PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Open Final Match format changes???


ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 01:48 PM
Even though I know it's "Barry's tournament" and he makes sure EVERYONE knows it. I still think the way they play the final match is NOT the way to determine the winner IMHO

There is NO reward for going 6 days UNDEFEATED only to play a single match regardless of the length of the match. I had no horse in this race but Ronnie Alcano took on all comers for days only to be beaten by a guy that had already been beaten. I feel that a tournament that "starts" as a Double Elimination, should finish that way.

And no, it has nothing to do with who won, or who lost, I would think this regardless of the outcome.

thoughts?

JoeyInCali
10-26-2008, 01:51 PM
Even though I know it's "Barry's tournament" and he makes sure EVERYONE knows it. I still think the way they play the final match is NOT the way to determine the winner IMHO

There is NO reward for going 6 days UNDEFEATED only to play a single match regardless of the length of the match. I had no horse in this race but Ronnie Alcano took on all comers for days only to be beaten by a guy that had already been beaten. I feel that a tournament that "starts" as a Double Elimination, should finish that way.

And no, it has nothing to do with who won, or who lost, I would think this regardless of the outcome.

thoughts?
They have a plane to catch.
Sands, I believed, switched to races to 7, best of 3.
2 races to 11 for the finals would be too long imo.

ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 01:56 PM
what ever they decide on... races to 3 for all I care. i still think the winner of the "winners" bracket should have to be beaten twice... just my opinion

Johnnyt
10-26-2008, 02:03 PM
what ever they decide on... races to 3 for all I care. i still think the winner of the "winners" bracket should have to be beaten twice... just my opinion

I agree. Johnnyt

poolpop63
10-26-2008, 02:11 PM
If its a double elim tourny, then I agree it should be consistant all the way through. But throw in a shot clock of 30 sec and in some cases they may need a shot calendar.

ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 02:20 PM
LOL "shot calendar" now that's funny.... If in fact catching a plane is the reason they can't finish with a DE format.. either they do need to speed up the races or get a different travel agent

Brian in VA
10-26-2008, 02:23 PM
It's been that way for a number of years and it's always advertised that way and every player knows about it before they even enter the event. My opinion is if they don't want to play and abide by this format, they don't have to enter.

Is it fair? Yep. It's the same for everyone. If they didn't allow jump cues would you say it wasn't fair for the "good jumpers" in the field?

Brian in VA

Frankenstroke
10-26-2008, 02:29 PM
The reward for going 6 days undefeated is making it to the finals with fewer bullets to dodge, less fatigue due to playing fewer matches, and less stress because each match won't necessarilly be your last. Everyone knows from the outset that there are 2 paths to a single-match final. No one purposely takes the losers side path.

Pool players are lucky to get a second chance. No other major sport plays double-elimination. Case in point, tennis. Single elimination. Major bucks involved and no second chance.

ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 02:36 PM
Just because the players are "aware" of the format and agree to play anyway, that way is not really the issue IMO

the use of Jump cues changes the actual game being played... the format does not impact the "game" in the same way. true you may play different knowing you only have one chance to win or lose but it's still not the same thing. the fact is Mika had already lost once where Ronnie had not. So it's "not the same for everyone". You might as well play the whole thing as single elimination.




It's been that way for a number of years and it's always advertised that way and every player knows about it before they even enter the event. My opinion is if they don't want to play and abide by this format, they don't have to enter.

Is it fair? Yep. It's the same for everyone. If they didn't allow jump cues would you say it wasn't fair for the "good jumpers" in the field?

Brian in VA

ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 02:40 PM
BTW I don't even know why I really care... I can't win a local tournament! LOL

JoeyInCali
10-26-2008, 02:43 PM
Well, they could have a losers' finals and winners' finals.

Brian in VA
10-26-2008, 08:12 PM
Just because the players are "aware" of the format and agree to play anyway, that way is not really the issue IMO

the use of Jump cues changes the actual game being played... the format does not impact the "game" in the same way. true you may play different knowing you only have one chance to win or lose but it's still not the same thing. the fact is Mika had already lost once where Ronnie had not. So it's "not the same for everyone". You might as well play the whole thing as single elimination.
We could argue this till we're both blue in the face. :) I'll take your argument one step further. What if the guy on the 1 loss side beats all of his opponents by a huge margin and the guy that wins the winner's side beats all of his opponents on the hill? Does that mean the loser's side finalist is the better player because he has the overall better games won/ games lost ratio? Probably not. I'd be okay with single elimination, frankly, although I think double elimination rewards the better players; everyone has an off match but the better players have fewer of them.

Having watched both of their matches, I'd say these two were very closely matched this week. I'd also say that, all in, Mika was the better player. The difference between his best and worst play was a much smaller delta. Ronnie's play was much sketchier. This week, I think the better player won. Next week the outcome might be completely different.

Brian in VA

sjm
10-26-2008, 08:23 PM
True double elimination is neither TV or fan friendly. Two races to 13 involiving Archer based on how long his matches took, could take about seven hours. Two fast players, if the winners bracket winner closed it out immediately, might only take an hour and a quarter. Attendees are entitled to know approximately how long the final will take, and can arrange their outbound transportation and activities accordingly.

I'd like to see the winner's bracket champion get sometingextra, though, and my recommendation has always been to give them two games on the wire in the final.

jsp
10-26-2008, 09:49 PM
I'd like to see the winner's bracket champion get sometingextra, though, and my recommendation has always been to give them two games on the wire in the final.
I always liked the compromise that the winner's side champion (WSC) can win the match with a shorter race while the loser's side champion (LSC) must win with the longer race.

For example, if the finals are typically races to 13, then the WSC can win the match by reaching 11 (or some other number smaller than 13) games first, while the LSC can only win the match by reaching 13 games first. If the WSC first reaches 11, the match is over. However, if the LSC is the first to reach 11 games, then the match becomes a race to 13 for both of them.

ugotactionTX
10-26-2008, 09:54 PM
You did take it "one step further" but the margins the matches are won by is something else entirely. I was putting it in very simple terms. either you win the match or lose it. that's all

just seems like there should be a better way..

FWIW, I also think 2 races to 13 would be entirely too long :eek:

We could argue this till we're both blue in the face. :) I'll take your argument one step further. What if the guy on the 1 loss side beats all of his opponents by a huge margin and the guy that wins the winner's side beats all of his opponents on the hill? Does that mean the loser's side finalist is the better player because he has the overall better games won/ games lost ratio? Probably not. I'd be okay with single elimination, frankly, although I think double elimination rewards the better players; everyone has an off match but the better players have fewer of them.

Having watched both of their matches, I'd say these two were very closely matched this week. I'd also say that, all in, Mika was the better player. The difference between his best and worst play was a much smaller delta. Ronnie's play was much sketchier. This week, I think the better player won. Next week the outcome might be completely different.

Brian in VA

Black-Balled
10-27-2008, 06:53 AM
Good arguments, but I see no problem with how it was done.