Snooker World Ranking System

[Tano]

Cue,
Doesn't every player always try to score more than their opponent in order to win?

Anyway, I had a quick browse of the Forum Snooker History category.
1974 first world ranking. Point system:
Winner - 5 pts.
R/up - 4 pts.
S/final - 3 pts.
Q/finals - 2 pts.
Last 16 - 1 pt.
So I guess that's how the pre-money point sys worked. If we were to go back to the very beginning of the game, were potted points ever used for rankings?

[DeanH]

CIf we were to go back to the very beginning of the game, were potted points ever used for rankings?

I have info going way way back, and from my findings, that year (1974) was the first year of any ranking system (IIRC) and points-scored has never been the ranking system

[Tano]

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

Dean,
You wrote "Ranking Points system is nothing to do with points scored in a frame/match".
Thank you for this key clarification. Once I take this info into account, my question becomes silly. The question is only worth asking if one is willing to go back to the very begins of snooker leagues/tournaments. What is it about a potted-point ranking sys that makes it undesirable. Thanks all for your comments.

[Tano]

In an attempt to lessen my ignorance, I've done some further research:

Snooker was developed circa 1875. The oldest and longest-running Snooker tournament is the English Amateur Championship established 1916 and they used aggregate points to determine the winner. In 1927 they changed to frames won. Coincidentally, 1927 was also the year the first pro tournament, the World Snooker Championship, was established. Haven't found any specific info on their ranking method so I'm going to guess they used frames won, at least to begin with. Can anyone fill in the gap between 1927 & 2015?

[DeanH]

In an attempt to lessen my ignorance, I've done some further research:

Snooker was developed circa 1875. The oldest and longest-running Snooker tournament is the English Amateur Championship established 1916 and they used aggregate points to determine the winner. In 1927 they changed to frames won. Coincidentally, 1927 was also the year the first pro tournament, the World Snooker Championship, was established. Haven't found any specific info on their ranking method so I'm going to guess they used frames won, at least to begin with. Can anyone fill in the gap between 1927 & 2015?

As I said above I believe that 1974 was the first time a professional player ranking system was developed, before this matches were "money" matches or challenge type, and only a few tournaments as we would recognise today
My records go back to late 1800s

Of course if any one finds any information on earlier than 70s ranking system please let us know

[Tano]

In an attempt to lessen my ignorance, I've done some further research:

Snooker was developed circa 1875. The oldest and longest-running Snooker tournament is the English Amateur Championship established 1916 and they used aggregate points to determine the winner. In 1927 they changed to frames won. Coincidentally, 1927 was also the year the first pro tournament, the World Snooker Championship, was established. Haven't found any specific info on their ranking method so I'm going to guess they used frames won, at least to begin with. Can anyone fill in the gap between 1927 & 2015?

Dean,
The information I shared here was taken from Wikipedia: Snooker - Wikipedia
The information you have about the history and evolution of snookers ranking system seems to be missing from Wikipedia's records and so would benefit from your knowledge. It would enhance and help preserve the written record and history of Snooker if you were to edit Wikipedia's Snooker webpage by adding your knowledge to it. You would also be doing a good and honorable service to the game so many love. I hope you will consider it.
Best regards

[DeanH]

Dean,
The information I shared here was taken from Wikipedia: Snooker - Wikipedia
The information you have about the history and evolution of snookers ranking system seems to be missing from Wikipedia's records and so would benefit from your knowledge. It would enhance and help preserve the written record and history of Snooker if you were to edit Wikipedia's Snooker webpage by adding your knowledge to it. You would also be doing a good and honorable service to the game so many love. I hope you will consider it.
Best regards

I have edited some Wiki pages before - I will have to do further in-depth research before editing that page
Also it will have to go to the bottom of the pile of all the other research projects I have on the go already

[Texas Snooker]

Personally, I would use a more performance-objective manner of determining the ranking like World Golf rankings do that takes into consideration other factors other than money. The most dominant method they use is "Strength of Field," that is, the algorithm used to determine how many ranked players were in a certain tournament, as well as "Strength of Opposition," which takes into consideration the rankings of all individual opponents a player plays against within a tournament. The money offered should, frankly, have nothing to do with the actual performance of a player to assign rankings. Of course, there usually, but not always, is a correlation between tournaments with Strength of Field requirements, and of course money earned in a tournament is also a major factor. In any case. Of course using the most recent two-year period, gradated throughout so most recent performance is rated higher than performance done within an earlier period, would make this system the most objective possible.

After saying all that, though, I'm not sure how much different the ranking lists would be. I only know that this system would be fairer to assess from an objective standpoint than through money only.

[itsnoteasy]

Wouldn't work in snooker as its a one on one sport, golf is an individual against the field sport.