Post a reply

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:Just remembering back a couple of years and how Selby was in some eyes in danger of dropping out the top 16 (which would have been 50x more false than the current WN1 status) due to how poor the ranking system used to be. People criticise the current one but it's so much better than it was for years.


When was that?
If the system was poor then, so it is today because it's essentially the same except it wasn't rolling and players had a full season to "manage" their ranking which had its pro and cons.

i think the Rolling Rankings with a tier System was the Most exciting its Ever been last season you had Subplots

Ronnie started the season as WN 9 and Finished the season as WN 9 in between he almost ended up having to Qualify for the World Championship and the Rolling Rankings created Excitement in PTC Events because of that.

Beating Andrew Higginson from 4-0 down took on even more excitement because had he lost that Match he Would have had to win the Welsh Open to stay out of Sheffield EIS a week before the Main Event.

But Also winning 2 PTC not to mention Runner up in another was Crucial for Ronnie to be in The Masters.

you cant compare that with Static nothing to gain or lose Rankings of the Previous 35 years.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

I just don't see how prize money ranking system is in any way fair, especially with prize money on occasion being dictated by sponsorship.

Granted on the forum that shall not be mentioned, I said Rolling Rankings were a good idea in theory but would be a nightmare to administer. (Which turned out to be to be a wrong call on my part). I still don't see this as a good idea. I mean, World Snooker is already finding problems with discussing exchange rates et al, and is correcting mistakes they've made before the bloody thing has even come in to effect.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:I just don't see how prize money ranking system is in any way fair, especially with prize money on occasion being dictated by sponsorship.

Granted on the forum that shall not be mentioned, I said Rolling Rankings were a good idea in theory but would be a nightmare to administer. (Which turned out to be to be a wrong call on my part). I still don't see this as a good idea. I mean, World Snooker is already finding problems with discussing exchange rates et al, and is correcting mistakes they've made before the bloody thing has even come in to effect.

<ok>

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

@wild I was not speaking in terms of excitement, I was speaking about the way points are allocated per tournament and for each round. This hasn't changed much over the last years except for the introduction of the PTCs.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:@wild I was not speaking in terms of excitement, I was speaking about the way points are allocated per tournament and for each round. This hasn't changed much over the last years except for the introduction of the PTCs.


point taken

that's why sonny is suggesting a change in point allocation would be a better idea

after last seasons performances John Higgins could go from 1st to about 20th within one season such is the swing regarding prize money

you can go up very fast but in time defending those points will be brutal pressure wise.

basically you win the 2014 WC and then in 2016 you are Runner up and plummet down the rankings.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:
Monique wrote:@wild I was not speaking in terms of excitement, I was speaking about the way points are allocated per tournament and for each round. This hasn't changed much over the last years except for the introduction of the PTCs.


point taken

that's why sonny is suggesting a change in point allocation would be a better idea

after last seasons performances John Higgins could go from 1st to about 20th within one season such is the swing regarding prize money

you can go up very fast but in time defending those points will be brutal pressure wise.


Well regarding Higgins I think this would be a true reflection of where his game stood at the end of last season, in fact it would still be over-rated. His display against Hendry was dismal to say the least. ;-)

I'm more interested in having a flat structure than in the points vs money debate actually for reasons I've already exposed a few times.
But I do think that the winners should be rewarded more and less emphasis put on consistency/attending every tournament.

The main reason I think a money based list should be better is not the ranking, it's linked to sponsorship. I don't believe that sponsors will raise their contribution if they are guaranteed to have the top players for a minimal offer. Why would they? Why would they pay more if they can have it cheap? Would you? The very simple answer is no. The only way to motivate them to raise their offer is to create commercial competition and if the top players don't play in the "cheap" tournaments because they are no more blackmailed into it, then they will have to make better offers.
Look: in 2000 the China Open had a prize fund of 305000£, in 2011 it was 325000£. If you take into account how the £ has actually lost value in those 11 years and how the cost of living has raised, it means that the prize money has gone down, not up. Why (especially considering the economical boom in China)? Well it's simple: they had no reason or incentive to raise it. Last season, with more tournaments being played in China, there is some sort of commercial competition and it's gone up to 400000£. I wouldn't be surprised that with the International Championship setting a new prestige target, it will increase again in the future.

I never believed that selling the game cheap is a way to develop it. Economically that's nonsense. It doesn't work that way. It's just devaluating the game and the players.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

in 2oo5 when Ding won the event it was worth £200,000 with £30,000 first prize

in 2009 last before the Hearn years it was £292,000 with £52,000 first price

still not reached what it was in 2000

that's how far snooker dropped away under previous regime it is in a building stage under Barry Hearn and quite frankly people expect him to work miracles.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:in 2oo5 when Ding won the event it was worth £200,000 with £30,000 first prize

in 2009 last before the Hearn years it was £292,000 with £52,000 first price

still not reached what it was in 2000

that's how far snooker dropped away under previous regime it is in a building stage under Barry Hearn and quite frankly people expect him to work miracles.


I'm not expecting him to work miracles and I don't agree with the way he treats the players or the way he communicates at times but he is a business man and in going for a prize money based ranking he is creating commercial competition between event promoters and that is a good thing to do.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Cash earnings from the start of this season in ranking events, following PTC3:

Pos Name £
1 Ricky Walden £95,223
2 Barry Hawkins £64,710
3 Stuart Bingham £60,223
4 Mark Davis £43,260
5 Martin Gould £40,645
6 Mark Selby £39,423
7 Peter Ebdon £38,690
8 Stephen Lee £36,345
9 Stephen Maguire £34,800
10 Marco Fu £34,360
11 Shaun Murphy £33,345
12 Marcus Campbell £30,423
13 Mark Williams £28,600
14 Dominic Dale £28,523
15 Robert Milkins £28,386
16 Ding Junhui £28,130
17 Allister Carter £27,423
18 Neil Robertson £27,230
19 Jamie Burnett £26,030
20 Ryan Day £25,630
21 Joe Perry £25,623
22 Jamie Cope £25,330
23 Ken Doherty £25,023
24 Judd Trump £25,000
25 Fergal O’Brien £24,286
26 Graeme Dott £24,000
27 Tom Ford £23,230
28 Andrew Higginson £23,223
29 Mark Allen £22,700
30 Michael White £21,886
31 Rod Lawler £21,800
32 Matthew Stevens £20,630
33 Michael Holt £18,323
34 Cao Yupeng £16,530
35 Jack Lisowski £15,523
36 Matt Selt £15,345
37 John Higgins £14,600
38 Mark King £14,586
39 Dave Harold £14,386
40 Liang Wenbo £13,623
41 Barry Pinches £13,486
42 Nigel Bond £13,023
43 Jamie Jones £12,886
44 Rory McLeod £12,323
45 Alan McManus £12,023
46 Aditya Mehta £11,800
47 Xiao Guodong £11,323
48 Pankaj Advani £11,000
49 Alfie Burden £10,300
50 Dave Gilbert £9,886
51 Ben Woollaston £9,700
52 Jimmy Robertson £9,100
53 Steve Davis £9,100
54 Anthony Hamilton £8,400
55 Mark Joyce £7,900
56 Anthony McGill £7,586
57 Gerard Greene £7,386
58 Jimmy White £7,100
59 Ronnie O'Sullivan £7,000
60 Liu Chuang £6,986
61 Kurt Maflin £6,100
62 Luca Brecel £5,000
63 Paul S Davison £4,800
64 David Grace £4,500
65 Yu Delu £4,100
66 Thepchaiya Un-Nooh £4,000
67 Thanawat Tirapongpaiboon £3,986
68 Robbie Williams £3,900
69 Peter Lines £3,700
70 Chen Zhe £3,500
71 Liam Highfield £3,386
72 Li Yan £3,100
73 Simon Bedford £3,100
74 James Wattana £3,086
75 Mike Dunn £3,000
76 Ian Burns £2,900
77 Andy Hicks £2,700
78 Tony Drago £2,500
79 Scott Donaldson £2,500
80 Passakorn Suwannawat £2,300
81 Tian Pengfei £2,100
82 Anda Zhang £2,100
83 Adam Duffy £1,700
84 Dechawat Poomjaeng £1,600
85 Craig Steadman £1,600
86 Michael Wasley £800
87 Ben Judge £600
88 Joel Walker £600
89 Sam Baird £400
90 Jamie O'Neill £200
91 Joe Jogia £0
92 Daniel Wells £0
93 Hossein Vafaei Ayouri £0
94 Martin O'Donnell £0
95 Michael Leslie £0
96 Sean O'Sullivan £0
97 Floyd Ziegler £0
98 Mohamed Khairy £0

Notes:

- Figures in GBP (given up on Euros!)
- Australian Open conversion £1=$AUS 1.555
- EPTC1 conversion £1=1.25 Euro
- Only main tour players listed
- I'm NOT getting involved in updating the list issued by WS last month....with it's inconsistencies, errors and pointlessness (most of the events on it won't even count when cash rankings come in!)

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

1 Ricky Walden £95,223
2 Barry Hawkins £64,710

Barry Hawkins has had a Better season than Ricky Walden so far and yet Ricky Leads by £30,513 in Money ranking thats how cockerel eyed it is and based on how much cash sponsors can fork out.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

janddk wrote:What has Ronnie won £7000 in, this season?

they say Prize money Rankings are easier to understand well already people are confused that Ronnie lost 4-3 to Simon Bedford in his only match of the season and Hey Presto thank to David copperfield he has £7,000 thats £3,900 more than Simon Bedford the only guy hes played has.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:
janddk wrote:What has Ronnie won £7000 in, this season?

they say Prize money Rankings are easier to understand well already people are confused that Ronnie lost 4-3 to Simon Bedford in his only match of the season and Hey Presto thank to David copperfield he has £7,000 thats £3,900 more than Simon Bedford the only guy hes played has.


Where has John Higgins got 14600£ ? he's only played in 2 PTCs and got out early. I suppose that, just like Matt counst the points players would get as losing seeds in his provisional ranking/seeding, they counted the minimal prize money that the players would get for the tournaments they have entered. No rocket science.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
janddk wrote:What has Ronnie won £7000 in, this season?

they say Prize money Rankings are easier to understand well already people are confused that Ronnie lost 4-3 to Simon Bedford in his only match of the season and Hey Presto thank to David copperfield he has £7,000 thats £3,900 more than Simon Bedford the only guy hes played has.


Where has John Higgins got 14600£ ? he's only played in 2 PTCs and got out early. I suppose that, just like Matt counst the points players would get as losing seeds in his provisional ranking/seeding, they counted the minimal prize money that the players would get for the tournaments they have entered. No rocket science.

John Higgins has shanghai Masters Cash aswell

it just highlights how much Tier System and Money Rankings are vastly unfair because Money goes up Dramaticly and showed us how cockerel eyed it is.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

I know that wild about Higgins. It just wanted to point out that ROS isn't the only one with "earnings" that have nothing to do with what they have won until now (but he's the only one people have "targeted")

That's indeed why a flat structure should be a lot fairer provided every win is rewarded - which isn't the case right now - and then a money list can work and would be a big incentive for promoters to make better offers if they want the top in their events.

An yes the tired system is unfair, but in a tiered system you can't possibly give nothing to seeded players who lose their first match because they didn't get the opportunity to compete in earlier rounds against easier opponents, which would be the case with a flat structure. They come cold in the latter stages. The tiered system is there only to make sure that the top 16 is present in every television stage. Well I'm convinced that with properly rewarded event that would be the case for most anyway and a few new/not-so-known faces in each event would only make it more interesting.
Last edited by Monique on 10 Sep 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

I should have stated that, as qualifying has already taken place for the Shanghai Masters, Gdynia Open and WSIC, I have added minimum figures for that. O'Sullivan, as a seed for the WSIC, will pick up a minimum of £7000.

As Monique says, it's not rocket science :-)

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:I know that wild about Higgins. It just wanted to point out that ROS isn't the only one with "earnings" that have nothing to do with what they have won until now (but he's the only one people have "targeted")

That's indeed why a flat structure should be a lot fairer provided every win is rewarded - which isn't the case right now - and then a money list can work and would be a big incentive for promoters to make better offers if they want the top in their events.

An yes the tired system is unfair, but in a tiered system you can't possibly give nothing to seeded players who lose their first match because they didn't get the opportunity to compete in earlier rounds against easier opponents, which would be the case with a flat structure. They come cold in the latter stages. The tiered system is there only to make sure that the top 16 is present in every television stage. Well I'm convinced that with properly rewarded event that would be the case for most anyway and a few new/not-so-known faces in each event would only make it more interesting.

at least John has Won 6 Matches this season lol

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:1 Ricky Walden £95,223
2 Barry Hawkins £64,710

Barry Hawkins has had a Better season than Ricky Walden so far and yet Ricky Leads by £30,513 in Money ranking thats how cockerel eyed it is and based on how much cash sponsors can fork out.


its nothing to do with the money order of merit <doh>

once the real order of merit kicks in, in 2 seasons time, theres no way the existing set up of qualifying, money allocation could work so that will change before then so its a fair system for all (presumably the flat 128 set up :shrug: )

and as for the teired set up, well the ranking points are allocated unfairly and have been for years but everyone seems to accept that as a feature of the teired set up, yet the minute money is mentioned (which they are clearly prejudiced against) then they spit the dummy out without realising its the teired set up thats more to blame than any money system.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Witz i dont think a Flat 128 will Ever Ever be used for the World Championship or Chinese Events even if they go with it for other events.

Regarding China can you seriously see them Flying over 128 players. They will be playing Qualifiers in Britain there's no doubt about that and that means Ding in a Sheffield Cubicle for his own country Tournaments.

They will want to Market Ding as appearing in a Tournament they cant do that if he Loses in Qualifying which isn't impossible when you consider the Pressure he will be under just to get to a Chinese event.

we already know how stubborn the Chinese are with these bucking Wild Cards so they will insist on Ding and Ronnie for that matter (if he can be bothered that is) being seeded through to China. so already there's a problem with Money Rankings being Fair.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Wild WC wrote:Witz i dont think a Flat 128 will Ever Ever be used for the World Championship or Chinese Events even if they go with it for other events.

Regarding China can you seriously see them Flying over 128 players. They will be playing Qualifiers in Britain there's no doubt about that and that means Ding in a Sheffield Cubicle for his own country Tournaments.

They will want to Market Ding as appearing in a Tournament they cant do that if he Loses in Qualifying which isn't impossible when you consider the Pressure he will be under just to get to a Chinese event.

we already know how stubborn the Chinese are with these bucking Wild Cards so they will insist on Ding and Ronnie for that matter (if he can be bothered that is) being seeded through to China. so already there's a problem with Money Rankings being Fair.


Seriously Wild?

You need to take the blinkers off pal, and people like you need to understand that not everything will revolve around the UK, if snooker is to take off globally.

The only reason the Chinese insist on wildcards is because all but one of their professionals currently have to qualify from Sheffield, and it takes an almighty effort for even 1 of them to squeeze through that biased qualifying minefield. So don't call them "stubborn"....if anyone is stubborn, it's the WSA for insisting on this laughable qualifying set up.

I'm sure Hearn would love to fly 128 pros over to each and every Chinese event; part of me thinks that the APTC series has been set up to "test the water", to see how many pros would make their way over to play.

(OK, APTC1 was a disaster in terms of visa allocation, but you still had young pros like Michael Wasley entering, and Mark King, who qualified for neither Wuxi or Bendigo, embarking on the trip)

There was a recent discussion about whether the Paul Hunter Classic should be upscaled to full ranking event status, and I was staggered at the amount of people who mentioned current (outdated) ranking event cliches like: qualifying in Sheffield, tiered structure, wildcards.....Jesus Christ, this is what we should be trying to move away from(!) The PHC is fine the way it is, all it needs is a prize fund increase, which, with the new ranking system, automatically means a ranking upgrade.

Who's to say the WSA won't relocate to China in the next few years anyway, and those "stubborn" Chinese insist that ALL qualifying takes place over there, even for the World Championship?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

you take the Blinkers off

128 players travel to China at their own expenses and only 64 get payed

Can you seriously see Players in this country up sticks and Move to china like chinese and other nationalities has ?

Get real you bucking wally.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

and by the way your plan is great in Theory but believe me by the time the Prize money Ranking system comes in there is no chance in buck that will be happening.

so in the meantime the Prize Money Ranking will be unfair.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Wild WC wrote:you take the Blinkers off

128 players travel to China at their own expenses and only 64 get payed

Can you seriously see Players in this country up sticks and Move to china like chinese and other nationalities has ?

Get real you bucking wally.


There you go again with a snooker cliche.....only 64 get paid? Why should that always be the case? Maybe there will be incentives for all 128 players to fly over to China in the future.....you sound so stuck in your ways and unwilling to accept or embrace any change.

But then I've just been called a wally by the internets most infamous laughing stock, so who am I to say?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Wild WC wrote:and by the way your plan is great in Theory but believe me by the time the Prize money Ranking system comes in there is no chance in buck that will be happening.

so in the meantime the Prize Money Ranking will be unfair.



Erm.....what?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

JIMO96 wrote:
Wild WC wrote:you take the Blinkers off

128 players travel to China at their own expenses and only 64 get payed

Can you seriously see Players in this country up sticks and Move to china like chinese and other nationalities has ?

Get real you bucking wally.


There you go again with a snooker cliche.....only 64 get paid? Why should that always be the case? Maybe there will be incentives for all 128 players to fly over to China in the future.....you sound so stuck in your ways and unwilling to accept or embrace any change.

But then I've just been called a wally by the internets most infamous laughing stock, so who am I to say?

are you a complete bucking hammer

its not my way you half wit tit that's how Barry Hearn sees things and always will be he would rather Give more cash to the Successful players he will never give cash to players loosing at the last 128 in the near future.

if things will change it wont be in the next 10 years minimum.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Careful with the insults big fella.....anyone daring to criticise you or disagree with your views seems to be an easy target. You come across as a man with many frustrations, limited intelligence and a barren vocabulary. And someone whose snooker bubble has no room for innovation or development.

I didn't say it was YOUR way, nor did I say cash would be paid out at the last 128 (I said it might be, the circuit could expand beyond that figure you know? 128 is not an insurmountable bucking wall!)

My point was, with the General Cup and APTC2 being either side of the Shanghai Masters (for example), there are other opportunities for players travelling to China, so there's no need for 64 of them to come home penniless.

Anyway, I thought you were firmly in the "if a pro is serious about his career, he'll make sacrifices" camp?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Mate open your eyes only 3 years ago this sport was on it Knees Players was Hardly playing it was nothing More than a Hobby

of course the Tour could Grow to more people but Believe me when i say this when the prize money rankings come in there will be a tier structure in place and therefore it will be a unfair system

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Its unfair RIGHT NOW! What makes you think you can only deem it unfair when it changes to cash?

By changing to a cash system, Hearn will highlight the absurdity of tiering even more, therefore easing the path to open draws. Even in China.

You bucking wally.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

JIMO96 wrote:Its unfair RIGHT NOW! What makes you think you can only deem it unfair when it changes to cash?

By changing to a cash system, Hearn will highlight the absurdity of tiering even more, therefore easing the path to open draws. Even in China.

You bucking wally.

at the Moment when players lose their First Match in any Round they Get half Points

Take the Shanghai Masters

Points

Last 32 seed 980 1960
Last 48 seed 805 1610
Last 64 seed 630 1260
Last 80 seed 455 910
Last 96 seed 280

Prize Money

Last 32 6000
Last 48 2300
Last 64 1500
Last 80 0
Last 96 0

in Point Rankings player Winning his First match Gets 70 less points than Top 16 Loser, in Prize Money Rankings Player Winning First match gets 6,000 less Points

in points players that wins 2 Matches From Last 96 gets 280 more points that Top 16 player Losing his First match.....in Money he gets 4,500 Less.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

Ah, so that's OK then. As long as the system is unfair (current ranking system), all is well so long as it doesn't become grotesquely unfair (cash ranking system...if tiered). >-(

If a player gets more points for losing, than another gets for winning, THEN THAT IS MANIFESTLY UNFAIR IN ANY RANKING SYSTEM.

Thanks for the points distribution lesson though :weeds: