RANKINGS -Filler tops Fargorate, Shane tops WPA, Albin tops Matchroom, Gorst tops CSI Predator

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So many rankings. As they say, rankings are like opinions, everybody has one (And you know what they say about opinions :ROFLMAO:). The methodology used for each of these rankings have flaws are as different as chalk and cheese:
Fargorate https://www.fargorate.com/top-ten-lists (even though some may say it is a rating not a ranking) - takes into account almost all tournaments, big or small over long period though recent years are given higher weightage. All matches given same weightage regardless of whether it is group stage or final , whether it is a major international event match or small league match.
WPA https://wpapool.com/ranking/ – mostly international events (9 ball and 10 ball) and small regional , minor events, invitationals are excluded
Matchroom https://matchroompool.com/world-rankings/ -mostly its own events including invitationals like World Pool Masters
CSI Predator https://usproseries.fargorate.com/ - its own 10 ball events. Interestingly their major World 10 Ball was excluded maybe cos it is not US Pro series event. Goodness, does that mean they will have another ranking for their World Pro series (like Austria Open)?

Oh and there is also the Azb prizemoney ranking https://www.azbilliards.com/leaderboard/ (Though in most major sports, prizemoney ranking is secondary to performance results ranking)

Of the 3 major (W9B, W10B, USO) winners, only Albin topped a ranking. USO winner Biado is top 10 in 2 rankings while W10B winner Kaci failed to make top 10 in any of these rankings. Kaci would have made top 10 of CSI Predator rankings but for some reason CSI excluded their own World 10 Ball event in its rankings.

Different criteria, methodology can cause huge difference in rankings. For example- what events to include and exclude, weightage, points assigned to each event etc. Also rankings should cover shorter period like 1 or 2 years cos players form change so fast these days- the top 20 players 1 year ago is quite different from now. Like Tennis rankings uses 1 year rolling, Snooker rankings uses 2 year rolling period.

Looks like may need unification (like boxing) to settle it and have one ranking standing :LOL:
sq11.jpg
 
Nice post Spartan. It is because most of the ranking systems are so useless that so many, like me, only put their faith in Fargo Rate.

Matchroom Rankings. as Emily Frazer has been quick to point out, will need a couple of years before they are truly meaningful. WPA rankings presently discriminate against those who were sidelined by COVID. CSI Predator rankings are, in my view, not really needed, but might have some value down the road.

Unfortunately, the goal of unification of the rankings is likely unattainable until pool becomes less fragmented internationally. If the Matchroom initiatives ultimately result in a global tour with truly diverse international participation, that will be a big step forward in making it possible to have meaningful global rankings. Until then, I think Fargo is the best we've got when it comes to measuring players against one another.
 
If your goal is to find out which players are better than which, who is more skilled than who, where somebody falls in the pecking order, who is most likely to win a gambling match, who is most heavily favored to win the next tournament, etc, taking everything into consideration, then FargoRate is the undisputed king and second place is galaxies away. If your goal is to see which players have been performing better in CSI events in the past year, then the CSI rankings may be a better indicator. If your goal is to see which players have performed best in Matchroom events in the past year, the the Matchroom rankings may be a better indicator. If your goal is to see which players have performed best in WPA events in the past year, then the WPA rankings may be a better indicator.

But 99% of the time I think what we are usually after is who is better than who, where does somebody fall in the overall pecking order, who is favored to win this match up, who is most favored to win this tournament, etc, rather than "of the people that participated in WPA events the past year, how did they tend to do only in those particular events compared to the other people that also happened to participate in those same particular events". One is accurate and usable for almost any application, and the other can only provide very narrow in scope niche info that is far less useful, and is useful far less often.
 
It's just like Golf and Tennis. No one cares about your ranking. It's how many major tournements you win each year and over the course of your career. Just my 2 cents.:cool:
 
I think the most prestigious ranking system is binary. You’re either in Roy’s Basement or you’re not. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top