Money list based ranking

During one of his interviews in Berlin, Shaun Murphy hinted at the idea of a purely money list based ranking system (he's the guy on top of PTC order of merit, remember).
Discuss. (the idea, not Shaun )

Reasonable idea but wouldn't quite work cos of invitation events jimmycards etc..

gallantrabbit wrote:Reasonable idea but wouldn't quite work cos of invitation events jimmycards etc..

taxmen etc..

rubbish idea points based is better

GJ wrote:rubbish idea points based is better

Totally bullocks idea not you lol

World Champion £250,000
Runner Up £120,000

that would not reward consistency in other events the gap between winner and Runner up in this tournament is to Great for a Truthful Ranking System.

in the PTC it works because theres a consistency from Tournament to tournament.

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:rubbish idea points based is better

Totally bullocks

World Champion £250,000
Runner Up £120,000

that would not reward consistency in other events the gap between winner and Runner up in this tournament is to Great for a Truthful Ranking System.

in the PTC it works because theres a consistency from Tournament to tournament.

I agree mate if i was being biased i would say yes as robbo woudl be ahead because of worlds win but im thinking of fairness for all players

For ptc its ok as separate order of merit though

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:rubbish idea points based is better

Totally bullocks

World Champion £250,000
Runner Up £120,000

that would not reward consistency in other events the gap between winner and Runner up in this tournament is to Great for a Truthful Ranking System.

in the PTC it works because theres a consistency from Tournament to tournament.

I agree mate if i was being biased i would say yes as robbo woudl be ahead because of worlds win but im thinking of fairness for all players

For ptc its ok as separate order of merit though

2 Right Robbo would be Miles Ahead World Champ 2010 and World Semi Final 2009

Also 100K for the World Open

Casey wrote:Also 100K for the World Open

and if the China Open sponsor gives more than the UK Sponsor

Points please.

They could maybe get a sponsor for the money list, whoever earns the most over the course of the season gets a £50k first prize or something like that.

There used to be a money list up until the early 00’s

Would that then confuse some people though, if we had points and money ? I mean you could then have two different number-ones and we don't want that ...

Bourne wrote:Would that then confuse some people though, if we had points and money ? I mean you could then have two different number-ones and we don't want that ...

It never used to affect the rankings though. It was just a list with the top earners on it, although at that stage it was just for a bit of added competition. 7 times out of 10 the World Champion would be top of the list.

I personally think it's nonsense unless the distribution of price money is completely changed which is very unlikely.
The difference in price money between winner, runner-up, semi-finalists are usually huge, not to mention the rest. Winning just one big event would "protect" you for the rest of the season (just think what happened in PTCs - one win guaranteed to be in the top 20) . Hardly an incentive to give it its best all the time. It would also make it extremely difficult for low ranked players and debutants to climb the rankings while it would excessively protect the seeds.

Monique wrote:I personally think it's nonsense unless the distribution of price money is completely changed which is very unlikely.
The difference in price money between winner, runner-up, semi-finalists are usually huge, not to mention the rest. Winning just one big event would "protect" you for the rest of the season (just think what happened in PTCs - one win guaranteed to be in the top 20) . Hardly an incentive to give it its best all the time. It would also make it extremely difficult for low ranked players and debutants to climb the rankings while it would excessively protect the seeds.

yes spot on and thats why murphy suggested it.

it should be points based even if they re jigged the points differently.

im not happy about only 1,000 difference between UK and World Open that needs looking at.

some has suggested less for the PTC , personally i think thats just fine.

i think with the amount of tournaments next season

World 10,000 x 1
UK 8,000 x 1
All other Rankers 6,000 x 7
PTC Finals 3,000 x 1
PTC 2,000 x 12
= 87,000 points

compared to 76,000 points this season

Monique wrote:I personally think it's nonsense unless the distribution of price money is completely changed which is very unlikely.
The difference in price money between winner, runner-up, semi-finalists are usually huge, not to mention the rest. Winning just one big event would "protect" you for the rest of the season (just think what happened in PTCs - one win guaranteed to be in the top 20) . Hardly an incentive to give it its best all the time. It would also make it extremely difficult for low ranked players and debutants to climb the rankings while it would excessively protect the seeds.

Good point Monique, I am sure Shaun would have had a different view when he was starting out in the game

I could not think of a worse idea for ranking players. The ranking points system needs to be looked at as well.

A money list wouldn't work as a player could get into the top 16 by making a 147 at the Crucible.

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:rubbish idea points based is better

Totally balls idea not you lol

World Champion £250,000
Runner Up £120,000

that would not reward consistency in other events the gap between winner and Runner up in this tournament is to Great for a Truthful Ranking System.

in the PTC it works because theres a consistency from Tournament to tournament.

but it is the most important event in the sport, hence why it should have more value -

PLtheRef wrote:

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:rubbish idea points based is better

Totally balls idea not you lol

World Champion £250,000
Runner Up £120,000

that would not reward consistency in other events the gap between winner and Runner up in this tournament is to Great for a Truthful Ranking System.

in the PTC it works because theres a consistency from Tournament to tournament.

but it is the most important event in the sport, hence why it should have more value -

yes but when Hendry was Making semis and a Quarter Final and hanging on to his top 16 place by doing it then people was moaning.....

Rankings should reward consistency over a Long Time not on a result at 1 event.

Take the World Open
Winner: £100,000
Runner-up: £40,000
Semi-finals: £20,000
Quarter-finals: £12,500
Last 16: £7,500

if that was Ranking Based the Runner Up Down should get more and the Winner Less otherwise People who might or might not Fluke a Result like say Jamie Burnett would be extremly high in the Rankings based on 1 performance.