Should the Shoot-Out be a ranking event?

I don't think we've discussed this enough.

This year, I will mostly be ignoring the Shootout.

It should be the only ranking event

What (if any) is the criteria used to determine a ranking event vs a non-ranking one?

It would appear that match length/format isn't considered and that's just ridiculous.

IMO it should've been left as a night of snooker for darts fans who lack another venue to do their drinking.

Sickpotter wrote:What (if any) is the criteria used to determine a ranking event vs a non-ranking one?

It would appear that match length/format isn't considered and that's just ridiculous.

IMO it should've been left as a night of snooker for darts fans who lack another venue to do their drinking.

Mainly the entrance criteria. Since the ranking points are purely additive from progress in a tournament.

So the ranking events are the ones where all the 128 can participate on an equal(ish) basis. And is sanctioned by world snooker. With a slight fudge for the WSC where the top 16 seeds must win a match at the venue to get points.

Length of match comes into consideration only via the prize tariffs, which scale somewhat with number of frames.

Sickpotter wrote:What (if any) is the criteria used to determine a ranking event vs a non-ranking one?

It would appear that match length/format isn't considered and that's just ridiculous.

IMO it should've been left as a night of snooker for darts fans who lack another venue to do their drinking.

Playing more than one frame in a match?

It’d be a thing of the past if it wasn’t a ranker.

As it stands, it is a big opportunity for lower ranked pros to grab some points and steady their place on tour. That’s really the main reason players even turn up (and 50k would help pay a mortgage off as well).

Strip it of ranking status, and a lot of players wouldn’t bother...

Then it loses appeal with broadcasters...

Then sponsors...

Then the prize fund shrinks...

Then the skint players don’t bother...

Then it’s over.

I’m not an advocate of this being a ranker, just so I’m clear. It’s just the way it is.

Please promise you are not to post this every Thursday at midnight

Prop wrote:It’d be a thing of the past if it wasn’t a ranker.

As it stands, it is a big opportunity for lower ranked pros to grab some points and steady their place on tour. That’s really the main reason players even turn up (and 50k would help pay a mortgage off as well).

Strip it of ranking status, and a lot of players wouldn’t bother...

Then it loses appeal with broadcasters...

Then sponsors...

Then the prize fund shrinks...

Then the skint players don’t bother...

Then it’s over.

I’m not an advocate of this being a ranker, just so I’m clear. It’s just the way it is.

Very good points for why it should be a ranker Prop. I'm sure the players don't complain it's a ranker. I enjoy it because it's different, but will be strange without a crowd. I wonder if they do anything different compared to the usual MK tourneys to add a bit of atmosphere?

Prop wrote:It’d be a thing of the past if it wasn’t a ranker.

Not convinced of this personally.

Just want to reiterate - I don’t think it should be a ranker.

My earlier post was just my thoughts regarding why I think it’s remained a ranking tournament. Remember Hearn is a businessman. He knows it’s sustainable as long as watchable players turn up. My logic is that less watchable players would turn up if there was less incentive, and the demise would snowball from there, as in my previous post.

Iranu - how do you think the future of the Shootout would pan out if they announced after this one that it wouldn’t be a ranker next season? Genuine question. And I’m not disagreeing exactly. Just keen to hear a counter argument.

Iranu wrote:

Prop wrote:It’d be a thing of the past if it wasn’t a ranker.

Not convinced of this personally.

Nor am I. Even after it was made a ranker ITV decided they couldn't be bothered with it, so I doubt it helped the viewing figures.

Prop wrote:Just want to reiterate - I don’t think it should be a ranker.

My earlier post was just my thoughts regarding why I think it’s remained a ranking tournament. Remember Hearn is a businessman. He knows it’s sustainable as long as watchable players turn up. My logic is that less watchable players would turn up if there was less incentive, and the demise would snowball from there, as in my previous post.

Iranu - how do you think the future of the Shootout would pan out if they announced after this one that it wouldn’t be a ranker next season? Genuine question. And I’m not disagreeing exactly. Just keen to hear a counter argument.

I think Hearn used “if it wasn’t a ranker no station would show it” as a justification for making it a ranker.

I think Hearn made it a ranker in order to persuade high profile players to enter and ‘legitimise’ it.

I don’t think this has really happened. Without looking it up it doesn’t feel like more top players have entered since it became a ranker than before. I don’t think either Judd or Robbo entered last season despite it being possibly the deciding factor of the European bonus. If ranking points + bonus money doesn’t convince top players to enter what will? Yes Ronnie entered last year out of desperation because he’d had a poor half season but other than that I’m not convinced.

I think it maybe would have moved to Eurosport (or another channel) sooner. I doubt Eurosport are offering more than ITV or that they wouldn’t air it just because it wasn’t a ranking event (half the time the coverage talks about whether or not it should be so it’s not like they’re convinced of it). After all, ITV wants top players, they don’t want ranking events (see Champion of Champions) so I don’t think that was a factor in them dropping it.

It benefits Hearn to make it a ranking event because it artificially inflates the tour from a rankings point of view. I’m sure he thought that the likes of Judd, Ronnie, Selby, Robbo would be regular entrants on that basis.

Iranu wrote:

Prop wrote:Just want to reiterate - I don’t think it should be a ranker.

My earlier post was just my thoughts regarding why I think it’s remained a ranking tournament. Remember Hearn is a businessman. He knows it’s sustainable as long as watchable players turn up. My logic is that less watchable players would turn up if there was less incentive, and the demise would snowball from there, as in my previous post.

Iranu - how do you think the future of the Shootout would pan out if they announced after this one that it wouldn’t be a ranker next season? Genuine question. And I’m not disagreeing exactly. Just keen to hear a counter argument.

I think Hearn used “if it wasn’t a ranker no station would show it” as a justification for making it a ranker.

I think Hearn made it a ranker in order to persuade high profile players to enter and ‘legitimise’ it.

I don’t think this has really happened. Without looking it up it doesn’t feel like more top players have entered since it became a ranker than before. I don’t think either Judd or Robbo entered last season despite it being possibly the deciding factor of the European bonus. If ranking points + bonus money doesn’t convince top players to enter what will? Yes Ronnie entered last year out of desperation because he’d had a poor half season but other than that I’m not convinced.

I think it maybe would have moved to Eurosport (or another channel) sooner. I doubt Eurosport are offering more than ITV or that they wouldn’t air it just because it wasn’t a ranking event (half the time the coverage talks about whether or not it should be so it’s not like they’re convinced of it). After all, ITV wants top players, they don’t want ranking events (see Champion of Champions) so I don’t think that was a factor in them dropping it.

It benefits Hearn to make it a ranking event because it artificially inflates the tour from a rankings point of view. I’m sure he thought that the likes of Judd, Ronnie, Selby, Robbo would be regular entrants on that basis.

Fair points. When I was talking about watchable players I didn’t have the very top players in mind. More the likes of Ben Woollaston, Michael White etc. Would they still turn up if there were no ranking points on offer?

the average punter probably doesn't give a rubbish about ranking verus not ranking bullocks. people mostly won't watch it because single frame snooker is a bit pants.

Well, both White and Woollaston entered every year prior to it being a ranker except for the first (White even won it!) So I really don’t think there’s been any change.

Iranu wrote:Well, both White and Woollaston entered every year prior to it being a ranker except for the first (White even won it!) So I really don’t think there’s been any change.

I knew there’d be a high possibility that I named two players that would be the worst example of my point

But yeah, I do get your point. I guess time will tell.

HappyCamper wrote:the average punter probably doesn't give a rubbish about ranking verus not ranking bullocks. people mostly won't watch it because single frame snooker is a bit pants.

Agree with your first sentence. Joe Public would rather watch 1 frame snooker with some big names because they can't be fussed with sitting through 7/9/11/etc frames of nobodies until the final stages of tourneys where the big names might appear if they haven't been knocked out.

It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

It was open to all players provided they were good enough...pity most of them weren't.

Michael White. Now there's a name to conjour with.

Michael White, or more latterly Michael marmite.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

It was open to all players provided they were good enough...pity most of them weren't.

Yes you're right, just like the ITV events are open to all players if they prove good enough on the 1 year list.

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

There has never been a good event with a shot clock its just a myth

Dan-cat wrote:Michael White. Now there's a name to conjour with.

Otherwise known as Teenage Cider Drink.

O mean, White Lightning.

Wildey wrote:

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

There has never been a good event with a shot clock its just a myth

Myth for you maybe, I enjoyed the Premier League nights very much. The others that followed haven't been as good though.

Andre147 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

There has never been a good event with a shot clock its just a myth

Myth for you maybe, I enjoyed the Premier League nights very much. The others that followed haven't been as good though.

each to their own

i found them dull and contrived which means there was a lot of negative safety shots played which ultimately meant Ronnie found it easy to play attacking shots that made others panic and play rubbish shots.

There is definitely a reason why it was never implemented in the Champion of Champions the direct replacement.

Wildey wrote:

Andre147 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Andre147 wrote:It is what it is and every year we have this discussion. As long as Hearn runs the sport, it will be a ranking event.

The day it stops being a ranking event the tournament will probably die and no more editions of it.

I still watch it regardless, same when I watched the Premier League or even Power Snooker, all 3 having shot clocks. Premier League was by far the best event there's been with a shot clock, albeit not open to all pros.

There has never been a good event with a shot clock its just a myth

Myth for you maybe, I enjoyed the Premier League nights very much. The others that followed haven't been as good though.

each to their own

i found them dull and contrived which means there was a lot of negative safety shots played which ultimately meant Ronnie found it easy to play attacking shots that made others panic and play rubbish shots.

There is definitely a reason why it was never implemented in the Champion of Champions the direct replacement.

And yet Ronnie still has the best record at the Champions of Champions any player has had. Only one who comes close is Robbo. but ROS record there since 2013 has been impressive. He can cope with any format, that's why he's such a great player.

Prop wrote:Just want to reiterate - I don’t think it should be a ranker.

My earlier post was just my thoughts regarding why I think it’s remained a ranking tournament. Remember Hearn is a businessman. He knows it’s sustainable as long as watchable players turn up. My logic is that less watchable players would turn up if there was less incentive, and the demise would snowball from there, as in my previous post.

Iranu - how do you think the future of the Shootout would pan out if they announced after this one that it wouldn’t be a ranker next season? Genuine question. And I’m not disagreeing exactly. Just keen to hear a counter argument.

I made a similar post in the other thread.

No's on top, as it should be