2019 Ledgestone

[_MTL_]

If you don't like Ledgestone, don't watch it, don't play it. It's honestly that simple.

 

[SD86]

My pet peeve is events that rob the bottom players to boost the top payout.

That was (and still is) my pet peeve with chess tournaments. And I did not run my tournaments that way. But some did, and argued vehemently for that system. I suppose it comes down to what the organizer (TD in Disc Golf parlance) is trying to do...

 

[Streets]

Lol gimmicky course? It's disc golf...we throw frisbees at metal grills. Come on people.

 

[Horsman]

My pet peeve is events that rob the bottom players to boost the top payout.

And Im the opposite. My pet peeve is that payouts are so deep. If I dont finish near the top then I dont deserve to get paid out. Give the money to the people who played the best not to the mediocre field. I wish that the pdga didnt have payout table we had to follow. I know you can unsanction and do whatever but this is just my ideal world.

Im probably in the minority with this thinking but everyone is different

 

[bwgort]

And Im the opposite. My pet peeve is that payouts are so deep. If I dont finish near the top then I dont deserve to get paid out. Give the money to the people who played the best not to the mediocre field. I wish that the pdga didnt have payout table we had to follow. I know you can unsanction and do whatever but this is just my ideal world.

Im probably in the minority with this thinking but everyone is different

I've always thought this post from the DGPT explaining why deep payouts matter for a sustainable tour makes a lot of sense.

 

[Horsman]

I've always thought this post from the DGPT explaining why deep payouts matter for a sustainable tour makes a lot of sense.

Ohh it does. It makes a lot of sense. I just think most of the touring pros are slightly delusional in thinking that they can actually make a living off of disc golf. Deeper payouts will keep some of the pros out on tour longer but I feel like its only a matter of time til they realize its just not cutting it.

 

[_MTL_]

Ohh it does. It makes a lot of sense. I just think most of the touring pros are slightly delusional in thinking that they can actually make a living off of disc golf. Deeper payouts will keep some of the pros out on tour longer but I feel like its only a matter of time til they realize its just not cutting it.

........ok.

Your point?

Who are we to judge why someone decides to tour? I mean I don't think Lloyd Weema is out there for glory and money.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

To develop bigger fields and prestigious tournament and a larger pool of "good" and "great" players, there needs to be an increased number of pros who dedicate their life to disc golf. This can only happen by deepening the pro payout and increasing the purses. Simple as that. Sure an aspiring pro may start to tour before they are ready. If they are able to survive those first couple of year and improve their skill and consistency, not only will they start cashing more, but the purses and fields will get bigger and make it more viable for more pros to start touring. The net result for us who spectate will be more big tournaments with high stakes and more coverage. Imagine having 3+ Jomez/CCDG/Gatekeeper/ParSave tier coverage teams at large events nearly every weekend of the season. We are slowly working towards that but the money has to keep coming in and growing.

 

[Horsman]

........ok.

Your point?

Who are we to judge why someone decides to tour? I mean I don't think Lloyd Weema is out there for glory and money.

That I dont think deep payouts are all that great, thats it. Just my point of view.

 

[LateWesternSky]

For those in favor of a deep payout, how deep are we talking? Obviously if we payout 100% of the field, that would be a joke and only heavily sponsored players could tour. So if you agree 100% is too much, what's the amount you think is just right?

45% seems too high to me. 45% makes it so thin at the bottom of those that cash, that it doesn't give you enough tour. I say, take all those spots that pay out under $300 (for the major tournaments) and spread them over the top 25%-33%. It makes it less of a struggle for the 1000-1020 rated players to tour.

 

[LateWesternSky]

Double post.

After looking at payout tables and doing better math than guesstimating, I say take out all payouts of $500 or less (for tournaments like Ledgestone) and give them to the 1000+ players struggling to tour opposed to the 900+ rated players that hit up a few big events each year.

 

[Steve West]

Double post.

After looking at payout tables and doing better math than guesstimating, I say take out all payouts of $500 or less (for tournaments like Ledgestone) and give them to the 1000+ players struggling to tour opposed to the 900+ rated players that hit up a few big events each year.

I sincerely hope that when you do this at your $100,000+ added cash tournament, everyone is fully supportive. It's good to offer choices.

 

[Glide]

I've run almost 50 sanctioned events including A, B and C tiers plus the 2016 Amateur World Championships. In general, I like paying out 50% of the amateur fields with last "cash" getting his or her money back. I pay out about 40% of the pro fields, but wish I could pay out 33%.

And Im the opposite. My pet peeve is that payouts are so deep. If I dont finish near the top then I dont deserve to get paid out. Give the money to the people who played the best not to the mediocre field. I wish that the pdga didnt have payout table we had to follow. I know you can unsanction and do whatever but this is just my ideal world.

Im probably in the minority with this thinking but everyone is different

 

[biscoe]

For those in favor of a deep payout, how deep are we talking? Obviously if we payout 100% of the field, that would be a joke and only heavily sponsored players could tour. So if you agree 100% is too much, what's the amount you think is just right?

45% seems too high to me. 45% makes it so thin at the bottom of those that cash, that it doesn't give you enough tour. I say, take all those spots that pay out under $300 (for the major tournaments) and spread them over the top 25%-33%. It makes it less of a struggle for the 1000-1020 rated players to tour.

The key is to find the sweet spot where enough of those 900+ players still believe they are something other than a source of cheeseburgers for the touring players.

It should be a struggle for a player below 1020 to remain on tour.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I got a better idea for payouts. Let the TD decide how to do it. The PDGA should step aside when it comes to payouts, player packs and so on. The only thing the PDGA should do IMHO is make the TD deliver whatever is promised. So for example, the TD publishes a payout table based on added cash, what prizes are going to be dolled out, player packs, etc. The TD is held to whatever standard they themselves apply and the only thing the PDGA does is make suggestions. In other words, the market dictates how the TD runs their event. They can cater it to whatever the locals want. Locals want a tourney where only the top 3 get payouts out of a field of 20? You got it.

Now I can see the PDGA having a bit more control over NT events and I am okay with that but for your average run of the mill C Tier? C'om this player pack and payout schedule requirement is just silly.

-Dave

 

[JC17393]

For those in favor of a deep payout, how deep are we talking? Obviously if we payout 100% of the field, that would be a joke and only heavily sponsored players could tour. So if you agree 100% is too much, what's the amount you think is just right?

45% seems too high to me. 45% makes it so thin at the bottom of those that cash, that it doesn't give you enough tour. I say, take all those spots that pay out under $300 (for the major tournaments) and spread them over the top 25%-33%. It makes it less of a struggle for the 1000-1020 rated players to tour.

The depth of the payouts right now is perfectly fine. Finish top half or better, get paid. That's EXACTLY how it works on the ball golf tours. I see no reason not to emulate that model if the goal is to have a sustainable tour like they have where ALL the participants are touring players. They don't have the sub-1000 local filler rounding out their fields on a weekly basis. Everyone on the PGA tour is essentially a 1020+ rated player. They can't all finish top 10 every week, so the payouts go to the cut line which is typically 40-50% of the field.

 

[Consult20]

The depth of the payouts right now is perfectly fine. Finish top half or better, get paid. That's EXACTLY how it works on the ball golf tours. I see no reason not to emulate that model if the goal is to have a sustainable tour like they have where ALL the participants are touring players. They don't have the sub-1000 local filler rounding out their fields on a weekly basis. Everyone on the PGA tour is essentially a 1020+ rated player. They can't all finish top 10 every week, so the payouts go to the cut line which is typically 40-50% of the field.

Congrats on getting on the Rules Committee JC, they made a very good choice! :hfive:

 

[JC17393]

I got a better idea for payouts. Let the TD decide how to do it. The PDGA should step aside when it comes to payouts, player packs and so on. The only thing the PDGA should do IMHO is make the TD deliver whatever is promised. So for example, the TD publishes a payout table based on added cash, what prizes are going to be dolled out, player packs, etc. The TD is held to whatever standard they themselves apply and the only thing the PDGA does is make suggestions. In other words, the market dictates how the TD runs their event. They can cater it to whatever the locals want. Locals want a tourney where only the top 3 get payouts out of a field of 20? You got it.

Now I can see the PDGA having a bit more control over NT events and I am okay with that but for your average run of the mill C Tier? C'om this player pack and payout schedule requirement is just silly.

-Dave

Locals want that? Run unsanctioned tournaments. The point of payout standards and requirements is so that there is a consistency to the PDGA brand. You sign up for a PDGA event, you have an idea of what to expect whether it's a C-tier or an NT.

In my experience, a lot of TDs are really ****ty at promoting the details of their events. I don't know if it's simply laziness or ill-planning, or if it's just because by slapping "PDGA-sanctioned" on it, there's a set of expectations that are automatically included without need of explanation. But considering how many unsanctioned tournaments I've seen over the years that were extremely vague on details (and I mean nothing published but time, place and maybe entry fees), I lean toward it being more a lack of effort/planning.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't trust most TDs to make it clear before their event that the plan is to pay top 3 no matter who shows up, even if it's 50 in one division. I think we take too much for granted because the PDGA has set the standards and so many events follow them that we don't even notice that the details were assumed rather than laid out plainly.

 

[LateWesternSky]

I sincerely hope that when you do this at your $100,000+ added cash tournament, everyone is fully supportive. It's good to offer choices.

When dealing with payouts, I doubt there is ever a time when everyone is fully supportive. And I don't see how give 980 rated players their money back is offering choices.

 

[LateWesternSky]

The key is to find the sweet spot where enough of those 900+ players still believe they are something other than a source of cheeseburgers for the touring players.

It should be a struggle for a player below 1020 to remain on tour.

Saying it should be a struggle for a player below 1020 to remain on tour is an argument for shallower payouts...