Does #1 on WPBA tour mean anything anymore?

[DoomCue]

It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

 

[Majic]

It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

I am not sure how the older system worked, but in the past couple years the womens tour has seen a number of great players emerge. It no longer is the Fisher/Corr domination that was seen for ten years. I think having more great players adds to the excitement of not knowing who will win. And if changing the points systems has anything to do with adding excitement, then I am all for it.

 

[Johnnyt]

I hate the present format too. I think its very unfair to a lot of players. It didn't really change things much in the standings or the out come of the events. The cream will almost always rise to the top, but now you have a lot more cream. Johnnyt

 

[gunzby]

Not sure about being #1, but finishing the year at #1 definitely means something. Regardless of the way they score points you still must do well to be #1.

 

[Tbeaux]

I like the current rankings format.The reason is that in the past it didn't matter as much how well you did in a particular year because so many points carried over that a player who had an off year could stay ahead in the rankings of a player having a much better year. The old format led to stagnation in the rankings with very little movement. It was almost like they got ranked years before and that was just the place in the rankings they would always be.

The new format allows for lots of movement in the rankings and with the way lowest ranked players drop off and have to requalify it allows more chances for new faces to compete.

As to the tournament format I'm ambivalent. There has on occasion been talk about single elimination, round robin, etc. I think this will always be determined by time alotted by the venue and by television.

 

[matta]

I am not sure how the older system worked, but in the past couple years the womens tour has seen a number of great players emerge. It no longer is the Fisher/Corr domination that was seen for ten years. I think having more great players adds to the excitement of not knowing who will win. And if changing the points systems has anything to do with adding excitement, then I am all for it.

I agree with this, completely.

The talent level on the WPBA has become considerably tougher in the past few years. Before, it was just Allison and Corr head and shoulders above everyone else.

Now the list is growing.

Kelly Fisher
Ga Young Kim
Jasmin Ouschan
Xiaoting Pan
Monica Webb
Karen Corr
Allison Fisher
Yu Ram Cha? (I haven't actually had the chance to see her play but I hear she is one hell of a talent.)

I count at least 8 top notch players where before there were only two. The competition has gotten much stiffer.

Personally, I think this is good for pool and good for us, as fans. I know I enjoy the competition.

Kick back and enjoy the ride,
matta

 

[pooltchr]

I don't have a problem with the ranking system. Many sports start every year with a clean slate for everyone. I think it keeps everything fresh and current. And if a player has an off year (Jeanette has had some years when her back problems prevented her from staying on top, but when she is on, she can still match up with anyone), they still have the chance to start over the next year on a level playing field.

Does the number one ranking mean anything? Unfortunately, I have to say "not really". There is not really any advantage to being ranked number one other than in the seedings, a couple of covers in the pool magazines, and maybe for some, a bit of an ego boost.

What I would like to see is a season ending tournament taking the top 8 players from the year, and putting them into a championship tournament. The best against the best with longer races, or maybe even a round robin type format. I'd love to see the top players battling it out.

Steve

 

[poolsnark]

#1 is going to be rotating for some time because no player is going to win more than two events per season. The competition is just way too tough. Just look at what happened to Monica Webb. She won the season finale in 2008, came out of the gate strong with a win in the 2009 opener and then couldn't even make the redraw in Indiana. Jasmin won this event, but couldn't make it to the redraw in the San Diego event. You've got matches showing up in the 3rd round the likes of Monica Webb v. Yu Ram Cha and Jasmin Ouschan v. Karen Corr. Its absolutely brutal out there.

Personally, I hated the old rolling ranking system. No offense to Allison, but she had so many wins from back in the day that she'd probably still be #1 under the old system even though she's clearly not the #1 player anymore. Every year, they reset everyone to zero which is exactly how they should do it.

 

[Rock City]

#1 du jour

It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

David -

I think you're right on target.

They were well-intentioned, but when the WPBA changed the ranking system they lost a lot of credibility.

If they had left things like they were (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), a player could have taken over #1 by proving themselves worthy over an extended period of time. I think that a player's accomplishments over the period of a year, at the minimum, is a good measuring stick.

Someone mentioned how other sports determine their rankings. As far as I know, major sports such as golf and tennis do not crown a new #1 when a player wins the first tournament of the year. Even if a player gets on a hot streak, they don't necessarily dethrone the current #1.

Granted, there is growing parity among the top players and we may be witnessing a changing of the guard, so to speak. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that Allison Fisher's record and ranking were not given enough respect when the new system was instituted.

Fisher would have eventually been unseated, but I would have preferred a more legitate method. An emerging pool phenom who outplayed Fisher over a full season would have (deservedly) replaced Fisher under the old system

I know a lot of the players and board members and I am sure they were doing what they thought was best for the entire tour. I just wish they had chosen another method to achieve the results they were seeking.

 

[DoomCue]

I think part of the problem is there are so few events that contribute to the ranking system. Another is the fact that a seed means absolutely nothing in the WPBA, except in the first couple of rounds - if you make it to the last rounds, the draw is random. That throws your seed totally out the window. I think there are more players with a chance to win these days, but I also think a lot of that has to do with the way the WPBA has rigged the system, making it extremely difficult for a single player to dominate by artifically handicapping players. Number 1 can change after every tournament, and if that happens regularly, what's the point? Why not just say if you won the last tournament, you're number 1?

-djb <-- don't misunderstand me, I don't mind seeing more faces in the winner's circle

 

[BVal]

I think being #1 should be proven over a longer period of time. Not just the last 5 tournaments or however it works.

BVal

 

[CrisDeLaGarza]

Another is the fact that a seed means absolutely nothing in the WPBA, except in the first couple of rounds - if you make it to the last rounds, the draw is random. That throws your seed totally out the window.

I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

 

[BVal]

I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

Excellent post.

I don't agree with the current system of ranking but it does mean something and serves its purpose.

By the way, you are a very good commentator.

BVal

 

[Tbeaux]

I don't get the animosity towards the current system.

1) True they DO need more events in a year. They also needed more events when everyone else was trying to break the Allison/Karen lockout.

2) Kelli Fisher finished last year in #1 and IS therefore the current champion.

3) Last week Monica was ranked current #1 for 2009, this week it's a tie between Kelli Fisher and Ga Young Kim. By the end of the season Kelli may still be reigning champ or it may be someone else.....but it WILL BE BASED ON MERIT. Who has performed the best.

4) Allison was and still is GREAT. She has NOT had that good of a year so far and her current ranking reflects that...FAIRLY. A couple of wins and she could be champ again. She's probably wishing there were more events to catch up same as a LOT of other players used to (and still do).

It's all fair. Everybody is playing by the same rules and no rolled over points favoritism is being reflected in the points now.Each year is a clean slate.........Now we just (still) need MORE events so there is no perception of unfairness

By the way I predict Karen or Ga or Kelli could finish the year in #1 without
even having won a tournament just based on their consistantly great performances.

 

[BVal]

I don't get the animosity towards the current system.

1) True they DO need more events in a year. They also needed more events when everyone else was trying to break the Allison/Karen lockout.

2) Kelli Fisher finished last year in #1 and IS therefore the current champion.

3) Last week Monica was ranked current #1 for 2009, this week it's a tie between Kelli Fisher and Ga Young Kim. By the end of the season Kelli may still be reigning champ or it may be someone else.....but it WILL BE BASED ON MERIT. Who has performed the best.

4) Allison was and still is GREAT. She has NOT had that good of a year so far and her current ranking reflects that...FAIRLY. A couple of wins and she could be champ again. She's probably wishing there were more events to catch up same as a LOT of other players used to (and still do).

It's all fair. Everybody is playing by the same rules and no rolled over points favoritism is being reflected in the points now.Each year is a clean slate.........Now we just (still) need MORE events so there is no perception of unfairness

By the way I predict Karen or Ga or Kelli could finish the year in #1 without
even having won a tournament just based on their consistantly great performances.

I don't have any animosity towards the new system. I just like the old one better. Like Tennis and Golf.

Good post Tbeaux.

BVal

 

[Johnnyt]

I think the bigger problem is the going to single elem. at final 16. If someone can explain how depending on what round of the tournament you lose a match in, you go to the "B" side early rounds and in the final 16 rounds a person that loses for the fisrt time in the tournament goes home while players that have already lost once are still in it. I don't care how anyone wants to explain it...It's just plain wrong. Johnnyt

 

[DoomCue]

I am not sure if I am for or against the new ranking systems but I DO think the seeding means something. The draw for the last 16 is not COMPLETELY random. The top 16 players at the beginning of the event (based on the past 4 events NOT on their CURRENT ranking on that year's ranking) are all seeded.

And during the re-draw of the last 16 it is ONLY the loser's bracket that draws their winners bracket opponents. So technically, those top players are still spaced, their place in the winners side bracket does not change. They only play another TOP 8 player if that player got sent to the losers bracket earlier. Otherwise, If you stay on the winners side, even after the re-draw, you are still in your seeded spot. And the #1 and #2 seed (if they stay on the winner side) will not meet until the finals.

Good catch, Cris. You're right, the seeding doesn't go COMPLETELY out the window during the re-draw. And BVal is right, you're an excellent commentator.

Here's a scenario:

If #1 and #2 make it to the re-draw, then they're protected (which is the whole point of a seed). Let's say that #1 loses before the redraw, but #2 doesn't. Normally, #2 is protected by her seed - she can't play #1 until the final. Unfortunately, due to the new format, #2 loses her protection and could possibly face #1 in the quarters, which is pretty much what the WPBA wants to see, based on how they've modified things over the past couple of years. That's what I mean by creating parity artificially - by allowing higher seeds to play each other early, more lower-ranked players will get higher finishes than they would have in the older format.

Because of "artificial parity," I think an artificial #1 can be created. That's why I think #1 doesn't really mean anything on the WPBA.

-djb

 

[Tbeaux]

I think the bigger problem is the going to single elem. at final 16. If someone can explain how depending on what round of the tournament you lose a match in, you go to the "B" side early rounds and in the final 16 rounds a person that loses for the fisrt time in the tournament goes home while players that have already lost once are still in it. I don't care how anyone wants to explain it...It's just plain wrong. Johnnyt

I tend to agree with you Johnnyt. If "fairness and second chances" are the issue I say play round robin. If just seeing who the best is at that tournament then single elimination does the job. I guess they figured this was the best compromise. They could have kept it double elimination till the finals but I think TV played alot in deciding the sweet sixteen setup.

 

[Johnnyt]

If I paid the same entry fee as everyone else in the tournament I'd be pissed if I had to go home because of one loss while others get two. It's a clear handicap against the better player IMO. Johnnyt

 

[GMAC]

It seems like every other tournament, who's #1 changes on the WPBA tour. With all the rule changes and ranking system change, it seems the WPBA is determined to have a rotation of players at the top of the list. I understand the need for parity, but I think parity is already artificial thanks to the re-seed and single-elim format.

Thoughts?

-djb

I think it means your are ranked number 1 on the WPBA tour. Which isn't a bad thing.