Page 6 of 6
Re: Mistakes in EGC-2005 (Prague)
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:35 am
by oren
hilltopgo wrote:I now understand the objection to the current system. I guess we don't have a similar problem in the U.S. because we don't have an annual "American Champion" (as far as I'm aware). If you were to ask me, "Who was the U.S. Go Champion in 2008?" I'd probably give you a blank stare, then look up which American had the best result in the U.S. Open that year, or look up who we sent to the WAGC.
The North American Masters Tournament is designed to produce the strongest resident (with some requirements attached I disagree with) and the US Open produces the strongest player who comes.
Re: Mistakes in EGC-2005 (Prague)
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:56 am
by hilltopgo
oren wrote:hilltopgo wrote:I now understand the objection to the current system. I guess we don't have a similar problem in the U.S. because we don't have an annual "American Champion" (as far as I'm aware). If you were to ask me, "Who was the U.S. Go Champion in 2008?" I'd probably give you a blank stare, then look up which American had the best result in the U.S. Open that year, or look up who we sent to the WAGC.
The North American Masters Tournament is designed to produce the strongest resident (with some requirements attached I disagree with) and the US Open produces the strongest player who comes.
Would you say then that the winner of the NAMT is that year's U.S. "Champion?"
Re: Mistakes in EGC-2005 (Prague)
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:29 am
by oren
hilltopgo wrote:Would you say then that the winner of the NAMT is that year's U.S. "Champion?"
No, I consider one to be North American Masters Tournament winner and one is US Open Winner. I was just discussing how resident status for North American masters (at least for US entries) is determined in this thread.
I'm not going to get in the "European Championship" debate.
