US Open - possible different format?

[Celtic]

IOne race to 11 is enough to determine the better player.

Playing 9-ball on the current tables used? Race to 11 is not even close to long enough to determine the better player. At the higher levels the pro's are pretty near flipping coins to see who wins.

If you want a true test of skill then as you said change the game to 10-ball on 3 7/8 cut 9-foot diamonds. Doing such in a race to 11 format would then be far less of a crap shoot and the cream would far more often rise to the top. The field in the US Open this year had 20 people with pretty much equal chances to win dependent on how the rolls went.

 

[Neil]

............

 

[JDB]

Normally, I tend to agree with you. But I couldn't disagree with you more on this one.

OPEN DOES mean open- everybody can play. True, golf and tennis aren't really open, but then yet they aren't the game of roylaty either. In one, they couldn't figure out which end of the cue to use, so they flattened it out and used the big end. The other game tossed the cue by the wayside and grabbed a paddle! The true 'gamist' use a cue with about only a 13mm end on it. So you can't begin to compare psuedo games like golf and tennis with pool. There is no comparison, other than the fact that they also don't know what 'open' means.

And just what players did you find it so ridiculous to have to watch? After all, we all know there are only about 10-15 guys in it with a odds favorite chance of winning it. So why let anybody but them in it? Why not just take any football or baseball teams that are doing really bad and tell them their season is now over?

Bottom line is- with a true open like this, you never really know who might win it, and whose 'career' just might be launched by their performance in it.

Also, the U.S. OPEN is NOT a national event. It is an international event. And I'm really surprised to hear you say tht the DCC event is nothing more than a '''gimmick" event. I guess we should take it off the list of Efrens accomplishments since it's not a REAL tournament.

I feel that an open event is harder to win than just a 'pro' event. You don't know who is coming out of the woodwork in an open event. That is why some of the pros don't like them. They don't like getting beat by unknowns. Glass City Opens were a good example of that. About half the pros lost their first matches to us 'unknowns'.

I have to agree with Neil on this one.

I think allowing anyone to participate in the open does two things. First it allows the purse to be much higher than it would be otherwise which only benefits the players. Second, there are a lot of players out there that fly under the radar that can and do win matches against the Pros.

I don't think there are a lot of B/C players that are entering the Open. It may happen, but that would be the exception rather than the norm.

 

[inside_english]

LOL...hurtfeelings? You're kidding right? Just seemed like some members were genuinely offended by what I thought was a simple question. If my feelings got bruised by anonymous people on a message board I wouldn't be online in the first place.

 

[hangemhigh]

This thread would have some weight if B.B. wanted opinions.

 

[Black-Balled]

This thread would have some weight if B.B. wanted opinions.

*+
Whaddya mean? My post clearly states that the thread sought input, then the dood appeared to get all sensitive about getting what was solicited...

 

[Rich R.]

I think it should be a sigle-elimination format. One race to 11 is enough to determine the better player.

You are so wrong. Some of these players could play for a month and not determine who was the better player.

With that said, I would make it 10-ball with alternating break.

Why would you play 10 ball, at the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship? If you want them to play 10-Ball, start a new championship tournament for that game.

No soft breaks, no safeties with 7 balls or less on the table and no 3-foul rule.
No intentional fouls. You must try and contact the lowest numbered ball, or it's a loss of game and the incoming player gets the break.

Why would you change the rules of a game for the championship of that game? With all of these rule changes, it is a different game.

This format does not apply to local qualifiers.

Why would you not use the same rules for qualifiers, as you do in the championship? You are mixing games. Play one game for the qualifiers and the championship.

IMHO, your suggestions make no sense at all.

 

[axejunkie]

I think it should be a sigle-elimination format. One race to 11 is enough to determine the better player. With that said,
I would make it 10-ball with alternating break.
No soft breaks, no safeties with 7 balls or less on the table and no 3-foul rule.
No intentional fouls. You must try and contact the lowest numbered ball, or it's a loss of game and the incoming player gets the break.

This format does not apply to local qualifiers.

One of the big problems with single elimination is one player could draw a Reyes, Archer, Souquet, etc. while another player could draw a guy who's barely a B player. I don't think that's exactly fair.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

From the looks of it, they can't get a full field of "anyone" so why limit it even more?

If pool was a booming sport like in Asia, you'd be able to do more stuff with tournaments. In the U.S., however, just be happy we still HAVE a U.S. Open. Pool halls in my region are closing faster than you can blink an eye.

If someone wants to pay $500 to mix it up with whoever, good for them.

DCC is more than a gimmick event, c'mon. Where else can you get a full two weeks of banks, 9-ball, 1P, straight pool and non-stop high limit gambling? Where else do you have an all-around tournament that vaguely resembles Johnson City?

Personally, I quit going to the US Open just because DCC is so much stronger, event-wise. I still think the format of the US Open is fine - the best player always wins.

 

[NYC cue dude]

That may well be the case (i personally do not think so). But a champion is crowned nontheless as well as as an overall champion. And who comes out on top? The best players do.

Also, why would you compare a couple of miss labeled "open" events like the Golf and Tennis to pool? Pool has no and never will have a structured system like professional golf or tennis has in place. US pool has only 3 count them 3 big events a year- US open 9-ball, DCC and Mosconi cup. Please note that I am referring only to Men's "professional" pool here in the US only.[/QUOTE]


You are kidding, right? I wont even bother.

rg

 

[MikeM]

How many people...

Sounds like you don't consider the US Open golf or US Open tennis tournament truly open. Open does not mean anyone can show up and play, it means that a well-defined system is in place by which anyone can attempt to earn the opportunity to play.

Though I am delighted for those unaccomplished amateur pool players that get the opportunity to mix it up with the world's best nine ball players, I think it's a bit ridiculous. I don't want to watch unaccomplished players when I watch the US Open golf, the US Open tennis, or the US Open 9-ball event.

Some will say that opening the US Open 9-ball field to every John Q Public that wants to play is necessary to give the event a decent purse. If that's the unfortunate reality of this moment, and perhaps it is, then finding more sponsor money to help keep this event as lucrative for the pros while leaving out those who've not proven themselves of deserving of the opportunity, is critical.

...actually "watch" the first couple of rounds? Not many. By the time the crowds get there the cream has begun to rise to the top. Obviously there aren't any pros being left out by allowing anyone to enter or the field would be full.

One of my friends from my home room plays every year just for the experience. His game has grown greatly as a result. This year he drew Alex Pagulayan in the first round. He was still beaming over the experience 3 days later when I talked to him. I don't see why anyone would want to deny the few who plunk their money down that excitement.

The only changes I would make have been mentioned already; don't make players play until after 4AM on Friday, and give Barry a quick hook

MM

 

[SCCues]

US Open format

How many pros from other countries would be willing to come all the way out here to play single elimination?

Great point you make. I've attended the US Open for years and I think double elimination is the best way to go. Anyone familiar with 9 ball knows that you can have a bad match (your break isn't working or your opponent gets hot on the break and gets the better rolls) and you just can't get going and before you know it the match is over. At least you have another chance with double elimination and maybe things will work out for you the second time.

What if you draw the hottest player in the tournament for your first match and if that happened with single elimination your gone.

I think the US Open is fine just as it is........

 

[JustPlay]

That may well be the case (i personally do not think so). But a champion is crowned nontheless as well as as an overall champion. And who comes out on top? The best players do.

Also, why would you compare a couple of miss labeled "open" events like the Golf and Tennis to pool? Pool has no and never will have a structured system like professional golf or tennis has in place. US pool has only 3 count them 3 big events a year- US open 9-ball, DCC and Mosconi cup. Please note that I am referring only to Men's "professional" pool here in the US only.[/QUOTE]

You are kidding, right? I wont even bother.
rg

If you got something to say, be a man, spit it out. Just dont put in 1 cent in put 2 cents in...

 

[bigdaddygerald]

Normally, I tend to agree with you. But I couldn't disagree with you more on this one.

OPEN DOES mean open- everybody can play. True, golf and tennis aren't really open, but then yet they aren't the game of roylaty either. In one, they couldn't figure out which end of the cue to use, so they flattened it out and used the big end. The other game tossed the cue by the wayside and grabbed a paddle! The true 'gamist' use a cue with about only a 13mm end on it. So you can't begin to compare psuedo games like golf and tennis with pool. There is no comparison, other than the fact that they also don't know what 'open' means.

.

Normally I tend to disagree with you neil.....so the trend will continue.

Golf did not evolve from billiards. Golf predates billiards so how could they use a modified cue for a club?

I would also disagree with your use of the term psuedo in relation to billiards or tennis. There is nothing fake or bogus about them.

Since a few of us got together, namely myself, Funk, Wagnal, Rand, Webster and McNally, we decided after much deliberation that we didnt know what the f..k a "Gamist" was either . It must be a psuedo word.

As always hugs- n -kisses....gerald

 

[mikek18]

heres my take neil and big daddy

Golf is belived to come from paganica in roman times. it was played like a lawn croquet game. the fisrt actual coarse was built in 1754.

pool can be dated back to the 18th century. according to the bca when golfers got in tight situations they would turn the club over and use the small end. The game was then brough indoors still using a club head at first. it then evolved to using the small end. Women still had to use the club so as not to rip the cloth. The green cloth was designed to resemble the outdoor grass. billiard cues began there development in the 1800s.

Im not sure there is a true answer but in my opinion with the facts I was able to find id have to say billiards evolved from golf wich evolved from lawn croquet.

 

[Neil]

.................

 

[Neil]

..................