HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
So it would have been the 3rd major tournament in Eureka this year? Yeah nothing against the courses, but no thanks. It'll be neat to see Charlotte course(s) with some good coverage.
Last edited:
-
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)
DGPT Tour Championship Moves to Charlottte
- Thread starter Spinthrift
- Start date
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Whoops it was Lake Eureka in Peoria. Not Emporia, Kansas…
…derp
…derp
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 8,173
I was actually watching the show Eureka last night. Imagine if those scientists from Global Dynamics made a disc haha!
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Still applies to Emporia if you include Jr Worlds.
I know it's a Major, but is it really a major event in terms of viewership?
The only thing that got me excited about the prospects of the tour finale being in Emporia was that they were going to play Jones Gold. That's a course no one has seen on video (to my knowledge), so it would not have been a matter of "same old, same old".
But Hornet's Nest is a fun course to play and should be a fun one to watch. Hopefully the changes end up being a net positive overall for the tour.
The thing I am miffed about is the change in format. I thought it added an interesting caveat for both strategy and challenge with the 4 card winners + wild cards every round.
It made for a big tournament with a slightly different type of pressure than they others.
It made for a big tournament with a slightly different type of pressure than they others.
I like the change because it rewards good play rather than simply luck of the draw. If the format is stroke play, you should reward the players who shoot the best scores, not the ones who happened to land in the right group. Save the notion of head to head play for match play.
I say, save the straight-up stroke play for......well, just about everything else.
I liked the fact that they were doing something different, something with a little more excitement, something more intriguing for spectators. I believe that was part of the point: not just build another tour of tournaments, but trying to draw more spectators. I'm not sure the format they used was the right something else, but at least it was a stab.
wolfmandragon
* Ace Member *
They could just cut the bottom 70% or so of the field each day and restart the counter the next day. It still keeps every round exciting as each pro knows that any soft round and they are out. Sometimes stroke play can get a bit boring; deep cuts keeps the action hot.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I would prefer seeing three different courses played or at least pin placement/tee changes on the same course through the elimination progression for more variety and testing each player's course and scrambling knowledge.
They did that to qualify.
Well, you're right; and I'll go further to say that I like to see multiple courses that are different styles, to cater to different players' strengths and weaknesses.
But there's something to playing the same course, too; it's interesting to see that Player A hit the island on #6 all 4 times, or that #14 was Player B's nemesis.
Casey 1988
Shun the frumious Bandersnatch!
I would like to see it done in a way to play different courses but just two the way some of the USA States have the Individual state Championships. However if the area allows play a course that is open scramble and woods scramble, with both forehand and backhand or at least turnover backhand if they do not have forehand. Seems since 2000's sometime the majority of top players have had a good forehand game.
Last edited:
biscoe
* Ace Member *
They earned their way into whatever group they were in- it wasn't random. Sometimes simply rewarding the best play is not the only consideration for an event. Entertainment matters too. That is what makes the NCAA Basketball tournament my favorite sporting event of the year.
Personally i would love to see match play for at least one big dg individual event.
What I was saying....but John said it much better.
I've long been a skeptic of disc golf as a spectator sport and, at the same time, thought match play would have the best chance, for the heightened drama.
It wasn't exactly match play, but not best scores either. it was a type of hybrid. The original format (I think) was the #17-#32 seeds (earned placements) play in four groups on the standard S-curve groupings by seed, then the 4 group winners plus the 4 remaining best scores advance. So 4 winners + 4 wild-cards; then those 8 join seeds #9-#16 for the same thing.
4 more winners + 4 wild cards would join #1-#8 for semifinals and those 4 winners plus only 1 wild card (tougher) would play for the championship.
Like I said, I liked the idea of a championship going in a slightly different direction. More fan excitement, more player pressure, tougher to advance, more difficult to recover from a bad round, AND, since what I've heard as the main complaint about Worlds -- "not just another NT format". I liked the idea of trying something new and fresh. I think the thing that the organizers didn't foresee (and I didn't like either) was when a couple players who knew they were advancing to a succeeding round after 15 or 16 holes, were tanking the last hole or two to avoid McBeth in the next round. I'd hope they'd find a better solution than just the eight best scores. Now in theory you could have everyone advancing from the same two groups.and none form the others. Not exactly the March-Madness-style feel the previous format had.
If I understood it correctly, Spring said that this was the best format for this year on the short notice, but they hope to change it up in the future. I believe he mentioned match play, which I think is very intriguing. I love match play because players always end up going to ridiculous shots when they are down, which makes it way more entertaining to watch.
I think this format we're currently doing will never be as interesting as match play could be (the entertainment ceiling for match play is higher), so I'm happy to hear him at least consider that.
I think this format we're currently doing will never be as interesting as match play could be (the entertainment ceiling for match play is higher), so I'm happy to hear him at least consider that.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Maybe take it step further. Lead each player blindfolded to a tee pad. When it's their turn, take off the blind fold and indicate where the target is. Don't give them distances or any other info. Don't let them step off the tee pad.
Let's see who really has skills - like we used to do when we were hunting giant ground sloths with our flint knapped round rocks.
VictorB
* Ace Member *
That's only a singular part of the process.
The great thing about golf is that playing smart, playing to your strengths, developing a game plan, and knowing when to devaite from that plan are all aspects that are as important as the execution of the shot.
I know the second part is in jest, but let's not go too crazy here by thinking the throw and result are the only aspects of the game worth evaluating.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
I wasn't saying assess only the throw. Another skill which would be tested is the ability to assess the situation in the moment using depth perception, reading the leaves on the trees, etc. Playing smart and playing to your strengths would still come into play, as would sticking to a plan (but it would be more of a meta-plan).
Making judgements on the fly is a different skill than arriving weeks early and throwing each shot 100 times to calculate the best odds. (For example, it comes into play when the wind blows the other way than it did in practice.) If variety in courses is good as a way to illuminate all corners of the skill sets, maybe variety in preparation is also good.
