Double Elimination or Single Elimination
- Thread starter HawaiianEye
- Start date
Do double elim, keep 8 tables and play all 8 matches at once. They would've finish the tournament even faster.
With that said, I don't mind the single elimination KO stage.
The worst is the WPA World 9b where the players play 1 match a day.
That takes all the viewership drama away.
IMO, the purpose of double elim is not “must lose twice” but rather to better the chance of the best players going deep. This is most problematic in unseeded events, where the top 5 players may have been randomly drawn sequentially in the bracket. The double elim gives these TOP players a second chance to overcome a random draw.
But once you’ve gotten to your best 16 players (or whatever number the promoter chooses) there is zero further reason for double elim.
If the seedings from the get go were very high quality, you could even do single elim from the start.
But once you’ve gotten to your best 16 players (or whatever number the promoter chooses) there is zero further reason for double elim.
If the seedings from the get go were very high quality, you could even do single elim from the start.
I notice you prefaced your comments with, “IMO”.
Well, IMO, nobody who I have beaten in the beginning rounds should be able to eliminate me in the final rounds with a single win, which would have evened it up. In that case, there should be a tie-breaker set to determine the winner.
If you think the “viewers” are going to be dissuaded by this, which viewers are you talking about? The viewers who don’t watch or the bangers who don’t know the difference because they have never won a tournament?
Just noticed Taiwan Hsu Kai-lun.
beat BOTH Filler (11-8)and Wu(11-3) in consecutive
matches to qualify for the Final 16. Also beat Jeff Ignaco before playing Filler. Ignacio was in the final 16.
Then Hsu lost 9-11 to Liu Haitao, his only loss.
So this guy flew across the planet and beat both the players that was in the finals.
Left the tournament with just 1 loss to fly back to Taiwan.
beat BOTH Filler (11-8)and Wu(11-3) in consecutive
matches to qualify for the Final 16. Also beat Jeff Ignaco before playing Filler. Ignacio was in the final 16.
Then Hsu lost 9-11 to Liu Haitao, his only loss.
So this guy flew across the planet and beat both the players that was in the finals.
Left the tournament with just 1 loss to fly back to Taiwan.
Last edited:
For the viewership part of it: no other major sport when they get into a bracket uses double eliminations. They use their entire season to seed the bracket, then the bracket is single elimination. NFL, basketball, college everything, tennis, you name it. Which was the year when the Minnesota Vikings had the Eagles former QB Randal Cunningham as their starter, I think went undefeated in the season, and lost early or mid playoffs? Should they have gotten a second chance because their early qualifications rounds (the season) were the best?
Double elimination makes it stupid for the viewer. Hard to follow. Doesn't make sense. AND, anti-climatic. Now there are "two finals" (for a true double elimination that you all have the same desire for).
There was a great article written in the 70's I believe about the first 10 years of the US Straight pool Championships that someone dug up and shared on AZ last year. It was written I believe from the perspective of the promoters, who had the tournament on ABC Wide World of Sports! They changed from a true double elimination final in the early years to a single elimination final. Because it made zero sense for the viewer. It took too long. And it was boring and anti-climatic. The announcers have to say, "well viewers, this might be the final, but it might not".
PS, I say IMO, as I do here also, because we all have a-holes and opinions
Double elimination makes it stupid for the viewer. Hard to follow. Doesn't make sense. AND, anti-climatic. Now there are "two finals" (for a true double elimination that you all have the same desire for).
There was a great article written in the 70's I believe about the first 10 years of the US Straight pool Championships that someone dug up and shared on AZ last year. It was written I believe from the perspective of the promoters, who had the tournament on ABC Wide World of Sports! They changed from a true double elimination final in the early years to a single elimination final. Because it made zero sense for the viewer. It took too long. And it was boring and anti-climatic. The announcers have to say, "well viewers, this might be the final, but it might not".
PS, I say IMO, as I do here also, because we all have a-holes and opinions
True Double Elimination reaches a point where there are TOO FEW PLAYERS and TOO MANY ROUNDS LEFT to get it done in a timely fashion. It just goes on too long and much of the interest and intensity is lost. People just go home. Consecutive rounds of sudden death are timely and exciting. This was perfect. My hat is off to these folks.
IMO ...
The request for full double elimination is "Small Time Charlie". Matchroom doesn't care about us diehards, and they should not. Matchroom doesn't care how many losses a player has.
They care about the casual viewer flipping through their TV set in Europe and Asia, hoping they will see a pool match, and decide to stay and watch for a while. That in turn leads to pool content being worth more to OUTSIDE advertisers. That in turn leads to more money for the entire pool industry, which means more money for the players too.
If we want the sport to grow, we have to quit doing things that the pro players want. They never made anything good. If it was up to them, every match would be on 4" pockets, 10' tables, and race to 100. Screw that. Oh, and I suppose even with a race to 100 they'd want a double elimination.
Long live Matchroom!
On another note:
Shane was not better than Wu. Shane stunk it up in his match with Wu. Shane deserved to lose.
Shaw vs Filler I did not see. I will instead guess that for Filler to win 11-4, either Shaw stunk it up and deserved to lose, or Filler ran out like water and deserved to win.
...The request for full double elimination is "Small Time Charlie". Matchroom doesn't care about us diehards, and they should not. Matchroom doesn't care how many losses a player has.
They care about the casual viewer flipping through their TV set in Europe and Asia, hoping they will see a pool match, and decide to stay and watch for a while. That in turn leads to pool content being worth more to OUTSIDE advertisers. That in turn leads to more money for the entire pool industry, which means more money for the players too.
If we want the sport to grow, we have to quit doing things that the pro players want. They never made anything good. If it was up to them, every match would be on 4" pockets, 10' tables, and race to 100. Screw that. Oh, and I suppose even with a race to 100 they'd want a double elimination.
Long live Matchroom!
On another note:
Shane was not better than Wu. Shane stunk it up in his match with Wu. Shane deserved to lose.
Shaw vs Filler I did not see. I will instead guess that for Filler to win 11-4, either Shaw stunk it up and deserved to lose, or Filler ran out like water and deserved to win.
IMO
The request for full double elimination is "Small Time Charlie". Matchroom doesn't care about us diehards, and they should not. Matchroom doesn't care how many losses a player has.
They care about the casual viewer flipping through their TV set in Europe and Asia, hoping they will see a pool match, and decide to stay and watch for a while. That in turn leads to pool content being worth more to OUTSIDE advertisers. That in turn leads to more money for the entire pool industry, which means more money for the players too.
If we want the sport to grow, we have to quit doing things that the pro players want. They never made anything good. If it was up to them, every match would be on 4" pockets, 10' tables, and race to 100. Screw that. Oh, and I suppose even with a race to 100 they'd want a double elimination.
Long live Matchroom!
On another note:
Shane was not better than Wu. Shane stunk it up in his match with Wu. Shane deserved to lose.
Shaw vs Filler I did not see. I will instead guess that for Filler to win 11-4, either Shaw stunk it up and deserved to lose, or Filler ran out like water and deserved to win.
shaw played well, but was effectively shut out. he ran the first racks but broke dry iirc, and after that he had to escape snookers whenever he came to the table. that match was better then the final imo
Wu vs. SVB -- Shane led 7-4, so perhaps he stunk it up less than Wu did to that point. But Wu made just one error after that, while SVB made about 5, and Wu took 7 games in a row to win 11-7.
Filler vs. Shaw -- Shaw won Game 1 after Filler missed a bank shot. Shaw then broke and ran 2 games to lead 3-0. Shaw broke wet in Game 4 but missed a 2/9 combo and Filler ran out, to trail 1-3. Filler then won the next 9 games, taking it to 10-3. 4 of the 9 games were on B&R's, 2 were after Shaw missed a shot, 2 were after jump shots by Shaw following safes by Filler, and the other one was a Filler run out starting with a jump shot after Shaw returned a push out. Shaw got a game after Filler missed the 1-ball in Game 14. Then in the final game Shaw missed a kick shot after a Filler safe, and Filler ran out, including a long, cross-corner bank on the 9-ball for the 11-4 win.
Who knows how things would have played out if the double elimination bracket had continued? Hsu might have lost to Shaw or SVB or someone else on the winners side and both Wu and Filler might have lost another match in the quarters, semis, or losers side final - then the fact that he had had beaten Wu, Filler and Ignacio may not have even raised an eyebrow. Ronnie Alcano lost two and won one of his round robin matches in the 2005 9ball world championship. He then won every single elimination match from the last 64 onwards. Not a single player, including those who had won two or all three of their group matches, objected to this. They give credit where credit’s due.
We’ve all been there, in whatever format, and said “if only”. Dbl elimination gets the players who are playing better to the business end of the tournament. Matchroom’s last 16 format is the right for this event.
Last edited:
Make it one or the other...not a mix, even with an extended game final set.
The winner of a losers’ bracket shouldn’t get an “equal” footing against someone who has yet to lose on the winners’ side.
Argue all you want, but I’m right...as usual.
The better the player, well, the better the grinder.
It's hard, even for a top flight pro to come back in a race to 9ish when a lesser player gets several rolls and jumps ahead 6,7,8 to 0,1,2....etc... it's just hard and is why we dont see it happen often.
But, as you know, make that same race, say....17ish.....well..... the "real" top grinders will always be in the winner's circle.
The above is true ESPECIALLY with 9 ball.
10 ball, well, shorter races are not as bad due to the "call shot" factor.
I think bt doing so, the following people would like it:
The better player
and
Pretty much all pool "fans". The more diehard the fan, the more they'll like it.
doesn't seem fair
The double into single elimination never seems fair to me even if it is for first place. Playing a few extra games isn't the same as losing twice.
Looking at it from the standpoint of moving the event along if the promoter was going to go with a single and double elimination stage it would seem to be fairer to play single elimination all the way to the final sixteen then go to double elimination for the players that earned the right to double elimination for winning that far along. Of course every player knows that they can lose one fairly short match to a handful of players and they simply won't pay the costs to compete when a couple of bad shots or a little luck can put them on the bus home without ever really playing. Two super players meet in the early rounds one of them has to be eliminated in single elimination events.
If there were the kind of money in pool there is in some sports there would be yet another option which seems fair to me. Keep the last sixteen on the winners side and the losers side players play for seventeenth back. I doubt I live long enough to see that. Just a daydream. Looking at golf you get 150 or so deep in the standings, players we have never heard of, and they are still making a decent living from golf.
The players have no real grouch as long as the format was announced upfront and the announced rules were followed. We all know in the end the golden rule applies, he who has the gold makes the rules!
Hu
The double into single elimination never seems fair to me even if it is for first place. Playing a few extra games isn't the same as losing twice.
Looking at it from the standpoint of moving the event along if the promoter was going to go with a single and double elimination stage it would seem to be fairer to play single elimination all the way to the final sixteen then go to double elimination for the players that earned the right to double elimination for winning that far along. Of course every player knows that they can lose one fairly short match to a handful of players and they simply won't pay the costs to compete when a couple of bad shots or a little luck can put them on the bus home without ever really playing. Two super players meet in the early rounds one of them has to be eliminated in single elimination events.
If there were the kind of money in pool there is in some sports there would be yet another option which seems fair to me. Keep the last sixteen on the winners side and the losers side players play for seventeenth back. I doubt I live long enough to see that. Just a daydream. Looking at golf you get 150 or so deep in the standings, players we have never heard of, and they are still making a decent living from golf.
The players have no real grouch as long as the format was announced upfront and the announced rules were followed. We all know in the end the golden rule applies, he who has the gold makes the rules!
Hu
