2019 USDGC (Jomez lovefest optional)

[Chains Bailey]

With each paragraph I laughed a little more. I'm the one who originally brought up the USWNT, but I'm too busy with my SJW work to post more.

With each paragraph I laughed a little more. I'm the one who originally brought up the USWNT, but I'm too busy with my SJW work to post more.

Yeah, the USWNT post just motivated me to rejoin the interwebs' and DGCR. For good or bad.

Thanks for reminding me to post an example of how the SJW crowd and their disingenuous narrative can have a direct effect in a negative way. The example is hypothetical but all to real at times.

A TD is discussing an upcoming event locally on social media. The TD was looking for opinions and feedback. The event is two rounds and the course has two sets of tees - shorts and longs. The TD is considering having all divisions play the shorter tees round one and then splitting the divisions for the second round. The TDs idea is to have the MPO, MP40 and MA1 play the long tees in the second round while all other divisions play the shorter tees.

Now, even though all divisions of both genders except the MPO, MP40 and MA1 will be playing the short tees round two - the TD is met with a vigorous backlash of people (Usually none are women) accusing the TD of being sexist for not having the FPO play the long tees as well. Cries of "Women are equal to men" are flying all over the place. The TD explains their point of view and is now met with being called a ism' phobic' or ist' of some sort again. The SJW crowd decides the intellectual thing to do would be post memes that are supposed to cast the TD in a bad light. What is worse is that the "Likes" are piling up from the virtue signaling crowd supporting the accusations against the TD and the TD is now feeling quite pressured to change their plans. Few to none have the character to go against the tide and in doing so ensure making themselves a pariah among their local disc golf community, so they just simply do not engage in the discussion.

So, the TD decides to change their original plans and have the FPO play the long tees in the second round. I realize that different TDs with different personalities will have varying reactions, but even if a small percentage are pressured into poor decisions, then that is too many. The TD has placated the SJW crowd, but at what expense?

Often, not always, the results are similar to as follows. I have witnessed all four of the following happen at various PDGA events.

The FPO players who attended will actually request not to play the long tees again next time. The event runs somewhat long due to the FPO division taking quite a bit longer to complete the round. The FPO division did not enjoy playing a layout that was not suited more to their skill set. The FPO do not attend the next year thinking they have to play that long layout again.

So what happened here? Why did the SJWs demand that the FPO play the long tees not end in a celebration of equality? IMO, the SJW crowd often destroys the environment (Usually social media) where discussions are being held. Valid and productive opinions and feedback are lost in the wave of virtue signaling lunacy.

Who suffered from this scenario? Not the SJW crowd, that is for sure. The TD, to a degree, suffered in that the FPO may not think that the TD really cares about their experience at events. The FPO suffered the worst - refer to the above points of negative possibilities that could happen, and often do, if the TD gives in to the SJW narrative.

I have presented a problem, it is on me to at least offer some solutions.

First, Offer reason, facts and logic in a non-combative fashion on varying social media. I think more people need to risk losing the "Likes" and becoming less popular on social media by pushing back. As I am attempting here on DGCR (Though losing the popularity I have never had is of little concern). Second, ASK THE WOMEN who play locally their thoughts on these things. Ask about their preferred level of entry fees, suitable layouts
and any other concerns or wants they view are important. You will not be able to please all of them, as with any group, but you can learn the overall gist' of what they prefer in a PDGA event.



I believe that is at least 4 drifting' posts - I will title my days work of posting here "The Triggering".

 

[Chains Bailey]

I couldn't stop myself: who decided you were the spokesperson for women who don't play disc golf? Your argument amounts to, "I'm a man and I say men can't be blamed."

I couldn't stop myself: who decided you were the spokesperson for women who don't play disc golf? Your argument amounts to, "I'm a man and I say men can't be blamed."

How you get that from my post is quite amazing. How about "I am a PERSON and I say that there is no blame to be placed." that work for you?

I believe that men should stop pretending women are children and can not make decisions on their own. Additionally, that laying blame on anyone or any entity for women's choice of not participating in disc golf in large numbers is a falsehood.

I believe that if women decide to participate in disc golf, nothing will stop them. The many varying ways of encouraging women to participate and efforts to create welcoming environments for them has been outstanding - from local scenes all the way to the PDGA.

Trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist makes no sense. Women have, and will, make their own decisions regarding disc golf (And life in general for that matter). I do not view women as helpless and in need of any guidance in their decisions and choices.

The SJW crowd seems to NEED to find something to blame for women's personal decisions, in regard to disc golf. I respect their decisions and understand that the reality is that they are just not that interested in our sport in great numbers.

Much of the point I was making was that the SJW crowd is drowning out the actual dialogue between women and the disc golf community to the determent of those they are supposedly supporting.

I detailed an example in another post on this thread. The example I gave actually played out here on DGCR and other social media platforms - the SJW crowd was advocating that "Women are equal to men in all ways" and that they should play the same tees / layouts as the men in PDGA NT, DGPT, Major etc...events. It was a perfect example of how the SJW "cause" and actions are not based in reality. Once asked and answered - the top FPO players publicly stated that they preferred tees / layouts more suitable to their skill set = not the same tees / layouts as the men.

Simply put, the "spokespeople for women who don't play disc golf" are WOMEN and they have spoken with their actions and decisions. I would suggest respecting their decisions and not introducing a harmful narrative of placing blame in unsubstantiated places.

 

[ChefKoolaid]

Is there a way to block users here?

 

[brutalbrutus]

Gotta love when someone turns dgcr into an essay contest...:|

Is there a way to block users here?

Click on User CP, then click on edit ignore list.

 

[JC17393]

To get back to the original thread:

Having 17 be the first playoff hole would be totally unfair, there's such a huge advantage to throwing last on this whole. Although I guess it would be par for the course for a tournament littered with random unfairness.

Isn't there arguably a "huge advantage" to throwing last no matter what hole is being played in the playoff? I know you're trying to make a point about this particular hole and the intricacies of playing it, but really, the hole is irrelevant to the argument. No matter the hole being played, the second thrower is going to have data that the first thrower doesn't. Namely where his opponent's tee shot landed.

Regardless of whether or not you know your opponent is in bounds or out of bounds or in the deep rough or parked next to the basket or hit the first tree and is well short, you still have to execute your shot successfully to win.

 

[wolfmandragon]

With all this hoopla about Paul not cashing, what position is the cash line at USDGC?

 

[brutalbrutus]

With all this hoopla about Paul not cashing, what position is the cash line at USDGC?

Top50 and ties

 

[krupicka]

Isn't there arguably a "huge advantage" to throwing last no matter what hole is being played in the playoff? I know you're trying to make a point about this particular hole and the intricacies of playing it, but really, the hole is irrelevant to the argument. No matter the hole being played, the second thrower is going to have data that the first thrower doesn't. Namely where his opponent's tee shot landed.

Regardless of whether or not you know your opponent is in bounds or out of bounds or in the deep rough or parked next to the basket or hit the first tree and is well short, you still have to execute your shot successfully to win.

I think the difference here is that typically the lead thrower has only thrown once and sitting with either a 2 or a 3 (if normal OB for example). But on Hole 17, the first thrower could be sitting at 7 before the second thrower throws their first shot. That may allow the second thrower to layup and go for the routine 4 instead of throwing straight to the island. Of course as we have seen, not many of the top players have this option in their head when playing 17.

 

[JC17393]

I think the difference here is that typically the lead thrower has only thrown once and sitting with either a 2 or a 3 (if normal OB for example). But on Hole 17, the first thrower could be sitting at 7 before the second thrower throws their first shot. That may allow the second thrower to layup and go for the routine 4 instead of throwing straight to the island. Of course as we have seen, not many of the top players have this option in their head when playing 17.

I think that is more about the asinine rule that the first player keeps throwing when faced with a re-throw instead of each player teeing off and then those that need to re-throw going again. Not so much the selection of the first hole of the playoff.

I've never agreed with the idea of the thrower holding the box until he's in-bounds.

 

[biscoe]

I think that is more about the asinine rule that the first player keeps throwing when faced with a re-throw instead of each player teeing off and then those that need to re-throw going again. Not so much the selection of the first hole of the playoff.

I've never agreed with the idea of the thrower holding the box until he's in-bounds.

I agree completely... and now that you are in a position to do something about it...

 

[uncle pennybags]

I think that is more about the asinine rule that the first player keeps throwing when faced with a re-throw instead of each player teeing off and then those that need to re-throw going again. Not so much the selection of the first hole of the playoff.

I've never agreed with the idea of the thrower holding the box until he's in-bounds.

Is that actually a rule? Around my parts if you throw out re-tee's happen after all the initial tee shots. And you keep rotating through the box until everyone is good.

 

[krupicka]

Is that actually a rule? Around my parts if you throw out re-tee's happen after all the initial tee shots. And you keep rotating through the box until everyone is good.

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80202

 

[DG_player]

I think that is more about the asinine rule that the first player keeps throwing when faced with a re-throw instead of each player teeing off and then those that need to re-throw going again. Not so much the selection of the first hole of the playoff.

I've never agreed with the idea of the thrower holding the box until he's in-bounds.

I think it's more than that. It's the difficulty of the shot and the extreme punitive nature of the penalty. Whatever the result is for the first players throw, it is going to give you a huge information advantage to alter your strategy.

Look at the other par 3s (I don't know the exact hole numbers): The one with the posts, you're still going to try and park it no matter your opponents shot. The beach hole, even in the unlikely event your opponent goes OB, you're not going to change much, since they'll have a 45 footer for par. And the triple mando, you're going to try and throw it through no matter what your opponent does (maybe you'll throw to the mouth if they totally miss the mando).

And with par 4s you can change the advantage by out throwing your opponents drive and insuring you have the 2nd approach shot.

 

[uncle pennybags]

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80202

Well....huh. You learned me something!

 

[Chains Bailey]

So...

The women and men bring in fairly equal amounts of revenue to US Soccer (assuming you believe that sponsorship and broadcast are 50/50), but FIFA globally generates more revenue from men than women, so US men should make 2.5 times what US women soccer players make?

A common mistake is to try to compare the two teams in general. If you look at the numbers I posted earlier, the two teams bring in nothing close to the same numbers OVERALL. Sponsorship and broadcast has become near 50/50, but that is just one of many streams of revenue being measured. The conversation is being forced into a discussion of gender and two teams, when in reality they should be viewed as separate. Yet, to show the errors of the "Equal Pay" narrative, you have to dive into side by side comparisons.



Short version:
1. The two teams could simply be looked at as two separate entities - Separate CBAs
2. There are reasonable paths to take to advocate the USWNT get paid more
3. The SJWs, as usual, hurt their so called "cause" with disinformation and virtue signaling


Extended version:

1. Both teams have separate CBAs (Collective Bargaining Agreements), so in essence are not one entity. Simply put, if you look at both from a business perspective it becomes easy to understand.

Group A generates $X and is entitled / earned X%
Group B generates $X and is entitled / earned X%

If both groups generate the SAME $X then each should be entitled to the SAME %.
If Group A generates TWICE the $X then they should be entitled / earn 2X%.
As of now, one group earns more of a % while generating less $X - that is unfair.

2. A realistic approach would to simply advocate that the USWNT earn MORE money period. Advocate that the USWNT should have an increase in their pay because they are the best in Women's soccer. Advocate that they renegotiate their CBA with the leverage of world titles and popularity.

3. The major problems arise when SJWs attempt to insert "Equal Pay" into the equation. They disregard avenues like I pointed out in #2 above and make it a gender issue, which is not only irrelevant, but cuts the argument off at the knees. With the SJW misinformation, social media takes on the "Equal Pay" mantra without ever looking at the real numbers. The women would make less money if the were to adapt the USMNTs pay scale (Equal Pay).

Using these examples the women would make so much less:
The 2015 WOMENS World Cup - $73 million - players got 13%.
The 2010 MENS World Cup - $4 billion - players got 9%.

MENS World Cup (Russia) - $6 billion - players got less than 7 percent of overall revenue.
2019 WOMENS World Cup - $131 million - players got more than 20 percent of collected revenue.

If the SJW narrative was met:
2105 - the USWNT would receive 9% of $73 million verse 13%
2019 - the USWNT would receive <7% of $131 million verse >20%


TLDR - Advocate for the USWNT to be paid more via their CBA because they truly deserve it. SJW misguided narrative of demanding "Equal Pay" as the USMNT results in the USWNT making less than they do now and only serves to muddy legitimate discussion.


I have tried to sum it up and accept the posters who block me or are not fans of essays. Another character flaw I have is an OCD approach to conversations. In an attempt to be thorough, walls of text appear - even trying to be succinct, I often fail.

 

[DG_player]

MENS World Cup (Russia) - $6 billion - players got less than 7 percent of overall revenue.
2019 WOMENS World Cup - $131 million - players got more than 20 percent of collected revenue.

How much FIFA makes globally off of men or women is irrelevant. Do you know how much of the prize pool the US men collected? $0 That's right, they didn't even qualify.

 

[robdeforge]

a big ol bunch of LOL

come up with real examples, not hypothetical ones, to make your argument persuasive

 

[Flick Maniac]

aaaaaargh

just

aaaaaaaaaargh guys

 

[Chains Bailey]

come up with real examples, not hypothetical ones, to make your argument persuasive

Your ability to not accept facts is not my personal problem.

Nothing hypothetical presented overall, the numbers are "Real examples" and so is the other factual information I provided.

My "argument" is not "persuasive" at all - the information I provided (In reference to the National soccer teams) is simply correct.

 

[robdeforge]

Your ability to not accept facts is not my personal problem.

Nothing hypothetical presented overall, the numbers are "Real examples" and so is the other factual information I provided.

My "argument" is not "persuasive" at all - the information I provided (In reference to the National soccer teams) is simply correct.

the post that I quoted was the "The example is hypothetical but all to real at times." but thanks for trying