Should the DGPT Matchplay BECOME the DGPT Championship?

[biscoe]

I think something like this would be more interesting at the beginning of the season. Everybody craving some dg coverage, can use the trash talking interviews to build a little hype for the upcoming season…

I agree with the comments about it being fairly dull to watch. Typically tweener par holes are bad on courses but for something like this I think they'd work well. It's possible to pick up a stroke with a riskier shot, just depends on how bad the player wants to go for it. Instead it seemed like a lot of play it safe and let the other person make the mistake.

Logistically the early season match play would be tough to swing since the seeds are based on your points. You could use the previous season points potentially. Or maybe have it as the next event after Worlds…kinda use it as a mid season All Star break?

IMO they could do it farther south later in the year or even during the off season. There was a big Match Play Championship (Player's Cup) in Florida for a few years but it went the way of the dodo.

 

[ChrisWoj]

12 holes. You win the hole, you win a point. Tie, essentially nothing (halves).

So, a player gets up by enough points that there are not enough holes to catch up, match over. 4 person card with 2 1v1's at the same time.

As everyone has said, there just wasn't any real drama to the action. Even when it was close or went to playoff holes, it didn't provide a lot of interest. I think one reason is the bolf layout with some tight OB in places. The tee shots were generally uninteresting and the upshot was equally uninteresting. Not much opportunity for scramble plays, no challenging putts through trees.

Eagle was dominant in the first three rounds with his distance and his putting was dialed. The final round, his putting was off and that cost him.

Missy Gannon was putting exceptionally well in the FPO final which made it interesting. It was nice to the ladies making some big putts.

Huh? Are you responding to tell me that the Disc Golf Pro Tour Championship is the same format as the Match Play Championship? I understand how match play works, I am asking if they are using the same format for the Pro Tour Championship as in previous years.

 

[aphilso1]

Apparently I am in the extreme minority by voting "Yes." My thought is that the majors in disc golf could use more differentiation. Worlds is king by a huge margin, and the other majors are all kinda meh IMO. Spice those other majors up a bit. Do something different. And the DGPT Championship makes the most sense, because you can use the DGPT standings to determine who gets an invite and what the player seedings are.

 

[nothinbuttree]

<Thinking out loud>

So what if the events were combined? Keep the year end DGPT Championship the same format, with the top 16 slots awarded as they are now. 16 more slots could be awarded using this match play format, perhaps starting at 64 or even 128 players, with the final 16 winners of their head to head matchups then making the cut to the DGPT championship.

I thought the event was dull, part course part layout, but if it were just a tool to be used for other seeding, it might work.

 

[araytx]

I'm not sure how you encourage people who can't make a living solely playing disc golf (anyone past the top 16 is in that category) to come to play an event where you can be totally eliminated on the first day -- even if you played extremely well. We all live with the dream that we can make the magic happen some day, and the first time some lower-ranked player shot a -9 or -10 on the 12-hole layout, only to be knocked out by a 1050 boy who shot -11 , we'd say the system totally sucked. Because other guys made it to the second round shooting -4 or -5. The 1050 boy shooting -11 happens a lot; for the lower ranked guy he has a chance to get his respect one of the few times he shoots 1050+, but not if it means he's eliminated.

Next, not only is "March Madness"-style single elimination a silly way to select a champion, television ratings have proven over and over again it's not what the public wants to see anyway. What makes the college March Madness popular is all the real gambling and faux gambling that takes place via the bracket challenges, not the format. We all like the bragging rights of comparing ourselves with our buddies and the national "experts in our local and national bracket challenges. Plus ANYONE can fill out a bracket whether you follow college basketball or not. When 50million+ people are into it, then it's on a different level. That won't happen in disc golf currently.

Add to that the fact that TV ratings show that we only LOVE so-called "Cinderella" teams through about the Sweet Sixteen, and not ever beyond the Elite Eight. The lowest-rated (least watched) Final Fours in recent memory are easy to recall -- it's the ones where Loyola Chicago (Sister Jean's team), Wichita St., VCU, & George Mason made it to the Finial Four. It was neat seeing them win a couple upset games, but after that we're ready for the blue bloods to battle it out, and Cinderella to bow out. So I don't see how creating a Disc Golf "Whatever Month Madness" will bring us more eyes. I just don't see it, npi.

 

[txmxer]

Wait, so the tour championship is also going to be match play? Back to back match play tournaments and deciding the entire tour championship on match play is really dumb, IMO.

I have no idea about that.

 

[txmxer]

Huh? Are you responding to tell me that the Disc Golf Pro Tour Championship is the same format as the Match Play Championship? I understand how match play works, I am asking if they are using the same format for the Pro Tour Championship as in previous years.

Sorry I thought you were asking about how the match play was setup that just happened.

 

[Emoney]

Apparently I am in the extreme minority by voting "Yes." My thought is that the majors in disc golf could use more differentiation. Worlds is king by a huge margin, and the other majors are all kinda meh IMO. Spice those other majors up a bit. Do something different. And the DGPT Championship makes the most sense, because you can use the DGPT standings to determine who gets an invite and what the player seedings are.

I agree.....it's a great chance to separate disc golf from ball golf......

Currently this is an exhibition...a pro bowl or all star game if you will.

Matchplay on a balanced course allows for upsets and unpredictable results...get 32 players or so, add the title of dgpt champion, and have a big first place prize...BOOM...instant season ending excitement

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I know there are two things I didn't like about the match play event.

1. I don't like bracket play in golf, or any many vs. many sport (track/racing/etc.). It gets less interesting as it goes on because there is less happening. Brackets make sense for sports that are inherently 1v1 matchups.
2a. The holes weren't great. There were some good shots on the course at points, like hole 2 or the tee shot on that uphill hole with the low ceiling. But many of the holes were too straightforward to me. There were so many downhill hyzer shots with the only miss being "if you hyzer too much." I could probably be more articulate if I'd taken the time to watch more of it, but I got bored after the first round.

2b. Additionally, the course was poor, especially for match play. First, the course being only 12 holes made it worse. Guys were getting down by 2 and would start throwing riskier shots in order to catch up (presumably because there were so few holes), only to put them in worse positions. And for MPO, hole 12 was a terrible finishing hole. Everyone that got to it scored a 3, except for Chris Dickerson in day 1. He got a 4, and it took a below average drive, below average approach, and below average putt for his 4. For the top guys, there was almost no chance that one of them would take a 2, meaning if you were tied going into hole 12, you'd come out of it tied. That's not great drama.

I didn't care for the 12 hole format either. Whatever that course is that has no lines, that is complained about here, would be a great match play course. You need a course with large separation in scores for match play.

 

[Ryan P.]

I didn't care for the 12 hole format either. Whatever that course is that has no lines, that is complained about here, would be a great match play course. You need a course with large separation in scores for match play.

I don't want large scoring separation. I want some scoring separation.

More specifically, I think that for a match play course, some holes should have large scoring separation, and some should have small scoring separation, but all holes should have at least 10% of players getting a different score than the most common score. That number is probably far too low, but I think 10% is inarguable. Hole 12 left players with a three 93% (13/14) of the time. Even though these guys are the best players on tour, the course was designed specifically for them.

For clarity, I'd say that "low scoring separation" is somewhere between 10-30% of the players getting a different score on a hole, medium would be 30-50%, and large would be no more than 50% of the scores being the same for a hole. Those numbers are very arbitrary and pulled out of a black hole (well, they are based on my knowledge and intuition). In other words, I'd love to see some analysis done on "what is a good scoring distribution?" Maybe Steve will do something? Or maybe I should read the article I found on google about it (4981-applying-the-hardy-distribution-to-the-hole-scores-of-the-2012-british-open-championship.pdf).

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's difficult to get scoring separation based on skill versus luck when players have close to the same skill set (rating). Note that distance (is it a maximized physical trait or skill?) can be used as a separator on long ball golf style holes but is it "fair"? Maybe bigger baskets would provide more separation highlighting long range putting/upshot skills with dramatic throw-ins?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Maybe bigger baskets would provide more separation highlighting long range putting/upshot skills with dramatic throw-ins?

But...






But...



Putting is too easy and the baskets are too big...







< couldn't help but swing at that hanging curveball

 

[medic5888]

match play was the most boring tourney I ever watched. I finally got bored and turned it off every day. I think it was set up for Eagle to win something "big" but woops did not happen again.

 

[Steve West]

...Or maybe I should read the article I found on google about it (4981-applying-the-hardy-distribution-to-the-hole-scores-of-the-2012-british-open-championship.pdf).

Don't bother. The Hardy distribution doesn't work for disc golf because we have the likelihood of throws that save two throws, as well as throws that cost two throws. Hardy only allows for +1 or -1.

With the addition of +2 and -2, you get too many parameters. So for every set of scores there are several ways to fit the theoretical chances of gaining or losing throws.

 

[seedlings]

I liked the match play the more I watched it. Since, currently, the DGPT Championship is one random tournament in the season, one could argue that that player had a lucky tourney. There is no way someone could win a 32 or 64 slot match play with … one incredible round and three average rounds.

On the flip side, it's probably a nightmare of logistics, and more importantly, it's not what the traditional 2-meter-ruleists intended. To them, I'd ask if they foresaw 700' holes being parked. Things that change will change.

 

[seedlings]

I know there are two things I didn't like about the match play event.

2a. The holes weren't great. There were some good shots on the course at points, like hole 2 or the tee shot on that uphill hole with the low ceiling. But many of the holes were too straightforward to me. There were so many downhill hyzer shots with the only miss being "if you hyzer too much." I could probably be more articulate if I'd taken the time to watch more of it, but I got bored after the first round.

I agree with you, except no one could throw any hole the same twice. Possible exception Calvin. So, in theory you are correct. In practice there was plenty of variation.

 

[Ryan P.]

I agree with you, except no one could throw any hole the same twice. Possible exception Calvin. So, in theory you are correct. In practice there was plenty of variation.

I'd agree with you, except that I didn't say anyone could throw a hole the same way twice.

Putting aside the wit, what I mean by "too straightforward" is not that everyone will play the hole the same way twice, but that the holes were played in generally the same way the vast majority of the time. Take the last hole (12). It was a 700' downhill shot. Everyone I saw either played a hyzer and landed 200ish short, or played a flat shot out to the right and let it fade in, leaving themselves with a slightly shorter approach. While everyone landed in slightly different spots, there was no reason to do it in any differently.

Another way to say what I'm saying is, if you picked any of those players and had them play that hole, they'd play it the same way 10 times, and get 9 or 10 pars. They wouldn't land in the same spots, but they'd land in same(ish) location every drive, leaving them the same(ish) upshot, leaving them the same(ish) putt.

 

[txmxer]

I don't want large scoring separation. I want some scoring separation.

More specifically, I think that for a match play course, some holes should have large scoring separation, and some should have small scoring separation, but all holes should have at least 10% of players getting a different score than the most common score. That number is probably far too low, but I think 10% is inarguable. Hole 12 left players with a three 93% (13/14) of the time. Even though these guys are the best players on tour, the course was designed specifically for them.

For clarity, I'd say that "low scoring separation" is somewhere between 10-30% of the players getting a different score on a hole, medium would be 30-50%, and large would be no more than 50% of the scores being the same for a hole. Those numbers are very arbitrary and pulled out of a black hole (well, they are based on my knowledge and intuition). In other words, I'd love to see some analysis done on "what is a good scoring distribution?" Maybe Steve will do something? Or maybe I should read the article I found on google about it (4981-applying-the-hardy-distribution-to-the-hole-scores-of-the-2012-british-open-championship.pdf).

A hole that requires two fairly basic throws to get to a putt, and no real chance to get a two isn't going to provide much separation.

For match play, they need to have holes that would typically generate some good scoring distribution

 

[Ryan P.]

A hole that requires two fairly basic throws to get to a putt, and no real chance to get a two isn't going to provide much separation.

For match play, they need to have holes that would typically generate some good scoring distribution

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or saying something else altogether.

 

[txmxer]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or saying something else altogether.

I was agreeing.

Sorry for the confusion.