Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Post Reply
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13214
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Other than winning everything on TV, what's the best thing to win in the Countdown world?

To me it's COLIN. The original CO-event and definitely the "main" one to win. COLON as well can be considered another "grand slam" and always has a very high attendence, but I still think it's lacking that prestige. It also doesn't have that continuity over time that COLIN has and has been run by several different people. Also in the CO-event world there is the FOCAL finals, which is obviously a big deal, but I see it as a bit like the ATP finals in tennis and not quite on the level of the grand slams.

On Apterous, probably the biggest thing is the Masters tournament which has been going since 2008, but it's not quite a CO-event.

And finally we now also have Zoomdown and with the first three series won by Conor Travers, Rob Foster and Elliott Mellor, it has attracted the big names. Definitely a big deal to win, but I still think COLIN with its in-person-ness and history outdoes it.

What do you think?
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by JackHurst »

They all have their own subtle differences that make them hard to compare.

The TV show: Open to anybody who passes an audition. The scope for matching up players vs each is very limited so you have to compare things like Octochamp score, and that doesn't even indicate if a player will win their series very well. it's not possible to put players head to head in a best of X for X > 1. There's very few second chances also (if you lose you are off). Some of the very best players have no interest in going on the show. There the added pressure of performing on the stage. Best player normally wins a 15 rounder fairly easily. Theoretically impossible to cheat

Co events: Also open to anybody who wants to come and play. If players go to enough co-events they will end up playing each other multiple times. The formats generally mean regular players of similar levels will face each other more often. The standard at co events is higher than on the show. 9 rounders are always a lot closer than 15 rounders and prone to upsets. You can lose a game at a Co-Event but still win overall (technically possible on the show, but mostly not the case). Not really very easy to get away with cheating at a co-Event. There is the pressure of performing IRl, and if you get to the grand final then there's the pressure of performing on stage. You also have to be able to play with selections which are not in a visual format you are used to (e.g. the cards at Colin, or Zarte's board at Co:Mk which has a piece of wood obscuring half the tiles)

Apterous: Open to anybody who can find it and subscribes. You can play any player you want as many times you want in whatever format. The standard is very high. There is an incredible amount of statistics you can use to compare players. It has a dedicated ranking system. Players are playing from the comfort of their own home which reduces the pressure. It's easy to cheat.

Zoom Down: Open to people who apply and get accepted. Not a huge amount of scope for playing players against each other lots. The winner stays on queue system means weaker players do "better" than stronger players. You have to play from somebody elses handwriting which is quite hard. You are in the comfort of your own home, but there's some pressure by being on a live broadcast. The standard of players is quite high. It's easy to cheat.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by JackHurst »

JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:58 pm They all have their own subtle differences that make them hard to compare.

The TV show: Open to anybody who passes an audition. The scope for matching up players vs each is very limited so you have to compare things like Octochamp score, and that doesn't even indicate if a player will win their series very well. it's not possible to put players head to head in a best of X for X > 1. There's very few second chances also (if you lose you are off). Some of the very best players have no interest in going on the show. There the added pressure of performing on the stage. Best player normally wins a 15 rounder fairly easily. Theoretically impossible to cheat

Co events: Also open to anybody who wants to come and play. If players go to enough co-events they will end up playing each other multiple times. The formats generally mean regular players of similar levels will face each other more often. The standard at co events is higher than on the show. 9 rounders are always a lot closer than 15 rounders and prone to upsets. You can lose a game at a Co-Event but still win overall (technically possible on the show, but mostly not the case). Not really very easy to get away with cheating at a co-Event. There is the pressure of performing IRl, and if you get to the grand final then there's the pressure of performing on stage. You also have to be able to play with selections which are not in a visual format you are used to (e.g. the cards at Colin, or Zarte's board at Co:Mk which has a piece of wood obscuring half the tiles).

Apterous: Open to anybody who can find it and subscribes. You can play any player you want as many times you want in whatever format. The standard is very high. There is an incredible amount of statistics you can use to compare players. It has a dedicated ranking system. Players are playing from the comfort of their own home which reduces the pressure. It's easy to cheat.

Zoom Down: Open to people who apply and get accepted. Not a huge amount of scope for playing players against each other lots. The winner stays on queue system means weaker players do "better" than stronger players. You have to play from somebody elses handwriting which is quite hard. You are in the comfort of your own home, but there's some pressure by being on a live broadcast. The standard of players is quite high. It's easy to cheat.
Sorry that was a bit of a random thought dump.

For me, in order of impressiveness, I'd go
1) Winning anything bigger than a standard CoC on TV (e.g. Supreme C or 30BC)
2) Winning a CoC on Tv
3) Being the player who has spent the most time at the top of the apterous rankings for the past 5 years
4) Winning any Co:Event over 40 players
5) Winning a Series on TV
6) Winning ZoomDown
7) Winning Big Apto tourneys
8) Winning super small Co:Events (less than 15 people)
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

#PrayForMediumSizedCoEvents 😪🙏🏻
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Adam Latchford
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:50 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Adam Latchford »

JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:07 pm
JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:58 pm They all have their own subtle differences that make them hard to compare.


For me, in order of impressiveness, I'd go
1) Winning anything bigger than a standard CoC on TV (e.g. Supreme C or 30BC)
2) Winning a CoC on Tv
3) Being the player who has spent the most time at the top of the apterous rankings for the past 5 years
4) Winning any Co:Event over 40 players
5) Winning a Series on TV
6) Winning ZoomDown
7) Winning Big Apto tourneys
8) Winning super small Co:Events (less than 15 people)
Interesting to put winning a series (which lasts many months, has a lot more pressure and is seen by many more eyes, also usually takes 11 victories to win) behind winning a co event - a one day 9 round event where 7 games are played and 30% (being generously low) of the field is hungover. I get the fields tougher...
Adam Latchford
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:50 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Adam Latchford »

Whoops formatted that badly, still a newb.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13214
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I tend to rate a TV series higher than anything non-televised. It's about prestige, not just difficulty of winning. Winning a series on TV (and the CoC etc.) is what it's all about.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by JackHurst »

It's a close call between winning a series and winning a big Co:Event. Maybe on another day I would have ranked the TV higher. The thing that swung it was that to win a big Co:Event you always have to beat at least 1 or 2 very strong players, whereas in a TV series, quite a few champions end up sailing through without having to face a challenging opponent (e.g. series 62, 67, series 70 series 75 and maybe a few more in recent times.)
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:07 pm For me, in order of impressiveness, I'd go
1) Winning anything bigger than a standard CoC on TV (e.g. Supreme C or 30BC)
2) Winning a CoC on Tv
3) Being the player who has spent the most time at the top of the apterous rankings for the past 5 years
4) Winning any Co:Event over 40 players
5) Winning a Series on TV
6) Winning ZoomDown
7) Winning Big Apto tourneys
8) Winning super small Co:Events (less than 15 people)
Not far off for me, but winning a regular series is #3 on this list. Street cred, media whore, yada yada, I know, but I think it’s more impressive to transcend the Countdown bubble than certainly anything achieved on Apto (lockdowns etc notwithstanding), and I would have co-event wins over online play too.

I think, also, a question of perspective? Winning a co-event of 15 people would be a pipe dream for me…
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Adam Latchford
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:50 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Adam Latchford »

JackHurst wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:08 pm It's a close call between winning a series and winning a big Co:Event. Maybe on another day I would have ranked the TV higher. The thing that swung it was that to win a big Co:Event you always have to beat at least 1 or 2 very strong players, whereas in a TV series, quite a few champions end up sailing through without having to face a challenging opponent (e.g. series 62, 67, series 70 series 75 and maybe a few more in recent times.)
It's a fair and understandable point - + you have won both a tv series and co events so the idea of it being more impressive has credence. I still disagree, but I understand the reasoning.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Fiona T »

JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:58 pm You have to play from somebody elses handwriting which is quite hard.
Off topic, but ZD now using Graeme's software meaning players get nice screen to look at - definite improvements all round!
User avatar
Mark Deeks
Fanatic
Posts: 2443
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Mark Deeks »

The TV show >>>> anything else, when it comes to prestige, and by quite some way.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Martin Hurst
Series 75 Champion
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:50 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Martin Hurst »

Good conversation.

Winning a co-event is far more prestigious within the Countdown/Apterous community and easily the harder and greater achievement.

Winning a TV series is more prestigious in the "real world", but not really that prestigious if we are being totally honest - it doesn't exactly bring you fame, fortune and groupies, just something sort of interesting to talk about every now and then.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by JackHurst »

A slightly different question.

Which would hurt more:
1) Not winning a TV series for which you are favourite.
2) Not winning a big co event for which you are favourite.

I think pretty much everybody would agree 1 would hurt way more. I think that probably is enough to convince me to change my first answer.
Thomas Cappleman
Series 72 Champion
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Thomas Cappleman »

JackHurst wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:35 pm A slightly different question.

Which would hurt more:
1) Not winning a TV series for which you are favourite.
2) Not winning a big co event for which you are favourite.

I think pretty much everybody would agree 1 would hurt way more. I think that probably is enough to convince me to change my first answer.
I think a lot of this ties into how many chances you get. If you reach a series final but lose, that's your chance gone (pending CoC redemption). If you're favourite for a co event, then you're going to have a good chance in plenty of others too.
Paul Anderson
Enthusiast
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Paul Anderson »

-TV Series
-Internet Series
-Co Event, for similar reasons to Adam...You go to events for other reasons than to win, hence the rampant alcoholism
User avatar
Mark Deeks
Fanatic
Posts: 2443
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by Mark Deeks »

JackHurst wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:35 pm A slightly different question.

Which would hurt more:
1) Not winning a TV series for which you are favourite.
2) Not winning a big co event for which you are favourite.

I think pretty much everybody would agree 1 would hurt way more. I think that probably is enough to convince me to change my first answer.
I've been arguably both, and, 1. Definitely 1.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Most prestigious non-televised tournaments

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

JackHurst wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:07 pm For me, in order of impressiveness, I'd go
1) Winning anything bigger than a standard CoC on TV (e.g. Supreme C or 30BC)
2) Winning a CoC on Tv
3) Being the player who has spent the most time at the top of the apterous rankings for the past 5 years
4) Winning any Co:Event over 40 players
5) Winning a Series on TV
6) Winning ZoomDown
7) Winning Big Apto tourneys
8) Winning super small Co:Events (less than 15 people)
I like this list, though impressiveness / prestige. It depends on who you are trying to impress.
My list is too similar to this to be worth publishing separately.

Swap #4 and #5, and insert "Winning a medium sized co-event (16-40 players)" just above "Winning super-small Co:Events" and we're good.
I would be tempted to put "Big Apto Tourney" ahead of ZD, but currently ZD has no trouble attracting absolute top players (Some of whom don't Apto much anymore), and there is the "live broadcast" element that elevates its status imo... also it can secure guests of the calibre of Susie / Damian (and possibly Rachel for the final of Series 5 - spoiler alert) etc. - and none of those frequent Apto under their real names.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Post Reply