The Magical Disappearing Worlds

[teemkey]

Reading through the comments, it would appear that playing three courses twice where both rounds are played the same day meets the major objections.

1) each course is played twice
2) no travel between rounds.

If there were a day off between playing days (play, off, play, off, play), then the "vacation-oriented" folks could sight see, and the more dedicated players practice the upcoming course.

Perhaps I'm naive ...

 

[trumbulldore]

Reading through the comments, it would appear that playing three courses twice where both rounds are played the same day meets the major objections.

1) each course is played twice
2) no travel between rounds.

If there were a day off between playing days (play, off, play, off, play), then the "vacation-oriented" folks could sight see, and the more dedicated players practice the upcoming course.

Perhaps I'm naive ...

Not naive. i think this works best too and makes the most sense.

 

[JC17393]

Reading through the comments, it would appear that playing three courses twice where both rounds are played the same day meets the major objections.

1) each course is played twice
2) no travel between rounds.

If there were a day off between playing days (play, off, play, off, play), then the "vacation-oriented" folks could sight see, and the more dedicated players practice the upcoming course.

Perhaps I'm naive ...

The difficulty in doing that is that at Worlds, you're dealing with multiple pools of players. If you have one pool play back to back at one course the same day, that means none of the other pools can play there that day. And what happens if Pool A gets a course in sunny, calm conditions on Wednesday and then Pool B plays there on Thursday in rain and wind?

For the sake of fairness, you want to have both pools of players playing the same two courses on the same day, even if it's Pool A going to course 1 then course 2 while Pool B plays 2 then 1. At least in that way, it's no different than both pools combined playing tee-times at a given course.

Worlds usually has a re-shuffling of the pools partway through once each pool has played the same courses the same number of times. With your method of scheduling, that "Great Shuffle" couldn't happen until after six rounds, or basically when they cut for the semi-finals anyway. Not so sure that would be ideal from a competitive standpoint.

 

[1978]

To the hot goaltender/pitcher analogy, I think David's point was that the more games/rounds there are, the less impact the hot player will have. I mean, if the World Series was 9 games instead of 7, then maybe Bumgarner doesn't pitch in game 7 (since they arguably might have had to save him for game 8 or 9) and maybe the Royals win that game and either game 8 or 9 (whichever one Bumgarner isn't able to pitch in).

I definitely see that argument, and I'm a firm believer in the idea of the cream rising to the top the more chance it is given. But I also think that if the courses are of the right caliber, 4-5 rounds is plenty of golf for that cream to rise. There's a good reason ball golf uses 72 holes for most of their tournaments...the players are well matched against one another and the courses are set up to provide appropriate challenge for players of their skill level.

I figured they did this cause they can't play 2 in a day. I dont think it has to do with what brings the cream to the top. Tuesday Practice, Wednesday Pro-ams/goofy events, Thursday-Sunday play, Monday travel/ rest/ There isn't time for additional rounds even if they wanted them.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that wee need to host three separate events called worlds. One for Open Men and Women. One for Advanced Men and Women. One for all the age protected divisions, am am and pro, men and women.

 

[DiscJunkie]

DG is a very competitive sport, and the winning margins are typically tight (not always, but typically). This is one reason that we spend a lot of time and effort looking at score separation in DG.

Surprisingly, I don't recall anyone on here talking about 2014 Worlds MPO.
Wysocki led after the first round. McBeth wasn't even on the Lead Card in Round 2.
Then Ulibarri led for the middle rounds, Wysocki come on in the late rounds, then lost to McBeth in the playoffs. That's not great scoring separation. A playoff after 7 rounds and a final nine.
Cream rises to the top. But in DG, with the tight scoring, we should give it more rounds - rather than fewer.

You could counter that McBeth (arguably the best player) would've pulled out the whole McBeast charge earlier if there were only 5 rounds.
My reply would still be that IF you want to crown the best player as World Champion, you give that person more rounds, not fewer.
The only other argument that I think is valid, in this case, would be that the 5 MPO Worlds-level course rounds in PA would provide enough scoring separation to determine the best player.
Hopefully, this is the right answer.

 

[RobA]

It would make far more sense to fill out the gallery of spectators with amateurs who are there to be entertained by the pros rather than by pros who made the trip to compete in the event. If the PDGA intends to fill out the gallery with pros who have already been eliminated from the competition, they're like a snake eating its own tail. Surely the PDGA realizes that autocannibalism is not a good business model.

Er...no. The vast majority of golfers are in the game to play, not spectate. I find it hard to believe that people would travel that far just to watch. The only spectators would be locals. Are you so deluded to think that ams are so enthralled with watching pros play? I watched the final 9 when the worlds were in Rochester in 1999. Honestly by the second hole I was ready to grab my discs and tee off behind the pros.

 

[teemkey]

The difficulty in doing that is that at Worlds, you're dealing with multiple pools of players. If you have one pool play back to back at one course the same day, that means none of the other pools can play there that day. And what happens if Pool A gets a course in sunny, calm conditions on Wednesday and then Pool B plays there on Thursday in rain and wind?

For the sake of fairness, you want to have both pools of players playing the same two courses on the same day, even if it's Pool A going to course 1 then course 2 while Pool B plays 2 then 1. At least in that way, it's no different than both pools combined playing tee-times at a given course.

Worlds usually has a re-shuffling of the pools partway through once each pool has played the same courses the same number of times. With your method of scheduling, that "Great Shuffle" couldn't happen until after six rounds, or basically when they cut for the semi-finals anyway. Not so sure that would be ideal from a competitive standpoint.

From a weather standpoint, I'd argue that if the courses are within ten miles or so of one another the weather would likely be the same -- particularly since worlds is played at a time of year when good weather is expected. Of course, you must consider that mornings will be cooler and afternoons will be hotter (due also to the time of year). Many times the afternoon is also windier. Maybe someone has data on morning vs. afternoon SSAs.

The shuffle though, is indeed a problem. The number of rounds and courses would be dependent on field size (i.e. number of pools). In 2014 there were 144 competitors in MPO, hence the shuffle could be done after four rounds.

One thing I am certain of: no schedule will please everyone ...

 

[Halcón]

But in DG, with the tight scoring, we should give it more rounds - rather than fewer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most players would object to even longer tourneys.

 

[mashnut]

From a weather standpoint, I'd argue that if the courses are within ten miles or so of one another the weather would likely be the same -- particularly since worlds is played at a time of year when good weather is expected. Of course, you must consider that mornings will be cooler and afternoons will be hotter (due also to the time of year). Many times the afternoon is also windier. Maybe someone has data on morning vs. afternoon SSAs.

The shuffle though, is indeed a problem. The number of rounds and courses would be dependent on field size (i.e. number of pools). In 2014 there were 144 competitors in MPO, hence the shuffle could be done after four rounds.

One thing I am certain of: no schedule will please everyone ...

Another weather related factor to consider is that wind has very different effects on an open course vs. a wooded course. The year I played Bowling Green Ams, there was a really windy day. I was on Hobson Grove that day, and it had almost no effect, the woods cut most of the wind and there aren't many big drives needed. Meanwhile, the people playing Ephram White that day had to deal with long open shots and lots of OB on the windy day.

 

[scarpfish]

From a weather standpoint, I'd argue that if the courses are within ten miles or so of one another the weather would likely be the same -- particularly since worlds is played at a time of year when good weather is expected.

Anyone who's spent enough time around here and knows the old "wait five minutes" maxim about the weather knows that's nonsense. I've seen wind, temperature and precipitation aspects of weather change radically during a single tournament round.

 

[JC17393]

The shuffle though, is indeed a problem. The number of rounds and courses would be dependent on field size (i.e. number of pools). In 2014 there were 144 competitors in MPO, hence the shuffle could be done after four rounds.

The proposed schedule is that each pool plays two rounds at the same course on the same day thus eliminating mid-day travel (2 rounds-off day-2 rounds-off day-two rounds). Yes, it's reasonable to think that two pools can play two courses twice each in the first four rounds and fairly be re-shuffled together after those four rounds.

The problem then becomes how do you make a cut after 6 rounds since the field needs to be reduced for the semifinals? If only one course is being played in a given day (two rounds), then that would necessitate the two pools playing that course on different days. Would that mean that one of the pools plays on the first day after the cut and the other plays the day after that? So there's potentially some players sitting around on that fifth day waiting for a cut they might not make? That sounds less than ideal.

While downtime is a good thing during the tournament, the priority still should be the competition over everything. There's a reasonable balance to be found between all-disc-all-the-time and disc-as-a-vacation-afterthought. Eight rounds in four days was essentially the former, involving full days off in the middle of competition is probably a good example of the latter.

 

[LukeButch]

without reading every post, its as simple as this to me- courses that will take 3.5-4hours to play for a full field, spread far apart is the main reason for this. While as a casual-pro I would enjoy more golf, I do think that 1 round a day, ideally tee-times is the appropriate schedule for a major championship.

as to those comparing it to 10+ years ago, that is just laughable. Moraine and deer lakes especially are NOTHING like the par 3 style courses of that time.

 

[MikeK]

The proposed schedule is that each pool plays two rounds at the same course on the same day thus eliminating mid-day travel (2 rounds-off day-2 rounds-off day-two rounds).

Are you sure about that JC? The current schedule posted at pdga.com has them 2, 2, 1 and 1 with no off days:

http://www.pdga.com/files/2015_pro_worlds_schedule_draft_v2.3.pdf


I read your post and got so outraged at the idea of an off day in a tournament that I had to look it up!

 

[JC17393]

Are you sure about that JC? The current schedule posted at pdga.com has them 2, 2, 1 and 1 with no off days:

http://www.pdga.com/files/2015_pro_worlds_schedule_draft_v2.3.pdf


I read your post and got so outraged at the idea of an off day in a tournament that I had to look it up!

I was talking about the schedule idea proposed in this post, not anything official.

 

[MikeK]

Have the moderators looked into that blatant case of thread drift then...or do they have their hands full with Holly's recent video thread?