The sport of pong has grown to a crux point that is being felt throughout the country. Though there are new regions that are actively growing (the Southwest, Europe), the older institutions that have already graduated beyond their infancy are beginning to feel the effects. That effect is stagnation. Smaller turnouts and slower integration of new players are plaguing the community at large. As we move forward we must attempt to resolve this issue to keep the sport alive and growing. Before suggesting change, we must understand the symptoms and causes.



Symptom #1: New players not coming back after their first tournament. This sport is dependent on new blood, as the older players eventually move on with life, and need to be replaced. The problem we are seeing nowadays is that players come once, play a tourney, and never return. For whatever reason they don’t come back, this is made even worse by the fact that they don’t tell their friends (or worse, they tell their friends not come).


Cause #1: Regulars in the game have gotten so good that it is incredibly difficult for newer players to have a chance to win. Most new teams go 0-2 in a tournament, and their pong night is over. When the sport was young, and only a few players were that good, anybody could expect to have a chance to get a least a couple wins before ending the night.


Solution: Utilize formats that favor (or at least even the odds for) newer players. Random partner, bring-a-noob, 3-player, multi-partner, bounce-only, and co-ed formats are all new-player friendly. Remember, we all first got into this game because it was fun. If new players have a good time their first night out, they are likely to return (and tell their friends!). Once they play a few times, get better at these rules, and actually start winning a few games, they’ll get that competitive bite all of us regulars feel and they’ll start taking the sport seriously. But until that point we have to keep them coming back, or we’ll never get them hooked. Organizers don’t have to stick to these formats exclusively, just throw a couple in every month and see what the results are.


Cause #2: Perception of the rules. The debate has raged endlessly for as long as the WSOBP has existed. To lean or not to lean? Regulars all know the reasons the lean was implemented in the first place, all having to do with regulation. The concern that has arisen is that as the sport grows, and new players see it for the first time played with a lean, they complain since the rules they play at home involve an elbow rule, floor line, or some method of keeping the player from leaning halfway across the table.


Solution: One of the proposed solutions to this problem is adding a length of metal bar to each end of the table, designed to keep the player from the edge. Though this may seem a reasonable “bandage,” it will not cure the issue. New players are used to playing a certain way, and anything different than how they play at home will set them off. Even before tournament play this was an issue when a player would go to a new house for a party and see a table set up. Undoubtedly the rules were different, and a debate would ensue (usually a quite heated discussion). So to say that this is a new problem with the world of competitive pong is to turn a blind eye to the sport’s past. The only way to properly fight this particular issue is to educate the masses. The more players that are introduced to WSOBP rules, the more new players will be taught these rules, and not know any better. It’s really only a matter of time until the elbow rule vanishes from popular knowledge of the sport (how long that will take, however, is up for debate).




Symptom #2: A decline in growth at the majors. The WSOBP and AC seem to be slowing in their growth from year to year, which can be taken as a sign of things to come if change isn’t implemented.


Cause #1: The price to participate is too high. To a lot of new players, the price for the majors is a little steep, and though they might be willing to shell it out for the experience, they will typically play once and then not return any subsequent years. To us regulars, the price is small relative to the amount of fun we get in return, but it’s just not enough for a lot of small-time players.


Solution #1: It’s unrealistic to expect the organizers of the majors to reduce the price, a lot of that is beyond their control. However the price can be made cheaper for a lot of players by increasing the number of satellites thrown every year. We have to keep in mind, though, the problem of good teams winning every time. There are many ways to combat this and allow newer players to take down a satellite or at least get reduced entry. Tournaments disallowing bid-winners entry is an option, however this could hurt the local organizer as fewer players could buy in. A common practice is to not allow bid-winners to play with one-another, which may be the best option at this point, especially if more satellites get thrown every year (increasing the number of bid winners, who then have to keep winning for new partners every time).


Solution #2: Another option which needs to be explored is the concept of partial-bids. Instead of only offering full bids as prizes, partial bids could be split amongst the finalists. For example, an organizer of a satellite purchases 3 bids to the WSOBP. The top placing team would be awarded 2 full bids, and the second place team would be awarded 2 half-bids, basically reducing the price of entry by 50%. This kind of system has other benefits for the lower-tier players as well. An organizer could purchase an additional quarter-bid or two, and offer them in a raffle for all tournament contestants, or to the first team knocked out, or in side-contests a la bounce-off, trick shot, etc. All of these could be used in advertising a tournament, giving the newer players (who know they have no shot of winning the whole thing) more reasons to buy in. All of this increases the “fun” atmosphere of pong, which in turn promotes every aspect of the game.


Cause #2: The competition at the majors is too tough. This is the same problem the sport at large is facing, as was addressed earlier in this paper. New teams see how tough it is to get even within shouting distance of the money and determine it isn’t worth the cost of entry/airfare.


Solution (the long one): The time has come for the majors, most importantly the WSOBP, to make a decision. Is their primary purpose to determine the best pong team in the world, or is it to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible? This is an honest question which must be resolved absolutely. A lot of people will say “both,” but it can’t be both. One has to take precedence over the other. If the primary purpose is to determine the winner, the format and direction of the tournament should reflect that. This would mean best-of-3s or even more, giving more play time to the big names, and attempting to create an “audience atmosphere,” in which important games are highlighted, and the final matches commented on. This was, I believe, the attempted focus at WSOBP V.

If the primary purpose is to provide all of the entrants with the most fun, the format and direction should reflect that. This means a format which allows for (and may even encourage) exciting upsets, a large field advancing to day 3, and possibly even a number of smaller side-events running concurrently with the tournament. The focus would be on the “carnival atmosphere” of the event. This is the best course of action to take in order to further the growth of the sport (and the WSOBP itself).

I hate to make sports comparisons as much as anyone, but sometimes it’s the best way to make a point. The World Series of Poker takes the “carnival” approach. Every year you see a different group of people at the final table. Yes, I understand that this is a result of the nature of poker, in that luck plays a MUCH bigger part in results than it does in pong. But what I am getting at is that players all acknowledge that the winner of the WSOP isn’t necessarily the best hold’em player in the world, in fact it is almost always a no-name new player. The format of large poker tournaments actually encourages this phenomenon! And every time people watch or hear about these no-names winning the big money, they are further encouraged to buy into the tournament themselves! The televised portions of the WSOP are also heavily focused on the “carnival atmosphere” of the tournament; the characters and the fun moreso than the competitive side of things.

In attempt to emulate the success of the WSOP, the WSOBP main event’s primary purpose should be on the experience, and not the winner. This isn’t to say that elite teams should be ignored, as it is true that these players are the backbone of the sport and should not be glossed over. To this end BPong, (or another organizer, it doesn’t matter really) should put on a Championship Invitational after day 2 of the tournament. It could occur the night of day 2 or day 3. The top 16 teams after prelims would be invited to buy into this tournament, and the format of this particular tournament would focus more heavily on rewarding skill than luck (best-of-3s, etc.).

This, in my opinion, is a great compromise. The focus of the WSOBP should be on encouraging the growth of the sport (as, honestly, it has been since its inception). The more fun people have, the more they want to come back, and the more they try to get their friends to go, and the more media coverage we get. You know what’s exciting to watch on TV? It’s not a best-of-3 hour-long match where the expected winner takes it down. It’s the single-game upset that sends the favorites to the losers bracket or out of the tournament, with the crowd screaming at the craziness of it all.

Those who come out to the WSOBP to find the best teams that year (or want to be recognized as such) would get their competitive fill in the invitational, and should hopefully still get their fix in the main event. Those who come to have fun, not expecting to make it very far in the bracket (which is the larger group by far), would be rewarded and encouraged to come back year after year.


I hope this inspires debate and thought about how we, as organizers and players, should move forward. All of us love this game too dearly to let it stagnate after all of the gains we’ve made thus far.


-Clawless