Daytona 500
Masters
Indianapolis 500
Bristol/Charlotte 600, Talledaga all early season and more important than the rest of the races.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
WHY WORLDS
- Thread starter dbaledge
- Start date
Daytona 500
Masters
Indianapolis 500
Bristol/Charlotte 600, Talledaga all early season and more important than the rest of the races.
Players decide this already. Often top pro's skip the oplymics, in many sports. If your sport is based on tournaments, its the majors (tennis, golf, racing is kind of a tournament) if championship, its that (basketball, football, hockey)
His post was about championships, not biggest events.
Even as a defender of the current Worlds format and scheduling, I have to admit that it's a bit odd to crown a champion in mid-year.
There are good reasons for it, many of which you've given, and I'm not troubled by the fact. But it is unusual to crown a champion, then continue playing.
Ye Olde Am
Newbie
- Joined
- May 30, 2017
- Messages
- 41
If I were looking at the original post and laying bets as to where this thread my eventually drift.....
Yes, the charlotte 600, Bristol, talledega, and escpecially the Daytona 500 are all prestigious, but not more so than winning the chase(championship) at the end of the year. If we were to ever go to a point she system that eventually crowns a champion(thru a playoff or not), there will always be tournaments that are more prestigious than others. I guess I'm not seeing the comparison you were making
To answer the OP:
With the old format, you could make the argument that it's the only one of its kind -- therefore, the timing of crowning the World Champion to me, was not relevant. The format was what made Worlds, well "Worlds". The one tournament that included endurance and skill.
I think that the other divisions, besides MPO/FPO can still say that. I don't see ANY individual sport having a true "end-of the year" champion or "end of the season" champion. So, the counterargument to the OP's original argument is equally true.
With the old format, you could make the argument that it's the only one of its kind -- therefore, the timing of crowning the World Champion to me, was not relevant. The format was what made Worlds, well "Worlds". The one tournament that included endurance and skill.
I think that the other divisions, besides MPO/FPO can still say that. I don't see ANY individual sport having a true "end-of the year" champion or "end of the season" champion. So, the counterargument to the OP's original argument is equally true.
My initial thought is that NASCAR does have an end of year champion, but the other individual sports(I'm thinking o golf and tennis) don't have a single event that declares u the overall champion of the season like disc golf does. They have important, landmark events, but no single event that says you are the champion of the season
The PGA Tour has the FedEx Cup. It is definitely a more recent invention that, while it gains attention at the end of the season, doesn't quite seem to have the same prestige for winning as the major tournaments do. I mean, I can tell you who won the Masters over the last few years but I couldn't come close to naming any winner of the FedEx Cup.
Most individual sports have season long points and/or ranking systems. We have that too, with awards for the top earners. It just isn't as celebrated as winning our premier events.
I think the thing that should be kept in mind is that forcing one system over another in terms of declaring the biggest events and titles rarely ever works. In practically every sport, especially individual ones, the biggest championships become that organically. Golf doesn't have four majors because someone determined way back when that there would be four super important tournaments. Each individual event became so important/prestigious on their own that eventually everyone else had no choice but to recognize their status. Same with tennis. Same with NASCAR. Etc.
We just don't have the same level of history yet.
While I can agree that these other individual sports have some sort of "points" championship, it cannot possibly carry the same importance as winning a big event. I could ask the OP the same question about some of these series "champions", since he implies it is better to crown an individual "champion" at the end of a season. "Wow, in the last event of the year Joe Schmoe finishes in FOURTH place to become the 'champion of the world' because he earned the most points along the way." Seems just as ridiculous... When team sports play their playoffs or tournament style format, there is only one team left standing as champion. That's the idea you seem to stand behind, but that is totally different in team sports. For us, I'd much rather crown a World Champion in a manner that only leaves one person standing. Mr. OP, any comment?
Now that it's the season, I equate it to Wimbledon. No question which of the tennis majors is the most prestigious. It's The Championships, Wimbledon. See what JC alludes to above. Notice that Australia has the Australian Open. Similar for the French and U.S. Opens. But Wimbledon's tourney is called simply, "The Championships" -- always has been. And this has occurred organically.
I'm not saying that our Worlds is any harder to win than the Memrial or Vibram or Masters Cup or whatever. Just like Wimbledon isn't any harder to win than other tennis majors. But there is an inherent higher level of prestige to winning that event or even any type of "point series".
Not that I disagree with your larger point, but I think there's a bit more to Wimbledon being "The Championships" than it being the biggest, most prestigious. It's also a bit of British empirical hubris. Same with them officially calling the British Open golf tournament "The Open Championships" rather than "The British Open". They don't deign to qualify their tournaments with "British" or "English" or "UK" or whatever. They're above that.
This thread is short on history
They don't call it "The Open" out of hubris... When it started it was the only "Open". It may have been the only annual golf tournament but I'd have to go check wikipedia. There was less than 10 people competing at the first one and I believe they basically sent invitations to each of the courses and said send your best player.
The format has changed over the years and initially it was played in the fall. I believe it was in the 1980s when they moved it permanently to July and I'd guess that was for weather reasons.
The U.S. Open is called so because it came AFTER The Open and had to be distinguished. It also started in the fall and was moved to coincide with Fathers Day.
Both of these tournaments are well over 100 years old and started with a handful of dudes and almost no spectators. So to say that disc golf can never catch golf is crazy because none of us are going to be alive in 100 years to see.
The Masters is held in the spring because the course was built on a plant nursery and the tournament coincides with all the flowers blooming.
I know almost nothing about Tennis but I'd guess that Wimbeldon is called The Championship because it was the first one and is now referred to as Wimbeldon because that's where it always is.
The Daytona 500 is early in the year because it's in Florida and the weather during that time is pretty damn nice. Not cold, not hot.
... My point is that there are historical and evolving reasons behind all of these things. As it was pointed out originally Worlds was held in the summer because that's when most people could travel and get there. The idea that Worlds SHOULD be at the end is kind of dumb to me because there's no real reason to do so. There's no build up of points coinciding with the event to crown a yearly champion. It's a singular tournament with singular champions. If they do move the tourney, like next year, it should be for a particular reason such as weather or scheduling at the location.
Worlds should stay in the summer because if you want disc golf's biggest event to ever grow in terms of spectators and national/global importance it needs to occupy that dead zone of sports it currently sits in. There's no football, basketball or hockey going on and baseball is in it's super not important stage. It's the best time to get eyes.
They don't call it "The Open" out of hubris... When it started it was the only "Open". It may have been the only annual golf tournament but I'd have to go check wikipedia. There was less than 10 people competing at the first one and I believe they basically sent invitations to each of the courses and said send your best player.
The format has changed over the years and initially it was played in the fall. I believe it was in the 1980s when they moved it permanently to July and I'd guess that was for weather reasons.
The U.S. Open is called so because it came AFTER The Open and had to be distinguished. It also started in the fall and was moved to coincide with Fathers Day.
Both of these tournaments are well over 100 years old and started with a handful of dudes and almost no spectators. So to say that disc golf can never catch golf is crazy because none of us are going to be alive in 100 years to see.
The Masters is held in the spring because the course was built on a plant nursery and the tournament coincides with all the flowers blooming.
I know almost nothing about Tennis but I'd guess that Wimbeldon is called The Championship because it was the first one and is now referred to as Wimbeldon because that's where it always is.
The Daytona 500 is early in the year because it's in Florida and the weather during that time is pretty damn nice. Not cold, not hot.
... My point is that there are historical and evolving reasons behind all of these things. As it was pointed out originally Worlds was held in the summer because that's when most people could travel and get there. The idea that Worlds SHOULD be at the end is kind of dumb to me because there's no real reason to do so. There's no build up of points coinciding with the event to crown a yearly champion. It's a singular tournament with singular champions. If they do move the tourney, like next year, it should be for a particular reason such as weather or scheduling at the location.
Worlds should stay in the summer because if you want disc golf's biggest event to ever grow in terms of spectators and national/global importance it needs to occupy that dead zone of sports it currently sits in. There's no football, basketball or hockey going on and baseball is in it's super not important stage. It's the best time to get eyes.
I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet. Weather would limit possible locations if it wasn't held in the middle of the year.
Umm, no. I came to play. That $50 can go to the next tourney's entry fee.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 15,751
The underlined part speaks volumes. I'm a pretty avid player, but I simply don't feel like watching the game I obviously love on any type of regular basis. I'm fine with the occasonal You Tube clip, etc.
If we got the type of coverage that big time golf tournies do (i.e. multiple camera's following all the players so you don't miss anything interesting), then I'd watch. But I can't see us making the jump from the type of coverage we currently get to that.
If world's came to my town, I'd probably take half a day to got out and watch the best... but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it if my current annual park passes don't get me a view.
Kind of a catch-22 then, isn't it? People don't watch the limited coverage we have now, but if it was more like the ball-golf-style full course coverage, people would watch. Without more viewers to drive sponsors/advertising to fund it, we'll never move beyond the limited coverage we have now.
I think the potential for viewers is already there, we just have to keep building toward it. I have always contended that tournament players comprise no more than 10-15% of the overall disc golfing population (and despite the growth of tournaments, that percentage might be shrinking). It wouldn't shock me if that proportion is about the same in terms of who's watching tournament coverage videos online (live or recorded). I put live coverage on the TV in my pro shop as often as I can, and occasionally will put the recorded stuff up too. Never fails that I get players come in and see it who are surprised to learn that not only are there professional players, but that there are big tournaments for (relatively) big money and that video coverage of some of those events is available online. I definitely get more of those than of people who see the video and ask "who's winning?" or "which tournament is this?"
IMO, it's only a matter of getting those casual players to a point where most of them are aware of a pro tour in the same way any old ball golf duffer is aware of the PGA tour. Awareness is still our biggest roadblock.
