Dont remind me :wall:
-
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)
2022 PDGA Champions Cup - 4th Pro Major
- Thread starter ToddL
- Start date
Dont remind me :wall:
That could all be true but I still think he has gotten as far as he has in disc golf primarily because of money. I dont understand peoples love for him, my interactions with him have been negative and because of that I dont put trust or faith in his dealings. Tin foil hat the whole way for me, I dont trust the guy.
Slight thread drift, but if the PDGA really wants to "go with a 4 majors per year" thing they'd do better IMO on concentrating on:
1. Have them on 'different' types of courses (wide open, stupid tight, 'natural', OB'd to the max, lots of elevation,, etc. - pick 4...)
2. Spread them throughout the year so no one person who's hot at the time can clean up.
3. PERHAPS different types of formats (not sure about this one).
1. Have them on 'different' types of courses (wide open, stupid tight, 'natural', OB'd to the max, lots of elevation,, etc. - pick 4...)
2. Spread them throughout the year so no one person who's hot at the time can clean up.
3. PERHAPS different types of formats (not sure about this one).
1. I'd prefer each event to have some of each, with the exception of roped OB. If your course has no teeth without contrived OB, maybe it shouldn't be featured in an NT.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
No.
Let's say there are 100 players with a 40% payout.
After four rounds, players placing 5th through 100th will be cut. Players placing 5th through 40th will get paid like any PDGA event.
The top 4 then advance to Championship Sunday.
The same logic applies to both divisions of MPO and FPO.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
Yeah it's somewhat similiar, but I would argue way less random.
The tour championship this year saw the 7 seed and 4 seed win the whole thing.
In this format, the 4 seed is the lowest possible victor.
In the aspect that some players get cut and some advance, sure, I guess they're similar.
But the Cup will have all players start on a level playing field and play 4 cumulative rounds of stroke play. The DGPT Championships has some players get byes to later rounds and the scores reset every day. The Cup will have the final four players move on to one-on-one match play to determine a winner. The DGPT Championships has the top 5 players play a single round of stroke play to determine a winner.
Similar that some players get cut going into the final round(s). Similar in that the scores effectively get reset for the final round(s). Not similar in stroke play versus match play. Not similar in the details of the cuts/byes.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
There has been tremendous and mostly negative feedback regarding the format of the Inaugural 2022 PDGA Champions Cup. As Tournament Director, I was not directly involved in the planning of this format despite my title. However, when offered the role, I was very much informed that the format would not be stroke play and presented multiple format options, including the one that was ultimately decided and not only signed off with my approval on the format, suggested many "vetoed" alternate formats. As I've read through a lot of it and listened to many voices in the sport - top players, "regular" players, fans, tournament directors and media voices (which includes people I greatly respect and others that I don't really get along with in all of the aforementioned groups), I wanted to address publicly many of the comments in one statement.
Many have asked why formats would change throughout an event. Why can't they? Both formats are approved for PDGA play at any level based on the competition manual. At this time, there are no rules regulations or standards preventing either format at any tier of play.
It seems the question is "why would you" as opposed to "why can you", which is a fair question. The Board of Directors (quick plug on the importance of voting. If you are not a current member of the PDGA or a someone who chose not to vote in the elections [which stats show that roughly 80% of you did not], in my opinion you are removing you right to voice your concern. Elections matter and they have consequences) approved the concept presented to them. The Majors Committee which is led by Nate Heinold, presented this format the board and they approved. The majors committee felt strongly that in order for this event to stand out, something had to be different. "Oh, it's just another event with a major title" didn't have the sting, so to speak, as a different format.
The next I've heard regarding this is that there are things you can to make the event stand out without getting away from a traditional format. I will buy this. This accomplishes the "make it stand out" objective. Saying that, I have yet to hear a single one that I think makes complete sense. I've heard "since it's the champions cup, it should only be major champions." This format would eliminate 13 of the top 20 men in the world but would include players like Harold Duval (rated 906). It would eliminate 14 of the top 20 women but include players like Vanessa Chambers (rated 792). This is NOT a shot a Duval and Chambers, rather pointing out that if we invited Duvall and Chambers but didn't invite Eagle McMahon and Hailey King, the outrage would be immensely more than what is currently happening (as it should be). Ironically many of the players upset about the format wouldn't be invited in that format.
Other ideas I've heard to make it stand out would be have on rotating trophy (the champions cup) or have a dinner that celebrated major champions. We can absolutely still do these things at this event while having a format change.
One idea I suggested was instead of a major champion only event, we follow a USDGC qualification model based on National Tour points. With the uncertainty of 2021 events with Covid and many players already registering for National Tour events, it's unfair to them to base them on national tour points. Imagine someone who is skipping the west coast swing but wants to play the Champions Cup but now can't get into the NT's that he or she needed to qualify simply due to bad timing. It's, once again, a situation where the outrage would be immensely more than what is currently happening.
My overall point is we could not think of a way to make this event stand out without a different format. It's also worth noting at this point that we aren't trying to say we are better than other majors. In my opinion, this is clearly the 4th and least prestigious of the open majors.
It's hard to ignore the pairing with golf here with the four major's idea. As Nate explained on a podcast, "(sic )three felt like not enough, four seems right." But he also clearly pointed out that the key wasn't getting to a number, rather getting to a consistent number of opportunities per year. I know exactly how many majors most golfers have, yet couldn't tell you how many McBeth has. Or Climo. That's not a good formula and something that needs consistency for historical purposes. But I get it, no one is upset about any of this, but it's important to make this one feel different.
The most consistent comment I've heard is make it all match play. This would absolutely would check the different feel box. However, an all match play event caused me and the majors committee a lot of concern. First off, disc golf financially is not to the point where a player can travel 12 hours, pay a likely $250 entry fee, practice for a few days and then get knocked out in 12 holes. Golf can get away with it because they are playing for millions of dollars each week. Half of the field would be gone in 2 rounds. Also, the one funky thing about match play is you can shoot the best score out of those 64 players and lose. To me, that's too random of a model to decide a major champion.
The "easy" solution, as many have pointed out, is pool play. You do 16 groups of 4 (and I guess 4 groups of 4 women?) and you do a round robin with the 16 (4) winners advancing to a match play bracket. This removes some of the flukiness, for sure. If you shoot the best score three times in the absolute worst you would be 2-1 or 2-0-1, but likely 3-0. However, this would mean that 75% of the field is cut after three days, and I'm not sure how you meet PDGA payout minimums which require 40% of a field to be paid. Do the 75% now play an extra round to decide who finished 17th through 26th? Is there a loser's bracket to do this? If we played the semis and finals on the same day, this would be 6 days of golf (pool play days 1, 2 and 3, round of 16 day 4, round of 8 day 5 and semis and finals day 6). People are saying it's too much golf now, well that format is more (although a pure 64 man match play event would be 5 days, which is a wash, but if everyone agrees this format is way better than pure match play, we are adding golf).
And how do we decide who those 64 players are? Is it NT points (see concerns above)? Is it world ranking? Is it player rating? And when (not if, when) every single one of those 64 players don't sign up, what's next? What happens if you get to a point where someone got 87th at one NT and they are now eligible to sign up? How do alert the 24th alternate person on the qualification list that hey it's your turn to sign up. How long do they have to sign up? At some point, you have to have a field prepared for the event. What happens is someone registers and the backs out of the event a week before due to injury? Does that spot get filled? If so, but whom?
And let's say we actually get 64 players. How do we rank them? If two players have the same rating, world ranking or NT points, what's the tie breaker? And let's be honest, running a major is A LOT of man power and work, most of that free labor. Is it worth running an event where the round of 16 only 16 people are playing, on the round of 8 only 8, etc etc. That's A LOT of man power, resources (water, food, etc) for at most 16 people.
The next hybrid option is how about 3 rounds of stroke play and a cut to an 8 man match play. This format was the most heavily debated of all the formats that didn't make the cut. The main reason we voted against this was there are still players who finish in the 40% and will be paid serious cash (it is a major, after all) that only played 3 rounds. That doesn't seem like a fair test worthy of a major for someone to get a top 10 finish. Also, for the player that signs up knowing they have almost no chance of finishing in the top 4, now we are reducing their experience by one round of play.
Curiously, one of the big complaints I've seen is the randomness of someone being beat by 12 and then winning in a different format. How does increasing the number of people qualified into the match play round solve that? That actually increases the randomness.
In the end, I'm going to say something that I think will shock some people. This will be the hardest event in disc golf to win. To win this event, you are going to have to play 4 rounds on a championship course against the best players in the world. You are going to have to emerge and be, in the case of the men, one of only 4 out of maybe 112 players, that are in the top 4. That means 97.5 percent of the field won't even get to this point. You have to be in the top 3.5%.
And if you are skilled and lucky enough to get to that point, you then have to beat, twice in one day, heads up, two of the same people who just accomplished the same task. If someone finishes in 4th after four rounds of golf in that field and then beats two other people heads over the course of two full rounds, that person is deserving to be a major champion.
Ask any PGA golfer what would they rather do, win 6 events or win a major. They will say a major. Ask them which major, they will say usually the masters, a few will say the US Open and a lot of the non-North American players will say the British Open, but none will say the PGA Championship. But the PGA championship is better than 6 wins. It's still an honor to be the fourth best major. We aren't saying we are the best or pretending to be.
It's going to be captivating to watch, it's going to look amazing on whichever media platform covers it and it's going to set a precedent for future events to follow. As I was reminded this week, the USDGC was the first place to ever not have the 2-meter rule in effect. Now, look at that rule and how little we see it.
Thanks for your time and I can't wait to see you in Augusta in April of 2022.
Robert Leonard
A humbled tournament director honored to be included in a footnote in our sports' history.
Many have asked why formats would change throughout an event. Why can't they? Both formats are approved for PDGA play at any level based on the competition manual. At this time, there are no rules regulations or standards preventing either format at any tier of play.
It seems the question is "why would you" as opposed to "why can you", which is a fair question. The Board of Directors (quick plug on the importance of voting. If you are not a current member of the PDGA or a someone who chose not to vote in the elections [which stats show that roughly 80% of you did not], in my opinion you are removing you right to voice your concern. Elections matter and they have consequences) approved the concept presented to them. The Majors Committee which is led by Nate Heinold, presented this format the board and they approved. The majors committee felt strongly that in order for this event to stand out, something had to be different. "Oh, it's just another event with a major title" didn't have the sting, so to speak, as a different format.
The next I've heard regarding this is that there are things you can to make the event stand out without getting away from a traditional format. I will buy this. This accomplishes the "make it stand out" objective. Saying that, I have yet to hear a single one that I think makes complete sense. I've heard "since it's the champions cup, it should only be major champions." This format would eliminate 13 of the top 20 men in the world but would include players like Harold Duval (rated 906). It would eliminate 14 of the top 20 women but include players like Vanessa Chambers (rated 792). This is NOT a shot a Duval and Chambers, rather pointing out that if we invited Duvall and Chambers but didn't invite Eagle McMahon and Hailey King, the outrage would be immensely more than what is currently happening (as it should be). Ironically many of the players upset about the format wouldn't be invited in that format.
Other ideas I've heard to make it stand out would be have on rotating trophy (the champions cup) or have a dinner that celebrated major champions. We can absolutely still do these things at this event while having a format change.
One idea I suggested was instead of a major champion only event, we follow a USDGC qualification model based on National Tour points. With the uncertainty of 2021 events with Covid and many players already registering for National Tour events, it's unfair to them to base them on national tour points. Imagine someone who is skipping the west coast swing but wants to play the Champions Cup but now can't get into the NT's that he or she needed to qualify simply due to bad timing. It's, once again, a situation where the outrage would be immensely more than what is currently happening.
My overall point is we could not think of a way to make this event stand out without a different format. It's also worth noting at this point that we aren't trying to say we are better than other majors. In my opinion, this is clearly the 4th and least prestigious of the open majors.
It's hard to ignore the pairing with golf here with the four major's idea. As Nate explained on a podcast, "(sic )three felt like not enough, four seems right." But he also clearly pointed out that the key wasn't getting to a number, rather getting to a consistent number of opportunities per year. I know exactly how many majors most golfers have, yet couldn't tell you how many McBeth has. Or Climo. That's not a good formula and something that needs consistency for historical purposes. But I get it, no one is upset about any of this, but it's important to make this one feel different.
The most consistent comment I've heard is make it all match play. This would absolutely would check the different feel box. However, an all match play event caused me and the majors committee a lot of concern. First off, disc golf financially is not to the point where a player can travel 12 hours, pay a likely $250 entry fee, practice for a few days and then get knocked out in 12 holes. Golf can get away with it because they are playing for millions of dollars each week. Half of the field would be gone in 2 rounds. Also, the one funky thing about match play is you can shoot the best score out of those 64 players and lose. To me, that's too random of a model to decide a major champion.
The "easy" solution, as many have pointed out, is pool play. You do 16 groups of 4 (and I guess 4 groups of 4 women?) and you do a round robin with the 16 (4) winners advancing to a match play bracket. This removes some of the flukiness, for sure. If you shoot the best score three times in the absolute worst you would be 2-1 or 2-0-1, but likely 3-0. However, this would mean that 75% of the field is cut after three days, and I'm not sure how you meet PDGA payout minimums which require 40% of a field to be paid. Do the 75% now play an extra round to decide who finished 17th through 26th? Is there a loser's bracket to do this? If we played the semis and finals on the same day, this would be 6 days of golf (pool play days 1, 2 and 3, round of 16 day 4, round of 8 day 5 and semis and finals day 6). People are saying it's too much golf now, well that format is more (although a pure 64 man match play event would be 5 days, which is a wash, but if everyone agrees this format is way better than pure match play, we are adding golf).
And how do we decide who those 64 players are? Is it NT points (see concerns above)? Is it world ranking? Is it player rating? And when (not if, when) every single one of those 64 players don't sign up, what's next? What happens if you get to a point where someone got 87th at one NT and they are now eligible to sign up? How do alert the 24th alternate person on the qualification list that hey it's your turn to sign up. How long do they have to sign up? At some point, you have to have a field prepared for the event. What happens is someone registers and the backs out of the event a week before due to injury? Does that spot get filled? If so, but whom?
And let's say we actually get 64 players. How do we rank them? If two players have the same rating, world ranking or NT points, what's the tie breaker? And let's be honest, running a major is A LOT of man power and work, most of that free labor. Is it worth running an event where the round of 16 only 16 people are playing, on the round of 8 only 8, etc etc. That's A LOT of man power, resources (water, food, etc) for at most 16 people.
The next hybrid option is how about 3 rounds of stroke play and a cut to an 8 man match play. This format was the most heavily debated of all the formats that didn't make the cut. The main reason we voted against this was there are still players who finish in the 40% and will be paid serious cash (it is a major, after all) that only played 3 rounds. That doesn't seem like a fair test worthy of a major for someone to get a top 10 finish. Also, for the player that signs up knowing they have almost no chance of finishing in the top 4, now we are reducing their experience by one round of play.
Curiously, one of the big complaints I've seen is the randomness of someone being beat by 12 and then winning in a different format. How does increasing the number of people qualified into the match play round solve that? That actually increases the randomness.
In the end, I'm going to say something that I think will shock some people. This will be the hardest event in disc golf to win. To win this event, you are going to have to play 4 rounds on a championship course against the best players in the world. You are going to have to emerge and be, in the case of the men, one of only 4 out of maybe 112 players, that are in the top 4. That means 97.5 percent of the field won't even get to this point. You have to be in the top 3.5%.
And if you are skilled and lucky enough to get to that point, you then have to beat, twice in one day, heads up, two of the same people who just accomplished the same task. If someone finishes in 4th after four rounds of golf in that field and then beats two other people heads over the course of two full rounds, that person is deserving to be a major champion.
Ask any PGA golfer what would they rather do, win 6 events or win a major. They will say a major. Ask them which major, they will say usually the masters, a few will say the US Open and a lot of the non-North American players will say the British Open, but none will say the PGA Championship. But the PGA championship is better than 6 wins. It's still an honor to be the fourth best major. We aren't saying we are the best or pretending to be.
It's going to be captivating to watch, it's going to look amazing on whichever media platform covers it and it's going to set a precedent for future events to follow. As I was reminded this week, the USDGC was the first place to ever not have the 2-meter rule in effect. Now, look at that rule and how little we see it.
Thanks for your time and I can't wait to see you in Augusta in April of 2022.
Robert Leonard
A humbled tournament director honored to be included in a footnote in our sports' history.
Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down and explaining the process for making the decisions on this. I honestly have a, let's wait and see, opinion on this, but IMO, the "it has to be different" mandate is wrong. It essentially is the foundation of the decision and I am not convinced this is the sentiment of golfers at large, as much as it is the feelings of those using it as a crutch for the decision.
You want to make it a major? Play it on the best courses in the nation. Have them spruced up to warrant the tournament. Make the money the best in the world. Invite the best players in the world, rating is fine with me. Make the accommodation the best, players should desperately want to play the event.
The problem, as I see it.....is the above is really accomplished with the infusion of a ton of cash from sponsorship. In the absence of the ability to find those kinds of national corporate sponsors, I might suggest the game is not ready to add a fourth major.
You want to make it a major? Play it on the best courses in the nation. Have them spruced up to warrant the tournament. Make the money the best in the world. Invite the best players in the world, rating is fine with me. Make the accommodation the best, players should desperately want to play the event.
The problem, as I see it.....is the above is really accomplished with the infusion of a ton of cash from sponsorship. In the absence of the ability to find those kinds of national corporate sponsors, I might suggest the game is not ready to add a fourth major.
That's fair, but I think it'd be better for the conversation for you to say why your interactions with him have been negative and then state that those interactions are influencing your guess about the money. Not that you're required to say everything you're thinking all the time; I simply think it's more authentic for you to say it that way, and more convincing for others.
Sports are not determined by skill alone. Do you not like sports?
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
I'm not sure how someone who beats 97.5% of a field and then beats two people heads up who also bested 97.5% of the field would be called lucky, but sure.
It's impossible to remove luck from anything, especially if you are subjectively looking for it.
ballgolfconvert
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 886
Show me where he said it would "bring more money to the purse".
I'll waitopcorn:
this comment insinuates that the money wouldn't be there without match play.
No, it insinuates that the players will like anything as long as there's money there. The PDGA could host a cornhole tournament with $100,000 of added cash and the players would show up.
Dcinmd
Double Eagle Member
So 5th thru 8th place will all be eliminated at the same time and award the amount, since this is match play correct? I can't see a fair way of seeding those places without additional play.
Thank you for the clarification, i'am just geek out over match play seeded. Too much March madness as a kid.
Dcinmd
Double Eagle Member
Pool play is the fairest way to make sure everyone get in a minimum amount of play. It used often in many other national championships.
And I enjoy it as long as it is not the crazy College World series with double elimination.
The only player who will have ANY reason to complain about this format is whoever is in 1st place after 4 rounds. They win in a traditional format. Here, they have to win one more round, but without the benefit of whatever lead (if any) they built up through 4 rounds. As mentioned, it is a reset.
Players 5 through 100 (or whatever the cap is) get exactly what they otherwise would have received. No issues for them.
Players 2 through 4 now have a chance at winning. They are ecstatic at the opportunity.
If one player has dominated, yes this may be slightly unfair to them, but it seems like we are truly heading toward more really great players at the top, and thus less likelihood of a Climo type domination of a championship. Even 4 of 5 of McBeth's world championships have been quite close--usually with Ricky.
I am looking forward to the format, but alas I am not one of the ones playing...
Players 5 through 100 (or whatever the cap is) get exactly what they otherwise would have received. No issues for them.
Players 2 through 4 now have a chance at winning. They are ecstatic at the opportunity.
If one player has dominated, yes this may be slightly unfair to them, but it seems like we are truly heading toward more really great players at the top, and thus less likelihood of a Climo type domination of a championship. Even 4 of 5 of McBeth's world championships have been quite close--usually with Ricky.
I am looking forward to the format, but alas I am not one of the ones playing...
Similar threads
