top 100 players

[mouseman]

Why not make a ranking system like the net players have?

Something like this:

10pts from winning
5pts from being 2nd
4pts 3rd
3pts 4th
...
etc you get the point

then multiply the points if it's a important tournament. Like from worlds you could get 5 times more points than some small jam. Of course a tournament have to qualify as a large scale tournament that it could get ranking points at all. There could be ranking tournaments and just tournaments world wide :) Just an idea :>

[Shredster]

Why not make a ranking system like the net players have?

Something like this:

10pts from winning
5pts from being 2nd
4pts 3rd
3pts 4th
...
etc you get the point

then multiply the points if it's a important tournament. Like from worlds you could get 5 times more points than some small jam. Of course a tournament have to qualify as a large scale tournament that it could get ranking points at all. There could be ranking tournaments and just tournaments world wide Just an idea :>

If we ranked people based on a point system with which the ranking is based on how many times someone has won or how many tournaments one has attended, i don' think that is fair. If Vasek were to never attend competitions, (though he is frickin good), his ranking would suck. I just don't htink thats a great idea.

I DO, however, think that a point system based on SOMETHING is a great idea. I think your idea was definatly in the good direction though.

[mouseman]

It wouldn't be a ranking system based on how good people are. It would be a ranking system based on how good/poorly people have done in competition.

This would strive our sport to better direction.

There would be something to show sponsors. "I'm 12th, with your help, I could attend more competitions and get even better". Just imagine :> It doesn't have to reflect how good people are, no one can just rank people, I think this is the best way overall.

[BalinorNZ]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Steve Blough.

rofl