*** US Open - ABP ***

poolandbilliard said:
Why should great players play each other the first couple rounds? Seems like people want to punish those who put in work over the years to reach their high level. Svb and souquet should never be a first rd match. Mean while a rookie makes it to the third rd cause he got lucky with an easy draw.
Click to expand...


I agree even though I wouldn't benefit from seeding. Shawn Putnam had this argument too. You have to take your lumps to get your spot. Almost all of us hate being thrown into the losers bracket after our first match but that's where you belong if you can't beat the best. On the other hand you could look at it in a positive way and all those chumps will be right there with you. You won't have to play another monster for a few rounds and maybe land in money!!

Like stated before you got to get your arse handed to you by the best to be the best. :mad: :lol:
 
In a 256 man field there a probably 80 players who could win the event. If SVB drew Ralf in the first round then the loser will still have a chance to come through the losers bracket.
By the time you get to the last 32, the Cannon Fodder are all gone and all 32 are likely to be World Class. Another 48+ good players will be out
Nobody will notice because from hereonin every match should be Marquee standard.

Using either a seeded or non seeded system I would reckon that 90% of the participants would be the same names
 
Last edited:
some start fast some don't! Equipment needs time to break in especially new cloth. Saying to be the best you have to beat the best. Really does not wash. The first rounds on new cloth are the hardiest and they get easier and better cue ball control over time. Nobody is ducking and I challenge you to prove the seeding is EARNED when great players can't attend?

Kd

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
 
Kid Dynomite said:
You fail to realize everyone pays the same and should have equal chances of a tough draw! Your assuming ryan mccreesh and larry nevel did not work just as hard if not harder then those seeded

I use those two names because they are strong players that don't play enough events to be seeded sometimes. So its OK for nevel to get svb or ralf first round but not Charlie or Rodney or Johnny??? What about Chris bartram? Gary aboud? Donny mills? All just: under the radar but good enough to send any seeded player packing and there are tons of those! Every non-seeded player is not Elmer fudd! That's just domestic, international players what about them are they better then those seeded? Just no way to say seeding is fair when oceans prevent them from playing often enough to determine a fair seeding order.

There is just not enough tournaments and data to seed and it be fair!

Work and expenses and etc. Limit some to attend few tournaments but they are deserving of equal treatment and a fair chance at the draw.

Kd

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

This sums it up rather well.

Unless and until there is a real pro tour to provide real world data any seeding is unfair, especially to the participants of an open tourney like this.

If you had a real tour, with regular stops, then perhaps some sort of seeding could be used as a reward for supporting those tourneys with regular participation, and thus earning it. (Like all the other sports that seed.). We are not in tbat place at this time. Nor likely to be, any time soon.
 
I read the press release by Dennis Walsh the day it was released, before the Barry response.

It seemed to me like it was written in a tone that Barry approved of the release. Was this not the case? And that release by Dennis was intentionally misleading?

---or---

Was Barry on board, and only after the fact did he realize the abp seeding would cause conflict with wpa?
 
i dont follow this close enough to be accurate but it strikes me that abp is looking to seed its players and get credit for doing so,the wpa and bca say they are the deciding vote?and everyone wants to claim they are sanctioning the event?..if this is correct then the players from the us should step back AGAIN,and decide if they want to play in us open or be the big strong abp.it pisses me off to see small pockets of players chirp about their organization,what has it done for them?i feel like every year i hear about some kinda nonsense regarding the us open..open means not closed in my language..anyone can play right?
while i realize that the bca is credible enough what is it doing for profesional pool in the united states?(leagues are appreciated but arent getting outside attention)the wpa i dont really see too much going on here but as i stated at the top i dont follow it close enough-if im wrong you internet tough guys can flame me.the day after this us open is over barry,his daughter and anyone else who is truly involved should sit down,decide what is right for his tournament and tell the rest of the world what THEY have decided will be the rules of his event.the sanctioning bodies need to work together and either squash the little abp or help it flourish so it can be legitomized..either way stop fckin bothering the us open its all that is left and once its gone the dragon promotions us open will suck,just like charlie(had to throw it in there)
 
Johnnyt said:
This whole seeding thing is total BS for pool. I don't care what OTHER sports do, seeding doesn't belong in pool tournaments. Depending on how many players in a tournament and how many get seeded, the top players get a free ride for an average of 2 matches and sometimes many more. Is this fair? Stop the seeding all together. Maybe the top pros will not play in the first few unseeded ones, but will be back playing in all of them when they have no source of income. When the fans start seeing the young guns in the semi's or finals they will come around to like it more than if it were seeded. Seeding in pool is like giving a dragster a 20 yard lead over a stock car. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

The top pros are so afraid of losing what little they have that the wrong moves are being made. advanced amateurs are the backbone of the game. seeding is just discouraging participation. It needs to be like poker ....wide open. there will not be any big time sponsors anytime soon. why not a DCC style event with 500 dollar entry and the top 40 players spot a game???? With 200 players that's 100K.
 
dbldown said:
The top pros are so afraid of losing what little they have that the wrong moves are being made. advanced amateurs are the backbone of the game. seeding is just discouraging participation. It needs to be like poker ....wide open. there will not be any big time sponsors anytime soon. why not a DCC style event with 500 dollar entry and the top 40 players spot a game???? With 200 players that's 100K.
Click to expand...

I agree, plus pros and all have two chances winner and looser side, what else, everyone paying $500.00 know what they are against and pray to all GODs out there to have easy draw!! It is pool luck factor is there
 
BeiberLvr said:
I keep seeing some people say this, but I have a question.

When is the last time a "rookie" got really deep, like top 8?
Click to expand...

Phil Burford was top 15 last year in his first US Open, only 20-21 years old at the time. Jesse Engel put out Earl Stickland and another top player back-to-back two years ago and was only 19 years old iirc.

Those seem like "rookies" to me.
 
pro9dg said:
In a 256 man field there a probably 80 players who could win the event. If SVB drew Ralf in the first round then the loser will still have a chance to come through the losers bracket.
By the time you get to the last 32, the Cannon Fodder are all gone and all 32 are likely to be World Class. Another 48+ good players will be out
Nobody will notice because from hereonin every match should be Marquee standard.

Using either a seeded or non seeded system I would reckon that 90% of the participants would be the same names
Click to expand...

I am for no seeding too. Look at the events at the Turning Stone. Not seeded, 128 players and the cream always rises to the top. Maybe some of the cream doesn't make it but not many shortstops get through to the final 16. 1 or none is the norm. A few may get to the money in the top 32. But THIS is what keeps them coming to play with the best in the world. A chance to get there. Be it lucky or good.
Alot of people do not remember way back when the fields were small because the game of choice was 14.1. There is way less luck in 14.1. So the shortstops would not play. No chance no reason.
When the game of choice changed to 9-ball the fields exploded. It was because more players thought they have a better chance now. More luck in the game to rely on. Get more chances.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. :cool:
 
brandoncook26 said:
Phil Burford was top 15 last year in his first US Open, only 20-21 years old at the time. Jesse Engel put out Earl Stickland and another top player back-to-back two years ago and was only 19 years old iirc.

Those seem like "rookies" to me.
Click to expand...


top 15 = top 8?

oh, and in the game of billiards, being young doesn't make you a rookie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top