Double Elimination or Single Elimination

HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.

:)
 
If you look at it like two separate events i think it's fine.

1st is just qualification to get to the big show on TV Worldwide.

That's pretty much what it was too, they had a compete different arena and different rules for Last 16 Knockout stage.
 
terryhanna said:
If you look at it like two separate events i think it's fine.

1st is just qualification to get to the big show on TV Worldwide.

That's pretty much what it was too, they had a compete different arena and different rules for Last 16 Knockout stage.
Click to expand...

Like I said, “argue all you want”.

It was ONE event...the US Open.

Losers do not belong in the arena with the winners. The winners’ side player should never lose to a loser in a single set.
 
HawaiianEye said:
Like I said, “argue all you want”.

It was ONE event...the US Open.

Losers do not belong in the arena with the winners. The winners’ side player should never lose to a loser in a single set.
Click to expand...

Yes it was ONE event, and it was run how the people running it, wanted it. And the players who entered agreed to it.

So sorry they didnt consult you. :thumbup:
 
I don't like how it switched at the end too for the final 16. I actually hated it and felt really bad for Shaw and SVB. You bust your ass all week to go undefeat d then the blink of an eye when it may not even be your fault you are out to a guy that was already on the losers side.
 
there are certainly multiple ways of looking at things, but ultimately, everybody was playing by the same rules, and everybody had their chances.

if anything, I think double-elimination gives better players a chance to iron out their games (if needed) and progress. come single-elimination, if you haven't got it together, well...
 
Matchroom obviously thinks having a single table, 16 player single elimination format is the best way to present pool for broadcast TV.

They are trying to get the best possible players for the TV broadcast and i think having double elimination is a better way to accomplish that than single elimination for 1st stage of the event.
 
gregnice37 said:
I don't like how it switched at the end too for the final 16. I actually hated it and felt really bad for Shaw and SVB. You bust your ass all week to go undefeat d then the blink of an eye when it may not even be your fault you are out to a guy that was already on the losers side.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind - to go from the one-loss side of the bracket and make it back to the finals in any event, you have to play more matches, and usually you have to have won more matches than the undefeated player in the finals has won. I'm sure it was the same case in this event - that those players that lost a match early had to win a number of more matches to make it to that final 16 single elimination format - which in essence everyone starts all over with a clean slate.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Keep in mind - to go from the one-loss side of the bracket and make it back to the finals in any event, you have to play more matches, and usually you have to have won more matches than the undefeated player in the finals has won. I'm sure it was the same case in this event - that those players that lost a match early had to win a number of more matches to make it to that final 16 single elimination format - which in essence everyone starts all over with a clean slate.
Click to expand...

For sure the 8 guys that came from the losers side did have to play more matches. But the point of being on the winners side and going into the hotseat is to reward the winner that played the best all tourney by playing less matches. I understand the single elimination cut the tourney down about 16 matches and they all couldn't be done 1 by 1 on the TV table, but I felt guys got screwed at the change of format or the luck of the draw for that matter as Shane and Jayson both lost to the 2 finalists.

They all agreed to play that way so one could say it's completely "fair" but I didn't like or think I'll ever like the change in the middle of a tourney.
 
HawaiianEye said:
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.

:)
Click to expand...

I agree.. you are right. This time lol
 
trob said:
I agree.. you are right. This time lol[/QUOTE

The only people I ever here disagreeing with the continuous double elimination play are people who don’t play pool well enough to know the difference or those that don’t play well enough to get into the winners side very often.

I think if you’d poll the players on the winners’ side that you would find that MOST of them would prefer that they have to be beaten twice before they get eliminated.
Click to expand...
 
HawaiianEye said:
trob said:
I agree.. you are right. This time lol[/QUOTE

The only people I ever here disagreeing with the continuous double elimination play are people who don’t play pool well enough to know the difference or those that don’t play well enough to get into the winners side very often.

I think if you’d poll the players on the winners’ side that you would find that MOST of them would prefer that they have to be beaten twice before they get eliminated.
Click to expand...

Where did you finish?
Click to expand...
 
2018 International Open.

Little Ko beat JL Chang in the hotseat match. Little Ko won. JL Chang then won his B-side match and proceed to beat Ko in the final.

JL Chang gets 1st.
Ko 2nd.

Both 1 loss, and 1-1 vs each other.
 
gxman said:
2018 International Open.

Little Ko beat JL Chang in the hotseat match. Little Ko won. JL Chang then won his B-side match and proceed to beat Ko in the final.

JL Chang gets 1st.
Ko 2nd.

Both 1 loss, and 1-1 vs each other.
Click to expand...

That’s the bullshit I’m talking about. I’ve seen that happen in lesser tournaments before.
 
They did it the right way. Put me down for two stages. First either double elim or round robin. Final stage single elim. Makes for a fast tournament. Makes for better viewing by pool nuts. Makes for better viewing by bangers. And the best players still win anyway.
 
The other side of that “bullshit” is when one guy is 10-1 in matches, and the other guy 6-1 in matches. One could argue the 10-1 guy is the better player. That’s certainly how they do it in all the major sports.
 
iusedtoberich said:
They did it the right way. Put me down for two stages. First either double elim or round robin. Final stage single elim. Makes for a fast tournament. Makes for better viewing by pool nuts. Makes for better viewing by bangers. And the best players still win anyway.
Click to expand...

You can't say the best players still win anyway. If Shaw didn't get Filler 1st and SVB didn't get Wu 1st on the draw it could've been totally different. Double elimination changes most of the matches that we're played in the final 16 group.
 
gxman said:
2018 International Open.

Little Ko beat JL Chang in the hotseat match. Little Ko won. JL Chang then won his B-side match and proceed to beat Ko in the final.

JL Chang gets 1st.
Ko 2nd.

Both 1 loss, and 1-1 vs each other.
Click to expand...

I get both sides of the argument and to be honest I don’t really care one way or another, but I think it’s wrong for Hawaiian Eye to say you only get an opinion if your Fargo rate is over some number. I’d rather have guys with high business Fargo rates running pool than pool players with high Fargo rates. Matchroom has proven success at televising pool and I think they did a fantastic job creating some excitement even if it was only nine ball. Kudos to them and I look forward to their next event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top