Winning the US Open from the loser's side?

the answer is he wasn't penalized.

jasonlaus said:
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
Click to expand...

He wasn't penalized, the one who lost the match was penalized by having to play more matches, he was rewarded by having to play fewer matches.

jaden
 
If I was the one who beat YOU, I don't give rat's how many world champions you had to beat from the loser side to get back to the finals to play me. The fact IS, I BEAT YOU and you have ONE LOSS..................TO ME.

I should be afforded ONE loss to YOU and now we are EVEN.

Then we play a tie breaker.

That's MY opinion.

If somebody ELSE put you in the loser bracket, I may soften my stance, but that wasn't the case.
 
Jaden said:
He wasn't penalized, the one who lost the match was penalized by having to play more matches, he was rewarded by having to play fewer matches.

jaden
Click to expand...

Rewarded???? He didn't lose a match and you claim this is a reward? So if you lose a match the guy on the winners side should also lose a match? America is F'd.

I really think you have been hacked, no way would you post this
 
HawaiianEye said:
If I was the one who beat YOU, I don't give rat's how many world champions you had to beat from the loser side to get back to the finals to play me. The fact IS, I BEAT YOU and you have ONE LOSS..................TO ME.

I should be afforded ONE loss to YOU and now we are EVEN.

Then we play a tie breaker.

That's MY opinion.

If somebody ELSE put you in the loser bracket, I may soften my stance, but that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

We have a winner!!!

And it doesnt matter who put you on B side.
Jason
 
i have a question. in the US Open format, anyone who loses twice is eliminated. why is it that Chang Jung Lin is eliminated right away after his first loss? isnt that unfair? i mean, both him and shane lost once. Chang beat Shane, then Shane beat Chang. So why did Shane win the entire thing?
 
arps said:
i have a question. in the US Open format, anyone who loses twice is eliminated. why is it that Chang Jung Lin is eliminated right away after his first loss? isnt that unfair? i mean, both him and shane lost once. Chang beat Shane, then Shane beat Chang. So why did Shane win the entire thing?
Click to expand...

Where ya been, man? What's it like under that rock?


To catch you up, some think Shane should have to beat Chang twice. Others don't care. As a spectator or a player, I am completely fine with either one.
 
Shane had to play 4 more matches, but most of his path was blazed through the loser's bracket. I know these players are all elite (at least after the first few rounds), but who would you want to face off in a match with? The elite guys in the advanced rounds of the winner's bracket who are probably all in dead stroke or the elite guys in the advanced rounds of the loser's bracket who are more likely to be a touch off? You would want to be on the winner's side for obvious reasons, but you will more likely face an easier opponent on the loser's side. This would essentially negate the 4 extra matches on the loser's side.

I believe Shane is the best in the world, but if this tournament was striving to be fair he should have had to beat Chang twice.
 
PocketSpeed11 said:
I believe Shane is the best in the world, but if this tournament was striving to be fair he should have had to beat Chang twice.
Click to expand...

I think that's the crucial point, "striving to be fair"... if it were truly fair it'd be a round robin,
races to 50, with everyone playing free of distraction and without having to be exhausted
from previous matches, a ref and neutral racker at every table, etc.

Tournaments really aren't striving to be 100% fair, just fair enough to keep players
and fans happy. They'll always have to sacrifice some fairness in order to keep
the time and money investment sane.
And for the sake of spectators who might get bored.
 
CreeDo said:
I think that's the crucial point, "striving to be fair"... if it were truly fair it'd be a round robin,
races to 50, with everyone playing free of distraction and without having to be exhausted
from previous matches, a ref and neutral racker at every table, etc.

Tournaments really aren't striving to be 100% fair, just fair enough to keep players
and fans happy. They'll always have to sacrifice some fairness in order to keep
the time and money investment sane.
And for the sake of spectators who might get bored.
Click to expand...

I think it should be fair in the sense that the entire tournament is double elimination. Why should the finals be any different? It makes no sense to have a race which is only two games longer when people are playing for the most money.

A person who has lost once is playing on equal footing against someone who has not lost a match for, in essence, 20k?

Yeah, it was a double elimination tournament but we both lost once and he got an extra 20k........

Why even make the race two games longer? Does that somehow make up for the fact that Barry didn't want to make a double elimination final? There is a huge difference between beating someone in back to back races to 11 vs one race to 13. They may as well have just said same race to 11.
 
The tournament is saying you have the opportunity to come back from a fluke loss unless you make it to the finals without losing. If you played well the whole time and make it to the hot seat, then you aren't allowed to have a loss during the entire tournament.

Take the Derby City Classic. Single elimination with a buyback. What if you make it all the way to the finals and you still have a buyback, you are no longer allowed to use it. The buyback is only available to players who lost a match before the finals. Does that sound good to anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top