2014 United States Disc Golf Championship

[Anon]

it is a pretty crazy stretch in my opinion. there are 5 marshals each year at the USDGC's then 2 PDGA officials in Andrew Sweeton and Mike Downes. Each Marshall has anywhere from 3 to 5 holes they are responsible for. There were 34 groups in this years competition. you would need at least 20 Marshalls on hand and they would have to walk non stop all day to cover 34 groups. there are at least 20 groups on the course at any given time once the event is in full swing. It is hard enough getting 7 marshals who are certified current officials and have 4 days to offer to volunteer for free.

I am also dyeing to hear an elaboration on this "I'm not so sure if 'chairgate' was enough even though those strokes could have won McBeth the tournament"

You definitely have more insight than I do. I concede that right off the bat.

However, I just can't see a future where we are leaving calls in the hands of players in pinnacle tournaments that are being broadcast to the world. Especially when those calls aren't being made as it stands.

Yes. Money would ideally be involved. Passion doesn't pay the bills. We all get that. For an event which is supposed to be the crown-jewel of your 'sport' i don't think its an absurd notion to think that an objective official should be following the cards to make sure things are on the up-and-up.

 

[sidewinder22]

I was about to post after Holly's post but had to finish up the latest batch of TD reports for the ratings update.

Regarding the Performance Flight versus Open Flight, I think the perceptions reflect the somewhat warped values we have has a society. We tend to be more excited about the "best" overall rather than those who excel the highest above expectations. Paul and Will could be expected as potential winners based on their past performance/ratings, so what's the surprise in either of them winning?

On the other hand, no one really knew who would rise to the occasion and play way above expectations in the Performance Flight. In theory, that should be more exciting to watch or at least track. And yet, there seems to be a general disdain among many for the format which showcases those personally excelling. I get it, but it's sad to see how people react in general. In Dr. Phil mode, perhaps Performance Flight is more in our face hinting at our personal failings to excel since those players are more like us versus superstars like Lebron, Brady or McBeth?

Let's bask in beating mediocrity. :\

 

[Jay Dub]

Let's bask in beating mediocrity. :\

I have to agree with this. Political correctness aside, people want to see the best perform, it's that simple.

Congrats to Holly for doing better than she normally does, now it would be a good idea to get some thicker skin.

 

[BgWvDave]

You definitely have more insight than I do. I concede that right off the bat.

However, I just can't see a future where we are leaving calls in the hands of players in pinnacle tournaments that are being broadcast to the world. Especially when those calls aren't being made as it stands.

Yes. Money would ideally be involved. Passion doesn't pay the bills. We all get that. For an event which is supposed to be the crown-jewel of your 'sport' i don't think its an absurd notion to think that an objective official should be following the cards to make sure things are on the up-and-up.

I agree. it's a tough one. the players should self police and the Officials should call them when they are present. currently neither is happening.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Regarding marshals, unless their guidance is changed, having one for each card might not change things. Marshals are currently guided to generally not initiate calls but answer rules issues and support calls when made. An example might be seconding a foot fault but not initiating the call. Marshals might be asked to start the 3 minutes to look for a lost disc but will usually not initiate the 3 minutes without a player in the group asking to start the clock. The onus is still on the players to primarily make the calls.

 

[tbird888]

Let's bask in beating mediocrity. :\

Agreed

It'd be a lot easier for someone who isn't depending on playing their best to stay on tour to take a dive and play their actual game for the win. You'll chase the actual talent away quickly, and who wants that?

 

[grodney]

By my (ROUGH) calculations, Schusterick would have finished somewhere around 8th place in the Performance Flight.

 

[JTacoma03]

I filmed this group & editing was finished last night!! Jussi is a class act out on the course & I love Simon's smooth style! K.C. & eMac don't hurt this groups appeal any!

Post link when it's up! I want to watch that round!

I know its totally against our 'self policing' model that DG is built around... but for huge and high-profile NT and Major events like this, it doesn't seem crazy that they could just have a PDGA official tagging along with the top cards to make these calls.

I suppose then it becomes an issue of even coverage across the event as a whole and there probably isn't the staff required to do it. But it does seem like at a certain point they need to take these calls out of the players hands and give it to somebody with a (hopefully) objective view of the situation.

Totally in agreement with you. You just put one Marshall per hole instead of per card and that avoids player bias/favorites. Also then each (empowered to make calls) Marshall knows the tricky spots of individual holes and can make consistent rulings.

Wow. Way to knock the wind outta someone's sails.

To be fair Holly, I think what he was trying to say is it's patronizing to you as a professional athlete. As in, "oh she's a woman look how good she did, trying her best with the boys!" Clearly, as we all saw and you mentioned in your speech on Saturday - you ladies can play! There's no need to handicap the course or e competitive environment based on your gender. Our discussion was on the merits of how to show due respect to female competitors (divisional USDGC titles vs a separate Women's championship).

I see performance flight as a joke because it's patronizing. It's basically a participation medal...and that's no disrespect to Paige either. I think it's more of a compliment to her game that she would have cashed in Open vs winning a handicapped division.

 

[grodney]

Patrick Brown would have finished 4th in Performance. Vilie Piippo 2nd.

 

[BgWvDave]

Regarding marshals, unless their guidance is changed, having one for each card might not change things. Marshals are currently guided to generally not initiate calls but answer rules issues and support calls when made. An example might be seconding a foot fault but not initiating the call. Marshals might be asked to start the 3 minutes to look for a lost disc but will usually not initiate the 3 minutes without a player in the group asking to start the clock. The onus is still on the players to primarily make the calls.

This is exactly what I was instructed to do last year as that was the first year I Marshaled. Thanks for the post Chuck!

 

[Cgkdisc]

I see performance flight as a joke because it's patronizing. It's basically a participation medal...and that's no disrespect to Paige either. I think it's more of a compliment to her game that she would have cashed in Open vs winning a handicapped division.

So basically all pro tournament titles that did not include the World Champ in the field are essentially participation awards? These are players not winning against the best but playing "mediocre" golf (relative to the best) to win. Again, warped perspective on what's worth watching and supporting.

 

[1978]

I was about to post after Holly's post but had to finish up the latest batch of TD reports for the ratings update.

Regarding the Performance Flight versus Open Flight, I think the perceptions reflect the somewhat warped values we have has a society. We tend to be more excited about the "best" overall rather than those who excel the highest above expectations. Paul and Will could be expected as potential winners based on their past performance/ratings, so what's the surprise in either of them winning?

On the other hand, no one really knew who would rise to the occasion and play way above expectations in the Performance Flight. In theory, that should be more exciting to watch or at least track. And yet, there seems to be a general disdain among many for the format which showcases those personally excelling. I get it, but it's sad to see how people react in general. In Dr. Phil mode, perhaps Performance Flight is more in our face hinting at our personal failings to excel since those players are more like us versus superstars like Lebron, Brady or McBeth that seem out of our league for comparison?

Maybe in theory, but the distain is how the course sets up for certain styles of play. It is relatively easy to play the course 9 over with out ever risking anything. The course bites you when you play agressive. The 880 rated player has to be way less agressive vs the 980. No one is interested that the 880 player threw mid ranges every where, layed up, and limped in to a 9 over par. This would not work on most every other course. The USDGC course is unique and it is way more difficult to exceed your projected score the higher rated you are, a very steep exponential curve. When you are lower rated you can know you have to play more boring and actually do better...play worse and rate better. That is not fun. This event should be moved to a real course, not Winthrop Gold.

Additionally I see three main things that taint the result:
Players that are in that early learning curve do much better than players that have worked hard to hone their skills.

Players can play 12 rounds at the beginning of the year qualify and practice the remainder of the year...so that they are much better players. We all know how much better we got in 12 months our first few years playing.

This is one of the few events where you can actually spot a real life sandbagger. Someone that blows events to be rated lower come the time of the USDGC or USDGC qualifying events. That is a real problem and I know that it happens. It is very cheap to blow 12 $5 club rounds in a year and take a rating hit.

 

[WhiteyBear]

So basically all pro tournament titles that did not include the World Champ in the field are essentially participation awards? These are players not winning against the best but playing "mediocre" golf (relative to the best) to win. Again, warped perspective on what's worth watching and supporting.

It's hard to cheer for a "US Championship", when (just an example that can happen) Paige can get bird 5 with a 4, and someone throws in the same hole, scoring a 7, to get an "eagle".

 

[tbird888]

So basically all pro tournament titles that did not include the World Champ in the field are essentially participation awards? These are players not winning against the best but playing "mediocre" golf (relative to the best) to win. Again, warped perspective on what's worth watching and supporting.

As I tried to say above and screwed up, what's to stop these players from intentionally scoring low in some events to knock down their rating to improve their projected score so they can come in, play their actual game, and win the event? The big pros can't do that because their livelihood will suffer.

 

[JTacoma03]

So basically all pro tournament titles that did not include the World Champ in the field are essentially participation awards? These are players not winning against the best but playing "mediocre" golf (relative to the best) to win. Again, warped perspective on what's worth watching and supporting.

[serious, not trolling]

Can you elaborate? I don't understand how you drew this conclusion from my post. I'm talking about crowning the United States Champion. I'm saying that it's not a compliment to the 2x world champion Paige Pierce to say "congrats you're a US 'champion' by playing a better* tournament than a 930 rated (AM2 level) rated male." It's more of a compliment to say she finished Winthrop in less strokes than sponsored pros with a higher rating than her (aka cashed in open).

 

[1978]

As I tried to say above and screwed up, what's to stop these players from intentionally scoring low in some events to knock down their rating to improve their projected score so they can come in, play their actual game, and win the event? The big pros can't do that because their livelihood will suffer.

They cant do that also because they dont play in handicapped events.

 

[JTacoma03]

Solution? FPO major winners get invited next year. It won't be that many different ladies (less crowded at the top as of now) and they've proven they can play on the level of the guys with no handicap.

 

[tbird888]

They cant do that also because they dont play in handicapped events.

Isn't their USDGC handicap based off their rating? Why can't they purposely lower their rating throughout the year to increase their odds of winning the USDGC? It's foolish to give up a year's worth of competition, but it's possible.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Isn't their USDGC handicap based off their rating? Why can't they purposely lower their rating throughout the year to increase their odds of winning the USDGC? It's foolish to give up a year's worth of competition, but it's possible.

That''s already been handled by using your highest rating in the past year, not your rating near the event if it's lower. It also has to be based on at least 12 rounds. Not worth it from a cost standpoint to tank your rating for a shot at the title since not even merch awards. And note that Paige won it and unlikely has a tanked rating.

 

[Allurex]

It's hard to throw that thumber low enough under the net without it landing short, in which case you're risking not flaring over the hay bales.

Dollar flicked a flat Firebird on 17.

I guess I've never seen quite how low the net is. Hard to see on the video.

I've certainly seen Dollar and Schwebby throw some nice low fastballs, but you're right it might be dependent on that flair skip. Risky play.