Long sets poll...............
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
You could go further, to something closer to tennis.
A rack could be equivalent to a point in tennis, and the breaks could be grouped like a 'service game'. So you have to beat someone 3 out of 5 while he breaks every rack, to 'break serve' ('break break'?).
Then you have multiple games and sets on top of that. But breaking someone's serve once (3 times?) might be enough to win the set.
Whether it'd work might depend on the break being valuable, but not *too* valuable. And maybe the number of racks in a tennis 'game' could be fine-tuned to get the right level of variance.
A rack could be equivalent to a point in tennis, and the breaks could be grouped like a 'service game'. So you have to beat someone 3 out of 5 while he breaks every rack, to 'break serve' ('break break'?).
Then you have multiple games and sets on top of that. But breaking someone's serve once (3 times?) might be enough to win the set.
Whether it'd work might depend on the break being valuable, but not *too* valuable. And maybe the number of racks in a tennis 'game' could be fine-tuned to get the right level of variance.
Sounds like a Warren Zevon song.
I think all these long sets should have a stipulation they have to win by 10% of the set length and we would all get that end game we want. Like Carlo beat Sky by enough to feel like he beat him. If going to 100 win by 10, go to 120, win by 12, go to 150 win by 15 etc. I really think that's the solution.
long sets are boring.
A top player can and has been down 20 games and can make a come back.
Short sets are fun to watch and puts pressure on both players.
A good race is 1st to reach 7 games……..can take too long sometimes so maybe first to reach 5 games.
It also allows you to better handicap if that was a requirement. A race to 3 games seems better suited for
the losers side bracket in a double elimination tournament but it’s also suitable for weeknight tournaments.
It also allows you to better handicap if that was a requirement. A race to 3 games seems better suited for
the losers side bracket in a double elimination tournament but it’s also suitable for weeknight tournaments.
I wonder how much thought the players/backers put into considering what a streaming audience would prefer, a single long or multiple short....
I'm guessing our perference doesn't mean jack shit to them.
That said, I don't have near the problem with long sets that some others do. Best player will win, which is the point. Will I watch it from beginning to end...?..., hell no.
I'm guessing our perference doesn't mean jack shit to them.
That said, I don't have near the problem with long sets that some others do. Best player will win, which is the point. Will I watch it from beginning to end...?..., hell no.
I voted multiple short sets, but I’m really ambivalent. I really liked the Color of Money between Efren and Earl. I also still watch some of the TAR matches. But they were both basically broken up into shorter sets over a few days with a final tally at the end, so I’m not sure how much a difference there really is.
That said, I don’t think I’ve watched a single new long race since TAR hung it up, so I guess that tells me where my preference is.
That said, I don’t think I’ve watched a single new long race since TAR hung it up, so I guess that tells me where my preference is.
Sets should include as many scoring options as practical.
Pay points along the way - every 10 , 20, etc...
The spread: 10 ahead etc...
fixed or scaled...
Pay points along the way - every 10 , 20, etc...
The spread: 10 ahead etc...
fixed or scaled...
PracticeChampion
Well-known member
I'm not much of a gambler so maybe for big money I might feel different but anything over a race to 7 in 9-ball and 5 in 8-ball and I'm almost bored at playing that person
I don’t see anything wrong with that...some front runners dog the right sets.
Happens in tennis a lot and and it hasn't hurt that game one bit.
Yup are righ, it creates variance which creates more action.
Imo, a 148 to 150 score doesnt really establish who is the better player.
DieselPete
Active member
Exactly.
It all depends on the goal.
If the goal is to increase excitement/drama then multiple shorter sets is the way to go.
If the goal is to identify the best player then one long set is the way to go, and the longer the better.
The best way to identify the better player would be to play a long set and if it is very close at the end have a rule that a player must win by five games (or something similar) to avoid playing for three days and coming down to one game. In the cases that we have seen of races ending 120-119 then it would be best to conclude that the players are essentially of even ability (even though there is a winner and money has changed hands).
I like Mikeyfrosts idea of winning by 10%