PDGA World Championships 2022

[araytx]

I don't have all the history of being around DG for decades, so JMO based on observations over the past couple of years.

As DG has had explosive growth, yet Worlds is struggling to find a host and remain the pre-eminent event, seems the PDGA needs to put a bit more effort/ownership in to the event.

I'm Not being critical of what has already happened. The past two years has been novel and in my eyes a monumental shift that couldn't have been predicted.

Maybe actions are being taken and I'm just not paying attention. Certainly looks like the courses for Worlds next year will provide a great event to see.

When I say ownership, I'm referring to what has been discussed here regarding locations choosing not to bid on hosting because the effort is so massive. Lighten the load on the locals in some manner. Might be challenging if you have too many bosses/cooks in the kitchen.

Just seems something needs to change going forward.

Not sure disc golf is "struggling to find hosts" or "to remain the preeminent event." It is clearly the pre-eminent event in the players' minds (And before you come back with Ricky think about what he'd be saying if he had won his third instead of Paul winning his 6th). And they aren't "struggling to find a host" -- they are only "struggling" in the minds of DGCR posters wanting to see other venues besides the ones they see already on tour. Getting Emporia (Dynamic Discs Open), Smuggler's Notch (Green Mountain), The Fort (Utah Open), Peoria (Ledgestone), etc. don't seem to be a problem.

2018 was a fluke year for sure, Barsby & Bjeerkas (Shue) winning

Oh yeah, Barsby "flukily" shot three rounds over 1060 and averaged 1059. At Smuggs? Sheesh :wall:

And mama Paige "flukily" shot a 1028 and Fox Run round 2 and sealed the deal with another 1000 on the final day -- averaging 980 overall. I guess the only real fluke was that Kristin wasn't who she is today back then.

I mean we were all watching -- how many multitudes of bounces went their way!

The point isn't that lower-ranked players who won with fewer rounds didn't deserve their Worlds win.
They played by the rules and completed their rounds with the fewest strokes. We all congratulate them and they have all reaped the reward of their years of practice and hard work.

The point that many of us are making is:
If the purpose of PDGA Worlds is to crown the world's best, most skilled disc golfer, the likelihood is statistically higher with every additional round that is competed.
I think Paul M might have benefited from fewer rounds in 2019, Ricky was charging hard.
With PMs injuries and putting woes, fewer rounds may have helped him again this year.

We'll never know about the past, but many of us would like to see more rounds for Worlds in the future to make it more indicative of a world championship.

Oh, come now. We Americans aren't like that in ANY sport. We like the randomness of "anybody might win" -- in every sport except the NBA series format. Otherwise we laud Cinderellas, and even praise a team finishing 9th in their conference winning March Madness, the 64th team wining the College Worlds Series or an 8-seed wining the Stanley Cup. We LOVE it -- according to the ratings.

 

[jenb]

If worlds were a thousand rounds, people wouldn't watch it. The format is tailored towards entertainment.

 

[ru4por]

If worlds were a thousand rounds, people wouldn't watch it. The format is tailored towards entertainment.

I don't know that this is true. Hyperbole withstanding, Worlds were not pared down to better suit viewership. It was on behest of the players, themselves.

 

[txmxer]

Not sure disc golf is "struggling to find hosts" or "to remain the preeminent event." It is clearly the pre-eminent event in the players' minds (And before you come back with Ricky think about what he'd be saying if he had won his third instead of Paul winning his 6th). And they aren't "struggling to find a host" -- they are only "struggling" in the minds of DGCR posters wanting to see other venues besides the ones they see already on tour. Getting Emporia (Dynamic Discs Open), Smuggler's Notch (Green Mountain), The Fort (Utah Open), Peoria (Ledgestone), etc. don't seem to be a problem.

"struggling to find hosts"

How many bids did the PDGA receive to host 2022 Worlds? 2023 Worlds?

"to remain the preeminent event."

That one is probably more questionable, but let's discuss. I'm not saying it is NOT the preeminent event today, but that views are shifting. I'd grant that if you polled all pro disc golfers (and anyone that would dream of winning a pro event) what one event would you most want to win? I would expect Worlds to be first if not get all votes.

That said, is Worlds viewed the same today versus other events as it was 10-20 years ago?
Is it revered in the same manner as it was 10-20 years ago? As we move into the era of DGPT, will it continue to be the undisputed most cherished achievement in professional disc golf? It won't change any time soon, but these things can happen over time.

 

[Hyzer Ale]

"struggling to find hosts"

How many bids did the PDGA receive to host 2022 Worlds? 2023 Worlds?

"to remain the preeminent event."

That one is probably more questionable, but let's discuss. I'm not saying it is NOT the preeminent event today, but that views are shifting. I'd grant that if you polled all pro disc golfers (and anyone that would dream of winning a pro event) what one event would you most want to win? I would expect Worlds to be first if not get all votes.

That said, is Worlds viewed the same today versus other events as it was 10-20 years ago?
Is it revered in the same manner as it was 10-20 years ago? As we move into the era of DGPT, will it continue to be the undisputed most cherished achievement in professional disc golf? It won't change any time soon, but these things can happen over time.

I think 10 (maybe 15) years ago USDGC was THE event. It may have been Worlds 1a and USDGC 1b but the US title held more clout than it does today (Climo used to sign 5x and Schulz 3x). That is not to say that it is irrelevant today. USDGC is still a major (as it should be).

I think that if you had to rank the current majors by importance it would be:

1. Worlds
2, (tie) USDGC and European Open
4. PDGA Champions cup

 

[ChrisWoj]

No disrespect to Aaron Gossage or Tristan Tanner, but they should not be on the top of the leaderboards at a World Championships

More rounds would bring the cream to the top and the guys with "hot" rounds would slowly go back to where they are supposed to be.

The real problem with Tristan Tanner is, if I've heard correctly, he got hurt and he's never let himself properly rest and heal. When he feels right, I think he's one of the best skillsets in the sport and seems capable of acting on it. If he'd ever take a nice long break and rehab to get his body right I think we'd see him in that pool of top-5 to 7 players that seem to always have a shot at the W on any given week.

 

[Three Putt]

The point isn't that lower-ranked players who won with fewer rounds didn't deserve their Worlds win.
They played by the rules and completed their rounds with the fewest strokes. We all congratulate them and they have all reaped the reward of their years of practice and hard work.

The point that many of us are making is:
If the purpose of PDGA Worlds is to crown the world's best, most skilled disc golfer, the likelihood is statistically higher with every additional round that is competed.
I think Paul M might have benefited from fewer rounds in 2019, Ricky was charging hard.
With PMs injuries and putting woes, fewer rounds may have helped him again this year.

We'll never know about the past, but many of us would like to see more rounds for Worlds in the future to make it more indicative of a world championship.

Worlds is an event that predates a tour where there was an easy way to say "this guy had the best year". It gave the sport a "World Champion" even though it was really just the guy who won that weekend. It was part of the "fake it 'til you make it" thing.

Now fast forward 40 years and there really is a tour where you could determine who was the best player over the course of a season instead of who won on a given week, but you also have a 40-year tradition of crowning your World Champion one weekend in August. How much tradition are you willing to toss out to keep Ricky Wysocki happy?

The number of rounds thing was reduced due to complaints by the touring pro players, so that's on them. The tournament that feels like just another week on tour because it is run like every other week on tour is what they wanted, so it's what they get.

It's kinda a "duh" moment, though. Back when there wasn't an NT or USDGC, Worlds was the only time most of the best players were in the same place at the same time. Even after the USDGC and NT started, not many players could fully tour and Worlds was still a special gathering of the top players. It wasn't just for Open players, either. All the Masters divisions were there, so it was the best players from today and yesterday, all together. It really was a cool event.

Now? It's just another week. All the top players are on tour every week. The players you expect to be in contention at Worlds are the same ones that you expect to be in contention the event before and the event after. All the other divisions have been run off, so it sets up just like any other DGPT event. The actual event has lost so much of what made it special that really all that is left is the prestige of the title winning it brings.

Tradition and prestige mean something, though. Both '21 and '22 saw great endings and showcased pro disc golf exactly like you would want to. No plodding, season-long "race for the player of the year award"-type Champion could bring the drama and excitement like the last two Worlds have.

To me, Wysocki was just sour grapes bitching about an event that both this year and last delivered dramatic finishes and did exactly what they were supposed to do. If it ain't broke...

 

[ChrisWoj]

Now? It's just another week. All the top players are on tour every week. The players you expect to be in contention at Worlds are the same ones that you expect to be in contention the event before and the event after. All the other divisions have been run off, so it sets up just like any other DGPT event. The actual event has lost so much of what made it special that really all that is left is the prestige of the title winning it brings.

Tradition and prestige mean something, though. Both '21 and '22 saw great endings and showcased pro disc golf exactly like you would want to. No plodding, season-long "race for the player of the year award"-type Champion could bring the drama and excitement like the last two Worlds have.

To me, Wysocki was just sour grapes bitching about an event that both this year and last delivered dramatic finishes and did exactly what they were supposed to do. If it ain't broke...

In general - its as great as any other event. And wow oh wow has this season had a lot of great events. Many events this year have showcased pro disc golf exactly like you would want to.

The one thing that is keeping Worlds at the top in terms of prestige is, plain and simple, $$$. It is consistently one of the biggest payouts of the year. If you want the biggest payout, you gotta peak at the right time. And if Worlds is going to remain the MOST prestigious event long term it has, given it has sacrificed whatever else all made it unique, it needs to be the biggest payout in the sport. Anything less and every time another event is bigger (namely: the DGPT Tour Championship) the World Championship is lessened. History is not enough. If history and prestige could hold on its own without something else to prop it up we'd have The Memorial on the tour still (and reading posts here about its courses being out-of-date for the modern tour).

Right now, assuming it continues to have the biggest payout in the sport, the most important thing for every player should be qualifying for and peaking at The Disc Golf Pro Tour Championship. The most prestigious event is the event that, year over year, makes the biggest difference in the players' pocketbooks. And no this is not something that can be stolen with just one year - but over time the event with the biggest payout consistently will become the most prestigious event, the one to peak for.

 

[Shallows]

The one thing that is keeping Worlds at the top in terms of prestige is, plain and simple, $$$. It is consistently one of the biggest payouts of the year. If you want the biggest payout, you gotta peak at the right time. And if Worlds is going to remain the MOST prestigious event long term it has, given it has sacrificed whatever else all made it unique, it needs to be the biggest payout in the sport. Anything less and every time another event is bigger (namely: the DGPT Tour Championship) the World Championship is lessened. History is not enough. If history and prestige could hold on its own without something else to prop it up we'd have The Memorial on the tour still (and reading posts here about its courses being out-of-date for the modern tour).

What you're describing is certainly not true in Tennis or Golf, in fact the opposite is true. Less prestigious events (Aussie Open, Players Champ, Fedex Cup...) have to pay more $$$ than the prestige events (Wimbledon, Masters, etc.) in order to be relevant.

This is doubly so in Disc Golf where purse amounts make up a fraction of player's actual income, which primarily comes from disc sales. Conrad's wallet is sitting a lot fatter than Nathan Queen's obviously but even Calvin Heimburg and Garrett Gurthie are doing better than Queen.

 

[ChrisWoj]

What you're describing is certainly not true in Tennis or Golf, in fact the opposite is true. Less prestigious events (Aussie Open, Players Champ, Fedex Cup...) have to pay more $$$ than the prestige events (Wimbledon, Masters, etc.) in order to be relevant.

This is doubly so in Disc Golf where purse amounts make up a fraction of player's actual income, which primarily comes from disc sales. Conrad's wallet is sitting a lot fatter than Nathan Queen's obviously but even Calvin Heimburg and Garrett Gurthie are doing better than Queen.

This doesn't necessarily rebut my point.

In golf, for example, The Players Championship has done exactly as I've noted: it has used a gigantic payout to become what people with decreasing irony describe as "The Fifth Major." It is using money to establish prestige. Is a Major less prestigious if there are five of them, versus four? You want to butt in on the territory of the Four Majors? You throw a ton of money at your event year over year and over time you start to get in the conversation as one of the biggest events in the sport.

I don't know Tennis as well but it seems you used a Major as an example of an event that is bigger than a Major? I don't know the sport as well - but as a casual "Majors Only" fan (I will watch a handful of tennis matches per year but have never watched a non-Major match in my life) I can say that I don't consider Wimbledon to be any bigger than the other three tennis Majors. As far as I'm concerned Wimbledon is just the biggest grass court event but I don't see it as much more important than a French Open or a US Open or an Aussie Open on a player's resume. And if I'm reading this correctly - the Aussie Open was listed as a Major from 1924 onward, but only really began to be regarded as a part of the Grand Slam in 1982 when they modernized facilities and started throwing boatloads of money into the purse to attract players. I wouldn't have known that without this discussion, but I'm guessing it plays a big role in the fact that I just don't see it as "less than" Wimbledon.

Those "in the know" might consider Wimbledon to be the biggest, but for the casual fan its one-of-four. Just like how disc golf Worlds is rapidly becoming "the big one" only for those "in the know."

 

[biscoe]

I haven't watched tennis since it was Borg/McEnroe and couldn't begin to tell you who is the current number one player in the World but I am pretty certain that Wimbledon dwarfs the other Majors in terms of prestige and that basically no one gives a crap about the Aussie Open.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I haven't watched tennis since it was Borg/McEnroe and couldn't begin to tell you who is the current number one player in the World but I am pretty certain that Wimbledon dwarfs the other Majors in terms of prestige and that basically no one gives a crap about the Aussie Open.

To be clear - I'm not saying that the Australian Open is in fact bigger than the rest of the Majors. Just that as a casual fan at best I just don't see Wimbledon as bigger necessarily than the other Grand Slams. I get that its held on a famous court, and that it is clearly the biggest grass tournament. I'm only saying that the financial factor is bringing the Australian Open on-par with it in the eyes of just as a typical nobody casual follower.

Its interesting the two things you note here...

You haven't watched tennis since Borg/McEnroe... Borg's last Major win was 1981. McEnroe's last Major win was 1984. The Australian Open only started throwing money at building prestige in 1982. So your perspective would appear to be colored by the point at which you last stopped following the sport? Throwing money at the event since the mid-1980s has got the event everywhere... it looks like in 1995 the tour started treating it as a Major worth as much credit to player seasons as the other Majors. And now for over a decade its been the most highly attended Major in the sport. It appears that money is getting the event everywhere it wants to be.

 

[biscoe]

The Australian Open has been a Major since 1925, same as the others. Highly unscientific Googling of "least prestigious Major in tennis" leads me to believe that it is indeed that. Likewise Googling "most prestigious Major in tennis" yields a litany of Wimbledon citations. Methinks your consideration of prestige and that of the majority of the world may not align.

 

[Sheridan]

Golf...Masters, then, a good bit back, the U.S Open
Tennis...Wimbledon, then the U.S. Open
Disc Golf...Worlds, then well back, the USDGC, then, even further back again-take your pick of several.

 

[DanJon]

The Player's Championship is too fluky with the current format.

Big payout, yes, but also has the potential where a lower rated (and potentially less marketable player) can take the top prize.

Worlds still has the prestige and the psychological challenge, because the best 10-15 players in the world could win and doing so would change their career forever (financially speaking).

How well do Tour Championship signature discs sell versus World Championship signature discs?

Which win comes with a bigger bonus from sponsors and often a raise/more financial support?

Queen got a good paycheck from the Championship, but probably isn't making any longer term gains to be financially set in his disc golf career.

Compare that to Conrad who picks up a Worlds and could potentially be set for life once he retires from the touring pro side.

 

[Sheridan]

The Player's Championship is too fluky with the current format.

Big payout, yes, but also has the potential where a lower rated (and potentially less marketable player) can take the top prize.

Worlds still has the prestige and the psychological challenge, because the best 10-15 players in the world could win and doing so would change their career forever (financially speaking).

How well do Tour Championship signature discs sell versus World Championship signature discs?

Which win comes with a bigger bonus from sponsors and often a raise/more financial support?

Queen got a good paycheck from the Championship, but probably isn't making any longer term gains to be financially set in his disc golf career.

Compare that to Conrad who picks up a Worlds and could potentially be set for life once he retires from the touring pro side.

Do you consider it fluky because Nathan Queen won last year? Before that we had McBeth, Wysocki, Dickerson x2, and Jones. Nothing fluky about those guys winning, I'd think.

Personally, I like the format. But I realize not everyone does. So what would people like to see instead?

I'm sure the folks at DGPT would like to some day see their championship be the Masters/Wimbledon/Kentucky Derby type event of disc golf. Will that be the possible with the current format?

 

[ChrisWoj]

The Australian Open has been a Major since 1925, same as the others. Highly unscientific Googling of "least prestigious Major in tennis" leads me to believe that it is indeed that. Likewise Googling "most prestigious Major in tennis" yields a litany of Wimbledon citations. Methinks your consideration of prestige and that of the majority of the world may not align.

Yes, I already acknowledged the perspective of the tennis majors by those "in the know." I'm just saying that, myself as an anecdote, have not really seen Wimbledon as more than just "one of four" Grand Slams. I certainly haven't had, really until this conversation, seen any reason to think of the Australian Open as something "lesser." But my personal opinion is only barely significant next to the importance of what money has done to continually increase the prestige of the event.

The event has grown into literally the most attended tennis tournament annually in the world, a demonstration of the prestige that money can buy. Though you noted that the Australian Open has been recognized wholly as a Major since 1925 - it did not receive recognition as a Major by the organizing bodies outside of the ITF until the 1990s. Hell, you brought up Bjorn Borg - Borg attended the event ONE TIME when he was 17 years old, and never did so again. It only became what it is, treated by the tennis world as a Grand Slam, with growing prestige that has turned it into the most attended event in the world in the last 35 years. You brought up McEnroe - he didn't bother attending the event until 1983 at which point he'd already earned 4 Major wins.

 

[Sheridan]

Yes, I already acknowledged the perspective of the tennis majors by those "in the know." I'm just saying that, myself as an anecdote, have not really seen Wimbledon as more than just "one of four" Grand Slams. I certainly haven't had, really until this conversation, seen any reason to think of the Australian Open as something "lesser." But my personal opinion is only barely significant next to the importance of what money has done to continually increase the prestige of the event.

The event has grown into literally the most attended tennis tournament annually in the world, a demonstration of the prestige that money can buy. Though you noted that the Australian Open has been recognized wholly as a Major since 1925 - it did not receive recognition as a Major by the organizing bodies outside of the ITF until the 1990s. Hell, you brought up Bjorn Borg - Borg attended the event ONE TIME when he was 17 years old, and never did so again. It only became what it is, treated by the tennis world as a Grand Slam, with growing prestige that has turned it into the most attended event in the world in the last 35 years. You brought up McEnroe - he didn't bother attending the event until 1983 at which point he'd already earned 4 Major wins.

Chris- one question. Assume you're a professional tennis player. You can have only one Grand Slam win on your resume. Would you choose Wimbledon or the Australian Open?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Chris- one question. Assume you're a professional tennis player. You can have only one Grand Slam win on your resume. Would you choose Wimbledon or the Australian Open?

IF I was a player, I assume I'd have a better sense of the history of the sport, and I assume Wimbledon? That would necessitate an entirely different background applied to my entire life. As a casual fan who only watches a few matches per year - the 4 Majors are all Grand Slams. And this conversation is really the one thing that has enlightened me to the idea that people would actually get defensive over whether or not Wimbledon's prestige is at all impacted by the notion that the Australian Open has built massive amounts of it by throwing cash at developing it.

 

[Shallows]

And this conversation is really the one thing that has enlightened me to the idea that people would actually get defensive over whether or not Wimbledon's prestige is at all impacted by the notion that the Australian Open has built massive amounts of it by throwing cash at developing it.

Nothing to get defensive about, just expressing the generally held opinion about prestige amongst the Grand Slams.