Why no true Double Elimination tournaments?

Fleece3

Fleece3

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hey Gang,

Why are tournaments not true double elimination? Here is what I mean, the one lost player in the finals SHOULD have to beat the hot seat player TWICE to win the event. That way the CHAMPION would have either gone through the tournament either undefeated or suffering only one loss, while EVERYONE else would have lost twice. The recent Glass City Open is a good example. Johnny won, however both he and Earl only had one loss, They should have had to play another match after Johnny won. That way the winner of the second match would have only lost 1. And the loser would have lost twice. DOUBLE ELIMINATION

In our current format, the hotseat player get SINGLE ELIMINATION

What do you think??
 
It's been that way for years. MOST tournaments make the finals a longer race to offset the D.E. theory and maybe make the winners side guy feel like he's not getting shafted so bad!........But hey, it's 9-ball, anything we can do to get the tournament over quicker is fine!......:)...then we can play 1-pocket with our winnings!........Gerry
 
At least for any event on TV, true DE makes no sense at all. Imagination an announcer saying "this may or may not decide it." A quick final, say 9-3, might take an hour, while a slow one, say 9-7 and 9-8, might take three hours. How would TV deal wit that?

True DE might be slightly fairer, but I'd like to get rid of it completely. Give the guy owning the hot seat a game on the wire as a reward for getting to the final undefeated and get on with it, I say!
 
Always wondered that myself.

It makes perfect sense for the TV format we have now. Just don't air the first match if it's won by the loser's bracket guy.
 
Coz we like to see these guys bring it. THe argument could be made that, by the finals, you'd want them to start and finish at the same point. One set and that's it.
BTW- I think last weekend's Joss that D'Alphonso won was DElim. IIRC he won the 2nd.
 
What if the player in the hot seat played the 2 players in the semifinals of the loser bracket. Do this instead of bringing only one player from the loser bracket. This would bring the last 3 players into the mix and produce a true double elimination tournament. The hot seat player would play each semifinalists from the loser backet. If beats both the player wins the tournament. If loses to one of them the hot seat player would then play last remaining player for the championship. If loses to both the championship game will be between the 2 original semifianlists from the loser bracket. This would give all players a chance to lose twice before being eliminated and give the 3rd place player a better chance of moving into second place.
 
Last edited:
Fleece3 said:
Hey Gang,

Why are tournaments not true double elimination? Here is what I mean, the one lost player in the finals SHOULD have to beat the hot seat player TWICE to win the event. That way the CHAMPION would have either gone through the tournament either undefeated or suffering only one loss, while EVERYONE else would have lost twice. The recent Glass City Open is a good example. Johnny won, however both he and Earl only had one loss, They should have had to play another match after Johnny won. That way the winner of the second match would have only lost 1. And the loser would have lost twice. DOUBLE ELIMINATION

In our current format, the hotseat player get SINGLE ELIMINATION

What do you think??
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I've always thought that it was ridiculous that the player in the hotseat only gets one chance to win the tournament while all the rest get two chances. I understand the argument that the winner of the losers' side could potentially play a lot more games than the player who owns the hotseat, so the losers' side winner would be at a disadvantage (due to fatigue...blah blah blah). But in many instances, the finals is just the rematch of the previous match that determines who would own the hotseat.

Take this year's US Open for example. Alex and Jose battled it out for the hotseat (Jose lost), and then a match later battled it out for the finals. If Jose won the finals, then he would've won the tournamant even though he just lost to Alex 2 games ago. And Jose only played ONE game more than Alex. To me, that scenario would just be unfair to Alex. (Also, i don't see this extra game to be a disadvantage to Jose at all, but as an advantage, since he would be all tuned up and ready to go for the finals, while Alex has to wait out a game.)

There should be a much bigger reward for the player who owns the hot seat. I understand that it's not good for TV, since you don't know if the finals will extend to two matches or only one. But guaranteeing that EVERY player, including the player who owns the hotseat, is allowed one loss is the only way the system can truly be fair.

A compromise is to have only one match for the final, but have the losers' side winner win more racks. For example, if you normally win a match by winning 10 racks, then the losers' side winner should win 12 racks, while the hotseat player only needs to win 10. There at least the hotseat player has a clear advantage and reward for obtaining the hotseat.
 
Trust me, at that level, sitting out a round is not a disadvantage. Those little guys have buttons on their backs they read "Pool: on/ off".

One set final is to make a more level playing feild (is that a pool oxymoron?!).
 
The Origional Reason why ...

I know for a fact that in the past at the Pro level at Pro events, this single elimination/one set final evolved. The reason is because at first, all events were true double elimination and this proved to be some what of a fault. The spectators would most always get very bored having to watch a second match of the Point holder with no losses lost the first match. Things would just drag-on way too long for the crowd. So this resulted in the One Set Final and was adopted by all the pro players and known and understood by all the participants who played.

This is talked about many times in the Accustats Tapes by the commentators on the tapes...They refer to this format as from the "Old Days" and why the change had to happen...

Thanks again,

Mr. J
 
There is no arguement really. Before the start of the tournament, players are already aware of the rules. The two finalist will have one set to determine the champion. It is only that after the finals you will hear complains. Why not complain before the tour starts, if the organizers stick with the rules, then players have the right to withdraw.
 
The way it is ...

It may be the way it is, and accepted by players because
they had no choice in the matter if they wanted to play
the tournament, but it is not entirely fair to the player in
the hot seat, is it?

And how many of you wouldn't have stayed for a 2nd set
between Johnny Archer and Earl Strickland at GCO?
 
The LB finalist has to play at least one more match. It is already an imperative to win out. Those who have been there know how tough it is to win a tournament from the loser's side. I've never seen a hot seat winner complain. This format makes more sense.
 
sjm said:
True DE might be slightly fairer, but I'd like to get rid of it completely. Give the guy owning the hot seat a game on the wire as a reward for getting to the final undefeated and get on with it, I say!
Click to expand...

This finals format was suggested to me by a WPBA that played in some European Tournaments and I'm going to incorporate it next year.

The finals will be a "conditional" race to 9. If the undefeated player reaches 7 first, it's over. If the player from the 1-loss side reaches 7 first, they have to play out to 9.

Barbara
 
Barbara said:
This finals format was suggested to me by a WPBA that played in some European Tournaments and I'm going to incorporate it next year.

The finals will be a "conditional" race to 9. If the undefeated player reaches 7 first, it's over. If the player from the 1-loss side reaches 7 first, they have to play out to 9.

Barbara
Click to expand...

Then Wu would not have been World Champion. Maybe the women don't come back from there, but the men do.
 
I played in a tournament one time where I had no idea that the finals was an extended race, 1 set final. I had played Jose Parica for the hot seat and won, then waited about 3 hours for the final match, no $hit, 3 hours. Then, just before the final match we were both told that it would be 1 race to 11 for the title. Jose was just as surprised as me, but being the player with the experience he has with all of the tournaments he has played in, he had been through this same scenario before. This tournament took place probably around 1990, maybe 91, not sure exactly, but this 1 race in the final was still fairly new to me and others as well. I don't think that the TD did this on his own, deciding to make it 1 race in the finals, but as I said before, Jose and I both were surprised when we were told this. Whether or not this was mentioned before the tournament started, I couldn't tell you, it is possible that we didn't hear it because we weren't paying attention. But the friend I was there with didn't know it either, so who knows? Anyway, I lost and I think it was a blow out, maybe 11-3, 11-4, something like that, but there were no hard feelings. Jose and I had been on a 5 week road trip about 1 year prior to this and although I played miserably on that trip, what I gained from him will always stick with me. (Except for that set :D ) I do remember that I had played so well the whole tournament until the final match. I had one match early in the tournament that I couldn't figure out what was wrong with me, I couldn't get used to the speed of the table, couldn't make a ball, and I was down 5 to nothing. Then I realized that my opponent had changed the CB before the match, he had pulled his own CB out of his case and switched them on me. I asked him about it and he said he thought that I wouldn't mind! Needless to say, I did mind! I ended up winning, hill-hill. LOL, the nerve of some people, huh? That's all, Peace, John
 
Memphis Classic

We will be playing true double elimanation with the loser bracket winner having to beat the winner bracket winner twice............
 
true double elimination

Fleece3 said:
Hey Gang,

Why are tournaments not true double elimination? Here is what I mean, the one lost player in the finals SHOULD have to beat the hot seat player TWICE to win the event. That way the CHAMPION would have either gone through the tournament either undefeated or suffering only one loss, while EVERYONE else would have lost twice. The recent Glass City Open is a good example. Johnny won, however both he and Earl only had one loss, They should have had to play another match after Johnny won. That way the winner of the second match would have only lost 1. And the loser would have lost twice. DOUBLE ELIMINATION

In our current format, the hotseat player get SINGLE ELIMINATION

What do you think??
Click to expand...


The owner of the hot-seat should have to be beaten twice!
I can understand the long, single race on TV. I don't agree with it, but can understand it. Although, the Glass City, isn't televised, so why not let the fans geet their $45.00 worth. The hot seat should have to be beaten twice!
As far as giving the HOT-SEAT a gme on the wire? What a joke, why would anyone suggest any kind of Mickey Mouse handicap idea in a real tournament?
 
When Joe Kerr of Akron was promoting tournaments back in the 80's & early 90's, he had all of his tournaments with the finals with one race to a predetermined amount of games. Other promoters followed suite and hence here we are in 2005 with the winner of the hot seat getting short changed. Most touraments have the finals played late in the day so they don't want a long finals. They should have the finals played eariler in the day and have a true "double-elimination".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top