2018 Las Vegas Challenge PDGA NT

[jvphobic]

Muddyboots. I TOTALLY agree that I would rather play with competition that is better than me. And I don't doubt that some of us it could help keep focus. My argument is that with the top pros in our sport, it shouldn't matter if they are playing with a 900 or 1040 rated player. If you are letting other players or outside influences interfere with your headgame, you have already lost. How many times have we seen the one am player get to play with top pros and he just crumbles.

If Paul playing with Ricky is "driving" him to play better in the FIRST round of an event, then everything our pros tell us about "sticking to a gameplan" is garbage. All of our players can now see what every other player's score is up to the second, so when it comes to NT & Majors... I am calling BS on every super group argument.

Just my "not so hot" take.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Should the players care about viewership numbers either? Could a player reject being placed on a Round 1 Supergroup simply because they don't want to be filmed or think they will play worse on film or don't want any distractions that come with filming?

It's a temporally-limited argument seeing as they will end up on TV if they end up with a top-4 score. Guess I'm surprised that the argument against Supergroups was about advantage and not disadvantage. Granted, most Supergroup regulars are probably accustomed to being filmed.

 

[jvphobic]

I think that any player can opt-out of a super group during the first round if they choose, with the new rules. BUT... most players want to be on that card to be able to promote their brand and sponsors.

 

[Mspot]

Here is the results of last years gentlemen's club challenge round 1 feature card:

Ricky Wysocki (1049) : 48 (1064)
Eagle McMahon (1024): 54 (1011)
Simon Lizotte (1028) : 56 (993)
Philo Brathwaite (1028) : 60 (957)

I am no statistician so I am going to need your help in deciding if there was any advantage here for this feature card

I will try and find some more feature cards to compare to later...

 

[jvphobic]

Here is the results of last years gentlemen's club challenge round 1 feature card:

Ricky Wysocki (1049) : 48 (1064)
Eagle McMahon (1024): 54 (1011)
Simon Lizotte (1028) : 56 (993)
Philo Brathwaite (1028) : 60 (957)

I am no statistician so I am going to need your help in deciding if there was any advantage here for this feature card

I will try and find some more feature cards to compare to later...

Now get REAL stupid and see if there is an advantage to being on CCDG vs. Jomez vs SmashBoxx. hahahahah.

 

[bwgort]

bwgort. I am not saying that we should group those players together for B/C tiers. But the 920 player is as no more disadvantage than if they played with three 1000 rated players. It isn't nearly as FUN if you don't mix players at those events, but fairness is relative.

This rule was intended for B/C tiers. How many local events do you play in? Ever played a pro event with 8 players where the 4 1000 rated players are all on the same card? I have. Multiple times. Your claim that there isn't a fairness issue isn't able to be substantiated unless you do a wide-scale analysis of all pdga tournaments, not the ones you choose to cherry-pick.

And to those posting about how the supergroup doesn't increase the players ratings, that's not the relevant metric. The question is how well do the 950, 960, ect players that lose the chance to play with someone who is 1000 rated fare? How do those players fare while playing blind and not getting to see the lines of 1000+ rated players?

 

[jvphobic]

bwgort. I play very few local events anymore. But I do know that if your TD is grouping those players during the first round, they are probably a cruddy TD.

Many 950 players can't execute the shots of 1000 rated player anyway. And again, I think that players SHOULD be randomly assigned. But I also feel that in NT's and Majors there can be exemptions for super cards for media purposes.

 

[lenfantsuave]

Putting aside the rules debate for a moment, as a viewer I enjoy "super cards" more when then include maybe a local or one lesser known pro. That way I can have the familiarity of seeing the pros I follow while also getting to see a new face.

 

[bwgort]

bwgort. I play very few local events anymore. But I do know that if your TD is grouping those players during the first round, they are probably a cruddy TD.

Many 950 players can't execute the shots of 1000 rated player anyway. And again, I think that players SHOULD be randomly assigned. But I also feel that in NT's and Majors there can be exemptions for super cards for media purposes.

The PDGA does not vet TDs in a manner that prevents cruddy TDs. Thus, the impetus for the rule. It seems like you agree this rule is necessary for fairness (as the instances I described are things that happen) but are just mad that it negatively effects your business. As I said previously, the PDGA has said the rule will be waived for NTs and Majors where appropriate, so I think the effect on your ability to stage first round groups at NTs and Majors is negligible. What's the problem with the rule?

 

[slowplastic]

If any touring pro's read this and you're salty about supergroups, then GET BETTER AT DISC GOLF. If you're better at disc golf then I'll want to see you on a super group. It's your job to be good at disc golf, so get better and you'll be featured more. Don't be mad that there's 4 other guys better than you that everyone wants to see more. Why not be mad about the supergroup on the lead card for round 2? They got there by being good too, just they did it in round only 1 instead of all year long.

Anyways...coverage soon I hope so we can stop complaining and see how bad the wind was.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This rule was intended for B/C tiers. How many local events do you play in? Ever played a pro event with 8 players where the 4 1000 rated players are all on the same card? I have. Multiple times. Your claim that there isn't a fairness issue isn't able to be substantiated unless you do a wide-scale analysis of all pdga tournaments, not the ones you choose to cherry-pick.

And to those posting about how the supergroup doesn't increase the players ratings, that's not the relevant metric. The question is how well do the 950, 960, ect players that lose the chance to play with someone who is 1000 rated fare? How do those players fare while playing blind and not getting to see the lines of 1000+ rated players?

There's no statistical advantage or disadvantage (ratings) to playing with players higher than your rating. This idea continues to circulate, with one reason perhaps being the way we shuffle players by score after each round. When you're playing better, you're playing with better players in round 2 and beyond. When you're playing poorly, you get grouped with players with lower skilled players.

It just so happens we see ourselves playing worse with lower players and better with better players. But it's primarily your play that matters, not the skill environment playing with you. Now, the psychological environment in the group (personalities, attitudes) likely plays a role. But that's likely to randomly be good, bad or normal at all player skill levels. Many players in general will be improving early in their careers regardless of who they play with. A smaller group will actually be practicing to get better, and when playing up, will tell you their sometimes better play is due to playing in a higher division. It's still their improving play, not the skill environment they are playing in that seems to matter.

 

[jvphobic]

The PDGA does not vet TDs in a manner that prevents cruddy TDs. Thus, the impetus for the rule. It seems like you agree this rule is necessary for fairness (as the instances I described are things that happen) but are just mad that it negatively effects your business. As I said previously, the PDGA has said the rule will be waived for NTs and Majors where appropriate, so I think the effect on your ability to stage first round groups at NTs and Majors is negligible. What's the problem with the rule?

I have no problem with the rule. The way it was rolled out was a bit crappy, but the rule is fine as long as there are exceptions for events that can justify it.

 

[discvalet]

coverage?

Is there coverage of 2018 Las Vegas Challenge. I thought Jomez was handling it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

In the case of events with mostly local players, stacked groups might make a difference when you're talking buddies of similar high skill level who know what behavior to expect from the players in their group. We'd like to think this doesn't happen but sometimes these groups might avoid rules calls resulting in better scores by one or two. So, random pairing makes more sense in R1 of lower tier multiple round events. On the other hand, with one round events becoming more popular including flex time tee offs, I think you want contenders playing together so they are playing in similar conditions and have the opportunity to press as needed with few holes remaining.

 

[bwgort]

In the case of events with mostly local players, stacked groups might make a difference when you're talking buddies of similar high skill level who know what behavior to expect from the players in their group. We'd like to think this doesn't happen but sometimes these groups might avoid rules calls resulting in better scores by one or two. So, random pairing makes more sense in R1 of lower tier multiple round events. On the other hand, with one round events becoming more popular including flex time tee offs, I think you want contenders playing together so they are playing in similar conditions and have the opportunity to press as needed with few holes remaining.

This is the exact reason super groups are a problem. Thanks chuck. I'm glad the competition committee recognized this problem and acted on it.

 

[Royalhghnss]

but you are just mad that it negatively effects your business. As I said previously

It also negatively affects the sponsors of the tourney, and the tourney itself too. Less exposure.

 

[bwgort]

It also negatively affects the sponsors of the tourney, and the tourney itself too. Less exposure.

For NTs/Majors yes, for C/B tiers, no. That's why the PDGA indicated they are willing to make waivers. What's the issue?

 

[_MTL_]

Even if supercards are an advantage, disadvantage or no difference the point remained the same; as Todd pointed out they were not allowed by rule.

The rules were pretty clear: Random on player rating based (meaning highest on one, second highest on two, etc). At no point was anything remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as "the four best players" or "four guys that fans vote for" or anything like that. It was absolutely insane how far from the rule it got.

I think, like almost all rule and competition manual updates this year the intent wasn't change rather clarification. There's a major difference between the two. The rule simply clarified how groups should be organized. I'm not sure I agree with Andrew's decision to allow the waiver for this event, but that's ok. It's his decision to make and we have to respect his position and his ability to make it.

The bottom line, however, is people outside disc golf aren't watching disc golf no matter what. It doesn't matter who is on the card; no one outside our sport is watching. That is the problem.

 

[hurricaine]

why the hell would we not want super cards? SUPER CARDS 2018. Make disc golf great again

 

[brutalbrutus]

Its a good thing they don't do this in Golf. The pro tour could have crumbled to pieces by now...:\