there shouldn't be a "World Championship" per se

S

smashmouth

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sorry, but to me, the so called World Championship undermines the significance of the world's number 1 ranked player when the two do not coincide

Golf and Tennis, like Snooker employ a rankings system without any single tournament that offers the winner the title of World Champion

the true world champion is the world's number 1 ranked player, assuming there is a proper and fair criteria that determines said rankings, when you employ a rankings system the so called championship is simply a gimmick
 
I take the exact opposite view. The ranking system is just a measure of who is on form and is used for handicapping.

You could have a player (in any game) who consistently reaches the final / finals win more matches than anyone else and thus be ranked number one but he's no champion if when it comes to a final every time under pressure he plays like a muppet.

You have to win to be No 1 you just need to be good to be ranked No 1
 
Last edited:
Sorry double posted rather than edited.

Anyone know how to delete a post please pm me.
 
Last edited:
perhaps in some generic system, but snooker rankings are different, the status is only achieved through excellence over a 2 year period, not good, not pretty good, but excellent

before today, only 7 players ever reached that status, Neil is the only player to achieve the status via default, ironically, Alex Higgins would have reached number 1 entering 82/83 but was docked disciplinary points

there is a reason why Tennis and Golf don't do it and they are the gold standards imo when it comes to running tours

the world championship tourney itself is no different than any other major other than the fact that they arbitrarily award more points and pay more prize money
 
How many countries outside Great Britain were involved in this year's World Championship?
 
Underclocked said:
How many countries outside Great Britain were involved in this year's World Championship?
Click to expand...

All 96 players on the tour were involved, so however many countries are represented there. The world amateur championship has broader representation and the winner gets a place on the main tour, but they almost always fade into obscurity.

It may be a limited group, but I doubt very many players not on the main tour could compete with any of those top 16 guys. Neils title is legit.
 
it's a valid point though and an age old question for many sports

do you take the very best in the world or the best from each part of the world?

a true world championships imo must try and at least attempt some form of equal representation, the World Cup of soccer and Summer Olympic Games follow this despite huge disparities between top and bottom seeds

also, how about a World Championships actually played AROUND THE WORLD???????

l

there is NOTHING "worldly" about the current tournament

Snooker really needs to address these issues if they want to grow imo
 
Good point about the soccer World Cup and the Olympics. There should be better regional representation, with more opportunity for players who can't afford to fly to the UK (or China or wherever) to compete in ranking tournaments. Keep the top 16 automatic entries, add a few spots for winning regional "continental" tournaments, and then sponsor players who perform well in these to go to the pre tournament qualifiers (weighted according to the region so Asia,for example, might award spots down to the quarter finalists). You will always get the Neil Robertson who comes to England with £500 in his pocket and grinds it out the hard way and makes it, but opening a few doors to talented cueists from around the world can only be good for the game. There must be plenty of exceptional pool players in the USA, for example, who would jump at a chance to qualify without having to invest time and money away from their pool game. And many of the players on the Guinness 9 Ball Tour in South East Asia actually started out as snooker players but can earn a living more easily playing pool. Barry Hearn is the man for the job - let's hope he sticks around.
 
it's so easy really, award a spot to national champions

i.e., top 16 touring players + 16 international reps for the tv rounds

and once in a while OUTSIDE of Sheffield for gods sake
 
Imagine snooker being run along the lines of leagues (top 20 or so play individual home and away matches in say four regions of the world)
And every x number of years one country hosts the world championship whereby all league players and a number of qualifying amatures go for it on a knockout basis.

Perfection in my book.
 
smashmouth said:
sorry, but to me, the so called World Championship undermines the significance of the world's number 1 ranked player when the two do not coincide

Golf and Tennis, like Snooker employ a rankings system without any single tournament that offers the winner the title of World Champion

the true world champion is the world's number 1 ranked player, assuming there is a proper and fair criteria that determines said rankings, when you employ a rankings system the so called championship is simply a gimmick
Click to expand...

Instead of having a "world champion", golf and tennis have Grand Slam championships which many (most?) people consider to be more important than the number 1 ranking at the end of the year. The number one player at the end of the year would probably consider the year a disappointment if they didn't win at least one Grand Slam title.

The tennis and golf tours have more than four times as many tournaments as the snooker tour so the ratio is probably about the same for major tournaments to regular tournaments.

In much the same way as tennis, the matches in the snooker world championship are longer races so the best player is more likely to win than in a regular tournament with shorter races so it is worth more points and pays more prize money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top