From a TD/organizer perspective, pro events are definitely the least lucrative and therefore the least attractive to run. With amateur tournaments, the profit margins on player pack and prize merchandise afford organizers the opportunity to cover most if not all their costs, perhaps even have something left over at the end. There is no such margin to draw from at pro events, so you're immediately in the hole. Obviously you seek sponsorship to help with this, but it's less of an uphill battle to break even with amateurs.
-
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)
2020 Majors
- Thread starter Lazerface
- Start date
From a TD/organizer perspective, pro events are definitely the least lucrative and therefore the least attractive to run. With amateur tournaments, the profit margins on player pack and prize merchandise afford organizers the opportunity to cover most if not all their costs, perhaps even have something left over at the end. There is no such margin to draw from at pro events, so you're immediately in the hole. Obviously you seek sponsorship to help with this, but it's less of an uphill battle to break even with amateurs.
I did mean most---darned edit window---and for the same reason that pros are a drag on smaller events. The TDs have to raise cash, which is paid out to the pros in cash. Whereas the Ams can be paid in merchandise, where there's a wholesale/retail margin.
Host Pro Worlds, and all that money's leaving town. Host Am Worlds, and if you can get local vendors, more of it stays.
There's also a theory, possibly true, that the younger folks competing at Pro Worlds are mostly on a shoestring, while the older players more likely to spend more locally---so better for getting sponsors. And I've heard from a few hosts that the amateurs were more grateful, in general, than the pros.
None of which is to knock the Pros. Just that, among the options for hosting, they're not as lucrative---except, perhaps, for prestige.
I have been to several and the comparison is silly.....sorry. In 2017, the Phoenix Waste Management Open PGA event, had over 204.000 spectators on Saturday. If your point is, disc golf should play events on such an open course to accommodate over 2,004 (very generous) spectators, I think the concept does not hold water.
I think basing decisions on majors or large scale events should not really take spectators into consideration, beyond their safety and the safety of the players.
I see where you're coming from, but if the major/large scale events want to grow, they're going to need spectators. Probably not on the scale of a PGA tournament, but being able to accommodate galleries in excess of 1000 folks should be a consideration. Maybe not a super high priority, but it absolutely does need to be part of the considerations when organizing big pro events.
That doesn't mean courses need to be wide open ball golf course style, but they can't be tightly wooded with next to no space for anyone but the players either.
I would much rather just watch more wooded (and some moderately open) disc golf at home with delayed video coverage than watch golf course disc golf in person.
Finny
Birdie Member
Understable
Par Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2015
- Messages
- 121
Pros have not been kind to the Fort course. Tees are crammed close to baskets and some highly questionable fairway designs. Don't believe me? Heck, go check the DGPT coverage from last year, commentators had serious concerns.
Didn't that tournament have flooding issues that forced them to re-arrange a few holes, including adding a couple temp holes, just for the weekend?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,783
Open courses can be designed to present some of the same challenges as wooded courses and still be open enough for spectators.
Watched the PCS Open this week and even though the course was mostly open, with wide vistas for viewing and spectating, the basket placements, tee placements, Mandos and OB's were designed to feel much tighter.
USDGC tries to do this as well, but IMHO, with somewhat less success.
Memorial lake course, even less so...
My point is that that it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other, open or wooded.
A well designed open-type course should have similar challenges and risk-reward as a wooded course.
A well designed
Watched the PCS Open this week and even though the course was mostly open, with wide vistas for viewing and spectating, the basket placements, tee placements, Mandos and OB's were designed to feel much tighter.
USDGC tries to do this as well, but IMHO, with somewhat less success.
Memorial lake course, even less so...
My point is that that it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other, open or wooded.
A well designed open-type course should have similar challenges and risk-reward as a wooded course.
A well designed
Chains Bailey
Birdie Member
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.
Perhaps subject to whether the goal is more fun, or more money.
Finny
Birdie Member
Sure. If we're all just going to be watching from home, play every Worlds at Brewster. But having spectated at Brewster, it was a significantly worse experience than spectating at Fox Run.
On the final hole of Worlds two years ago, #18 at Fox Run, Barsby basically just needed to land in bounds off the tee to win. The OB road was lined with spectators, most of whom were screaming for his drive to sit and stay in after it landed. It was a great experience, on par with my favorite previous in-person sports experiences. #18 at Brewster, on the other hand, is a partially blind tee shot over a huge bush to a guarded green with no clear sight line.
I don't think a sporting organization should be knowingly limiting the in-person fan experience unless the organization has decided purposefully to keep the sport "small."
Chains Bailey
Birdie Member
Only a minute amount of people spectate live at any sporting events verse taking them in via media. Those few people are not the ones that should be catered to if you are trying to move the needle away from the sport remaining "small".
IMO, the loss in course quality and the experience of the other 99.99% of people who watch from home would do more harm than good.
You are advocating for the experience of a few thousand (Maybe a few hundred) over a tens of thousands. I do not think you are considering the bigger picture here.
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
The more potential spectators the better. YouTube may get more views, but the PDGA needs to consider live spectators over after the fact eyeballs if it wants to grow.
I agree with the idea of having at least one of the World's courses being in the woods...
It is real disc golf, in my opinion....
I spectated every round of the last two World's....and often udisc scored groups...
I enjoyed spectating Brewster much more than Fox Run...you can find places, especially if you are ahead of the group instead of behind them on the tee to see the action...yes, 18 at Fox Run is a better finishing hole...but not a better course to watch...
Northwoods was so much better to watch than Eureka this year (it is an amazing course, especially hole 12)...in person, as a spectator...it was night and day...you just have to plan your spots and not be in the mass behind the players in the woods...
I'm still trying to decide between World's and Idlewild as my second event to spectate in 2020...Green Mountain will be on the agenda, I loved World's there so much that I drove up there again this year from Buffalo, NY to spectate at that amazing Smuggs facility again...
The golf course in Ogden is bad, just bad disc golf to watch (not to say it doesn't challenge players)...and the Fort isn't ideal woods golf, lots of issues with flooding and a few too many poke and hope shots on long par 3's....while Idlewild looks pretty good in terms of what I like...though it isn't World's...
It is real disc golf, in my opinion....
I spectated every round of the last two World's....and often udisc scored groups...
I enjoyed spectating Brewster much more than Fox Run...you can find places, especially if you are ahead of the group instead of behind them on the tee to see the action...yes, 18 at Fox Run is a better finishing hole...but not a better course to watch...
Northwoods was so much better to watch than Eureka this year (it is an amazing course, especially hole 12)...in person, as a spectator...it was night and day...you just have to plan your spots and not be in the mass behind the players in the woods...
I'm still trying to decide between World's and Idlewild as my second event to spectate in 2020...Green Mountain will be on the agenda, I loved World's there so much that I drove up there again this year from Buffalo, NY to spectate at that amazing Smuggs facility again...
The golf course in Ogden is bad, just bad disc golf to watch (not to say it doesn't challenge players)...and the Fort isn't ideal woods golf, lots of issues with flooding and a few too many poke and hope shots on long par 3's....while Idlewild looks pretty good in terms of what I like...though it isn't World's...
.01% of dgers are live spectators
this is hilarious (especially coming from you)
carriage before the horses but uhh yeah #growthehobby or whatever
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
Yeah, you are right.
Better to have internet eyeballs instead of live in person people watching.
Nobody leaves the house anymore.
What was I thinking?
its not that "nobody leaves the house"
but most dgers do not care about worlds or whose 5x or 13x
and those that do its more accessible to more people online
so its not that your opinion isnt valid for who the target market is but i sure as hell wouldnt start with the .01%
lolol
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
what are you even talking about
when did i assume responsibility for that
if thats that you can pick out from all that ive said lololol youre off your game tonight
Similar threads
