General discussion about "Where to Host World's"

[DavidSauls]

Might even consider whether the Pro Masters are different from the MPO/FPO. Perhaps not so much in the eyes of the players, but the MPO/FPO gets more attention.

Hosting worlds has always involved at least 3 ingredients: (1) courses, quality, quantity, and suitability for skill levels, (2) location hosting amenities, particularly hotels and meeting space, and (3) people willing and experienced enough to do it. #3 being most important because without it, what do the others matter?

Splitting up into multiple Worlds and reducing the field sizes have certainly expanded the number of places that could be considered.

As for Am Worlds, I have fond memories of the convention format -- weeklong, 4-or-5 courses, huge number of players. Doesn't matter as much to me now, as I wouldn't be able to play. But there are certainly advantages into moving away from that concept.

 

[Three Putt]

FWIW - it looks like the discussion really started to move away from the topic of Paige, and more ckearly into the discussion of venues starting with this post:



Not blaming or throwing anyone under the bus.
Just trying to help the if a mod is willing to move certain posts to this thread.

FYI if I move all those posts to here, they will appear before your intro post and this thread will always be somewhat of a dumpster fire because of that. The post stay in order of when they were posted, not in the order that I move them.

So...wadda ya want me ta do, eh?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

FYI if I move all those posts to here, they will appear before your intro post and this thread will always be somewhat of a dumpster fire because of that. The post stay in order of when they were posted, not in the order that I move them.

So...wadda ya want me ta do, eh?

I'd be good if you move them here.
If my intro post then seems out of place, then just delete it (and probs this post, too).

The objective is to make the discussion easier to follow, right? I won't get bent if a few of my posts disappear.


*secretely gets pissed at "The Mods" for deleting his posts *

 

[Shallows]

Splitting up into multiple Worlds and reducing the field sizes have certainly expanded the number of places that could be considered.

Eventually resulting in an MPO/FPO split as well presumably. Which would allow more USWDGC type courses for the ladies to play.

Would never happen under the PDGA but does seem a natural end point for the DGPT.

 

[Three Putt]

I'd be good if you move them here.
If my intro post then seems out of place, then just delete it (and probs this post, too).

The objective is to make the discussion easier to follow, right? I won't get bent if a few of my posts disappear.


*secretely gets pissed at "The Mods" for deleting his posts *

 

[nothinbuttree]

FWIW - it looks like the discussion really started to move away from the topic of Paige, and more ckearly into the discussion of venues starting with this post:



Not blaming or throwing anyone under the bus.
Just trying to help the if a mod is willing to move certain posts to this thread.

I plead the 5th

 

[nothinbuttree]

Might even consider whether the Pro Masters are different from the MPO/FPO. Perhaps not so much in the eyes of the players, but the MPO/FPO gets more attention.

Hosting worlds has always involved at least 3 ingredients: (1) courses, quality, quantity, and suitability for skill levels, (2) location hosting amenities, particularly hotels and meeting space, and (3) people willing and experienced enough to do it. #3 being most important because without it, what do the others matter?

Splitting up into multiple Worlds and reducing the field sizes have certainly expanded the number of places that could be considered.

As for Am Worlds, I have fond memories of the convention format -- weeklong, 4-or-5 courses, huge number of players. Doesn't matter as much to me now, as I wouldn't be able to play. But there are certainly advantages into moving away from that concept.

As the sport continues to grow, the AM since especially will get bigger, so having greater capacity for AM worlds should be something they are working on even now.

 

[DavidSauls]

As the sport continues to grow, the AM since especially will get bigger, so having greater capacity for AM worlds should be something they are working on even now.

The counterargument is that AmWorlds becomes less a convention where anyone can attend, and more an elite competition for a championship. Instead of growing, they could just tighten the standards for entrance so only the most-qualified Ams get in.

 

[ThrowBot]

Hey, I came here for the real discussion.
Did PP get charged with trespassing or what?

 

[biscoe]

Eventually resulting in an MPO/FPO split as well presumably. Which would allow more USWDGC type courses for the ladies to play.

Would never happen under the PDGA but does seem a natural end point for the DGPT.

Why would it never happen under the PDGA? I sort of think it may be more likely to happen on the PDGA side than the DGPT side.

 

[biscoe]

As the sport continues to grow, the AM since especially will get bigger, so having greater capacity for AM worlds should be something they are working on even now.

They don't need higher capacity- just higher standards to qualify.

 

[Shallows]

Why would it never happen under the PDGA? I sort of think it may be more likely to happen on the PDGA side than the DGPT side.

Perhaps wrongly, I feel the PDGA's non-profit status makes them more beholden to a sort of gender equity despite financial losses while the DGPT won't be as inclined to carry around a money losing enterprise and can carve FPO off somehow. Especially if the players ever get around to any sort of collective bargaining the FPO is gonna get shut the hell out.

 

[biscoe]

Perhaps wrongly, I feel the PDGA's non-profit status makes them more beholden to a sort of gender equity despite financial losses while the DGPT won't be as inclined to carry around a money losing enterprise and can carve FPO off somehow. Especially if the players ever get around to any sort of collective bargaining the FPO is gonna get shut the hell out.

I don't see how a separate worlds for FPO or separate pro tour for them would overstep anyone's bounds of gender equity.

 

[dehaas]

As long as Worlds remains a PDGA ran event the IDGC would make the most sense wouldn't it?

Let the Champions Cup rotate venues and keep Worlds at WR Jackson?

Pro Worlds eventually needs to stay at one course.

Maybe two courses on a rotating basis.

That's it.

 

[Three Putt]

I don't see how a separate worlds for FPO or separate pro tour for them would overstep anyone's bounds of gender equity.

Yeah, kinda a weird agenda there.

I think obviously if it was done from a position of the FPO players willingly branching out to have their own stand-alone events, a separate FPO tour could be a thing. There is no way that DGPT could just ditch FPO, though. That would go over with sponsors like a lead balloon.

From the PDGA side, we are still a member-driven org. Unless there is a seismic shift in the attitudes of the PDGA membership, no-way no-how is there ever going to be a successful "ditch the women" movement. So again you are in the scenario of if it made sense, it could happen. If there was too much demand for FPO slots, if there was a desire by FPO players to play courses that better reflected their skill set, etc. The events would just get split like the Masters division got peeled off into a separate event.

But I'm not sure where he was going with the "collective bargaining shutting FPO out" angle. I don't see anything like that ever happening.

 

[Three Putt]

As long as Worlds remains a PDGA ran event the IDGC would make the most sense wouldn't it?

Let the Champions Cup rotate venues and keep Worlds at WR Jackson?

I mean the idea with the wandering Worlds venues was always at least in part to cut down on travel so your regular Joe Lunchbox disc golfer would have it get close enough every few years to realistically attend. Worlds permanently at IDGC would make it very hard for the California Joe Lunchbox disc golfer to attend.

If you broke it down and had a NE/SE/Great Lakes/Texas-ish/NW/SW location and rotated between the six areas, you could probably do that and keep your membership happy. The logistics of that are definitely in the "easier said than done" range, though.

 

[DanJon]

I disagree completely. That just takes them even closer to being just another tour event. it also pre-supposes that the best venues today are going to remain the best venues over a period of time.

That's fair, but it seems that on our current path, we are only going to see Worlds at the same 3-4 venues anyway.

 

[Monocacy]

From a purely selfish perspective, I just to see the best disc golfers in the world play challenging courses with woods and elevation. Sure, give 'em a few holes that reward the ability to throw a 500' hyzer bomb. That is a skill, too, just not one I enjoy seeing demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[dehaas]

I totally get that, you're kinda shafting your regional pros who play enough events to get an invite.

The top tier are touring anyway and go wherever the large events are. I'm thinking about it from a logistics and management perspective. PDGA owned event, let them have it in their backyard where they have a lot more control and resources to put towards it. You'd also have a lot more control with it being held at a consistent date. That's gotta be a nightmare right now, having to juggle date and location of a rotating worlds and making it mesh with the other tour dates.

I mean the idea with the wandering Worlds venues was always at least in part to cut down on travel so your regular Joe Lunchbox disc golfer would have it get close enough every few years to realistically attend. Worlds permanently at IDGC would make it very hard for the California Joe Lunchbox disc golfer to attend.

If you broke it down and had a NE/SE/Great Lakes/Texas-ish/NW/SW location and rotated between the six areas, you could probably do that and keep your membership happy. The logistics of that are definitely in the "easier said than done" range, though.

 

[Shallows]

But I'm not sure where he was going with the "collective bargaining shutting FPO out" angle. I don't see anything like that ever happening.

MPO players would certainly work to exclude FPO players from any profit sharing with the DGPT, as it would dilute their chunk of the revenue pie, unless the FPO arm was bringing in more money than the MPO.

I don't see any collective bargaining ultimately happening of course, despite various interested parties angling to do so (Paul, Paul, Ultiworld, etc.).