Double Dip or Single Set

[SUPERSTAR]

Thank you for the replies.
I wonder what the actual PLAYERS would think about it if they had this pitched to them before the tournament.

To me it's quite simple.
Regardless of if they know it or not before hand, the player who wins the hot seat, but loses the final match is getting robbed.

 

[penguin]

To me it's quite simple.
Regardless of if they know it or not before hand, the player who wins the hot seat, but loses the final match is getting robbed.

True double-elimination format is the only way to go in a pro tournament -- the guy who won the hot-seat should be rewarded for going undefeated, not punished.

Anything else smells like another Dragon Promotions "innovation".

 

[Sam Waltz]

I'll take two scoops please...a bargain at twice the price!

Double dip finals all the way!

I've never understood why the whole tournament format should be changed during the climactic finale! WTF! After four days of playing one way were just gonna flip the coin on ya and that's the way it is. Whoever came up with that crap in the first place is straight mad whack yo! Sorry, couldn't find any other way to put it, but this subject really gets me boilin' man.

Breathe in....breathe out....ok it's cool....now where's that damned Prozac? :thumbup:

 

[hustlefinger]

I’d rather see a true double elimination (perhaps an extended) race, but one longer race does make it more exciting, kind of a do or die feeling. What is most unfair imo, is the payout scheme, in this case maybe 16k for first and 11k for second, instead of 20k to 7k. I think a lot of tournaments are weighted too heavy for first place. I understand why they do it. It may sound better for advertising but its unfair percentage wise.

I don’t favor rewarding the hot seat winner either. Just keep it simple.

Rick

 

[Yancey]

Double Elim mean double elim and this single elim for the last match stuff will never get my entry fee. I mean what was the score of the first match between Dueul and Schmidt and the final, I mean who won the most games and who won. In this format you could actually have a winner that wins less games and wins the tournament. That is why I dont support this format period.

That being said, the rules were posted, the players paid their fees. So be it.

 

[CreeDo]

When I first heard of the idea of making the finals 1 race I balked and immediately thought "nope, not fair."

But the more I think about it, the more I feel ok with it. The overall idea of the tournament can be thought of as not "who is the best in this field of players" but "who is the best between the 2 finalists".

If the single race to X was considered a fair enough test to see who deserves to be a finalist, then that same single race is fair enough to test who deserves to win it all. Or lengthen the finals race if you really want to be sure.

I've heard many times that the difference between top players is very small and that the tournament winner isn't necessarily who is the best player in pool, it's just the person who played best at that particular moment. So let the finals be a particular moment where both guys are facing the exact same pressure and we'll see who comes out on top.

It's not the same pressure when 1 guy is facing a 2nd chance and the other guy is all in. It has to affect your game, having those thoughts in the back of your head... "I can relax and just play my game, I always have a 2nd set if I lose" vs "geez, I gotta beat this guy twice, it's so much work, and I have to be extra conservative (or aggressive) because if I lose I'm all done"

The players should be free of thoughts like that and just play it like a heads-up 1v1 gambling set, and forget whatever happened in the past.


PS: Obviously it's BS if a player isn't informed that the finals will be a single set ahead of time =)

 

[sjm]

I hate true double elimination in any situation where there is a sizable crowd watching a tourney, and even moreso if the match is being televised. I don't mind it in a small local tournament where the players favor it, because then it's about the players, not about the fans.

Paying fans are entitled to know the match schedule, and roughly, how long matches will take. At Valley Forge this week, there was the match between Chamat and Morris, which took just over an hour. Simultaneously, on the adjacent table, Archer and Putnam needed over three hours to complete their set. Imagine if the Archer vs Putnam match had been the final and they'd had to play another set after that one. I think many fans who paid good money to attend, myself included, would have just left after the first set. A fast set takes an hour, a slow one three hours. A final that could last anywhere from one to six hours is ridiculous in a second tier sport.

What I agree with, however, is that the hot seat winner should get something extra, and extra money is one good approach. Another good approach is giving a couple of games on the wire in the final to the hot seat winner.

True double elimination just doesn't add up when their are paying fans in attendance.

 

[Sam Waltz]

Opinions vary...

I hate true double elimination in any situation where there is a sizable crowd watching a tourney, and even moreso if the match is being televised. I don't mind it in a small local tournament where the players favor it, because then it's about the players, not about the fans.

Paying fans are entitled to know the match schedule, and roughly, how long matches will take. At Valley Forge this week, there was the match between Chamat and Morris, which took just over an hour. Simultaneously, on the adjacent table, Archer and Putnam needed over three hours to complete their set. Imagine if the Archer vs Putnam match had been the final and they'd had to play another set after that one. I think many fans who paid good money to attend, myself included, would have just left after the first set. A fast set takes an hour, a slow one three hours. A final that could last anywhere from one to six hours is ridiculous in a second tier sport.

What I agree with, however, is that the hot seat winner should get something extra, and extra money is one good approach. Another good approach is giving a couple of games on the wire in the final to the hot seat winner.

True double elimination just doesn't add up when their are paying fans in attendance.

Maximum Fan Admission Fee:
Weekend Pass - Expo and VIP Pro Arena 4 Days - $195

Tournament Entry - $1000...and the chance of earning the title Pro Players Champion

Don't all pool fans continually cheer for every set to go hill-hill? Don't you think that they'd all like to see the competitor from the one loss side win the first set and force a second set? If after four days of great professional 10-Ball being put on for my viewing enjoyment I sure wouldn't complain if these great players/performers got the chance for a second act most certainly.

If a fan didn't want to observe the game at it's highest form being played in front of their own eyes they could have just stayed home and watched the live streams for four days at their convenience. *Thanks to AZBTV, InsidePool and all the sponsors who made this available to us all!*

I'd love to hear John Schmidt's perspective on this, but I'm sure he'll chime in if he feels the need and wants to state his opinion. By the way, congratulations to both finalists, they did give many a pool junkie their fix!

Just a difference of opinion, but every coin has two sides...and sometimes there are three...or four...you know what I'm sayin'! :grin-square:

 

[JustPlay]

It's not like the pros have much of a choice these days but to accept whatever each promoter wants to do. Of course Corey knew what it was going in, this isn't about how he feels about it. It's about how WE feel about it and I feel that any tournament that is double elimination and has a single set final is cheating the guy on the winner's side and also cheating the spectators, otherwise known as fans.

Just to add to your statements, Pro players really have very little choice which tournaments to play in. Especially tournaments with top heavy money. They have to make a living. Pros should stick together and boycott single elimination tournaments, then maybe promoters would make each final a true double elimination. Maybe 2 shorter sets with a shot clock.

Since most finals are single elimination, they should just pay each player equally and have the two players play for the trophy and title of that event.

 

[sjm]

Maximum Fan Admission Fee:
Weekend Pass - Expo and VIP Pro Arena 4 Days - $195

Tournament Entry - $1000...and the chance of earning the title Pro Players Champion

Don't all pool fans continually cheer for every set to go hill-hill? Don't you think that they'd all like to see the competitor from the one loss side win the first set and force a second set?

No, I think that the average fan would rather know whether they can it home on schedule when the event is over. Even tennis, the only sport I can think of where the matches are of highly variable length, realized that it was turning the fans off, and that's why they invented the tiebreaker to ensure that sets don't go on and on. People have lives to live and schedules to manage. Sports that don't take this into consideration in their event planning should not expect to maximize attendance.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

As far as Putnam-Archer is concerned.
YES, 3 hours is quite the ridiculous match.

It's quite simple.

SHOT CLOCK.

Once the lint picking starts, and the seconds are ticking down, you can be damn well sure that he's not gonna care about the lint, and get on with the business at hand.

THAT'S how you take care of that!

 

[Sam Waltz]

Just a couple sides of the coin...

No, I think that the average fan would rather know whether they can it home on schedule when the event is over. Even tennis, the only sport I can think of where the matches are of highly variable length, realized that it was turning the fans off, and that's why they invented the tiebreaker to ensure that sets don't go on and on. People have lives to live and schedules to manage. Sports that don't take this into consideration in their event planning should not expect to maximize attendance.

Fans schedules are a concern and nothing more, but at no time should their schedules effect the fairness in competition of the participants trying to make a living via their trade...playing pool. These players are the sport and their livelihoods should never be at the whim of a spectator's schedule at anytime IMO. But that's just my opinion and your entitled to yours as well, so I guess we can agree to disagree peacefully.

Now how 'bout those other sides...ya know the three, four or so on I mentioned? :thumbup:

 

[Danktrees]

To play devil's advocate for a minute though, someone coming from the one loss side often plays many more matches than the winner so while the person on the loser's side has one more loss than the player that went into the finals undefeated, they also have more wins.

Hu

that's true but at the same time if that person on the 1 loss side makes it to the finals, chances are he would be more in stroke than the hot seat winner. we've seen it before, the person who wins the hot seat has to sit around for a few hours while their eventual opponent is playing and getting more and more in stroke. of course, since they play more matches it would be harder for them to make the finals, but if they do then they are in a great position. maybe the logic behind it is because the person coming from the b side already played an extra match so there's no need for 2 sets in the finals? i dunno, either way i think it should be true double elim, if not then the hot seat winner should get some sort of a small advantage. maybe start off with a game or two on the wire depending on how long the final set is.

 

[sjm]

Fans schedules are a concern and nothing more, but at no time should their schedules effect the fairness in competition of the participants trying to make a living via their trade...playing pool. These players are the sport and their livelihoods should never be at the whim of a spectator's schedule at anytime IMO. But that's just my opinion and your entitled to yours as well, so I guess we can agree to disagree peacefully.

Now how 'bout those other sides...ya know the three, four or so on I mentioned? :thumbup:

The problem I have is that you state it as fact that in a double elimination tourney, anything but a true double elimination final is unfair. Given your opinion, to which you are entitled, I don't think I'll pursue this debate, even though I greatly disagree with it. Your stated view that the priorities of the fans are greatly outweighed in importance by the competitive priorities of the players is held by far too many in our sport, and continues to cost us in attracting people to our sport.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Sam, but I've enjoyed the dialogue.

 

[ShootingArts]

another variation

Just playing with ideas here but why should the winner of the winners side even have to wait around on the hotseat? I kind of like the idea of the two winners of the semi's on the winners side playing one set for first and second place. They don't get cold, they finish at a reasonable time and the spectators that have had enough fun get to go home. Losers side winners could not finish higher than third so the people with the best records for the longest time take home the most cheese.

I've got to find some brackets and play with this idea but I kind of like it. Seems like I have seen it done somewhere but maybe I am wrong.

Hu

 

[sjm]

Just playing with ideas here but why should the winner of the winners side even have to wait around on the hotseat? I kind of like the idea of the two winners of the semi's on the winners side playing one set for first and second place. They don't get cold, they finish at a reasonable time and the spectators that have had enough fun get to go home. Losers side winners could not finish higher than third so the people with the best records for the longest time take home the most cheese.

I've got to find some brackets and play with this idea but I kind of like it. Seems like I have seen it done somewhere but maybe I am wrong.

Hu

Definitely a creative and interesting variation, Hu, and certainly fair. My problem with it is that it would make late round losers bracket matches less important than they are in today's format, and, therefore, less compelling to watch from the vantage point of a fan.

 

[Roy Steffensen]

I like the idea of giving the hot-seat winner extra cash.

I think it is the best solution, or else you can end up with a final ending from 1 h to 6 h depending on who is playing, like SJM said.

Make it as easy as possible for the fans, and reward the hot-seat winner!

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

Double Elimination with shot clock. If you go a whole tournament with no losses, you should have to be beat twice as everyone else

 

[JimS]

I'm in favor of the hot seat winner having to get beat twice.

Imo winning the 1 loss side is every bit as difficult as haveing won the hot seat so no special prize fund for winning the hot seat but you still gotta beat'm twice to win cheese.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Just playing with ideas here but why should the winner of the winners side even have to wait around on the hotseat? I kind of like the idea of the two winners of the semi's on the winners side playing one set for first and second place. They don't get cold, they finish at a reasonable time and the spectators that have had enough fun get to go home. Losers side winners could not finish higher than third so the people with the best records for the longest time take home the most cheese.

I've got to find some brackets and play with this idea but I kind of like it. Seems like I have seen it done somewhere but maybe I am wrong.

Hu

That kind of reminds me of soccer.
In the world cup they have a final match for 1st and 2nd, and a match for 3rd. between the 2 losing semifinalist.

SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA!