True Double Elimination vs Extended Game Single Elimination Match

[tlegried]

Dont go changing formats

I don't care who won and both players played like true champions, but, if I got my numbers right, the following occurred between the final two players during the course of the tournament:

Chang defeats SVB 11-4 and puts Shane in the loser bracket

SVB defeats Chang 13-9 in the extended format final and wins the tournament

If my math is correct, between the two matches combined:

Chang wins 22 games and SVB wins 17

How is that fair? Chang was in the winner bracket and is 5 games ahead in total wins.

Shane should have had to beat him two sets in a row to win, IMHO.

Who cares what you think. Your not a player. Maybe we can complain and tweak the mosconi cup rules, so usa can run these euros that live here on our mosconi team. Drop the illegal break crap, and keep it how it is.

 

[The-Professor]

They did away with the double sets because the players have a plane to catch.

Jim Rempe's words during the finals match between Efren and Earl in the famous Sands finals where Efren did the zigzag kick to win it .

CJ Wiley had the same complaint after losing to Efren in the finals of the Bike Open . He was on the winners' side. Beat Efren earlier.
Lost in the final match to Efren.

Just imagine the finals today lasting four hours .
2 sets of race to 11.
It would have been exhausting to the audience.

I'm guessing the audience would have LOVED to see another set between those two!

 

[boogeyman]

I don't care who won and both players played like true champions, but, if I got my numbers right, the following occurred between the final two players during the course of the tournament:

Chang defeats SVB 11-4 and puts Shane in the loser bracket

SVB defeats Chang 13-9 in the extended format final and wins the tournament

If my math is correct, between the two matches combined:

Chang wins 22 games and SVB wins 17

How is that fair? Chang was in the winner bracket and is 5 games ahead in total wins.

Shane should have had to beat him two sets in a row to win, IMHO.

HawaiianEye. I understand your point, but I don't completely agree with your entire argument.
Granted, this is a double elimination-based format, but at the same time, it's not a round-robin format either.

Players are playing against the field, not any particular player.
To compare wins (or losses) is irrelevant here.
It's not always the best record that stands to win the tournament anyways.

The TD extended the final match, and for the record, SVB played more matches than Chang.
The one-set final, offered plenty of opportunities to both players.

No advantages either way. This is really a non-issue IMO.

 

[Tin Man]

The one nice part about the one set finals is it guarantees the audience one match for the title. As Bob J said, it's a title match. People can make even bets, and both players have an equal shot. What the winner of the hotseat gets is the guarantee to play in the finals, vs having to play a monster to get there.

 

[decent dennis]

They would have had plenty of time if the matches started on time. The movie....I mean trbute was nice but could have went off earlier [ if anyone thinks this was a one time thing, it's gonna happen from here on out].

 

[jasonlaus]

I think true double elim adds excitement to the finals.

If it's double elim ALL players should have to lose TWICE. Don't give me that crap about having to play more matches on the losers side, that's what you get for LOSING.

Whoever said it would be exhausting to the fans, wth??? Why do you think they are there?
Jason

Another thing - you had 4 matches on the final day, and it was too hard to show them all there were 6 matches/day the rest of the week. There should have been 5 matches total yesterday with 2 finals matches(true D elim) Fans would have loved it!

 

[westcoast]

Shane had to beat great players on the one loss side, so he deserves a lot of credit. However, I do agree that all tournaments should be true double elimination. It seems a bit unfair that two guys end the tournament with the same # of losses, but one guy gets to be the champion. The one saving grace in my mind to some extent is that the format is stated before the tournament starts- it's not like it was an impromtu decision

 

[sammylane12]

I don't care who won and both players played like true champions, but, if I got my numbers right, the following occurred between the final two players during the course of the tournament:

Chang defeats SVB 11-4 and puts Shane in the loser bracket

SVB defeats Chang 13-9 in the extended format final and wins the tournament

If my math is correct, between the two matches combined:

Chang wins 22 games and SVB wins 17

How is that fair? Chang was in the winner bracket and is 5 games ahead in total wins.

Shane should have had to beat him two sets in a row to win, IMHO.

So, your post is about how you disagree with the format chosen by the promoter. You are ignoring the way major tournaments have been run for decades now. Vast majority play 1 set finals. A few smaller events, some tour stops, play true double elimination. It is hardly the norm.
The promoter has the right to choose the format he feels gives the event the best chance of succeeding. Also, don`t forget the rules and the format are on the table for all to see. Everybody is breaking from the same box, everybody is playing the same format.
So just because your guy lost, the format is bad. He got beaten by SVD, our own national treasure! Just look at the last 4 guys he went through and tell me he didn`t deserve to win..

 

[spartan]

Those in True DA camp have the better arguments and are thrashing the Extended Game Single Elim camp :grin:

I would also add that:
1) creating 2 stages switching to single elim stage just for final is bizarre when the 2nd stage is just for 2 players and there is no advantage given the undefeated hot seat player
By and large, the 2nd stage involves give some advantage to the winning players eg. in W9B , 2nd stage single elim involves a redraw and the top performers in 1st stage double elim are seeded higher so they play the lower seeded team in 2nd stage. In FIFA World Cup, 2nd stage single elim matches, teams that top their groups in 1st stage play lower teams from other group

2) it is irrelevant the calibre of players the undefeated hot seat plays to get to final. The hot seat winner may play all dead money players but is still accorded undefeated winner status. In same vein, it is irrelevant the strength of players that one loss winner plays to get to final. It is in luck of draw whether they play weak or strong players

3) sure players know beforehand that it will be single elim final but so what? Consent just means they will play but does not make it fair. :grin:

4) if there it is 1 single elim match final, the undefeated hot seat winner should be given an advantage or reward or benefit . For eg. there can be a prizemoney for undefeated player (hot seat) like 147 prize in snooker. Maybe $10K taken from the $50K top prize. So if it is single match final, hot seat plays get $10K and winner of final gets $40K +title. If it is true double elim (up to 2 matches), then winner of final gets $50K + title
:grin:

 

[mowermarty]

everyone should get one loss

if winner side player gets to 11 first they win, if loser gets to 11 first it counts as a loss for winner side player and the race is extended to 15 and everyone gets knocked out on 2nd loss.

 

[BRussell]

Mark Wilson during the stream said he didn't prefer true double elimination because it was anti-climactic and confusing to viewers.

I guess your view of this depends on whether you think the tournament is for players and fairness to them is the most important thing, or the tournament is for the fans.

 

[jasonlaus]

Mark Wilson during the stream said he didn't prefer true double elimination because it was anti-climactic and confusing to viewers.

I guess your view of this depends on whether you think the tournament is for players and fairness to them is the most important thing, or the tournament is for the fans.

I would have to say Mark is wrong.

If the fans can't be told player B has to beat player A twice because player A hasn't lost yet, then the fans are too stupid to have an opinion.
Jason

 

[Jaden]

I've never complained either

It depends on how someone looks at it. I think the path Shane had to take to win was way more difficult. His final record 12 wins 1 loss (with no easy opponent). 138 games won.
Chang 7 wins 1 loss. 86 games won. Seems fair that SVB is the winner.

I have been in the finals of hundreds of tournaments some double elimination with one final match, some true double elimination. Some of the time I was on the winner side and sometimes came from the loser side. I never once thought about how either format was fair or unfair and I never cared. I am pretty sure most players are the same way because I have never had any of my opponents ever complain to me.

my girlfriend summed it up best. pool players are a bunch of whiny *****es.

jaden

 

[Skippy27]

There are truly on 2 reasons to do double elimination.

1.) So that people don't show up some place and end up out after paying and traveling there in about an hour and a half.

2.) To avoid having the top 2 or 3 best players in the same side of the bracket get put out early.

There is not much you can do with 1, except say it is a chance taken. However, with 2 you can by having a modified double elimination. Once you get down to half the field it is pretty clear that they were better than the other half and have played multiple matches thus them losing, even if it is just once, is fair enough. That would give any good player that had the unfortunate luck of running into another good player a chance to come back and still place well.

I personally like the way our state wrestling tournament use to run. If you lost in the first round and the person that beat you lost you were out. If they won, you matched up against the other person they beat in the 2nd round. Clearly at the point it has been determined who the better person is and the best you can do is 3rd.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
4) if there it is 1 single elim match final, the undefeated hot seat winner should be given an advantage or reward or benefit . [...]

I agree.

I suggest we guarantee him he will face an opponent who has already lost a match.

 

[Rhea]

Chang didn't seem to mind.

That is because all the players knew the format that they were playing in.

Nothing deviated from that format.

 

[dawgcpa]

Us Open

True double all the way. And yes I get that shane played some great matches on his way. That's why they call it the scenic route. Still shouldn't get you out of the double elimination portion....

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I don't care who won and both players played like true champions, but, if I got my numbers right, the following occurred between the final two players during the course of the tournament:

Chang defeats SVB 11-4 and puts Shane in the loser bracket

SVB defeats Chang 13-9 in the extended format final and wins the tournament

If my math is correct, between the two matches combined:

Chang wins 22 games and SVB wins 17

How is that fair? Chang was in the winner bracket and is 5 games ahead in total wins.

Shane should have had to beat him two sets in a row to win, IMHO.

If the tourney is double elimination, then that format should be preserved throughout the tourney. The score of their winners side match doesn't really matter. It basically results in zero losses for Chang and 1 loss for Shane. When Chang gets 2 losses, and not before, he is out.

Stupid format. Probably poor excuses for it. Haven't read the thread at all. Curious what the defenses are.

KMRUNOUT

 

[TCo]

Mark Wilson during the stream said he didn't prefer true double elimination because it was anti-climactic and confusing to viewers.

I guess your view of this depends on whether you think the tournament is for players and fairness to them is the most important thing, or the tournament is for the fans.

Viewers. Plural. . Those viewers prob more than anyone on the planet understand double elimination.

Fair doesn't have anything to do with it .... all those crying not fair, refer to Bush v Gore.

 

[Inaction]

In the small tournament that I help run, I have suggested that the final be played as one race when time is tight. Instead of a race to 2, they would play to 3 games, with the undefeated team getting one game spotted.

This hasn't been accepted yet, as the choices have been to split the pot.

As long as nothing changed since the US Open was set up, I don't think there is anything to complain about. At times, it can be an advantage to not have idle time between matches.