PDA

View Full Version : Does #1 on WPBA tour mean anything anymore?


DoomCue
06-22-2009, 07:15 AM
It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

Majic
06-22-2009, 08:33 AM
It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

I am not sure how the older system worked, but in the past couple years the womens tour has seen a number of great players emerge. It no longer is the Fisher/Corr domination that was seen for ten years. I think having more great players adds to the excitement of not knowing who will win. And if changing the points systems has anything to do with adding excitement, then I am all for it.

Johnnyt
06-22-2009, 08:38 AM
I hate the present format too. I think its very unfair to a lot of players. It didn't really change things much in the standings or the out come of the events. The cream will almost always rise to the top, but now you have a lot more cream. Johnnyt

gunzby
06-22-2009, 08:39 AM
Not sure about being #1, but finishing the year at #1 definitely means something. Regardless of the way they score points you still must do well to be #1.

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 09:43 AM
I like the current rankings format.The reason is that in the past it didn't matter as much how well you did in a particular year because so many points carried over that a player who had an off year could stay ahead in the rankings of a player having a much better year. The old format led to stagnation in the rankings with very little movement. It was almost like they got ranked years before and that was just the place in the rankings they would always be.

The new format allows for lots of movement in the rankings and with the way lowest ranked players drop off and have to requalify it allows more chances for new faces to compete.

As to the tournament format I'm ambivalent. There has on occasion been talk about single elimination, round robin, etc. I think this will always be determined by time alotted by the venue and by television.

matta
06-22-2009, 09:54 AM
I am not sure how the older system worked, but in the past couple years the womens tour has seen a number of great players emerge. It no longer is the Fisher/Corr domination that was seen for ten years. I think having more great players adds to the excitement of not knowing who will win. And if changing the points systems has anything to do with adding excitement, then I am all for it.

I agree with this, completely.

The talent level on the WPBA has become considerably tougher in the past few years. Before, it was just Allison and Corr head and shoulders above everyone else.

Now the list is growing.

Kelly Fisher
Ga Young Kim
Jasmin Ouschan
Xiaoting Pan
Monica Webb
Karen Corr
Allison Fisher
Yu Ram Cha? (I haven't actually had the chance to see her play but I hear she is one hell of a talent.)

I count at least 8 top notch players where before there were only two. The competition has gotten much stiffer.

Personally, I think this is good for pool and good for us, as fans. I know I enjoy the competition.

Kick back and enjoy the ride,
matta

pooltchr
06-22-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't have a problem with the ranking system. Many sports start every year with a clean slate for everyone. I think it keeps everything fresh and current. And if a player has an off year (Jeanette has had some years when her back problems prevented her from staying on top, but when she is on, she can still match up with anyone), they still have the chance to start over the next year on a level playing field.

Does the number one ranking mean anything? Unfortunately, I have to say "not really". There is not really any advantage to being ranked number one other than in the seedings, a couple of covers in the pool magazines, and maybe for some, a bit of an ego boost.

What I would like to see is a season ending tournament taking the top 8 players from the year, and putting them into a championship tournament. The best against the best with longer races, or maybe even a round robin type format. I'd love to see the top players battling it out.

Steve

poolsnark
06-22-2009, 11:34 AM
#1 is going to be rotating for some time because no player is going to win more than two events per season. The competition is just way too tough. Just look at what happened to Monica Webb. She won the season finale in 2008, came out of the gate strong with a win in the 2009 opener and then couldn't even make the redraw in Indiana. Jasmin won this event, but couldn't make it to the redraw in the San Diego event. You've got matches showing up in the 3rd round the likes of Monica Webb v. Yu Ram Cha and Jasmin Ouschan v. Karen Corr. Its absolutely brutal out there.

Personally, I hated the old rolling ranking system. No offense to Allison, but she had so many wins from back in the day that she'd probably still be #1 under the old system even though she's clearly not the #1 player anymore. Every year, they reset everyone to zero which is exactly how they should do it.

Rock City
06-22-2009, 11:50 AM
It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

David -

I think you're right on target.

They were well-intentioned, but when the WPBA changed the ranking system they lost a lot of credibility.

If they had left things like they were (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), a player could have taken over #1 by proving themselves worthy over an extended period of time. I think that a player's accomplishments over the period of a year, at the minimum, is a good measuring stick.

Someone mentioned how other sports determine their rankings. As far as I know, major sports such as golf and tennis do not crown a new #1 when a player wins the first tournament of the year. Even if a player gets on a hot streak, they don't necessarily dethrone the current #1.

Granted, there is growing parity among the top players and we may be witnessing a changing of the guard, so to speak. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that Allison Fisher's record and ranking were not given enough respect when the new system was instituted.

Fisher would have eventually been unseated, but I would have preferred a more legitate method. An emerging pool phenom who outplayed Fisher over a full season would have (deservedly) replaced Fisher under the old system

I know a lot of the players and board members and I am sure they were doing what they thought was best for the entire tour. I just wish they had chosen another method to achieve the results they were seeking.

DoomCue
06-22-2009, 11:54 AM
I think part of the problem is there are so few events that contribute to the ranking system. Another is the fact that a seed means absolutely nothing in the WPBA, except in the first couple of rounds - if you make it to the last rounds, the draw is random. That throws your seed totally out the window. I think there are more players with a chance to win these days, but I also think a lot of that has to do with the way the WPBA has rigged the system, making it extremely difficult for a single player to dominate by artifically handicapping players. Number 1 can change after every tournament, and if that happens regularly, what's the point? Why not just say if you won the last tournament, you're number 1?

-djb <-- don't misunderstand me, I don't mind seeing more faces in the winner's circle

BVal
06-22-2009, 11:58 AM
I think being #1 should be proven over a longer period of time. Not just the last 5 tournaments or however it works.

BVal

CrisDeLaGarza
06-22-2009, 12:11 PM
Another is the fact that a seed means absolutely nothing in the WPBA, except in the first couple of rounds - if you make it to the last rounds, the draw is random. That throws your seed totally out the window.

I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

BVal
06-22-2009, 12:16 PM
I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.
Excellent post.

I don't agree with the current system of ranking but it does mean something and serves its purpose.

By the way, you are a very good commentator.

BVal

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 12:31 PM
I don't get the animosity towards the current system.

1) True they DO need more events in a year. They also needed more events when everyone else was trying to break the Allison/Karen lockout.

2) Kelli Fisher finished last year in #1 and IS therefore the current champion.

3) Last week Monica was ranked current #1 for 2009, this week it's a tie between Kelli Fisher and Ga Young Kim. By the end of the season Kelli may still be reigning champ or it may be someone else.....but it WILL BE BASED ON MERIT. Who has performed the best.

4) Allison was and still is GREAT. She has NOT had that good of a year so far and her current ranking reflects that...FAIRLY. A couple of wins and she could be champ again. She's probably wishing there were more events to catch up same as a LOT of other players used to (and still do).

It's all fair. Everybody is playing by the same rules and no rolled over points favoritism is being reflected in the points now.Each year is a clean slate.........Now we just (still) need MORE events so there is no perception of unfairness

By the way I predict Karen or Ga or Kelli could finish the year in #1 without
even having won a tournament just based on their consistantly great performances.:eek:

BVal
06-22-2009, 12:36 PM
I don't get the animosity towards the current system.

1) True they DO need more events in a year. They also needed more events when everyone else was trying to break the Allison/Karen lockout.

2) Kelli Fisher finished last year in #1 and IS therefore the current champion.

3) Last week Monica was ranked current #1 for 2009, this week it's a tie between Kelli Fisher and Ga Young Kim. By the end of the season Kelli may still be reigning champ or it may be someone else.....but it WILL BE BASED ON MERIT. Who has performed the best.

4) Allison was and still is GREAT. She has NOT had that good of a year so far and her current ranking reflects that...FAIRLY. A couple of wins and she could be champ again. She's probably wishing there were more events to catch up same as a LOT of other players used to (and still do).

It's all fair. Everybody is playing by the same rules and no rolled over points favoritism is being reflected in the points now.Each year is a clean slate.........Now we just (still) need MORE events so there is no perception of unfairness

By the way I predict Karen or Ga or Kelli could finish the year in #1 without
even having won a tournament just based on their consistantly great performances.:eek:
I don't have any animosity towards the new system. I just like the old one better. Like Tennis and Golf.

Good post Tbeaux.

BVal

Johnnyt
06-22-2009, 12:41 PM
I think the bigger problem is the going to single elem. at final 16. If someone can explain how depending on what round of the tournament you lose a match in, you go to the "B" side early rounds and in the final 16 rounds a person that loses for the fisrt time in the tournament goes home while players that have already lost once are still in it. I don't care how anyone wants to explain it...It's just plain wrong. Johnnyt

DoomCue
06-22-2009, 12:50 PM
I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

Good catch, Cris. You're right, the seeding doesn't go COMPLETELY out the window during the re-draw. And BVal is right, you're an excellent commentator.

Here's a scenario:

If #1 and #2 make it to the re-draw, then they're protected (which is the whole point of a seed). Let's say that #1 loses before the redraw, but #2 doesn't. Normally, #2 is protected by her seed - she can't play #1 until the final. Unfortunately, due to the new format, #2 loses her protection and could possibly face #1 in the quarters, which is pretty much what the WPBA wants to see, based on how they've modified things over the past couple of years. That's what I mean by creating parity artificially - by allowing higher seeds to play each other early, more lower-ranked players will get higher finishes than they would have in the older format.

Because of "artificial parity," I think an artificial #1 can be created. That's why I think #1 doesn't really mean anything on the WPBA.

-djb

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 12:53 PM
I think the bigger problem is the going to single elem. at final 16. If someone can explain how depending on what round of the tournament you lose a match in, you go to the "B" side early rounds and in the final 16 rounds a person that loses for the fisrt time in the tournament goes home while players that have already lost once are still in it. I don't care how anyone wants to explain it...It's just plain wrong. Johnnyt

I tend to agree with you Johnnyt. If "fairness and second chances" are the issue I say play round robin. If just seeing who the best is at that tournament then single elimination does the job. I guess they figured this was the best compromise. They could have kept it double elimination till the finals but I think TV played alot in deciding the sweet sixteen setup.

Johnnyt
06-22-2009, 01:02 PM
If I paid the same entry fee as everyone else in the tournament I'd be pissed if I had to go home because of one loss while others get two. It's a clear handicap against the better player IMO. Johnnyt

GMAC
06-22-2009, 01:04 PM
It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

I think it means your are ranked number 1 on the WPBA tour. Which isn't a bad thing.

TWOFORPOOL
06-22-2009, 01:24 PM
I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

Thank you for clarifying this. It makes more sense now.

CrisDeLaGarza
06-22-2009, 02:26 PM
Good catch, Cris. You're right, the seeding doesn't go COMPLETELY out the window during the re-draw. And BVal is right, you're an excellent commentator.



Thanks DoomCue and BVal...I had fun commentating at this tournament. I especially enjoyed being in the booth with Jennifer. She has great knowledge and seems to know a lot of the players well enough to know what's going on with them mentally in the matches. I think would be fantastic on the ESPN TV rounds! Don't get me wrong, I love Ewa and Dawn but if they ever decide to change it up some, Jennifer should be first in line. Does anyone know if she's ever commentated for their TV rounds before?

CrisDeLaGarza
06-22-2009, 02:27 PM
I am not familiar with how the old ranking system worked so that is why I have no real opinion on which is better. But, I do think that your ranking means nothing until the end of the year. The seeds for each tournament are based on your performance at the past 4 events (which does carry over last year's events if there have not been 4 yet that year) and the rankings don't get you anything until the last tournament of the year.

If a new player comes in on the very first tournament of the year and does phenominal but did not rank in the top 40 at the end of last year, they do not get automatic invites to anything. All tournament invites are based on last year's end of year standings and additional qualifier spots except for the Tour Championship at the end of the year.

Holly Sholes is a great example. She played awesome at the first event and placed 9th but because she didn't have a ranking at the end of last year, her current ranking of 9th doesn't get her anything. So I do think that there is SOME longevity built into the system. The current rankings mean nothing until the end of the year.

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Holly Sholes is a great example. She played awesome at the first event and placed 9th but because she didn't have a ranking at the end of last year, her current ranking of 9th doesn't get her anything. So I do think that there is SOME longevity built into the system. The current rankings mean nothing until the end of the year.

This is a great point Cris.

Based on what is currently in place are there likely to be players who compete in one or two events now and do really well and not get any credit for it as regards requalifying? :confused:

This may be something the WPBA board should look at before the change in qualifying/requalifying takes place.

Also I agree, you and Jenn made a great team in the booth.:thumbup2:

billiardspro
06-22-2009, 03:59 PM
What I dont like about the WPBA is the fact that they went to this single elim format. There for you will never know who the number 1 ranked player is cause anyone can win 1 match. I think if you go back to the double elim format you will get a better idea who is the best players.

Majic
06-22-2009, 04:16 PM
Thanks DoomCue and BVal...I had fun commentating at this tournament. I especially enjoyed being in the booth with Jennifer. She has great knowledge and seems to know a lot of the players well enough to know what's going on with them mentally in the matches. I think would be fantastic on the ESPN TV rounds! Don't get me wrong, I love Ewa and Dawn but if they ever decide to change it up some, Jennifer should be first in line. Does anyone know if she's ever commentated for their TV rounds before?

I thought Jen and yourself did a great job commenting on the match I saw. There was a lot of good insight and there was never a lull in the conversation :D

CrisDeLaGarza
06-22-2009, 05:01 PM
This is a great point Cris.

This may be something the WPBA board should look at before the change in qualifying/requalifying takes place.


I think that's part of why they are changing it. Now players won't have to win several qualifiers just to have a chance to play in enough pro events to end up in high ranking. I think it's better in the long run for the up and coming players that are trying to get on the tour.

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 05:38 PM
I think that's part of why they are changing it. Now players won't have to win several qualifiers just to have a chance to play in enough pro events to end up in high ranking. I think it's better in the long run for the up and coming players that are trying to get on the tour.

No I just meant as regards players like Holly,perhaps yourself, several others who might only have a couple of events under their belts and 1)don't have enough points for exempt,2) don't have enough points to be considered as a requalifying touring pro for the RTC and 3) because of the time on the WPBA haven't managed to compete enough on their regional to qualify for the RTC.

poolsnark
06-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Anyone know why Yu Ram Cha dropped from #5 to #18 after back to back 5-8th finishes? Did she not play Karen Corr in the quarterfinals? The WPBA has her listed as losing to Gerda 9-8 in the round of 16 on the website, winning 9-8 in the brackets and then losing to Karen in the quarterfinals 9-6 on the website and losing 9-7 in the brackets.

Even if she lost in the round of 16, I don't see how it would have dropped her down to #18 in the rankings. Anyone know what actually happened after the redraw?

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/RankingSummaryPostGLC0209.pdf

SpiderWebComm
06-22-2009, 06:55 PM
I think if they went back to winner-breaks format, it'd go back to Fisher/Corr domination with Jasmine domination mixed in.

In a field full of women who can't string packs, alternate break levels the playing field and is a disadvantage for those women who can.

sjm
06-22-2009, 07:05 PM
Anyone know why Yu Ram Cha dropped from #5 to #18 after back to back 5-8th finishes? Did she not play Karen Corr in the quarterfinals? The WPBA has her listed as losing to Gerda 9-8 in the round of 16 on the website, winning 9-8 in the brackets and then losing to Karen in the quarterfinals 9-6 on the website and losing 9-7 in the brackets.

Even if she lost in the round of 16, I don't see how it would have dropped her down to #18 in the rankings. Anyone know what actually happened after the redraw?

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/RankingSummaryPostGLC0209.pdf

Yu Ram Cha beat Gerda in the round of sixteen 9-8, coming back from 8-4 behind. She then lost to Karen Corr in the quarterfinal, and that was her only loss in the event. She has, as you suggest, finished 5/8 in both events this year.

poolsnark
06-22-2009, 07:07 PM
Yu Ram Cha beat Gerda in the round of sixteen 9-8, coming back from 8-4 behind. She then lost to Karen Corr in the quarterfinal, and that was her only loss in the event. She has, as you suggest, finished 5/8 in both events this year.

If that's the case, she should have 6000 points and solidly in the top 10. Thanks SJM.

Tbeaux
06-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Anyone know why Yu Ram Cha dropped from #5 to #18 after back to back 5-8th finishes? Did she not play Karen Corr in the quarterfinals? The WPBA has her listed as losing to Gerda 9-8 in the round of 16 on the website, winning 9-8 in the brackets and then losing to Karen in the quarterfinals 9-6 on the website and losing 9-7 in the brackets.

Even if she lost in the round of 16, I don't see how it would have dropped her down to #18 in the rankings. Anyone know what actually happened after the redraw?

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/RankingSummaryPostGLC0209.pdf

I don't know poolsnark. Your right it looks like they only counted her points from one tournament. By my count she should have 6500 points which should put her in 6th place on the tour.

Johnnyt
06-22-2009, 08:40 PM
I think if they went back to winner-breaks format, it'd go back to Fisher/Corr domination with Jasmine domination mixed in.

In a field full of women who can't string packs, alternate break levels the playing field and is a disadvantage for those women who can.

I agree that winner breaks would be better for Allison and Karen, but I'll add Ga Young Kim, X Pan, Yu Ram Cha, Kelly Fisher, and about 3 or four more that I'm to lazy to look up right now. The talent of the top ten on the WPBA tour is five times better at least than it was when they changed to alternate break. No one is going dominate anymore for awhile IMO. Johnnyt

CrisDeLaGarza
06-22-2009, 09:05 PM
I don't know poolsnark. Your right it looks like they only counted her points from one tournament. By my count she should have 6500 points which should put her in 6th place on the tour.

I think somehow the links got mixed up with the new rankings...it's fixed now so the rankings are now updated:

http://www.wpba.com/cms/?pid=1000261

FrogKissin
06-27-2009, 09:43 PM
Anyone know why Yu Ram Cha dropped from #5 to #18 after back to back 5-8th finishes? Did she not play Karen Corr in the quarterfinals? The WPBA has her listed as losing to Gerda 9-8 in the round of 16 on the website, winning 9-8 in the brackets and then losing to Karen in the quarterfinals 9-6 on the website and losing 9-7 in the brackets.

Even if she lost in the round of 16, I don't see how it would have dropped her down to #18 in the rankings. Anyone know what actually happened after the redraw?

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/RankingSummaryPostGLC0209.pdf

Hi there :) If you go back to the homepage and click the "Ranking Summary 2009" link again, you'll see that I've posted a corrected ranking summary :) Yu Ram is listed at #6. Just an honest boo-boo on my part! My profuse apologies.

Thanks!
Anne - WPBA

JE54
06-28-2009, 06:50 AM
Double elimination throughout.

sjm
06-28-2009, 07:14 AM
An interesting thread to be sure, but misdirected in some ways. A better thread title would have been "Will Anyone be Able to Defend the #1 Spot on the WPBA Tour Again?". This is the real crux of the matter.

Defending the #1 ranking has become extremely difficult because the depth of talent at the top has become so impressive. Just a few years ago, future hall of famers Allison Fisher and Karen Corr could, seemingly, be penciled into every WPBA Sunday, and between them they were winning most of the tournaments.

A glance at some of the top players is fearsome right now:

Allison Fisher - the greatest women's nine ball player ever
Karen Corr - winner of about 25 WPBA titles
Kelly Fisher - #1 ranked in 2008
Ga Young Kim - two time world champion
Xiaoting Pan - world champion
Yu Ram Cha - beat Shane Van Boening at World 10-ball championships
Monica Webb - reigning National champion, began 2009 as #1
Jeanette Lee - former #1, holder of many WPBA titles
Vivian Villareal - former #1, holder of many WPBA titles
Gerda Hofstatter - world champion, former #2 ranked player
Jasmin Ouschan - proven superstar of both 9-ball and 14.1
Helena Thronfeldt - US Open champion, former #3 ranked player

Yes, it's downright scary how strong this tour has become at the top.

WPBA San Diego produced Webb, Lee, Hofstatter and Kim as its final four, while WPBA Michigan City produced four different players as its final four: Ouschan, Pan, Corr and K Fisher.

In the last nine WPBA events contested, Kelly Fisher, Allison Fisher, Monica Webb, and Jasmin Ouschan have each won twice, with Xiaoting Pan winning the other event. Yes, it's that competitive!

Given the talent at the top, why should we expect anything but major shakeups in the rankings and a fierce battle for #1.

Hence, my answer to the question that began this thread is "given the depth of the talent pool, #1 means as much as it ever has on the tour, but is harder than ever to defend."

pooltchr
06-28-2009, 07:29 AM
Actually, I think the changes are very good for the tour. The NFL has really grown since the idea of parity was developed. NASCAR has seen the same thing with an influx of young drivers who all have the potential to win on any weekend.
Better competition can only generate more fan interest.

Steve

jay helfert
06-28-2009, 07:36 AM
It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

I guarantee you it means something to the person who is ranked #1! Just ask Monica if it means anything to her. Or Kelly Fisher, or Allison.

TX Poolnut
06-28-2009, 09:20 AM
I've not paid attention to who is #1 in the WPBA for a long time.

I don't care that much about stats. I just like to watch the ladies play.

pooltchr
06-28-2009, 10:03 AM
I guarantee you it means something to the person who is ranked #1! Just ask Monica if it means anything to her. Or Kelly Fisher, or Allison.

I know for a fact that Kelly gets far more pleasure from winning a tournament (s) that from being ranked number 1. Ask her if she would be happy finishing 2nd in every tournament and being ranked number 1 at the same time, and I think you know what her answer would be.

Steve

jay helfert
06-28-2009, 10:06 AM
I know for a fact that Kelly gets far more pleasure from winning a tournament (s) that from being ranked number 1. Ask her if she would be happy finishing 2nd in every tournament and being ranked number 1 at the same time, and I think you know what her answer would be.

Steve


Okay, so are you saying you don't think it is important to her to be ranked #1?

pooltchr
06-28-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm not saying it is important or not important. Just saying that I suspect most of the ladies would take winning tournaments over being ranked number 1, if they had to choose.

Steve

jay helfert
06-28-2009, 05:49 PM
An interesting thread to be sure, but misdirected in some ways. A better thread title would have been "Will Anyone be Able to Defend the #1 Spot on the WPBA Tour Again?". This is the real crux of the matter.

Defending the #1 ranking has become extremely difficult because the depth of talent at the top has become so impressive. Just a few years ago, future hall of famers Allison Fisher and Karen Corr could, seemingly, be penciled into every WPBA Sunday, and between them they were winning most of the tournaments.

A glance at some of the top players is fearsome right now:

Allison Fisher - the greatest women's nine ball player ever
Karen Corr - winner of about 25 WPBA titles
Kelly Fisher - #1 ranked in 2008
Ga Young Kim - two time world champion
Xiaoting Pan - world champion
Yu Ram Cha - beat Shane Van Boening at World 10-ball championships
Monica Webb - reigning National champion, began 2009 as #1
Jeanette Lee - former #1, holder of many WPBA titles
Vivian Villareal - former #1, holder of many WPBA titles
Gerda Hofstatter - world champion, former #2 ranked player
Jasmin Ouschan - proven superstar of both 9-ball and 14.1
Helena Thronfeldt - US Open champion, former #3 ranked player

Yes, it's downright scary how strong this tour has become at the top.

WPBA San Diego produced Webb, Lee, Hofstatter and Kim as its final four, while WPBA Michigan City produced four different players as its final four: Ouschan, Pan, Corr and K Fisher.

In the last nine WPBA events contested, Kelly Fisher, Allison Fisher, Monica Webb, and Jasmin Ouschan have each won twice, with Xiaoting Pan winning the other event. Yes, it's that competitive!

Given the talent at the top, why should we expect anything but major shakeups in the rankings and a fierce battle for #1.

Hence, my answer to the question that began this thread is "given the depth of the talent pool, #1 means as much as it ever has on the tour, but is harder than ever to defend."


Thanks S. One small correction, Allison is no longer a "future" Hall of Famer, she is a CURRENT Hall of Famer, being voted in this year.

sjm
06-28-2009, 07:44 PM
Thanks S. One small correction, Allison is no longer a "future" Hall of Famer, she is a CURRENT Hall of Famer, being voted in this year.

Not so, Jay. She will be inducted in October.

jay helfert
06-29-2009, 12:55 AM
Not so, Jay. She will be inducted in October.

As far as I'm concerned if she has been voted in, then she's in the Hall Of Fame. The induction ceremony to be held at the U.S. Open this year is a formality. Normally it would be held during the Trade show, but we both know what's up with that. I don't think Allison needs to wait four months to be able to say she is a member of the Hall Of Fame.

When I was at the Trade show everyone was coming up and congratulating her. They were saying congrats on getting into the Hall Of Fame. Not "Congratulations on almost being in the Hall Of Fame, just another few months and I can congratulate you for real."

Black-Balled
06-29-2009, 05:50 AM
I wish I was #1. So do the top 4564544504860 players out there.