Bob Jewett said:
Bob,
I think they will now start complaining about one finalist record is 11-1(W-L) and the other is 9-3. LOL, it's unfair again. The 9-3 finalist should defeat the other player 3 times to be declared a champion.
U. S. Open Finals Format Unfair?
- Thread starter jnav447
- Start date
Bob,
I think they will now start complaining about one finalist record is 11-1(W-L) and the other is 9-3. LOL, it's unfair again. The 9-3 finalist should defeat the other player 3 times to be declared a champion.
gopi-1 said:
I'm not going to address the issue of playing a one set Final here. I will only say ALL the players know the format going in and they agree to it. I personally feel that the ESPN format of shortening the final matches to Race To Seven is FAR worse!
One thing that often happens with a player who is playing back to back matches on the losers side of the board is they "get in stroke", and Ramil definitely fell into stroke. Yes, he did fall victim to Ralf at 4:30 AM, but it was not because he was "out of gas". I watched this entire match and both players played very well and it finally came down to Ralf winning 11-9.
I think that a study was done (perhaps by Pat Fleming) that analyzed the final matches played using this same format and they found that a small majority of the winners came from the losers side. That is, there was a small advantage to the player coming into the final with one loss. Not a significant difference though one way or the other.
I never liked the idea of a single-set finals in a double-elimination tournament but, like Jay said, everyone knows the rules going in. And, like Jay said [again], the shortening of the races at the end of the tournament is far worse, imo. The people out there are playing races to 11 the entire time then, when it counts most, they shorten the race to 7? And then make the finals a SINGLE race to 7?!? ESPN doesn't even show the whole race to 7 anyway, so why shorten the race? Let the players race to 11 (or whatever the race was for the rest of the tournament) and let ESPN edit away - just as they will with the race to 7 - to fit their time slot.
The fact that everyone knows the rules going in is true, but what kind of argument is that? If a few players protest, the rules won't be changed. If Efren, Corey, Neils, & Thorsten, didn't like the single elimination format for the championship, does that mean that they should not participate? Of course they will still participate, so knowing the rules going in does not make the rule a good one.
Someone said that the player coming from the one loss side has played far more matches than the hot seat winner. That is not always true if the player comes back over after just one match on the one loss side.
With that said, I agree with the format in the larger tournaments but a true double should be played in the smaller events. Ultimately, however, the players will sway the decisions of the TD's eventually.
Gene
Someone said that the player coming from the one loss side has played far more matches than the hot seat winner. That is not always true if the player comes back over after just one match on the one loss side.
With that said, I agree with the format in the larger tournaments but a true double should be played in the smaller events. Ultimately, however, the players will sway the decisions of the TD's eventually.
Gene
i don't really bother how long hours,days you fighting to the top till u get the prise,
the things bothering me is what
theres 6,7 filipino in bracket 3
next time try to softly tell the organizer
DON'T PUT THIS POOLPLAYERS
IN 1 GROUP
CONGRATULATION TO "THE GREAT WHITE" SHANE FOR THE U.S OPEN CHAMPION
the things bothering me is what
theres 6,7 filipino in bracket 3
next time try to softly tell the organizer
DON'T PUT THIS POOLPLAYERS
IN 1 GROUP
CONGRATULATION TO "THE GREAT WHITE" SHANE FOR THE U.S OPEN CHAMPION
If the post before mine is saying what i think it is saying..with the great WHITE shane..um..if your going where i think your going that was totally off key and not needed..i dont care what color he is the guy can shoot he earned it period end of story..and this is comming from a big BLACK guy..way to go shane
bhoytam said:
This was not the plan of the "organizers" to put so many filipinos in one bracket. There were 16 seeded players including the top filipinos like Efren and Francisco, and then the rest of the draw was random. What we call the luck of the draw. Yes, some sections of the draw were loaded with top players and some had more "weak" players. It can happen in this format.
Take a look at the top half of the first bracket, full of champions also.
Last edited:
Most "professional" 9-ball tournaments use this format of an extended race in the finals. The first time I experienced it, I didn't like it one bit, but today I am used to it.
I do understand why this format seems odd to some. It's like the winner's bracket guy in the hot seat never gets a chance to lose a match, like every single other competitor in the event.
The WPBA format of shortened races to 7 for TV purposes seems more odd to me, but again, it is what it is. The players know the format going in.
I also was surprised to see so many Filipino champions' names in one bracket. However, Scott Smith, the tournament director, draws the names in full view for everyone to see. There was no hanky panky.
There is one school of thought that it would be better to not have any seeded players. Rather, throw all the names in a hat and let it be. If this were to happen, though, it could cause dissent among the players if a group of champions were all together in one bracket, much like the Filipinos were this year.
There is no perfect solution for the draw.
What irks me more than anything is the problem of racking. Sometimes arguments occur, extending the length of the match. As well, some players take too long to shoot a shot. There should be a time clock used at all times when this happens. I don't think a match in the U.S. Open, race to 11, should take 4 hours, as an example. It upsets the whole progress of the charts.
In an ideal world, it would be desirable to have neutral rackers to prevent racking arguments. Some professional events on TV have a neutral racker, and the players aren't allowed to dispute it. This saves time.
JMHO, FWIW.
JAM
I do understand why this format seems odd to some. It's like the winner's bracket guy in the hot seat never gets a chance to lose a match, like every single other competitor in the event.
The WPBA format of shortened races to 7 for TV purposes seems more odd to me, but again, it is what it is. The players know the format going in.
I also was surprised to see so many Filipino champions' names in one bracket. However, Scott Smith, the tournament director, draws the names in full view for everyone to see. There was no hanky panky.
There is one school of thought that it would be better to not have any seeded players. Rather, throw all the names in a hat and let it be. If this were to happen, though, it could cause dissent among the players if a group of champions were all together in one bracket, much like the Filipinos were this year.
There is no perfect solution for the draw.
What irks me more than anything is the problem of racking. Sometimes arguments occur, extending the length of the match. As well, some players take too long to shoot a shot. There should be a time clock used at all times when this happens. I don't think a match in the U.S. Open, race to 11, should take 4 hours, as an example. It upsets the whole progress of the charts.
In an ideal world, it would be desirable to have neutral rackers to prevent racking arguments. Some professional events on TV have a neutral racker, and the players aren't allowed to dispute it. This saves time.
JMHO, FWIW.
JAM
Cuedog said:
No one said it was an argument FOR single-set finals. I don't know about Jay's reason for citing this fact, but mine was simple. I didn't feel like debating my point of view with anyone. I already stated, I don't like the single-set finals.
I'll tell you what I believe it boils down to; time. Somewhere along the line, someone thought, "hey, I can speed things up by making this a single-set final, and then I can start renting my tables out again". Or, in the case where the event isn't being held at a pool room, someone thought, "hey, I can speed things up by making this a single-set final, and then I can get a head start on the clean-up, or pay for less convention-center rental time", or whatever. In my opinion, it's the same reason that so many regional tournaments, at least here in the West, have a shorter race on the loser's side. For example, they'll play a race to 9 on the winner's side and a race to 7 on the loser's. Personally, I don't care for ANY of those practices. If I promoted and/or ran a tournament, I would do everything I could to keep the sets a consistent length throughout the event, and play a true double-elimination final. HOWEVER, when push comes to shove, unless I'm the guy who owns the venue and/or calls ALL the shots concerning the event, I concede that I might have to compromise on my ideals.
There you go. That's why I cited the "everyone knows the rules going in" fact. I didn't care to bother writing all that, especially considering that, in many cases, if someone declares the grass to be green on this forum, they must then come back and debate the fact (if they feel the need to do so).
Jimmy M. said:
I never liked the extended race in the finals. On a few occasions that I can remember, my favorite pool player made it to the hotseat and was defeated in the extended race. In fact, the first pool tournament I ever went to with him was at Q-Masters, and he lost extended race finals to Michael Coltrain, who won the event. It does seem that the extended race was created due to the time factor of the event. In a strange way, it's like having the MLB shorten the ninth inning to one out instead of three because of the time factor.
Jimmy M. said:
Is grass really green? Mine's looking a little brown these days.
We need rain over here on the East Coast big time.
JAM
JAM said:
boy oh boy do i have to agree with you JAM on the part about the matches not taking so long. i understand the need to slow down your game to play at a higher level, but i have to tell ya, some of the matches were like watching paint dry. with the caliber of player there, THAT should have never happened. i don't enjoy watching women's matches for the same reason, but i think even they were faster then some of the guys.
all in all the tournament was very enjoyable and it was obvious to me that the two players that could endure the long hours of play stood in the end. both Alcano and Van Boening played fantastic games - the match between Alcano and Bartram showed me just what Alcano was able to do and with little effort.
now, the "Great White" comment above (not from you) - well, i wanted to post after seeing it, but ultimately decided against it because i thought (or hoped in this case) that the comment was referring to a shark and not the color of his skin. if it was a skin comment, shame on the poster. Shane deserved every bit of that win, not to mention he is one sweet kid to boot - very humble and appeared to enjoy every minute of the opportunity that was presented in front of him.
enough ranting for one night....i suppose i should try to get some sleep now.
oh, one last thing. i much prefer the US Open format to the WPBA format - making it to the final sixteen without a loss and then going out by single elimination really does not do the ladies justice. i would prefer an extended final with double elimination any day over the other.
9balllvr said:
At the 2003 U.S. Open, the finals was between Jeremy Jones, who won the event, of course, and Jose Parica. It was a difficult match to watch, and Jose looked as if he was nodding off in his designated chair. Now, I have said this before and I'll say it again. If I made it to the finals of the U.S. Open, I'd do whatever it takes to win. However, when players take a long time between shots, it doesn't seem fair to their opponents.
I can name several players, as I'm sure everyone can, who are notorious slow players.
9ballvr said:
I think the gentleman who made that comment was meaning to say Shane was "America's Great White Hope." I don't think he meant it as a slur. Sometimes when English is a second language, the translation can become a little fuzzy.
However, when Howard Cosell called a football player a "little monkey" on national TV, he was fired! I am not sure if he meant it as a racial slur, but that's the way everyone interpreted it.
JAM
bhoytam said:
I feel your pain. It was very bizarre to see the majority of Filipino champions in the same bracket.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Open doesn't separate the players by their countries of origin, like the World Pool Championship does.
Personally, I would rather the U.S. Open be restricted to Americans only, but I am in the lone minority on this stance.
What's happening with that Pacman tournament in Philippines?
JAM
bhoytam said:
Once again, it was a RANDOM draw! It was not an attempt to put all the filipinos together in one bracket. Please do not make it sound like a conspiracy of some sort. That just wasn't the case. There were several other filipinos in other brackets as well or didn't you notice.
Take a look at the top half of bracket one. It included Raj Hundal, Ernesto Dominguez (and his son Oscar), Stevie Moore, Jeremy Jones, Louie Ulrich, Alex P., Rafael Martinez, Tony Robles, Mika I. and CJ Wiley. How would you like to be thrown into this section of the draw? By the way, Louie Ulrich fought his way through here without a complaint either.
Last edited:
bhoytam said:
the brackets were seeded and then randomly drawn - quite frankly, i would not care if they did put them all in one bracket as long as the brackets are true. the best players will come out in the end, this year, it was Shane Van Boening and Ronnie Alcano. i can understand your frustration, but there is honestly nothing you can do about how the draw comes out. this type of thing happens all of the time - if only i could count how many times i have traveled with someone to an event and ended up drawing them first round.....
9balllvr said:
Ain't it the truth. There is one tour that we used to go to, and every single time Keith would get the worst draws, never a bye, and had what appeared to me to be the toughest bracket. I used to think there was some hanky panky going on, when the "sponsored" player of that tour would almost always get a bye and had creampuff players to play in the early rounds.
What you're saying is right. There's nothing that anyone can do about it. You just have to bring your best game and give it your all, or in the alternative, just quit going to the event if you think there is discrimination. That's how I like to handle it.
JAM
bhoytam said:
So in the interest of being fair to a certain nationality, after they drew the brackets and saw the majority of filipino's in 1 bracket, they should have redrew the brackets again?
Is that really what you are trying to say? That's is RIDICULOUS. That was how the cookie crumbled my bereaved Great Filipino friend. And to keep with the theme of cookies and milk... Don't CRY over spilt milk.
One of your fellow countrymen was in the finals... He came up short to the best player that night... Get used to it, Shane is going to be around a LONG time.