jcf5083
Double Eagle Member
I think you are thinking of a certain 2009 champion, the 2008 champion did a bit worse.
-
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)
Is there a reason that the PDGA does not follow rules?
- Thread starter chris deitzel
- Start date
I think you are thinking of a certain 2009 champion, the 2008 champion did a bit worse.
One question of fairness with supergroups is whether they're guaranteed a preferred starting hole in shotgun starts (or tee time, if not).
Do they get to start on #1, a short walk from the players meeting, and avoid the random chance of a half-mile hike to the remotest part of the course?
Do they get to start on #1, a short walk from the players meeting, and avoid the random chance of a half-mile hike to the remotest part of the course?
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
ah, good call.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
yep screw the REAL 970-980 rated donors...uhm...i mean competitors... in the name of hypothetical viewers... it's the pdga way. same as reaming the current membership for more and more money in the name of hypothetical membership...
I serve on the PDGA Competition Committee. The current committee is pretty divided on this issue. Some believe players in the Super Group gain an advantage. Others argue that the gallery and TV coverage can actually be more distracting, so any advantage they may have is lessened. There is no evidence to prove either theory.
The PDGA Tour Manager is the only one with authority to grant these waivers on an event by event basis.
One NT TD team is very adamant about being allowed to have these Super Groups. They are convinced they can't draw as many spectators when the top players are spread about the course(s).
The PDGA Tour Manager is the only one with authority to grant these waivers on an event by event basis.
One NT TD team is very adamant about being allowed to have these Super Groups. They are convinced they can't draw as many spectators when the top players are spread about the course(s).
the_lung
Eagle Member
Thanks for the informational post, Discette. :thmbup:
As you know, Avery Jenkins is the Competition Committee liason, and I would be willing to bet that his fellow BoD member Dave Feldberg will push to have the issue reviewed again after the "unfair distractions" caused by the gallery during the first round of Pro Worlds on Tuesday at Renaissance Park last month.
Let me start by saying that my comment about suing the PDGA was ludicrous, and I have no intention of doing so.
But, it would be nice if all players were treated as equals prior to an event starting. And if the PDGA wants to grow the pro field, I would suggest making a 60% payout structure. That would encourage more of the 960 - 990 players to play at more high-level events. As is now, I have no intention of competing in these NT events knowing that I will most likely just be donating. But if they paid out 60% of the field, I might feel like I have a chance to squeak into the cash spot. And I think lots of others would feel this way also. And perhaps a lot of these high-ranked ams would be encouraged in giving the pro ranks a try.
but...till then, lets make everyone equal. And then sort people by score for the rest of the rounds.
But, it would be nice if all players were treated as equals prior to an event starting. And if the PDGA wants to grow the pro field, I would suggest making a 60% payout structure. That would encourage more of the 960 - 990 players to play at more high-level events. As is now, I have no intention of competing in these NT events knowing that I will most likely just be donating. But if they paid out 60% of the field, I might feel like I have a chance to squeak into the cash spot. And I think lots of others would feel this way also. And perhaps a lot of these high-ranked ams would be encouraged in giving the pro ranks a try.
but...till then, lets make everyone equal. And then sort people by score for the rest of the rounds.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Pros are not equal in their "value" pertaining to competition, only in that they are all human and pay the same entry fee.
the_lung
Eagle Member
Welcome to the club! That (and slow play) are pretty much why I stopped competing in sanctioned events altogether several years ago.
I am looking forward however to playing in two Ace Races this month, and helping out at yet another PDGA National Tour event. :thmbup:
You may not be aware of this but the PDGA implemented a program about 5 years ago that allows Pro players below a certain rating to play amateur.
In regards to the 60% payout....I would be interested how the numbers would shake out. It is possible (although not likely) that participation would increase to a level which would actually benefit those placing very high.
With that said I am not sure I would favor this if it meant the average A-tier winner would make 25% less. It is already hard enough for the touring guys to make it (gotta place high) so I am not sure I would favor a system which meant placing high gets less than currently.
What is average percentage of PGA players that make the cut? It would be interesting to see how our payout scale compares.
As for the 60% thing. I would keep the payouts the same way they are for the top 25%, then have a big dip in payout and a more flatter payout for the last 35%
Which from the little knowledge I have is similar to the PGA policy and IMO is not a bad idea
the_lung
Eagle Member
I have absolutely no desire to play for merchandise.
I wish more people were like you......because if so the Open division would be much larger meaning those 970 guys and maybe even 950 guys would cash consistently.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
?????
lol. Yeah people are lining up to get their tickets to see these Higher valued pros.
Maybe Chuck means the entertainment value, like when these pros start swearing and acting like douchebags on the course. Or maybe it's the value that they give us when they throw their golf bag into the trash after a bad round, and then go retrieve it an hour later.
Maybe Chuck means the entertainment value, like when these pros start swearing and acting like douchebags on the course. Or maybe it's the value that they give us when they throw their golf bag into the trash after a bad round, and then go retrieve it an hour later.
the_lung
Eagle Member
When the purses for tournament disc golf are $1,000,000 or greater like on the PGA tour, we can all have a good ole time arguing what the payout breakdowns should be because everybody is going to get taken care of. Until then, I wonder why waste the energy & resources on it.
72 people paid, 53 not paid. About 60%?
When the purses for tournament disc golf are $1,000,000 or greater like on the PGA tour, we can all have a good ole time arguing what the payout breakdowns should be because everybody is going to get taken care of. Until then, I wonder why waste the energy & resources on it.
How does that relate to payout PERCENTAGES? If a hypothetical 50 person PGA event pays 18% to first and 3% back to 30th maybe we should see what that would mean for our 50 person divisions...regardless of purse size and we will get a good look at if the system can be transferred to benefit our meager events.
Why did you waste the energy to write that post?
Similar threads
- Locked
