There has been a lot of talk lately about seeding the top players in tournaments, i know the ABP is pushing more promoters to use seeding. i see this only helps the Top Players by giving them some "easier" matches in the early rounds before running into another monster and by then be in the money. How does this help lower tier professional players? i myself am a firm believer on Luck of the Draw. please think of this from both perspectives and give your input.
Should Pro Tournaments Be Seeded?
- Thread starter imissedthe9
- Start date
is this from a spectators point of view?
What if the first best player meets the third best player in the first round and the second best player in the second round and the fourth best player in the third round?
Abbott/Costello :grin-square:
And if the only date you could attend that particular event was on the first day. With all the best players seeded, all you would get to see is Shane versus me and Efren versus someone like me. If you had driven two, three, four or five hours just to watch, I'd be pretty pissed.
One of the drawing points of the Turning Stone Classics is, a very high probability you would get to see Shane play Efren. On the first day! Seeding does nothing but support the players who have the necessary money to travel around the country to earn points. The top seeded players are not always the best players. As another poster put it, the best player is going to win anyway.
Again, JMHO.
Lyn
Seeding is a fairer system if you have a ranking list, otherwise players miss the opportunity to earn points based on random draws.
As a spectator it would be nice to see two big names go at it, but odds are excellent you'll see that at the tail end of the tournament anyway. And sometimes seeing one big name play perfectly is entertaining all by itself.
Witness the popularity of the "Efren Ownage" video on youtube... Kunihiko Takahashi is a fine player but relatively unknown, and it's a joy to watch efren demolish the poor guy.
The theory is that the best player will always win, but we know that in most pro tournaments the short races and double elimination format means sometimes the best player goes home early.
So I think, forget the seeding, don't let one guy cruise to the money by only beating a few strong players while another guy has to somehow overcome ten worldbeaters in a row to get the same reward.
Witness the popularity of the "Efren Ownage" video on youtube... Kunihiko Takahashi is a fine player but relatively unknown, and it's a joy to watch efren demolish the poor guy.
The theory is that the best player will always win, but we know that in most pro tournaments the short races and double elimination format means sometimes the best player goes home early.
So I think, forget the seeding, don't let one guy cruise to the money by only beating a few strong players while another guy has to somehow overcome ten worldbeaters in a row to get the same reward.
No, I disagree with seeding. Seeding is favoritism toward the top players. That's all it is. There's nothing else you can possibly say to change that fact.
Do the better players "deserve" more because they've put in their time. Maybe, kinda, sort of, but just on a tiny level. The fact is, if you've put in the time, your game is better, and you should do better in the tournament.
Yes, I know that without seeding the #1 and #2 ranked players could play each other in the first round. OH MY GOD! NO! One of the big dogs will be in the loser's bracket right away?!? Whatever will they do? Here's what they do: dig deep, play hard, and maybe they'll play all the way through the loser's side and still win the tournament, just like all the other poor schmoes that lose their first round.
Do the better players "deserve" more because they've put in their time. Maybe, kinda, sort of, but just on a tiny level. The fact is, if you've put in the time, your game is better, and you should do better in the tournament.
Yes, I know that without seeding the #1 and #2 ranked players could play each other in the first round. OH MY GOD! NO! One of the big dogs will be in the loser's bracket right away?!? Whatever will they do? Here's what they do: dig deep, play hard, and maybe they'll play all the way through the loser's side and still win the tournament, just like all the other poor schmoes that lose their first round.
Then that means one of them get to feel like the rest of us, walking out scratching thier head and broke ass.
If they pay the same entry fee they dont deserve a bye or seed. If they would like a handout find a new job, or contact Obama.
Remember a few years ago Johnny Archer lost to a local player Adam Stanton in the first round of the Turning Stone Classic. Johnny still won the event. How much more handicap do the best players need? Yeah to Mike Zuglan, Mark Griffin, Greg Sullivan and other tournament operators who refuse to seed.
Lyn
I use to be strongly against seeding but lately ive changed my tune a little bit. I think that seeding for bigger events should be part of the format or set-up. Like pros in the past (and current) you had to earn your seed and then keep it. Take your lumps and all that. All those top guys got there through a lot of blood sweat and MONEY!!! SO... Yes I believe there should be seeding in the bigger tournaments.
So people see it as pros whining and btiching about them having a better spot in the brackets because they are pros. Again, (in my mind) they have earned their spots due to the time money and energy that they put into the game.
I can see the other argument that if anybody can enter the tournament then they should have a blind draw. That way the lesser skilled players have a better shot at getting a good draw on the weaker players to land them into the money rounds. Understood but I think this is a very bad approach to playing in top level events. I mean would you rather play a short-stop or A level player and get beat 9-2 or 9-5 or play a guy like Darren or Mika or Efren and lose 9-0 or 9-7!!!!! Playing these guys and losing 9-7 or even 9-5 is saying something. You hung with a pure champion or the Elite Tier. WORLD champions and the best of the best!!! How many times if your life will you get the chance to lumber up to the table and lag against a CHAMPION??? Not many and I relish ever chance I get to play one of them!!
Overall it shouldn't matter if the tournament is seeded or not. If people complain about having to play a monster first round then they shouldn't even enter. Personally I say BRING IT ON!!! to any top player. Im not scared of them. Sure they can string racks together and sew you up tighter than a bulls arse but so what??? That's what its all about. You eat them or you get eaten.
When it comes to seeding I could care less. Seeded tournament sure ill pay (opps) I mean play. Not seeded... Great!!! Hope I can make it into the money this time
I voted for seeded out of respect for my fellow professional that really need to be supported and respected. That is all :smile:
So people see it as pros whining and btiching about them having a better spot in the brackets because they are pros. Again, (in my mind) they have earned their spots due to the time money and energy that they put into the game.
I can see the other argument that if anybody can enter the tournament then they should have a blind draw. That way the lesser skilled players have a better shot at getting a good draw on the weaker players to land them into the money rounds. Understood but I think this is a very bad approach to playing in top level events. I mean would you rather play a short-stop or A level player and get beat 9-2 or 9-5 or play a guy like Darren or Mika or Efren and lose 9-0 or 9-7!!!!! Playing these guys and losing 9-7 or even 9-5 is saying something. You hung with a pure champion or the Elite Tier. WORLD champions and the best of the best!!! How many times if your life will you get the chance to lumber up to the table and lag against a CHAMPION??? Not many and I relish ever chance I get to play one of them!!
Overall it shouldn't matter if the tournament is seeded or not. If people complain about having to play a monster first round then they shouldn't even enter. Personally I say BRING IT ON!!! to any top player. Im not scared of them. Sure they can string racks together and sew you up tighter than a bulls arse but so what??? That's what its all about. You eat them or you get eaten.
When it comes to seeding I could care less. Seeded tournament sure ill pay (opps) I mean play. Not seeded... Great!!! Hope I can make it into the money this time
I voted for seeded out of respect for my fellow professional that really need to be supported and respected. That is all :smile:
Last edited:
I said no, but only because there is no actual official pro tour. If there was ever a professional tour on which only card holding pro players who have earned the right to play in each event could play in then at that time I "do" feel that the events should be seeded.
But right now, with each person paying an equal amount to play in one off events that are not part of a tour and where noone has any actual real rankings that mean squat there is no way things should be seeded.
But right now, with each person paying an equal amount to play in one off events that are not part of a tour and where noone has any actual real rankings that mean squat there is no way things should be seeded.
If a tournament is seeded then it should have 2 pots. Seeded players play each other for there entry fees and non seeded play for theirs. Which ever one has the most players should get the added money. If you go the the drag races the slower car does not spot the faster car at the tree.
How about seeded players pay 25 percent more in entry fee?
Major events need to be seeded for the beneift of fans, sponsors, and promoters, many of whom can only attend (or purchase the PPV for) the final rounds that are played on a weekend. A tournament should build to a crescendo and seeding increases the likelihood that it will produce a truly memorable final four on the last day of a main event.
As many correctly point out, the problem with seeding is the absence of a truly objective ranking system, but if a ranking system to which all bought in existed, I think seeding serves major tournaments well, and I don't especially care if it scares away some of the dead money.
Contrastingly, tournaments having minimal fanfare and viewership need not be seeded.
As many correctly point out, the problem with seeding is the absence of a truly objective ranking system, but if a ranking system to which all bought in existed, I think seeding serves major tournaments well, and I don't especially care if it scares away some of the dead money.
Contrastingly, tournaments having minimal fanfare and viewership need not be seeded.
This is bogus. If an old warrior, or young and up-and-coming player, or even an unknown makes a run deep into the tournament and makes it to the finals, I guarantee you that everyone will be excited about his play and rooting for him. Everyone loves a Cinderella story. Everyone loves to root for the underdog. And if the guy out of left field is in the finals he's playing unconscious dead stroke knows no fear pool. What's not to like?
Lou Figueroa
just say no
to seeding