Best 2 out of 3 rule...
Since Brian locked the Pro Series Guidelines thread, I can't post this response over there. It is in regards to the best 2 out of 3 rule for winning a race.
In every race that I've been involved with, the rule is that the winning car is the first car to win 2 races in a row...not just the best 2 out of 3. The winning car needs to win on BOTH LANES.
For example, a car wins in lane 1 and they switch lanes and that same car loses in lane 2. With the best 2 out of 3 rule, that car will go back to lane one and probably win again and win the race. But, it has only proven that it can win in.lane 1. That car needs to prove that it can also win in lane 2 to be declared the winner. Sometimes, with really close cars, this can take quite a few races...but, it's really the only fair way to determine a winner.
As I said, this is how all of the races have been run that I have been a part of...and it is how I will run my races.
Thanks!
Discussion
Fair enough, just make sure you state that in rules for those races. I don't disagree with the concept at all, but I wouldn't expect every host to dedicate that time/effort into every tournament.
It's easier to put time into making the track fair and even.
And just to be clear, Pro Series hosts should please follow the posted guidelines regardless.
Ummm, even on a very straight and very fair track, occasionally you'll get cars that are close...and they take more than three races to determine the winner. If your track is fair, then...usually it only takes two races.
I check my track before I race...and often re-check it between rounds. And most races only take two races...but, for those occasional close races, isn't it worth it to take the time to determine the clear winner? If anything, it ads to the excitement when two cars are so close that it takes multiple races.
It isn't about what is fastest and easiest to the host...it is about what is most fair to the racer.
Don't disagree...but there is a balance to be reached for everyone involved, both hosts and racers.
That being said, since the first Pro Series tournament was done 2-out-of-3, the rest of the series should follow that same pattern. I don't want each track racing under different rules. Whether it's the fairest way or not, that's how they should be run.
For other tournaments and series, the organizers can determine that on their own until some standards are published otherwise.
Okay then...take me off the list as a host. I'm not going to run a race that way. It isn't fair to the racer.
The Lincoln Johnny Lightning Race Club Unfortunately due to time constraints with the amount of car's that are raced every month wouldn't be able to run 2 out of 3. Sorry for any inconvenience! Our Modified Class that we now run is single elimination.
- Good to know, thanks for sharing. "Best of" matches don't scale well, which is my concern. — redlinederby
IIRC what we did in the past if each car had a win after two races was to flip a coin. The car on the top of the bracket calls heads. The winner of the coin flip races in the right lane in the third race. If you're only going to run best 2 of 3, although not perfect gives everyone a shot.
So after all the Derby Dash racing, started considering the 1-and-done heads up racing like JLRC does it, but I'd still want to keep things double elimination.
And I'm guessing a random draw or coin flip is just the fairest way to determine who gets what lane. But since most tournament has random seeding anyway, that's already happening. Would just have to do a randomizer if things were seeded by past standings.
It wouldn't make sense to have a winner's bracket be 2-of-3 and loser's be 1-and-done, would it? That doesn't sound right to me, but maybe it less of a deal than I think.
Although when 2-of-3 can be afforded, I'm starting to think how to integrate the coin flip for the 3rd heat. Shouldn't be too difficult.
This year's Pro Series is still gonna be 2-of-3 since that's how we started but just thinking about future races, even next year's Pro Series.
Just thinking out loud...
It's the fair way to do it, I agree with this.