PDA

View Full Version : Allison Out/Get Allison Rules



av84fun
09-14-2008, 01:39 AM
Well, Allison is out again...with one loss this time...in spite of the fact that 2 of the 4 semi-finalists also have 1 loss (Jasmin and Vivian).

The Final 16, sudden death re-shuffle was obviously a "get Allison" rule (and to a lesser extent, Karen) that I think is terribly unfair.

If it wasn't for the CLASSIC battles between Allison and Karen...and those two against other players...over the past decade, it is arguable that the WPBA could have descended into the same disarray that the men find themselves in today.

And THIS is how they repay two of the greatest female champions to have ever held a cue?

Awful IMHO.

It is obvious that the WPBA board and players have made a conscious decision that getting "new faces" on TV is good for the tour. Frankly, that could be correct. I doubt it, but it could be correct.

And we will soon see. Before long, we will have the Nielson TV ratings for the Open and now the NC Classic that will be absent both Allison and Karen on TV.

If those ratings are meaningfully higher vs. events where Allison and/or Karen are competing in the TV matches...then the WPBA board will be proven correct...and so be it (although it is still fundamentally unfair).

Regards,
Jim

pooltchr
09-14-2008, 07:18 AM
Jim,
I felt the same way when they changed the format, until I talked to a few of the WPBA players. Kelly really laid it out in simple terms for me. It makes no difference to any of the players of the format. They have all played in double elimination tournaments, they have all played in single elim, and now they are playing in a mixed format. Big deal. The rules are the same for everyone, so everyone has the same obstacles and opportunities.

I don't believe the WPBA changed it specifically to make it harder for Allison or Karen. I think ending up with 16 in a single elim format just puts more pressure on everyone. From that standpoint, it should benefit the top players who have had more experience dealing with that kind of pressure.

I do believe the reason we are seeing new and different faces is because the other ladies have come to understand that if they are going to compete with the "big girls", they are going to have to work much harder than they did in the past. Many of the younger ladies have gotten serious about practice, several that I know of have found instructors to work with them. It's not something a "weekend warrior" can do any more. And the skill level of all the WPBA players has steadily moved up in the process.

Compare the level of play on the tour today with what it was prior to Allison arriving on the scene. It's a whole different game!

Just my opinion.
Steve

bataisbest
09-14-2008, 07:40 AM
I guess it's kind of like in baseball where people are sick of seeing Yankees vs Red Sox. Maybe the tour wants new blood or something. No doubt Allison and Karen are 2 of the greatest Women players of all time. They have had some epic matches. Could be too, that they are on the decline somewhat and the young guns are comin' on strong.

av84fun
09-14-2008, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim,
I felt the same way when they changed the format, until I talked to a few of the WPBA players. Kelly really laid it out in simple terms for me. It makes no difference to any of the players of the format. They have all played in double elimination tournaments, they have all played in single elim, and now they are playing in a mixed format. Big deal. The rules are the same for everyone, so everyone has the same obstacles and opportunities.

I don't believe the WPBA changed it specifically to make it harder for Allison or Karen. I think ending up with 16 in a single elim format just puts more pressure on everyone. From that standpoint, it should benefit the top players who have had more experience dealing with that kind of pressure.

I do believe the reason we are seeing new and different faces is because the other ladies have come to understand that if they are going to compete with the "big girls", they are going to have to work much harder than they did in the past. Many of the younger ladies have gotten serious about practice, several that I know of have found instructors to work with them. It's not something a "weekend warrior" can do any more. And the skill level of all the WPBA players has steadily moved up in the process.

Compare the level of play on the tour today with what it was prior to Allison arriving on the scene. It's a whole different game!

Just my opinion.
Steve </div></div>

I very respectfully disagree with you Steve. The players ALL voted on the rules change and they did NOT vote for changes that would be negative for them...obviously.

Rather, people vote for rules that will benefit them...and it is a significant benefit to the vast majority of players NOT to have Alli gunning for them out of the one loss bracket.

The sooner she gets eliminated, the better it is for the survivors. So, while they all play by the same rules, the rules DO benefit most other players while hurting Allison.

Double the size of the cups on golf and everyone would play by the same rules but the BENEFIT would dramatically shift to the lesser skilled players.

It is just fundamentally unfair to have 2 of the 4 finalists have one loss but Alli is out with one.

Taken together with the point system, it is obvious that the "new faces" strategy is clear.

Fourth place gets 75% of the points that 1st gets!

The points scale resulted in Alli WINNING 2 of the first 4 events with no one else winning more than 1 but Alli was SIXTH in the rankings.

They also start all the players at zero at the beginning of each season. Therefore, a player that had never even finished in the Top 20...could happen to win the first event and be ranked as the #1 female player in the world. Sorry, but IMHO that is just silly.

It is true that the skill gap is closing. But the truth is that there is a great deal of "good fortune" in the way the draws go...sometimes pitting the 4 or 5 top players in the same half of the bracket with each other and sometimes not.

THAT is why the most fair tournaments are double elimination...i.e. if a player happens to draw Alli or Karen or one of the other strong guns, they have a chance to fight back.

But now, fully one quarter of the players (16 of 64) play single elimination. So when Top Seed A plays Top Seed B all the remaining lesser skilled players benefit.

Just my opinions too.

Regards,
Jim

pooltchr
09-14-2008, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
They also start all the players at zero at the beginning of each season. Therefore, a player that had never even finished in the Top 20...could happen to win the first event and be ranked as the #1 female player in the world. Sorry, but IMHO that is just silly.


</div></div>
Most professional sports start off even every season. The Dolphins COULD win their first two games and be the top ranked team in the NFL. But over time, the cream will rise to the top. NASCAR is the same way. He who wind the cup this year will start out with zero points next year.

I asked Kelly a couple of weeks ago how it felt to be ranked number one, and she said that was the wrong question. She wanted to talk about how it felt winning the US Open. I think most of them compete for the pure joy of competition. Competition is the way we test ourselves. Rankings really don't hold a lot of weight. Kelly was number one ranked after the open, but tied for 9-16 this weekend. Who will be the new number one?

I see your point, but I still think the format doesn't help or hurt anyone. It's the same format for every player, every time they play.

Steve

av84fun
09-15-2008, 12:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
They also start all the players at zero at the beginning of each season. Therefore, a player that had never even finished in the Top 20...could happen to win the first event and be ranked as the #1 female player in the world. Sorry, but IMHO that is just silly.


</div></div>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Most professional sports start off even every season. The Dolphins COULD win their first two games and be the top ranked team in the NFL.</span> But over time, the cream will rise to the top. NASCAR is the same way. He who wind the cup this year will start out with zero points next year.

I asked Kelly a couple of weeks ago how it felt to be ranked number one, and she said that was the wrong question. She wanted to talk about how it felt winning the US Open. I think most of them compete for the pure joy of competition. Competition is the way we test ourselves. Rankings really don't hold a lot of weight. Kelly was number one ranked after the open, but tied for 9-16 this weekend. Who will be the new number one?

I see your point, but I still think the format doesn't help or hurt anyone. It's the same format for every player, every time they play.

Steve </div></div>

Steve, there is a difference between "standings" and "rankings".

Your analogy about the Dolphins isn't correct since it assumes they would be the only team with two wins after the firt two games. I doubt there has been any such outcome in NFL history.

But who leads in a given season is a "standing." Who is the best team on the planet is a "ranking".

I don't know for sure so please correct me but I think that in golf and tennis "carryover" money winnings and/or ranking posts are used. And those sports are more comparable to pool because they are "invidivual athlete" sports.

In Golf, there is only ONE winner per weekend. In football, there are LOTS of winners and NO team emerges as #1 until well into the season....if at all during any given season where teams in different conferences often have identical records throughout the season.

Rankings ARE important to pool players since their fees for sponsorships, exhibitions, speaking enagagements etc. can be seriously influenced by who is RANKED #1.

Again...yes the rules are the same for all players but that does not prove they are fair!

The USGA could decide that any ball not landing in the fairway is out of bounds. That would force players to hit 4 irons off the tees which would be a HUGE disadvantage for Tiger...in spite of the rules being the same for all players.

Or how about banning the forward pass in football! All of a sudden a LOT of quarterbacks would be put on waivers asap! (-:

And remember, Kelly cinched the #1 spot when she clinched SECOND in the Open and had ZERO wins. So had she lost to Ranola, Alli would have had 2 wins vs. Kelly's zero wins but Kelly would have been ranked #1 and Allison number SIX!!!

Please make no mistake. I am a BIG fan of Kelly's and if she could improve her break and get her nerves under control in tight situations she would be a FREIGHT TRAIN.

Plus, given her size, strength and black belt in Kung Fu she can beat the tar out of me, you and most other men on this forum!!

So GO KELLY!!!!!

It is no surprise that she doesn't want to dwell on the ranking matter with you. I am sure she LOVES being ranked #1 but I would GUESS that she is also a little embarrassed by it.

Finally, I again disagree that the format doesn't help or hurt anyone.

Due to the "luck of the draw" single elimination contests are FUNDAMENTALLY unfair. The very purpose of double elimination is to address that fact and give those who "drew tough" a chance to survive.

Well, if it's unfair with 64 in the field, it is also unfair with 16 in the field.

I respect your differing opinions though Steve.

Regards,
Jim