2020 Majors

Live viewers are important to create the feel of a "Major" event. Live viewers contribute to the overall experience of the online viewer. Look at European Open 2019. Does this event have the same 'feel' if there are few or no spectators? NO of course not. It is really important to create conditions to get live viewers out to ohh and ahhh and cheer the shots, because it goes into the overall product on the screen. NFL, PL Soccer, etc all rely on the local fans to create the right environment. Part of what I'm buying when I pay for streaming service is the passion of the local fans. I wouldn't want to watch the same match in an empty stadium.

Saying one is more important (in-person vs. online) than the other is missing the mark, IMO. We should be encouraging both to grow, and they are linked.
 
Live viewers are important to create the feel of a "Major" event. Live viewers contribute to the overall experience of the online viewer. Look at European Open 2019. Does this event have the same 'feel' if there are few or no spectators? NO of course not. It is really important to create conditions to get live viewers out to ohh and ahhh and cheer the shots, because it goes into the overall product on the screen. NFL, PL Soccer, etc all rely on the local fans to create the right environment. Part of what I'm buying when I pay for streaming service is the passion of the local fans. I wouldn't want to watch the same match in an empty stadium.

Saying one is more important (in-person vs. online) than the other is missing the mark, IMO. We should be encouraging both to grow, and they are linked.
The success of e-sports would indicate only online viewership is needed although it appears there are engaged studio audiences for some of these events. I think the trends are showing that it's going to be more important to cater to offsite viewers than onsite spectators and also be more cost-effective for emerging pro sports that don't have significant spectator appeal from the get-go, let alone enough or any paying spectators. I think many disc golf viewers prefer to see more wooded courses or at least fewer wide open holes with OB rope. The video teams have indicated they can handle wooded holes just fine and you don't need that many spectators to make wooded holes look like there are some fans.
 
The success of e-sports would indicate only online viewership is needed although it appears there are engaged studio audiences for some of these events. I think the trends are showing that it's going to be more important to cater to offsite viewers than onsite spectators and also be more cost-effective for emerging pro sports that don't have significant spectator appeal from the get-go, let alone enough or any paying spectators. I think many disc golf viewers prefer to see more wooded courses or at least fewer wide open holes with OB rope. The video teams have indicated they can handle wooded holes just fine and you don't need that many spectators to make wooded holes look like there are some fans.

CCDG 2015 Worlds is a fine example of this... especially round 5 for me. 😁
 
The success of e-sports would indicate only online viewership is needed although it appears there are engaged studio audiences for some of these events. I think the trends are showing that it's going to be more important to cater to offsite viewers than onsite spectators and also be more cost-effective for emerging pro sports that don't have significant spectator appeal from the get-go, let alone enough or any paying spectators. I think many disc golf viewers prefer to see more wooded courses or at least fewer wide open holes with OB rope. The video teams have indicated they can handle wooded holes just fine and you don't need that many spectators to make wooded holes look like there are some fans.

Yeah I agree with that except in the case that some wooded courses it is hard to have spectators at the course due to how narrow the throwing lanes are. However you do not need fully wooded courses to work, rather you can have more courses that have plants/trees in the right spots not a fully wooded course to make the course very challenging for top pro players. Yes as YouTube and other places are now here to view emerging Pro Sports that do not have a great ability to spectate at the site and make money off the spectators Like Disc Golf or ones that fail to draw in spectators and thus are not on TV it will be more and more you are seeing the events online somewhere.
 
I'm not a fan of disc golf on golf courses either, but apparently some people are. They keep holding tournaments there, and players keep showing up.

When lamenting that Pro Worlds isn't held on the best courses, bear in mind the limitations:

First, the criteria. A location doesn't just need great courses. It needs suitable courses---suitable in length and challenge, for top pros---but also to be spectator- and video-friendly, have sufficient lodging and other facilities, and have locals willing to run the event, and raise the money necessary. Each factor whittles down the available locations. Particularly, the latter ones.

Second, the turnover: With a handful of Majors to be bid on each year, and the fact that most places, once they host a Major, don't want to do it again for a decade, and you need a pool of dozens of cities from which to draw. Not all are going to be the best of the best.

Third, Pro Worlds isn't the must lucrative Worlds for someone to host.

I don't know whether Ogden is a great place for Pro Worlds, or not. I don't know this particular disc/ball course, though I still like the idea of combining it with a wooded course. It's certainly a beautiful location. And with all things considered, I'm more appreciative of Utah for hosting, than concerned about the course. And for those who don't care for it, the following year it will be somewhere else.

Just wanted to bring this post from 2018 back around because it's worth reading again. :thmbup:

I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

It's deceivingly easy to make that subjective statement when you have no skin in the game.

The success of e-sports would indicate only online viewership is needed although it appears there are engaged studio audiences for some of these events. I think the trends are showing that it's going to be more important to cater to offsite viewers than onsite spectators and also be more cost-effective for emerging pro sports that don't have significant spectator appeal from the get-go, let alone enough or any paying spectators. I think many disc golf viewers prefer to see more wooded courses or at least fewer wide open holes with OB rope. The video teams have indicated they can handle wooded holes just fine and you don't need that many spectators to make wooded holes look like there are some fans.

Ehhhh...ok here's the nuance with e-sports. You can't lose sight of the fact that the only physical characteristics of the games themselves are keyboards, mice, and fast-twitch muscles.

What I mean is that the audience has only digital expectations. We are in a unique spot in disc golf with a foot in both worlds (the other world being traditional physically spectated and "fanned" sports). Without a physical place to hold the competition we are without a sport and culture. Nobody is going to pay to watch Paul McBeth play a disc golf video game, they pay to watch him throw "IRL", to bring back an outdated term, lol.

While it's true that a large % of the fan population, and a growing % of fan money, favors a digital viewing experience - this sport will never (I guess with VR I shouldn't say "never", but...) be a digital sport. The coolest thing is as we become more tech-immersed in our day to day lives it will be a bridge-link between the digital and the analog, and I predict that our popularity as a game and sport will continue to gain interest and traction because of that unique situation.

ALso - eSports have a HUGE in-person spectator following. I've personally been to the LCS arena (here's a link to google image search) and they spent a ton of time and money cultivating the right experience. The entire arena has active lighting, not just the stage, the screens behind the players update you about the game, change colors and show animations when objectives are taken, and there's a massive Dolby Atmos system better than 99% of theaters in the US have pumping lots of game sounds + the broadcaster commentary live in studio.

I won't go on and on...but look up the "League of Legends World Championship" sometime - tens of thousands of spectators, live concerts and original music from A-list celeb musicians (Zedd, Imagine Dragons, etc.), etc.

Your point about cost-effectiveness and being resourceful with digital tools is 100% spot on, I just wanted to point out that even eSports cares deeply about the in-person experience. There are waaay more esports tournaments held at everyone's local event centers than people realize. Even at a local/regional level for a 100% digital competition, humans are still inherently social creatures so we should always push for a better in-person experience alongside the online experience IMO.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

It's deceivingly easy to make that subjective statement when you have no skin in the game.

Not really - it was quite easy and is a strong point without your blessing. I was not addressing the financial aspects or referring to anything else beyond my statement. I already pointed out the difference in live spectators verse online viewership.

I could preface it with - "As a viewer" or something silly like "Since I am not attempting to make any money off of disc golf", but that is all unnecessary.


How about a definitive statement that is not subjective?

Lowering course quality for any event is bad practice and can only reflect negatively overall.
 
"Course Quality" is such a loaded, contextual phrase that several points of view can be correct based on applying their specific assessment parameters.
 
"Course Quality" is such a loaded, contextual phrase that several points of view can be correct based on applying their specific assessment parameters.

How would you word it, if the majority is of the opinion that changing from Course style A to Course style B is lowering the course quality?

Honestly curious.

If disregarding the majority, then maybe it would have to be approached by certain demographics like:

Viewers
Players
Videographers
Organizers

Not sure to be honest, but I do know that catering to hundreds, where that catering is considered a negative by tens of thousands, is a poor decision.

The only time I could understand the above scenario is if the players themselves are being catered to over (Insert any other interested party).
 
How would you word it, if the majority is of the opinion that changing from Course style A to Course style B is lowering the course quality?

Honestly curious.

If disregarding the majority, then maybe it would have to be approached by certain demographics like:

Viewers
Players
Videographers
Organizers

Not sure to be honest, but I do know that catering to hundreds, where that catering is considered a negative by tens of thousands, is a poor decision.

The only time I could understand the above scenario is if the players themselves are being catered to over (Insert any other interested party).
I'm saying that Course Quality is usually compromised simply by the nature of the permanent or temp courses that need to be used by some of the teams who stepped up and were selected to host the tour events. Better quality from a viewer standpoint is farther down the list with internet access/media needs coming next and then doing the best they can with the layout suitable for the players. Viewers essentially get what results from those compromises. We also know that perhaps more viewers prefer to watch more wooded courses than open with OB rope. But the organizers won't play a short wooded course perhaps with worse internet access versus setting up a much longer temp course. The players might see the wooded course as poorer quality and their needs plus media needs rise above viewer preference for quality.
 
I'm saying that Course Quality is usually compromised simply by the nature of the permanent or temp courses that need to be used by some of the teams who stepped up and were selected to host the tour events. Better quality from a viewer standpoint is farther down the list with internet access/media needs coming next and then doing the best they can with the layout suitable for the players. Viewers essentially get what results from those compromises. We also know that perhaps more viewers prefer to watch more wooded courses than open with OB rope. But the organizers won't play a short wooded course perhaps with worse internet access versus setting up a much longer temp course. The players might see the wooded course as poorer quality and their needs plus media needs rise above viewer preference for quality.

I understand your above points.

I do not think it is necessary, but I could have added:

If there are no constraints, I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

Prefacing everything so specifically would be so cumbersome.

If there are no constraints and choices are available, plus if the parks department allows and the state has no problems with, additionally if the club can support as well as the TD is willing......I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

Just gets silly, IMO.
 
Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.



Not really - it was quite easy and is a strong point without your blessing. I was not addressing the financial aspects or referring to anything else beyond my statement. I already pointed out the difference in live spectators verse online viewership.

I could preface it with - "As a viewer" or something silly like "Since I am not attempting to make any money off of disc golf", but that is all unnecessary.


How about a definitive statement that is not subjective?

Lowering course quality for any event is bad practice and can only reflect negatively overall.

The fact that you made such a blanket suggestion without addressing basic things such as financial and logistical considerations is what makes it a deceivingly easy (and in the real world, unhelpful) statement to make.

This is the real world, you can do all of the theorycraft on viewership numbers that you want, but as I addressed in my previous post we are still a physical competition that relies on the events for media fodder.

So, logically, if the media relies on TD's for subject matter that makes ad revenue and generates subscription interest, then it is prudent to imbue our hypothetical scenarios with some real world attachment.

Finally, your post doubles down on the subjective nature of the critique. What you think is a good quality course, and what an audience thinks is a good quality course, may in fact not be a great course for the TD's, media, staff, volunteers, or elite competitors in addition to spectators - which were the only group you considered.

If you take the long-view of your paradigm, you're essentially suggesting that disc golf move to make appeasing an online audience which mostly watches for free the #1 priority. This is neither a good business model due to declining CPM rates and increased content noise, nor is it a good culture-growth model because it marginalizes the people putting in the hours in favor of people who might donate a few dollars. The reason media has become popular is because my peers and I have worked very hard to make it an authentic reflection of what's on the ground.

From my perspective as both a member of disc golf media, and from my experience running tournaments, I fundamentally disagree with that prioritization. The course is only one portion of the entire event. Just because to date most of the coverage directly involves the course, doesn't mean that it's the future of media. It also doesn't mean we should put blinders on to all other issues involved and focus solely on the abstract, subjective notion of "course quality".

Of course everyone wants better "course quality" - again - the statement is deceivingly easy to make. You're not considering all that is involved, least of which is that you brought up an arbitrary, subjective metric.
 
The fact that you made such a blanket suggestion without addressing basic things such as financial and logistical considerations is what makes it a deceivingly easy (and in the real world, unhelpful) statement to make.

This is the real world, you can do all of the theorycraft on viewership numbers that you want, but as I addressed in my previous post we are still a physical competition that relies on the events for media fodder.

So, logically, if the media relies on TD's for subject matter that makes ad revenue and generates subscription interest, then it is prudent to imbue our hypothetical scenarios with some real world attachment.

Finally, your post doubles down on the subjective nature of the critique. What you think is a good quality course, and what an audience thinks is a good quality course, may in fact not be a great course for the TD's, media, staff, volunteers, or elite competitors in addition to spectators - which were the only group you considered.

If you take the long-view of your paradigm, you're essentially suggesting that disc golf move to make appeasing an online audience which mostly watches for free the #1 priority. This is neither a good business model due to declining CPM rates and increased content noise, nor is it a good culture-growth model because it marginalizes the people putting in the hours in favor of people who might donate a few dollars. The reason media has become popular is because my peers and I have worked very hard to make it an authentic reflection of what's on the ground.

From my perspective as both a member of disc golf media, and from my experience running tournaments, I fundamentally disagree with that prioritization. The course is only one portion of the entire event. Just because to date most of the coverage directly involves the course, doesn't mean that it's the future of media. It also doesn't mean we should put blinders on to all other issues involved and focus solely on the abstract, subjective notion of "course quality".

Of course everyone wants better "course quality" - again - the statement is deceivingly easy to make. You're not considering all that is involved, least of which is that you brought up an arbitrary, subjective metric.


Really succinct response:

My original statement - Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

It is an opinion, echoed by many, deal with it.



TLDR version:

My original statement - Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.

I made a basic statement that is valid regardless of how nuanced you would have preferred it be stated. It is a general statement similar to "I like it when it is warm outside.", which is just fine on its own....but if you want to ASSUME that I am not considering skin cancer, heat stroke, dehydration or agricultural drought, then you are reading too much into things in the first place. Your following response was full of misplaced assumptions that are naïve of my experiences and knowledge at best or just simply ego-masturbation on your part at worst.



LONG response I refuse to delete since I typed it all and it adds drama, which is good for all viewers regardless of course:

First - I, personally, watch all of the disc golf media regardless of venue.

Second - Just trying to correct some parts of your pompous spew is going to be a chore.


...you're essentially suggesting that disc golf move to make appeasing an online audience which mostly watches for free the #1 priority...

Yes - I can tell you that without that online audience, you cease to exist or at minimum work for no profit. Without viewers - manufacturers, sponsors, advertisers and so on would see no reason to infuse finances into something that no one consumes. That is "real world" and no "blinders" here as I am aware of what it takes to run events.

I made a basic statement that holds true if asking the majority of players/viewers from what I have witnessed on message boards (DGCR/Reddit...) - live chats - online magazine' media...maybe the dislike of certain types of courses is all in my imagination?

Whether you consider it easy or hard to state, the following is true - Catering to live spectators at the cost of what (Players/viewers) consider a lower level of course to compete on and or view is (Fill in with any word that does not offend you, but means a negative result).

I know when asking individual people, course quality is subjective, but I am addressing the DGolf community in general and what they have gravitated towards being better/worse courses. Your statement of "...what an audience thinks is a good quality course, may in fact not be a great course for the TD's, media, staff, volunteers, or elite competitors in addition to spectators..." becomes irrelevant without said audience. If there is no audience, then EVERYONES' opinion becomes moot.

What kind of fantasy is this? "...it marginalizes the people putting in the hours in favor of people who might donate a few dollars..." Are YOU paying TDs, staff and volunteers? The "people who might donate a few dollars" are the ones funding media overall. Or are YOU CHARGING the TDs, staff, sponsors and volunteers for your services? Who is really marginalizing others efforts here? If you were so concerned with "good culture-growth model" then you would surely donate ALL of your profits to those being marginalized, right?

Again, I am not going to preface every statement I make to cover every possible scenario or interested entity. Your response points out the flaws of being succinct, which is usually something I have a hard time doing - (Obviously). I did hit upon the media/sponsor side of things earlier, if you would like to go back and read the thread.


Simply, correct me where I am wrong:

I do not believe that catering to a few hundred live spectators over tens of thousands online viewers is a good business model.

I believe that the majority of players/viewers would prefer/like/want/expect a certain level/type of course to take priority over live spectators.


It is not more nuanced than the above - cell signal and other restrictions set aside...I am aware of TDs, volunteers etc...if you can honestly tell me that live spectators are more important than what online viewership is asking for, then more power to you.


If any media company ignores, or disregards, their viewership's preferences consistently - I promise you that all of the "TD's, media, staff, volunteers, elite competitors, (sponsors) and spectators" will go elsewhere.


You are well spoken and make some valid observations, although well out of place in reaction to my basic statement that holds true in general terms. It is not always necessary to surgically dissect something simple into a complicated mess of misplaced assumptions - (I fall into this category by entertaining your misplaced assumptions in the first place). It seems to me that your pomposity serves as sufficient "blinders", as you say, to basic truths.
 

Latest posts

Top