World Pinball Rankings - February 2006
Josh Sharpe
Although not much has changed since the original list from a few days
ago, I did add some qualifying and round results for the major
international tournaments, and corrected some scoring from PAPA 7 and
PAPA 8 that was done incorrectly. As always, it's a work in progress,
but any further corrections will be posted for the March 2006 rankings.
Most important, here is a list of upcoming tournaments with the
available WPR points for each one. If you care about your ranking, I
highly suggest trying to attend any of these shows if they are in your
area. It's a great place to pick up some valuable WPR points.
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.
WPR Points available:
1st through 4th place in Wizards Tournament (25/15/10/5 points)
1st through 4th place in No Limit Pinball Tournament (13/8/5/3 points)
2nd Annual Ohio Pinball & Gameroom Festival
March 24th & 25th 2006
Thomastown Party Center, 1280 Triplett Blvd, Akron, Ohio, USA.
Adults -$15 ($25 for 2 days), Children 6-12 years - $5, Kids 5 and
under - free.
WPR Points available:
Qualify in Top 8 for Ohio Wizard Tournament (1 point)
1st through 4th place in Ohio Wizard Tournament (13/8/5/3 points)
Good luck to the competitors!! and now . . . here's the rankings (as of
2/1/06):
1 Keith Elwin 442
2 Bowen Kerins 357
3 Neil Shatz 272
4 Roy Wils 230
5 Jim Belsito 210
6 Lyman Sheats 207
7 Chris Newsom 199
8 Josh Sharpe 177
9 Zach Sharpe 145
10 Trent Augenstein 129
11 Jörgen Holm 122
12 Stefan Andersson 116
13 Mats Runsten 105
14 Michael Lindström 96
15 Fredrik Lindberg 95
16 Albert Nomden 84
17 Sean Grant 84
18 Paul Madison 82
19 Dirk Klaver 78
20 Andy Rosa 78
21 Roger Wijnands 65
22 Karl Broström 64
23 Andreas Harre 62
24 Mark van Duinen 58
25 Reidar Spets 57
26 Jason Werdrick 56
27 Ed Hershey 54
28 Steve Epstein 54
29 Patrik Bodin 53
30 Linus Jorenbo 53
31 Markus Stix 52
32 Adam McKinnie 52
33 Per Holknekt 50
34 Kevin Martin 43
35 Brian Dominy 43
36 John Miller 42
37 Mike Turack 42
38 Paul Jongma 41
39 Markus Salo 40
40 Mark Van Der Gugten 40
41 Keith Johnson 39
42 Fredrik Malmqvist 38
43 Taco Wouters 38
44 Derek Fugate 36
45 Drew Cedolia 35
46 Michel Van Den Elzen 35
47 Fred Richardson 34
48 Rick Prince 34
49 Daniel Schmatz 33
50 Stellan Blomqvist 32
51 Andrei Massenkoff 32
52 Kim Brennan 30
53 James Furdell 30
54 Peter Van den Bergh 30
55 Lars Ørskov Jensen 28
56 Lars Ruehl 28
57 Paul McGlone 27
58 Mateo Leyba 27
59 Antoine van Wijk 27
60 Martijn Van Amsterdam 27
61 Roland Nitsche 27
62 John McEwen 26
63 Jörg Buchacher 26
64 Martijn Van Aken 26
65 Martin Hotze 26
66 Ari Koivunen 25
67 Bob Winter 25
68 Georg Hinterhofer 25
69 Lars Preben Arnesen 25
70 Szalai Krisztián 25
71 Vesa Tyry 25
72 Ronald Blass 25
73 Dave Stewart 23
74 Dave Hegge 22
75 Mike Mahaffey 22
76 Darren Kamnitzer 21
77 Rick Stetta 21
78 Bjorn Englund 20
79 Helena Walter 20
80 Ciske Vreuls 19
81 Sean Hall 19
82 Ralph Beckers 19
83 Jorian Engelbrektsson 18
84 Donavan Stepp 17
85 Eko Elens 17
86 Markus Straube 17
87 Brian Bannon 17
88 Jeff Rank 15
89 Antti Peltonen 15
90 Ari Sovijärvi 15
91 Barna Péter 15
92 Cody Chunn 15
93 Glenn Gilliar 15
94 Jörgen Lindström 15
95 Jost Berger 15
96 Jostein Kastet 15
97 Lars Petterson 15
98 Magnus Frumerie 15
99 Markus Hofschuster 15
100 Robert Byers 15
101 Sebastian Sievers 15
102 Steven Bowden 15
103 Tero Malinen 15
104 Steve Walker 15
105 Henrik Olaison 14
106 Colin Horner 13
107 Eric Fisher 13
108 Frank Carr 13
109 Georg Lattner 13
110 Kevin Dreyling 13
111 Mark Beardsley 13
112 Roger Sharpe 13
113 John Kosmal 13
114 Randy Thacker 13
115 Norbert Broman 12
116 Andranik Ghalustians 10
117 Frank Zieger 10
118 Georg Mathiesen 10
119 Jon Christian 10
120 Jonny Hagman 10
121 Juha Juntunen 10
122 Kevin Smigel 10
123 Lynn Lyons 10
124 Martin Restin 10
125 Mika Koillinen 10
126 Nicky Lindström 10
127 Norbert Heuber 10
128 Szebeni László 10
129 Don White 10
130 Magnus Rostö 10
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 Jody de Graaf 8
146 Phil Thibault 7
147 Joe Weiss 7
148 Sergio Johnson 7
149 Don Brownback 7
150 Don Coons 7
151 Victor Håkansson 7
152 Bram Lemmens 7
153 Rob Craig 6
154 Duane Yeager 6
155 Brian Martinez 6
156 Jeff Palmer 6
157 Svante Ericsson 6
158 Jennie Duffy 6
159 Terry Newland 6
160 Tom Knorst 6
161 Tom Terlecky 6
162 Helen Verbeek 6
163 Michael Trepp 6
164 Robert Sutter 6
165 Steve Rothschild 5
166 Chris Wamsley 5
167 David Burrier 5
168 Tim Zollner 5
169 Alex Samonte 5
170 Ari Paananen 5
171 Christian Balac 5
172 Christian Wirth 5
173 Eric Stone 5
174 Gerhard Pilgerstorfer 5
175 Jarkko Kuoppamäki 5
176 Jim Shird 5
177 Korbinian Ott 5
178 Lauren Helen Sletbakk 5
179 Martin Adellbrecht 5
180 Martin Eder 5
181 Per Persson 5
182 Stefan Geis 5
183 Stefan Karlhuber 5
184 Stephanie Lindstrom 5
185 Werner Konrad 5
186 Wolfgang Schmieger 5
187 Glenn Wilson 5
188 Nicklas Karlbom 5
189 Frank Wolthers 5
190 Hans Bijsterveld 5
191 Jochen Ludwig 5
192 Martin Ayub 5
193 Peter Van Vliet 5
194 Dennis Nadler 4
195 Wendi Jankowitz 4
196 Dennis Blankenship 4
197 Steve Widdowson 4
198 Brian Shepherd 4
199 Daniel Goett 4
200 Penni Epstein 4
201 Rush Luangsuwan 4
202 Therese Edwards 4
203 Carol Walker 4
204 Brian Lamug 4
205 Rudy Keiser 4
206 Adi Barp 4
207 Adriaan Van Roeden 4
208 Alberto Santana 4
209 Alex Duin 4
210 Noel Steere 4
211 Wilbert Ber Kinderen 4
212 Yoshihimo Fujisawa 4
213 Steve Fry 4
214 Jason Magnuson 4
215 Jody Crooks 3
216 Don Merki 3
217 Robert Harris 3
218 Mark Jenison 3
219 Orin Day 3
220 Alysa Parks 3
221 Chuck Sanderson 3
222 Dennis Zollner 3
223 Jahn Amato 3
224 Jason Weibel 3
225 Ken Walker 3
226 Mark Salas 3
227 Mike Degrongoski 3
228 Rick Swanson 3
229 Greg Dunlap 3
230 Anders Carlsson 3
231 Henrik Lagercrantz 3
232 Jörgen Sandström 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 David Deturck 3
247 Derokt Anders 3
248 Detlef Ralph 3
249 El Guapo 3
250 Erik Swetter 3
251 Franck Bona 3
252 Jeroen Van Baast 3
253 Joska Keunekamp 3
254 Klass Oenema 3
255 Matthijs Hoetjes 3
256 Michael Münch 3
257 Pierre Riessen 3
258 Pieter Berends 3
259 Robert Rodenburg 3
260 Tibor Steenbrink 3
261 Chris Enright 2
262 Lorena California 2
263 Ron Carmody 2
264 Chris Kubie 2
265 Greg Byrnes 2
266 Koi Morris 2
267 Mike Gratton 2
268 Paul Sommers 2
269 Phil Haagensen 2
270 Adam Meilink 2
271 Albert Medaillon 2
272 Alexandru Cobzas 2
273 Andy de Ruiter 2
274 Aurélie Bona 2
275 Barry de Wit 2
276 Bob Schmidt 2
277 Brenn Oosterbaan 2
278 Carlos García Montoro 2
279 Damoy Beals 2
280 David Houwers 2
281 Dennis Verleyen 2
282 Eden Stamm 2
283 Edwin Nijs 2
284 Edwin Van De Berg 2
285 Egbert van Vulpen 2
286 Gerard Poelwijk 2
287 Gerard Ypelaar 2
288 Gonzalo Miranda 2
289 Gregor Bremer 2
290 Henrik Andersson 2
291 Ingo Gerhardt 2
292 Jack Quisbert 2
293 Javier Nùñez 2
294 Jeff Stouffer 2
295 Jens Hållstrand Möller 2
296 Joakim Stork 2
297 Joep Mertens 2
298 Johan Björklund 2
299 Joris Dekker 2
300 Jos Dijkhuizen 2
301 Juan Escuder 2
302 Kees Augustinus 2
303 Lieven Englebeen 2
304 Marcel van Tol 2
305 Marnix Van Maarle 2
306 Maurice Schouten 2
307 Max Jore 2
308 Maxime de Heij 2
309 Michel Van De Sar 2
310 Niklaus Gysi 2
311 Pascal van Wongerghem 2
312 Paul Van Der Helm 2
313 Peter Johansson 2
314 Purre Persson 2
315 Remy Jurrissen 2
316 Richard Baan 2
317 Rikard Åberg 2
318 Robert de Vries 2
319 Roger Jonsson 2
320 Roger Jurrissen 2
321 Ronald Blass 2
322 Rudy Grootjans 2
323 Stefan Hoppe 2
324 Sylvain Grevin 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
thanks,
Josh Sharpe
30 million (scarily said)
keeping the vibe alive and puting passion into pinball man, really
andy
KME
Josh Sharpe
rankings published in some of the trade magazines (PGJ, Play Meter,
Replay, etc.) so we'll see how that goes. I'd also like to do a Player
of the Year award at the end of each calendar year and maybe give out a
trophy, money, etc. I'll push all the buttons I can (and some of my
dad's buttons too) to get some sponsorship behind this and see if I can
get the ball rolling.
-Josh
Josh Sharpe
after the 2004 Expo, she would probably be Top 10! ;-)
KME
ZMAN
Great job on compiling these rankings!
after reviewing the points system (and admittedly upset at my own
ommision anywhere on the rankings :) ) i am wondering why you haven't
included qualifying and finals for B division in PAPA tournaments
(arguably the most important tournament) as some sort of achievement.
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)
EdZ .. who realizes you can't please everyone
Josh Sharpe
Thanks for the comments. Including B-Division has been an ongoing
debate, and the consensus was to include Open tournaments only. 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. 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. My
brother describes it best as an Amateur golf tournament versus a
Professional golf tournament. Tiger Woods won the Amateur title back to
back to back, but didn't see any recognition on the Pro circuit until
he started playing in professional events. To earn points on the
rankings of greatest player in the world, you simply have to play
against the greatest players in the world to find that out :-)
If someone has qualified in B-Division or made it to finals at PAPA,
it's time to move up, similar to Tiger Woods when he went pro, and go
for the gusto!!
As I stated in the other thread, Expo is different because it really
isn't a B-Division. 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.
-Josh
Franck from France
the reality in usa. Some european players have the money and the chance
to travel to usa but Aurélie Bona And I franck Bona don' t have this
chance unfortunately. We are in the 300 place. That' s a fact. For info
My wife won the french pinball tournament twice, like me. She won the
european pinball tournament twice in 1997 and 2005. I won the european
tournament in 1997 and came for the papa' s champion section wher I was
2 nd just behind Albert Nomden. Aurélie was 6th in female section.
Something we can make is an European ranking for the people like us
who can' t afford the trip to usa every year.
A few names would be in like brostrom in sweden, nomden in netherlands,
paul jongma from netherlands and so on.
Keep on flipping josh, your father can be proud of you !
Josh Sharpe a écrit :
Josh Sharpe
I know talking about this with my dad last night, it put a jolt of
energy back into him and Steve Epstein . . . so we'll see what happens
;-)
Funny but as my dad told me about how they came up with PAPA going
through sheets and sheets of information, I couldn't help but notice I
was doing something similar with the help of Excel and the internet of
course. Gotta use technology where it helps!
There has been alot of discussion with some of the international
players, and the system does offer alot of points available without
leaving the States. I know that if you took away any of Roy Wils points
that he accumulated in the US, he would still be in the top 5. So go to
everything on that side of the pond you can, and build up that
ranking!! :-)
-Josh
CAH
ZMAN wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> Great job on compiling these rankings!
>
> after reviewing the points system (and admittedly upset at my own
> ommision anywhere on the rankings :) ) i am wondering why you haven't
> included qualifying and finals for B division in PAPA tournaments
> (arguably the most important tournament) as some sort of achievement.
> EdZ .. who realizes you can't please everyone
As Chris Newsom (constantly) reminds me, if you want recognition, "Play
A like a man"
drop...@gmail.com
European Ranking (just for the fun of it) a lot of information is
available at:
http://www.pinballhighscores.org/tournament_results.php
You and your wife should come to Stockholm Open in May! It is a really
good and fun tournament with a lot of good players competing! (For
instance, thoose three you mention, Nomden, Jongma & Broström, were
all there last year.)
Svante
we will then see stats like how many tournaments did the players attend
to and what is their average results in the different tournaments. As
it is now it is sort of a mix between the best players and the players
participating in most tournaments.
Josh Sharpe
about individual players, drop me an email and I can tell you exactly
what points you scored in the various tournaments, and how you got them
:-)
-Josh
ZMAN
when i can, unfortunately don't feel good enough to play it at PAPA
yet. Hope to be among the elite, even if only to get my butt kicked
regularly.
LeaveManyCredits
ZMAN wrote:
> Apparantly you missed me at Kamp Washington Challenge ;) ..
Nice!
Hope to see you at the Fairfax Pinball Open Ed, where CAH might brave
the A division.
Chris
stan...@aol.com
CAH
Why give "best player in the world" points to someone, if they're
deliberately avoiding playing the best players in the world?
flynnibus
rating for the 'best' players.. obviously it should only count the
'pro' level, not the ones below.
If the goal is to try to achieve some sort of just relative comparison,
then I would try to include the various levels handicapped in some way.
But I don't get that feeling from Josh's statements.
If the goal is to just spur interest in competing, then I think that's
a harder place to draw the lines as it would be a blend of #1 and #2
and I would think you should include a handicapping system, or seperate
rankings.
IMO, a 'global' ranking system like this should be about 'the best
players' competing at the top level, and therefore should be concerned
with qualified tourney's with only the top divisions earning points.
How you establish to include or exclude tourney's is hard, but it sure
looks like Josh has put a significant effort into the notion of
including as many tourney's as possible with a weighting.. which I
think is the best way. There obviously should be a distinction between
'regional' events vs national level events (like Expo, PAPA, some of
the european events, etc)
flynnibus
stan...@aol.com
CAH wrote:
> Why give "best player in the world" points to someone, if they're
> deliberately avoiding playing the best players in the world?
well, then i guess you should be taken off the list considering you are
"deliberately avoiding playing the best players in the world." being a
17 entry C-division player yourself.
Josh Sharpe
Any points anyone has on the rankings listing is from tournaments where
the best players in the world COULD compete. I'm not about to look at
each event individually and try to determine that you need X number of
players from the top 20 for it to be considered a WPR event. That's not
the overall goal of the system. The goal is to increase interest in
those tournaments where many of the "better" players simply aren't
attending. Any points you have on the rankings listing should be
considered well deserved, because those points were available to ANYONE
(unlike C-division at PAPA or any other divisions that have
restrictions on it).
I'm hoping that many of the "B" division players in PAPA will take the
opportunity to check out the more local tournaments. There is plenty of
opportunities to pick up alot of points, and not even attend PAPA,
although to be part of the "elite" or whatever, it definitely helps to
do well at that tournament.
-Josh
stan...@aol.com
I understand what your logic. I'm just saying personally i think the
level of competition in the B and perhaps C division in some
circumstances is a lot higher then some smaller tourneys. There are a
lot of people who only attend papa and take lower divisions very
seriously. Ignoring this completely I think is a little unfair and
unbalanced to the broad spectrum, leaving many skilled players out.
Including these divisions giving substantially lower points then A
would keep lower players far far from the top but also get more people
ranked, sparking more interest for the system. And perhaps getting more
well needed players to papa. I cant see any harm in it. Just something
to think over. Either way i think the idea is great and look forward to
see it grow. Cheers on your hard work!
Josh Sharpe
stan...@aol.com wrote:
> I understand what your logic. I'm just saying personally i think the
> level of competition in the B and perhaps C division in some
> circumstances is a lot higher then some smaller tourneys. There are a
> lot of people who only attend papa and take lower divisions very
> seriously. Ignoring this completely I think is a little unfair and
> unbalanced to the broad spectrum, leaving many skilled players out.
> Including these divisions giving substantially lower points then A
> would keep lower players far far from the top but also get more people
> ranked, sparking more interest for the system. And perhaps getting more
> well needed players to papa. I cant see any harm in it. Just something
> to think over. Either way i think the idea is great and look forward to
> see it grow. Cheers on your hard work!
I couldn't agree more, I would DEFINITELY say that the level of
competition at the B and C divisions at PAPA is equal to or greater to
that of many of the local tournaments. I would never say that the lower
divisions are not to be taken seriously. Heck, I played in the lower
divisions for a long, long time as did my brother. These many skilled
players that choose to not play in A division at PAPA are the ones that
are CHOOSING to not be included in the rankings. It's impossible to
compare players in B division to players in A division when they don't
play the players in A division. I've been a B division champion at
PAPA/Pinburgh, and know many of the other B division champions over the
years, and they would be the first to tell you that it is a very
different world once you enter the top level of competition.
I'd say it's similar to a AAA baseball team versus a major league
baseball team. The Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908.
No matter how many championships their AAA affiliate in Iowa win, and
this AAA club even includes many players that have been on the Cubs
major league roster . . .the CHICAGO Cubs would get no recognition in
the Major Leagues for any of Iowa's accomplishments. Does this ignore
the Iowa Cubs' accomplishments . . . well no, they get their trophies
are awards for being the best AAA baseball team year after year, but
the fact is you couldn't say that they should be shown as the 30th best
baseball team out of 32 because of the amount of success they've had in
the AAA league.
The main difference is that the Iowa Cubs can't choose to play against
major league teams, while participants at PAPA CAN choose to play in
the Open divisions. There is still an opportunity in Classic's I and II
for many points to be had by still playing in B-division in the main
tournament.
Thanks for the comments! I love how the discussion has continued to
develop, and I really think the rankings are going to be a great thing
for the competition of the sport.
-Josh Sharpe
Bowen Kerins
at PAPA is excellent.
What would be so bad about giving "regular-tournament" points for B
Division (25 pts for 1st) and "minor tournament" points for C Division
(13 pts for 1st)? In the end, considering the total number of points
available for everyone and the numbers that are needed for the top
positions, these points wouldn't really be all that much. If anything,
it might help build more awareness for this system -- "Hey, you just
won 10 WPPR points!" "Oh, and I'd like a large fries with that."
Perhaps these points could "expire" in some different way: say they
expire when the player moves to PAPA A? Who knows.
I'm not sure I see it as a "fairer" outcome than only counting open
divisions. I see it as a more inclusive outcome, as long as the points
in those other divisions are well enough below what people could earn
by trying their luck in A. I don't think any player will actively
choose B over A just because of the available WPPR points, and the ones
who take home those points will appreciate the recognition as part of
the larger system.
- Bowen
Josh Sharpe
white. To include B and C then opens up the door to including the
B-division at Mayday rather than just PinMasters, or other non-open
divisions. Where would the line be drawn of including non-open
divisions. Is it PAPA only? Is it only Major tournaments? Do you
include Junior's/Senior's/Women's? It's just not something I want to do
to complicate the rankings.
What's a greater accomplishment, qualifying in A at PAPA (8 points), or
winning C at PAPA (would be 13 points). Where do you decide that
finishing in X place in B division at PAPA is equal to the value of
qualifying in A division? I don't think it's possible to come to any
logical conclusion on the value of points, once you start excluding the
best players out of the competition.
I just think it brings up too many questions that don't need to be
answered with things as cut and dry as they are right now.
With Kevin's methods of bumping people up divisions at PAPA, these
people that are placing at B-division HAVE to move up to A-division
anyway, so if you had a rule about those points expiring when they move
to A . . . it would happen the following year, so it's kind of a moot
point.
I think giving out points just to try and increase awareness of the
system shouldn't be the sole reason to try and hand them out. You could
give out points just for attending if you really wanted to increase
awareness . . "Come enter in the PAPA World Championships and earn
yourself one Whopper point - hold the mayo"
For now, I'm sticking with the rule . . . To earn points towards your
Greatest Player in the World ranking . . . you have to play against the
greatest players in the world . . . No exceptions! (besides the
Manufacturer's exception - which would be written in REALLY fine print
underneath the No exceptions sign) :-)
-Josh
stan...@aol.com
Feb 5, 9:30 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.pinball
From: "Josh Sharpe" <pinw...@aol.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Feb 2006 18:30:22 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 5 2006 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: World Pinball Rankings - February 2006
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
-Josh
OK point taken.....but the same way you say what is harder qualifying
in a or winning c also brings up whats harder winning the rocky
mountain showdown or qualifying in A. sure both are open to anyone/pros
but when all is said and done pinball is not in a position where
players have sponsers and can live off winnings thus going to all
competitions and treating it like that will only be hammering the nail
further. even with the 10,000 at papa or a new nascar at expo people
still have to hold day jobs. Along with that many small tourneys do not
have the greatest rules. Where as PAPAS are solid, along with a much
larger turnout. I just think simply overlooking B and C will make alot
of people disregrard the system. its great to get good players to go to
smaller competitions but I think it would be better to look at the
whole game of pinball. making a list of only the BEST players VS an
OVERALL pinball ranking system wouldn't be all that different. The best
players would still be on top....thus showing the BEST players. Holding
on to including the ONLY BEST PLAYERS ranking system is fine, but most
people could guess the top 25 anyways give or take, and I doubt if you
included all results the top 25 on your list would change (not great at
math so sorry if I'm wrong). Making an overall ranking system might
involve a little more work and a few points up that pros "missed" but
you would also get A LOT more attention and support. Having somebody
like Bowen on board should speak for itself...I Think its honorable a
player of his skill is looking out for lesser players, the kind of
attitude that is keeping pinball alive. This is a system is a GREAT
idea.... but opening it up.... and having Joe shmhoe ranked at 452 wont
affect your system much if at all, but it will affect Joe shmoe
greatly. Pinball is in a place now where it is in dyer need of more
people....and I think making this an OVERALL system would greatly help
this and not affect THE BEST PLAYERS. Would you rather get more pros
to smaller competitions. Or get more pros and not pros to competitions?
I think here you can have your cake and eat it too.
anyhow great work Josh.
Josh Sharpe
> OK point taken.....but the same way you say what is harder qualifying
> in a or winning c also brings up whats harder winning the rocky
> mountain showdown or qualifying in A. sure both are open to anyone/pros
> but when all is said and done pinball is not in a position where
> players have sponsers and can live off winnings thus going to all
> competitions and treating it like that will only be hammering the nail
> further.
I am actually on the side that thinks winning the Rocky Mountain
Showdow, or winning Pinball at the Zoo or winning CA Extreme IS harder
than qualifying in A at PAPA. And this is coming from someone that
didn't qualify in PAPA last year. When you have qualified for any
event, the margin of error becomes that much less, because there are no
more entries. There are no more second chances. Usually the field in
the smaller tournaments still have some tough competition. I think
Trent Augenstein and Chris Newsom actually go to EVERY tournament, so
no tournament ever features a walk in the park to victory. Not saying
that qualifying in A isn't hard, but you have alot more opportunities
to put a run together.
I would say that right now, pinball obviously doesn't have the sponsors
to support this list, but it is something I am working on. With that
said, I want the rankings to be something as official as possible
compared to other professional sports rankings. I guess it goes back to
one of the Brian's posts about the system being used to rank the
greatest players, or simply something used for fun to expand interest.
And like I said in response to his post, I don't think that these two
choices are mutually exclusive, but I do want the rankings to be taken
seriously by anyone who would contribute financially or otherwise, that
the system truly does list the greatest players in the world.
even with the 10,000 at papa or a new nascar at expo people
> still have to hold day jobs. Along with that many small tourneys do not
> have the greatest rules. Where as PAPAS are solid, along with a much
> larger turnout. I just think simply overlooking B and C will make alot
> of people disregrard the system.
If alot of B and C players disregard the system, that's fine. I'm
definitely a "C" bowler and golfer, and a C competitor at many other
sports, and being ranked among the world's best isn't why I would
choose or not choose to play the sport. I play those other sports
simply because I enjoy them, and I think alot of B and C players should
play pinball simply because they find it fun.
its great to get good players to go to
> smaller competitions but I think it would be better to look at the
> whole game of pinball. making a list of only the BEST players VS an
> OVERALL pinball ranking system wouldn't be all that different. The best
> players would still be on top....thus showing the BEST players. Holding
> on to including the ONLY BEST PLAYERS ranking system is fine, but most
> people could guess the top 25 anyways give or take, and I doubt if you
> included all results the top 25 on your list would change (not great at
> math so sorry if I'm wrong). Making an overall ranking system might
> involve a little more work and a few points up that pros "missed" but
> you would also get A LOT more attention and support.
I really don't think watering down points at the bottom by separating
those players that are 150-400 rank is really the main purpose of the
rankings. I think the attention and support doesn't need to come from
people that are already fans of pinball to get this going. To make this
big, attention will need to come from companies and sponsors who really
couldn't care less what pinball is really about. I doubt ING supported
the Marathon ranking system because the CEO liked to run long distances
:-)
Having somebody
> like Bowen on board should speak for itself...I Think its honorable a
> player of his skill is looking out for lesser players, the kind of
> attitude that is keeping pinball alive. This is a system is a GREAT
> idea.... but opening it up.... and having Joe shmhoe ranked at 452 wont
> affect your system much if at all, but it will affect Joe shmoe
> greatly. Pinball is in a place now where it is in dyer need of more
> people....and I think making this an OVERALL system would greatly help
> this and not affect THE BEST PLAYERS.
I understand Bowen's comments, although he wouldn't know what it is
like playing in B divisions, or Junior divisions like I have :-)
(Thank god you took up pinball too late to play in Junior's with Zach
and myself)
In the end, I think that Joe Shmhoe doesn't care about being ranked
452, and really shouldn't care at that point. To say it doesn't effect
the BEST PLAYERS is probably correct in terms of ranking, but it does
effect the best players in terms of these lesser skilled players being
ranked among the best in the world. I don't think you'll ever hear the
following conversation:
John - "Bill, I was thinking about going to the PAPA World Pinball
Championships"
Bill - "Really John, that's kind of weird . . .they actually have
competitions for pinball?!?"
John - "They sure do Bill, you should come and play the C division
because you can get some official ranking points to be ranked among the
best players in the world"
Bill - "Well damn John . . . let me pack my bags. Now I'm interested!"
Would you rather get more pros
> to smaller competitions. Or get more pros and not pros to competitions?
> I think here you can have your cake and eat it too.
>
I would like to have my cake and eat it too . . . I want more pros to
competitions to support the rankings . . . and I want more "non pros"
to competitions because the competitions are simply a BLAST! I have
college friends that have played in leagues and tournaments simply
because pinball is fun to play. They don't need the incentive of world
rankings to gain interest. They simply need a push from someone to open
their eyes and see how fun competitive pinball is. As I always say . .
EVERYONE loves pinball, they just don't know it yet :-)
CAH
Grow up.
1) I didn't make any claim to points based on that tournament
2) I earned all my points AFTER that tournament anyway
Make sure you know what you are talking about before you run your mouth.
stan...@aol.com
Josh Sharpe wrote:
> I am actually on the side that thinks winning the Rocky Mountain
> Showdow, or winning Pinball at the Zoo or winning CA Extreme IS harder
> than qualifying in A at PAPA. And this is coming from someone that
> didn't qualify in PAPA last year. When you have qualified for any
> event, the margin of error becomes that much less, because there are no
> more entries. There are no more second chances. Usually the field in
> the smaller tournaments still have some tough competition. I think
> Trent Augenstein and Chris Newsom actually go to EVERY tournament, so
> no tournament ever features a walk in the park to victory. Not saying
> that qualifying in A isn't hard, but you have alot more opportunities
> to put a run together.
> I would say that right now, pinball obviously doesn't have the sponsors
> to support this list, but it is something I am working on. With that
> said, I want the rankings to be something as official as possible
> compared to other professional sports rankings. I guess it goes back to
> one of the Brian's posts about the system being used to rank the
> greatest players, or simply something used for fun to expand interest.
> And like I said in response to his post, I don't think that these two
> choices are mutually exclusive, but I do want the rankings to be taken
> seriously by anyone who would contribute financially or otherwise, that
> the system truly does list the greatest players in the world.
> definitely a "C" bowler and golfer, and a C competitor at many other
> sports, and being ranked among the world's best isn't why I would
> choose or not choose to play the sport. I play those other sports
> simply because I enjoy them, and I think alot of B and C players should
> play pinball simply because they find it fun.
> those players that are 150-400 rank is really the main purpose of the
> rankings. I think the attention and support doesn't need to come from
> people that are already fans of pinball to get this going. To make this
> big, attention will need to come from companies and sponsors who really
> couldn't care less what pinball is really about. I doubt ING supported
> the Marathon ranking system because the CEO liked to run long distances
> :-)
> like playing in B divisions, or Junior divisions like I have :-)
> (Thank god you took up pinball too late to play in Junior's with Zach
> and myself)
> In the end, I think that Joe Shmhoe doesn't care about being ranked
> 452, and really shouldn't care at that point. To say it doesn't effect
> the BEST PLAYERS is probably correct in terms of ranking, but it does
> effect the best players in terms of these lesser skilled players being
> ranked among the best in the world. I don't think you'll ever hear the
> following conversation:
> John - "Bill, I was thinking about going to the PAPA World Pinball
> Championships"
> Bill - "Really John, that's kind of weird . . .they actually have
> competitions for pinball?!?"
> John - "They sure do Bill, you should come and play the C division
> because you can get some official ranking points to be ranked among the
> best players in the world"
> Bill - "Well damn John . . . let me pack my bags. Now I'm interested!"
> competitions to support the rankings . . . and I want more "non pros"
> to competitions because the competitions are simply a BLAST! I have
> college friends that have played in leagues and tournaments simply
> because pinball is fun to play. They don't need the incentive of world
> rankings to gain interest. They simply need a push from someone to open
> their eyes and see how fun competitive pinball is. As I always say . .
> EVERYONE loves pinball, they just don't know it yet :-)
I understand not wanting the list flooded by lesser players and
watering it down. but by adding b and c this would only add at most 32
players to a list currently at 400+. I know you are still working on
the system but as it develops I think it would make it more SERIOUS to
only list the top 25/50 or 100....because a large chunk of those below
are B AND C players so there are already those "lesser players" you
don't want to be compared to the greatest on the list. To make it all
the more complex perhaps you could leave it up to the top ten on your
list to vote on the including B and C problem (1st=10 points,2nd=9,
3rd=8etc. points etc.)I do think that you are underestimating how it
would effect joe shmoe. I will stop beating the horse, all I ask is to
think and talk it over with others before finalizing your decision.
STEELERS
oh and sorry colin didnt mean to make you "jump" out of your seat,
congrats on your win.
Josh Sharpe
stan...@aol.com wrote:
> I understand not wanting the list flooded by lesser players and
> watering it down. but by adding b and c this would only add at most 32
> players to a list currently at 400+. I know you are still working on
> the system but as it develops I think it would make it more SERIOUS to
> only list the top 25/50 or 100....because a large chunk of those below
> are B AND C players so there are already those "lesser players" you
> don't want to be compared to the greatest on the list. To make it all
> the more complex perhaps you could leave it up to the top ten on your
> list to vote on the including B and C problem (1st=10 points,2nd=9,
> 3rd=8etc. points etc.)I do think that you are underestimating how it
> would effect joe shmoe. I will stop beating the horse, all I ask is to
> think and talk it over with others before finalizing your decision.
> STEELERS
>
> oh and sorry colin didnt mean to make you "jump" out of your seat,
> congrats on your win.
Chances are that any publicized rankings would only have the top 50 or
top 100 listed, but I do think that the "lesser players" that are on
the list have earned those points by competing against the greatest
players. I am curious to hear what any other B and C players think
about the rankings, especially those that I know through playing in
PinBrawl (Darren Kamnitzer, the Schobers, Brian Dominy, Brian Bannon,
etc. etc.).
Do you feel that the B-division should be included to determine the
best players in the world? Are these rankings important to you? Any
thoughts you may have.
-Josh
Bowen Kerins
ineligible for Juniors doesn't mean I can't commiserate. The best
analogy I can think of is chess: there are two rating systems. The
first is a "grandmaster points" system, where results in important
matches allow you to advance your rank. The second is a "rating" a
player gets by wins and losses against anyone, pretty much anytime and
anywhere.
The first system only applies to top-tier players, and as such, those
players care about the points and the system. I see the WPPR point
scheme as this type of system: so, maybe Josh should only list the top
50 when the results are published. (Hey, then Rick Swanson can be tied
for 51st.) I think that below the top 50 or 100, the points are
basically "noise" and there's no big difference between being 101st and
372nd. (Hopefully, no offense given here.) As a chess player, I knew
that I would never, ever, be eligible for any of these points no matter
how much chess I tried to play. And thus, I opted to try for WPPR
points instead...
The second system can apply to anyone. As a below-average chess
player, I could still play rated matches against other scrubs.
Meanwhile the top-tier players could play against each other for rating
points at a higher level, or beat the crap out of us scrubs for small
potatoes. (The system rewards players differently: a scrub beating a
good player gets a ton of points, while when a good player beats a
scrub almost nothing changes.) I see -this- system as something that
can apply to everyone, since it doesn't distinguish between A or B or
Pinmaster or Manufacturers'. The natural distinction comes from the
ratings: a higher-rated player can win more by playing other
higher-rated players. The rating can also suggest the appropriate
level of competition for someone: for example, chess has "under-1400"
tournaments where only players of a certain caliber can compete. An
accurate rating system could be used to determine who is eligible to
play in lower divisions at something like PAPA.
There are some downsides to a rating-style system. First, it only
counts match-play results, so some tournaments would be almost
worthless (Expo) while others would become hugely important (Pinbrawl,
Mayday). Second, all results are treated equally, so people competing
in a league night would count just the same as PAPA finals. (There are
ways to vary the relative importance of matches, but it's kind of a
crapshoot.) Third, such a system requires an increased attention to
detail, as the results of every game of every match would need to be
entered. (Did Elwin kick my ass 2-0, or 2-1? Oh, right, it was 2-0.)
Last, such a system is only accurate with a lot of data, a lot of
matches -- but I think WPPR suffers even more so from this problem.
Some significant upsides: anyone can get a rating, no matter how good
or bad they are, no matter what division they play in. Also, rating
isn't dependent on how much someone plays, so there is no natural
advantage to the people who attend every event. There is a rating set
already available (dated Sept. 1, 1999 -- for the curious, the #1
player then was some guy named Keith Elwin... except for some other guy
named Lyman Sheats), so there is some baseline to start from. Finally,
rating only determines relative strength of players -- so a league
could determine its seedings by rating even if all of its players
wouldn't want to compete at any higher level than fun, casual play.
I'm not saying by any means that WPPR should be abandoned for ratings
-- far from it. I think both systems can coexist, and having something
for everyone can eliminate some of these concerns about how to properly
rate and rank players who choose not to compete in A.
What do people think of this? Is there a way to implement this other
rating system so that it can be self- and/or Josh-managed?
- Bowen, proudly sitting #18 as of Sept. 1, 1999
Josh Sharpe
I know you did run your ratings for a while. Why did those ever stop?
You are totally right with my rankings system. It is something for
top-tier players, and when these get published in the different
magazines I am submitting them to, I am only offering the top 100. I
agree that 101-400 are about the same (obviously not the same in skill
level, but the range becomes quite large).
There are obviously pros and cons to EVERY rating system ever invented
by man. Before the BCS poll in college football, which everyone
complains about, I can't imagine that the national champion was crowned
by AP votes! Talk about subjective!!!!
Hopefully as months go by and my ratings get updated, it will gain some
momentum and will start to "mean" something. I'm all for more rankings.
If I can be #8 with a skill level of 1380 or however your points are
calculated . . . the more the merrier.
-Josh
Bri...@aol.com
Bowen Kerins wrote:
> Hey, just because I didn't find out about tournaments until I was
> ineligible for Juniors doesn't mean I can't commiserate. The best
> analogy I can think of is chess: there are two rating systems. The
> first is a "grandmaster points" system, where results in important
> matches allow you to advance your rank. The second is a "rating" a
> player gets by wins and losses against anyone, pretty much anytime and
> anywhere.
Technically, in tournament chess all players are rated using the same
type of system, either FIDE or USCF in this case. Grandmasters are
awarded the title of IGM after certain performances against other
International Grand Masters or International Masters in tournaments,
these are called "norms". Once they have achieved a certain rating
level AND achieved a set number of norms they can receive the title of
IM or IGM depending on their result. I also believe they have to do
this is a certain period of time, say within a year--not sure about
that stipulation. Once they receive the title, they always have it and
it is never taken away, even if their playing strength and results
begin to suffer. OTOH, their rating can and does fluctuate depending
on their results in matches and tournaments.
In the case of pinball, a "wizard" norm could be qualifying at the A
division at PAPA, or placing in the A division at PAPA. I think the
whole idea of ratings is really time intensive and you would probably
have to ask yourself why bother doing it. All the events would have to
be "sanctioned" and played according to certain rules. Someone would
have to keep the books on the ratings which I think is much harder than
ranking people. You would essentially rate everyone who would play in
the tournament. That seems like a tremendous amount of work. It all
has to be chronological, too. If there are pinball tournaments on
successive weekends and the same players participate, you would have to
calculate the ratings in the first event before you could calculate the
ratings in the following event. We need more than an Excel spreadsheet
for that.
We would need to determine a baseline. It is easy to see the top end
of it and we know those people by name--Bowen, Lyman, Keith, and
others. How do you determine the other end of the spectrum? Anyone
who loses all matches is given a rating of zero? If you call the best
players "wizards", what do you call the worst players? Novices?
>
> What do people think of this? Is there a way to implement this other
> rating system so that it can be self- and/or Josh-managed?
I played tournament chess for years and I think ratings did show
relative playing strength at a point in time. Once my rating quit
climbing, it fluctuated between 1725 and 1825. I also remember people
bitching about sandbaggers, looking down their nose at lower rated
opponents, and worrying too much about losing those rating points. If
we went to some sort of rating system I think people would take their
pinball playing a lot more serious than today. Not sure if that is
good or bad. It probably would not be any more fun. I say we stay
with the ranking and if people want to be ranked among the best in the
world, then play them at the highest level and see how you do.
Brian Bannon
Bowen Kerins
was doing all the data entry myself, and it was getting overwhelming to
support the 4 major leagues at the time (BAPA, FSPA, TRPA, and Chicago)
and any other matches people wanted to submit. One thing I did which
maybe should be changed (?) is that any match was sanctioned: go ahead,
play at home, play at league, play at PAPA, just let me know what
happened. For a while, Malcolm Cleaton of the UK was the #1 player by
"beating his wife and kids" (not my words... and in pinball). After a
while, with enough cross-pollination, players moved naturally toward
different rating "groups" -- so, for example, the average rating of
people playing A Division finals was higher than the average of those
playing B. In that way, it is adaptable to all skill levels, and
there's no advantage or disadvantage for choosing to play against high
or low levels of competition.
I can dig up all the calculations. There's been talk of resurrecting
it, but I'd want the data entry to be easy (or Web-based) and maybe it
makes sense to have it apply only to tournaments and "official" league
play. I sure wouldn't want it to interfere with your system, you
deserve to be the Home of the WPPR.
And you don't want to bring up the BCS, that would be a bad example of
a subjective system :)
- Bowen
As of September 1, 1999
#16 Joshua Sharpe (IL) 69 - 31 1618
#18 Bowen Kerins (MA) 264 - 98 1610
KME
You got that online somewhere?
Bri...@aol.com
>
> Chances are that any publicized rankings would only have the top 50 or
> top 100 listed, but I do think that the "lesser players" that are on
> the list have earned those points by competing against the greatest
> players. I am curious to hear what any other B and C players think
> about the rankings, especially those that I know through playing in
> PinBrawl (Darren Kamnitzer, the Schobers, Brian Dominy, Brian Bannon,
> etc. etc.).
> Do you feel that the B-division should be included to determine the
> best players in the world? Are these rankings important to you? Any
> thoughts you may have.
>
> -Josh
Josh, I would only include open events in the rankings. These are
WORLD rankings, and if you want to be considered as among the best you
have to play and beat the best. Anything else is not a true ranking
system and takes something away from those players at the top.
Everybody can't be ranked in the top 10 or 50. I find the ranking idea
interesting, but it would not determine if I would play in "B" or try
to play up in "A" for the WPR points. I would play where ever I can be
competitive, have fun and put up a respectable result.
Brian Bannon
Brian Bannon
Bowen Kerins
implemented with the full ratings system that USCF uses, except for the
silly extra stuff like "rating floor" to accommodate longtime whiner
grandmasters. I hope it would never come to that for pinball. I wrote
a program to handle all entries chronologically, so basically
everything you described was done and in place six years ago -- and
yeah, it took quite a bit more than lousy Excel! I just couldn't keep
doing it since so many matches were being recorded. As far as a
"baseline" goes, your initial rating is determined by a weighted
average of your opponents' ratings, plus or minus your performance
(sort of, it's actually more complicated than that). The rating for a
player with no games played was 1400, and ratings for active players
went as high as 1900 and as low as about 950. I kept track of players'
won-loss records as well as the highest rating they ever achieved.
Say, that is a nice chess rating you got there :)
The most recent ratings dated Sept. 1, 1999, can be found on RGP. I
have the full alphabetical ratings if you want them. I'd expect if the
system were resurrected to use the old numbers as a baseline (and,
probably, wipe everyone's won-loss record).
Heck I even had an account @pinball.org to handle it. Wonder if it's
still there. I don't recall there being any incidents of people being
overprotective of their points, or considering someone less of an
opponent for their rating. It was just some funny stat to keep track
of.
Anyway, I'd happily hand it all off to Mr. Sharpe or anyone else who
wants to undertake it. Or did someone already set this up somewhere?
- Bowen
Bri...@aol.com
Bowen Kerins wrote:
> To Brian: the pinball rating system, or BGMAC for short, was
> implemented with the full ratings system that USCF uses, except for the
> silly extra stuff like "rating floor" to accommodate longtime whiner
> grandmasters. I hope it would never come to that for pinball. I wrote
> a program to handle all entries chronologically, so basically
> everything you described was done and in place six years ago -- and
> yeah, it took quite a bit more than lousy Excel!
Impressive! You really put in a great deal of effort into implementing
this rating system.
I just couldn't keep
> doing it since so many matches were being recorded. As far as a
> "baseline" goes, your initial rating is determined by a weighted
> average of your opponents' ratings, plus or minus your performance
> (sort of, it's actually more complicated than that). The rating for a
> player with no games played was 1400
I think the USCF may use a different baseline now. They probably
should have stayed with the 1400 as I think they are dealing with
rating deflation issues now because of all the lower rated scholastic
players. Theoretically, in pinball the best players would be well over
2600, people like yourself, and the other top ten should be 2750 or
better if you made the correlation to the top ratings for chess and
transferred those to pinball.
Still seems like a lot of work, but given your previous experience it
seems as if it might be workable if only certain events were included,
meaning leaving out casual play and unsanctioned events.
Brian Bannon
Bri...@aol.com
Bowen Kerins wrote:
> To Brian: the pinball rating system, or BGMAC for short, was
> implemented with the full ratings system that USCF uses, except for the
> silly extra stuff like "rating floor" to accommodate longtime whiner
> grandmasters. I hope it would never come to that for pinball. I wrote
> a program to handle all entries chronologically, so basically
> everything you described was done and in place six years ago -- and
> yeah, it took quite a bit more than lousy Excel!
Impressive! You really put in a great deal of effort into implementing
this rating system.
I just couldn't keep
> doing it since so many matches were being recorded. As far as a
> "baseline" goes, your initial rating is determined by a weighted
> average of your opponents' ratings, plus or minus your performance
> (sort of, it's actually more complicated than that). The rating for a
Bowen Kerins
there's a heavy luck factor in pinball. In chess, a 400-point ratings
difference means that the higher-rated player will win 90% of the time.
An 800-point ratings difference is a 99% victory rate. And I don't
care who you are or who you're playing against, I'll take them to win
at least 1 out of 100 games. The difference between the highest and
lowest rated players tended to be around 1000 rating points (using the
same scale as chess). Additionally, with fewer rated players in
pinball, the variance is lessened enough that higher gaps are unlikely
without more players.
The system's ready to go (and previously proven to be okay). One
potential problem that came up is the system tended to be a little too
"present-tense" ... if you played really well or really poorly in the
most recent event, the ratings reflected that greatly. And I suppose
there's nothing really wrong with that, but it could maybe use some
tweaking.
- Bowen
Svante
in stockholmpinball and has done so for about 4 years or so. The
changes we made to the system is that challenges between 2 players are
always best of three and for tournament matches we cut the matchpoints
to 16 instead of 32 since in tournaments you can't choose your opponent
and basically you could win a tournament and still lose rating points
if you lost some match against "the wrong opponent" along the way.
Josh Sharpe
right!!! :-)
Maybe I spent too much time "beating my parents" at home to get to #16.
Your system is definitely interesting . . . but seems to be complicated
and requires alot more work. I think that's what is so easy about my
WPPR system. It's easy to understand, easy to update, everyone knows
where they can get points. Plus, I think it's easy to explain to an
outsider. It sounds like anyone who is not familiar with chess would
have a hard time understanding how the other system works. We'll see
how the rankings move this year once tournaments start to pick up in
March and April (especially when the International Majors hit the
scene). I think by at least glancing at the Top 50, that it's a pretty
accurate portrayal of the best players in the world.
-Josh