US Open Double elimination format?
- Thread starter poolnoob
- Start date
The match between the winners of the two sides (no-loss and one-loss) was a single extended set. This format is very, very common in so-called double elimination tournaments. It is a standard way to do things. I think it's fair enough. All matches except for the final were race to 11. The final was race to 13.
I think it's a lot better for the spectators (and anyone doing production) to have a known number of final matches.
Yup, I've seen true double elimination finals go on 'til the wee hours of the morning, no spectators, etc.
2 race to 7 would be good
Back in the 90's the Sands tourney switched to a best 2 out of 3 races to 7 finals format. I don't find it nearly as exciting and much prefer the single race to 13 finals at the U.S. Open,
Ralf Souquet really got ripped off. Just because the finals was extended by two games doesn't really make it fair. Just start the finals matches a few hours earlier. Who really cares if they have 1 fan at the end or 100. The integrity of the "double elimination" format should extend all the way to the finals.
This trend of one race finals should stop when it's promoted as a "double Elimination" tourament. Just make the US Open a single elimination tournament format with the finals a double elimination.
This trend of one race finals should stop when it's promoted as a "double Elimination" tourament. Just make the US Open a single elimination tournament format with the finals a double elimination.
Last edited:
It could be argued that Ralf didn't have to play nearly as many matches and consequently have to fade the fatigue that comes from the late hours and energy sapping comptetitive work-outs.
I believe that Mika played a total of 16 matches (not sure of that number). Does anyone know how many Ralf played?
I believe that Mika played a total of 16 matches (not sure of that number). Does anyone know how many Ralf played?
Everybody knew the format before it started and could have spoked up or refused to play.
It doesn't bother Ralf, so what cause is it for anyone else to cry over?
It doesn't bother Ralf, so what cause is it for anyone else to cry over?
I agree; the players all agreed to the format, Ralf understood clearly that he had to win that single race to win the tournament, and he accepted defeat like the champion he is.
-Andrew
I like the idea of double elimination for tournaments that have a random draw in case two top players draw each other in the first or second round but I don't understand why top pro tournaments don't seed the players and play single elimination.
There are enough player lists out there (WPA,BCA,AZ, etc.) to seed the top 32 players. You could play single elimination with longer races to reduce big upsets and it would be much easier to schedule. It could probably be played in smaller sites with less matches going on at the same time or in the larger sites over a shorter time period. Both of these would seemingly reduce the expense of running the tournament (of course the shorter time period might mean less gate money).
I know that a lot of amateur tournaments use double elimination so that they can guarantee that players that travel a long distance will play more than one match but I wouldn't think that would matter as much to a pro player, would it?
There are enough player lists out there (WPA,BCA,AZ, etc.) to seed the top 32 players. You could play single elimination with longer races to reduce big upsets and it would be much easier to schedule. It could probably be played in smaller sites with less matches going on at the same time or in the larger sites over a shorter time period. Both of these would seemingly reduce the expense of running the tournament (of course the shorter time period might mean less gate money).
I know that a lot of amateur tournaments use double elimination so that they can guarantee that players that travel a long distance will play more than one match but I wouldn't think that would matter as much to a pro player, would it?
I think the top players were seeded in the US Open. (32?)
As you mentioned, a major reason not to use single elimination in the US Open is that the bottom half of the field doesn't get much play for their $600 entry fee. The bottom half of the field provides a large part of the prize fund. If most of the prize money came from sponsors, then it would make sense to use single elimination throughout, but the money is not there yet.
I think a better format is group play followed by single elimination, as is used in most world championships now. Start with groups of 4 so everyone gets 3 matches, then switch to single elimination with the top 2 from each group. A 256-player field would have 511 matches, which is just as many as with double elimination, but the prelims could be shorter races -- say to 8 -- and the single elimination matches could be longer -- say to 13 and 16 for the final match. The groups phase could be completed in 2 days on 16 tables. The single elimination part would take 3 days with just the semi-finals and finals on the last day.
Last edited:
That was the rule before the start of the tournament. It is equal to all at the start and then rip of when one loses?
There are lots of tournaments that are the same format as the US Open and its a joke. What is the difference if there are no spectators watching if it runs late or if its good for the production, its not about them anyway. Those guys played and played for days and then in the end they play a race to 3 for $25K when it was tied 10 to 10. When the top prize is $40K, why not make it double elimination, maybe even reduce the finals to a race to 9. If it was a race to 9 true double elimination final, the max games that could be played is 34 vs 25 the way it is now. Have they ever voted on the finals format before.
Well, I always thought Double-Elimination is simply there so that seeding is less important. The two top players can draw eachother in the early rounds and still meet again in the finals.
I also agree with your group phase suggestion. If the US Open had a group phase, I would definitely go. It's really hard justifying the trip when it costs so much to go (even w/o the entry fee) to be done in such a brief amount of time.
fairness and real world
Double elimination and then a single elimination final isn't fair to the winners side finalist. No way, no shape, no form. What it is is convenient for the producers and fans. They know what they are getting in the finals and if sold to TV in advance the seller can guarantee a product and a rough time frame, something that can't be done with one or two finals matches depending on who wins the first one.
It is purest BS to say that the players have a choice in the matter. They can play what the people putting on the event want them to play or they can not come. With so few big events in a year very few serious players can choose the option of staying home on principle. Nowhere does the golden rule hold more true than in pool, "he who has the gold makes the rules!"
Hu
Double elimination and then a single elimination final isn't fair to the winners side finalist. No way, no shape, no form. What it is is convenient for the producers and fans. They know what they are getting in the finals and if sold to TV in advance the seller can guarantee a product and a rough time frame, something that can't be done with one or two finals matches depending on who wins the first one.
It is purest BS to say that the players have a choice in the matter. They can play what the people putting on the event want them to play or they can not come. With so few big events in a year very few serious players can choose the option of staying home on principle. Nowhere does the golden rule hold more true than in pool, "he who has the gold makes the rules!"
Hu
The format stinks and isn't fair to the person that makes it to the finals unbeaten.
The big difference in the money pay-out, and the fact that there is only one race in the finals, probably leads to player's making deals. This also stinks.
There has to be better ways of doing things.
The big difference in the money pay-out, and the fact that there is only one race in the finals, probably leads to player's making deals. This also stinks.
There has to be better ways of doing things.
Technically, if the Losers' Side Finalist wins the first set, however, he will have a better overall record than the Winners' Side finalist since he will undoubtedly have more wins under his belt by then.
I understand fairness is important when determining a format but it's also important to keep things exciting. If we were flipping coins, a DE final match would be won by the Winners' Side Finalist 75% of the time. I'm sorry but that's not terribly exciting.
