The Magical Disappearing Worlds

[Discette]

I don't need free time during my week at Worlds to sight see. The PDGA should never consider sight seeing time when planning the Pro Worlds competition schedule.


I find it more enjoyable to play more courses. However, I would prefer to play every course on the schedule twice. I liked the 6 and 8 round formats for this reason. I dislike only having one chance to play each hole on each course. I think this "one-and-done" format favors players with previous experience on the courses.


I am not at Worlds for a vacation. If I want to sight see, I will arrive a few days early or stay longer. I don't try to squeeze in the sightseeing on Wednesday morning. Free mornings are not conducive to sight seeing as you have still have to be prepared to compete that afternoon. Besides, there are so many awesome things for tourists to see and do while vacationing in Crown Point, IN or Ashland, WI, how could anyone decide what to do first? (sarcasm off!)


Anyone looking to make Worlds a sight seeing destination should add a few days to the trip before or after Worlds or plan give up a few practice rounds. Please don't expect the PDGA to schedule sight seeing time into the competition schedule for you.

 

[DavidSauls]

From a competition standpoint, the smaller divisions have always played more rounds than necessary at Worlds to "fairly" determine a winner in comparison to the largest men's division whether Am or Pro. In theory, if your division of 288 or 144 plays 7-8 rounds, divisions less than 24 may need just 3-4 for equivalent scoring separation at the top. However, many players in those smaller divisions complain that their entry fee is paying for the same number of rounds of disc golf versus simply a competition that provides the number of rounds really needed to determine a winner. So the PDGA continues to bow to round equivalency wishes (which also resolves gender and age equity concerns) versus the actual competition requirements.

Perhaps, but scoring separation to determine a champion isn't everything.

Among other things, more rounds means less chance for a really hot round, or off round, to determine the championship. And there's some merit to it being more grueling than your every-weekend 4-round event, to earn a championship.

And, as some on this thread have opined, there's more than just fairness involved. There's the aspect that, if we're committing an entire week to the endeavor, we want to play more disc golf. Regardless of how it affects the determination of a champion.

 

[Cgkdisc]

A good example is running or swimming races. You only run the number of heats needed to get to a final heat of say 8 runners/swimmers. If you only have 8 in the 70 year old division, they run/swim one race. If you have 32 in a division, then you run 4 quarter final heats taking 4 from each heat. Then run 2 semis taking 4 from each of those and then run an 8-person final. No way you make the 70 year olds run/swim three times and take the sum of their times to determine a winner.

 

[Steve West]

How much would be too much? Or, would 3 rounds per day for 7 straight days be the best possible tournament?

 

[KGroff25]

A good example is running or swimming races. You only run the number of heats needed to get to a final heat of say 8 runners/swimmers. If you only have 8 in the 70 year old division, they run/swim one race. If you have 32 in a division, then you run 4 quarter final heats taking 4 from each heat. Then run 2 semis taking 4 from each of those and then run an 8-person final. No way you make the 70 year olds run/swim three times and take the sum of their times to determine a winner.

While it may play a small part, golf is not a game of endurance or stamina. I think comparing it to those sports is a bit of a stretch. We're not worried about how fast you can finish a round.

 

[charris414]

Interestingly, no one has brought up the Santa Cruz Worlds in 2011. There were four preliminary rounds of 27 holes each, and the semi-final round of 18 holes. I thought this was a tremendous success for several reasons:

1) Elimination of stressful lunch-time travel between courses. I HATED this aspect when I went to Charlotte in 2012 for Am Worlds.
2) Longer than normal rounds provide a supreme mental and physical challenge. I've played the Eric C. Yetter when they played Holes 1-27 all in C pins. That's a 6 hour plus round and I was toast afterwards. Four of those in row is going to lead to the cream rising to the top.
3) The total number of holes still added up to the same as six preliminary rounds of 18 holes.
4) Players like tee times (even if they tee off super early). It lends a bit of "PGA style professionalism" and pressure.
5) Eliminates the need for more than 2-3 courses. Elite pros like playing and having to practice fewer courses.

I think this is a format that should be considered for Pro Worlds going forward as long as the courses involved can accommodate it. Four rounds of 27, semi-final round of 18, final 9.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We're talking about races as short as 10 seconds here. Nothing about endurance or stamina.

If anything, the reason for more rounds at Worlds than say the other Majors, that are typically four rounds, is to retain the marathon nature of the event. I wouldn't want to see Worlds eventually reduced to 3 rounds plus a semi and a Final 9 on only two courses or it loses its unique flavor.

 

[goosefraba1]

Interestingly, no one has brought up the Santa Cruz Worlds in 2011. There were four preliminary rounds of 27 holes each, and the semi-final round of 18 holes. I thought this was a tremendous success for several reasons:

1) Elimination of stressful lunch-time travel between courses. I HATED this aspect when I went to Charlotte in 2012 for Am Worlds.
2) Longer than normal rounds provide a supreme mental and physical challenge. I've played the Eric C. Yetter when they played Holes 1-27 all in C pins. That's a 6 hour plus round and I was toast afterwards. Four of those in row is going to lead to the cream rising to the top.
3) The total number of holes still added up to the same as six preliminary rounds of 18 holes.
4) Players like tee times (even if they tee off super early). It lends a bit of "PGA style professionalism" and pressure.
5) Eliminates the need for more than 2-3 courses. Elite pros like playing and having to practice fewer courses.

I think this is a format that should be considered for Pro Worlds going forward as long as the courses involved can accommodate it. Four rounds of 27, semi-final round of 18, final 9.

This dude knows what he's talking about.

Also, I would like to point out that playing disc golf in my opinion IS sight seeing :thmbup:

 

[Cgkdisc]

Interestingly, no one has brought up the Santa Cruz Worlds in 2011. There were four preliminary rounds of 27 holes each, and the semi-final round of 18 holes. I thought this was a tremendous success for several reasons:

1) Elimination of stressful lunch-time travel between courses. I HATED this aspect when I went to Charlotte in 2012 for Am Worlds.
2) Longer than normal rounds provide a supreme mental and physical challenge. I've played the Eric C. Yetter when they played Holes 1-27 all in C pins. That's a 6 hour plus round and I was toast afterwards. Four of those in row is going to lead to the cream rising to the top.
3) The total number of holes still added up to the same as six preliminary rounds of 18 holes.
4) Players like tee times (even if they tee off super early). It lends a bit of "PGA style professionalism" and pressure.
5) Eliminates the need for more than 2-3 courses. Elite pros like playing and having to practice fewer courses.

I think this is a format that should be considered for Pro Worlds going forward as long as the courses involved can accommodate it. Four rounds of 27, semi-final round of 18, final 9.

I'm afraid this format was not good for pros and is unlikely to happen again. The PDGA and promoters should have learned from Ann Arbor with its six 24-hole courses. The main issue which Discette mentioned was the inability to play the same hole twice compared to the "ideal" of playing three courses twice in the prelim rounds. In theory, those who are pros want to and should practice courses before Worlds. The more different holes to be played, the more practice time/cost required with the double whammy that they will only play each hole practiced just once in competition. Less efficient than playing the course twice.

I know we have to live with them these days but tee time rounds are less efficient and troublesome for scheduling course rotations, additional events, (Awards/Flymart), finding player rides, especially after shuffle, and longer days at the courses for volunteers. Santa Cruz was the "best" way to do 27 holes with all four courses 27 holes so tee times and scheduling did work in that sense. However, everyone at Worlds should not be playing the same set of courses/tees due to their wide range of skills. No matter which division, some of the courses/holes were either too tough or not tough enough for their skill level for appropriate challenge.

 

[DavidSauls]

How much would be too much? Or, would 3 rounds per day for 7 straight days be the best possible tournament?

The right number is the one that has equal numbers of players complaining that it's too much, and too little.

 

[Discette]

Interestingly, no one has brought up the Santa Cruz Worlds in 2011. There were four preliminary rounds of 27 holes each, and the semi-final round of 18 holes. I thought this was a tremendous success for several reasons:

1) Elimination of stressful lunch-time travel between courses. I HATED this aspect when I went to Charlotte in 2012 for Am Worlds.
2) Longer than normal rounds provide a supreme mental and physical challenge. I've played the Eric C. Yetter when they played Holes 1-27 all in C pins. That's a 6 hour plus round and I was toast afterwards. Four of those in row is going to lead to the cream rising to the top.
3) The total number of holes still added up to the same as six preliminary rounds of 18 holes.
4) Players like tee times (even if they tee off super early). It lends a bit of "PGA style professionalism" and pressure.
5) Eliminates the need for more than 2-3 courses. Elite pros like playing and having to practice fewer courses.

I think this is a format that should be considered for Pro Worlds going forward as long as the courses involved can accommodate it. Four rounds of 27, semi-final round of 18, final 9.

No, No, and NO!!!!!

Technically, I did bring this up when I mentioned how crappy it is to only get to play a course one time at Worlds. All that practice for one chance to play a hole you will never play again.

Most of the pros I spoke with did not like the format of Santa Cruz worlds. Not only was the driving time reduced, so was the playing experience!

IMO, "One-and-done" is a horrible format for Pro Worlds!

 

[charris414]

I agree that the one and done sucks ... I meant that playing two courses only in this format (instead of the four that Santa Cruz used) would be better ...

 

[scarpfish]

The event has cut out 40% of the competition it had ten years ago so that people who enter it can do such things. Undeniably, it is much kinder and gentler. But does it still deserve to be called a "Professional World Championship"?

Some might say that it doesn't deserve to be called a "Professional World Championship" for other reasons than how many rounds are played.

I don't think your gripe is all that spot on in reference to Worlds, but I do think it has some merit in relation to less notable two day events that used to be four rounds going to three rounds, sometimes with an added "final nine" where those of us who don't make the top four get to sit around and be spectators. Or tournaments that used to have two shotgun start rounds a day going to one tee time set round, perhaps on a course that isn't all that epic.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

I questioned the move to five rounds this year. I am not sure why we would want to accept a bid that would require such a move. That being said, if we look at ball golf, they typically play one course 4 times with a cut after the second round. Occasionally they will throw in a second course but typically not at the bigger events. Occasionally they also have more cuts. Five rounds is still more than fair if I look at it from this perspective And would even consider making all the big events four rounds, though I am not sure I like the idea of changing the way we do the cut in Disc golf.

 

[urwatuh8]

I questioned the move to five rounds this year. I am not sure why we would want to accept a bid that would require such a move. That being said, if we look at ball golf, they typically play one course 4 times with a cut after the second round. Occasionally they will throw in a second course but typically not at the bigger events. Occasionally they also have more cuts. Five rounds is still more than fair if I look at it from this perspective And would even consider making all the big events four rounds, though I am not sure I like the idea of changing the way we do the cut in Disc golf.

Five rounds of DG is likely fewer strokes than four rounds of bolf. (Comparing the top players in both.)

 

[JTacoma03]

Hey everyone, the Masters is on this weekend. Did anyone see Tiger's 6 rounds at 3 different courses in 3 days? I wonder what he'll do with the remaining 200 holes he has to play by Sunday...


Oh wait...he's going to play one course, 4 times, and on Sunday they will crown one champion.


Disc Golf isn't a marathon. If your course isn't good enough to test players, the solution isn't "oh let's add 4 more courses and 17 more rounds" the solutions are:
1) fix the course
2) don't have Worlds there


I know I can't be the only one who is tired of our professional tour catering to the players that don't belong competing on that level. If people want to know what will really start "growing the sport" it's to stop pandering and giving out participation medals. I can't name a single other sport that does this at the top level...

 

[damagedLIVER]

I know I can't be the only one who is tired of our professional tour catering to the players that don't belong competing on that level. If people want to know what will really start "growing the sport" it's to stop pandering and giving out participation medals. I can't name a single other sport that does this at the top level...

:clap: I finally agree with you on something!

 

[DavidSauls]

Luckily, that solution, more or less, if offered at the United States Disc Golf Championship.

Though financial realities forced them to back off on the participation limitations.

But it's there as a contrast to the way the World Championship is structured.

 

[biscoe]

I know I can't be the only one who is tired of our professional tour catering to the players that don't belong competing on that level. If people want to know what will really start "growing the sport" it's to stop pandering and giving out participation medals. I can't name a single other sport that does this at the top level...

Until someone else wants to foot the bill for the purse it is a necessity to "pander" to the lesser players whose entry fees are what keeps the touring players on the road. Ledgestones are few and far between.

 

[JC17393]

Until someone else wants to foot the bill for the purse it is a necessity to "pander" to the lesser players whose entry fees are what keeps the touring players on the road. Ledgestones are few and far between.

Agreed. Though even with its impressive fundraising efforts, even the Ledgestone tournament is catering/pandering to the "lesser" players as much as it does the handful of elite players.

The dream scenario for a true pro tour, whether it includes Worlds or not, would be entirely comprised of events formatted like Maple Hill (one course, no ams, no age-protected divisions, qualifying only) and financed more generously than Ledgestone or any other event currently in existence. We're still years, if not decades away from anything like that.