4 set DG Majors

[DavidSauls]

Horse racing has a Triple Crown.

I believe disc golfers in Florida once had their own in-state Triple Crown, as well. Though I never played it, so could be mistaken.

There was some chatter about an amateur triple crown in disc golf, one year when someone won Bowling Green, the USADCG, and was headed to AmWorlds. An worlds win would have swept the 3 biggest am events.

It's why I keep mention 3 or 4. Maybe a 3rd event rises in prestige to where the other two are. Maybe a 3rd and 4th. Either way, it would be interesting to follow.

 

[J-Bright]

Horse racing has a Triple Crown.

yea I see Figure Skating and ski jumping also claim a sort of grand slam, but I'd still say majority of individual player sports most likely don't from the quick 5 minute searches I have done. That doesn't mean Disc Golf shouldn't, I just haven't read anything about an actual good reason why this would make any difference to the sport other than the fans talking about it.
I would be willing to say without looking that there easily could have been a DGPT event (not NT) that may have had more players and better rated players going into it, so other than NT points, why is that not as big or bigger than an NT that maybe didn't have the same turnout?

 

[ru4por]

This was exactly what my thoughts were on this topic and you summed it up perfectly.

The other thing I'll add is after Tennis and Golf, what other sports have slams? I looked it up and it's roughly around a dozen or so sports in the world.

Do darts, bowling, skiing, skating, ect, ect have slams?

Yes, I believe they do. They certainly have majors.

I guess there's no harm in posting my thoughts I circulated among the Competition Committee a few weeks ago:

The designation of events included in the "Slams" of other sports were determined as much by the players and the media, not a single sanctioning body. The PDGA has co-opted the word "Major" for sanctioning purposes to good effect. However, observers and touring pros over the years have likely felt there were one or two other events worthy of being considered and perhaps one or two designated Majors less worthy if our hypothetical annual slam were limited to four events. In other words, the number of events some might think are appropriate for a Slam may not always match the number the PDGA has designated as "Majors".

My suggestion to establish a historical foundation for our Slam would be to simply designate the same number of Slam events (starting with five) before the start of each calendar year once the A-tier and higher events calendar has been established. Worlds would always be one Slam event. The other four would include one North American event (likely USDGC each year), one non-North American event (likely Euro Open every other year), and two wild cards which for example might be chosen from Ledgestone or Masters Cup or Maple Hill or Croatia or a new Match Play event.

Historical stability for our DG Slam each year would be established with Worlds as the lynch-pin plus four other worthy events. We can't predict the future. But for as long as our sport exists we can count on at least four other events worthy of being part of our annual DG Slam regardless whether some big events disappear like Japan Open, Circus City, Laurel Springs (big event before Major designation) or are only offered every other year like Euro Open.

Here's my suggestion for an interesting way to select Slam events to add excitement to the Slam process. The top 25 MPO finishers in the previous year Slam events vote to determine some of the events for the next year's Slam that is if there are more than four candidate events. FPO would have a separate vote for their Slam events, some which may be the same as MPO and some different like USWDGC. The top five finishers at the first Slam event in a year are voters for the next year. Then, the top five in the next Slam event not already voters become voters, etc., through the remaining three events, determining voters like the USDGC qualifying process.

The idea behind this is to let the pros decide among Slam event candidates on the ballot where they want to defend their titles, the purses promised are high enough and they will financially be able (some with support from sponsors) to commit to attend the following year. The PDGA would administer the process by handling submissions from events who wish to be considered for the Slam and vetting them including TD, staff, history, courses, cell signal bandwidth, etc. to be included on the ballot. Once the event candidates were announced, the media would be able to kibbutz publicly on which events they would like to see the pros select to potentially influence the voting.

In addition to FPO, a similar process could be done to define Slam events for Masters, Ams and potentially Juniors if we eventually get a thriving global high school DG scene developed. The PDGA might consider providing some additional funding to any events that get voted into Slams for the following year if we don't already support them with at least NT level funding.

Players would not be voting for worthy or favorite tournaments. They would be voting with their sponsor dollars. I'm not convinced this is what is best for the sport.

 

[Motorpro]

I think David has it right. You can't just randomly make things majors. If a tournament becomes big enough ( either through bigger payouts or prestige, probably money) it will became a major without anyone having to choose to make it one. If you try to force it just becomes a joke.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think it's about turnout or payout, precisely.

It's about which title carries the most prestige. Which do pros covet winning the most (beyond just the cash)? Which do fans, such as they are, talk about and remember the most?

What gets your name on a signature disc?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Players would not be voting for worthy or favorite tournaments. They would be voting with their sponsor dollars. I'm not convinced this is what is best for the sport.

Remember they can only vote on events on the ballot that the PDGA vetted as worthy of being selected. And frankly, the point is to have Slam events that can provide the purse, even if 100% single sponsor, making it worthwhile for the players to attend. It doesn't matter how good an event might be if the players can't justify the cost to attend (Aussie Open, example). Remember that Japan Open had a great purse provided by sponsors and player experience for even lower level pros to attend. It's all about the money or players over the years, especially International, may not have tried to qualify and attempt the USDGC design experiments.

 

[Motorpro]

I agree that it should be about prestige. What makes it prestigious is having all the top players there. What brings all the top players? A payout that justifies the time and cost to get there. Other wise the only players you get are the trust funders who don't care about the payout. I hate to see it all about money but sadly that's usually what it comes down to.

 

[J-Bright]

Currently Las Vegas challenge is a PDGA NT. I literally hear/see nobody talk about it.
MVP Open is just an A Tier DGPT event and it seems people talk about that all the time/more often.

This to me is an example of "forcing" the NT title onto an event that most would not consider prestige.

 

[JC17393]

Currently Las Vegas challenge is a PDGA NT. I literally hear/see nobody talk about it.
MVP Open is just an A Tier DGPT event and it seems people talk about that all the time/more often.

This to me is an example of "forcing" the NT title onto an event that most would not consider prestige.

Maple Hill was an NT from its inception that "downgraded" to an A-tier for the purposes of being a DGPT event (co-branding in the first year of the DGPT did not work well).

Vegas was a very successful and popular A-tier for a few years that was blocked from ascending to the NT sooner due to the stranglehold the Memorial had on the NT slot in the Southwest US. When the Memorial joined the DGPT, it "downgraded" to A-tier status and opened the door for Vegas.

Point being, Maple Hill gets more attention because it has a longer history as an elite level (NT/DGPT) event. It's been one of the premier tournaments on the PDGA schedule for a decade, and was arguably the biggest non-sanctioned tournament of the year for a while prior to that (as the MSDGC).

Also, the National Tour isn't about being prestigious. It's about showcasing 6-8 events a year that are the elite events of their particular region. Vegas is on the NT schedule because, outside the Memorial, it is the biggest tournament in the Southwest. I imagine as long as it runs the way it does, it will remain in that spot until and unless another tournament in the region ascends to match it. Same with Beaver State Fling in the Northwest, the HOF Classic in the Southeast, and for a number of years, Maple Hill in the Northeast. Meanwhile, NT status rotates in places like the midwest where there are a number of potentially worthy tournaments (DGLO, Hambrick, Majestic, Ledgestone...to name a few that have been a part of it).

 

[Jay Dub]

Horse racing has a Triple Crown.

I believe disc golfers in Florida once had their own in-state Triple Crown, as well. Though I never played it, so could be mistaken.

There was some chatter about an amateur triple crown in disc golf, one year when someone won Bowling Green, the USADCG, and was headed to AmWorlds. An worlds win would have swept the 3 biggest am events.

It's why I keep mention 3 or 4. Maybe a 3rd event rises in prestige to where the other two are. Maybe a 3rd and 4th. Either way, it would be interesting to follow.

Yes they did but none were major tournaments. They were in February and advertised as a break from the winter. The 2nd tournament was in the middle of the week, 1st and 3rd were on the weekends before and after the 2nd.

 

[J-Bright]

Vegas was a very successful and popular A-tier for a few years that was blocked from ascending to the NT sooner due to the stranglehold the Memorial had on the NT slot in the Southwest US. When the Memorial joined the DGPT, it "downgraded" to A-tier status and opened the door for Vegas.

I'm not sure how long ago you are referring to. 2016 had 11 players over 1000 rating.

I appreciate the insight on the other comments. I feel you're making the point for us. If they go with a "slam" of sorts and let's say the Vegas Challenge is going on the same time as MVP Open, we are saying VC wouldn't automatically draw all the players because many covet MVP Open. David is saying the more prestige events should be in the slam, not just take any event and force the "slam" label onto it. I'm saying this is why there is no reason to make a slam to begin with because unless tons of money is added (would be great but is it realistic) players aren't drawn to an event just because it's part of said "slam." All just my opinion of course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes they did but none were major tournaments. They were in February and advertised as a break from the winter. The 2nd tournament was in the middle of the week, 1st and 3rd were on the weekends before and after the 2nd.

Thanks for the correction. I would never have guessed.

 

[bbwrenn]

There was some chatter about an amateur triple crown in disc golf, one year when someone won Bowling Green, the USADCG, and was headed to AmWorlds. An worlds win would have swept the 3 biggest am events.

This is obviously a bit of a tangent, but being a Cackalacky boy I had to chime in. David Wiggins Jr. won these three in 2010, along with a couple other really big A tiers that year. I do remember some chatter about a "triple crown" when it happened. So you're not crazy, it happened, haha. :hfive:

 

[BrotherDave]

With a sidebar that the PDGA has made other uses of the word "Major". For this type of discussion, we either need a different name for the events that would make up a Grand Slam, or for the PDGA to come up with another name in place of the current "majors", which are the biggest pro, or amateur, or collegiate, or (sometimes) continental, doubles, or older-player events.

They should be called the Flint Michigan Mega Bowls, regardless of whether they're actually in Flint, Michigan. :|

If the PDGA christened, say, the Ledgestone as the 3rd leg of a Triple Crown, would that do it? It seems to be a quality event. But would people think it special that someone wins Worlds, USDGC, and Ledgestone? Or think he just missed it because he lost Ledgestone, but won Worlds and USDGC?

No, I would not. I would think "Oh wow, that guy won Worlds and the USDGC and also that course where you throw over the ball field" or "Oh wow that guy won Worlds and USDGC but I guess he couldn't stay out of that ball field." :\

------------------------------------------

I'm not as hung up on this as some of yall. It's pretty settled that we have 2 in the USDGC and Worlds. Then we've got a slew of worthy events that have a long history like MVP Open but they're already fairly well established as their own kind of thing. Fans and players like Maple Hill already. Calling it a Mega Bowl won't really add any prestige. Not calling them a Mega Bowl doesn't really hurt them either. So I say let them be whatever they want and just make up one or two Mega Bowls from scratch. Why not one in Canada and one in Europe? They'd be prestigious b/c they're international tourneys, Europe is a no-brainer b/c of fan turnout and booming player base and Canada's got the terrain to probably make World's caliber courses from scratch, if the Prince Edward Island course is any indication.

 

[ru4por]

Remember they can only vote on events on the ballot that the PDGA vetted as worthy of being selected. And frankly, the point is to have Slam events that can provide the purse, even if 100% single sponsor, making it worthwhile for the players to attend. It doesn't matter how good an event might be if the players can't justify the cost to attend (Aussie Open, example). Remember that Japan Open had a great purse provided by sponsors and player experience for even lower level pros to attend. It's all about the money or players over the years, especially International, may not have tried to qualify and attempt the USDGC design experiments.

Not saying that it is a bad model, but it would likely exclude any Discraft events. They simply would not have enough top players sponsored to vote for their events......worthy or not. Really you would not need a vote. Just review the top 25 players, look at their sponsors and pick the events that way.

 

[Jouni]

USDGC are is pretty clear candidate for a Major, worlds too but that could also be a separate thing. What I would like to see is as diverse group of courses as possible as Majors each year (wooded course, big open hyzerfest, lots of height differences, OB hell etc), then winning the whole Slam would really show who has most diverse game.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not saying that it is a bad model, but it would likely exclude any Discraft events. They simply would not have enough top players sponsored to vote for their events......worthy or not. Really you would not need a vote. Just review the top 25 players, look at their sponsors and pick the events that way.

Discraft is a big time sponsor of the Ledgestone and Memorial. Players play these events for the cash and would likely vote for them regardless of sponsor. Remember that the vote where needed for just two maybe three of the Slam events where there are more qualified host candidates is is for the ones the players would be committed to attend. If that happens to be a particular sponsor's event, so be it. It's not like it's unfair in any way unless you think the courses to be played favor the skill set of that sponsor's players?

 

[lyleoross]

Let's be frank, as long as there is a semi-telivised event every weekend, I don't care what you call it. Otherwise, I have to dedicate my weekend to yard work.

 

[J-Bright]

Let's be frank, as long as there is a semi-telivised event every weekend, I don't care what you call it.

This is exactly what I'm saying players and spectators would think.

My only reason for posting in this thread is there are probably a million other things that COULD and maybe some SHOULD be changed with disc golf in general and this move to any sort of slam is probably the bottom of said list or not even on the list. Let's fix the things that are actually WRONG with DG and move forward from there.

 

[JTacoma03]

You are quite possibly correct, I have this memory that a year or so ago there were issues with a structural rule that came out of the PDGA that USDGC didn't like. My recollection was that they felt they were important enough not to have to tolerate direction from the PDGA.

Now, that is one huge piece of BS that I can't back up. So, if someone calls foul, good enough. I'm more concerned with the notion that there be a rule set that everyone falls under, and that no one has done more to meet a top tier rule set than Innova East.

Wiki has an interesting read on the development of the golf majors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships

My interpretation is that the majors, as they currently exist, grew out of player evaluation of what are the top events, how they viewed them. I like that. If the top guys, say, 1020 rated, traveling pros were allowed to vote...

I'd still think that you'd want a written set of criteria. We ain't golf, and shouldn't be. But I do think input from the top players should matter.

Great link - I skimmed the PGA Majors page - but will return to it later this evening to study and learn.

Basically, when the PDGA disallowed stroke and distance the USDGC said "we've been doing this for years, and we're not watering down Hole 17". They refused to match what was seen by many as a whim. The PDGA retroactively labeled them all XM-tiers.

I personally think this was a ridiculous move that helps nobody and hurts players and the media (you best bet we ALL want to talk about ratings for this event). I get that the PDGA wants to focus on Ams and making it fair for them, but IF the PDGA Tour folds, it is because of moves like that which attempt to conform Am and regional Open competitions to the elite level tour game. They're different, let them be different. Nobody complains that the NBA court is 10' longer than all the others.

Getting away from the "Major" label, due to the PDGA's current and historical use of it:

If the PDGA christened, say, the Ledgestone as the 3rd leg of a Triple Crown, would that do it? It seems to be a quality event. But would people think it special that someone wins Worlds, USDGC, and Ledgestone? Or think he just missed it because he lost Ledgestone, but won Worlds and USDGC?

I think that 3rd (and 4th, for a Grand Slam) event is going to need something special, more than just quality and PDGA christening.

It's a good point that USDGC hit the ground running, and didn't have to grow into it's prestigious status. Maybe somebody will do that, too. But I still suspect that the prestige needs to come before PDGA's blessing.

You may be right, in all honesty I think it's hard to say with 100% certainty who is higher on the priority order if push came to shove.

Let's just all standardize it together so that we don't have to find out, lol.

I guess there's no harm in posting my thoughts I circulated among the Competition Committee a few weeks ago:

You had me until you suggested that the players vote. Maybe a committee or players union could have a say, but in no way should currently touring pros be the sole dictators of the direction of the tour, that way lies madness. All interests (governing body, media, fans, etc.) should be at the table.