2017 Indian Open

[JimMalone]

You can't imagine how much it winds me up when people talk about ranking titles these days, and they try to put it into some sort of "all-time" context, but crap like the Shoot-Out and the best-of-7 stuff count the same as proper events on their list. I like Anthony McGill and hope to see him winning many events in the future, but for me, the number of major ranking events he has won in his career is 0, win or lose today.

Similar stuff with the battle between Higgins and O'Sullivan about who is going to overtake Davis first. Okay, there is no Shoot-Out or the Indian Open inflating their statistics, but still, if you take the best-of-7 stuff out, they are both still on 26, two away from Davis.

I know most people couldn't care less, but I will continue to complain about this until the end of time. :wink:

I am with you on this, but still, at the end many people will just look at the numbers.
It's not only this, but also how many ranking events there are played nowadays. Players back in the 80s or even 90s had far less chances to add a ranking title to their resume.

And if you look on the list of overall titles you will just see the 2 or 3 next to McGills name. If you don't remember which he won you have to look it up and only then will find out they are worth not nearly as much as Marco Fu's wins at the Scottish Open, World Open or Australian Open for example.
It's a bit easier to find this with just a couple of titles of course. In a mass of 28 titles you will just see the number and don't bother looking up. And honestly in such a massive list one title more or less isn't that important. With that type of players you'll look on the number of World Titles first anyways.

Winning a Best-of-7-Tournament is not nothing, but still there should be a strict distinction between titles like this and major ranking titles like the International Championship. I don't speak about World Championships, because this tournament thankfully still is held on a level of its own. As well as the UK Championship.

[ghost121]

You can't imagine how much it winds me up when people talk about ranking titles these days, and they try to put it into some sort of "all-time" context, but crap like the Shoot-Out and the best-of-7 stuff count the same as proper events on their list. I like Anthony McGill and hope to see him winning many events in the future, but for me, the number of major ranking events he has won in his career is 0, win or lose today.

Similar stuff with the battle between Higgins and O'Sullivan about who is going to overtake Davis first. Okay, there is no Shoot-Out or the Indian Open inflating their statistics, but still, if you take the best-of-7 stuff out, they are both still on 26, two away from Davis.

I know most people couldn't care less, but I will continue to complain about this until the end of time. :wink:

+1

It's two tier now at the very least.

[DeanH]

the ES Player commentators, I get Panjak Advani but anyone know the name of the other?

[Odrl]

the ES Player commentators, I get Panjak Advani but anyone know the name of the other?

Patrick Kinghorn? Don't know him, but I'm fairly sure that's what the graphic said at the start of the match. :smile: I've turned the sound off shortly after though, because they talk too much and I couldn't concentrate on my World Open preview. :smile:

[DeanH]

Patrick Kinghorn? Don't know him, but I'm fairly sure that's what the graphic said at the start of the match. :smile: I've turned the sound off shortly after though, because they talk too much and I couldn't concentrate on my World Open preview. :smile:

nope not heard of him, already picked up his favourite saying - "and remember" :wink:

[ghost121]

Higgins likes a soft target. One of the few top players to bother with minor ranking events. Unlike Murphy, I doubt he does it to support the game. A win is a win but this should not be a ranking tournament.

[Mr Snooker]

+1

It's two tier now at the very least.

Can you imagine how many ranking titles Steve Davis (in The 80's) or Stephen Hendry (In the 90's) would have won if they had the same amount of ranking events then, what they have now. or if Barry hearn took over world snooker when he first became the manager of Steve Davis.

[knob]

this is not a ranking event. its a PTC or minor at best. best of 7s with a best of 9 final! most players not bothering and Higgins winning without facing a single top 16 player! embarrassing. hearn is growing snooker but ruining its integrity with this.
Have a few majors, several full ranking events and all the others plus the knockabout crap can be second tier events like tennis - where ranking points reflect the quality of the event

[Dr_Doctor]

Can you imagine how many ranking titles Steve Davis (in The 80's) or Stephen Hendry (In the 90's) would have won if they had the same amount of ranking events then, what they have now. or if Barry hearn took over world snooker when he first became the manager of Steve Davis.

According to Wikipedia, Hendry had 38 non-ranking titles and Davis had 53. Added up altogether let's just say Hendry has 74 ranking titles whilst Davis has 81.

[Mr Snooker]

I have noticed on the order of merit rankings, that Michael White as not had the £50.000 pounds he won two years ago from his order of merit and also none of the other players have had their prize money removed from the event two years ago, why is this I thought that the Indian open was a ranking event two years ago, will this apply for the Current tournament as well the world open

[DeanH]

I have noticed on the order of merit rankings, that Michael White as not had the £50.000 pounds he won two years ago from his order of merit and also none of the other players have had their prize money removed from the event two years ago, why is this I thought that the Indian open was a ranking event two years ago, will this apply for the Current tournament as well the world open

by Order of Merit do you mean the Pro World Ranking list, this is currently still reflecting the Paul Hunter Classic and has not been updated yet to show the Indian Open. WS sometimes take their time with the updates
The two other listings, the 1Year List and the Q School OoM, also have not been updated yet

[Mr Snooker]

No at http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=31, the ranking list as been updated after the Indian open.

[DeanH]

No at http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=31, the ranking list as been updated after the Indian open.

I thought you meant the WS (official) lists
ah yes, Hermund tends to be faster at updates than WS :biggrin:
Maybe he will do the extraction of previous monies soon

[Rane]

I am with you on this, but still, at the end many people will just look at the numbers.
It's not only this, but also how many ranking events there are played nowadays. Players back in the 80s or even 90s had far less chances to add a ranking title to their resume.

And if you look on the list of overall titles you will just see the 2 or 3 next to McGills name. If you don't remember which he won you have to look it up and only then will find out they are worth not nearly as much as Marco Fu's wins at the Scottish Open, World Open or Australian Open for example.
It's a bit easier to find this with just a couple of titles of course. In a mass of 28 titles you will just see the number and don't bother looking up. And honestly in such a massive list one title more or less isn't that important. With that type of players you'll look on the number of World Titles first anyways.

Winning a Best-of-7-Tournament is not nothing, but still there should be a strict distinction between titles like this and major ranking titles like the International Championship. I don't speak about World Championships, because this tournament thankfully still is held on a level of its own. As well as the UK Championship.

You´re so absolutely right. The same goes for centuries per season. Getting 50 in a season was much harder in the pre Hearn period than it is today, but 25 years from now there will only be a few purists left who remember that.