Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Watched it too NNear, very good video and compilation Also subscribed to your channel.

Keep up the good work mate.

I was watching some of Tequila last night and his Rocket Science vid popped up in the recommended link, it's a compilation of Ronnie's safety shots, pretty amazing stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uU-HgSOxk0

Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.

webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.

Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.

A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help

Wildey wrote:

webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.

Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.

A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help

Wildey, there is no confusion over how those rankings are calculated, thank you very much. It was a comment about the ludicrous way in which they are calculated - a person with 1 major title does not deserve to be ranked as the best player in the world. If you have won the world title, you have proven yourself to be, for that year, the best player in the world.

As I said, it's not about not understanding how it's calculated, I just think it's ridiculous that there's a ranking system for a sport that doesn't really reflect the level of play. Which is why I'm in favour of the new system.

Webcat:

I've learnt to ignore the rankings, because most players won't enter every tournament, there isn't enough time or energy. The thing is though, Ronnie isn't going to be no.1 if he only enters non-rankers, the occasional small ranker and the Worlds. But he doesn't care, so why should we? He will lose ground on the others by not entering the Haikou and China opens. We all know who the best player in the world is right now, and has been for the last two years.

The rankings are more of a reflection of how hungry and how much time players want to put into the pro game over the last two years, plus some reflection of winability. What we really have is this:

Division 1 Rankings:

1. Ronnie O'Sullivan - 5*.

Division 2 rankings:

1. Robbo
2. Selby
3. Ding (best player this season but only ranked 3 due to 2yr rolling system)
4. Hawkins (hasn't he done well!)
5. Trump
6. Bingo (super progress)
7. Fu
8. Mags
9. Murphy
10. Higgins (please retire).

When Ronnie retires, the Division 2 rankings will again be meaningful. Until then, they're an anomaly.

Interesting to hear that Ronnie is coaching a bit. He's probably doing it for free, because he's like that but how much could he charge? I wager he could make a pretty good living out of coaching; £500+ per hour?

The 19992 debutantes played Hendry a good few timesand learned how to beat him.

The histor suggests that post 96 they were winning
Against hendry big time.

As for 4 titles v white, white had to get to them finals
Like he did.

94 final was the only time out of the 4 meetings jimmy got close.

He should have won in 92 , Hendry took the points left
White kept leaving him on.

The fact remains you can only pkay the game against
The player that qualified.

I would go as far as to say that Hendry was younger and naturally had more confidence than white.

That was the difference.

webcat86 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.

Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.

A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help

Wildey, there is no confusion over how those rankings are calculated, thank you very much. It was a comment about the ludicrous way in which they are calculated - a person with 1 major title does not deserve to be ranked as the best player in the world. If you have won the world title, you have proven yourself to be, for that year, the best player in the world.

As I said, it's not about not understanding how it's calculated, I just think it's ridiculous that there's a ranking system for a sport that doesn't really reflect the level of play. Which is why I'm in favour of the new system.

But Money Rankings is not fair there's too much of a differential between being World Champion and being World Runner up this season its 175,000 points different. its against the concept of a Ranking system.

its too top heavy to be a genuine reflection of who the best and more importantly consistent player on the tour.

you could be Runner up in 5 Tournaments and win the UK Championship and still have less point than potentially someone Winning a World Championship its ridiculous.

its a 2 YEAR rolling ranking list not a 2 week list Yes the World Championship is the big one but its not everything and Rankings should be above who does well in 1 tournament.

Trumpster wrote:Webcat:

I've learnt to ignore the rankings, because most players won't enter every tournament, there isn't enough time or energy. The thing is though, Ronnie isn't going to be no.1 if he only enters non-rankers, the occasional small ranker and the Worlds. But he doesn't care, so why should we? He will lose ground on the others by not entering the Haikou and China opens. We all know who the best player in the world is right now, and has been for the last two years.

The rankings are more of a reflection of how hungry and how much time players want to put into the pro game over the last two years, plus some reflection of winability. What we really have is this:

Division 1 Rankings:

1. Ronnie O'Sullivan - 5*.

Division 2 rankings:

1. Robbo
2. Selby
3. Ding (best player this season but only ranked 3 due to 2yr rolling system)
4. Hawkins (hasn't he done well!)
5. Trump
6. Bingo (super progress)
7. Fu
8. Mags
9. Murphy
10. Higgins (please retire).

When Ronnie retires, the Division 2 rankings will again be meaningful. Until then, they're an anomaly.

Interesting to hear that Ronnie is coaching a bit. He's probably doing it for free, because he's like that but how much could he charge? I wager he could make a pretty good living out of coaching; £500+ per hour?

Well my objections aren't because I want Ronnie to be no.1 (although I would like to see that). I just don't think they're representative, and as I said in my comment yesterday, I think the new system is fairer all around.

Webcat:

It's more about who books more flights at the moment, rather than who plays great snooker - i.e. Selby and Ronnie.

The idea that the Welsh Open should have the same ranking points as the Worlds is ridiculous. It takes much more to win the Worlds and the pts system should reflect the level of difficulty in doing well in the tournament.

Ronnie isn't bothered that Selby is no.1, because like us, he knows who the no.1 really is. However, I do like to look at the rankings to see how the not so talented are getting on, and what progress they're making with their games, reflected in the rankings to some extent.

Wildey wrote:

webcat86 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.

Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.

A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help

Wildey, there is no confusion over how those rankings are calculated, thank you very much. It was a comment about the ludicrous way in which they are calculated - a person with 1 major title does not deserve to be ranked as the best player in the world. If you have won the world title, you have proven yourself to be, for that year, the best player in the world.

As I said, it's not about not understanding how it's calculated, I just think it's ridiculous that there's a ranking system for a sport that doesn't really reflect the level of play. Which is why I'm in favour of the new system.

But Money Rankings is not fair there's too much of a differential between being World Champion and being World Runner up this season its 175,000 points different. its against the concept of a Ranking system.

its too top heavy to be a genuine reflection of who the best and more importantly consistent player on the tour.

you could be Runner up in 5 Tournaments and win the UK Championship and still have less point than potentially someone Winning a World Championship its ridiculous.

its a 2 YEAR rolling ranking list not a 2 week list Yes the World Championship is the big one but its not everything and Rankings should be above who does well in 1 tournament.

The WC carry such a large prize because of the importance of the event. You say there's a big difference between that and runner up, but runner up still earns a lot more than 3rd place, so it balances out.

I disagree about consistency. If you win the worlds and then lose everything else, your rankings will fall - and you won't lose everything and win the worlds repeatedly.

Put it another way. The current calendar requires a LOT of expenses to be paid for by the player - Allen was talking about this, after he'd earned a decent chunk of money, so imagine what it's like for the lower ranked players. They HAVE to be on tour to have any chance of progressing, but they are earning peanuts. For those people, it can be financially devastating to keep travelling to China and around Europe. One of the big complaints was that Hearn hasn't made it so they travel to China, play 5 events, then come home. They need to fly there for each event. That's a huge travel bill.

So the current system automatically puts lower players at a disadvantage (and "lower" is hardly amateurs and those ranked 100 or below - you can see in the top 16 that a lot of players aren't winning big, like Walden, and making their money by reaching the quarter finals). That's before you get to missing tournaments due to illness or whatever. It has a devastating impact on rankings, and I don't think it's fair.

And as I explained in my other post about this system, players like Ronnie and Higgins and Williams didn't sign up for this when they turned pro. They're older now, with children, and I can fully understand why they object to being told in their late 30s that the game has changed and they need to travel all the time. It's not representative.

Consistency is a factor, but no one expected Ronnie to take a year off then win the WC. No one would look at him then and say he didn't deserve to be crowned best in the world.

I accept it's a contentious issue, and I take your points on board. I think there are valid points on both sides. But personally, I think the existing ranking system is unfair, and while monetary basis will have its flaws, I think it's overall fairer.

Trumpster wrote:Webcat:

It's more about who books more flights at the moment, rather than who plays great snooker - i.e. Selby and Ronnie.

The idea that the Welsh Open should have the same ranking points as the Worlds is ridiculous. It takes much more to win the Worlds and the pts system should reflect the level of difficulty in doing well in the tournament.

Ronnie isn't bothered that Selby is no.1, because like us, he knows who the no.1 really is. However, I do like to look at the rankings to see how the not so talented are getting on, and what progress they're making with their games, reflected in the rankings to some extent.

Would the WO have the same as the WC?

The players may not have signed up to a flat 128 draw but that's tough. None of us sign up to the future, it just comes at us, regardless of our jobs. Jobs and Sport changes. I didn't sign up to Premiership ticket prices when I began supporting my team as a youngster, the EPL didn't exist. So I have a choice now, to go or not go. So do the older players. Apart from Ronnie, let's hope that the flat draw is a good reason for the likes of Williams/Higgins etc to retire as soon as.

I mean seriously Trumpster, you're having a massive Ronnie wankathon and then you say you hope Higgins and Williams retire? What sort of fan are you?

Sonny wrote:I mean seriously Trumpster, you're having a massive Ronnie wankathon and then you say you hope Higgins and Williams retire? What sort of fan are you?

Trumpster wrote:The players may not have signed up to a flat 128 draw but that's tough. None of us sign up to the future, it just comes at us, regardless of our jobs. Jobs and Sport changes. I didn't sign up to Premiership ticket prices when I began supporting my team as a youngster, the EPL didn't exist. So I have a choice now, to go or not go. So do the older players. Apart from Ronnie, let's hope that the flat draw is a good reason for the likes of Williams/Higgins etc to retire as soon as.

I don't want to see anyone retire. I especially don't want to see someone FORCED to retire.

There is no comparison to buying tickets I'm afraid. That's a purchasing luxury, not your job. The flat 128 draw isn't the problem I'm talking about either - it's the calendar. Or more specifically, it's the constant travelling putting a tremendous burden on players, because they have to find the money just to stay in the rankings, even if they're not earning much from it.

In all honesty, I think anyone - including any of us - would opt for a position similar to Ronnie's given the chance. He's acquired such a status and has such ability that he is able to pick and choose his tournaments and make more than a decent living out of it. Why would he spend thousands on flights to spend so much time away from his kids to play in a tournament that might leave him out of pocket, when he has the ability to focus on European events and the majors? At the other end of the scale you have the professionals who are lucky to make any living from the game at all.

It would be like Man Utd having to go play division 4 games in another country just to stay atop the premier league. Correct me if I'm wrong but snooker seems to be unusual amongst other sports - players have to pay for their travel (but not hotels), and really do not earn much money. Rooney is on 300,000 a week, Ronnie got £250,000 for winning an event. No wins, no money, but still lots of travel.

Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.

This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.

Getting back on topic, I reckon if Ronnie takes world title no.6 this year then I would seriously bet money on him at least equalling Hendry's record of 7.

IMO getting to 6 is a massive feat as it's already an outstanding record to achieve, going to be a lot of pressure and a very satisfying achievment should he get it.

But saying that he's playing some amazing stuff this season, his long potting is back which I think will play a really big part this year, his long potting was pretty dire before this season, lets be honest, he's also cut out missing easy shots whilst break-building.

Ronnie is playing the 'Majors' game now, as he made clear in a recent Welsh Open interview.

He's at least the clear favourite for the World Championships and if he wins it (good chances of this happening) then he can try to win three in a row (Triple Crown events in sequence) for the first time in his career.

If Ronnie can achieve feats like this then there will be very little holes to get picky with regarding his snooker career, but if he doesn't then he'll never have produced a period of genuine dominance.

I won't be surprised if he wins 4 WC in a row or 4 in a period of 5 events and he'll be eager to finally successfully defend the Masters title. He's 'due' a good UKs showing.

NNear wrote:Ronnie is playing the 'Majors' game now, as he made clear in a recent Welsh Open interview.

He's at least the clear favourite for the World Championships and if he wins it (good chances of this happening) then he can try to win three in a row (Triple Crown events in sequence) for the first time in his career.

If Ronnie can achieve feats like this then there will be very little holes to get picky with regarding his snooker career, but if he doesn't then he'll never have produced a period of genuine dominance.

I won't be surprised if he wins 4 WC in a row or 4 in a period of 5 events and he'll be eager to finally successfully defend the Masters title. He's 'due' a good UKs showing.

Yes I'd love him to win another UK Title even more than a Masters one because he last won the UK back in 2007 and like you say should get at least to 5 UK Titles and tie Hendry on that regard. He hasn't really produced consistent form in the UK Champs since 2007, 2009 was probably his best chance to win it, he cameback from 8-2 down in his semi against Higgins only to lose the decider after a missed pink. Had he reached the final I definately think he would have beaten Ding there.

NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.

This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.

In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?

Wildey wrote:

NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.

This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.

In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?

Instead of going back 34 years, is the current system a true reflection of who the best player is? No.

NNear wrote:Ronnie is playing the 'Majors' game now, as he made clear in a recent Welsh Open interview.

He's at least the clear favourite for the World Championships and if he wins it (good chances of this happening) then he can try to win three in a row (Triple Crown events in sequence) for the first time in his career.

If Ronnie can achieve feats like this then there will be very little holes to get picky with regarding his snooker career, but if he doesn't then he'll never have produced a period of genuine dominance.

I won't be surprised if he wins 4 WC in a row or 4 in a period of 5 events and he'll be eager to finally successfully defend the Masters title. He's 'due' a good UKs showing.

He certainly is due a good UK showing. I was surprised to see him lose the last one, but I think the Masters and WC hold more sway for him - the WC being the one that gets comparisons to Hendry and overall status, and he's always said the Masters gets him excited. Would be fantastic to see him do a triple crown this year though.

mantorok wrote:Getting back on topic, I reckon if Ronnie takes world title no.6 this year then I would seriously bet money on him at least equalling Hendry's record of 7.

IMO getting to 6 is a massive feat as it's already an outstanding record to achieve, going to be a lot of pressure and a very satisfying achievment should he get it.

But saying that he's playing some amazing stuff this season, his long potting is back which I think will play a really big part this year, his long potting was pretty dire before this season, lets be honest, he's also cut out missing easy shots whilst break-building.

5 is an amazing feat too though, especially these days when seemingly anyone can have it - there are a number of 1-time winners and an even longer list of people who could take it.

His long potting I think is one of the biggest reasons for his success right now, and it's very nice to see it on form. That match he played against Walden last year where he set the record for points without reply, frame after frame he was slamming in a long red to get amongst the balls. A few years ago you could almost bet on him missing every long pot by some distance, but I don't think he missed a single one in that match, and very few in the tournament. If he maintains that form into the WC then he will have a very good chance of winning it, because there will be very, very opportunities he won't be able to take advantage of.

Wildey wrote:

NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.

This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.

In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?

Did they win more prize money than Davis in those years?

Let's do a quick search...

http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1984/1985


Player Prize Money
1 Steve Davis 175.544
2 Dennis Taylor 139.061
3 Cliff Thorburn 119.625
4 Tony Knowles 96.094
5 Jimmy White 80.492
6 Alex Higgins 74.050
7 Kirk Stevens 71.827
8 Silvino Francisco 69.000
9 Willie Thorne 68.386
10 Ray Reardon 49.650

http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1985/1986

1 Steve Davis 228.000
2 Cliff Thorburn 182.460
3 Jimmy White 167.992
4 Dennis Taylor 108.302
5 Willie Thorne 108.041
6 Joe Johnson 99.827
7 Tony Knowles 78.616
8 Terry Griffiths 70.601
9 Alex Higgins 67.442
10 Tony Meo 63.230


Well I think it's clear that based on a money list that Davis would have still been the number 1 but that the winners of the WC get some arguably deserved extra ranking perks.



Looks pretty good to me.

NNear wrote:

Wildey wrote:

NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.

This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.

In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?

Did they win more prize money than Davis in those years?

Let's do a quick search...

http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1984/1985


Player Prize Money
1 Steve Davis 175.544
2 Dennis Taylor 139.061
3 Cliff Thorburn 119.625
4 Tony Knowles 96.094
5 Jimmy White 80.492
6 Alex Higgins 74.050
7 Kirk Stevens 71.827
8 Silvino Francisco 69.000
9 Willie Thorne 68.386
10 Ray Reardon 49.650

http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1985/1986

1 Steve Davis 228.000
2 Cliff Thorburn 182.460
3 Jimmy White 167.992
4 Dennis Taylor 108.302
5 Willie Thorne 108.041
6 Joe Johnson 99.827
7 Tony Knowles 78.616
8 Terry Griffiths 70.601
9 Alex Higgins 67.442
10 Tony Meo 63.230


Well I think it's clear that based on a money list that Davis would have still been the number 1 but that the winners of the WC get some arguably deserved extra ranking perks.



Looks pretty good to me.

those prize money list incorporates Invitational events...

Then answer the original question, if you can. Did they win more prize money than Davis in those years?

Under the assumption that possibly a majority of events were invitational then they would have been incorporated into the system. It was a different time.

Having followed many sports for a long time, the ranking system in Snooker always seemed among the most contentious with regard to equating ranking rewards with actual prestige of accomplishment. I definitely think a money list ranking system is a good change overall, where the potential cons are rather well alleviated by the recent proliferation of larger flat draws.

http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/centuries.php?triple

There's a much better century stat (I requested this stat a while ago, and he's added it. Kudos). Better than including all this PTC and league nonsense.

Yeah. The frames required per century stats are useful too, though.