Do Tournaments Really Show Who's the Best?

G

gordml

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've been following the big Guinness tournament in Jakarta
Its down to -
Darren Appleton vs Jundel Mazon
and
Chang Jung-Lin vs Irsal Nasution

There have been so many upsets:
Appleton beats Orcullo 8-3 QF
Ricky Yang beats SVB 6-4 round of 16
Local Indonesian you've never heard of beats Alex Pagulayan 8-4 QF
(alex himself admitted he'd never heard of the guy)
Also gone early were Mika Immonen and many top Filipinos.
One example:
Darren Appleton beat Orcullo 8-3 in the knock out stage and I was thinking...so what? He got the rolls. I dont want to take anything away from Darren he's had his share of success lately but if Dennis asked him to play some thousand dollar sets Darren should run because we all know who is the better player.

IMO the best matches are the side action betting - like SVB vs Orcullo or Alex P. vs whoever wants to play him, and I would rather watch those.

I think the problem with tournaments - the races are just too short, like SVB never got his massive 10 ball break going in a race to 6, alt breaks.
Not to be labor the point but Ricky Yang knows he cant put up money and gamble with SVB. And the guy who took out Alex made main page of http://www.azbilliards.com/index.php, where you can read that even the locals consider him to be a second tier player.

I guess tourneys "showcase" the players to fans but IMO the way to determine the best players has always been the good old fashioned way - 2 players go head to head until one concedes and takes his stick apart.

Thats what I like about TAR - its closer to that reality, and come to think of it the TAR "amateur" commentators are 100 times better than most TV pool commentators as mention in another thread.

So I say - more streaming of real money matches is the way to go.
 
Tournaments are almost always full of upsets
In a short race it is hard to outrun the rolls .But if
that were not the case ,then players would not bother to compete if the races were to 50 and it cost 10,000 to enter . Nothing wrong with a
good upset . It gives the underdogs something to shoot for .
 
I just had the chance to read the article on the home page about this event sponsored by Guinness.

A lot of factors enter into tournament play when they are all pool champs. In the one-on-one matches, sometimes it comes down to who's getting the rolls that day. Each player may be giving it their all, but, like poker, sometimes you gotta get lucky.

I think -- and I may be wrong -- that this Guinness sponsor is the one that banned Alex Pagulayan years ago for making the audience laugh when it was his turn to shoot. I guess they got it straightened out because I see his name on the roster.

As an aside, I just noticed this tournament is in Indonesia. Beautiful country from a distance.
 
Double Elimination tournaments should be traded in for Round Robin formatted tournaments.

The best players always come out on top with Round Robin tournaments.
 
peteypooldude said:
Tournaments are almost always full of upsets
In a short race it is hard to outrun the rolls .But if
that were not the case ,then players would not bother to compete if the races were to 50 and it cost 10,000 to enter . Nothing wrong with a
good upset . It gives the underdogs something to shoot for .
Click to expand...

True ,
But in this tournament there more upsets than I think I've ever seen.It was a joke when you look at the caliber that was eliminated vs the level that made it thru to the semis.
It makes it tough for players to travel to Jakarta just to get "out rolled".
Thats probably why Archer , who was given a seed here bailed and stayed
home.Wise decision and too bad.
Thats why Im for streamed money matches.
 
gordml said:
True ,
But in this tournament there more upsets than I think I've ever seen.It was a joke when you look at the caliber that was eliminated vs the level that made it thru to the semis.
It makes it tough for players to travel to Jakarta just to get "out rolled".
Thats probably why Archer , who was given a seed here bailed and stayed
home.Wise decision and too bad.
Thats why Im for streamed money matches.
Click to expand...

I also like the streamed matches , and you are right.
That is a long way to go to get rolled out
 
....and I know that there lots of big money matches going on in Jakarta right now .
I bet Alex vs Shane - Part 9 is in its negotiation stages.:thumbup:
 
TX Poolnut said:
Double Elimination tournaments should be traded in for Round Robin formatted tournaments.

The best players always come out on top with Round Robin tournaments.
Click to expand...

I agree. Have short races within your group, where everyman plays everyone else. The best performers are seeded for the main draw where there's long races (9 to 13).

The problem with so many tournaments is that players can get eliminated with a short race.
 
The results from one tournament do not indicate who the best players are but the results from a series of tournaments will.

If you set up the conditions of a tournament so that the best player will win then there is very little incentive for second tier players who have no chance to cash to pay an entry fee and travel expenses just to go home with no money.

Poker is an even better example than pool as far as how this works. A good majority of the tournaments seem to be won by a "nobody" but the pro players can make a good living by cashing consistently and winning a few tournaments.

I would like to see the world championships and major tournaments have longer races so that the best players would tend to win them more often but the other tournaments should be set up to give the second tier players the chance to win occasionally if they can pull off a few upsets.
 
Keith Buck said:
The results from one tournament do not indicate who the best players are but the results from a series of tournaments will.

If you set up the conditions of a tournament so that the best player will win then there is very little incentive for second tier players who have no chance to cash to pay an entry fee and travel expenses just to go home with no money.

Poker is an even better example than pool as far as how this works. A good majority of the tournaments seem to be won by a "nobody" but the pro players can make a good living by cashing consistently and winning a few tournaments.

I would like to see the world championships and major tournaments have longer races so that the best players would tend to win them more often but the other tournaments should be set up to give the second tier players the chance to win occasionally if they can pull off a few upsets.
Click to expand...




Couldn't agree more!....very well said.


Like SVB said when asked what kind of tourney he would like......"long sets, single elimination....so you only have to beat them once! :)"
 
I understand that the double-elimination format is great in some venues.

That said, I do not like it when the finals is one extended race. The winner doesn't get to lose a match like every single other competitor in the tournament.

It's a tough beat when you make it to the finals and the guy from the B side of the charts wins the whole shebang. Meanwhile, he lost a match and was afforded a second chance.

I have never liked that format -- NEVER -- though I know it is utilized in many tournaments because it saves time. In fact, some folk play so doggone slow that by the time the finals comes on the last day of the tournament, people are happy that it is only one extended race. I can remember several tournaments where this was, in fact, the case. I'll leave out the names, but anyone who was there should remember finals in the wee hours of the morning. :)
 
there can be only one winner in a tourny.all of the others are losers.that is what a tourny does.a tournament does not prove who is the best player.it just provides a winner.

bill
 
gordml said:
... It makes it tough for players to travel to Jakarta just to get "out rolled". That's probably why Archer , who was given a seed here bailed and stayed home. Wise decision and too bad. ...
Click to expand...
A true world pro tour needs a seeding method and assistance for the top pros.

At 3-cushion there is an annual series of pro tournaments called "World Cups." The top-ranked players get travel, accommodations and at least a little prize money. The seeded players are pretty much required to participate in all the events. The seeding process requires a solid method which 3-cushion has.
Anyone may enter the local qualifying events, which are held at the same venue and just before the main event.
 
Keith Buck said:
... If you set up the conditions of a tournament so that the best player will win then there is very little incentive for second tier players who have no chance to cash to pay an entry fee and travel expenses just to go home with no money....
Click to expand...
If the purpose of the tournament is legal gambling by the players themselves, then this is true.

If the point is to entertain spectators -- and that is what the Guinness tournament was about -- then the money is almost irrelevant, except it is must be used to make sure the top players are present. There is no real point in giving money to second-tier players unless they are the ones people want to watch. If they are not watchable, they add nothing to the tournament except that their experience may help them develop into watchable players.
 
gordml said:
I've been following the big Guinness tournament in Jakarta
Its down to -
Darren Appleton vs Jundel Mazon
and
Chang Jung-Lin vs Irsal Nasution

There have been so many upsets:
Appleton beats Orcullo 8-3 QF
Ricky Yang beats SVB 6-4 round of 16
Local Indonesian you've never heard of beats Alex Pagulayan 8-4 QF
(alex himself admitted he'd never heard of the guy)
Also gone early were Mika Immonen and many top Filipinos.
One example:
Darren Appleton beat Orcullo 8-3 in the knock out stage and I was thinking...so what? He got the rolls. I dont want to take anything away from Darren he's had his share of success lately but if Dennis asked him to play some thousand dollar sets Darren should run because we all know who is the better player.

IMO the best matches are the side action betting - like SVB vs Orcullo or Alex P. vs whoever wants to play him, and I would rather watch those.

I think the problem with tournaments - the races are just too short, like SVB never got his massive 10 ball break going in a race to 6, alt breaks.
Not to be labor the point but Ricky Yang knows he cant put up money and gamble with SVB. And the guy who took out Alex made main page of http://www.azbilliards.com/index.php, where you can read that even the locals consider him to be a second tier player.

I guess tourneys "showcase" the players to fans but IMO the way to determine the best players has always been the good old fashioned way - 2 players go head to head until one concedes and takes his stick apart.

Thats what I like about TAR - its closer to that reality, and come to think of it the TAR "amateur" commentators are 100 times better than most TV pool commentators as mention in another thread.

So I say - more streaming of real money matches is the way to go.
Click to expand...

First off - why did you pose this post as a question when it is obvious
you only wanted to editorialize about your opinion comparing tournaments to gambling.

The short answer is, no they don't. But, who told you that was the
reason for tournaments in the first place.

To paraphase Lassiter<I believe>:
"Let 'em play for a month betting their own money"

IMHO - both types of competition have thier place.

Dale
 
Last edited:
Look at AZB's money list (all from tournaments) and it pretty much reflects the best players in this decade.
 
Kuroky said:
Look at AZB's money list (all from tournaments) and it pretty much reflects the best players in this decade.
Click to expand...

Years ago, I would agree with you for sure. :)

Today, though, there are only a handful of Americans, as an example, who can afford to compete in professional-caliber tournaments, since many of them are held outside of the United States.

Also, be sure to cut those tournament winnings in at least in half that you see written on AzBilliards Main Page for expenses, stakehorses, backers committees, and/or taxes.

What I am trying to say is that if all players could afford to compete in all events, then it would be representative, but many players cannot afford it. The payouts in pool suck compared to other sports. Unless the American pool player is sponsored or has a corpulent stakehorse who loves their horse, then most pros stay at home and compete where they can afford it, which is usually a regional weekend tour event or a once-a-year pool extravaganza in Vegas, Louisville, or Chesapeake Beach, VA.

While I'm at it, I might as well throw this in the fire. Yes, Earl Strickland has five U.S. Open championships, but the U.S. Open that Earl competed in to win those titles did not include very many non-American players. The playing field was quite restrictive allowing Earl to Pearl to shine the brightest. If the same tournaments were held today, Earl may have still won -- man, I would have loved to see him do it, too -- but it would have been a hard fight to the finish. :)
 
I think Hopkins had it figured out with the Million Dollar 9-ball format. Every match is (if I remember correctly) 21 games, alternate break. Everyone has the same number of chances to break. Each game won goes to your cumulative score (like a birdie in a golf tournament). This format will show true statistics because everyone plays the same number of games regardless of wins/losses.

In the end, Corey was the best player. Both Corey and SVB had something like 50 B&Rs by the end of the week --- out of I think 100 total games played. That was like beating the 9b ghost in a race to 50 without ball-in-hand. Mind-blowing.

So, I think traditional tournaments the best player doesn't have to win. In round-robin or the format listed above-- the best player statistically always wins.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I think Hopkins had it figured out with the Million Dollar 9-ball format. Every match is (if I remember correctly) 21 games, alternate break. Everyone has the same number of chances to break. Each game won goes to your cumulative score (like a birdie in a golf tournament). This format will show true statistics because everyone plays the same number of games regardless of wins/losses.

In the end, Corey was the best player. Both Corey and SVB had something like 50 B&Rs by the end of the week --- out of I think 100 total games played. That was like beating the 9b ghost in a race to 50 without ball-in-hand. Mind-blowing.

So, I think traditional tournaments the best player doesn't have to win. In round-robin or the format listed above-- the best player statistically always wins.
Click to expand...

Sounds like IPT
 
Hi all

No, I believe in a short race, anybody can beat anybody. as long as the person have a skill to run out the ball. I have a dream to have a competition Billiard like a NBA or Soccer game. The winner must be representative the best pool player in te world.

Right now in my pool room there a money game between Biado VS SVB, Biado lead 11-6 Race to 17. this is a second game for both of them. a couple day ago SVB beat Biado.

Ricky Yang is a good player also, in Indonesia, he is our no 1. I believe, SVB wouldn't dare to underestimate him. From my opinion, he and SVB is even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top