PDGA announces World Championships to split. Open / Age Protected

[scarpfish]

Look at it this way guys. Would you rather see our World Champions crowned on two top notch challenging courses played twice each, or a cluster of 4+ courses where at least two of them are sort of meh, but just happen to be included because they're close by and they need a course for one pool to play because the tough course is being played by someone else.

This is going to make things logistically easier IMO for all parties involved, and once they do it, I think the only consideration will be that it should have been done sooner.

 

[jeffmonty]

Ahem, doesn't a pro (ball) golf tourney have rounds Thursday through Sunday, and they usually come down to one guy winning on the final stretch (or a sudden death playoff)? For all those folks who want to take the sport more mainstream, it seems to me that you'll be more likely to attract the crossover interest (audience and then sponsors) by going ahead with the "accepted" model.

Just about anything that makes disc golf more mainstream, I myself am against. **shrugs**

 

[teemkey]

Look at it this way guys. Would you rather see our World Champions crowned on two top notch challenging courses played twice each, or a cluster of 4+ courses where at least two of them are sort of meh, but just happen to be included because they're close by and they need a course for one pool to play because the tough course is being played by someone else.

This is going to make things logistically easier IMO for all parties involved, and once they do it, I think the only consideration will be that it should have been done sooner.

I suppose my concern is that one course will be selected more for gallery accommodation and a good feed for live broadcasting than as a tough test of skills.

 

[Snaques]

Look at it this way guys. Would you rather see our World Champions crowned on two top notch challenging courses played twice each, or a cluster of 4+ courses where at least two of them are sort of meh, but just happen to be included because they're close by and they need a course for one pool to play because the tough course is being played by someone else.

This is going to make things logistically easier IMO for all parties involved, and once they do it, I think the only consideration will be that it should have been done sooner.

This could also increase the number of international players, since the logistics and time required for the practice rounds have made it tough for them in the past.

 

[JC17393]

Look at it this way guys. Would you rather see our World Champions crowned on two top notch challenging courses played twice each, or a cluster of 4+ courses where at least two of them are sort of meh, but just happen to be included because they're close by and they need a course for one pool to play because the tough course is being played by someone else.

This is going to make things logistically easier IMO for all parties involved, and once they do it, I think the only consideration will be that it should have been done sooner.

Yes.

The biggest knock on Pro Worlds for a while now has been the lack of truly challenging courses, particularly for the Open division. Even courses used in the past that were considered gold level were watered down for Worlds due to time constraints. With a one-round per day format and no other divisions to consider, there is no need to shorten or otherwise water down a truly excellent course.

I think part of the reason that Worlds has needed 6-8 rounds plus a semi and a final is that the courses themselves were never exceedingly challenging for the top players. Thus the need for more holes before the cream could rise to the top. But if the courses are of a caliber that challenge these players and reward truly excellent play, the cream will rise faster. Quality over quantity.

 

[DavidSauls]

I see advantages and disadvantages to changing to 4 rounds in 4 days. There has been a benefit to the Worlds being a marathon, more grueling in terms of total amount of play, and thus being different from any other event.

On the other hand, certainly the USDGC has shown that 4 rounds in 4 days, with no semis or finals, can work well. I've never felt, at the end of the USDGC, that they didn't play enough to determine a true winner.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Was just reading through the announcement on PDGA.com and noticed this:

For the newly structured Pro World Championships, the PDGA will now have an elite World Championship to market and promote; elite-level players will be offered a guaranteed time to register for Worlds, eliminating a mouse-click race determining who gains entry. Therefore, the highest level players are in the event. By splitting out all age-restricted divisions, more MPO and FPO slots will open up.

 

[chris deitzel]

I'm curious to see how this affects gallery sizes.

 

[Halcón]

I'm curious to see how this affects gallery sizes.

Eventually, if you're gonna go the whole "grow the sport" route, the gallery will need to be composed of spectators, not players who have been cut.

 

[Dana]

Tune in to SmashboxxTV this Tuesday, we'll be discussing the changes and I'll have some fun stats to talk about.

 

[Steve West]

4 rounds, one round per day seems a little weak to me unless some of these rounds permit >18 holes. It's an interesting sample size debate though.

There is a point beyond which more rounds will not help determine who is better. At some point, the players that are clearly better are out of reach, and the positions of the players that are nearly equal in skill just switch back and forth randomly.

The Open Women experience this a lot. There just aren't enough entries to justify so many rounds for them.

We can also see this happening after 5 rounds for Open.

The effectiveness of a tournament can be measured by the Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores. For Open at 2015 Pro Worlds, this was 62.25 (with or without the Final 9).

If the Semi-Finals had not been played, the Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores would have been almost the same = 62.10. This indicates that the Semis just shuffled around the players of near-equal abilities (and, of course, it did nothing to help sort out all the players who didn't play the Semis).

In other words, 5 rounds of 18 is enough to sort players out as well as they can be sorted.
If only four rounds had been played, the Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores would have been smaller, around 50 depending on what course would have been skipped. This indicates the 5th round still contributed some information about the ranking of the entire field.

If the players don't feel that 4 rounds of 18 is "enough", a 4 round tournament of 21 holes each would produce about as much information as 5 or 6 rounds of 18.

However, I support trying 4 rounds of 18. Our primary goal is to produce excitement, not a clinical, perfect ranking of players by ability. The players know what is more fun. Perhaps they know instinctively that leaving some chance to get a better-than-you-deserve ranking will give the players a reason to think about taking more risk.

 

[asjzn6]

I am very excited and supportive of the new format. Seems like a great way to improve our elite tournaments. Creating a consistent format among Majors is great. 4 rounds works great for USDGC and has great success across the pond with Scandinavian Open and European Open. The Australian Open also was a 4 round format.

Just about anything that makes disc golf more mainstream, I myself am against. **shrugs**

Wereas I can appreciate being part of an alternative culture that thrives on diversity and easy access to the sport and everything it has to offer. Having the course to myself on a Sunday morning is great.

Disc golf going more mainstream benefits me in a lot of ways. More exposure to Parks and Recreation departments is great giving access to more parks to build more disc golf courses.

More exposure grows sponsorships and payouts. More mainstream gives us better footage to sit back and watch.

 

[wolfmandragon]

I am glad they are doing away with the final nine, as it pollutes the whole concept of stroke play. A player that is last after the cut can play reckless as said player knows that their position cannot get worse. Stupid, horrible concept.
Having said that, I would not be opposed to match play in a tournament....just don't do it after a cut.

 

[ToddL]

I wonder if getting rid of the final 9 is going to make it difficult to have the MPO and FPO winners finish at the same location. Seems like it'd be difficult to set up the pools so that both winners are on the same course for round 4.

 

[Pbmercil]

Understood, but it just doesn't seem like Worlds unless there is a Semi and Final Nine.
Aren't even NT's and Majors required to have a Final Nine?.

Nope. Final nines have been traditional in disc golf for a long time, but TDS have been stadily moving away from that format for years.

I don't get the more golf is automatically better argument. 2 rounds per day over multiple days is more of a physical and mental grind than an actual test of golf skill

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't get the more golf is automatically better argument. 2 rounds per day over multiple days is more of a physical and mental grind than an actual test of golf skill

More golf means less influence by a hot hand, more reward for consistent excellence. The same reason a best-of-7 series in team sports is better than best-of-5, which is better than best-of-3....

With a point of diminishing returns, of course. That point could be at 4 rounds, or 5 (as Steve West suggested) or 6.

It's also been wisely pointed out earlier in this forum that fewer rounds may not be as "less golf" as it appears, since gold courses don't have to be softened due to time concerns. 4 rounds on championship courses might do the job of 6 rounds on good courses.

 

[Karl]

...Our primary goal is to produce excitement, not a clinical, perfect ranking of players by ability...

Disagree. Our "primary goal" (of a World Championship) is to effect a challenge producing a world champion. This isn't Running Man or Rollerball. "Excitement" should NOT be "primary"; let's get the 'requirements' down before we work on the 'wants'.

 

[Cgkdisc]

While excitement is certainly a goal to attract spectators to gain better financial sustainability for pro events, there's no indication at this point that fewer rounds using the same 4-round format as some other Majors has or can produce that. Maybe we'll have a tweak or two in the game to help with that by 2017?

 

[DirtyMeathook]

There is a point beyond which more rounds will not help determine who is better. At some point, the players that are clearly better are out of reach, and the positions of the players that are nearly equal in skill just switch back and forth randomly.

Your second sentence contradicts the first. So, more rounds doesn't help to determine who is better, because by playing a lot of rounds the best player will win by a lot? I don't get it.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Disagree. Our "primary goal" (of a World Championship) is to effect a challenge producing a world champion. This isn't Running Man or Rollerball. "Excitement" should NOT be "primary"; let's get the 'requirements' down before we work on the 'wants'.

Agree with this.