Snooker World Ranking System

[Tano]

As a player and a fan, I have been away from the snooker world for many years but now, thanks to the Web and things like YouTube, I'm catching up on the tournaments, games, players, and politics of the sport.
Now, you may laugh at me, but I was surprised to learn that players are ranked by how much money they earn over a 2 year period. Why use money as the unit of measure of a players skill? I do understand the financial imperatives required to support the game. However, imho tracking total points potted would be a more direct way of measuring skill and show more respect for the players, the Game and its great history.
After all, at the end of the day, a football player is ranked by how many goals they make. They certainly will make more money the more they score but the money follows the scoring, not the other way around.
Many will surely think me nieve. Still, it's a shame that the ranking system for such a beautiful game uses such a blatantly commercial metric.

[Rane]

I think money is a fine measure. The winners of the tournaments has the highest earnings. In the past a player could hang around inside top 16, if he was consistent inside top 16 in every tournament without winning anything.

[Cue crafty]

If you think further into this, the money system does make sense. Not all matches are won with high scoring and many key frames in matches are won off tactical battles and usually it's the player who gets the advantage here who goes on to win, so there's more than just points scored at stake.

[DeanH]

When it was points (not money) there was even more arguments on how much an event was worth in points, they may have a some formula comparing match lengths to points but I have not found one
And there were complaints then as to the weighting of the points across the season.

At least Money is transparent

[itsnoteasy]

I know this is pedantic but is it not still points, you get a ranking point for every pound you earn. Or is it strictly a money earned system.

[DeanH]

I know this is pedantic but is it not still points, you get a ranking point for every pound you earn. Or is it strictly a money earned system.

be pedantic as much as you like

You are correct £1 = 1pt
you earn the money, these become your points in the ranking system

[Tano]

If you think further into this, the money system does make sense. Not all matches are won with high scoring and many key frames in matches are won off tactical battles and usually it's the player who gets the advantage here who goes on to win, so there's more than just points scored at stake.

Can u elaborate a bit re your "Not all matches are won with high scoring..." comment? Of course high strategy is part of the package of any consistent winner but surely putting them in the pocket is the ultimate decider.

Also, Deanh - Could u speak to your comment about the arguments that there used to be before the money-point system was first instituted (2014-2015 season I believe). Thanks

[DeanH]

Can u elaborate a bit re your "Not all matches are won with high scoring..." comment? Of course high strategy is part of the package of any consistent winner but surely putting them in the pocket is the ultimate decider.

Also, Deanh - Could u speak to your comment about the arguments that there used to be before the money-point system was first instituted (2014-2015 season I believe). Thanks

You are correct it became money system in 2014/2015 season

2014 WSC = 10,000 points
2015 WSC = £300,000

What I meant was - back in the day when it was "points system" there were those that did not like it and advocated a money system; now we have a money system there are those that want a point system - you can never please all of the people all of the time

[Cue crafty]

Can u elaborate a bit re your "Not all matches are won with high scoring..." comment? Of course high strategy is part of the package of any consistent winner but surely putting them in the pocket is the ultimate decider.

Also, Deanh - Could u speak to your comment about the arguments that there used to be before the money-point system was first instituted (2014-2015 season I believe). Thanks

quote above says it all really a consistent winner earns more money and titles. But an example match statistic https://cuetracker.net/head-to-head/...ins/andy-hicks (4th match down list)

So Higgins won the match by 438 to 435 points but won 5-3 so as for most pro sports it's all about the WIN bottom line, and players like Higgins have consistently done that in tough matches. Not sure a player who has scored high but consistently lost deserves to be ranked high

[Tano]

Dean, Do u remember what the chief reasoning was that was used to justify the change over?
Also, would I be correct in saying that it was the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association board of directors who thought it up and put it into force? Thanks

[DeanH]

Dean, Do u remember what the chief reasoning was that was used to justify the change over?
Also, would I be correct in saying that it was the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association board of directors who thought it up and put it into force? Thanks

chief reason - no - my thoughts are that they had enough of the arguments on how many points an event should have
WPBSA - possibly, maybe with Hearn "influence" as he did the same to darts around that time did he not?

[Tano]

[QUOTE=Cue crafty;n1025105]

quote above says it all really a consistent winner earns more money and titles. But an example match statistic https://cuetracker.net/head-to-head/...ins/andy-hicks (4th match down list)

So Higgins won the match by 438 to 435 points but won 5-3 so as for most pro sports it's all about the WIN bottom line, and players like Higgins have consistently done that in tough matches. Not sure a player who has scored high but consistently lost deserves to be ranked high


Cue, Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake. A player who has scored the highest net potted points (total - fouls) would win the frame. Winner of most frames wins match, most matches the tournament. Then if one is victorious in most ranked tournaments they are named world champions. I'm honestly trying to understand what I'm not getting.

[Tano]

chief reason - no - my thoughts are that they had enough of the arguments on how many points an event should have
WPBSA - possibly, maybe with Hearn "influence" as he did the same to darts around that time did he not?

Dean, You've just given me info I wasn't aware of. So even when pro snooker used the point system, they did not use net potted points to rank events. So there was some other kind of metric used. Would it be very complicated to explain the nuts & bolts of it?

[Cue crafty]

[QUOTE=Tano;n1025108]

quote above says it all really a consistent winner earns more money and titles. But an example match statistic [url]<a class="vglnk" href="https://cuetracker.net/head-to-head/john-higgins/andy-hicks[/url" rel="nofollow"><span>https</span><span>://</span><span>cuetracker</span><span>.</span><span>net</span><span>/</span><span>head</span><span>-</span><span>to</span><span>-</span><span>head</span><span>/</span><span>john</span><span>-</span><span>higgins</span><span>/</span><span>andy</span><span>-</span><span>hicks</span><span>[/</span><span>url</span></a>] (4th match down list)

So Higgins won the match by 438 to 435 points but won 5-3 so as for most pro sports it's all about the WIN bottom line, and players like Higgins have consistently done that in tough matches. Not sure a player who has scored high but consistently lost deserves to be ranked high


Cue, Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake. A player who has scored the highest net potted points (total - fouls) would win the frame. Winner of most frames wins match, most matches the tournament. Then if one is victorious in most ranked tournaments they are named world champions. I'm honestly trying to understand what I'm not getting.

I refer you to post #2 by Rane.

can you imagine a world where every single frame has players trying to pot every ball on the table because they are concerned about their aggregate!

no more naughty snooker boo hoo Zzzzzzzz

[DeanH]

Dean, You've just given me info I wasn't aware of. So even when pro snooker used the point system, they did not use net potted points to rank events. So there was some other kind of metric used. Would it be very complicated to explain the nuts &amp; bolts of it?

Ranking Points system is nothing to do with points scored in a frame/match
But events were given "Ranking points", as I said above, maybe there was some sort of formula used to come to the points for the event or it was just comparison of similar events (BO frames, etc.), and "prestigiousness" (?)
for example
2013/2014 season - winner points, Best of, winner prize
Wuxi Classic - 7000, 19, £80k
AUS Open - 5000, 17, $70k
Shanghai Mstrs - 7000, 19, £80k
Indian Open - 5000, 9, £50k
Int Chmps - 8000, 19, £125k
UK Chmps - 8000, 19, £150k
German Msts - 5000, 17, €80k
Welsh Open - 5000, 17, £60K
World Open - 7000, 19, £85k
China Open - 7000, 19, £85k
EuroTour each - 2000, 7, €25k
Asian Tour each - 2000, 7, £10k
Players Tour Final - 3000, 7, £100k
WSC - 10000, 35, £300k