Yes. On the other hand, without the cap, the world rankings would pretty much degenerate into two groups: players who can attend a major and players who cannot.
Isnt the system already weighted against people who live in pinball deserts (I think the IFPA lists India as an example)? Isn’t that the nature of most, if not all amateur sports anyway? Some people from some geographic locations will inherently have an advantage over others. There isn’t really a good way to change the rules to accommodate for that.
I agree, that’s just how it is. But it doesn’t mean that we should go and make the imbalance even stronger.
You still have to reward those in massive tournaments appropriately, though. If majors aren’t particularly valuable, they lose the significance of being a major. And without being a major, there isn’t a draw to the event, which starts the process for pinball to go back to what it was: a local thing done in bars.
Isn’t 140 points for Pinburgh enough?
Honestly, if it’s undervalued by about 3x, I’d say no, it’s not enough. Maybe 430 points is excessive, but give the people what they earned. I think a 1.5x multiplier draws a good balance between awarding the winner appropriately and not having a ‘one tournament dictates the year’ ranking.
This works the other way too - those with the time and money to travel for major events will always have an advantage of those that cannot. There really isn’t anything to be done about that either.
The point I am alluding to is that the highest value tournament on the calendar is a lottery for entry. Players like Jorian missed out, so that will affect his ranking. (Of course, Bowen misses out, too, because he is running the thing.) But as others have pointed out, rankings are skewed by other things such as limited access to tournaments because of money or geography.