I really don't understand why it was such a short race. It should have been at least a race to 15 for that much money on the line...why was it the same as all the other matches?
Why Was the Finals a Single Race to 8???
- Thread starter cuetechasaurus
- Start date
I think it is good with small races. This makes it more exciting for the audience and the players.
You are a poolplayer, so you love to watch pool. So does almost every poolplayer in the world. But is this the people we are trying to reach? Aren't we trying to get new people interested in our sport? Do you think a normal guy will find it attractive to watch a final where the score is 3 - 2 and it's a race to 15? He is looking at a boring player who chalks and chalks before shooting, and then the tv-viewer switches.
Just because of it is a lot of money and prestige, should the World Cup in soccer be played 4 X 45 minutes instead of 2 X 45 minutes? They only play 2 X 45 minutes in the groupstages...
However, I mean that what should be done, to make it more interesting and put some more nerves on the players, is to start with lower races but set.
The final could for example be the first player to reach 3 set, and each set is a race to 3. The groupstages is the first who reach 2 set. Then you feel like you are on the hill all the time, and every rack is exciting both for the players, the audience at the venue, the bookingcompanies (very important, they create more publicity and excitement to the sport) and the people who normally don't watch pool but just happens to see it on tv. Every rack means something!!
You are a poolplayer, so you love to watch pool. So does almost every poolplayer in the world. But is this the people we are trying to reach? Aren't we trying to get new people interested in our sport? Do you think a normal guy will find it attractive to watch a final where the score is 3 - 2 and it's a race to 15? He is looking at a boring player who chalks and chalks before shooting, and then the tv-viewer switches.
Just because of it is a lot of money and prestige, should the World Cup in soccer be played 4 X 45 minutes instead of 2 X 45 minutes? They only play 2 X 45 minutes in the groupstages...
However, I mean that what should be done, to make it more interesting and put some more nerves on the players, is to start with lower races but set.
The final could for example be the first player to reach 3 set, and each set is a race to 3. The groupstages is the first who reach 2 set. Then you feel like you are on the hill all the time, and every rack is exciting both for the players, the audience at the venue, the bookingcompanies (very important, they create more publicity and excitement to the sport) and the people who normally don't watch pool but just happens to see it on tv. Every rack means something!!
For 8ball, I think 2 out of 3 is better or a longer set. This will even out the effect of dry break which is really costly. Breaking is the only part of the pool game that requires some level of luck, and for the top players, running in 8ball is easier than 9ball.
Roy Steffensen said:
They can always edit down the video to make it fit whatever time length they choose. I don't think the tv-viewers you are referring to will be attending live anyway (not that you implied that), so long matches edited for TV would be win-win-win (players, live spectators, pool-hating tv-viewers
).This way might be even better for tv-viewing, because with a longer race there will be more games to choose from to find the most exciting games to air.
crosseyedjoe said:
The downside of 2 out of 3 sets (IMO) is that you can win more games and still lose.
Example: 8-0, 7-8, 7-8 ...
22 games for Player A
16 games for Player B
yet Player B wins
Maybe 2 out of 3 sets is more exciting though, so better alligned with IPT's goal of making pool a more popular spectator sport.
Cuebacca said:They can always edit down the video to make it fit whatever time length they choose. I don't think the tv-viewers you are referring to will be attending live anyway (not that you implied that), so long matches edited for TV would be win-win-win (players, live spectators, pool-hating tv-viewers
This way might be even better for tv-viewing, because with a longer race there will be more games to choose from to find the most exciting games to air.
Last WPC broadcasted LIVE on SkySports. Score 17-16......... Exciting yes, for me, I am a poolplayer. But who else wants to look at a poolmatch for 3 hours???
All IPT-events is broadcasted LIVE at Eurosport too, and I guess that the maingoal for KT and DA is to get it live in ASIA and America too.
I am running "large" tournaments my own, (nothing is big anymore, compared to the IPT
), and the next tournament I will run will be with set. I have already talked to the mainsponsor of the previous event, and they are thrilled with the idea. (Betandwin. This will increase the betting, since they can bet on who wins the lag on each set + bet on the winner of each set aswell)I think set is the future, but who knows for sure?
The problem might be getting the whole thing on live TV -- 2/3 sets could go 16 games or 45.cuetechasaurus said:
15 games gave plenty of footage for TV. Hohmann was exhausted after playing for 12 hours a day for a week, and I doubt that Manalo was in better shape. Suppose we had had three hill-hill sets. One of them might have keeled over.
While we might have seen some more interesting situations with a longer match -- safe on the six, anyone? -- I doubt that it would have been more dramatic than the match we saw.
Maybe race to 11, with a 20-minute break when one player gets to 8 or the combined score is 12.
a longer race is probably the good way to go.
Whoops! Sorry Roy, I didn't consider the LIVE aspect, so no editing down possible there.
I don't really follow other sports, but is there a better analogy out there for pool than soccer, baseball, basketball, american football, etc? All of these sports seem to have many many opportunities for each team to score. If they fail to score on their "turn", there will be another chance coming soon. In a short race of pool at the pro level, that might not be the case, and occasionally you can lose without really making a mistake.
If the race needs to be short, maybe the answer is some kind of winner-break/alternating-break hybrid like others have proposed in the past? Possibly with a chance of "over-time" by requiring a win by two games, for example? Just a thought.
It just seems like, if the race gets too short, it starts to become a toss up. Oh well, at that level, both players that make it to the finals have already proved that they are shooting strong enough to deserve the cash anyway.
I don't really follow other sports, but is there a better analogy out there for pool than soccer, baseball, basketball, american football, etc? All of these sports seem to have many many opportunities for each team to score. If they fail to score on their "turn", there will be another chance coming soon. In a short race of pool at the pro level, that might not be the case, and occasionally you can lose without really making a mistake.
If the race needs to be short, maybe the answer is some kind of winner-break/alternating-break hybrid like others have proposed in the past? Possibly with a chance of "over-time" by requiring a win by two games, for example? Just a thought.
It just seems like, if the race gets too short, it starts to become a toss up. Oh well, at that level, both players that make it to the finals have already proved that they are shooting strong enough to deserve the cash anyway.