championship avoiders ....

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
In the New York Marathon, do they also proclaim a champion who finishes first in the 2.5-3 hour mark? And another champion who finishes first in 3-3.5 hour mark?

They do similar at the paralympic - based on grade of disability.

Originally posted by Ravello
....and this is the stupidest thing one could say.

If someone doesn't want to play such tournament why the heck should be given a rating penalty?

You can't force people to play this crap by pointing a gun to their head......
One pays to play on this site and should even be obliged to take part in events he doesn't want to take part??

Not to worry Mr. Ravello, I only said top players (over 2000), you're safe for now.
BTW If I remember correctly they do in pro tennis where you can't skip a major without a valid reason (injury, etc.) or face some monetary fine.

Originally posted by infomast
Not to worry Mr. Ravello, I only said top players (over 2000), you're safe for now.
BTW If I remember correctly they do in pro tennis where you can't skip a major without a valid reason (injury, etc.) or face some monetary fine.

It still remains a dumb idea,giving 100 rating points penalty to the top players who won't take part in the "championship" is pure idiocy.

Originally posted by Ravello
It still remains a dumb idea,giving 100 rating points penalty to the top players who won't take part in the "championship" is pure idiocy.

Why? It's not like taking their life away. If they play their level they'll be back in short time. It's more like an inconvenience to make them think before rejecting the premiere tourney of the year.

Originally posted by infomast
Why? It's not like taking their life away. If they play their level they'll be back in short time. It's more like an inconvenience to make them think before rejecting the premiere tourney of the year.

If you think it's such a genial thought then go ask to the top 50 players of the site and let me know their answers.........

Originally posted by Ravello
If you think it's such a genial thought then go ask to the top 50 players of the site and let me know their answers.........

The point is their interests (for some of them) do not necessarily coincide with the good of the community at large.

Originally posted by infomast
The point is their interests (for some of them) do not necessarily coincide with the good of the community at large.

"The good of the community at large"??
70% of the community doesn't even know that there's a "2006 championship" and I bet that half of the remaining 30% doesn't give a damn if top players enter that tournament,come on,be serious now........

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Yeah, but seriously, what is a banded champion? It's not even like a weight classification in boxing. Its like a prize for coming 50th, 100th, 200th etc.

You can't call it a championship, because it isn't.

I like the current format because it is all inclusive, open to everyone, fair to everyone. In the end there will be one winner, one champion.
ing the 2005 championship. Maybe instead of star after his name, he should have a crown.

Well, c'mon... if you want a true championship, then why not make it exclusively for the top players? That's what it comes down to anyways... like me and my measly sub1500 rating are going to beat a bunch of 2000+ players... get real... that's why I haven't joined this "championship" tournament. If you want a real championship tournament, stop pretending it's for "everyone" and just concentrate solely on the top X number of players by ranking and make it an Invitational...

EDIT: And, maybe this would discourage a lot of players from continually keeping their rating low so they can win lower rated tournaments!

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, c'mon... if you want a true championship, then why not make it exclusively for the top players? That's what it comes down to anyways... like me and my measly sub1500 rating are going to beat a bunch of 2000+ players... get real... that's why I haven't joined this "championship" tournament. If you want a real championship tournament, stop pretending ...[text shortened]... yers from continually keeping their rating low so they can win lower rated tournaments!

You have to see yourself as a cog in the wheel of a great machine.

Besides, anyone could beat anyone. You never know.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, c'mon... if you want a true championship, then why not make it exclusively for the top players? That's what it comes down to anyways... like me and my measly sub1500 rating are going to beat a bunch of 2000+ players... get real... that's why I haven't joined this "championship" tournament. If you want a real championship tournament, stop pretending ...[text shortened]... yers from continually keeping their rating low so they can win lower rated tournaments!

I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?

I still think a site championship should be for ALL players
And I think that seeding players for later rounds would make it much more interesting for lower rated players to join
And much more interesting for higher rated players to join, for that matter

Unfair!! , I hear people yelling.
Why is it unfair to give sub1500's a real chance of getting to the 2nd round ?
Why is it unfair to give sub1900's a real chance of getting to the 3rd round?
Why is it unfair to try to attract as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?

Originally posted by cludi
I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?

I still think a site cham as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?

I'm just saying to not waste the lower rated players time with this and instead of adding in the top players at round three, just start the tournament right there with just them. I'm not against attracting the top players at all... I hope they all join. It's just that I can have a lot more fun playing people slightly above my rating than I can by getting nuked into toothpaste by the 2000+ players. Make it a status thing, by making it an Invitational, and you'll have a lot more players playing with their true rating so that they can get into the Invitational next year... instead of bottom-trolling for lower rated tournament victories.

You speak of increasing the odds of finding the rightful champion. Attract those top players by making them work to get their rating high enough to be invited to the status event of the year (and bragging rights) AND reduce their chances of tossing their rating by losing to some sub1900 player at the same time.

EDIT: But I do agree that if they insist on keeping it open to "everyone", then your plan seems like a good one. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
EDIT: But I do agree that if they insist on keeping it open to "everyone", then your plan seems like a good one. 🙂

I don't know what "they" insist on, but I would surely insist on keeping the championship open to all and even attractive to all!

Originally posted by cludi
I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?

I still think a site cham ...[text shortened]... as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?

Yes, I think this is totally fair, and a good idea.

Look at ATP Tennis. Almost every tournament event sets a specific number of players who get in best on the rankings. Everyone else plays a pre-tournament to qualify (you never see this part on TV).

Look at the NFL. Teams being rewarded for a better season by getting first round playoff byes. Is this unfair? If No1Marauder was the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers would he be refusing to let his team participate next week because the Indianapolis Colts have an "unfair advantage" via a first round bye?

cludis model is fair and reasonable. Not for all tournaments, but for a site championship. Because to be a real site championship, again I believe the requirements are:

1) Open to all who want to enter
2) A format which temps most top players to play
3) Can be finished in one year

Originally posted by cludi
I agree with your reasoning as far as the decisive championship games is a matter of the top x players playing against each other.
But why not have the lower rated players battle out the initial rounds against each other?
Why not have a sub 1500 round 1?
And a sub 1900 round 2?
And then let in all the big guns in the 3rd round?

I still think a site cham as many of the top players as possible, to increase the odds of finding the rightful champion?

It's a ridiculous idea. It's clearly not fair to operate a tournament giving such a huge advantage to higher rated players. It's clearly not needed as a number of 1300-1500's DID advance to the second round last year. There's no real reason why this tournament should operate on a different set of rules than every other tournament on the site. If it's anything like last year, a bunch of the "big guns" will be tossed or quit the site before the damn thing is over anyway.

Originally posted by RookRAK
Yes, I think this is totally fair, and a good idea.

Look at ATP Tennis. Almost every tournament event sets a specific number of players who get in best on the rankings. Everyone else plays a pre-tournament to qualify (you never see this part on TV).

Look at the NFL. Teams being rewarded for a better season by getting first round playoff byes. Is this u ...[text shortened]... ant to enter
2) A format which temps most top players to play
3) Can be finished in one year

The rules for the NFL playoffs were put in place before the season. The Indianapolis Colts and the Pittsburgh Steelers and every other NFL team knew in advance that if they earned the two best records in the conference, they would get a bye. Here you want to change the rules in the middle of the season. Big difference.