All the books Iv'e read say that World Straight Pool tournaments were always Round Robin or Double round Robin with a Final Match determining the Champion. Why do we not use this format for 9 ball? Would that be more accurate in showing who the best player really is? The world Championship has its Round Robin stages but when they have 64 players left they change to single elimination. I figure in a single elimination 64 player tournament it would be like a coin toss between the top 4 players to see who won. Luck plays a major part. What does everyone else think of this? I figure they should take the 8 best players in the world and play a Round Robin event to determine a winner. Or maybe do the world championships in 3 or 4 Round Robin stages.
Professional Round Robin tournaments
- Thread starter fxskater
- Start date
fxskater said:
Maybe because 9 ball itself isn't designed to find the best player? Of course a round robin is better for finding the best player. But you are assuming tournaments want to do that. For the most part they don't and have to deal with the realities of today. Which is that there is no time nor money for a double round robin with long races. Like play pushout nine ball race to 15 or 21 double round robin. If you can get such a tournament off the ground, please do. Would be great. Won't happen. I'm with you, can you imagine seeing the great old players in a straight pool double round robin on full size (5X10) tables instead of the small 9' ones? I might have been born too late.
The one legitiamte disadvantage is that in the old days fields were kept artificially small and the industry controlled who played too much. You can't do a round robin in a big field. But for small events or the last segment of bigger tournaments it would be cool.
fxskater said:
First, the world straight pool championships were only round robin in the really old days, and the fields then were small enough to pull it off. Nonetheless, I think you're on to something good here. The real argument against another round robin after the WPC eliminations is there isn't enough time.
Today's WPC consists of 448 races to five, after which 63 full-length single elimination matches are needed to crown a champion.
One way to pull it off at the WPC with round robin would be as follows:
Sxiteen groups of eight, but only the top two in each group advance to continue on. That's 448 races to five, just like today.
The 32 survivors are arranged into four new groups of eight and they play another round robin, and the four group winners advance to the semifinals. That's 112 more matches, meaning it takes 560 races to five to get the tournament down to four players.
It's single elimination from that point on, and takes only two full length matches to crown a champion.
The current way requires 448 races to five and 63 full length matches. The new way would take 560 races to five and only 2 full-length matches. Not much difference there, but I think the new way would help ensure that the cream would rise to the top.
In other words, logistically, it can be done without lengthening the event. Yes, FXSKATER, you may be on to something here.
Hmmmm, are you saying there was a problem with 'Business' in the past? I could see 'business' in the earlier stages, but you figure once you have it down to 16 players that the level of skill would be close enough that noone would be willing to be on the losing side of a business proposition. You may be right, but thats just my opinion. Let me propose the 16 final players in the tournament and you tell me which player would win. My prediction would be just about every player having almost identical win loss records with most matches being won or lost at 5:4. Here is my top 16.
Johnny Archer
Earl Strickland
Chao Fong Pang
Alex Pagulayan
Efren Reyes
Yang Chin Shun
Francisco Bustamante
Ralph Souquet
Thorsten Hohmann
Chang (the guy that got 2nd this year)
Gabe Owen (tough arueing with the US OPEN winner)
Marcus Chamat (been in the top 8 or close to it for 5 years running)
Rodney Morris
Niels Fiejen
Cory Deuel
Jeremy Jones
A little too many American players in there but my mind is drawing blanks right now.
Anyways, can anyone guess who would be doing 'business' among these champions
Johnny Archer
Earl Strickland
Chao Fong Pang
Alex Pagulayan
Efren Reyes
Yang Chin Shun
Francisco Bustamante
Ralph Souquet
Thorsten Hohmann
Chang (the guy that got 2nd this year)
Gabe Owen (tough arueing with the US OPEN winner)
Marcus Chamat (been in the top 8 or close to it for 5 years running)
Rodney Morris
Niels Fiejen
Cory Deuel
Jeremy Jones
A little too many American players in there but my mind is drawing blanks right now.
Anyways, can anyone guess who would be doing 'business' among these champions
fxskater said:
How are ya, FX? You actually answered your own question. When you have players with close to the same W/L record it presents much less of a problem but when a player has many loses and is playing someone with virtually all wins, he knows his chances of winning the tournament are non existent. The player with all the losses could even be a better player than the guy with all the wins. The crowd, knowing he is the better player will have a tendency to want to bet on him. This invites unwanted things.
In a double elemination tournament, quite often, the winner of the tournament comes through the one loss side to win. A player with one loss in a DE tournament knows he can still win the tournament and is much less inclined to ask another player to catch for him than a player with many losses in a RR tournament.
Big time tournament directors, in this country, know this. That is why you see less and less RR tournaments here.
Best of luck to ya and knock um in the creek.
I think the list of potential winners is definately longer than 16 players. Mika's in there. Maybe Thomas Engert after his win this year. Takahashi has won it before, so I think he has the game to win. Hsia's not in there. There are also a few guys from Taiwan that are considered to be better than Chang and not in the list. So many good players out there right now.