American Disc Golf Tour

[DavidSauls]

I'm waiting for someone, with more time and energy and vitriol than me, to go through the rules, and cross check against the PDGA book. It's easy to read the ADGT rules and see what's different; it takes time to see what's missing. But I'm sure someone can sort it out, and imagine all the scenarios that aren't addressed in the ADGT rules, and how they'll play out on a live broadcast.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

He is/was. I don't think he is allowed to post any more (by other people at salient).

Lol he IS salient. There is no telling him what to do even though he was told to shut up for his own good by many trying to help. "Other people" are not running salient.

 

[AndyJB]

He is far worse on Facebook than he ever was on here.

 

[Script]

We have secured at least one of the owners for our next Final Round Radio episode (Record on Thursday, publish Friday). This is a good chance to take all the skepticism and form them into questions you all would like to hear answered!

 

[DavidSauls]

We have secured at least one of the owners for our next Final Round Radio episode (Record on Thursday, publish Friday). This is a good chance to take all the skepticism and form them into questions you all would like to hear answered!

How much time will you have?

 

[Three Putt]

Their explanation:

There is a list of technical standards on your website that vary slightly from the PDGA's standards. What are the changes and why the differences?

"The differences were based on talks with players, ADGT officials as well as ESPN. The main changes include changes in the the rim width allowing slightly larger rim discs as well as allowing discs to now have a open space in the middle of the disc. For live disc golf events to be attractive to new viewers and players we have to have some disc flights that are easily caught by camera. Making the specs more generous can potentially increase the flight time of a disc on open drives, invariably making discs fly father and easily tracked on camera."


My opinion is that this is nonsense.

It's a good point, that I hadn't considered, that sponsored players are only going to throw their sponsor's discs, and the other manufacturers aren't going to produce special discs for this event, or tour.

As for the approval process, the ADGT has one. Submit discs with $75 to them for approval. All current discs are approved, but any future introductions will require their approval.

Ah, but who does that approval? Kilgus? He owns a disc company/clear conflict of interest. Even if he hires someone to do that, they work for Kilgus who owns a disc company. It doesn't leave any room for the idea of impartiality.

The PDGA doesn't have anyone working for a disc manufacturer approving discs. That's how a "professional" organization does approval. In the beginning when Ed Headrick ran the PDGA, there were all sorts of stories of him declaring discs illegal in order to protect the interests of DGA and Wham-O. Leaving Kilgus in charge goes back to that. At least Ed was the Father of disc golf; who the Hell is Kilgus?

 

[Three Putt]

Also, how does making the flight longer make it easier to track on camera? Wouldn't it get harder to track the farther it goes?

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Aerobie rings flying around seems like great TV :|

 

[DavidSauls]

Also, how does making the flight longer make it easier to track on camera? Wouldn't it get harder to track the farther it goes?

Or having a 3" hole in the center? Or a wider rim?

 

[DavidSauls]

I could be wrong, but I'm highly skeptical that ESPN pushed for this. "We want to show disc golf, but the current discs are inadequate." I'd believe it more if they dictated colors. Longer throws are, of course, more impressive, but did ESPN really say, to the effect, "Throwing something twice the length of a football field, or the length of a massive home run, won't be dramatic enough. We need another 200' on the throws."? This was after discussions with "players" (which ones? whoever they were, they were great at keeping secrets) and "ADGT Officials" (who?).

 

[JC17393]

We have secured at least one of the owners for our next Final Round Radio episode (Record on Thursday, publish Friday). This is a good chance to take all the skepticism and form them into questions you all would like to hear answered!

Here's a few...

Why create a new membership organization, new set of rules, and new set of tech standards for a 1-2 event "tour"?

Why no cooperation or coordination with the PDGA and the existing tour(s), at least with regard to scheduling?

What was the criteria used to determine the invitations to the first event? Will there be criteria for entering once the initial invitation period expires?

What is the expected format for the broadcast...follow just the leader group(s) through the full round, show the last few groups as they finish the last few holes, highlights?

How much of the purse for the event is expected to be derived from entry fees versus sponsor-added funds?

What will make the event stand out compared to existing larger/major events, aside from the use of ESPN as a broadcast platform?

What is a ballpark estimate for the broadcast budget? No need for specifics, but four figures, five figures, six figures...that sort of ballpark.


That's good enough for starters, I think.

 

[JC17393]

I could be wrong, but I'm highly skeptical that ESPN pushed for this. "We want to show disc golf, but the current discs are inadequate." I'd believe it more if they dictated colors. Longer throws are, of course, more impressive, but did ESPN really say, to the effect, "Throwing something twice the length of a football field, or the length of a massive home run, won't be dramatic enough. We need another 200' on the throws."? This was after discussions with "players" (which ones? whoever they were, they were great at keeping secrets) and "ADGT Officials" (who?).

I'm skeptical ESPN has pushed for anything at all as far as the game itself. I believe they have broadcast standards that have to be met to be on their air (or stream), but those would have nothing to do with the game itself outside the venue. The standards would cover things like the quality of video, professional grade equipment (and professionals operating them), ease of shooting the venue, access to satellite, etc.

Nothing they ask for is going to change the fundamental elements of the game. If they can air golf and track that tiny little ball through the air for 250-300 yards, I think they can track a disc of any color over a third to half of that distance. They being professional camera operators, whether they work for ESPN or a third party contractor.

 

[Consult20]

Here's a few...

Why create a new membership organization, new set of rules, and new set of tech standards for a 1-2 event "tour"?

Why no cooperation or coordination with the PDGA and the existing tour(s), at least with regard to scheduling?

What was the criteria used to determine the invitations to the first event? Will there be criteria for entering once the initial invitation period expires?

What is the expected format for the broadcast...follow just the leader group(s) through the full round, show the last few groups as they finish the last few holes, highlights?

How much of the purse for the event is expected to be derived from entry fees versus sponsor-added funds?

What will make the event stand out compared to existing larger/major events, aside from the use of ESPN as a broadcast platform?

What is a ballpark estimate for the broadcast budget? No need for specifics, but four figures, five figures, six figures...that sort of ballpark.


That's good enough for starters, I think.

Regarding new disc approval, is this just for new discs introduced outside of current PDGA specs, to ensure the new disc specs fall within the ADGT specs? In other words, if a new disc is PDGA approved, is it automatically ADGT approved? I hope this is the case, anything else would be illogical.

 

[DavidSauls]

Regarding new disc approval, is this just for new discs introduced outside of current PDGA specs, to ensure the new disc specs fall within the ADGT specs? In other words, if a new disc is PDGA approved, is it automatically ADGT approved? I hope this is the case, anything else would be illogical.

Nope. At least, not what they're saying.

They say any discs now approved (omitting the PDGA name) are accepted as legacy discs. But going forward, any new discs introduced, or molds changed, must meet ADGT approval.

Nowhere on their website do the words "PDGA" appear, which I find very interesting. Though they claim they're not anti-PDGA.

 

[JC17393]

Regarding new disc approval, is this just for new discs introduced outside of current PDGA specs, to ensure the new disc specs fall within the ADGT specs? In other words, if a new disc is PDGA approved, is it automatically ADGT approved? I hope this is the case, anything else would be illogical.

Considering they're charging $75 and requiring two discs be sent for testing in order to be ADGT approved, I'm guessing they're done grandfathering in PDGA-approved discs. And yes it is illogical, but a lot of this whole thing seems illogical.

 

[DavidSauls]

We have secured at least one of the owners for our next Final Round Radio episode (Record on Thursday, publish Friday). This is a good chance to take all the skepticism and form them into questions you all would like to hear answered!

The questions I'd like to hear asked are the follow-up questions.

Because if the answers to your questions are anything like those they've given elsewhere, they really need follows ups.

 

[Consult20]

Nope. At least, not what they're saying.

They say any discs now approved (omitting the PDGA name) are accepted as legacy discs. But going forward, any new discs introduced, or molds changed, must meet ADGT approval.

Nowhere on their website do the words "PDGA" appear, which I find very interesting. Though they claim they're not anti-PDGA.

I still think this needs to be asked, and clarified one way or another.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

I find the lie/stance violation rule interesting (have we talked about this yet in 400 posts?).

9.2.When the disc is released, the player's plant foot must be behind the mini-marker disc, not in contact with it and in bounds.

1.A stance violation shall occur if the player's foot is more than one mini-marker's width to the right or left of the mini-marker at the time of release.

So - it is advantageous to have the largest mini allowed? "no greater than 15cm" which would then mean I have the width of the mini, plus that on either side - so if I'm using a 15 cm mini my lie is 45 cm wide, or nearly 18 inches, and I have an unspecified distance behind the mini? But if I use a 7 cm mini, my lie is only 21 cm wide...

 

[Consult20]

I find the lie/stance violation rule interesting (have we talked about this yet in 400 posts?).

9.2.When the disc is released, the player's plant foot must be behind the mini-marker disc, not in contact with it and in bounds.

1.A stance violation shall occur if the player's foot is more than one mini-marker's width to the right or left of the mini-marker at the time of release.

So - it is advantageous to have the largest mini allowed? "no greater than 15cm" which would then mean I have the width of the mini, plus that on either side - so if I'm using a 15 cm mini my lie is 45 cm wide, or nearly 18 inches, and I have an unspecified distance behind the mini? But if I use a 7 cm mini, my lie is only 21 cm wide...

That, and the fact there is no wording regarding how far behind the mini you can throw. I mean if you throw 40' behind the mini to get a better line around some trees, it's pretty hard to tell if it' a foot fault to the left or right.

 

[Pbmercil]

The questions I'd like to hear asked are the follow-up questions.

Because if the answers to your questions are anything like those they've given elsewhere, they really need follows ups.

Yup, exactly. Just stand up and ask for specific details. Couple of good questions I have;

Do they think they have a reasonable chance at bringing top talent on board? Given that this event largely conflicts with the top PDGA events and has no garunteed payout structure the way the PDGA does, what is their draw to top talent?

As specifically as is reasonable, what is the nature of the liciencing agreement with ESPN? Is ESPN paying ADGT for broadcasting rights, or is ADGT paying ESPN for the broadcast schedule block? Who is in charge of the production?

Explain the idea behind the "gold" standard basket. Given that this basket doesn't currently exist, what exactly is the plan for this basket? Will the ADGT/salient be providing it?