2017 MPO Worlds - Augusta

[takman]

Amenities?
-- Not sure what this means but we did get a free background check and pass to get into fort gordon for playing!
Flymart?
-- It was moved the day before the flymart to the IDGC, caused a giant mess of parking, and was unbelievably hot. Also, I barely saw anyone at the flymart.
Players packs?
-- We got coupons, a mini, and a cup.
Entertainment?
-- Not sure what this means but we did get a free BBQ dinner!


I didn't choose to grade anything based on live coverage, I was just asking whether your statement was based in any fact whatsoever or just baseless claims.


The problem with worlds is twofold:

1. We don't have the monetary support to have pro events exist without donators playing. Without donators, everyone is playing for their entry fee plus added cash. Pros don't like this because it makes it really hard to cash and make a living.

2. Reducing the number of rounds and making worlds less of a fun experience decreases the odds that a donator will travel to play. This worlds did not come close to filling up. The cash line was at 66 players and you had to get 52nd to get your money back. These are legitimate problems with worlds that shed light on its ability to sustain itself in the future.


Let me introduce a new topic:

Since the PDGA has determined that there should be quantitative standards for worlds (Ie 4 rounds, 2 courses, tee times, 4 days, ect), should the PDGA also have qualitative standards for worlds (meaning, should PDGA be allowed to use courses that have never been used in tournament play and that were put in shortly before worlds?)

-So you were a competitor? I could not tell from your post. I wouldn't think live coverage would be a priority.

-Sounds like it sucked all around then.

-My claims were baseless, but from someone who appreciates the effort taken to put on an event as big as Worlds.

1. That is a problem with the entire sport, but Worlds has always been more about the title and experience than the money.

2. Hard to tell. Some may appreciate the opportunity to play a Worlds without having to commit as much time as past years.

The Fort Gordon course did seem too new for a Worlds (based on the gnats alone). It also seemed distracting because of the crowds on the back nine R4.

My apologies for the earlier comment. My Worlds experiences were always great mostly because of the off the course events, glad I skipped this one.

 

[BrotherDave]

"Johnny Disc Golf" has really stepped into his own as an announcer. He can do both color and play-by-play, and his inflection seems to have no particular regional influence, except maybe his 'totally' in response to Ian's insight which is really nothing.

Perhaps a 3-man booth with Brother Dave to give an idiot's perspective? opcorn:

Now we're talkin'. If it helps I can do bad accents and Christopher Walken impressions. :|

 

[TheOtherBill]

FTFY:thmbup:

Sexton's commentary would be better suited for a 2-man operation I think. His color commentary is really insightful but I also think based on his strong CvC work that he could lead a broadcast as well.

 

[TheOtherBill]

Sexton's commentary would be better suited for a 2-man operation I think. His color commentary is really insightful but I also think based on his strong CvC work that he could lead a broadcast as well.

Now we're talkin'. If it helps I can do bad accents and Christopher Walken impressions. :|

I like it! Sexton plays the straight man and BroDave gives it that Japenese game-show element :thmbup:

 

[DavidSauls]

Worlds didn't come close to filling? I thought those were the pre-determined caps (less any no-shows, perhaps). I feel bad knowing I could have taken one of the vacant spots and played.

 

[DavidSauls]

Let me introduce a new topic:

Since the PDGA has determined that there should be quantitative standards for worlds (Ie 4 rounds, 2 courses, tee times, 4 days, ect), should the PDGA also have qualitative standards for worlds (meaning, should PDGA be allowed to use courses that have never been used in tournament play and that were put in shortly before worlds?)

They should, do, and will....but "no new courses" might not fit their definition of quality.

 

[bhadella]

One thing that struck me numerous times watching the footage is that a lot of the times spectators are lounging smack dab right where the expected great shot landing zones are. I swear I have never seen more scuttling out of the way than this tourney. It is the world championships for chrissakes. Manage the crowds please.

The back nine at Fort Gordon is really spectator unfriendly. Many blind landing zones from teepad and none of the greens allowed for any spectator room. And only one small path that wound through those holes that could be used for spectators (where you saw scuttling). Now the 18th hole, that's on the PDGA for not having a line roped off to keep people from crowding the green for the finishes.

 

[_MTL_]

The no new courses model won't work well for us.

For example, let's say Reno, NV has a company willing to put up 250K to host the worlds at a golf course. They get the Vegas club involved so it's a legit bid.

There's no chance the PDGA turns it down because "sorry, course has never been played."

 

[bwgort]

The no new courses model won't work well for us.

For example, let's say Reno, NV has a company willing to put up 250K to host the worlds at a golf course. They get the Vegas club involved so it's a legit bid.

There's no chance the PDGA turns it down because "sorry, course has never been played."

Not sure that's what happened here but regardless, should a world championship be decided on a course that hasn't been tested before? What if there are safety concerns that no one thought about? What if someone says, "I'll donate 1 million dollars for payout but I get to host world's at my personal carnival course." Where do you draw the line?

 

[bwgort]

-So you were a competitor? I could not tell from your post. I wouldn't think live coverage would be a priority.

-Sounds like it sucked all around then.

-My claims were baseless, but from someone who appreciates the effort taken to put on an event as big as Worlds.

1. That is a problem with the entire sport, but Worlds has always been more about the title and experience than the money.

2. Hard to tell. Some may appreciate the opportunity to play a Worlds without having to commit as much time as past years.

The Fort Gordon course did seem too new for a Worlds (based on the gnats alone). It also seemed distracting because of the crowds on the back nine R4.

My apologies for the earlier comment. My Worlds experiences were always great mostly because of the off the course events, glad I skipped this one.

I didn't complain about live coverage, just responded to your comment about it.

Worlds didn't suck "all round", however, the perks of worlds were mostly limited to playing the tournament. I won't attend again because it's not enough golf to justify the amount of time I have to miss from work. When worlds was a week and tons of golf it was a different animal altogether. The current iteration of worlds still requires you to take a week off from work (if you want to practice or play field events) but you don't get anywhere near the same amount of golf. As a "donator" to worlds, I am not likely to go back given the new format. I am not saying the PDGA has to worry about the 960 rated guys who most likely won't cash at worlds, but I am saying that this format makes it less likely those guys will show up and pay $275 to play against the best players in the world.

Also, the back 9 of fort gordon was not suitable for a spectator friendly environment. I guess the PDGA got what they wanted because there were far less spectators at the final round than I've ever seen at worlds.

And no worries about the earlier comment, was just trying to give you some perspective from someone who was there.

 

[_MTL_]

Not sure that's what happened here but regardless, should a world championship be decided on a course that hasn't been tested before? What if there are safety concerns that no one thought about? What if someone says, "I'll donate 1 million dollars for payout but I get to host world's at my personal carnival course." Where do you draw the line?

Well, let's first look at golf. They just did this very thing at the US Open.

It's one thing for a course to have never been played in competition that is available for practice and announced a year out. It's another to throw it together the week before. That didn't happen.

But, yes, there is a line. That is why I included in the example that the town had partnered with the Vegas club, which has run NT's.

I'm 100% sure the PDGA would decline a $1 million dollar payout for someone's back yard to host worlds.

 

[bwgort]

Well, let's first look at golf. They just did this very thing at the US Open.

It's one thing for a course to have never been played in competition that is available for practice and announced a year out. It's another to throw it together the week before. That didn't happen.

But, yes, there is a line. That is why I included in the example that the town had partnered with the Vegas club, which has run NT's.

I'm 100% sure the PDGA would decline a $1 million dollar payout for someone's back yard to host worlds.

Neither worlds course was ready to play until less than a month out. The changes to jackson weren't finalized until 2 weeks before the tournament (you can read feldberg's article in this summer's PDGA magazine which describes a totally different jackson course for proof).

Now obviously there were reasons for this. I am personally glad the hippodrome wasn't played but it seems like the hippodrome was chosen because of monetary considerations even though it was a completely unacceptable place to host a world championship. I appreciate that the PDGA decided that the Hippodrome was not appropriate (after it had decided to use the hippodrome) but it seems like there is a flaw in the selection process that allowed the hippodrome to be selected in the first place and caused the timing issues I describe above.

 

[Steve West]

Well, let's first look at golf. They just did this very thing at the US Open.

It's one thing for a course to have never been played in competition that is available for practice and announced a year out. It's another to throw it together the week before. That didn't happen.

But, yes, there is a line. That is why I included in the example that the town had partnered with the Vegas club, which has run NT's.

I'm 100% sure the PDGA would decline a $1 million dollar payout for someone's back yard to host worlds.

Note to all those who are thinking of offering $1 million payout to hold an event in your backyard: Go ahead an make the offer! Don't be discouraged by the above post!

A guy who offers $1 million probably has a pretty big backyard. I bet the PDGA could point out how to improve the course enough to be worthy. No one wants their course to be insulted.

 

[_MTL_]

Note to all those who are thinking of offering $1 million payout to hold an event in your backyard: Go ahead an make the offer! Don't be discouraged by the above post!

A guy who offers $1 million probably has a pretty big backyard. I bet the PDGA could point out how to improve the course enough to be worthy. No one wants their course to be insulted.

valid.

 

[_MTL_]

Neither worlds course was ready to play until less than a month out. The changes to jackson weren't finalized until 2 weeks before the tournament (you can read feldberg's article in this summer's PDGA magazine which describes a totally different jackson course for proof).

Now obviously there were reasons for this. I am personally glad the hippodrome wasn't played but it seems like the hippodrome was chosen because of monetary considerations even though it was a completely unacceptable place to host a world championship. I appreciate that the PDGA decided that the Hippodrome was not appropriate (after it had decided to use the hippodrome) but it seems like there is a flaw in the selection process that allowed the hippodrome to be selected in the first place and caused the timing issues I describe above.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[bwgort]

Interesting. Thanks.

Let me also clarify that the staff of the IDGC, Swami, all of the Augusta Volunteers did a great job and my comments are not meant to disparage them. They are, however, aimed at PDGA leadership (or lack thereof in this situation) and the board of directors.

 

[_MTL_]

They are, however, aimed at PDGA leadership (or lack thereof in this situation) and the board of directors.

Make sure you vote in the election info that should be coming out this or next week.

 

[Consult20]

If someone offered a $1 million payout and the PDGA declined it for any reason, there would be a new unsanctioned "Worlds" event with record attendance! opcorn:

 

[bwgort]

Make sure you vote in the election info that should be coming out this or next week.

I always do.

 

[_MTL_]

If someone offered a $1 million payout and the PDGA declined it for any reason, there would be a new unsanctioned "Worlds" event with record attendance! opcorn:

Absolutely.

Top pros complain a lot about consistency and certain things, but everyone of these guys would be at that course and that event no matter where or what it was.