| Davisl
- 13 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 168
|
Nizzi and I are discussing a possible challenge match. His motivation is to put another feather in his cap by defeating another 1 ranked player, and my motivation is to overtake him in the mitic standings.
I have no idea how the mitic points are calculated anymore, so i'm wondering if someone can give the point scenarios if I were to win 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, etc. I'm a lot less motivated to play if I can't overtake him in the point standings even if i defeat him in a match. thanks.
|
|
|
| stubbs7
- 13 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 582
|
| http://www.airhockeyworld.com/rating_calc.asp
|
|
|
| fractalzoom
- 13 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 201
|
It looks like as long as you win the challenge set, you'll overtake him in Mitic points.
|
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 13 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 168
|
| that's pretty cool, didn't even know that tool was there.
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 1084
|
That would be a great match to see. Where do you think it might be take place, Champ?
Phil
|
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 168
|
It would be nice to duke it out at The Mandalay Bay or Bellagio, but we might have to settle for a local bowling alley. Maybe some genius promoters can use the match to get some publicity(zwack?). maybe call it "Undisputed" or something gimmicky 
|
|
|
| tableman
- 14 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 690
|
This is why some of us are wary of ever substituting a rating system for rankings, as useful as ratings may be. It could have worked out that Nizzi was far enough ahead in the ratings to keep his #1 rating even if Davis won a challenge match say, 4-3.
As Davis says, if beating Nizzi wouldn't put him #1 in the ratings, then he would have little incentive. So if there were no rankings but just ratings, Nizzi (who doesn't even play in Nationals) could conceivably lose a challenge match to the World Champion and still be #1 in the ratings.
But a challenge match for the #1 ranking always has clear incentives and a clear winner and loser.
Mark
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 15 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 117
|
Although in this case, without the ratings system, this match would not happen at all, because Davis would have absolutely zero incentive to travel. Despite what some think, the ratings system increases incentive to play matches in most real world cases. This is a perfect example.
Nick Geoffroy
|
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 15 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 168
|
wow...here we go again.
Robbins, say you win the next tournament, but everyone agrees that you caught fire and a bunch of upsets occurred, plus the right matchups, plus there wasn't a very big tournout(35-45 players), etc, etc. Say Danny had been dominating, but missed the tournament. Yes, you would be the #1 ranked player, but could you honestly say you were the best player in the world?
The Ratings system helps a little bit with that. I don't think it could ever be 100% accurate, but it can give you a sense of where your true abilities stack up against everyone in the field. Is Nizzi the top player in the world as the ratings suggest? It's cause for debate, but there is no debating that he is probably in the top 3-5. I think that's the most the ratings can do for us, is put everyone in the right groupings and using it as a measuring stick.
I was fortunate to win the last tournament, but I have no idea if I'm the best. It would be a fun thing to be the number one rated, if that is only other thing we can use for comparison.
Lastly, it has been pointed out that if I beat Nizzi, I would overtake him in the rating system, that is until he reels off 16 straight sets vs. Fletcher, Nick, Thomas, etc. It would stiffle play, but maybe that would be the only exception rule written into the rating system - you can't overtake the number 1 rated player by playing challenge sets. You can only overtake them via tournaments or a challenge match.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 17 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 690
|
Davisl said: wow...here we go again.
Robbins, say you win the next tournament, but everyone agrees that you caught fire and a bunch of upsets occurred, plus the right matchups, plus there wasn't a very big tournout(35-45 players), etc, etc. Say Danny had been dominating, but missed the tournament. Yes, you would be the #1 ranked player, but could you honestly say you were the best player in the world?
|
If Danny were dominating, and missed a tournament, than it would be no different than any other sport where the dominant player couldn't compete (due to injury, or whatever). If Federer was dominant, and missed Wimbledon due to injury, or missed a few Grand Slam events, same situation.
Whoever wins the Worlds in AH can truly say he was the best player in the world on that day or days - which just happened to be the days of the WC's. Whoever couldn't or didn't play wasn't in the running and doesn't count.
If I or you or anyone else won a Danny-less Worlds... and he was truly still the best... he could quickly prove it via challenge match.
I also believe that winning a Worlds means more than winning a challenge match for #1. That's why the World Champion can lose his #1 ranking in a challenge match, but retains his title til the next Championship.
BTW - I really like your new word, "tournout". That's even better than Sarah Palin's "refudiate". :)
Mark
|
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 19 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 117
|
tableman said: | If Danny were dominating, and missed a tournament, than it would be no different than any other sport where the dominant player couldn't compete (due to injury, or whatever). If Federer was dominant, and missed Wimbledon due to injury, or missed a few Grand Slam events, same situation. |
What is wrong with being like tennis?
Nick Geoffroy
|
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 21 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 1084
|
What is wrong with being like tennis?
Tennis' system has robbed the world of great one on one matches for Number One. I would have loved to have seen Federrer defend his Number One against Nadal in a one on one when they were fresh and focused entirely on that Match.
Carolina Phil
|
|
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 21 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 1084
|
Good points below, Davis. Ratings help us measure relative abilities.
A Match has some additional qualities that are special. It not only measures, but forces two players to either defend or lose the Belt that they wear which has on it their World Ranking and their Seed. It demands immediate accountability and forces a decision that is definite and certain.
That is one reason that we like, but also are terrorized by a challenge match. It is a love-hate relationship because it calls us out, to put up or to shut up. It seems unreasonable that I should lose all because of one viscious attack, but that is stark reality in the world everyday. Just read the Obits.
Carolina Phil
I think that's the most the ratings can do for us, is put everyone in the right groupings and using it as a measuring stick.
I was fortunate to win the last tournament, but I have no idea if I'm the best. It would be a fun thing to be the number one rated, if that is only other thing we can use for comparison.
Lastly, it has been pointed out that if I beat Nizzi, I would overtake him in the rating system, that is until he reels off 16 straight sets vs. Fletcher, Nick, Thomas, etc. It would stiffle play, but maybe that would be the only exception rule written into the rating system - you can't overtake the number 1 rated player by playing challenge sets. You can only overtake them via tournaments or a challenge match.
|
|
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 21 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 117
|
carolina phil said: Tennis' system has robbed the world of great one on one matches for Number One. I would have loved to have seen Federrer defend his Number One against Nadal in a one on one when they were fresh and focused entirely on that Match.
Carolina Phil
|
I have seen Federer defend his Number One against Nadal in a one on one match. I guess if you question their fitness or professionalism they might not have been fresh or focused entirely on the match. Although, after having watched the match I have no doubt they were fresh and focused.
Perhaps you are suggesting that Air-Hockey players lack the professionalism of tennis players? If so, maybe it is because our system is such that during a match if things aren't going an Air-Hockey player's way an Air-Hockey player can just decide they'll challenge the opponent later at their convenience. That way they don't have to focus and fight through adversity. Hence, they are distracted with the thought of challenging later and not really focused on the match. Or they can completely blow off the tournament and just challenge the winner for their ranking.
The only sports that work the way our system works are fight sports and their participants are only active a small percentage of the year and exceptionally few people participate. Occasionally there are tournaments, but many top fighters skip them and many that don't skip them withdraw before the completion of the tournament. For the most part, they are spectator sports. We use the same model but want lots participation at varying skill levels (kind of like tennis, golf or bowling enjoy) and have done almost nothing to push the sport as a spectator sport. Shockingly that model has led to small (almost non-existent) growth of regularly active players and zero spectators.
Golf, tennis, bowling and pool all use a system that produces the type of results we seem to be looking for for our sport.
Fight sports use a system similar to the one we use. If we really want to be like the fight sports, we should focus on improving our spectator appeal, not on growth. The system is not designed to grow a player base.
Nick Geoffroy
|
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 21 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 1084
|
Nick,
I am content to differ with you. And I appreciate your contributions.
And I agree that over time I have noticed that some players in a match begin thinking what they will be able to do next time in a different match on a better day. Have you noticed that they convince themselves with rationalizations that a future day for combat will be better for this and that reasons?
I am sure you and I and several other gladiators of ah recognize that for what it is. And, at that moment, we attack them and punish them even more.
Ha, ha. Life is good.
Phil
|
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 22 Oct 2010
Total Posts: 117
|
Phil,
I, too, have come to the realization that we will never see eye to eye on this one, but will always agree on the sheer greatness of Air-Hockey. I have even made an effort of late not to provoke the same old argument, but the 2 year old in me has to point out . . . Mark started it!!!!
At any rate, this time of year is kind of the Air-Hockey off season for me. But starting January 1st, I have plans for laying down some serious punishment.
Nick Geoffroy
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / challenge match computation?
|
