Disc Golf Pro Tour

[DGPT]

One Course, Two Course, Red Course, Blue Course

This week's blog: How many courses?

The discussion about how many rounds naturally flows to how many courses should a Pro Tour event be played on?

Let's run through it.

Again, we need to go to our goals.

• Crown the best player
• Maximize spectators
• Sustainability for players

-----
Crown the best player

The simple answer would be that the greater the variety of shots that a tournament demands, the greater the odds that the best player will be crowned. This would lead us to the conclusion that having many courses is ideal. However, to get to the best player, we would also need to play each of these courses multiple times to get more accurate statistical modeling. Presuming a maximum of four rounds, this would limit us to two courses played twice.

This assumes that the two courses successfully balance the discing skills being tested in the right proportions. If we have two courses that are both full of long open holes, or tight wooded holes, or sweeping hyzer shots, then having a second course does nothing to help us find the best player that weekend. With a careful nod towards the selection of the courses and the skill sets they test, having two courses played twice could possibly test a range of skills better than one course played four times.

However, if only one course is played and it tests the desired range of skills appropriately, playing on one course four times would be better than splitting the competition among separate courses. There are other factors to be considered as well. What are the skills that are being tested? Distance, driving accuracy, throwing up and down elevation, S shots, curves left or right, putting on fast greens, mental stamina, the elements. There is a long list of possibilities and we have not come close, and perhaps nor should we, to defining precisely what it takes to be a champion.

One thing that I will love about the Pro Tour, no matter how many courses are used at each stop, is that there are many different styles of disc golf (woods, fields, elevation, weather, distance) and each venue will test a slightly different variety of these skills. In my opinion, only playing a course once brings in too great a level of statistical variance. Therefore, regarding how many courses it takes to determine the best player that weekend, I would lean toward one very good course, or two complimentary courses.

-----
Maximize Spectators

For the purposes of the number of spectators, there are three categories that we should consider. Remote spectators, who are watching live (or edited) video with statistics and live scoring, Onsite spectators, who are following a card or watching their favorite holes on the course, and Festival goers, who want to take in the atmosphere and revelry through the festival.

Remote spectators will probably not change much based on the course being played, although a course with some history or known excitement could draw in some extra eyeballs. Additionally, the media team will be able to do a better job preparing for fewer courses, improving the quality of the live broadcast. Also, over multiple days, there will be more in depth statistics on each hole to give spectators more depth of understanding (eg, "this is the second hardest hole on the course to birdie and he needs to make a move, the pressure is on for him to push and succeed.") For remote spectators, the number of courses probably does not matter much, but a small tilt towards one course since the stats can be more in depth, especially if it has a name with some history.

Onsite spectators who are following a card would probably be just as happy to travel to any course in the area to watch our sport's best compete. This presumes that both courses have food, bathrooms, good areas to watch from, and enough parking. However, setting up these amenities at multiple locations can cause some extra costs for the tournament organizers as well as communication issues to spectators about where to go on what days. For these two reasons, I would give the nod to one course when it comes to onsite spectators.

The final category of spectators for Pro Tour events will be festival goers. These are people who traditionally would not attend a disc golf tournament, but since there is a whole disc festival, complete with disc based carnival games, a couple MPH booths, face painting, a bouncy house, disc dying, a kids zone and more, they will come on by and check it out. While there, they may even wander over to hole one to see how good these players really are, or check out hole 18 while the lead cards finish up. Hopefully they will get the bug and get even more into the sport and play and watch more next year. For these folks, presuming the festival is not moving, one location is also the best solution.

-----
Sustainability for players

This one is pretty straight forward and it mirrors the extra work needed to be done by the tournament organizers for multiple courses being used. Players need to review and be able to travel to every course used. If one course is used, prep time for players is cut down as well as travel time, since they will be able to stay close to one course as opposed to between two courses. While these may seem like minor issues - where to stay, time spent preparing for a course - for touring pros, this is critical. One course lets them spend extra time reviewing every slope and OB on a course finding their best lines -allowing them to put on an even better performance for those of us who are watching. When it comes to the number of courses to be used, the pros may be the strongest argument to limit the courses to one.

One course is best. Two works if they are both good, complimentary courses.

-----
As Jonny V pointed out in a Smashboxx podcast recently, a City Parks B-Tier could easily be played on a bunch of courses in the city. It is a city championship. The Pro Tour events should be played on the best course in the area - yes, we will have another blog about what makes a course the best for our purposes, but we agree that the Pro Tour events should be on the singular best course in the area.

If the course is well designed it will crown the best player, it will maximize spectators since they know where to go everyday, will get more in depth stats and better coverage, and it will bring the festival goers and on course spectators to one venue everyday, minimizing the number of staff that is needed and getting everyone together in one place to make us feel like a great big discing community.

 

[DavidSauls]

Excellent stuff, as always.

I would speculate that, for online spectators, there is a value in using one course. The value is becoming somewhat familiar with particular holes, so they know what to expect, or fear, and can more quickly recognize a great shot or a bad shot. Think of the USDGC, or the Masters in golf.

 

[Steve West]

Consider this perspective: You are not crowning the best player, you are rewarding good performances.

Who the "Best player" is, is far too big a decision to be handled by one tournament. Candidates for that label may be the player who has the highest rating, or the highest ranking of results against other players, or the most world championships, or most wins , or leader of the money board, or whatever.

Right now, I think there is wide agreement on who is the best current player. If you were really trying to crown the best player, you would set it up to maximize the probability that he wins. That would be an ABA-style ladder, where he only has to play the one competitor that made it up the ladder.

If you are rewarding best performances, the bar is a bit lower, which frees you up for some creativity. Not every tournament has to have the perfect balance of hole types. (If they did, all tournaments would look alike after a while). You don't need statistical certainty (If you did, why would anyone but the best player enter?) You just need to give everyone a shot at doing well.

Also, all of the other (not expecting to be best) players want to find out how good they are, but they are also hoping for chance to do a little better than they should. If there are fewer rounds, more unexpected performances can happen. If the courses are not always the "perfect" mix, it adds a level of strategy to the game, as players will be lured into events where they think they have an advantage.

 

[GoldeyeGolf]

Excellent stuff, as always.

I would speculate that, for online spectators, there is a value in using one course. The value is becoming somewhat familiar with particular holes, so they know what to expect, or fear, and can more quickly recognize a great shot or a bad shot. Think of the USDGC, or the Masters in golf.

Really agree on the thinking here. Even with the maps and other visuals, it's often hard for the viewer to get a good feel for what's involved with a hole until they've seen it played a few times.

It seems like sticking to the best course would be the way to go on a number of different levels. When I first started watching tournaments online, I was surprised at how many of them chose to include inferior courses.

 

[Jenga54]

I may be too late, or in the minority, but for excitement's sake, and for fans of different players' sake - I don't think we need to determine the "best player" at every tour stop.

The goal of the tour as a whole, with the summation of yearly achievement will crown the best player. However, looking at extremes:
- A 7 round tourney would crown the top ranked player maybe 90+% of the time
- A 3 hole tourney would open it up to almost anyone. Heck I could win with an ace an two pars if I got lucky.

I would argue for excitement for fans, and cost of operations, a 2 round event could be very exciting. You touched on this in a previous blog - and I think the football example may have been glossed over. Luckily I'm not a Vikings fan, but realistically they don't have a good chance of winning the Super Bowl. However, my neighbors buy $100+ tickets for games and watch every Sunday on TV. Why? Because if each weekend was a 3 game series, they would lose more often. But 'any given Sunday' they could win, and then they can revel in it all week.

It's tough being a Simon fan, a Ricky Fan, and Will fan, etc. With a "find the best player" every weekend, there's a diminished chance for 'others' to play a couple great rounds and win. Partially because we have a particularly dominant player right now, but there will always be a best. I would like to see 2nd best, 3rd, 4th, and 10th best win a weekend throughout the tour. The 1st best will win the tour on points at the end of the year - I'm not worried about that, but I wanna see more different players winning weekends.

 

[Jenga54]

Consider this perspective: You are not crowning the best player, you are rewarding good performances.

Who the "Best player" is, is far too big a decision to be handled by one tournament. Candidates for that label may be the player who has the highest rating, or the highest ranking of results against other players, or the most world championships, or most wins , or leader of the money board, or whatever.

Right now, I think there is wide agreement on who is the best current player. If you were really trying to crown the best player, you would set it up to maximize the probability that he wins. That would be an ABA-style ladder, where he only has to play the one competitor that made it up the ladder.

If you are rewarding best performances, the bar is a bit lower, which frees you up for some creativity. Not every tournament has to have the perfect balance of hole types. (If they did, all tournaments would look alike after a while). You don't need statistical certainty (If you did, why would anyone but the best player enter?) You just need to give everyone a shot at doing well.

Also, all of the other (not expecting to be best) players want to find out how good they are, but they are also hoping for chance to do a little better than they should. If there are fewer rounds, more unexpected performances can happen. If the courses are not always the "perfect" mix, it adds a level of strategy to the game, as players will be lured into events where they think they have an advantage.

Well said - as I took a long time to finish my post, this one was probably better...

In my case, I can hit lines better than the average player, but have lower power, maybe even lower than average. So I pick events that are tighter woods and do well. On big open venues, I shoot terrible. Usually I don't even enter those events. Anyway, I'm a vote for doing things that end with a more diverse list of event winners by the end of the tour.

 

[DavidSauls]

One course is best. Two works if they are both good, complimentary courses.

That would be my vote, if I were voting.

 

[Stover]

1 course is by far the best from an athletes perspective. The only reason to use more then one course is to enable a larger field. This is really important for most tourneys with tons of different locals that play in many divisions. This is also how they stores holding those events make money. When you start talking about pro level only tours then it should only be one course.

However, that one course needs to be pro level and not favor one type of player (power, tunnel , righty, lefty and such).

 

[Darkgreen]

As a spectator, I would prefer two courses. Watching three rounds on the same course can get a little boring.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Quick answers to DGPT questions: 2.5 rounds and 2 courses needed. Here's a format outline that might be worth testing. Steve read it and we decided it would be better for me to post it directly for DGCR readers in two parts than post it as a DGPT guest blog since he'll have some critique posted soon for some back and forth on it.

Part 1
One of the most important, perhaps THE most important goal for any Professional Tour/Series, not just in disc golf, should be financial sustainability. Otherwise, "Why invest the money and effort?" unless you're a promoter with pockets so deep you're fine continuing to be a patron to the pros? The Masters preserves this ancient patronage tradition among the wealthy by insisting on calling those who come to watch at Augusta "patrons".

Let's say I had a deep pocket patron who said, "Try to create a disc golf event format with a chance to draw specators whether in person or online and also help the better playing pros to survive." Essentially, the event should be compelling enough that you feel comfortable suggesting that you and your non-playing date or spouse would have a better time attending it than going to a movie or playing miniature golf. Let's set the bar low in the beginning.

Creating the most concentrated entertainment value possible per minute of watching at the lowest cost is more important than specifically who wins. More rounds cost more to produce, costs more for the players in lodging and time, reduces the chances for different winners, and it's more difficult to maintain a level of live spectator interest the longer the event lasts.

Make each round uniquely compelling for the players which then provides more excitement and drama for the spectators. Onsite spectators need to be close enough to see much of the action and potentially have other physical things to do during their time at the venue. Go with 2.5 round events to first prove you can draw spectators and bring enough sponsors along to break even. Tweak that event formula until it works or bail. Once it's working, you can add rounds later if necessary. I believe someone posted earlier that in the early days of the PGA tour, just the last four holes were shown on TV. They grew their purses and number of holes covered as viewership and sponsorship grew.

Here's my first pass at a focused 2.5 round format. First round is tee times all day on Saturday with up to 144 pros which includes a 16-woman division. There's a cut after one round where 51 men and women make the Sunday morning round. The initial Saturday groups each have two players from the top half of the ranked field and two from bottom half randomly selected within each half. The winner of each card plus ties makes the cut plus the best number of remaining scores to end up with 44 men and 7 women. There's a battle on each card to win it and for the others to try and make the cut.

Saturday there's also a Skills Challenge area for both players, local players and spectators. This would include two or three side games that everyone can enter to win prizes (higher entry fee) or just try them. There would either be a nominal fee to try them or perhaps included free if the venue charges ticket or parking fee to spectators. The Skills Area might not start until Noon then continue into the evening with recorded or live music along with sales and vendor booths.

Now here's the bone for the pros who got cut. On Sunday, there's a one round event they may optionally enter at another course. They pay a new entry fee. The idea is these players are pros who have come there to play as their job. Many have spent some or a lot of money to travel there. They can pay another night's lodging and try to win money in this side game, watch on Sunday or head home Saturday evening.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Part 2
Sunday is a hybrid start with shotgun start for 13 groups of 3 on holes 2-14. The top two male 4-somes and top 4 women start on hole 1 with tee times. Players in these three groups get announced. With this format, the top cards tee off during a known time window of certainty with a bit of pomp and circumstance so spectators who wish to watch their full rounds know when to come AND also still see other friends playing at the same time.

In the beginning of testing this format, scores from Saturday would carry forward. However, I can also see starting everyone's score from zero again on Sunday as more compelling to watch and with more pressure. It makes it more like the Olympics where you need to continue scoring well after each round of cuts. This would make more sense if the same course is played both days. If a different course is played on Sunday, then carrying the scores over from Saturday like we normally do could make more sense to get a better overall balance and variety to test the players. If you create a temp course, especially for Sunday, do it right in the middle of a larger metro area like we've done for two Worlds in the Twin Cities so you go where there are already thousands of people that might be potential spectators.

Here's what happens with cuts and payouts after the Sunday morning results are in. Top 2 men and top woman make the Final 9. The next 6 men and ties plus the next 3 women and ties go to the Skill Challenge. More on that below. The remaining places below 8th (men) and below 4th (women) will get a two-tiered flat payout. Men 9th thru 20th plus ties each get $N and the rest each get 70% of $N. Same for women with 5th $L with 6 & 7 getting 70% x $L. If only Sunday scores count, even those not contending to win can increase their payout making just one putt.

The Skills Challenge area is set up again starting Sunday morning with a whole new set of side games and payouts available to cut players, locals and spectators. After the first round is over, the men (3rd thru 8th) and women (2nd thru 4th) make it into the Final 9 Skills Qualifier Challenge and will duke it out playing a combination of Skills Challenges during the lunch break. Their Skills Challenge scores determine their final ranking for places 5th thru 8th for men plus 3rd & 4th for women. The top two men and top woman make it into the Final 9.

The Final 9 scoring starts from scratch as follows. Best score man/woman after Sunday morning round starts at zero. Second best man/woman at +2. Third best man at +3 and 4th best at +4. Total scores after Final 9 determine those finish places. If ties for first, they go to a Skills Challenge to break it so the action stays in one place.

This proposed format has action, pressure and drama for the whole weekend both for the players and spectators onsite or online. There are multiple competitions available for sponsorship. With the Skills Challenge in one area, media teams can have one camera there in addition to following the live action and use Skills Challenge action for filling in time between holes. The online display should have continuous scoring, stats and course info scrolling through. Doing this event on two weekend days keeps the cost down for both players and tournament hosts and increases chances spectators can attend. With fewer rounds, more players will be able to break through even if Paul makes into every Final 9. But every step for advancement along the weekend is still skill based and also rewarded.

 

[biscoe]

you left out the free beer and dancing girls...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Intuitively obvious.

 

[Steve West]

How much of this will be on the final exam?

 

[Jenga54]

I love it all, specially that I can watch Saturday and Sunday, and I'd expect different winners throughout

 

[Steve West]

Randomly selecting is hard to do, and impossible to prove it was done honestly. Why not use CM 1.6 B 2? It still gives you two from the top half and two from the bottom half in each group.

When winning the card matters, you don't want even a chance of accusations of stacking the deck.

 

[Steve West]

While I'm in the mood, allowing all ties for best score on each card to advance provides incentive for collusion, unless the scores carry over. Someone could carry his buddy into the next round by arranging to tie the card.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Since there would be 128 men, that's 32 groups of 4 to provide 32 qualifiers to start with and likely a few more due to ties. That doesn't leave many slots for other qualifiers based on score to get to 44 qualifiers. So maybe seeding the top 32 one per card would be more fair and random for the remaining three on each card. Probably want to increase qualifiers to say 52 versus 44.

(Make it a coin flip if there are ties for first on any card. Winner of the flip advances and the loser has to get in by his score. I think that reduces chance for collusion.)

 

[cjman]

Re: Chucks proposed event format

I started off highly skeptical, but was quickly impressed.

I'd be one of the guys there but not making the cut >70% of the time, and think more will need to be more for those players that miss the cut. Another buy in after a $150+ entry to the main event hurts. Unless more sponsors begin paying for more entries.

I like the idea of starting each round with all scores at even. A LOT. As others have said, We do not NEED the best player to win every weekend, (he can win Worlds and other endurance challenges). We need exciting, suspenseful golf that comes down to big drives and putts being run and made on well designed risk-reward finishing holes.

 

[biscoe]

I like the idea of starting each round with all scores at even. A LOT.

I dislike the idea of starting each round with all scores at even. A LOT.