Winning the US Open from the loser's side?
- Thread starter EL'nino
- Start date
Why would that be an argument to do away with it?
Because the winner of the loser's bracket wins 1 in 20 matches. I agree with the single match finals to begin with. I feel that the winner of the B bracket had to play more matches to begin with so he paid his penalty. JMO
I'd take that to mean that either (1) none of the 232 people who viewed the thread knows the answer, or (2) if any of them know the answer they weren't interested in replying.
In any case, I'd be very surprised if all but two winners of the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship went undefeated, though it is possible.
Queue our man AtLarge.
I know the year Louie Roberts won, he lost his first match.
As a side note to that: there might be two dozen people that own the cue he used in that tournament.
If he lost the hot seat match, he had to play 1 more match, 1. So you feel that extra match is worth a loss? Extra matches are the penalty, plain and simple. Why should the hot seat winner lose his extra loss? What did he do wrong to be penalized an entire set???
There is nothing that can be said to rationalize this thinking, PERIOD
Jason
US Open 9-Ball winners who did not go undefeated:
2016 -- Shane Van Boening (lost to Chang Jung-Lin)
2009 -- Mika Immonen (lost to Chris Bartram)
2008 -- Mika Immonen (lost to Ronnie Alcano)
2006 -- John Schmidt (lost to David Broxson)
1999 -- Johnny Archer (lost to Kim Davenport)
1997 -- Earl Strickland (lost to John Horsfall)
1995 -- Reed Pierce (lost to Rodney Morris)
1991 -- Buddy Hall (lost to Johnny Archer)
1976-1988 -- I don't know
Last edited:
As it should be .... you lost once already. Why should the guy in the winners bracket be penalized because he made it through without a loss.
As always I appreciate everything you do for the forums. I actually find it quite surprising that it is this rare for someone to come back from the one loss side to win. When did the US Open change from double elimination to a single set finals?
I didn't know that it ever was a true double elimination tourney?
He didn't get penalized... the winner's bracket player was given a fair shot to win the title.
He got to play a nice long race, and he only had half as many matches behind him.
He got a longer rest. Plus he doesn't have the psychological damage of a loss hanging over him.
He has all the advantages, the guy on the B-side is mentally (and probably physically) exhausted.
The A-side guy is supposed to win with that kind of edge, and he usually does.
If he loses despite those advantages, nobody owes him anything.
Look at this way, if the A-side player loses the final... then we're looking at two players with one loss each.
But one of them beat 15 players and the other only beat 7. Who deserves the trophy?
You could be right. I just seem to remember this modified finals being a recent thing.
There's a good argument on both sides of this issue, I guess that's why there's a lot of tourny's that do it both ways.
I knew if we just kept at it long enough we'd find a question that you (didn't) know the answer to
I, too, was surprised that winning from the losers' side has been of such low frequency at the US Open 9-Ball -- just 7 times in the last 28 events (25%).
I've kept track of this for the Turning Stone events, and it is much closer (and the other way around) -- 14 winners from the losers' side in the last 25 events (56%). [I still don't know whether Immonen won the first event undefeated.]
[And I don't know whether the US Open has ever been true DE in the finals. I don't recall seeing any mention of a DE finals in the articles I looked at to answer the original question in this thread.]
That depends, of course, on the round in which the B-side player lost his match. For DE with a full field of 128, the A-side winner who loses in the finals finishes at 7-1. The B-side winner who then wins the event finishes somewhere from 8-1 to 13-1, depending on where his loss occurred.
Last edited:
Believe it or not, I have been on the A side of this and really feel like sitting around waiting has hurt more than it has helped - I'd rather be in action to stay "in the zone" than sitting around. Experience from both sides. JMHO
Jason