The Perfect Pool Tournament - what format?

TheOne

TheOne

www.MetroPool.club
Silver Member
There's been quite a lot of discussion on here in recent times regarding invites, qualifiers, paid entry, and what "open" really means. The challenge I put to you is this:

Williebetmore has been rallying the troups here on AZ and has managed to raise $1 million dollars from all the members donations (it was only $563 until big hearted SJM and Randi made up the difference :p )

We've decided to run our own AZ World Championships to find the best god damn player on the planet (nay, unniverse!) and have to agree the perfect formula to make sure it includes the greatest players on earth!

Things to consider:
  • Should it include men and women?
  • How many runners?
  • double elimination, round robin, straight KO or a combination?
  • wild card invites, ranking list invites, qualifiers, truly open?
  • entry fees?
  • 8 ball, 9 ball, straight pool or a combination to find the all round best cuester on the planet?
  • race to what, winner breaks or alt break?
  • Anything else you might want to add in for fun such as location, commentators, tournament director

I started to think about my own ideas but havent completely decided yet, will ad something soon
 
Last edited:
I'm rather flexible on most of this. I'll make a couple things that I think would be good.

1. At least double elimination. Round Robin is the best but can't foresee having enough time. (especially considering #2)
2. After each match won the winner must drink a double shot of Hard Liquor. (86 proof or higher)

JR

:D
 
Locations

The final 16 people should travel to their next closed cicuit camera matches. Each match should have different places to play and you draw for your locations, such as in the middle of the Forbidden City in China, atop of the Eifel Tower, below the Arch in St Louis Missouri USA, at the foot of the Giza in Egypt and so on. Really push the limits here. The Final match should be help on a huge airplane high above the world. LMAO!
 
OK as much as botht these suggestions appeal Im sensing you guys are not taking this exreemly thought out and intelligent post seriously! :rolleyes:
 
You asked for it... (Long)

About 4 years ago I put alot of thought into this. I had all of the time related issues figured out. Since then, I have lost all of that research and dont have it handy. WHat I will list will give you a general idea of what I had in mind. So, please dont be super critical when it comes to apparrent time contraints.

1) A nice Hotel, or civic center with Hotel access close That is willing to
allow play 24/7 starting Wednesday night through Saturday night.

2) 20 tables (for tourny) 10 for "practice"

3) 500 max roster. Pay your entry and play. Round robin flights of 10.

4) 10 ball, Race to 9 with approximately 2 hours for each match.

5) Tables will have a "Chess" Time Clock to keep track of players time spent at the table. There would be no "Shot Clock" If the match is getting close to time, a tour director will decide if the race needs to be shortened. IF the information from the time clock dictates that a player with a significant lead starts to stall to protect a lead, this will result in games being added, or subtracted to the wire.

6)From the 500 players, 128 players will fill the double elimination bracket.
The first 100 spots would be rewarded to the Winner and Runner Up of each flight. The remaining 28 would be filled by the players with the next best record. If players are tied with the same record, the amount of games won throughout their sets will determine who wins the final spots. If two players still are tied with the same amount of games won, then the win/loss ratio will determine the final spot. If they are still tied, there will be a race to 7 to determine the spot. This would hopefully deter any "round robin" antics.

7) The Double elimination format would be 10 ball, race to 11, with approximate match time of 2 hours 15 minutes.

8) Semis and finals would be Sunday starting at 10am. The Semis would be race to 12. The finals would be race to 15.

This would take an amazing amount of cooperation from all parties involved.
My biggest problem with this whole idea was limiting the number of players in an "OPEN" event but it needs a limit. Except for 40 spots reserved for the top ranked players in the Country, the field would be set by the earliest applicants. I know this sounds political, but the top players in the country need to be contacted to see if they can play. If they say they are not sure then that spot becomes open with the other 460.
 
best of 3 sets races to 7 winner breaks within the set. if player A broke first in the first set.. then player b gets to break first in the second set.

quarter semi and the finals would be best of 5 sets race to 7.

this is the best way to do it. no more arguing about winner break is better or alternating break is better. i think alternating break is plain stupid. but his is the fairest way.

if player A is good enuf to break and run 7 racks in the first set .. player B would get his chance in the second set and he better come with some heat.
 
I think round robin cut-throat, just as Donovan said it should be internationally played at venues like the Eiffle Tower. Losers must run naked through the streets of a major metropolitan city, winner takes all!:D
JMHO

Terry
 
Okay now the serious version. Open event, IPT type boxed round robin chart and scoring, races to 6 in southern bar room 10-ball and winner take all.:)

Terry
 
For a stand alone tournament, seedings will always be a problem, as in who should be selected and according to which rankings and / or achievements.

Best is when a tour is in place where the majority of strong players compete regularly such that a good rankings system can develop.

With rankings in place, I quite like the format of World Snooker, where players are seeded into various rounds.
Top16 play in the last 32.
17-32 play in the last 48
33-48 play in the last 64
49-64 play in the last 80

This means strong new players have to fight their way up the rankings, but they don't have to play the best players in the early rounds.

Still, I like the round robin format for several reasons. It allows more players to match up and reduces the effects of getting an unlucky draw.

Double elimination or even triple elimination can have their advantages too.

Best is that the players get to play as much as possible so that luck is reduced from the equation and skill wins out. But this doesn't always suit the needs of the organizers or broadcasters.

To summarize, there are pros and cons to any system and what satisfies one aspect can reduce appeal to another.

I think the IPT system could develop into a very good system, but eventually they may want to guarantee that the big name players appear in the later stages of an event such as the last 64. So that the highest ranked 32 players would be straight into the top 64 while the other 118 players have to fight off for the other 32 places.

I also think some wildcards and open qualifiers should be in place as a way to find - introduce the future stars to the tour. Michelle Wie provides great evidence of the increased exposure a tournament can gain by introducing a wild-card. Jeanette Lee or Steve Davis might provide a similar effect for the IPT.
 
Colin Colenso said:
For a stand alone tournament, seedings will always be a problem, as in who should be selected and according to which rankings and / or achievements.

Best is when a tour is in place where the majority of strong players compete regularly such that a good rankings system can develop.

With rankings in place, I quite like the format of World Snooker, where players are seeded into various rounds.
Top16 play in the last 32.
17-32 play in the last 48
33-48 play in the last 64
49-64 play in the last 80

This means strong new players have to fight their way up the rankings, but they don't have to play the best players in the early rounds.

Still, I like the round robin format for several reasons. It allows more players to match up and reduces the effects of getting an unlucky draw.

Double elimination or even triple elimination can have their advantages too.

Best is that the players get to play as much as possible so that luck is reduced from the equation and skill wins out. But this doesn't always suit the needs of the organizers or broadcasters.

To summarize, there are pros and cons to any system and what satisfies one aspect can reduce appeal to another.

I think the IPT system could develop into a very good system, but eventually they may want to guarantee that the big name players appear in the later stages of an event such as the last 64. So that the highest ranked 32 players would be straight into the top 64 while the other 118 players have to fight off for the other 32 places.

I also think some wildcards and open qualifiers should be in place as a way to find - introduce the future stars to the tour. Michelle Wie provides great evidence of the increased exposure a tournament can gain by introducing a wild-card. Jeanette Lee or Steve Davis might provide a similar effect for the IPT.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with much of what you said, however I have to pull you up on the snooker tour. The snooker ranking system is widely accepted to be one of the most corrupt systems around. It protects the top players immensly and makes it extreemly difficult for anyone accept the most gifted to advance up the rankings. Some of the top 16 players haven't won anything in years, many have gone the whole season with hardly even winning a match and they even move UP in the rankings! They recieve points simply for turning up and everyone hopes this system is changed asap as snooker is becoming a bit stale to say the least! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top