i was thinkin anout this earlier.
im 7th on the overall list but i know if quick_pot played more rank id be 8th and probably a few others as well.
so i thought their should be like a score for everything you do to see who really is the best player.
ie ur rank is still done overall on average but you also get points on the best player list for 7ballers, run outs golden breaks and tourny wins etc.
so that way you would be able to see who the top players really are rather than just on current ranked form.
what you think ????

dont like this idea as all your basically asking for is extra points for tourni wins and golden breaks etc which has been discussed hundreds and hundreds of times before, you have just worded it differently.

Its a players choice to enter tournaments rather than do ranked games and if they are not higher on the ranking that is their own fault.

thats not what i mean, read it again im not on about rank im on about a new table that shows thetrue number one based on all rank and game achievemants

Edited by forum moderator martin_blank, at 11:10 Mon 11/06/07 (BST)

This is a fair and valid point!

I dont mean to rub my nose in it, but I've won 6 uk 8 ball tourneys (and should really have won a lot more) but my ranking is extremely average (about 740) simply because i cant stand ranking games! Id rather a host of tourney wins/7 ballings/GBs ahead of a high ranking anytime! Ther are many high ranked players who really aren't all that great, Im sure there are people who agree with this!

sounds a good idea

I fully agree with niallisgreat's comments about the rankings. No one will ever convince me that the top players in the rankings are the best players in each game - or overall. Madmiketyson - you painted a very clear picture of the ranking system on another thread where you said you would only play ranked games if you were playing well. Surely any true reflection of someone's ability should be based on all the games they play and against everybody rather than on specially chosen moments or even against specially chosen opponents. I personally think that tournament results alone would give a fairer reflection overall of someone's ability much as they do in real life sports. However I fully accept that there are a number of reasons why this can't work i.e. because of time zone issues or simply that some people cannot devote the two hours it can take to play a whole tournament. Madmike I can see exactly where you are coming from with this but ...

.. maybe this would be a good time to remember that the real reason we are all here is for fun. I know, as I am sure most of you do, who the best players are without needing to see it in some list. We have all seen in the last couple of days what happens to players when they try and unfairly gain rank presumably just to try and get the 'honour' and 'respect' of being top of some meaningless list.

Why don't we just leave things as they are and get on with enjoying the game and having fun!!!

Edited at 10:21 Mon 11/06/07 (BST)

Good point... and an easy way to see this is by a percentage of wins against games played. This would give an overall picture of all game splayed, both ranked and unranked. Obviously make it so that a minimum amount of games must be played to count (so that you cant retire on 100% after 1 win)... biut of course we already have percentages of wins, so all we need is a ranking table of it. For example shripman12 has won 78% of his games, but his ranking is 669.0 (36,625th), which is mad. So has middles_boro, but his ranking is 882.5 (5th). Who is the better player? (See also _steven_, although is there some controversy surrounding this name...?)

Win percentage alone means nothing. You could choose to play newbies, while others are playing the best and acheiving good rank but with more loses.

I like the system the way it is.

Good point, actually. Maybe then ranking all games woild do the trick....? And I'm suggesting that cos it's fresh in my mind cos it was suggested at another, currently live thread.

http://www.funkypool.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=10377

Win percentage means more than rank in my opinion. I'm way more wary of someone with a win %age above 70% than I am with someone of 850 rank.