Talk:List of world number one snooker players

Williams

Resolved

Williams first won the World Championship in 2000, and was then world number one for the 2000/2001 season. Maybe it needs to be clarified that, although I think he was assured of the #1 spot whether he won or lost the final, he was not the reigning #1 without having won the Worlds.--MartinUK (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing by season

Resolved

 – Article now contains a "Season-end number one players" section. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The list should identify the seasons during which the number one position is held (as here), as the world rankings are generally calculated for each season. Other language wikis list by season. This would enable the list to show at a glance the long tenures of Reardon, Davis and Hendry. A source for listing by season, albeit not a particularly reputable one, is here. BartBassist (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

With the change in the ran kings system, the season identification became pointles. The rankings now changes after every ranking and minor-ranking tournament. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The season identification is surely still relevant for all of the seasons 1976/77 - 2009/10. It would be possible to split the table - have it work by season up until the point when the system was changed, and by date afterwards. BartBassist (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if added, than it shouldn't done like it was done previously. If a reliable source can be found, than add it. By the way the source you listed here is a mirror of an revision of the article, thus unreliable. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Week incrementer

Resolved

 – Problematic content was removed, and no comments in the last 9 months. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a slight difference between round and floor. Ideally we want to it to update after each full week so I think:

With floor:

1. April -> 0
2. April -> 0
3. April -> 0
4. April -> 0
5. April -> 0
6. April -> 0
7. April -> 0
8. April -> 1

With round 0:

1. April -> 0
2. April -> 0
3. April -> 0
4. April -> 0
5. April -> 1
6. April -> 1
7. April -> 1
8. April -> 1

Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. One week should be seven days on this list too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Armbrust, I think BlueFire spotted something wrong with the calculation. If you take Cliff Thorburn for instance, the Floor calculation gives this: {{#expr:floor (({{#time: U | 16 May 1982}}-{{#time: U | 21 April 1981}})/60/60/24/7) }} = 55. But if you check the calendar on your computer it is 56 weeks. The problem is because the dates run from Monday 16 April to Sunday 16 May 1982, instead of 17 May 1982. i.e. 55 weeks and 6 days, because Monday to Sunday is 6 days, but in reality Thorburn is number 1 for 55 weeks and 7 days (mon/tue/wed/thu/fri/sat/sun). The ranking updates need to run from Monday to Monday if we use the floor function for all of them. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The main problem with counting it by weeks it's, that it is completely unofficial and possibly original research. Maybe should change to count days instead of weeks, but I'm not really sure, that wouldn't have the same problems. Maybe they should be removed completely as original research. Also counting the ranking updates from Monday to Monday wouldn't work as most of the times the rankings couldn't be released on Monday before the final of the World Championship is finished. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with counting weeks is that the record was only ever counted in seasons traditionally, you couldn't be world number 1 for a week until 2010. I think we should get rid of the weeks and just count the season finishes as number 1. For instance, Selby finishing number 1 last season and this season is basically the same as Hendry finishing number 1 in 1990 and 1991. It doesn't matter that Selby lost the rank halfway through because it is irrelevant when you compare hims to Hendry; the only thing you can compare them on is season finishes as #1. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think counting the weeks is interesting for people and would work if we would use "round" because when a player is ranked #1 for 5 weeks and 6 days for example, it should be displayed as 6 weeks, so rounding the period. --BlueFire10 ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be still original research. No sources count the period they were number one in weeks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I would suggest it's the best to remove the statistics by week if it can't be sourced officially. --BlueFire10 ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Already done in this edit. There was event a note on the page saying "Statistics by week are unofficial.". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with counting weeks is that you can only really apply it from 2010 onwards. Hendry's record of 418 weeks is unlikely to ever be broken now, so it misrepresents the record. I think if we started measuring the period it would be done as days so it could be exact, and just for the rolling rank era. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

But there would be the problem of comparing the rolling rank era and the pre–rolling rank era. I think even that shouldn't be used until reliable sources do it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The addition of "Days" to the world number 1 calendar

I notice there is a dispute regarding whether we should add the total numbers of days the players retained the rank. I don't necessarily agree with Armbrust's argument that it is "original research" since simple calculations are permitted i.e. if we know the start and end date then the numbers of days can be easily calculated. However, I don't agree that the information should be added, at least not in this way. Another editor attempted to do the same thing except in weekly increments and this is discussed in the section directly above. The main problem I have with this sort of metric is that Mark Selby's stint at number 1 isn't directly comparable to Stephen Hendry's or Steve Davis. Davis and Hendry only had to hold down the rank at the end of the season to effectively hold it for another 365 days, whereas Selby has to hold down the rank after each and every tournament to "equal" that. The current rankings are not directly comparable to the historic rankings. I think there may be some scope in doing something like this for the rolling rankings but I don't approve of retrospectively applying it to the season ranks. One possibility would be to add another table like the season-end one for the rolling rankings charting the most number of days spent holding the number 1 rank. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Betty Logan's proposal. The different eras are not directly comparable. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well no-one has objected so we may as well just do it; the current changes were made without consensus anyway. There are several ways to do it but my preferred approach is to remove the "Days" and "Total" columns from the main table and add a couple of tables along the lines of List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players#Weeks_at_no._1 for players since 4 May 2010. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be better to remove the "Total" column at List_of_world_number-one_snooker_players#Periods and create a separate table for the totals, with one table entry for each player. At the moment if you sort the table by the totals then currently you get several entries for each player which isn't very useful. Anyone agree/disagree? Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of world number-one snooker players. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/64/71/0%2C%2C13165~160100%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217091612/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2243824%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2243824%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429202539/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2348379%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2348379%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104083607/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2968097%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2968097%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/b3/bb/0%2C%2C13165~179123%2C00.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/47/bd/0%2C%2C13165~179527%2C00.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/ab/c2/0%2C%2C13165~180907%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214182426/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/2/c5/0%2C%2C13165~181506%2C00.pdf to http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/2/c5/0%2C%2C13165~181506%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230170631/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/3e/c5/0%2C%2C13165~181566%2C00.pdf to http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/3e/c5/0%2C%2C13165~181566%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130113140/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/a7/c6/0%2C%2C13165~181927%2C00.pdf to http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/a7/c6/0%2C%2C13165~181927%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210235319/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/f9/c6/0%2C%2C13165~182009%2C00.pdf to http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/f9/c6/0%2C%2C13165~182009%2C00.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes from seasons to weeks in the Duration column

An editor has twice now changed the number of seasons to the number of weeks in the "Duration" column at List_of_world_number-one_snooker_players#Number_one_players. The first problem is that it makes little sense to add "(weeks)" to the column header when the metric for 2010 onwards is actually "days". Secondly, prior to 2010 the ranking updates occurred on a seasonal basis, not a weekly basis. Changing the metric from "seasons" to "weeks" for records prior to 2010 misrepresents how often the rankings were updated; it implies the rankings were updated on a weekly basis and not a seasonal basis and this is just incorrect. It was impossible for a player's ranking to change mid-way through a season. The metric should reflect the incremental nature of the rankings, and prior to 2010 this was done in seasons. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not completely happy with the current versions to be honest. I think it looks unprofessional how the "duration" metric changes from seasons to days halfway down the table. There are four options as to what we can do with the table:

1. Leave as it is even though it looks poor
2. Convert the seasons to days, although I profoundly disagree with this because it misrepresents how the rankings operated prior to 2010
3. Split the table (this would follow the approach taken with the two tables underneath)
4. Remove the duration column (I am not sure it adds that much to the table considering there are cumulative tables directly below)

If BrandonAriathas or any article-watchers would care to comment I would appreciate it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely go seasons, IMO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the column since BrandonAriathas can't let this drop, and has resumed edit-warring rather than coming here and discussing it. This layout just does not make sense i.e. having "weeks" in the column at the top and then changing metrics halfway down the column. There has been two different systems (one measured in seasons and the other days) and they are not directly comparable. At no point has World Snooker ever updated rankings weekly; they used to be updated once a season after the world championship and now they are updated the next day after a tournament. The durations are covered in the two tables directly below anyway so all the top table actually needs to do is provide the dates. On that note I think the column should be permanently left out, but if it is to be added back the format needs to be decided here first. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Season-end number-one players

I find the Per frequency table of Season-end number-one players very confusing. I propose that we simply have a list after the table, in prose form. Nigej (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Total time spent at #1

An IP editor has now altered the " Traditional system (1975–2010)" table in the "Total time spent at number one" section to state that Higgins spent FOUR years at #1 under the traditional seasonal ranking system. This is incorrect.

Higgins was ranked #1 in the 1998/99 season, the 1999/00 season and then the 2007/08 season under the traditional format. That is three seasons spent at #1 under the traditional system and is confirmed by the date table above i.e. he took over the #1 rank for the first time when the rankings were updated after the 1998 world championship, and he remained #1 until they updated after the 2000 world championship, and then he was officially ranked #1 again after the 2007 world championship and lost the rank when they were updated after the 2008 world championship.

Higgins also finished #1 at the end of the 2009/10 season. However, he did not spend the entire 2010/11 season as #1, because this was the season that the rankings converted to a rolling format. You can see from the table above that Robertson was ranked #1 between September and December 2010, with Higgins #1 on either side of that spell. However, Higgins' time as #1 during this season is logged in the "Rolling format (2010–present)" table, which counts all 287 days of the 2010/11 season.

These are the periods Higgins was ranked #1:

• 5 May 1998–1 May 2000
• 8 May 2007–5 May 2008
• 4 May 2010–26 September 2010
• 13 December 2010–2 May 2011

Therefore it is incorrect to say that Higgins spent four seasons as #1 under the traditional system. He finished the season as #1 four times (which is logged in "Season-end number-one players") but he only spent 3 seasons as #1 under the traditional system. This is easy to work out: as you can see from above, in total Higgins has spent 3 years and 287 days as #1 over both systems, NOT 4 years and 287 days (this can be calculated from the table with the dates above). This breaks down as 3 years/seasons under the traditional system and then 287 days under the rolling format.

I am restoring the WP:STATUSQUO and I strongly urge the IP to stop making the tables factually inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. What is perhaps confusing is that in the "Season-end number-one players" section we have "2009/2010 John Higgins" while in the main table we have "John Higgins 4 May 2010 to ..." which, rather confusingly, relates to the same period. Basically I find it confusing that the "Season-end" table has (for instance) 1974/1975 Ray Reardon - which means he was world number 1 in 1975/76. Also perhaps the heading in the main table which says "1975–2010" should say "1975/76–2009/10" and the "2010–present" should say "4 May 2010–present". That would be clearer for me. Perhaps Traditional and Rolling are not the best terms either. Nigej (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am open to using different names for these tables if it makes it clearer. Provided editors agree on the main issue then everything else is resolvable. As for the season end ranks the purpose of that table is to provide a comparison across the two systems, because you cannot compare Selby's tenure as #1 to Hendry's on a fair basis by just comparing periods, because Selby effectively has to defend his rank at every tournament. Of course, the table could be reconfigured to "season start" ranks and that would align the seasons and provide the same comparative snapshot across the two systems. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of the "season start" system, although I'm wondering whether the new season's "season start" is always identical to the previous season's "season end". Nigej (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Not for all the players because some get relegated from the tour which artificially promotes those below them at the start of the new season when they are re-ranked. However, the World #1 has always been the same. The one occasion where this could have been different was when they switched over to prize money rankings in 2013, but Selby finished the 2012/13 season on the points list as #1 and started the 2013/14 season as #1 on the prize money list thankfully preserving the continuity. I think it would be a better approach to have the seasons match up. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nigej: This has not been resolved as yet, but I think it needs to be. Do you want me to switch the table to "start ranks", because I am happy to go forward with that proposal if you would like? If not, then I can perhaps maybe add some explanatory text explaining why the end-season ranks don't match up with the periods in the above table. Betty Logan (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go for the season start idea. Nigej (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have implemented this, but have also made some further alterations to add clarity. If you disagree with any let me know and I will restore the previous versions. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Second image

There are two images on this page. I agree with the choice of the first image (I think it should show the incumbent #1) but the second image is somewhat arbitrary. I believe a better choice would be Hendry who had more year-end finishes as #1 than any other player. Therefore the two images would show the current #1 and the all-time #1. Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd have no issues with such a change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Total days/weeks at number one

We've recently had the addition of two tables here, combining the old annual system with the newer system which changes after every ranking event, to come up with tables of "Overall days/weeks spent at number one" taking us right back to 1975. Seems pretty obvious to me that we don't need both. The question is whether we need either. The idea came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2019/May#World Number Ones page in 2019, where consensus seemed to against the idea. But perhaps it's time for another discussion. Personally I stand by my previous point that it's like "like comparing chalk and cheese". However I notice that WPBSA do have the weekly totals combined at [7], although that is not referenced here. We've also got the additional issue of useless colours and bold which ought to be deleted. Nigej (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Nigej. It is completely artificial to measure Hendry's and Davis' tenure in weeks. They only had to secure the number #1 spot on one occasion each year, to stay there for 52 weeks. Selby literally had to finish number #1 after each tournament for every couple of weeks he held the spot. The records are simply not comparable. I appreciate that the WSA has a table that records the total number of weeks, but that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. We already have a table of season starts at #1 that does compare players of both eras in a much fairer way, and we can see from that to all intents and purposes that Selby is equivalent to Davis and Reardon once you level the playing field. There may be an argument for converting the metric form days to weeks if that is how World Snooker does it now, but the two new tables are superfluous IMO. If the decision is ultimately made to retain the combined table, then clearly we only need one. If World Snooker uses weeks as a metric that would be the one to retain, as it would be easily sourceable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I added the overall days table purely as a visual summary/comparison of the Periods section. I wasn't aware of the previous discussions about it potentially being added before, but reading all the previous comments including above, completely agree it's not needed (nor the weekly table). Andygray110 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's always the danger of discussions at WT:SNOOKER. Where possible discussions should be held on the talk page of the article. That way a history is left here. Nigej (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW Its been changed to a composite table now. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As @Betty Logan pointed out above, since the ranking system changed from updating once per year to more than a dozen times a year, it's not comparable. Perhaps a graphical timeline would be better, something like this? AmethystZhou (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Betty Logan here. We need a clear and distinct separation of the historical annual rankings system from the current rolling rankings system. Any effort to create composites of the two—whether on the basis of years, weeks, or days—is highly misleading. The increasing reliance on the "one-year ranking list" (on which Judd Trump is the current #1) makes the entire ranking system a mess right now, but that's not our fault. Our goal should be to explain the various rankings systems in a way that is accessible and easily understood by a general reader who is not necessarily familiar with all the ins and outs of it since 1975. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

Got to say that I find the timeline completely useless. To me it adds nothing to the tables. Nigej (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't find it helpful either. It is virtually impossible to decipher the later periods. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The table is basically the Periods table in graphical form, maybe some will find a visualization to be easier to read than numbers in a table. Although I'm not super happy with the EasyTimeline template myself. It renders the bars in whole pixels, and "rounds up" the time periods so it makes them visually longer than the exact length of time they represent. An .svg graphic will look much better, but can't have hyperlinks in them. If no one finds this graphic useful, please feel free to remove it from the page. AmethystZhou (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem though is that once you get to the rolling format era it is impossible to read off the chart the period somebody was number one. Also, the links don't seem to work either, although that could be a browser issue at my end. The whole point of figures is that you should be able to absorb the information at a glance, but there is no way to decipher this timeline without the help of the table, which defeats the purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)