U. S. Open Finals Format Unfair?

[jnav447]

I contend that the single-elimination format in the Open (and many other tournaments) is unfair to the unbeaten player coming from the winner's side (in today's case, SVB). After beating Alcano once already, if SVB loses to him once (tonight), Alcano is the champion, even though they both only have one loss. The fact that it's a race to 13 instead of 11 does not mitigate the inequity IMO. I can think of no sound reason why the Open should not require the loser's side participant in the finals to win twice, otherwise it's a double elimination tournament for everyone but the King of the Hill.

 

[ginsu]

I contend that the single-elimination format in the Open (and many other tournaments) is unfair to the unbeaten player coming from the winner's side (in today's case, SVB). After beating Alcano once already, if SVB loses to him once (tonight), Alcano is the champion, even though they both only have one loss. The fact that it's a race to 13 instead of 11 does not mitigate the inequity IMO. I can think of no sound reason why the Open should not require the loser's side participant in the finals to win twice, otherwise it's a double elimination tournament for everyone but the King of the Hill.

Couldn't agree more. It's wrong.

 

[JoeyInCali]

They have to catch a flight after the match.

 

[Marvel]

Guys, stay positive, don't start with explanations b4hand..


It's a big advantage for the winners-side surfer as he gets much more rest than the player struggling in the losers bracket.

Actually, the task the loser-side players have to overcome in this format is way too crueling. You'll play until 4.30am, and you continue at 11am, and until 4.30am again.. (Gallego, from thu-fri).

There's no wisdom in this format.
1 extra day, or 32 players single-elimination or something..
Winners-side qualifyers are rewarded with seeding, losers-side qualifyers are drawn against the winners..

 

[juegabillar]

I can think of no sound reason why the Open should not require the loser's side participant in the finals to win twice, otherwise it's a double elimination tournament for everyone but the King of the Hill.

Nobody will ever be happy. True double elimination formats are basically something of the past; we simply have to accept these facts.

 

[jnav447]

Nobody will ever be happy. True double elimination formats are basically something of the past; we simply have to accept these facts.

Thank you for your input. I'm not unhappy, my Florida Gators are winning. I do not agree that "we simply have to accept these facts"...why? Whether or not the current format at the Open has become standard at tournaments, it is definitely a point worthy of extended discussion IMO.

 

[8ballEinstein]

I never hear the players complaining about this format.

Even on the womens tour where the final 16 players go into a single elimination format. The pro women I know don't seem to mind.

 

[jnav447]

I never hear the players complaining about this format.

Even on the womens tour where the final 16 players go into a single elimination format. The pro women I know don't seem to mind.

Good point, but the reason for this may be that the format only negatively affects one player in the tournament (King of the Hill). The other 99% of the players have a potential benefit from the current format. Thanks for your input.

 

[Russ Chewning]

Danny D. puts it very succinctly in most of the current matches he has been commentating:

"Playing a lot more matches is the loser's punishment for losing a match. So a one match final is perfectly fair. I like it that way."

When you look at it realistically, in almost every case, the loser has played WAY more matches than the winner, and with today's fields, he has most probably played players that are every bit as tough as the players the winner played. And has beaten more of them than the winner has!

Double elimination finals are all well and good for smaller tournaments, which usually have shorter races and weaker fields, to make sure the player who played the best actually wins, but in a big tournament like the US Open, I think a longer race for the finals is perfectly fair.

JMHO, Russ

 

[gopi-1]

Danny D. puts it very succinctly in most of the current matches he has been commentating:

"Playing a lot more matches is the loser's punishment for losing a match. So a one match final is perfectly fair. I like it that way."

When you look at it realistically, in almost every case, the loser has played WAY more matches than the winner, and with today's fields, he has most probably played players that are every bit as tough as the players the winner played. And has beaten more of them than the winner has!

JMHO, Russ

I concur...

The best example would be Ramil Gallego, who had to go through the
proverbial gauntlet to get to where's he's at. Imagine playing the likes of
Thorsten Hohmann, Bustamante, Mike Davis, Efren Reyes and Corey Deuel
in a single day on a "one and done" situation isn't enough punishment
because his day in hell ain't over yet. He eventually lost to the Kaiser
probably because of sheer exhaustion as he was just running on fumes at
2:30 in the morning. What more reward can an undefeated player ask for?
All he needs is to win 8 matches against the 16 matches a 1st round loser
has to go through. We might as well hand the trophy to the last man
standing on the winners' side if we keep on insisting that the player from
the losers' side has to win twice.

just my 2 Drachma...

 

[Arn]

start double elimination stay double. start race to 11 stay race to 11. just like the other tourneys they shorten the tv table races. thats a crock. why change how the whole tourney has been run at the end. just my 2 cents!!!

 

[Gerry]

Personally I don't care as long as EVERYONE knows before hand what the rules are. Nothing like making the finals and they tell the frmat is changing cause' they ran long!

Gerry

 

[jgpool]

Resting

If they are going to do a single elim for the final I think it should be a race to 20(some number). For these reasons.

1). This is the focal point of the tournament!! Make it a 3 hour event!

2). If the loser bracket player gets to 13 first it's not over and the winners side player has a chance to come back. (so it's not dbl elim but it is definitly an extended challenge.

Note: Is the advantage is to the player who is in stroke because he has been playing or the rested player?

Just some Coors induced thoughts.

 

[9balllvr]

I contend that the single-elimination format in the Open (and many other tournaments) is unfair to the unbeaten player coming from the winner's side (in today's case, SVB). After beating Alcano once already, if SVB loses to him once (tonight), Alcano is the champion, even though they both only have one loss. The fact that it's a race to 13 instead of 11 does not mitigate the inequity IMO. I can think of no sound reason why the Open should not require the loser's side participant in the finals to win twice, otherwise it's a double elimination tournament for everyone but the King of the Hill.

it was discussed at the players meetings - think it had something to do with television time or similar - can't remember a week ago too tired. but they were going to do 11 until Barry offered up 13 and the guys agreed.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

I contend that the single-elimination format in the Open (and many other tournaments) is unfair to the unbeaten player coming from the winner's side (in today's case, SVB). After beating Alcano once already, if SVB loses to him once (tonight), Alcano is the champion, even though they both only have one loss. The fact that it's a race to 13 instead of 11 does not mitigate the inequity IMO. I can think of no sound reason why the Open should not require the loser's side participant in the finals to win twice, otherwise it's a double elimination tournament for everyone but the King of the Hill.

Because by the time the player on the loser bracket reach the final, he has played more matches than the guy in the hot seat.

 

[3andstop]

I don't follow 9 ball, so for all I know they may be doing it this way already, but how about a modified single elimination final.

If the winner gets to 9 first, the match is over. If the loser's bracket player gets to 9 first, then they have to continue on to 15. (or whatever numbers)

 

[quitecoolguy]

Well i have seen a couple of people post that the person who goes thru the loser side has to play more games than the person in the hot seat..ohm my god i have never heard such a croc..haha i have an easy solution to the guy who went thru the loser bracket DONT LOOSE hahaha..i too agree with the person having to beat the winner twice. It not easy getting to the hot seat..so it should be easy to take the victory away from the person sitting in the hot seat..but hey we can give our suggestions all day long...I have to say BARRY you did one hell of a job..and the story about your parrents and the rose was real touching..and to be honest i loved the bag pipes..that was really cool..that guy could twirl the sh*t out of those drum hammers.

 

[Flex]

Danny D. puts it very succinctly in most of the current matches he has been commentating:

"Playing a lot more matches is the loser's punishment for losing a match. So a one match final is perfectly fair. I like it that way."

When you look at it realistically, in almost every case, the loser has played WAY more matches than the winner, and with today's fields, he has most probably played players that are every bit as tough as the players the winner played. And has beaten more of them than the winner has!

Double elimination finals are all well and good for smaller tournaments, which usually have shorter races and weaker fields, to make sure the player who played the best actually wins, but in a big tournament like the US Open, I think a longer race for the finals is perfectly fair.

JMHO, Russ

Sure thing. Heck, push the Freakin' Finals out to a race to 21, that'll make everybody happy.

Flex

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Well i have seen a couple of people post that the person who goes thru the loser side has to play more games than the person in the hot seat..ohm my god i have never heard such a croc..haha i have an easy solution to the guy who went thru the loser bracket DONT LOOSE hahaha..i too agree with the person having to beat the winner twice. It not easy getting to the hot seat..so it should be easy to take the victory away from the person sitting in the hot seat..but hey we can give our suggestions all day long...I have to say BARRY you did one hell of a job..and the story about your parrents and the rose was real touching..and to be honest i loved the bag pipes..that was really cool..that guy could twirl the sh*t out of those drum hammers.

That opinion only holds water when the skill level among players in the tournament is very wide. It will prevent someone from just plainly getting lucky.

The skill level you are seeing at the later stage of a major tournament is very high, and players are at almost the same level of talent. The player from the losing bracket has nothing to prove even to the player who reached the hot seat. Thus there is only one final match with a longer race.

This kind of question always reminds me of "call shot" VS BCA rule debate in 8-ball. Pros and A-players who are more concern about controlling "whitey" don't complain about the non-"call shot" rule, but players who are still concern about pocketing are adamant about "call-shot" being in place because it seems fairer to avoid bangers from slopping ball to the correct pocket.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I contend that the single-elimination format in the Open (and many other tournaments) is unfair to the unbeaten player ...

No, there are lots of reasons to have a single final match. I suppose they could rearrange things to have four separate groups playing real double elimination matches and then take the 4 winners of the groups into a 4-player single elimination finals. But the real solution is to avoid double elimination entirely. There are several formats that would take care of that without taking any more time and would give each player at least two (or more) matches.