• 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)

Disc Golf Pro Tour

I tuned in for about 15 minutes and, while I wouldn't watch more, I got to watch them jumping between coverage of different groups, and updating the Top 8 standings (those in the clubhouse, those still on the course). Definitely a step up from lead-group-only coverage.

That's not enough to get me to watch live coverage, though certainly a step in the right direction. That would also be welcome in the edited coverage from a tournament, too.
 
If the notion is that everyone was gonna realize those things were going to happen in advance and come out in droves well thats silly. Even if the idea is that it's going to have any immediate impact, that's silly.

I didn't offer any notions, nor did I hold any notions. You offered a evaluation without explaining the standards and rationale, so I asked what standards you were using. Just a question seeking information.

DG is ball golf without the money. How do you add to it or gain a position that gives it leverage in gaining audience over some other watchable sport, long term? Steve showed some elements that should be considered today. BTW, I wouldn't even give Dodge credit for thinking of them, only testing them out.

I'm not terribly interested by the "win your card" standard to enter into a finals. The sort of thing can lead to too many of the hottest throwers out of the final despite playing better than the winners of other cards. I'd argue that such a dynamic makes it unwatchable, actually, because the final doesn't necessarily include the best players from semis.

Though I do agree that experimenting with things is a positive way to approach building an audience for coverage. There may be a lot of folks who like that dynamic and don't care that the finals doesn't necessarily have all the players who played best leading into it. There are plenty here bitching about Drew's move to improve his position vis a vis what card he's on that I suspect any system that doesn't reward the hottest players to end up duking it out won't get much support.
 
THis thread just took off on a tangent. Quarterfinals of what? Who is Drew Gibson? What did he do that got everyone's panties in a bundle?

https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2016/09/18/gibsons-gambit-raises-score-eyebrows-dgpt-quarterfinals/

he-chose-poorly.jpg

Aw come on, it was fun. I think it was a great strategic move, he just didn't capitalize on it today/came up against the buzz saw of Peter McBride.
 
I didn't offer any notions, nor did I hold any notions. You offered a evaluation without explaining the standards and rationale, so I asked what standards you were using. Just a question seeking information.



I'm not terribly interested by the "win your card" standard to enter into a finals. The sort of thing can lead to too many of the hottest throwers out of the final despite playing better than the winners of other cards. I'd argue that such a dynamic makes it unwatchable, actually, because the final doesn't necessarily include the best players from semis.

Though I do agree that experimenting with things is a positive way to approach building an audience for coverage. There may be a lot of folks who like that dynamic and don't care that the finals doesn't necessarily have all the players who played best leading into it. There are plenty here bitching about Drew's move to improve his position vis a vis what card he's on that I suspect any system that doesn't reward the hottest players to end up duking it out won't get much support.

It felt like you did. You put out the number 1200 and it felt like you were focused on that value and thought I was saying there had been some big spike in something that was belied by that number. It was the conclusion I drew based on your focus on that number and saying that it said nothing important had happened. Sorry I misunderstood your intent.

For me, the format was interesting. That was buoyed by the dozens of commets on YT supporting the format and how it played. I can see how many, yourself included, might not like it, but it was exciting to watch.

It seems to me that a casual viewer, without your knowledge of the top players, might find it very exciting. They wouldn't realize that Ricky, for example, is special. They'd think that a pool of very talented top level golfers winnowed down to a winner. Even if they caught that Peter pulled off a unique and special upset of the year's best player, they might not feel an emotional connection to that and like that an underdog pulled off an upset.

I think I'll stand by my position, I understand you disagree, and can see why, but I'd argue that we should be thinking beyond the highly informed fans who are gonna watch, to a larger fan base.
 
In regards to the actual broadcast from a viewer's perspective; I need to see hole info, scores, players info more often. That data seemed to be randomly displayed.
 
Fwiw i will watch replays...

It was way too damn nice of a day in MN tonsit around watching this BS. Good luck steve. Ypu will have my eyes come winter! Oh, wait... Nvm.
 
So, does anyone know who won the dang thing? The DGPT website has a button for view results, but it doesn't show any results at all.
 
McBeth. Despite the sprint format---1 round, everyone starts equal---he sort of ran away with it.
 
Fwiw i will watch replays...

It was way too damn nice of a day in MN tonsit around watching this BS. Good luck steve. Ypu will have my eyes come winter! Oh, wait... Nvm.

This is my attitude towards all this live disc golf. I'll watch the post round edited stuff but not going to go back and watch a 3 hour broadcast, sorry. I'm going to go out and play.
 
They're proud of their website, but it fell through a bit. It's still full of promotions, not results.

Not the best PR for folks demanding equal treatment with the NT.
 
I got a chance to watch some at work last week. Nice coverage, though the PIP is a bit distracting on a monitor. I guess if I was at home in front of a big flat screen, I would have appreciated it more. But, if I am not at work, I am unlikely to be in front of a TV on the weekend.

Any game that tanking is a benefit or allowed is flawed, IMO.
 
I really like the thoughtful discussions about eSports from both perspectives.

As an occasional (formerly avid) League of Legends player myself, I've watched the evolution of that game, and I actually enjoy tuning in from time to time to their live broadcast streams. I'm considering getting tickets to the World Championship Quarterfinals so I can study it in person.

I want to have a more in depth look at the parallels, the similarities and differences, and overall what we can learn from that arena. I think if we can read the tea leaves in terms of the meteoric rise of eSports and the near freefall of Golf, we can learn some valuable lessons and avoid some pitfalls ourselves.

Thanks for that, and to everyone who watched the broadcast. :)
 
While live broadcasts are indeed pretty slow to watch, the commentary was great, JVD active in the chat was a nice touch, and the production level was stellar for a live DG broadcast. I'm very interested in what will come in future years.

I think if they can get to a level where Jamie and accompanying commentators can be in a booth, watching multiple cards on monitors and doing their commentary, while 3-4 cards are covered at once - switching back and forth like the PGA - we will really have a truly great live experience. I understand what a monumental capitol investment that requires for equipment, crew, setup, transport, ect. However, with 1-2 cards, lots of backups and walking, and the commentators getting winded and having to hush their voices, it does make for a less exciting viewing environment.

And, do not take these statements in any way as a dig. We would all be winded doing what these guys are doing and Mr. Thomas' respect for players and keeping himself to a minimal distraction is greatly commendable.
 
Top