2016 Am Worlds - Madison, Wi

[bhadella]

the "WE" is us -- you and me and everyone who doesn't like the current system. We could do the work and get volunteers in our own area and put together a bid. Perhaps, "the indictment on the state of the game" might be that people in the past have worked their tails off for more than a year to host Worlds, only to be besieged by unreasonable and/or uneducated bitchin' from members. That's really not necessary. I truly hope that this thread doesn't dissuade Glide and his team from ever bidding again.

However, I am committed to trying once again to get a bid together in my area -- THAT's what we can do.



As I suspected. The PDGA staff had to know this going in; all of us Ams who got invite packages knew that going in as well. It's not right to trouble the group in Madison to solve someone else's issue. If WE the membership see a problem, then WE need to solve it – not Glide's team, not Big Dog's team – WE do.



You're kidding, right? How much do you think a sustainable golf course brings in in revenue in a week? I'd guess something like $15-$20 K for an average course that does $1million a year, nowhere near the increase in revenue minus the cost of having the additional entrants for us. Heck, if it's a full 144 then you're still short on the cost and that doesn't take into account the money needed for 144 more players packs, all the equipment and needs for running an additional course – water, more workers, what you'll need to pay the ball golf course staff for custodial type work etc. People who aren't TD's don't think of stuff like this. They think the tournament they attend just magically happens.




Again, that's still twice the workers, twice the manpower, twice the city's courses being unavailable for its own taxpaying citizens, etc. [if the two Worlds are in the same location on separate weeks]; -- or getting another good quality bid from someone to host [if it's in a different location]. You've got to see the inherent problems therein.



Amen brother! Amen.

Um...maybe we have put together and ran prior AM Worlds and might be working towards another one? Are we allowed to comment then? :doh:

A run of the mill 9 hole course isn't getting $15-$20K in revenue on Monday-Friday (which is all you would need for the tournament, weekends could be back to normal for the golf course). Or a local parks department park that you could put a temp course on.

And multiple weeks have benefits too. Since the field size is smaller, less support needed during each week, less courses needed. Course availability is there (private ones are getting entry fee from tournament, public are well, public).

 

[araytx]

Um...maybe we have put together and ran prior AM Worlds and might be working towards another one? Are we allowed to comment then? :doh:

A run of the mill 9 hole course isn't getting $15-$20K in revenue on Monday-Friday (which is all you would need for the tournament, weekends could be back to normal for the golf course). Or a local parks department park that you could put a temp course on.

And multiple weeks have benefits too. Since the field size is smaller, less support needed during each week, less courses needed. Course availability is there (private ones are getting entry fee from tournament, public are well, public).

Comment all you want. It's the "I know what Madison should do right now" thing that is a bit contrarian, like Matt B. said. Well since you have THE solution, do it. They'll be calling for 2018 AM/Jr Worlds bids soon. G.E.D.

 

[bhadella]

Comment all you want. It's the "I know what Madison should do right now" thing that is a bit contrarian, like Matt B. said. Well since you have THE solution, do it. They'll be calling for 2018 AM/Jr Worlds bids soon. G.E.D.

I've never said Madison should change anything now, once the PDGA accepted that bid that's what they should provide. It wouldn't make sense to spend the effort to add something this late. I do wish that the PDGA would have pushed for more capacity.

Again, running these is a relative thankless job. I appreciate what past and present TDS do but this is a discussion board for discussing DG. Let us discuss it.

 

[Rob Martin]

I still think a viable option for those that didn't get in is to look at Ledgestone. It's pretty much in teh same region, only a month later, and they have over 400 spots still open.

https://www.discgolfscene.com/tournaments/Ledgestone_Insurance_Open_presented_by_Discraft_2016

 

[ERicJ]

I still SMDH at the people who gloss over the effort of splitting the event into different weeks... like putting on an event the magnitude of Worlds is just as easy to "do it again next week". I picture Glide reading those posts and his head figuratively exploding.

 

[#19325]

I still think a viable option for those that didn't get in is to look at Ledgestone. It's pretty much in teh same region, only a month later, and they have over 400 spots still open.

https://www.discgolfscene.com/tournaments/Ledgestone_Insurance_Open_presented_by_Discraft_2016

Fantastic advice! Nate Heinhold has done a great job of creating a fantastic event. This is a must play and he treats Amateurs just as fairly was pros. The courses are awesome!

 

[diabolicgal]

Another option to ameliorate the uncertainty in the number of invitees who try to register in future years would be to offer bands of invites. For instance, to earn an 'A' invite takes 3000 points and a rating over 950, 'B' invites for 2000 points and a rating over 925, etc., with the band requirements being tailored to each division. Then registration could be opened days later for each progressively lower band of invites so that the most qualified players have first dibs on available slots. Also, fewer people would be in each group slamming the servers.

 

[deadbody]

Another option to ameliorate the uncertainty in the number of invitees who try to register in future years would be to offer bands of invites. For instance, to earn an 'A' invite takes 3000 points and a rating over 950, 'B' invites for 2000 points and a rating over 925, etc., with the band requirements being tailored to each division. Then registration could be opened days later for each progressively lower band of invites so that the most qualified players have first dibs on available slots. Also, fewer people would be in each group slamming the servers.

Except that goes against the stated goal of inclusiveness.

I got to play in AM Worlds when it was in Minneapolis, I had no business playing it as I was not going to challenge for the title (I think I ended up beating like 2 people) but it was a great time, and I would not give it back for anything.

When the PDGA wants to treat AM Worlds as a serious only the best of the best ams compete, then an idea like that will work. Until then, a minimum qualification requirement along with an open sign up seems like the way to go.

Maybe split the age protected divisions off, and say you can only play in one.

 

[puttlikeablowfly]

Asst TD (and the one who primarily developed the proposed course schedule, pool configurations, etc.) here. Far too many points to address, especially ones that are completely out of our control such as the registration process and qualification criteria, but I did want to touch on a few things.

We've been working on this for five years, from when we first started to talk about it, to when we bid in 2012 and 2013 for 2015, to when we bid again last year for 2016. At the time of our original bids for 2015, we were proposing a capacity of 648, but that was when the PDGA allowed you to use some courses three times in a day (such as 8:00, 11:30, and 3:00 tee times). When the 2016 bid guidelines came out, they were only allowing use of a course for two rounds in a day, to make it easier on staff and to allow for some cushion for weather delays, etc. They even included a table that showed expected capacity / field sizes based on number of courses. It shows 576 players for six courses, which we have the equivalent of with two 27s and three 18s. The PDGA knew what they were getting with our bid. We also only got awarded the bid in May of last year, so we had 14 months to get ready post-award, as opposed to the two or three years that is normally afforded. It's a good thing we put a lot of thought into our bids, and are not trying to bite off more than we can chew.

We've also been very clear that we would prefer a great experience for a smaller field rather than a good experience for a slightly larger field, and that we wanted everyone to get the "Madison disc golf experience" by playing each of the major courses in the immediate area. The bid guidelines, at least for 2015 and prior, stated that the courses should be within 20 miles of the event center. All of our courses are within 20 miles and a 30-minute drive of the host hotel. We've got it scheduled so that everyone only has one day where they play two rounds, with those two courses being the one closest to the host hotel (Hiestand) and one that is a 15-minute drive from Hiestand (Cap Springs). The 27-hole courses and Elver (which is furthest from the host hotel) are all played as a person's only round of the day. Everyone plays each course once, except for the Legends and the youngest Juniors (8-y.o. and younger) who only play four 18-hole rounds (they miss Cap Springs). We're not planning for fivesomes, or packing 108 players onto a 27-hole course ... we want to try and avoid five-plus hour rounds at a place like Bird's Ruins in the middle of July. The schedule works out very, very nicely for 576.

There was a comment a few pages back about the women and youth getting hit the hardest. We have room for 112 juniors, which would only be beat by Kalamazoo last year, which had 118. The next closest was 93 from 2014. One of the reasons some of the junior divisional caps still aren't as large as some would like is that this year is the first with the four new junior divisions, M(F)J5/6, which are 8&under and 6&under. We have to at least start off with four per division, so that is 16 new slots ... if any of those don't fill, I suspect the extra slots will be added to other junior divisions. As for women, we have room for 64, which would be the third largest (Kalamazoo had 79 and Charlotte had 72, and they both had total fields over 700). Those are the only two that had at least 40 spots for Advanced Women, which is what we have. Over the previous 10 years, the percentage of women players out of the total in the event ranged from 7.1% to 10.5%. Based on current capacity, ours is 11.1%. The percentage for Juniors in the previous 10 years ranged from 9.2% to 15.7%. Ours is 19.4%. If I did my math correctly, based on PDGA members that competed in at least one sanctioned event in 2015, the percentages of women and juniors out of the total were each approximately 7%.

Finally, if there is consideration to splitting up Am Worlds into two events, I can't imagine asking any one place to host both. Remember, this is an eight-day event, with five days of major competition, plus the players' meeting, field events, flymart, doubles, ancillary events, etc. Knowing how much planning went into this, not knowing how I'll survive the event itself, and realizing the impact on the local disc golfers whose courses will be closed for significant portions of time as is, it seems unfathomable to try and increase the demands on one host that would come from such an arrangement.

 

[Steve West]

Um...maybe we have put together and ran prior AM Worlds and might be working towards another one? Are we allowed to comment then? :doh:

A run of the mill 9 hole course isn't getting $15-$20K in revenue on Monday-Friday (which is all you would need for the tournament, weekends could be back to normal for the golf course). Or a local parks department park that you could put a temp course on.

...

OK, I'll accept your invitation to comment.

For 2104 Am Worlds, we considered Fort Snelling, which is a 9 hole golf course (always on the verge of being shut down), which already has a permanent 18 hole disc golf course installed on it. The cost for closing it to golfers would have been $5,000 per day.

Also, when we were at this point in the multi-year process, it would have been almost inconceivably difficult to add another course, re-do all the schedules, find more volunteers, and on and on and on. There was already plenty to do just to finish getting the train into the station, without going back for more freight cars.

 

[allinpflop]

From the amount of spots filled last year in women's am1 (50) and the number currently on the waiting list this year for that division shows that 40 spots is not nearly enough....

QUOTE=puttlikeablowfly;3001252]Asst TD (and the one who primarily developed the proposed course schedule, pool configurations, etc.) here. Far too many points to address, especially ones that are completely out of our control such as the registration process and qualification criteria, but I did want to touch on a few things.

We've been working on this for five years, from when we first started to talk about it, to when we bid in 2012 and 2013 for 2015, to when we bid again last year for 2016. At the time of our original bids for 2015, we were proposing a capacity of 648, but that was when the PDGA allowed you to use some courses three times in a day (such as 8:00, 11:30, and 3:00 tee times). When the 2016 bid guidelines came out, they were only allowing use of a course for two rounds in a day, to make it easier on staff and to allow for some cushion for weather delays, etc. They even included a table that showed expected capacity / field sizes based on number of courses. It shows 576 players for six courses, which we have the equivalent of with two 27s and three 18s. The PDGA knew what they were getting with our bid. We also only got awarded the bid in May of last year, so we had 14 months to get ready post-award, as opposed to the two or three years that is normally afforded. It's a good thing we put a lot of thought into our bids, and are not trying to bite off more than we can chew.

We've also been very clear that we would prefer a great experience for a smaller field rather than a good experience for a slightly larger field, and that we wanted everyone to get the "Madison disc golf experience" by playing each of the major courses in the immediate area. The bid guidelines, at least for 2015 and prior, stated that the courses should be within 20 miles of the event center. All of our courses are within 20 miles and a 30-minute drive of the host hotel. We've got it scheduled so that everyone only has one day where they play two rounds, with those two courses being the one closest to the host hotel (Hiestand) and one that is a 15-minute drive from Hiestand (Cap Springs). The 27-hole courses and Elver (which is furthest from the host hotel) are all played as a person's only round of the day. Everyone plays each course once, except for the Legends and the youngest Juniors (8-y.o. and younger) who only play four 18-hole rounds (they miss Cap Springs). We're not planning for fivesomes, or packing 108 players onto a 27-hole course ... we want to try and avoid five-plus hour rounds at a place like Bird's Ruins in the middle of July. The schedule works out very, very nicely for 576.

There was a comment a few pages back about the women and youth getting hit the hardest. We have room for 112 juniors, which would only be beat by Kalamazoo last year, which had 118. The next closest was 93 from 2014. One of the reasons some of the junior divisional caps still aren't as large as some would like is that this year is the first with the four new junior divisions, M(F)J5/6, which are 8&under and 6&under. We have to at least start off with four per division, so that is 16 new slots ... if any of those don't fill, I suspect the extra slots will be added to other junior divisions. As for women, we have room for 64, which would be the third largest (Kalamazoo had 79 and Charlotte had 72, and they both had total fields over 700). Those are the only two that had at least 40 spots for Advanced Women, which is what we have. Over the previous 10 years, the percentage of women players out of the total in the event ranged from 7.1% to 10.5%. Based on current capacity, ours is 11.1%. The percentage for Juniors in the previous 10 years ranged from 9.2% to 15.7%. Ours is 19.4%. If I did my math correctly, based on PDGA members that competed in at least one sanctioned event in 2015, the percentages of women and juniors out of the total were each approximately 7%.

Finally, if there is consideration to splitting up Am Worlds into two events, I can't imagine asking any one place to host both. Remember, this is an eight-day event, with five days of major competition, plus the players' meeting, field events, flymart, doubles, ancillary events, etc. Knowing how much planning went into this, not knowing how I'll survive the event itself, and realizing the impact on the local disc golfers whose courses will be closed for significant portions of time as is, it seems unfathomable to try and increase the demands on one host that would come from such an arrangement.[/QUOTE]

 

[happylender2]

But what it if one community were to host a split AM Worlds event? The location for the 2017 worlds has been announced. What if those clubs interested in bidding for 2018 offered to host both an AM worlds and an age protected Am Worlds? After the Olympics, after a certain break, the Paralympics come to the same city. The facilities and infrastructure is already in place. Why couldn't this same model be applied in this situation?

From what I gather, and I have not read all the posts, the issue seems to be one of inclusion. A few thousand invites go out, and yes, as a result of being awake at midnight on the appointed night and having the best internet connection you can buy, on a few hundred get in. It also seems some of the grumbling from the older players ( and I am one) is that our groups have been cut for the sake of the masses. I think some of the guys I play with have been playing and have been PDGA members from the beginning of time. Perhaps they feel as though they are being shunted to the side for "the growth of the sport" when they have been supporting the sport since the beginning.

If you are planning one event, aren't you in fact planning two or more? You do one event, take a break, rest the courses and use the same formula, template, plan, what have you for the second. I'll admit, I am not a TD but I do have the utmost respect for those that are. It must be a God awful, thankless job. The people that are TDS in my area are outstanding.

There have to be many areas with multiple clubs and courses that would be worthy of a World Championship. There could and should be a pooling of resources and talent in those areas that could pull off a split world championship. I can understand the concern for volunteer burnout, but, by bringing in a potential of up to 1400 disc golfers over two weeks plus of competition with cash to spend on food, lodging and entertainment, I don't know why any chamber of commerce or CVB would not want to jump on that cash bandwagon and help out with promotion, financial support and volunteers.

Maybe this should be a consideration for the future World Championships. A bid for two championships, in the same location, spread out over three weeks (more or less). You would already be running one, why not two? Same game plan for one works for the other.

Just a thought

 

[runningoz]

But what it if one community were to host a split AM Worlds event? The location for the 2017 worlds has been announced. What if those clubs interested in bidding for 2018 offered to host both an AM worlds and an age protected Am Worlds? After the Olympics, after a certain break, the Paralympics come to the same city. The facilities and infrastructure is already in place. Why couldn't this same model be applied in this situation?

From what I gather, and I have not read all the posts, the issue seems to be one of inclusion. A few thousand invites go out, and yes, as a result of being awake at midnight on the appointed night and having the best internet connection you can buy, on a few hundred get in. It also seems some of the grumbling from the older players ( and I am one) is that our groups have been cut for the sake of the masses. I think some of the guys I play with have been playing and have been PDGA members from the beginning of time. Perhaps they feel as though they are being shunted to the side for "the growth of the sport" when they have been supporting the sport since the beginning.

If you are planning one event, aren't you in fact planning two or more? You do one event, take a break, rest the courses and use the same formula, template, plan, what have you for the second. I'll admit, I am not a TD but I do have the utmost respect for those that are. It must be a God awful, thankless job. The people that are TDS in my area are outstanding.

There have to be many areas with multiple clubs and courses that would be worthy of a World Championship. There could and should be a pooling of resources and talent in those areas that could pull off a split world championship. I can understand the concern for volunteer burnout, but, by bringing in a potential of up to 1400 disc golfers over two weeks plus of competition with cash to spend on food, lodging and entertainment, I don't know why any chamber of commerce or CVB would not want to jump on that cash bandwagon and help out with promotion, financial support and volunteers.

Maybe this should be a consideration for the future World Championships. A bid for two championships, in the same location, spread out over three weeks (more or less). You would already be running one, why not two? Same game plan for one works for the other.

Just a thought

So you want people to take multiple weeks off from their real life job in order to host a tournament so more people can play? Take even more time away from their family so you can throw a piece of plastic in the woods? I mean you are already doing it anyway for one week, why not another? I mean if the Olympics can do it with their billions and billions of dollars and national governments making sure it't not an embarrassment on the world stage, why can't a bunch of people do it all on their own?

 

[lyleoross]

Happy lender, the post above makes the point, but to be clear, the guys running the Olympics get paid. Yes, the tax payer gets the shaft, but the organizers and staff get paid. I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that at this point majors in small to medium settings are good for local business, they make money. But the guys doing the work don't get much. There are some exceptions, sort of. Dynamic Discs turned the GBO into a huge marketing opportunity, and they did a great job. Their staff did a lot of work, in theory for pay (I don't know how it really went) but even the TDs weren't localcand if they got anything, it couldn't have been much. When we get to a point where there is ad revenue or similar, then two weekend gigs will work.

 

[araytx]

But what it if one community were to host a split AM Worlds event? The location for the 2017 worlds has been announced. What if those clubs interested in bidding for 2018 offered to host both an AM worlds and an age protected Am Worlds? After the Olympics, after a certain break, the Paralympics come to the same city. The facilities and infrastructure is already in place. Why couldn't this same model be applied in this situation?

From what I gather, and I have not read all the posts, the issue seems to be one of inclusion. A few thousand invites go out, and yes, as a result of being awake at midnight on the appointed night and having the best internet connection you can buy, on a few hundred get in. It also seems some of the grumbling from the older players ( and I am one) is that our groups have been cut for the sake of the masses. I think some of the guys I play with have been playing and have been PDGA members from the beginning of time. Perhaps they feel as though they are being shunted to the side for "the growth of the sport" when they have been supporting the sport since the beginning.

If you are planning one event, aren't you in fact planning two or more? You do one event, take a break, rest the courses and use the same formula, template, plan, what have you for the second. I'll admit, I am not a TD but I do have the utmost respect for those that are. It must be a God awful, thankless job. The people that are TDS in my area are outstanding.

There have to be many areas with multiple clubs and courses that would be worthy of a World Championship. There could and should be a pooling of resources and talent in those areas that could pull off a split world championship. I can understand the concern for volunteer burnout, but, by bringing in a potential of up to 1400 disc golfers over two weeks plus of competition with cash to spend on food, lodging and entertainment, I don't know why any chamber of commerce or CVB would not want to jump on that cash bandwagon and help out with promotion, financial support and volunteers.

Maybe this should be a consideration for the future World Championships. A bid for two championships, in the same location, spread out over three weeks (more or less). You would already be running one, why not two? Same game plan for one works for the other.

Just a thought

Happy lender, that thought also, is highly unlikely, except in places like Emporia KS, where the infrastructure is so maintained the city/club relationship is unmatched. Everything OZ said is true -- these volunteers for Am Worlds very likely have a real job and make a living. They probably use their hard earned vacation time for a one-time 8 to 10-day commitment which they can plan out a year or more in advance. If you're not a TD, you guys might want to first think about asking the TDs, "what are the problems in this thought I have," before asserting it as just a thought. In Emporia a lot of the work is done by Dynamic Discs staff, DD temp staff, and Team DD members and DD volunteers -- people either on DD's payroll or in a national network that they have already in place. That's rare everywhere else. And DD took 3 years before they went for a bid again. (2013 - 2016)


Next, you've got to remember that in most of these communities the disc golf courses BELONG to someone. Private courses have a private owner; city courses are owned by the city's Parks & Rec department. These communities likely went to a lot of trouble and testimony and work and volunteer hours by local disc golfers just to get the course in. If you've ever participated in that process you'd know how it happens. Once you are able to get a course in, then the city's Parks department, along with the City Council watch everything that happens at that course, to make sure it's kept clean, there is no "riff-raff" or illicit activity, and to be sure THEY get their money's worth on THEIR course. Many of them will approve a 8-day commitment once in a while to close that city's courses for the trade off of CVB revenue, but to get them to close those courses to the local people (whose taxes pay for the course) for multiple weeks is a stretch. The local club and disc golfers have to convince the City Council that closing the courses for a week is worth it to them, just to be able to write a bid to host Worlds. Go make a presentation to City Council to see how it happens. At some point the local people who play the course all the time call City Hall and say, "...what are my tax dollars going toward??? So I can't play in the city parks?" And the inherent problem with private courses is that property owner is gonna want to get paid.

On top of that, ask the groups who have done the three to four year work of hosting a Worlds, getting all the player's packs, all the sponsors, all the volunteers, all the water jugs, all the trainers/EMTs on stand-by, all the vendors, all the special events, and etc. etc., if they feel like, "Hey let's do this again in a week!" right after theirs is over. Never mind that all the support stuff that goes to players has to be big-time increased. It's more than time; go to 800-900 or more players in two separate week-long Am Worlds and that's another 200-300 players packs, more money to manage, and on and on and on. The suggestions are well intended and well-taken, but realistically guys, these "suggestions" or "ideas" need more thought and certainly more inquiry to the people who have actually done it. Do you really think that the PDGA postpones announcing the winners of bids to host Worlds because they have so many bidders???? Ain't no way.

Um...maybe we have put together and ran prior AM Worlds and might be working towards another one? Are we allowed to comment then? :doh:

A run of the mill 9 hole course isn't getting $15-$20K in revenue on Monday-Friday (which is all you would need for the tournament, weekends could be back to normal for the golf course). Or a local parks department park that you could put a temp course on.

And multiple weeks have benefits too. Since the field size is smaller, less support needed during each week, less courses needed. Course availability is there (private ones are getting entry fee from tournament, public are well, public).

bdhella thought I was reaching, but I see from Steve West's comment that I had underestimated the cost of using a ball golf course ... $40K for 8 days.

 

[allinpflop]

I understand fully that we are stuck with the event as it is for this year but what can be done in the future to improve am worlds? With the amazing growth of tournament disc golfers and the fact that premier events sell out almost immediately what can be done? I don't think any club or even a group of clubs in the same city would be able to have enough tournament quality courses available so that everyone who wants to play gets the chance to. The possible exception might be Charlotte but even with enough quality courses would they be able to get enough support help to do it using say 15 courses for an am worlds only bid? The only big change that would slightly lesson the capacity issue is going to the gbo ledgestone model of 1 rd a day with tee times. That would increase attendance but it would certainly change the tournament from the typical 6 prelim rds to only 4 if the same starting and ending days remain. Even if you decide to change qualification criteria to something else the problem remains what new format do you choose? Whatever is decided will still alienate and anger the group who now doesn't qualify. It seems that in a sport where volunteers are needed to make an event run and there really isn't much money to be made by hosting (in relation to all the work required) the am disc golf really shouldn't be very hopeful that things will get much better anytime soon.

 

[lyleoross]

I understand fully that we are stuck with the event as it is for this year but what can be done in the future to improve am worlds? With the amazing growth of tournament disc golfers and the fact that premier events sell out almost immediately what can be done? I don't think any club or even a group of clubs in the same city would be able to have enough tournament quality courses available so that everyone who wants to play gets the chance to. The possible exception might be Charlotte but even with enough quality courses would they be able to get enough support help to do it using say 15 courses for an am worlds only bid? The only big change that would slightly lesson the capacity issue is going to the gbo ledgestone model of 1 rd a day with tee times. That would increase attendance but it would certainly change the tournament from the typical 6 prelim rds to only 4 if the same starting and ending days remain. Even if you decide to change qualification criteria to something else the problem remains what new format do you choose? Whatever is decided will still alienate and anger the group who now doesn't qualify. It seems that in a sport where volunteers are needed to make an event run and there really isn't much money to be made by hosting (in relation to all the work required) the am disc golf really shouldn't be very hopeful that things will get much better anytime soon.

They're making the assumption that there is something wrong with Ams. There isn't, it acts as it's supposed to. The measure of its success wasn't ever supposed to be that everyone plays. The same with the majors. When I first started playing they didn't fill. The prediction then was that they would eventually, and then, over time, the PDGA would narrow qualifying to make it a selective process. Seems like that is going well.

I ran and competed in Cross Country, a rather small sport, with the desire of running international races. Never happened, but there were plenty of national races for me to run. That's real life.

 

[allinpflop]

They're making the assumption that there is something wrong with Ams. There isn't, it acts as it's supposed to. The measure of its success wasn't ever supposed to be that everyone plays. The same with the majors. When I first started playing they didn't fill. The prediction then was that they would eventually, and then, over time, the PDGA would narrow qualifying to make it a selective process. Seems like that is going well.

I ran and competed in Cross Country, a rather small sport, with the desire of running international races. Never happened, but there were plenty of national races for me to run. That's real life.

How can you say it's going well....the only real criteria is to play one big event each year and then have the fastest Internet connection...do you feel that is the way it should be decided?

 

[lyleoross]

How can you say it's going well....the only real criteria is to play one big event each year and then have the fastest Internet connection...do you feel that is the way it should be decided?

Absolutely. I live in a world where anyone who can afford to go, can afford fast internet service. Same world where not everyone gets to go see Beyonce. This isn't a competition event, it's a fun get together, family style. That is what the PDGA wants it to be, how they discuss it, and it fits. If people want something else, well, there are other things, but honestly, someone who wants a competition based Am tournament that showcases talent, can build that. The PDGA has never claimed that territory. It's a bit like the college thing. That isn't their gig. They help when requested, but they are the Professional Disc Golf Association. To be clear, in survey after survey, that is what their membership says they want them to do.

If someone wants a big Am series that focuses on the Am game, then they need to approach the PDGA with a proposal, or do it alone. I'm reasonably sure the PDGA would support that.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW - if members want this to be something other than what it is, then they need to go to the PDGA, in majority, and ask them to change it. Carping about it here does nothing. I've worked with the PDGA and if you can convince them that making this into a competitive tournament that will directly help with their stated mission, grow the Pro game, I know they will consider that, and will communicate on it. Full support by the membership will give them the data they need to drive something to happen.