Any format that that favors one player or group over another is flawed and that's exactly what double elimination is ..
1
China World=Poor Format
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
Any format that that favors one player or group over another is flawed and that's exactly what double elimination is ..
1
I never understood true double elimination. When I was wrestling, if you lost once, you went to a elimination bracket where the highest you could earn is third. That's how the Olympics do it in many of the elimination sports, also.
1. For the China Open, the US was allotted a certain quota of pre-qualified spots, all of which were utilized.
2. In order for the US to send any additional players, they would have had to qualify via one of 3 preliminary tournaments leading up to the main event. These had up to 128 person fields with 2 qualifiers coming out of each at a cost of $150 each + expenses.
So while you can't really fault a player for not wanting to spend $2k for a small chance to nab one of the 6 open qualifying spots, I think it would be foolish for a player not wanting to spend $2k in expenses to claim one of the pre-qualified spots and thus a shot at $195k in prize money across a 64 person field.
Last edited:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you played as well as Shane, your choice to not play in the China open cannot be justified solely on economics.
And that's just your opinion... nothing more. Johnnyt
Did I claim anything more? I did not, it just happens to be so.
I sincerely hope that most elite American Pool Players do not share your opinion. If they do, then American Pool is in a world of trouble, and we won't see bottom for awhile. <- IMO (and nothing more)
Last edited:
If I played as good as Shane I would paddle a canoe there on my own dime or not and I would do it time and time again till I figured out what it takes to win in this format , that other type of players continuously have high finishes ,, because I would contribute it to anything but luck
1
Double elimination favors the better players... which is the point of a tournament, for the better players to win. These world events that are single elimination are bogus.
Sorry but Im not with you there on that one ,, A tournament should favor no one ,,
It's really quite simple if can't fade the fast starters and need long races to get going you got 2 choices man up and roll with the dragsters or stay home and whine about the format no ones begging anyone to play
1
I agree with you that Double elimination favors the better players (at least mathematically). Furthermore, by favoring the better players, you will definitely increase the chances of identifying the best player. However, this in itself need not be the primary goal of EVERY tournament.
For instance, a tournament director may want to do things to promote parity (random draws, single elimination, short races, etc...). By doing so, he may be able to maximize participation and/or dead money.
However, for a WPA ranking event (and certainly for world championships), it's hard to argue that the primary goal should not be to identify the best player. So in these events, it would probably be better to see double eliminations, seeded draws, and longer races.
I would argue the level of play is so close that you can't say one particular player is better than another to the point that a different format would produce marginally different results
And why in the world should a Tournament favor anyone ,,that's the problem with American thinking ,, they always want some kind of entitlement
1
While it may not always be evident or obvious, most everything in this world we live in is justified solely or heavily on economics.
I agree. The better players should rise to the top by way of being better players, not because they're given a favor by the format.
So when Shane eventually wins one of these events, will you consider that win to be bogus, or is that only when someone else wins?
That's not obvious to me. If you play single elimination you can make each match roughly twice as long for the same tournament length.
CW tried that in his 'Tournament at a Mall' in Hampton Va in the early days of that Players Org everyone loved so much. I think you were there iirc. Race to 15 Single Elimination. All the talk was this is the fairest, the best etc. This is the future for pool!!
Bustamante won it and everyone immediately came to the conclusion that he would win them all in that format. Not giving my opinion-just saying what happened. The format was never used again. Hilarious
Last edited:
correct. rafael nadal does not go to Wimbledon and says, "i'll probably not get the title because im not good at grass." he's had multiple tltles in clay (congrats on the winning the French Open btw), but a real champion should be able to adapt to any situation. if it's not a Diamond table or an Aramith set you're playing with, then deal with it. if it's a single or double elimination format, or winner's break or alternating break, figure out your game plan on how to take advantage.
of all athletes, pool players are the ones who should be more adaptive because the game itself teaches you that skill. whenever you break a rack, it's always a different situation - you adapt and figure out how to deal with it and run out. shane is a champion, and im very sure he has that skill.
Last edited:
it's a whole different ball game when u are in a diff country every other week practically, how is it an adjustment when it is the norm for you? top players follow the $ which pool virtually has none! it wasn't all too long ago when a lot of the top players would skip the aussie open every year and when tennis didn't have the $ either