DGPT Pro Tour Championship 2020

[prokebyt]

The audience appeal of different course structures is an interesting discussion. But, I think graphics and money solve the trackability issues and can take coverage to a whole new level. You know those Par Save Productions shot summaries on the bird eye view map after each hole? (image below). Imagine if you could see those live as the shot was happening on the corner/side of the screen. You'd have so much more context and be able to know immediately how good/bad the shot ended up and it would probably make life easier for the commentators too.

Add on all the other fancy things from the PGA/other sports have like live follow flights and slow motion swing breakdowns which make coverage more interesting. I think televised Disc Golf is still very much in its infancy and the ceiling on production quality is a long way off.

 

[DiscFifty]

As for DG, I hope we never get the viewership to make the game acceptable to a mainstream audience.

Not really understanding that. What is negative about the pro side of the sport having a potentially very large mainstream audience?

 

[aredoubles]

Hornet's Nest has quite a few holes with sharp doglegs that require very precise placement. Think about hole 17 - you can be in the middle of the fairway, but still have no good shot around the corner, requiring a short little placement shot just to get to the corner. Even having played the course a number of times, I had trouble telling exactly where the pros were landing in relation to those corners, and gauging whether their shots were good enough. I can imagine new viewers finding that hard to follow as well. As an aside, I personally don't enjoy playing Hornet's Nest for that reason, it's not very fun to throw chip shots at those corners, and there's a few too many holes like that.

 

[txmxer]

The audience appeal of different course structures is an interesting discussion. But, I think graphics and money solve the trackability issues and can take coverage to a whole new level. You know those Par Save Productions shot summaries on the bird eye view map after each hole? (image below). Imagine if you could see those live as the shot was happening on the corner/side of the screen. You'd have so much more context and be able to know immediately how good/bad the shot ended up and it would probably make life easier for the commentators too.

Add on all the other fancy things from the PGA/other sports have like live follow flights and slow motion swing breakdowns which make coverage more interesting. I think televised Disc Golf is still very much in its infancy and the ceiling on production quality is a long way off.

Along those lines, I was thinking that a split screen overhead shot with a follow flight kind of tracking of the drone as it flies through the woods could help to understand the hole layout. Not the actual drone flight—couldn't see it in thick woods. Just a highlight of the path.

On some of the broadcast they show a shot of the map for a hole, but it doesn't present the line. I'd have to pause the playback and look closely to get anything from it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ideally, the quality or meaning of a throw needs to be immediately visible or understood even by inexperienced viewers. If you have to use fancy graphics and/or commentary to explain a shot, it's a bit like having to explain a joke.

 

[Jimb]

The ESPN2 footage will be 2 hours long but is also supposed to have some player introduction stuff. I think that might appeal to some casual viewers but hope it doesn't mean there will be a lot of actual tournament round action skipped over.

Unfortunately, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed.

The ESPN2 coverage is two hours and it is showing both FPO and MPO, right? So that's 36 holes of golf.

A typical 9 hole edited round is 30 minutes. So without any other interruptions, 36 holes can fit into 2 hours of edited footage.

However, with the "player profile" type content and commercials, it just doesn't seem to leave time for hole by hole/shot by shot coverage. It will be very interesting to see what Jomez and co. can do within the timeframe limitations.

 

[Steve West]

Ideally, the quality or meaning of a throw needs to be immediately visible or understood even by inexperienced viewers. If you have to use fancy graphics and/or commentary to explain a shot, it's a bit like having to explain a joke.

Jokes aren't as funny if there is no studio audience, canned laughter, or rim shot. I say bring on the graphics and commentators. This ain't bowling; there is no way inexperienced viewers could understand what makes a disc golf throw good or bad - even if they see it live.

To illustrate; one question that came up a lot when I ran the beginner league was: "How do you know which trees to hit?"

 

[Flick Maniac]

To illustrate; one question that came up a lot when I ran the beginner league was: "How do you know which trees to hit?"

Thats golden!

Also, at one point back in the day when trying to get maintenance for our course, the parks & recreation head honcho asked me "just how short does the grass need to be to be nice to walk on". I had to do a double take to understand that he had no clue that we dont need manicured golf fairways just that the grass isnt long enough to lose a disc in.

 

[Discraft Dad]

I managed to not learn the winners and got to watch them on Jomez yesterday and was on the edge of my seat watching hole 18 of MPO. Hopefully this will make for good TV on ESPN2 when it airs.

On another note, that was easily the worst I have ever seen Calvin Heimberg play.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Jokes aren't as funny if there is no studio audience, canned laughter, or rim shot. I say bring on the graphics and commentators. This ain't bowling; there is no way inexperienced viewers could understand what makes a disc golf throw good or bad - even if they see it live.

To illustrate; one question that came up a lot when I ran the beginner league was: "How do you know which trees to hit?"

Commentators and graphics are useful to set up the context of the next shot. But once it's thrown, it's better if the result is visible or understandable such as did the player sink the putt or not, did the player get out of jail and close enough to be able to make the next putt, did the shot land clean in the wooded fairway, etc. While bird's eye views are intuitive to many, there are many who have difficulty translating hole overview maps into what it means on the ground.

There is an answer to "which tree to hit". Decide which route gives you the better chance to hit a tree closer to the basket if every route has trees to avoid.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Ideally, the quality or meaning of a throw needs to be immediately visible or understood even by inexperienced viewers. If you have to use fancy graphics and/or commentary to explain a shot, it's a bit like having to explain a joke.

I watched skateboarding without understanding what the board was doing on every trick. Now I had some idea if the trick was landed with at least some effectiveness, obviously.

Watching disc golf requires watching the throw and then processing the result of the throw. That can't be instantly understood by an inexperienced viewer. That's an impossibility.

If they are going to do post-production commentary for the ESPN2 broadcast then they would be wise to not call the action with a "suspended disbelief" act like it's kind of mostly "live" approach like Jomez usually does if they want the viewer to know more than can be known in real time.

There should be some viewer anticipation to find out what the resulting lie and line will be. I think viewing disc golf is a 2-part action: witnessing the throw and coming to know the result of it. We can know "that throw went left and he might be pinched off" but we don't actually know the result until we advance to and take in the lie for the next throw.

As others have said, there's flight tracking technology and graphics that can help with this work. The "post round" edited productions probably work against some of these options. The quick cut from last tee shot to first approach shot doean't allow for much mental processing time. If the goal is for viewers to process more information, than they need time to do so.

We might, therefore, conclude that how the sport is presented in these edited windows like on ESPN2 (presumably) doesn't accurately reflect the actual lived experience. I suspect they are trying to get into the production as many throws as possible. A goal of quantity will diminish quality in ways.

I could see an argument for bringing back Final 9s in some form.

 

[txmxer]

I tried the "aim for the tree" method on a hole with a 12" tree 60' in front of the tee Saturday. I could not have hit it more square if I had walked over to the tree and hit with a hammer.

 

[DiscFifty]

Kevin Jones has all the qualities of a super sports star and will do the sport proud when this is aired on ESPN2.

 

[1978]

Interesting event. The tournament style format was definitely different. Not sure this is the best course for it. If a player starts out a little off, not much of a chance to recover and get back in the groove.

it is an interesting course. Like someone said, kind of heavily dependent on the 400' laser shot. Calvin's unwinding after an amazing -10 round is very telling about just how tough this course is and the other side of the coin for KJUSA and his consistency under pressure.

The course only gives an inch, try to take a mile and bogey+ is in your future. There are a few ace run opportunities (though highly unlikely), but a player needs to be super consistent for 18 holes to score well.

Im not sure the commentary was completely accurate. As the actual designer of 3s new pad, 9 and 14 including the actual person that placed the tee on 13, pin on 7, 12, 15 and suggested the ladies tee on 18. I can make some comments.

3 - Tee placement was supposed to be straight back but parks wouldn't allow 2 mature trees to be eliminated. The back left spot was more open and added a little length to the existing shot. The green on three is cleared much further left. No one took advantage of that area which would have eliminated the need for extreme anny shots

9 - This shot is straight at the beginning however players could hyzer left and be inside the circle long and left.
13 - Never was and never is a sidearm hole. As you saw from the coverage almost no shot flared way left. You saw most sidearms fail. A tree by last years short basket forces you to hyzer early. At that point the ground raises up, so back hands hit that hill lose all their speed and skip down inside the circle. Anything that would have flared through the green gets gobbled up 50ft short by the big tree. Sidearms lose their glide and end up right or short. It is extremely hard to stop a sidearm on the back side of the hill before the basket.
14 - This shot was never meant to be a long late turn over. KJ's park job was a pretty wide swinging sidearm. The idea of this hole was to trick players into thinking they need to go right when a straight or slightly fading hyzer would bring you to the back of the green, clear, inside the circle. Calvins shot in the Semi's was a perfect example of how the hole was supposed to be played. KJ's in the finals is a perfect example of the hardest but most risky play.
15 - moved it back last year because Stan McDaniel had cleared the land 10+ years ago and there were basically no trees.
18 - I suggested to add drama to the ladies field, 18 did not have separation last year. I think that hole succeeded. Any player in the field could birdie 18.

Ultimately, the idea was to place the fear of the back 9 into the players so they pushed hard on the front. Ultimately, as it played out perfectly, players were aggressive and succeeded or failed on the front. There were come backs on the back. In other formats players would have obliterated the front. With the pressure of ESPN, payout, and difficulty of the back we got to see these players are human on a relatively easy front 10 holes.

 

[1978]

Also, final thought. I mentioned this to a commentator. Blows my mind they didn't talk about it. In 2010 the Carolina Clash was an NT. Climo, Ulibari, Feldberg and Locastro final card. I was carrying the leaderboard and saw the best throw I've ever seen. 17 back then was same tee and slightly shorter basket right (20ft right and left). Fairway was 15ft wide, 100% shule either side, not cleared out like we have made it sense to 20ft off fairway. Ulibari threw a Star Destroyer, did a KJ fall off the box. His disc pured the fairway, flared up the hill and hit a spectator standing by the pipe. He had a jump putt for double eagle and took an eagle on the hole. Uli somehow doesn't remember that shot 10 years ago and they kept saying it was only eagled once in tournament play even though like 40 people witnessed Uli do it in the 2010 clash. Anyways, it is interesting to see the inside and then watch the coverage.

 

[1978]

Unfortunately, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed.

The ESPN2 coverage is two hours and it is showing both FPO and MPO, right? So that's 36 holes of golf.

A typical 9 hole edited round is 30 minutes. So without any other interruptions, 36 holes can fit into 2 hours of edited footage.

However, with the "player profile" type content and commercials, it just doesn't seem to leave time for hole by hole/shot by shot coverage. It will be very interesting to see what Jomez and co. can do within the timeframe limitations.

Their plan for the 88 minutes of coverage over the 2 hours is sound and will be exciting and understandable to the casual viewer. They put a lot of thought into it and I think it will go over well.

 

[jvphobic]

I have nothing to do with the ESPN content but... My best guess is if you have 88 minutes of airtime...

10-15% will be "How we got here"
5-10% will be player bios and features/interviews
75% will be disc golf (split evenly between FPO & MPO)

So, that is about 30 minutes for each division. My guess is that you see maybe 6-7 holes of each division. And it probably won't include every player. You probably won't see much of Hannum & Heimburg after the first 2 holes or so.

As for wooded golf. It is very difficult for us to film. If it is heavily wooded, I tend to use the throw camera more because they are usually directly behind the thrower and can see down the fairway. Cutting to the catch cam is disorienting in those scenarios, and I try to do it as late as possible. I would love to integrate something like the old school USDGC Dots into our broadcast for the really wooded courses, it would give the viewer a better perspective of where each player lands sometimes.

But, live flight tracking software is not really possible for disc golf. Those systems are crazy expensive, and they require a stationary camera and only work from one direction. So it would be useful in very few situations.

 

[Steve West]

Commentators and graphics are useful to set up the context of the next shot. But once it's thrown, it's better if the result is visible or understandable such as did the player sink the putt or not, did the player get out of jail and close enough to be able to make the next putt, did the shot land clean in the wooded fairway, etc. While bird's eye views are intuitive to many, there are many who have difficulty translating hole overview maps into what it means on the ground.

There is an answer to "which tree to hit". Decide which route gives you the better chance to hit a tree closer to the basket if every route has trees to avoid.

Yep, "hit a far tree" is good advice. In the beginner league we were playing on a golf course, yet, the beginners still thought that hitting certain trees was a sub-goal you must accomplish before any hole is complete. Based on my exemplary play.

Anyway... Sure, both is better. If I had to choose between playing only those holes where each throw is understandable to newbs vs. using graphics and commentary, I'll go with the ever-improving graphics and commentary - which can also work while the disc is still in flight.

 

[Dingus]

Commentators and graphics are useful to set up the context of the next shot. But once it's thrown, it's better if the result is visible or understandable such as did the player sink the putt or not, did the player get out of jail and close enough to be able to make the next putt, did the shot land clean in the wooded fairway, etc. While bird's eye views are intuitive to many, there are many who have difficulty translating hole overview maps into what it means on the ground.
.

I disagree with this. I find it impossible to judge a ball golf shot without some context from the booth. So he hit the ball ten feet short of the green on the fairway. Was that good? Did everyone else get on the green? Did he have to cut a corner and fly a bunker to get there?

In golf I want the commentator to tell me what the player is lining up for. "Paul has his most overstable Destroyer in hand, it looks like he is going to throw a high flex shot and try to come back hard right to left". Then I can watch the shot and judge how good it was based on how the commentator teed it up. And if the player did something unexpected the commentator can correct their error and add to the excitement of the creative shot.

TLDR: commentator makes a big difference

 

[Cgkdisc]

I disagree with this. I find it impossible to judge a ball golf shot without some context from the booth. So he hit the ball ten feet short of the green on the fairway. Was that good? Did everyone else get on the green? Did he have to cut a corner and fly a bunker to get there?

In golf I want the commentator to tell me what the player is lining up for. "Paul has his most overstable Destroyer in hand, it looks like he is going to throw a high flex shot and try to come back hard right to left". Then I can watch the shot and judge how good it was based on how the commentator teed it up. And if the player did something unexpected the commentator can correct their error and add to the excitement of the creative shot.

TLDR: commentator makes a big difference

Note: I said the Commentator can be helpful to provide context to "set up" the throw, i.e., before the shot. If they need to comment during the shot, it might as well be radio, especially when they are looking at the same video feed as the viewers.