World Pinball Player Rankings - looking to get feedback
Josh Sharpe
(http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=146310) about how
a point system for ranking marathon runners is being made to help
increase awareness of the sport. It is a very simple system, that uses
a 2 year moving period, with a point breakout for 1st through 5th
place. The breakout is 25, 15, 10, 5, and 1 point. A $1 million prize
purse will be split evenly between the top male and female series
finishers who rack up the most points during the two-year scoring
period.
Now in the pinball world, there is obviously no big prize at the end of
the tunnel, but I thought it might help increase awareness if maybe
there was some sort of official player rankings that can actually be
quantified. I found as many tournament results as I could, and I'm
using a 3 year period just so we have more data. I've had a chance to
consult a bunch of different players, and am currently developing a
system to rank pinball players OFFICIALLY.
There is still some international results that need to get included,
and a few additions on the US side as well, but here is how things
look. Read further down for a breakdown of how each tournament is
scored. We'll call them WPPR points for now :-)
1 Keith Elwin 431
2 Bowen Kerins 357
3 Neil Shatz 272
4 Roy Wils 218
5 Jim Belsito 210
6 Lyman Sheats 207
7 Chris Newsom 197
8 Josh Sharpe 174
9 Zach Sharpe 145
10 Trent Augenstein 124
11 Jörgen Holm 117
12 Stefan Andersson 109
13 Mats Runsten 100
14 Michael Lindström 96
15 Fredrik Lindberg 88
16 Paul Madison 82
17 Sean Grant 81
18 Andy Rosa 77
19 Albert Nomden 75
20 Dirk Klaver 70
21 Roger Wijnands 61
22 Andreas Harre 59
23 Karl Broström 58
24 Jason Werdrick 56
25 Reidar Spets 55
26 Mark van Duinen 52
27 Markus Stix 52
28 Patrik Bodin 51
29 Adam McKinnie 50
30 Ed Hershey 50
31 Steve Epstein 50
32 Per Holknekt 49
33 Linus Jorenbo 46
34 John Miller 42
35 Markus Salo 40
36 Mark Van Der Gugten 39
37 Brian Dominy 39
38 Keith Johnson 39
39 Fredrik Malmqvist 38
40 Mike Turack 38
41 Kevin Martin 37
42 Derek Fugate 36
43 Drew Cedolia 35
44 Daniel Schmatz 33
45 Paul Jongma 32
46 Taco Wouters 32
47 Stellan Blomqvist 31
48 Fred Richardson 31
49 Kim Brennan 30
50 James Furdell 30
51 Michel Van Den Elzen 30
52 Rick Prince 30
53 Andrei Massenkoff 29
54 Lars Ørskov Jensen 28
55 Paul McGlone 27
56 Mateo Leyba 27
57 Antoine van Wijk 27
58 Lars Ruehl 27
59 Martijn Van Amsterdam 27
60 Roland Nitsche 27
61 John McEwen 26
62 Jörg Buchacher 26
63 Martijn Van Aken 26
64 Martin Hotze 26
65 Ari Koivunen 25
66 Bob Winter 25
67 Georg Hinterhofer 25
68 Lars Preben Arnesen 25
69 Peter Van den Bergh 25
70 Szalai Krisztián 25
71 Vesa Tyry 25
72 Dave Stewart 23
73 Dave Hegge 22
74 Mike Mahaffey 22
75 Darren Kamnitzer 21
76 Rick Stetta 21
77 Bjorn Englund 20
78 Helena Walter 20
79 Ronald Blass 20
80 Ciske Vreuls 19
81 Sean Hall 19
82 Donavan Stepp 17
83 Eko Elens 17
84 Markus Straube 17
85 Ralph Beckers 17
86 Brian Bannon 17
87 Jeff Rank 15
88 Antti Peltonen 15
89 Ari Sovijärvi 15
90 Barna Péter 15
91 Cody Chunn 15
92 Glenn Gilliar 15
93 Jörgen Lindström 15
94 Jost Berger 15
95 Jostein Kastet 15
96 Lars Petterson 15
97 Magnus Frumerie 15
98 Markus Hofschuster 15
99 Robert Byers 15
100 Sebastian Sievers 15
101 Steven Bowden 15
102 Tero Malinen 15
103 Steve Walker 15
104 Henrik Olaison 14
105 Colin Horner 13
106 Eric Fisher 13
107 Frank Carr 13
108 Georg Lattner 13
109 Kevin Dreyling 13
110 Mark Beardsley 13
111 Roger Sharpe 13
112 John Kosmal 13
113 Norbert Broman 12
114 Jorian Engelbrektsson 11
115 Andranik Ghalustians 10
116 Frank Zieger 10
117 Georg Mathiesen 10
118 Jon Christian 10
119 Jonny Hagman 10
120 Juha Juntunen 10
121 Kevin Smigel 10
122 Lynn Lyons 10
123 Martin Restin 10
124 Mika Koillinen 10
125 Nicky Lindström 10
126 Norbert Heuber 10
127 Randy Thacker 10
128 Szebeni László 10
129 Don White 10
130 Magnus Rostö 9
131 John Ross 9
132 Marty Dompierre 8
133 Marc Gratton 8
134 Allan Vrooman 8
135 Gerhard Hornik 8
136 Hans Kollmann 8
137 Ingrid Pavitschitz 8
138 Josef Hofbauer 8
139 Markus Krug 8
140 Norbert Friedl 8
141 Roland Schwarz 8
142 Julie Schober 8
143 Scott Sidley 8
144 Jerry Duffy 8
145 Phil Thibault 7
146 Joe Weiss 7
147 Sergio Johnson 7
148 Don Brownback 7
149 Jody de Graaf 7
150 Don Coons 7
151 Rob Craig 6
152 Duane Yeager 6
153 Brian Martinez 6
154 Jeff Palmer 6
155 Bram Lemmens 6
156 Svante Ericsson 6
157 Victor Håkansson 6
158 Jennie Duffy 6
159 Terry Newland 6
160 Tom Knorst 6
161 Tom Terlecky 6
162 Steve Rothschild 5
163 Chris Wamsley 5
164 David Burrier 5
165 Tim Zollner 5
166 Alex Samonte 5
167 Ari Paananen 5
168 Christian Balac 5
169 Christian Wirth 5
170 Eric Stone 5
171 Gerhard Pilgerstorfer 5
172 Jarkko Kuoppamäki 5
173 Jim Shird 5
174 Korbinian Ott 5
175 Lauren Helen Sletbakk 5
176 Martin Adellbrecht 5
177 Martin Eder 5
178 Per Persson 5
179 Stefan Geis 5
180 Stefan Karlhuber 5
181 Stephanie Lindstrom 5
182 Werner Konrad 5
183 Wolfgang Schmieger 5
184 Glenn Wilson 5
185 Dennis Nadler 4
186 Wendi Jankowitz 4
187 Dennis Blankenship 4
188 Steve Widdowson 4
189 Brian Shepherd 4
190 Daniel Goett 4
191 Penni Epstein 4
192 Rush Luangsuwan 4
193 Therese Edwards 4
194 Carol Walker 4
195 Brian Lamug 4
196 Rudy Keiser 4
197 Adi Barp 4
198 Adriaan Van Roeden 4
199 Alberto Santana 4
200 Alex Duin 4
201 Frank Wolthers 4
202 Hans Bijsterveld 4
203 Helen Verbeek 4
204 Jochen Ludwig 4
205 Martin Ayub 4
206 Michael Trepp 4
207 Noel Steere 4
208 Peter Van Vliet 4
209 Robert Sutter 4
210 Wilbert Ber Kinderen 4
211 Yoshihimo Fujisawa 4
212 Steve Fry 4
213 Jason Magnuson 4
214 Jody Crooks 3
215 Don Merki 3
216 Robert Harris 3
217 Mark Jenison 3
218 Orin Day 3
219 Alysa Parks 3
220 Chuck Sanderson 3
221 Dennis Zollner 3
222 Jahn Amato 3
223 Jason Weibel 3
224 Ken Walker 3
225 Mark Salas 3
226 Mike Degrongoski 3
227 Rick Swanson 3
228 Greg Dunlap 3
229 Anders Carlsson 3
230 Henrik Lagercrantz 3
231 Jörgen Sandström 3
232 Nicklas Karlbom 3
233 Oscar Olsson 3
234 Pelle Nyrén 3
235 Robert Chesnavich 3
236 Ryan Sharp 3
237 Mikael Huselius 3
238 Brian Lamug 3
239 Bryan Jozwiak 3
240 Kerry Stair 3
241 Joe Schober 3
242 Dan Wilson 3
243 Pete Melody 3
244 Dino Gaspari 3
245 Jay Howard 3
246 Chris Enright 2
247 Lorena California 2
248 Ron Carmody 2
249 Chris Kubie 2
250 Greg Byrnes 2
251 Koi Morris 2
252 Mike Gratton 2
253 Paul Sommers 2
254 Phil Haagensen 2
255 Adam Meilink 2
256 Albert Medaillon 2
257 Alexandru Cobzas 2
258 Andy de Ruiter 2
259 Aurélie Bona 2
260 Barry de Wit 2
261 Bob Schmidt 2
262 Brenn Oosterbaan 2
263 Carlos García Montoro 2
264 Damoy Beals 2
265 David Deturck 2
266 David Houwers 2
267 Dennis Verleyen 2
268 Derokt Anders 2
269 Detlef Ralph 2
270 Eden Stamm 2
271 Edwin Nijs 2
272 Edwin Van De Berg 2
273 Egbert van Vulpen 2
274 El Guapo 2
275 Erik Swetter 2
276 Franck Bona 2
277 Gerard Poelwijk 2
278 Gerard Ypelaar 2
279 Gonzalo Miranda 2
280 Gregor Bremer 2
281 Henrik Andersson 2
282 Ingo Gerhardt 2
283 Jack Quisbert 2
284 Javier Nùñez 2
285 Jeff Stouffer 2
286 Jens Hållstrand Möller 2
287 Jeroen Van Baast 2
288 Joakim Stork 2
289 Joep Mertens 2
290 Johan Björklund 2
291 Joris Dekker 2
292 Jos Dijkhuizen 2
293 Joska Keunekamp 2
294 Juan Escuder 2
295 Kees Augustinus 2
296 Klass Oenema 2
297 Lieven Englebeen 2
298 Marcel van Tol 2
299 Marnix Van Maarle 2
300 Matthijs Hoetjes 2
301 Maurice Schouten 2
302 Max Jore 2
303 Maxime de Heij 2
304 Michael Münch 2
305 Michel Van De Sar 2
306 Niklaus Gysi 2
307 Pascal van Wongerghem 2
308 Paul Van Der Helm 2
309 Peter Johansson 2
310 Pierre Riessen 2
311 Pieter Berends 2
312 Purre Persson 2
313 Remy Jurrissen 2
314 Richard Baan 2
315 Rikard Åberg 2
316 Robert de Vries 2
317 Robert Rodenburg 2
318 Roger Jonsson 2
319 Roger Jurrissen 2
320 Ronald Blass 2
321 Rudy Grootjans 2
322 Stefan Hoppe 2
323 Sylvain Grevin 2
324 Tibor Steenbrink 2
325 Todd Seaver 2
326 Ulrika Telerud 2
327 Urs Hänseler 2
328 Yann Baratte 2
329 Tina Curtis 2
330 Dawn Marsh 2
331 Eden Stamm 2
332 Jeff Stoufer 2
333 T Weber 2
334 N Foss 2
335 Timmy California 1
336 Janet Stevens 1
337 Maurice Zollner 1
338 Bob Rohge 1
339 Al Kuester 1
340 Aron Boag 1
341 Dan Dolney 1
342 Dean Grover 1
343 Jeff Giesting 1
344 Kim Anding 1
345 Larry Scott 1
346 Mike McAndrew 1
347 Mike Schudel 1
348 Moe Zollner 1
349 R.G. Halltt 1
350 R.J. Hallet 1
351 Ralk Engelbrecht 1
352 Roya 1
353 Terry Nelson 1
354 Tim Post 1
355 Adam Reuterskiöld 1
356 Anders Gabrielsson 1
357 Bob Stemmler 1
358 Brett Fuerer 1
359 Christian Magnusson 1
360 Dan Hoekstra 1
361 Daniel Norbäck 1
362 Darrin Fairbanks 1
363 David Kjellberg 1
364 Eskil Österberg 1
365 Greg Lindsay 1
366 Gustav Gillberg 1
367 Joakim Andersson 1
368 Johan Bäckman 1
369 Johan Genberg 1
370 Johan Lundin 1
371 John Graves 1
372 John Malinen 1
373 Jörgen Boström 1
374 Lars Blomgren 1
375 Marcus Sundqvist 1
376 Mattias Söderpalm 1
377 Melissa Wilson 1
378 Mikael Huselius 1
379 Mikael Telerud 1
380 Nate Hart 1
381 Nic Wallonius 1
382 Pär Gredeus 1
383 Rasmus Andersson 1
384 Robert Jägare 1
385 Rolph Ericsson 1
386 Stefan Segars 1
387 Steve May 1
388 Thomas Jacobsson 1
389 Thomas Lahham 1
390 Tiina Rytky 1
391 Tobias Lund 1
392 Torbjörn Molander 1
393 Ulrika Trehn 1
394 Buddy Walter 1
395 Patrick Sperry 1
396 Dave Mercer 1
397 Dave Williams 1
Josh Sharpe
PAPA (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify in A-Division (8 points)
Top Qualifier in A-Division (10 points)
Advance to Round of 8 (4 points)
Advance to Round of 4 (4 points)
1st through 4th place in A-Division (100/60/40/20 points)
Qualify in Classics I Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 4 in Classics I (1 point)
Advance to Round of 2 in Classics I (1 point)
1st through 4th place in Classics I (50/30/20/10 points)
Qualify in Classics II Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 4 in Classics II (1 point)
Advance to Round of 2 in Classics II (1 point)
1st through 4th place in Classics II (50/30/20/10 points)
Pinball Expo (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify in A-Division (4 points)
Qualify in B-Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 4 in A-Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 4 in B-Division (1 point)
Advance to Round of 2 in A-Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 2 in B-Division (1 point)
1st through 4th place in A-Division (50/30/20/10 points)
Winner of B-Division (4 points)
1st and 2nd place in Manufacturer's (10/5 points)
Winner of Grand Wizard match (10 points)
PinBrawl (2005, 2004, 2003)
Total MVP Points (Total points / 10)
Winner of A-Division (3 points)
Winner of B-Division (2 points)
Winner of C-Division (1 point)
Texas Pinball Festival (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify in Wizard Tournament (1 point)
1st through 3rd place in Wizard Tournament (25/15/10 points)
1st through 3rd place in Classics Tournament (13/8/5 points)
Mayday Pinball Tournament (2005)
Qualify in PinMasters Division (2 points)
Advance to Round of 8 (1 point)
Advance to Round of 4 (1 point)
Advance to Round of 2 (1 point)
1st through 4th place (50/30/20/10 points)
Pinball Circus Tournament (2005)
1st through 4th place (13/8/5/3 points)
Heartland Pinball Show (2005)
Qualify for Showdown at Sundown Tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place (25/15/10/5 points)
California Extreme (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify for Main Tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in Main Tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
1st through 4th place in No Limit Tournament (13/8/5/3 points)
Rocky Mountain Pinball Showdown (2005, 2004)
Qualify for Open Tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in Open Tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
1st place in Classics Tournament (13 points)
Pinball at the Zoo (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify for Open Tournament (1 point)
1st through 3rd place in Open Tournament (25/15/10 points)
1st place in Classics Tournament (13 points)
P3 Tournament (2005, 2004)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Fairfax Pinball Tournaments (2005, 2004)
1st through 4th place in Annual Open (25/15/10/5 points)
1st through 4th place in Winter (other) tournaments (13/8/5/3
points)
Video Video Tournament (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Josh Sharpe
German Pinball Open (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify in tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Stockholm Pinball Open (2005, 2004)
Qualify in main tournament (2 points)
1st through 4th place in main tournament (50/30/20/10 points)
1st through 3rd place in Classics tournament (25/15/10 points)
Swedish Pinball Championships (2005, 2004, 2003)
Qualify in tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
European Pinball Championships (2005)
Qualify in tournament (2 points)
1st through 4th place in tournament (50/30/20/10 points)
Danish Open Championships (2005, 2004)
Qualify in tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Dutch Pinball Open (2004, 2003)
Qualify in tournament (2 points)
1st through 4th place in tournament (50/30/20/10 points)
Hungarian Pinball Tournament
1st through 3rd place in tournament (25/15/10 points)
Neulengbach Open (2005, 2004)
1st through 3rd place in tournament (13/8/5 points)
Nossebro Pinball Master (2005)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Pinball Master Goteborg (2005)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Pinball Master Lidkoping (2005, 2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Sonder Wett Flippern (2005)
1st through 3rd place in tournament (25/15/10 points)
Sorkka Pinball Open (2005, 2004)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Austrian Pinball Race (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (13/8/5/3 points)
Battle for the Kingdom (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Belgian Pinball Open (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
German Autumn Championships (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Graceland Open (2004)
1st through 3rd place in tournament (25/15/10 points)
Gavie Open (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Regional Pinball Tournament (2004, 2003)
1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Norwegian Pinball Championships (2003)
Eric Schmitt
first in a few of those shows wouldnt even ammount to expo.......lot of
things to work out from what I've put together.
--Eric
"Josh Sharpe" <pin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138653532.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Josh Sharpe
Eric Schmitt wrote:
> So in other words, you've really gotta go places to get up there....winning
> first in a few of those shows wouldnt even ammount to expo.......lot of
> things to work out from what I've put together.
>
> --Eric
>
I don't think I understand what you are saying Eric. Winning two
smaller shows (like Kalamazoo and Fairfax Open) awards the same amount
as winning Expo.
Tournaments have been broken out into Major tournaments, Regular
tournaments and Minor tournaments.
Major tournaments score double that of Regular tournaments, so figure
you have to do twice as much to make up the same number of points.
In general though, to be top 10 or 20 in the world you really have to
try and play in alot of tournaments, which is what I'm hoping will
happen. Also to be top 10 or 20, you better absolutely make some noise
in the Major tournaments. Tournaments like PAPA, Expo, the Stockholm
Open and the Eurpoean Pinball Championships is this sport's Grand Slam
right now. Similar to golf or tennis, you better perform at these shows
to be considered pinball elite. There is however alot of wiggle room
for spots 30 through 100 where you can really impact your ranking by
simply playing in more tournaments. Giving people additional motivation
to play in as many tournaments as they can will defintely help out the
tournament directors at these events and the sport in general.
What were some of your thoughts Eric?
-Josh
RD
Lloyd Olson
a diary section with upcoming events. LTG :)
"RD" <r...@agametickets.com> wrote in message
news:1138659653....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Josh Sharpe
www.pinball.org in the tournaments section.
My plan is to update these rankings once a month, and include the
tournaments for the upcoming months. I will also include the WPPR
points that will be available at the appropriate tournament.
For example . . . next tournament:
Fairfax Pinball Open
March 17th - 19th 2006
John's Place Restaurant, Hilltop Shopping Center, 11104 Lee Highway,
Fairfax, VA, 22031, USA. "No limit" pinball Friday night, main
tournaments Saturday, doubles tournament on Sunday.
There are two tournaments at Fairfax that are WPPR eligible. They are
the following:
"No Limit" tournament:
1st place - 13 points
2nd place - 8 points
3rd place - 5 points
4th place - 3 points
The Main tournament (Wizards division):
1st place - 25 points
2nd place - 15 points
3rd place - 10 points
4th place - 5 points
This is a good chance to players within the surrounding area to get a
jump on the 2006 tournament season! I know Chris Newsom and Paul
McGlone would be excited to have a nice big turnout for the event. Go
get those valuable WPPR points!!
-Josh Sharpe
Bri...@aol.com
Josh Sharpe wrote:
> Lloyd is right. Pinball News has alot of the events listed as does
> www.pinball.org in the tournaments section.
>
> My plan is to update these rankings once a month, and include the
> tournaments for the upcoming months. I will also include the WPPR
> points that will be available at the appropriate tournament.
>
Josh, first of all I wanted to acknowledge the massive amount of work
and data entry that this initial list represents. You have put in a
great deal of time and effort to try to further the cause of
competitive pinball. Now that your database is setup, additional data
entry will not be as tedious.
I think you will see more people make an effort to attend these events,
because you cannot get any WPPR points unless you show up to the event.
Those that want to see how they match up with other players will
especially try to pickup a point here and there. Of course, some
players will not care at all and will ignore the lists. You may also
look at distinguishing players that attain a certain rank consistently
by use of a title. Don't laugh, ever wonder how certain chess players
are titled as Grandmaster, master, expert?
Activity has a lot to do with these initial rankings. Taking nothing
away from the top 15, but when I see Paul Madison at number 16 I just
know he should be ranked higher. Same with some others I saw on the
list.
Good luck with it.
Brian Bannon
drop...@gmail.com
interesting. Will be fun checking out the top changes in this ranking
table. It is nice to see someone promoting competitive pinball in this
way.
It must also be pointed out that it is not straightforward to make a
fair World Pinball Player Ranking. In fact, I can´t think of any
method to construct such a ranking that would be without oddities. For
instance, knowing the pinball skills of most of the swedish players, I
would say that there are some strange rankings among swedish players
using this method. But this is the way it goes and hopefully it will
even out in the long run. :)
Cayle George
players/points in the last 6 or 3 month period. Would be a good way to
give good players who do not compete often, a way to get recognition
for doing well in tournaments.
-cAyle
abc123...@iquest.net
>
>1 Keith Elwin 431
>343 Jeff Giesting 1
Josh,
Thanks for putting forth the extraordinary effort to compile this
database/list. I think it's great idea!
I was wondering if this database will be used to - among other things
- properly seed the teams in Pinbrawl? It seems as though the list would be
decent indicator of a player's skill level...
Thanks again!
Jeff Giesting
(Who will never appear anywhere near KME on a leader board again...)
S_T_A_R G_A_Z_E_R Owners List: http://members.iquest.net/~abc123/sg.html
My Homepage: http://members.iquest.net/~abc123/
Remove the "nospam" from my e-mail address to send me a message.
Josh Sharpe
throughout the development of the ranking system. Originally he was
ranked far lower, because Paul really hasn't performed too great in the
past 3 years. I'll be the first to tell you that he's a wayyyy better
player than I am, but to get in the top 10, the common thread among
those players is that they have WON an event.
For those players that feel they are "under-ranked", this 2006 season
is a great way to get some key WPPR points. I know after looking at the
results, my brother really wants to be in the top 5, and is now
considering a trip to Sweden for the European tournaments. This is the
kind of response I'm looking for. The points are out there for the
taking now according to how the events break down. I'm sure Paul will
pick up his fair share in 2006 and 2007 and see himself back in the top
5 . . . or will he???? :-)
-Josh
Josh Sharpe
qualifying information for some of the tournaments. Once I get that
info, I'll be able to include those points, along with additional
points for advancing to the round of 8, 4, etc. Expect every Swedish
player to get a bump in the next couple of months as I finish getting
all the tournament information.
Thanks for the comments!
-Josh
Josh Sharpe
That's a great idea and something I plan on doing! I plan on announcing
those that have received WPPR points each month the sheet is updated.
There will also be a "Hot List" of those that have increased their
total points. I plan on updating that every 3 months or so. Get a good
string of tournaments together and ANYBODY could see their name on the
HOT LIST!! :-)
thanks,
Josh
Josh Sharpe
This list will absolutely be used to help rank teams more effectively
for next year's tournament. I actually did a mini-ranking system for
PinBrawl to try and rank people the best I could, but after reading
that article about the marathon system, the fire under my butt was lit
and I was off and running. Actually had a conversation with Koz today
about PinBrawl VIII, and things are already starting to develop. Once I
get all the match results up, and we get organized to a point to where
we are comfortable, look for registration to start - and most likely
fill up quickly :-)
The comments from the last tournament were great from all the
competitors! We're going to try and do plaques for 2nd place, and
include some other things that many of the players were commenting on.
Can't wait for it to get here!
-Josh (who is kind of sick of looking at the PinBrawl banner hanging in
his basement until it can be used for the next tournament)
KME
"Power Points" or "Knocker Rocker Points"
cch...@comcast.net
Good job, old man!
Dang, I need to get to more than one show a year...:(
-cody
CARGPB#4
Josh Sharpe
KME wrote:
> Dude, come on "WPPR Points"??? You need something cool and catchy like
> "Power Points" or "Knocker Rocker Points"
It does sound like the call letters to some radio station doesn't it??
"W-L-V-S!!!!!"
I need something that is easily identifiable when they are talking
about the latest rankings on Sportscenter 5 years from now :-)
I can see Stuart Scott now . . .
"And Elwin was like BOOYAH at PAPA 15!!! His 118 WPPR points has won
him the 2012 Coca-Cola Pinball Cup. Elwin was cool as the other side of
the pillow as he fought off an aging Lyman Sheats in the final rounds.
For finishing second, Sheats only took home $1.6 million dollars
compared to Elwin's $5 million payday. Back to the studio . . . "
:-)
-Josh
Bowen Kerins
play Global Thermonuclear War...
- Bowen, who prefers his WPPR points plain, with cheese
Eric Schmitt
if you win?
--Eric
Josh Sharpe
Eric Schmitt wrote:
> looks like your qualifying will help feed your score, or are they eliminated
> if you win?
>
> --Eric
In the Majors, any qualifying rounds or quarterfinal/semifinal rounds
will get added to the points you receive when you place. For minor
tournaments, the qualifying points are eliminated if you place in the
top 4 of the tournament.
For example:
For winning PAPA 8, Bowen got 116 WPR points
8 points for qualifying, 4 for advancing to the semifinals, 4 for
advancing to the finals, and 100 for finishing in first place
At last year's Pinball At the Zoo, Chris Newsom simply got 25 WPR
points for winning, and not the additional point for qualifying. (He
also got 13 WPR points for winning the Classics division). Walking away
with 38 points from the Zoo was a killer tournament for him. How is
that Mousin' Around? ;-)
Hope that clears some things up for you Eric. Best of luck in '06!
-Josh
CAH
Josh Sharpe wrote:
> At last year's Pinball At the Zoo, Chris Newsom simply got 25 WPR
> points for winning, and not the additional point for qualifying. (He
> also got 13 WPR points for winning the Classics division). Walking away
> with 38 points from the Zoo was a killer tournament for him.
ah, you had an eyewitness account to THAT, from what I hear :-)
> 105 Colin Horner 13
damn right
LeaveManyCredits
I just put it out on location in Fairfax, it's gotta earn its keep. ;)
Like Josh said, come out to Fairfax on March 17-19 for the 3rd Annual
Fairfax Pinball Open. Get those treasured WPPR points.
Website here:
http://www.virginiapinball.org/
Look for tournaments updates for the FPO in about a week or so. We
will have many tournaments running throughout the weekend, cash games
will be available, possible classics tournament at the rooftop cafe
(weather permitting), 20 or so clean, working pins, the return of the
frosty glass mini-tournament along with other minis, and much more
competitive pinball action!
Guaranteed prize amounts and detailed tournament rules to come soon.
Thanks for all of your work on the rankings, Josh.
Chris
LStarrASL
needs autographs, 8x10's, his magazine cover when he was on Tiger Beat,
Teen Dream, Seventeen, or Cosmo girl let me know....
Why couldn't you have been good at something that had groupies? That
way I could get some of your leftovers....Godddd Damit
Mr. Paul from Virginia
This is great! I like the whopper name, and I like the format.
True, it will be inherently unfair to a few great players, but they
know who they are, and they can always point at their PAPA results.
The value of the interest created by so many average competitive
players should outweigh the disadvantage to those few great players who
only play in one event per year.
In the past I had tried to research the formulas used for the
computerized world rankings for Golf and Tennis, but it seems to be
quite complicated. They use a moving weighted scale to reward more
recent performance but include everything for 2 years, etc.
This format encourages folks like us to travel around to the smaller
shows and tournaments. Your example about Newsom scoring big at the
'Zoo is right on point. Only 16 players can score at PAPA, but plenty
of folks can score a few points at the dozens of other tournaments, and
most of those other tournaments need more players!
Once you have this firmed up, I'll certainly tout our tournaments in
Fairfax as "a great chance to earn WPPR points".
btw, The Mousin' Around is now on location. We actually used it in
the Winter Tournament! So come to FPO and play an all-day game on the
MA, lol.
Paul
midd...@cox.net
I commend you for doing the work to get this excellent idea rolling.
Recognizing that no system is perfect, I have some comments which you
can choose to ignore if you like (I'm sure that's what my son will do):
(1) Others have brought up the idea of looking at a shorter more recent
timeframe as well. In general competitive sports seem to focus on
having yearly seasons, so it might make sense to develop a timeframe
for the Pinball Competitive Season and recognize an annual Champion
based on totals for that Season (Year). Then you could also have the
Consistency Champion or something like that for the one with the most
points over the past 3 or 5 Seasons (Years). There could even be an
annual "challenge" between the two at some event that closely follows
the end of the official season in time (wouldn't that be exciting if
they were both the same person!).
(2) There seems to be some inconsistency in the treatment of the
inclusion of Divisions from tournament to tournament. For example, B
Division was not included in PAPA but was included in Expo tallies.
Having attended both of these, I'd say B Division is comparably
competitive in both, so I'm surprised that points weren't either
included or not included in both instances.
(3) Frankly, if the goal is to enhance the exposure and attendance at
these events, I'd lobby to provide points for success in all
tournaments at all levels (why not give that winner of the Seniors
Division at PAPA some points to make his remaining years that much more
enjoyable or give points to those Juniors to enhance the future of
pinball). To offset this, just increase the level of the points
awarded for the higher divisions and award "token" points to the lower
divisions (kind of like 90's game score levels for the A division and
EM score levels for the C Division if you know what I mean). I don't
think it will matter much if the list has 400 names or 600 names or 800
names on it since the top 100 names on the list would likely be the
same regardless of what tournaments are included if the point system is
designed well.
(5) How would events such as Vegas upcoming Fabulous Fantasies
tournament be handled? Would the system be limited to "annual" events
or "sanctioned" events and what makes an event an annual or sanctioned
event?
- Brian
Josh Sharpe
midd...@cox.net wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I commend you for doing the work to get this excellent idea rolling.
>
> Recognizing that no system is perfect, I have some comments which you
> can choose to ignore if you like (I'm sure that's what my son will do):
I'll never ignore any comments about the system. Bringing up ideas,
even if they are not used, only help make it better.
>
> (1) Others have brought up the idea of looking at a shorter more recent
> timeframe as well. In general competitive sports seem to focus on
> having yearly seasons, so it might make sense to develop a timeframe
> for the Pinball Competitive Season and recognize an annual Champion
> based on totals for that Season (Year). Then you could also have the
> Consistency Champion or something like that for the one with the most
> points over the past 3 or 5 Seasons (Years). There could even be an
> annual "challenge" between the two at some event that closely follows
> the end of the official season in time (wouldn't that be exciting if
> they were both the same person!).
That could be an idea. I know in Golf -Player of the Year honors is
actually based on a 2 year moving scale. There are other rankings where
(I think Tennis) this past year is worth more than the year before even
though both are included. I think eventually I'd love to have a user
option with the rankings to include the past year, 2, 3, 5, etc. For
now, we're sticking with the 3! :-)
>
> (2) There seems to be some inconsistency in the treatment of the
> inclusion of Divisions from tournament to tournament. For example, B
> Division was not included in PAPA but was included in Expo tallies.
> Having attended both of these, I'd say B Division is comparably
> competitive in both, so I'm surprised that points weren't either
> included or not included in both instances.
There is consistency actually . . . let me explain. The WPR points are
for Open tournaments only. The one division included that is not Open
is Manufacturer's at Expo which I will discuss later.
The B-Division at PAPA is not included because it's not an Open
division. Certain people are restricted from playing in the division,
so therefore it does not qualify for the rankings. You'll see that
Senior's divisions, Women's divisions, Veteran's divisions
(international), etc. are all not used in the rankings. For those
players in B-Division that do well in B-Division, hopefully this system
will get them to try their hands at the A-Division for some WPR points.
The difference with Expo, is that even though there is an A and a B
Division, it is an Open tournament to begin with. The divisions are not
broken up until the finals begin. That's why you will often hear Expo
division referred to as "A division" and "A-minus division". That's why
results from both divisions are included in the rankings, with point
priority given to the true A-Division even though SOME points can be
earned for qualifying in the A-minus division.
Manufacturer's is a unique situation. Because players like Keith
Johnson and Lyman Sheats, who are without a doubt both top 50 in the
World, are forced out of the Open tournament because they currently
work at Stern, the "panel" that I was discussing these rankings with
did not feel it was fair that these guys were missing out on one of
only 3 Major tournaments in the US. Perhaps if Expo wasn't such a
valuable tournament in terms of WPR points, we wouldn't include them.
The panel decided that some points, however minimal should be given out
to Manufacturer's division, with the opportunity for more points should
they beat the Open champion to win the Grand Wizard.
>
> (3) Frankly, if the goal is to enhance the exposure and attendance at
> these events, I'd lobby to provide points for success in all
> tournaments at all levels (why not give that winner of the Seniors
> Division at PAPA some points to make his remaining years that much more
> enjoyable or give points to those Juniors to enhance the future of
> pinball). To offset this, just increase the level of the points
> awarded for the higher divisions and award "token" points to the lower
> divisions (kind of like 90's game score levels for the A division and
> EM score levels for the C Division if you know what I mean). I don't
> think it will matter much if the list has 400 names or 600 names or 800
> names on it since the top 100 names on the list would likely be the
> same regardless of what tournaments are included if the point system is
> designed well.
I see your point, but the overall rankings are really to rank the best
pinball players in the world. To see where you stack up, the point is
to have to play against the best pinball players in the world. Just
because I won Junior's division at PAPA 5, I don't think you could even
begin to try and stack me against any other A, B or C division players.
I've played Junior's, played C division at PAPA 6, played through B
Division at Pinburgh and have now settled in as an A division player.
I'm proof that for those Junior's, it's only a matter of time until you
get to the level where you can battle the best. I'm trying to keep the
system simple, and it is supposed to be hard for each and every point
someone is going to get. No free points! :-)
>
> (5) How would events such as Vegas upcoming Fabulous Fantasies
> tournament be handled? Would the system be limited to "annual" events
> or "sanctioned" events and what makes an event an annual or sanctioned
> event?
>
I'll try to get in touch with the tournament director and see how they
plan to run things. I know that based off of who may be attending,
there is a chance that this becomes the 3rd major tournament in the US
(with MayDay stepping down in rank to a regular tournament)
I can only include tournaments I know about, so I guess that's what
makes it sanctioned. I really need info on the tournament itself.
Simple TOPS locations or anything like that probably will not be
included, but it'll be a case by case basis.
Annual events are the only events that are worth 25 points. Any
additional minor tournaments that are run more than once a year
(Pinball Circus in Minnesota for example) is at a reduced point scale.
If you know a tournament that is coming up, please let me know and I
can try to get in touch with the director and we can include it in the
rankings!
> - Brian
Thanks for the comments Brian!! Keep them coming!
-Josh
midd...@cox.net
Thanks for the quick responses to my comments and...
As Homer might say...HOLY CRAP!
The well stated and researched responses proved how much careful
thought you put into the whole process of getting this ranking system
started.
- Brian
LeaveManyCredits
Chris
Franck from France
There is a kind of discrimination in your ranking, sorry to tell you
this but think about the people you compete a lot in europe and can not
afford a trip to papa every year. This is the case for Aurélie Bona
ranked 259 and Franck Bona ranked 276 it is a perfect exemple !
Aurélie Won the european tournament in 1997 like me and Aurélie won
in 2005 in female section. I finished in las vegas papa champion' s
section number 2 (just behind albert nomden 84 points)and play in b so
it mean s no points at all but I came in papa ! Aurélie was 6th in
papa las vegas female section her name was nicq because we was not
married, josh please check this out, Auréli and I deserve a little
better ranking.
Bowen Kerins
that says "My Son Saved Competitive Pinball"?
As for the rankings, keep in mind that they only include tournaments
from the past 3 years. Perhaps older PAPA tournaments should be
included. The majority of Albert Nomden's 84 points comes from his win
at DPO 2003. I think one thing that these rankings encourage is
players feeling they should be ranked better -- in which case they'll
play more events. I know Josh hasn't published all the points and
where they come from, but be assured that many, MANY European events
are included in the rankings. In total, more European events (41) are
included in the rankings than events held in the United States (30).
I do think there is something to be said for giving points in other
divisions (B/C/Women's/Juniors/Seniors/etc). I think it should be done
very sparingly, if only to avoid the silly notion of someone choosing
to play in a lower division only to earn "valuable WPPR points" (in
France, these will be renamed as "Royale with Cheese" points). I feel
this problem already exists at some major events, where there is
sometimes "sandbagging" to play in a different division. Perhaps a
player with enough points from other events could be pushed into a
higher division.
- Bowen
Pinhead Bob
Can't see why it can't happen, though, if Poker is now a "sport".
Pinhead Bob
Aeneas Verhe
> 1st through 4th place in tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
Small remark: this BFTK is not an open tournament, it's a closed
tournament only for the top players (about 15 to 20 persons) in the
'galerij der groten' (gallery of the great) ranking by the dutch
pinball organisation (to decide who's the greatest of them all).
Aeneas.
Josh Sharpe
local tournaments as possible. I would definitely hit the 3
International Major tournaments (EPC, DPO and Stockholm Open) to prove
your stuff against many of the best in the world. Remember that I'm
only counting open divisions, so women's divisions are not included.
There are over 25 shows that I have seen on the International side that
are either currently running tournaments, or that I'm going to attempt
to get tournaments off the ground with the help of my "Chairmen". Like
I said, Roy Wils only comes across the pond for PAPA, and he would
still be ranked in the Top 5 if you took his PAPA stats away from him.
There are soooo many WPR points available and you never have to step
foot on US soil.
Sounds like you shouldn't be playing in B, based on those skills! :-)
The important thing to remember about this ranking is that it's just a
START. Now that everyone knows the points are out there for the taking,
plans can be made to maybe try and attend a couple of more tournaments.
I know that it even kicked my butt into gear a little bit, as my
brother and I will be going to the Ohio Wizards Tournament which we
skipped last year. I have a feeling that a year from now, with everyone
made aware of the rankings, that the top 100 list will be change alot
this upcoming pinball season.
-Josh
Josh Sharpe
Bowen Kerins wrote:
> Does this mean Roger Sharpe will have to walk around wearing a T-shirt
> that says "My Son Saved Competitive Pinball"?
>
If this ends where I hope it ends, he won't need to wear that shirt,
because he'll be a big part in helping develop it.
> As for the rankings, keep in mind that they only include tournaments
> from the past 3 years. Perhaps older PAPA tournaments should be
> included. The majority of Albert Nomden's 84 points comes from his win
> at DPO 2003. I think one thing that these rankings encourage is
> players feeling they should be ranked better -- in which case they'll
> play more events. I know Josh hasn't published all the points and
> where they come from, but be assured that many, MANY European events
> are included in the rankings. In total, more European events (41) are
> included in the rankings than events held in the United States (30).
>
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that ranking Joey "Jelly"
Cartegena is a proper gauge of the sport today. To say that I should
get some points for winning PAPA 5 Juniors I think doesn't accurately
reflect where the sport is at today either. I think the 3 year moving
period is going to work, and that if people make the effort to even
play in more local tournaments, that they will see results. Like I've
been saying, the hope is that EVERYONE plays MORE events. To keep
changing the scale and rankings until we think it's "right" that's
never going to happen. There's talk during Super Bowl week about the
qualifications to get into the Hall of Fame, and how some Cowboys feel
they are being mistreated. No system ever gets it right. My system is
simply get people to play more. I feel bad that some players may feel
underranked, but these next couple of years are the time to change
that. It's not about the past . . . it's about the future!
> I do think there is something to be said for giving points in other
> divisions (B/C/Women's/Juniors/Seniors/etc). I think it should be done
> very sparingly, if only to avoid the silly notion of someone choosing
> to play in a lower division only to earn "valuable WPPR points" (in
> France, these will be renamed as "Royale with Cheese" points). I feel
> this problem already exists at some major events, where there is
> sometimes "sandbagging" to play in a different division. Perhaps a
> player with enough points from other events could be pushed into a
> higher division.
>
I think putting the foot down on only including Open divisions is
something I'm going to be a stickler for. If someone is a C player,
they probably don't really care about a ranking system used to
determine the World's Greatest Pinball Player at any particular point
in time. To get these valuable Whopper w/cheese points to be ranked
with and among the best in the world . . . . it's simple . . . you HAVE
to play the best in the world. Does this mean that all these good
players will be at every little tournament? Of course not, but the
deciding factor is that any good player CAN play in it if they so
desire. I have a feeling that some of the "A minus players" who current
play the sandbagging game in B will move up simply because these
rankings are enough motivation. If that's the case, then GREAT!!
Zach would be the first to tell you he doesn't deserve any points for
his B-division achievements. He finished in top 4 in B-division
Pinburgh 4 years in a row!!!! And this is against players like me, Mike
Turack, Darren Kamnitzer, John McEwen, Chris Newsome, Adam McKinnie,
Andrei Massenkoff, etc. Looking at the competition each year he went
through B, it was pretty astounding because at any minor tournament, it
would be a very competitive open division. Instead, Zach used those
years to refine his skills until he felt he was ready to compete at the
highest level. I think currently that's what the B division, C
division, Juniors, etc. should be used for. Everyone spends some time
in the minor leagues, before they get called up to the Majors! :-)
-Josh
LeaveManyCredits
Josh Sharpe wrote:
> Bowen Kerins wrote:
>
> > I do think there is something to be said for giving points in other
> > divisions (B/C/Women's/Juniors/Seniors/etc). I think it should be done
> > very sparingly, if only to avoid the silly notion of someone choosing
> > to play in a lower division only to earn "valuable WPPR points" (in
> > France, these will be renamed as "Royale with Cheese" points). I feel
> > this problem already exists at some major events, where there is
> > sometimes "sandbagging" to play in a different division. Perhaps a
> > player with enough points from other events could be pushed into a
> > higher division.
> >
>
> I think putting the foot down on only including Open divisions is
> something I'm going to be a stickler for.
I think that this is right on. If you are going to score Whopper
points, you will have to play against the best players at that
tournament.
Mmmmm double whoppers at EPC, DPO, SPO, Expo, PAPA classics
Quintuple whoppers at PAPA.
Chris
Brian B
Earlier, I posted a message discussing the idea of providing points to such
results as B Division as PAPA and you replied with a very persuasive
argument concerning why you were not including B Division at PAPA, why B
Division at Expo was included and how the main goal of the rankings is to
recognize the "top" players in the world of pinball competition.
Now, you've got me turned around 180 degrees, so here's my latest comments
for consideration, based on your goal to make this like rankings of the top
players in all competitions and sports.
If you really want to treat the World Pinball Player Rankings as ratings for
the top pinball players, then you might even want to consider limiting the
World Pinball Player Rankings to those players who play ONLY in the
divisions or levels that are included in the rankings. In other words, as
with other competitive sports, once you are recognized as "pro" you must
compete as pro and can't go back to amateur level competition. So, for
example, once a person gets points for the first competition where they play
in the division earning points they would have to continue to compete in the
top division in any of the tournaments included in the World Pinball
Rankings. They wouldn't have to compete at all the tournaments, just
compete in the top division whenever they were at a recognized, included
tournament. If they chose not to do this, then they would just be removed
from the rankings and lose the points accumulated to that point in time.
This would prevent players who want the recognition of rankings as "pros" to
choose to "sandbag" by competing at levels below their recognition in order
to enhance their chances of winning prizes without sacrificing their status
as ranked player. I think many of the already existing rules at tournaments
such as PAPA attempt to achieve this anyway, but this would add one more
method for ensuring the best players challenge themselves by playing against
the best and that the tournaments benefit from additional methods for
limiting "sandbagging".
I think this would also help to support the decision to keep the points
limited to the highest open divisions in each tournament as one could point
out that these points are only available to the "pros" who always play in
the top divisions and, therefore, anyone on the list competes only with the
best. This would also possibly gain the support of those who don't compete
at the "pro" level because they would see this as helping to separate the
"pros" from the others and increasing the chances that the lower divisions
would not be tainted by "sandbaggers" looking for easier rewards.
To be realistic, though, the above rules would likely shorten the list
considerably, particularly because of the many good players who get points
in other tournaments but play in the other tournaments at lower levels (like
the B Division at PAPA for example). Therefore, I'm not sure this wouldn't
get some push back from some people.
Comments?
- Brian
"LeaveManyCredits" <chris....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:1139042323.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
KME
keep hearing about it yet havn't seen any examples.
Smac...@gmail.com
from the rankings simply from not competing in A at PAPA per se. I
know that the ultimate goal of these rankings is to show the top
pinball players in the world and if someone does not feel ready to
compete in A besides the minor tournaments, it's not like they are
getting any points for it.
>From personal experience, I know I was probably in the B division
longer than I should have been, but in my defense, I am a very stubborn
person. All those times I was placing and not winning, I never had a
sense of accomplishment. I knew I wanted to win and not be known as
the Phil Mickelson of B. The only problem of being too strict on
listing people on the rankings is if you were to truly cut off everyone
who didn't compete in A, there would only be like 40-50 people and in
the end, no matter how competitive and stressful pinball can be, it is
ultimately about having fun. If I were forced or in this case, felt
forced to move up a division strictly for the case of not losing my WPR
points, it would make playing almost more of a job than a choice. I
think everyone has there own personal reasons for playing where they
need to play and when they feel comfortable enough, they will
ultimately move on up and play with the big boys. Players should WANT
to play with the best, not feel prematurely forced to play. Just my
opinion.
Zach
midd...@cox.net
I guess I was just lobbying for CONSISTENCY. I think the system should
either:
(1) decide that the intent is to provide a "fun" scoring system that
will expand interest and participation in the sport and would thus
allow for scoring points in a variety of competitive situations and
levels (A,B,C,junior,senior, etc.)adjusting the point amounts for the
level of skill. (This is what I argued for in my first posting, and
Josh provided several well stated arguments as to why this should not
be the case, and his arguments were centered on the concept that the
system is meant to be scoring or ranking the "best" players) or
(2) decide that the intent is to provide a scoring system that truly
focuses on the best (pro) players and scores the system as such with
rules that mirror other professional scoring systems.
I'm not sure, Zach, how to interpret your answer. I can't see how your
arguments consistently support either 1 or 2 above.
If the goal is to truly recognize the best players than what's the
problem with having a list of 40 or 50 that are truly the best? And no
one would be forcing folks to play in certain divisions. They would
play in those divisions only if they wanted to compete at becoming one
of the top ranked players. If they aren't ready to compete at that
level, then they can choose not to. They just can't play the game of
competing as a top player in selected tournaments and as an amateur in
others.
On the other hand, if the goal is for the system to be fun and
incorporate a much larger group of ranked individuals, then why all
these restrictions as to which divisions and tournaments are counted
based on the "open" tournament system? Why not as in #1 above and as
is really the case already to some extent, create a point system that
provides pay off in points based on the level of competition in the
tournament and the division in which the player competes so that the
greater, broader player skill sets can be included in the rankings. If
your response to this is because the goal is to rate the best players,
then I think we are back to the system that truly ranks the top 40 or
50 who are always willing to compete at the top level as in item #2
above.
I think the system as it exists already recognizes that there are some
"A' level tournaments that are much easier to place in then others.
Frankly, one has a greater chance of placing in some of these more
minor 'A' level tournaments than in the B or even C division at PAPA,
and I think the point system is trying to adjust for that. But I think
the decision has to be made as to whether this system is meant for fun
and with the goal of enhancing exposure and the universe of pinball
players or meant to really be achieving the goal of ranking the best.
If the first, then the goal should be to pass out the points to as
broad a group as possible (every player should have a golf handicap to
score them as a player no matter what level of competition they are
at). If the second, then the goal should be to truly rank the best who
want to and do compete with the best (like the golf pro circuit).
I'm concerned that anything other than the above two choices creates a
hybrid system that doesn't achieve either the goal of system #1 or
system #2 outlined above. To be honest, I think it would be tough to
establish any system that could go much beyond ranking the top 50
players or so anyway (as evidenced by the great success other sports
have achieved in their attempts to determine the top 25 college
football teams or the top 64 basketball teams, etc.). And I say this
as someone who has about as much chance of getting into that top 50 as
the chance I have of winning the powerball lottery tonight.
- Brian
Josh Sharpe
It's a great debate, and I see the pros and cons to both sides. I think
Zach was lobbying for the #2 option of rating the best players, but not
to the extreme of Brian Bannon's posting that playing in B-division
would void out any points achieved in any other "open" divisions. I
think the "fun" factor versus the "pro" factor is not something that is
necessarily mutually exclusive. The intent is for this to be a Best
Player listing, but also be fun for those involved, and for those who
aren't involved that just like to watch the rankings. It's also meant
to expand the interest in the sport, and I think that can still be done
even if the list is limited to Open divisions. Stressing the Open
division only policy means that many people will only have a chance in
reaching the board through playing more minor tournaments. That's what
this system is all about, and hopefully it will result in two things.
1) More people will attend and support these minor tournaments
2) More of these minor tournaments will be started either at current
shows, or shows started from the ground up.
It really all comes down to trying to have the same effect that the
sport of Marathon running is looking to get through the implementation
of their ranking system. It helps that with their system comes the
support of $1 million per year from ING, but the point of the rankings
are both the same . . . increase awareness of the sport.
I plan on remaining consistent that only OPEN divisions will be counted
towards the rankings. I do disagree on Brian Bannon's points, although
enjoyed reading about the 180 degree turnaround about the system. His
thoughts about once being recognized as a "pro" means that you must
play the A-division wherever possible or your points are voided is not
something that needs to be done at this time. The sport is not at a
position currently where players formally decide to turn "Pro", like
golf or tennis, thereby voiding their right to play in amateur events.
This is why I don't feel it is necessary to make people play the
A-division when their is a choice. Any player still has the choice of
not competing for WPR points at major events like PAPA if they feel
they have no shot. This can still be done without jeapordizing other
WPR points they have earned from other events.
Great discussion!! I'm hoping to make some progress this year in trying
to get sponsors to support this ranking on an ongoing basis (Burger
King seems like the perfect fit huh??) Get your Whopper points now!!!!
-Josh
Bri...@aol.com
Josh Sharpe wrote:
> Brian,
> It's a great debate, and I see the pros and cons to both sides. I think
> Zach was lobbying for the #2 option of rating the best players, but not
> to the extreme of Brian Bannon's posting that playing in B-division
> would void out any points achieved in any other "open" divisions.
Josh, you are quoting someone else, these are not my thoughts.
I
> It really all comes down to trying to have the same effect that the
> sport of Marathon running is looking to get through the implementation
> of their ranking system. It helps that with their system comes the
> support of $1 million per year from ING, but the point of the rankings
> are both the same . . . increase awareness of the sport.
> I plan on remaining consistent that only OPEN divisions will be counted
> towards the rankings. I do disagree on Brian Bannon's points, although
> enjoyed reading about the 180 degree turnaround about the system. His
> thoughts about once being recognized as a "pro" means that you must
> play the A-division wherever possible or your points are voided is not
> something that needs to be done at this time. T
Again, not my words. I believe that only OPEN results should count
too. I don't know how anyone can provide a worldwide ranking and
include anything less than an open result. This is taking nothing away
from the accomplishment of winning a B or C division at PAPA, it is
just that those classes are not open to all.
Brian Bannon
Josh Sharpe
Sorry Brian! I saw Brian B . . . and I figured you were the only person
on the planet with those initials :-)
I hope you don't punish me for that and not bring any games to the next
PinBrawl ;-)
-Josh
Bri...@aol.com
>
> Sorry Brian! I saw Brian B . . . and I figured you were the only person
> on the planet with those initials :-)
> I hope you don't punish me for that and not bring any games to the next
> PinBrawl ;-)
>
> -Josh
This thread has too many Brian's in it! Don't worry about Pinbrawl, I
am already working on the games I plan on bringing. I don't think it
will be ten again because dad and I were really worn out after that
experience, but who knows. Expect older solid state stuff---Stern,
Bally maybe Willams, all different from last year.
Brian Bannon
Mark Salas
> This thread has too many Brian's in it! Don't worry about Pinbrawl, I
> am already working on the games I plan on bringing. I don't think it
> will be ten again because dad and I were really worn out after that
> experience, but who knows. Expect older solid state stuff---Stern,
> Bally maybe Willams, all different from last year.
All different except for Frontier. You have to bring that bad boy again
:)
KME
Probably THE toughest early 80's bally to roll over!
Brian B
In our local FSPA league at John's Place in Fairfax, I'm known as Brian B.
because there is a Brian L. who also participates. I kind of adopted the
Brian B. signature due to that.
Looks like that can still lead to confusion with a much larger group like
RGP.
Sorry, Brian Bannon, that you got stuck with being linked to my comments.
But, Brian, I just can't agree with your opinion that the RGP has too many
Brian's in it.
No such thing as too many Brian's, especially Brian's who spell the name
correctly
with an i. :)
- Brian B.
one of many Brian B's on RGP (Brian Blonder in this case who is the one
responsible for the series
of comments about the ranking system)
-
<Bri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139159449....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bri...@aol.com
> Sorry, Brian Bannon, that you got stuck with being linked to my comments.
No sweat, I just had a different opinion.
>
> But, Brian, I just can't agree with your opinion that the RGP has too many
> Brian's in it.
> No such thing as too many Brian's, especially Brian's who spell the name
> correctly
> with an i. :)
LOL, there are those rebel Bryan's out there, and even the very radical
Bryon's with the unconventional spelling. I have learned that RGP and
the world is big enough for all the various spellings of Brian:)
Brian Bannon, the other Brian B
David Marston
wrote:
>Josh,
>...
>If you really want to treat the World Pinball Player Rankings as ratings for
>the top pinball players, then you might even want to consider limiting the
>World Pinball Player Rankings to those players who play ONLY in the
>in the division earning points they would have to continue to compete in the
>top division in any of the tournaments included in the World Pinball
>Rankings. They wouldn't have to compete at all the tournaments, just
>compete in the top division whenever they were at a recognized, included
>tournament.
I think that plan poses a problem for Women's Division. In part, the
tournament managers can help by offering a "blended qualification" system
for women. It would work as follows:
1. Gender is recorded for all tournament players.
2. Women's scores are kept on two lists: Open Division (or "A" or whatever
the WPPR-eligible division is called at a given tournament) and a
parallel Women's High Scores List. This happens automatically for all
women players; they don't need to request it or claim a division.
3. Any woman player who scores high among women but not high enough to
qualify for elimination rounds in the Open Division can compete in
Women's Division elimination rounds, if any, or take home a Women's
Division trophy, just as they do now.
4. Any woman player who scores high enough to qualify for Open Division
elimination rounds is offered the option of going into Open Division
elims and earning the requisite WPPR points and possibly winning an
Open Division trophy or lucrative cash prize, or she can choose to
go into Women's Division elims for the prizes but no WPPR points. If
you think the latter is "sandbagging" behavior, then require that she
compete in Open elims.
5. If any women enter the Open Division elims, that frees up slots in the
Women's Division elims. Any individual woman can only play in one set
of elims.
I agree with the goal that WPPR points should motivate more people to
play in tournaments, and it would be extra helpful to encourage more women
to play, so I'm okay with offering the option in Rule 4 above.
>If they chose not to do this, then they would just be removed
>from the rankings and lose the points accumulated to that point in time.
That's pretty harsh! It seems like an incentive to avoid entering certain
tournaments. Is there a precedent for that in other sports?
--
................David Marston at MV
Josh Sharpe
I think these rules are great. The only problem you may have is getting
support from the tournament directors. I know that Kevin Martin who
runs PAPA is very adament about treating women as players like everyone
else, and they should just participate in the level of difficulty where
they feel they fit. I know many of the women players, and it definitely
is a group of 8-10 women who really dominate the sport. I know the
women have taken it upon themselves to try and create a Women's
division at PAPA. Maybe this is a possible solution.
> >If they chose not to do this, then they would just be removed
> >from the rankings and lose the points accumulated to that point in time.
>
> That's pretty harsh! It seems like an incentive to avoid entering certain
> tournaments. Is there a precedent for that in other sports?
> --
Definitely too harsh, and not something I plan on implementing. I know
in other sports you simply wouldn't be allowed to play in an amateur
division or anything like that. In pinball, you could say that we don't
have strict guidelines on when people turn "pro" . . . at least not yet
:-)
I think Tiger Woods made like $90 million the MOMENT he turned
professional . . .Keith, Bowen, Neil, Jim, Lyman . . . you guys looking
to hold a press conference anytime soon? :-)
-Josh
KME
>to hold a press conference anytime soon? :-)
Why yes... I just beat Mike Mahaffey's 2 year old high score on Jim's
Grand Lizard. I can now retire from competitive pinball :)
Fathom22
6.8M Frontier HS :P
David Marston
Josh Sharpe <pin...@aol.com> wrote:
>David Marston wrote:
>> 2. Women's scores are kept on two lists: Open Division (or "A" or whatever
>> the WPPR-eligible division is called at a given tournament) and a
>> parallel Women's High Scores List. This happens automatically for all
>> women players; they don't need to request it or claim a division.
>> 3. Any woman player who scores high among women but not high enough to
>> qualify for elimination rounds in the Open Division can compete in
>> Women's Division elimination rounds, if any, or take home a Women's
>> Division trophy, just as they do now.
>I think these rules are great. The only problem you may have is getting
>support from the tournament directors. I know that Kevin Martin who
>runs PAPA is very adament about treating women as players like everyone
>else, and they should just participate in the level of difficulty where
>they feel they fit.
In that case, PAPA just runs with no gender distinctions and doesn't take
any steps to encourage women (more so than men) to play. My suggested
rules would be for those tournaments that already have a Women's Division
and a separate set of prizes for women, whether or not they have
elimination rounds in Women's Division. (But if they have no elims, then
the trophies or whatever could go to the top women players including any
who continue in Open Division elims, opening the possibility of a woman
getting two prizes. She would only get WPPR points based on where she
placed in Open Division elims, though.)
To summarize: I proposed some rules for those tournaments that wish to
operate a Women's Division that would allow each woman entrant to qualify
for the WPPR-eligible division. Any Women's Division awards are strictly
an extra, though I think (for the sake of practicality, at a minimum)
that nobody should play in two sets of elimination rounds.
Josh Sharpe
David Marston wrote:
> In that case, PAPA just runs with no gender distinctions and doesn't take
> any steps to encourage women (more so than men) to play. My suggested
> rules would be for those tournaments that already have a Women's Division
> and a separate set of prizes for women, whether or not they have
> elimination rounds in Women's Division. (But if they have no elims, then
> the trophies or whatever could go to the top women players including any
> who continue in Open Division elims, opening the possibility of a woman
> getting two prizes. She would only get WPPR points based on where she
> placed in Open Division elims, though.)
>
> To summarize: I proposed some rules for those tournaments that wish to
> operate a Women's Division that would allow each woman entrant to qualify
> for the WPPR-eligible division. Any Women's Division awards are strictly
> an extra, though I think (for the sake of practicality, at a minimum)
> that nobody should play in two sets of elimination rounds.
> --
> ................David Marston at MV
I don't see a problem with that. It would be a nice bonus for Women's
players to be able to play an "Open" division towards WPPR points, and
also have the opportunity to play eachother in a separate women's
division. I like it!
-Josh
flynnibus
why give 'womens' points but not a juniors?
Josh Sharpe
flynnibus wrote:
> what happened to equal rights? :)
>
> why give 'womens' points but not a juniors?
I think from what David was saying is that women wouldn't get points
for what they accomplish in a women's division. They would need to
still play in an Open division as well, and test their skills against
the best to get any points. At least that's what I got out of his post.
I feel the same way about Junior's. Anyone that wants to play juniors
and test their skills in an open division is welcome to the challenge.
If there were WPPR points back in the early 90's I might have tried my
hand in the open divisions along with playing in the Junior stuff.
-Josh
KME
my
>hand in the open divisions along with playing in the Junior stuff.
Sandbagging for plush?
Bowen Kerins
women's division also allow women to play in the regular tournament.
To me, this seems no different than the way PAPA runs A/B/C -- a player
chooses a division. According to your earlier ideas, only the top
division was awarding WPPR points.
So... are you saying here that women's division would award WPPR
points? Because I would say no, only because you also exclude PAPA
B/C. I think it's both or neither here. My vote is "both".
Just another 2c, not enough to super-size.
- Bowen
Josh Sharpe
Women's division would just be played for fun. At Expo, I'm not sure if
they let you enter in Women's and the Open. I know for Junior's they
would only let me enter Junior's back in the day, therefore I couldn't
try to get WPPR in the Open while also playing in Junior's.
My vote is still "neither" don't you worry. That is something that I
won't bend on right now. Open divisions only!! :-)
Think of it as the Bowen rule . . . if you can't play in it . . . it
doesn't count :-)
-Josh
Josh Sharpe
than a 5 ft. stuffed teddy bear!
Ethan B
"Josh Sharpe" wrote
> I think from what David was saying is that women wouldn't get points
> for what they accomplish in a women's division. They would need to
> still play in an Open division as well, and test their skills against
> the best to get any points. At least that's what I got out of his post.
> I feel the same way about Junior's. Anyone that wants to play juniors
> and test their skills in an open division is welcome to the challenge.
> If there were WPPR points back in the early 90's I might have tried my
> hand in the open divisions along with playing in the Junior stuff.
If you're only going to count A Division, how is it even realistic that
Juniors could get points? You'd be lucky to get a Jr in C Division!
-Ethan
Josh Sharpe
of time until those Juniors become world class players. I remember 10
years hating the fact that I was going to turn 17 and have to play with
the "Big Boys". The rankings really aren't meant for any junior players
at this point, more of just something to look forward to in the years'
ahread.
Or . . . you could try and enter A division and see what happens :-)
If you can get through the wizard mode on TSPP (something I haven't
done), you could probably hold your own with the Big Boys already!
-Josh
LeaveManyCredits
day at the local league party.
Chris
David Marston
Josh Sharpe <pin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>flynnibus wrote:
>> what happened to equal rights? :)
>> why give 'womens' points but not a juniors?
>
>I think from what David was saying is that women wouldn't get points
>for what they accomplish in a women's division. They would need to
>still play in an Open division as well, and test their skills against
>the best to get any points. At least that's what I got out of his post.
Yes, that's what I meant. If flynnibus has an issue, it should be
directed at tournament managers who give Women's Division prizes.
But recall that this sub-thread is about what constitutes sandbagging.
David Marston
Bowen Kerins <bke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This I don't understand -- most tournaments that offer a separate
>women's division also allow women to play in the regular tournament.
>So... are you saying here that women's division would award WPPR
>points?
No. This was in response to a proposal that once a player "goes pro"
or actually wins even 1 WPPR point, they can never go back to playing
in another division, lest they forfeit all their WPPR points.
Here's a problem scenario:
An elite woman player named Wizarda Pinette enters PAPA in the A Division
because there is no Women's Division and other elite women are in A.
Wizarda does well enough to earn some WPPR points. Next week is the big
Pinnepeg Show in Canada, which has a tournament with a (WPPR-eligible)
Open Division and a Women's Division. This time, Wizarda enters the
Women's Division because all the other elite women are in that division.
Should she really forfeit either (1) all those WPPR points that she really
did earn before, or (2) the potential to earn a better trophy (or cash)
playing against the female friend/rivals she usually plays against? Also,
if she enters Open in that and all following tournaments, the other elite
women can accuse her of being snobby or weakening the Women's Division by
not playing in it. (BTW, any resemblance to actual elite woman players is
strictly coincidental.)
My proposal would reduce the barrier between Women's and Open Divisions
by making Women's Division an exercise in bookkeeping. Tournament managers
can post separate Women's Division standings during the qualifying period,
award prizes in Women's Division with no elimination rounds, or have elims
in Women's Division if they wish, so it is certainly possible to preserve
the familiar aspects of Women's Division play.
Bowen Kerins
than Wizarda? Is this the daughter of John Pinette, the buffet
comedian? Okay, I can see him naming his kid Wizarda.
I don't think the "go pro or else" movement is catching on, so I don't
think there's any issue here. I'm of the mindset not to have separate
Women's Divisions -- at least in the experiences at CA Extreme, women
have done pretty well. Of recent note, go Helena (winner of PAPA B
Division 2005, though hardly the only women's success story at PAPA).
I do like having more divisions at larger events -- notably Expo. The
lament at Expo has always been its choice to basically only have one
division: the "top 8/bottom 8" thing doesn't produce a true "Player's B
Division" champ in any way. Hopefully someday they'll change this,
then having a separate Women's division might not be needed.
Just my opinion :)
- Bowen
Josh Sharpe
all the Women as a collective unit. Something similar happened during
the Junior's division at Expo for me in years past. All divisions at
Expo consist of a qualifying round, followed by a head-to-head playoff
match . . . except the Junior division. There were always the same 6-8
players each year and we were sick of the high score in qualifying
simply winning Junior's. So we went up as a group and said we would
like to have a finals round similar to the other divisions. The
tournament directors asked if all the players felt this way, and
everyone was like, "Yeah!" (in slightly high pitched voices) :-)
We had our finals rounds, and it felt more like a tournament then a
high score fest. So changes can be made, you just have to ask :-)
-Josh
p.s. As for someone losing all their WPPR points . . . that will NEVER
happen, so don't worry about that. Anybody can choose to play an Open
division or some other division any time they want.
Brian Leonard
Brian L.
--------------------------------