Talk:Snooker world rankings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which tournaments qualify[edit]

Here is a definitive list of precisely which tournaments are ranking tournaments, and when:

  • World Championship 1976/77 - present
  • Scottish 1981/82 - present, except 1990/91 - 1991/92
    • Several name changes, first involving the word "International", then "Scottish Open", once "Goya Matchroom Trophy", now Players Championship
  • World Open (known as LG Cup / Grand Prix) 1982/83 - present
  • UK Championship 1984/85 - present
  • British Open 1984/85 - present
  • European (complicated):
    • European Open 1988/89 - 1995/96, 2001/02 - present
    • German Open 1995/96 - 1997/98
    • Irish Open 1998/99 only
    • Malta Grand Prix 1999/00 only
    • in summary, a European ranking tournament 1988/89 - present except 1995/96 (two tournaments) and 2000/01 (no tournament)
  • Dubai Duty Free Classic - 1989/90-1994/95
  • Welsh Open 1991/92 - present
  • Irish Masters 2002/03 - present
  • Classic - 1983/84 - 1991/92
  • Far East (complicated)
    • Hong Kong Open 1989/90
    • Asian Open/Thailand Open/Thailand Masters 1989/90 - 2001/02
    • Thailand Classic/Asian Classic/China International/China Open 1995/96 - 2001/02 except 1997/98
    • in summary, two in 1989/90, one 1990/91-1994/95, two 1995/96-1996/97, one 1997/98, two 1998/99-2001/02

--Auximines 10:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikify box[edit]

Do we still need the wikify box at the top of the page? Wwhyte 10:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It still needs season article links and a few other twiddles, but then I'd certainly want to see that cleanup tag go away. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anon's unsourced changes look significant[edit]

 – Source provided.

A IP address just made very significant changes without citing a source. Someone please verify that the changes are legitimate, or I'm liable to revert this on general principle. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's right. Reference to it was added by Betty Logan. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In and out of top 16[edit]

Sorry but why do we care about this? Why mention players who are not good enough to regularly retain a top 16 place, citing their "returns" as something positive is ridiculous.

True, but there are some notable points about being in and out of the top 16, such as the longest inside, Steve Davis return etc, and subsequent fall.

It ought to perhaps be mentioned that the importance of the ranking title has on a players career when looking back, for example Steve Davis may be contrasted on the number of ranking titles he won compared to Stephen Hendry, however Davis won the UK twice before it became a ranking event, something which distorts comparisons over time compared to players winning many of the future ranking events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is an out of date article. Rankings now change 3 times a year current #1 is Robertson someone needs to do a major rewrite to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More urgent update needed[edit]

This was just now (5 min. ago) posted to Facebook and Twitter by World Snooker's official accounts on these services: "The world rankings will be replaced by a rolling prize money list from 2014/15,,13165~2903595,00.html Let us know your views!" The URL goes to: There's also "Updated world rankings and order of merit,,13165~2902948,00.html". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Point about the prize money rankings which also needs to be made is that for example currently a seeded player losing their first match who is the 32-48 braket, wont receive as many points as a player who won a match (or more) to get to the final qualifying round, (i.e. an unseeded player), but when it changes to money, one wonders whether players will still receive the same money for losing in a given round, and how fair that will be on the rankings, for essentially someone will do just as well on the rankings for losing their first round match as they would if they won one or more to get to that round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Snooker world rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Betty Logan, you are the major contributor to this article - I think it needs a little bit of cleanup and it'd be suitable to take to GAN. Would you mind if I made some changes looking to nominate for promotion? I think it just needs some rewording, a copy edit and a few more sentences/citations and it'd be suitable.

If you have any reservations, let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's absolutely fine Lee. My work on it was generally confined to updating it when the rankings were overhauled in 2010 and adding sources to the page. There really isn't much substance here, but if you can squeeze a GA out of it then that would be great. Some of the references may have died since then though. I routine archive everything now if I can but I am not sure if I had started doing that back in 2010. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]