Russ Chewning said:
Danny D. puts it very succinctly in most of the current matches he has been commentating:
"Playing a lot more matches is the loser's punishment for losing a match. So a one match final is perfectly fair. I like it that way."
When you look at it realistically, in almost every case, the loser has played WAY more matches than the winner, and with today's fields, he has most probably played players that are every bit as tough as the players the winner played. And has beaten more of them than the winner has!
JMHO, Russ
I concur...
The best example would be Ramil Gallego, who had to go through the
proverbial gauntlet to get to where's he's at. Imagine playing the likes of
Thorsten Hohmann, Bustamante, Mike Davis, Efren Reyes and Corey Deuel
in a single day on a "one and done" situation isn't enough punishment
because his day in hell ain't over yet. He eventually lost to the Kaiser
probably because of sheer exhaustion as he was just running on fumes at
2:30 in the morning. What more reward can an undefeated player ask for?
All he needs is to win 8 matches against the 16 matches a 1st round loser
has to go through. We might as well hand the trophy to the last man
standing on the winners' side if we keep on insisting that the player from
the losers' side has to win twice.
just my 2 Drachma...