Top 8: Best of 3 vs. Best of 5?


#1

The Top 8 of MvC3 and SSF4AE were played as “best of 3 games,” with the exception of grand finals. I didn’t have the chance to see the other games, so I don’t know if the same applies. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought that Top 8 had been “best of 5” in the past, so I was surprised by this tournament format.

What do you think of this format? Personally, I think “best of 3” overly favors tricks and gimmicks. Two games is not enough time to adequately download an opponent. I personally don’t believe that Poongko, with his guessing-game style of Seth play, would have made it that far had it been “best of 5.” Still, I know that some would say that “best of 3” is more exciting to watch because players always can have new surprises up their sleeves.

EDIT: My mistake, EVO Top 8 has always been “best of 3” except grand finals.


#2

It has always been the same at EVO with all matches being best of 3 and the grand finals being best of 5. However some venues do Winners and Losers finals as best of 5 as well (I don’t think there are any major tournaments that do this though).

No one can really know how it would have turned out if all of top 8 was best of 5. Just a few opinions here and there. In my opinion, not that it matters, there was no way Daigo was going to bring that back if it was best of 5. Poongko was far inside Daigo’s head and predicted his EVERY move and acted accordingly.


#3

2/3 is fine. 3/5 = less upsets. you want to see more upsets.


#4

No you don’t. As a tournament organizer, you don’t want to do ANYTHING to sway the results towards something you’d like to see more.

In general, PLENTLY of places run 3/5 Winners’ and Losers’ Finals. Majors, included. It used to be standard. 2/3 throughout, 3/5 Winners/Losers’ Final, 4/7 Grand Finals… somewhere along the way that changed.

I wouldn’t mind seeing 3/5 Top 8 next year. It seems like Evo is finishing in plenty of time these days, unlike past years.


#5

I hate 3/5 - even for finals, as they can drag and actually draw away from the excitement; I have felt this way for years. I personally think American tourneys have grown so big in size to a point where ‘1 game double elimination’ or ‘best of 3 games single elimination’ should be implemented, but best of 3 double elimination has been standard practice in the U.S. for a long time so I doubt it will change any time in the near future.


#6

3/5 just for WFs, LFs and GFs would be the best IMO.


#7

2/3 is fine. With tournaments running so behind schedule, it would take too long.


#8

I agree that best 2/3 for winners’ and losers’ finals is too short. I see the logic behind it, but the players have put too much time into the games for less than five minutes of gameplay to determine so much, not to mention the BIG bucks on the line. As long as the tournament is, I don’t see how an extra couple of minutes at the end is such a drag if it gives the best players a bit more of a chance to prove themselves, and the viewers win, too, assuming they are still hungry to see high level play. Gotta ask whether it makes sense to spend as much time on first round matches with two scrubs competing as on Justin vs. PR Rog in losers’ finals, but I suppose it is only fair, on the other hand.

Another option would be best of three games but up it to best of five rounds for LF and WF.

My main issue is with losers’ finals, to be honest. At least in winners’ finals and even GF for the guy in winners’, both players haven’t made it that far only to be sitting a possible four minutes away from going home.