If the tournament is double elimination, the final should be also.
Turning Stone............
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
Congratulations Jayson
Alex Borukhovich. He has done a little commentating at many Turning Stone events, and he also plays in them.
Some stats for the streamed matches are now available here: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...lassic-xxxiv-9-ball-open-january-2022.538966/
They kept mentioning a 12yr old (?) Russian kid who 14.1d a 360 followed soon thereafter with a 400. Just had to blab this someplace.
In the final, Fedor reached the 9th game first. If it was a double elimination, got to believe that it would remain races to 9, so that could have been it.
But this tournament has always been a single match, race to 13 for the final. Everyone knew that at the start too. I think that a lot of bigger tournaments run that way, while very often the local ones go the full double elimination for the finals as well.
Zuglan understands the game, the audience and the LATE NIGHT Finals.
He does NOT allow jump cues, so what!
Pro tennis majors are all single elimination sets.
For the purist in the pool game, yep dbl elim has been the waaaaaaaaaaay, but had to go away for the game/audience/production and the sport.
I'd much more prefer to play in an event with sets, because if I'm playing bad then I'd rather go somewhere else, than sit in a pool room, or sleep in my car to wait, plus it could also save you a hotel room.
I've always felt that all top end pro events should be formatted like the USTA format, best 3 outta five sets, with breaks between ea set.
The nice thing about that format is this. If you get to the event and lose your first match you can leave, save money or enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Matchroom knows that at this level, one race in the finals works.
For those that think it's unfair then unwind the US Open win for Filler, who had lost in the early rounds, made it thru to the final 16 single elim.
MR kept the Jump cue, why?
Not for the players, not for the game.... but for the audience and the production.
Could never imagine a MR dbl elim final at the Open for the general public, they like excitement not pure pool for hours.
He does NOT allow jump cues, so what!
Pro tennis majors are all single elimination sets.
For the purist in the pool game, yep dbl elim has been the waaaaaaaaaaay, but had to go away for the game/audience/production and the sport.
I'd much more prefer to play in an event with sets, because if I'm playing bad then I'd rather go somewhere else, than sit in a pool room, or sleep in my car to wait, plus it could also save you a hotel room.
I've always felt that all top end pro events should be formatted like the USTA format, best 3 outta five sets, with breaks between ea set.
The nice thing about that format is this. If you get to the event and lose your first match you can leave, save money or enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Matchroom knows that at this level, one race in the finals works.
For those that think it's unfair then unwind the US Open win for Filler, who had lost in the early rounds, made it thru to the final 16 single elim.
MR kept the Jump cue, why?
Not for the players, not for the game.... but for the audience and the production.
Could never imagine a MR dbl elim final at the Open for the general public, they like excitement not pure pool for hours.
I agree. One long set in the final helps with time constraints but mainly its more exciting for fans/viewers. I also like the 3/5 or 4/7 set format. Top-level pro events should be single elim. imo. Since MikeZ's events have a lot of weekend warriors i think DE is fine for them.
Last edited:
At some point they might have to name this event after Shaw. He had some great comebacks.
Big finishes for Abdulla and Dave.
Big finishes for Abdulla and Dave.
Shaw is now a 7 time winner yes?
7x is correct
Some of the local double elimination tournaments I've played in made the final match a single elimination, but they spotted the winner of the winners' bracket two games on the wire. In this case, Jayson would've had to win 13 games to Gorst's 11.
I can't see any argument against that sort of arrangement, since there should be some sort of reward for entering the final match undefeated.
The obvious argument is that the guy from the losers' bracket had to win more games than the winner's-side guy.
It's kind of counterintuitive, but a single finals favors the stronger players in the event. And that is as it should be.
One of the reasons ABC gave up on pool is that the tournaments they filmed -- none was ever live -- were double elimination. Most of them went to two finals so ABC had to throw away two or three hours of film and start over.
True double elimination is not useful to anyone. It is a burden. I'm with those who feel events should be single elimination, at least after a certain point, like only 25% of the players left. The only reason I can see to have double elimination in most tournaments is to give the "never ran, dead money" people a little more entertainment for their entry fee.
I totally agree with your point about single elimination finals being better than true double elimination, but I still like the idea of giving the hot seat winner two games on the string in the final, for the same reason the Packers and the Titans are given home field advantage throughout the conference finals because they each had the best regular season records within their conferences. Winning the hot seat should be rewarded a bit beyond being able to take a few hours off after you've won that particular match.
Yes! I actually did pretty good sneaking into the $ at small locals this way often..play play play..rarely sit long and then find myself in the last few. I was there to play and have fun, nothing more.
give the winner's side the opening break and one 'gotcha' to be used at any time.
