two guys. In my opinion, these limited-field events are not more difficult to win for the top players than those with 128 guys.

So you think a tournament with the top 16 players would not be more prestigious than one featuring 16 random players? That makes no sense.

I doubt my system with sensible parameters would work out very much different from the current prize money anyway. Beyond a couple of outliers like the Shootout.

You drawing that kind of conclusion from my post makes no sense. There are no tournaments with 16 random players. I'm saying I don't think a tournament with 32, 16 or 8 players, no matter how good, is automatically more prestigious than a tournament with 128 players with all of those top guys free to participate.

For the most part the system currently is: more frames to win -> more money/points, which I think is pretty fair. It's pretty much this Coral series and the Shoot-Out where this doesn't apply. I guess you could say that these are already weighted then.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:The current system is good. If a tournament has ultra high prize money the best players will enter. For lesser tournaments it gives lower ranked players a chance to earn some dosh

Not always. There have been many instances where top players didn't bother to go all the way to China.

Koninkaulus wrote:O'Sullivan has been more consistent in the tournaments he's played in, but it's not like he has reached the quarters or semis much more frequently than Selby.

Actually, he has. Selby hasn't been the top dog for about 2 years, he shouldn't be WN1 anymore.

And rankings should not be based on prize money, but on the importance of the event.

Koninkaulus wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:Yeah, I get the second part. I was trying to work out some of the math in the system you suggested and I'm not convinced it could be better than the current one. I agree with Iranu that the money list system works fine, and I would add that I actually like the clarity of it.

I don't think top player tournaments are automatically more prestigious, so I reject the notion that that would be an objective measure. All the top players can enter any 128-player tournament and often do apart from one or two guys. In my opinion, these limited-field events are not more difficult to win for the top players than those with 128 guys.

So you think a tournament with the top 16 players would not be more prestigious than one featuring 16 random players? That makes no sense.

I doubt my system with sensible parameters would work out very much different from the current prize money anyway. Beyond a couple of outliers like the Shootout.

You drawing that kind of conclusion from my post makes no sense. There are no tournaments with 16 random players. I'm saying I don't think a tournament with 32, 16 or 8 players, no matter how good, is automatically more prestigious than a tournament with 128 players with all of those top guys free to participate.

For the most part the system currently is: more frames to win -> more money/points, which I think is pretty fair. It's pretty much this Coral series and the Shoot-Out where this doesn't apply. I guess you could say that these are already weighted then.

You said that having top players doesn't make an event more prestigious. My hypothetical demonstrates the absurdity of that. All things being equal a more selective event would be more prestigious.

This doesn't mean that any top player only event is more prestigious than any given open event - it would also depend on the other aspects of the format like number of frames. Clearly (eg) China Open > Players Champ > Northern Ireland Open.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:O'Sullivan has been more consistent in the tournaments he's played in, but it's not like he has reached the quarters or semis much more frequently than Selby.

Actually, he has. Selby hasn't been the top dog for about 2 years, he shouldn't be WN1 anymore.

And rankings should not be based on prize money, but on the importance of the event.

No, he hasn't. You can try and lie all you want, but that doesn't make it any more true. In the last two years, O'Sullivan has reached the quarters 12 times (or 13 now with this one) and the semis 8 times. Selby's been in the quarters 10 times and the semis 7 times. There is no way that can be described as "much more frequently". Of course it's more frequent in relation to the number of tournaments he's taken part in, but I already said that.

The importance of an event isn't determined by whether O'Sullivan decides to play in it or not. The most important tournaments have the biggest prize funds and therefore influence the rankings the most. There is no major discrepancy.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Koninkaulus wrote:O'Sullivan has been more consistent in the tournaments he's played in, but it's not like he has reached the quarters or semis much more frequently than Selby.

Actually, he has. Selby hasn't been the top dog for about 2 years, he shouldn't be WN1 anymore.

And rankings should not be based on prize money, but on the importance of the event.

How would you determine prestige if not by prize money?