Why So Much OB?

[DeadEye]

Artificial OB is fine IMO, depending on the courses. In my hometown we have 2 courses that get played regularly. There's one course that's completely wooded, every shot on the course except for 2 you have to put your disc through a 5-15 foot gap at some point in the flight, and those 2 still have trees on them. The other course is fairly wide open and easy, but there are still trees on every hole and lines you have to hit. The easy course we have has a concrete walking trail and a creek going through it, so we use the trail and creek for OBs as well as some parking lots, tennis courts, etc.

I know there are a ton of cities/areas that would be great for worlds, but honestly I'm bias towards having it go down in Mt Vernon Texas. Selah and the Trey Deuce/Texas Twist courses would be amazing for worlds. 4 courses within about 30 of eachother, they're pro level courses that are a mixture of wide open holes and wooded holes, and I other than cell reception being questionable they wouldn't be too difficult to film. There have been big tournaments there before (Am World Doubles, Texas Teams, etc) but most of the tournaments have been cursed with bad weather either during or before. It would be an incredible tournament if all the planets could align and it was held there one year.

 

[lyleoross]

I'll spell it out for you then.

The course has little to do with where Worlds is played out. It's not like Emporia was chosen due to the quality of their courses.

There are many courses that challenge the pro field in the US. Once again, literally no one wants to host the event.

While I understand your position, I'm going to disagree. Wait, no i don't understand. The original post was about why there was so much OB at Emporia. Unless your meaning is no one wants worlds, therefore the only place that would take it was Emporia, and they've got lots of OB? If so, you're wrong. Emporia doesn't have lots of ob. They add it for top tier events to challenge top tier players.

Wanting, as in "oh boy, I'd love to run worlds!" and wanting, as in "we have four courses, a TD and three Assistant TDs and lots of volunteers," are different things. I know lots of the first, and only a few of the second. People aren't lining up simply because they don't have the resources. While that is a comment on world's, it's not a negative one. It says, having a great course isn't enough. You have to be able to run a great event.

You are correct in one sense. Getting a bid and getting the event is hard. As it should be. If it were easy, you'd get lousy events.

Perhaps you can fill us in on your view of how world's should be, and how you get it to a great course. Another thread though, if you would. This one is about the use of ob.

 

[ru4por]

I'll spell it out for you then.

The course has little to do with where Worlds is played out. It's not like Emporia was chosen due to the quality of their courses.

There are many courses that challenge the pro field in the US. Once again, literally no one wants to host the event.

Maybe we are agreeing, I'm not sure. Lyle points out some of the reason why host cities are hard to come by. Additionally, finances, hotel space, tourism opportunities, course density, course quality, opening ceremony and player party space, sponsor opportunities, geographic location, and politics are all additional reasons that present challenges. I still am not sure what OB has to do with it. I agree with lyle, I don't see these as negatives. Maybe I misunderstood both of your posts.

 

[jtencer]

Maybe we are agreeing, I'm not sure. Lyle points out some of the reason why host cities are hard to come by. Additionally, finances, hotel space, tourism opportunities, course density, course quality, opening ceremony and player party space, sponsor opportunities, geographic location, and politics are all additional reasons that present challenges. I still am not sure what OB has to do with it. I agree with lyle, I don't see these as negatives. Maybe I misunderstood both of your posts.

I think you all are agreeing.

Hosting worlds takes lots of volunteer hours. Emporia has the volunteer base and willingness to host but to make it challenging for the pros requires tons of OB. You wouldn't need all the OB if you could do it someplace else but nowhere else seems interested in putting in all the work required.

OB enters in because all the other stuff you mentioned forces worlds onto a course that wouldn't be challenging enough without OB.

 

[JC17393]

You wouldn't need all the OB if you could do it someplace else but nowhere else seems interested in putting in all the work required.

OB enters in because all the other stuff you mentioned forces worlds onto a course that wouldn't be challenging enough without OB.

This was all true of Pro Worlds in the past. The splitting off of MPO and FPO into their own Worlds changes the equation quite a bit. Witness where Worlds is going to be this year...on courses that don't really need to be "tricked up" for the best players in the world (at least in the case of WR Jackson). The hope is that will be the case going forward.

As has already been cited, part of the issue with host selection at Worlds has been finding the right combination of staffing/organization and collection of courses. But it goes beyond an area simply not having a "pro" level course (requiring one be "tricked up"). Because of the scope of the Worlds format (hundreds of people playing 4-6 rounds in four days plus the final day), some courses had to be scaled back from their most challenging forms for the sake of playing time. A good example would be Charlotte in 2012. Renaissance Park's Gold course was not used to its full potential in order to keep the time it took to play a round under four (?) hours and to keep the course within the realm of reasonable challenge for other divisions who had to play it. Now there isn't that concern. A course doesn't have to be "fair" for MPG and still be used by MPO anymore.

The door is open for those true "designed for pros" courses to serve as host for a World Championship. The staffing needs are less. The demand for other courses nearby is less (or non-existent). I think the interest in hosting Worlds is going to increase in the future.

 

[lyleoross]

This was all true of Pro Worlds in the past. The splitting off of MPO and FPO into their own Worlds changes the equation quite a bit. Witness where Worlds is going to be this year...on courses that don't really need to be "tricked up" for the best players in the world (at least in the case of WR Jackson). The hope is that will be the case going forward.

As has already been cited, part of the issue with host selection at Worlds has been finding the right combination of staffing/organization and collection of courses. But it goes beyond an area simply not having a "pro" level course (requiring one be "tricked up"). Because of the scope of the Worlds format (hundreds of people playing 4-6 rounds in four days plus the final day), some courses had to be scaled back from their most challenging forms for the sake of playing time. A good example would be Charlotte in 2012. Renaissance Park's Gold course was not used to its full potential in order to keep the time it took to play a round under four (?) hours and to keep the course within the realm of reasonable challenge for other divisions who had to play it. Now there isn't that concern. A course doesn't have to be "fair" for MPG and still be used by MPO anymore.

The door is open for those true "designed for pros" courses to serve as host for a World Championship. The staffing needs are less. The demand for other courses nearby is less (or non-existent). I think the interest in hosting Worlds is going to increase in the future.

As usual, JC has made me think about something I've not considered before. Can you elaborate a bit? While what you've said makes sense, was this part of the PDGAs plan? What was the full logic? It's possible they laid it out and I missed it. I had assumed it was a numbers thing, but I never expanded that into smaller venues with unique courses. That might address the side question I think was raised about world's. I'd also be curious to know if it's already impacting bids?

 

[JC17393]

As usual, JC has made me think about something I've not considered before. Can you elaborate a bit? While what you've said makes sense, was this part of the PDGAs plan? What was the full logic? It's possible they laid it out and I missed it. I had assumed it was a numbers thing, but I never expanded that into smaller venues with unique courses. That might address the side question I think was raised about world's. I'd also be curious to know if it's already impacting bids?

I do think this was part of the PDGA's plan. The split was in part about numbers (in terms of number of attendees) but it was also about catering the event more to the top players. It's no secret that many if not all the top touring players prefer events that use no more than a couple courses. They'd rather focus on learning/mastering one or two courses than having to scramble to see three or four or more courses in only a couple days before a tournament begins.

By extracting the age protected divisions from the equation and reducing the schedule to one round per day with tee times, this enables the hosts to select their very best pair of courses and set them up for maximum challenge for elite players. Look at this year's edition in Augusta. They've got three courses at the IDGC, so they could very easily handle 432 players (3 courses X 144 players on tee times) just at the IDGC. Yet they're planning for 288 (2 X 144) and using only one course at the IDGC (Jackson) with a second host course away from the IDGC. The Steady Ed and Warner courses aren't considered Gold level, so they won't be used (though I'd make an argument that either one of them would be more appropriate for FPO than Jackson).

I think the impact is already evident in the selection for 2018 Worlds. There's no way that anywhere in Vermont could pull off a full sized Pro Worlds as we've known in the past (or an Am Worlds for that matter). There just isn't a centralized location with enough nearby courses (let alone "quality" courses) to do it. But they can handle an MPO/FPO only tournament at a place like Smuggler's Notch since all they need is the two 18-hole courses they have right on site. Not to mention that everything can be self-contained right in the resort (no travel necessary). Another bonus is that they can run Worlds without really having to expand the staffing that they already use on a yearly basis at their A-tier/DGPT event. That kind of experience, and not having to integrate a bunch of inexperienced or outside help, can only make things better overall.

 

[lyleoross]

Thanks JC.

 

[Lazerface]

I don't mind artificial OB at all. One of the great things about our sport is course variety. Playing in the woods and playing on a converted golf course are two different games. It allows players with different skill sets to shine.

Open courses must have artificial OB to challenge our elite players. There is no way around it. You can get creative on greens to some extent, but we are not rolling a ball in a cup. Putting is just to easy to try to create scoring spread on the green. I will admit it can look ugly (spray paint) and could be seem gimmicky, especially to noobs or non disc golfing spectators, but if done correctly there is nothing gimmicky or lucky about it. Elite disc golfers have so much control that we have to force them to smaller landing areas that just don't exist naturally in wide open spaces. Stroke and Distance rules aside I think most top pros would agree that artificial OB is necessary, but should be designed thoughtfully and when possible, consideration should be made for aesthetics. Ideally we should have 0 instances of a 300 FT wide open shot onto an open green. That's a 99% up and down for our elite players and is ridiculously boring to watch. Create an island green, and were talking.

As a fan, I don't want to watch arms like McBeth, Eagle, Nikko, Ricky, Simon, ETC ETC carve shots through the woods all day every day. I really enjoy that type of golf, but I also want to watch them throw 500 foot drives with accuracy. Distance in disc golf is about form, not strength (and yes flexibility for you aged protected folks), and those who can throw far should get an advantage for doing so.

Also, separating worlds is the way to go. Sucks to loose the AMs as spectators but opens up the opportunity for a whole host of locations that would otherwise be unable to pull off a combined worlds (to JC's point). It's less to manage for the TDs and lets them focus on the small stuff, which should make for a better player and spectator experience alike. Emporia courses are good not great, but the venue/city as a whole is extraordinary and I don't fault the PDGA at all for giving them the job.

 

[JTacoma03]

This was all true of Pro Worlds in the past. The splitting off of MPO and FPO into their own Worlds changes the equation quite a bit. Witness where Worlds is going to be this year...on courses that don't really need to be "tricked up" for the best players in the world (at least in the case of WR Jackson). The hope is that will be the case going forward.

Just a bit of clarity - MPO and FPO are still at the same event. Age protected divisions have been split off.

It's the US Championship that has an Open tournament (USDGC) and a Women's Open tournament (USWDGC).

 

[Dr.Smooth]

The PDGA received zero bids from parties interested in hosting Pro Worlds. That should tell you something about the state of Worlds.

for real?

 

[JC17393]

Just a bit of clarity - MPO and FPO are still at the same event. Age protected divisions have been split off.

It's the US Championship that has an Open tournament (USDGC) and a Women's Open tournament (USWDGC).

Never suggested that MPO and FPO were going to separate events. I understand exactly how this all works. But thanks for the clarification on something that wasn't wrong or unclear.

 

[JTacoma03]

Never suggested that MPO and FPO were going to separate events. I understand exactly how this all works. But thanks for the clarification on something that wasn't wrong or unclear.

Did you read your previous post? Whether it's what you meant or not, that's what it read like.

Thanks for taking off my head over something trivial though. It wasn't a criticism, it was just clarification in case others were perusing the thread and interpreted your post the way I did.

 

[GoldeyeGolf]

Never suggested that MPO and FPO were going to separate events. I understand exactly how this all works. But thanks for the clarification on something that wasn't wrong or unclear.

Actually, the way it was written was kind of unclear.

 

[Nick Pacific]

Agreed. Did you play the summer course, winter course, or both?

April, about 5 or so years ago, so summer I assume, it had a full set of holes, at least 18