PDGA announces World Championships to split. Open / Age Protected

[DavidSauls]

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.

If the same player wins in 5 rounds or 7, just wins by more in 7, then you didn't need 7 rounds to determine the winner. 5 rounds did it. The 6th & 7th rounds aren't determining the winner, just how much he wins by.

 

[scarpfish]

I am glad they are doing away with the final nine, as it pollutes the whole concept of stroke play.

I personally have never liked it because of so many instances where it was effectively a coronation lap for the guy/gal in 1st place at the start of it.

 

[Steve West]

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'.

I could go along with that. Anyway. it's not my tournament, so I don't get to set the goals.

I would caution against moving too far in the direction of saying that finding a single world champion (with absolute certainty that he or she is indisputably the best player in the world that week) is the ONLY goal.

If that were the ONLY goal: we wouldn't need to invite many players (or, most players would not need to play more than one round); the holes may not be designed to be fun to play or watch (there might be a lot of 190 foot par 2s for scoring separation, and 450 foot throws over a lake); and the number of rounds would not be set in advance - the players would just play until the leader is so far ahead as to be uncatchable.

So, I'm OK with a tournament that gives hundreds of players the chance to measure themselves against the best, on courses that most players will have fun playing, while leaving the window open a small crack for some players to play above their heads.

 

[Star Shark]

I've been on the fence about the final 9. It's been a bit of a pointless victory lap and alters the # of holes those last 4 guys play vs the field, but it also has provided for some spectacular safari holes/shots.

 

[DirtyMeathook]

If the same player wins in 5 rounds or 7, just wins by more in 7, then you didn't need 7 rounds to determine the winner. 5 rounds did it. The 6th & 7th rounds aren't determining the winner, just how much he wins by.

The more rounds, the more likely the best player wins. Pretty simple concept. If you're trying to determine a world champion, it seems that would be what you would want.

 

[scarpfish]

The more rounds, the more likely the best player wins. Pretty simple concept. If you're trying to determine a world champion, it seems that would be what you would want.

I don't think anyone would debate that point other than what number of rounds is necessary.

But such an ideal is at odds with the realities of getting the event organized for whatever entity happens to do it. Arranging a two course, four day event is going to be light years easier than a 4-5 course, 5-6 day event, and will make it a more attractive proposal for potential hosts.

Then you have to consider the needs of players, most of whom are going to come out behind (even if they cash) when all expenses are figured, who think sacrificing a couple of rounds is worth shaving off 1-2 days of those expenses.

 

[JC17393]

I personally have never liked it because of so many instances where it was effectively a coronation lap for the guy/gal in 1st place at the start of it.

The concept of a final 9 has always been about the coronation thing, though. Final 9s were created to manufacture a showcase round with a gallery (generally consisting of other competitors) for tournaments that utilize shotgun starts. The utility of such a round at our biggest events is becoming less and less as the sport grows. Events like the USDGC, Maple Hill, Memorial, European Open, etc have shown that we can get a fair sized gallery for our lead groups without manufacturing one via a Final 9.

 

[DavidSauls]

The more rounds, the more likely the best player wins. Pretty simple concept. If you're trying to determine a world champion, it seems that would be what you would want.

Sure, but there's a point of diminishing returns. I think Steve's point was that, after a certain number of rounds, there is very little change in positions, just winning margin.

Suppose you have results like this, with players A & B being top players and pretty equal:

4 rounds A leads B 1 stroke back Everyone else 8 back
5 rounds B leads A 1 stroke back Everyone else 10 back
6 rounds A leads B 1 stroke back Everyone else 12 back
7 rounds B leads A 1 stroke back Everyone else 14 back
8 rounds A leads B 1 stroke back Everyone else 16 back

So which is the right number of rounds to determine a champion? 4 rounds sort out the best for the rest, and additional rounds just increase that separation. The top players are so close that there's no one right answer as to which is best.

Also consider results where 1 player dominates

4 rounds Player A leads everyone by 8 strokes
5 rounds ...10
6 rounds ...12
7 rounds ...14
8 rounds ...16

So which is the right number of rounds to determine that he's the champion? 4 rounds sort out the best from the rest, additional rounds just increase his margin.

*

I'm not saying 4 rounds is the right number. If the only consideration is number of rounds, I'd prefer 6-8. But this is concept that after a certain number of rounds, additional rounds have marginal effect. They may be desirable to greater reward consistent excellence, but aren't necessary to recognize a champion.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If the length of the Kentucky Derby is good enough to determine a champion horse, then why haven't the Preakness and Belmont Stakes races been shortened to match the Kentucky Derby's 1 1/4 miles? Because there's something to be said about endurance as an element of competition. Playing 8.5 to 9.5 rounds in 5 days on 3-4 different courses is a different experience and diversified test than 4-5 rounds played over 4-5 days on just two courses with only one round per day.

 

[krupicka]

There is another aspect to the course plan. Only playing two courses limits the variety of courses played. I think one of the benefits of the current World's format is that it tests a much wider skill set than what two gold level courses will provide. Even if some of those courses might not have been appropriate for the top echelon of disc golfers, I think there was some value in them.

 

[Karl]

There is another aspect to the course plan. Only playing two courses limits the variety of courses played. I think one of the benefits of the current World's format is that it tests a much wider skill set than what two gold level courses will provide. Even if some of those courses might not have been appropriate for the top echelon of disc golfers, I think there was some value in them.

Agreed bigtime. "Certain horses for certain courses" cannot be emphasized enough. Pick 'just the right course' for any 1 player and a guaranteed 2-3 shot pick up could be realized. The more courses, the more (hopefully) variety. Well, if the selection committee does their job well anyway....

 

[1978]

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 think a big difference from DG to BG is how completely different Disc Golf courses can be. Playing 3 courses twice plus a semi and finals I think that allows you to test the full range of skills for each player, to expose their weaknesses equally. Its tough to find 2 nearby championship caliber courses that fully test each players skill from long and open to short and tight.

 

[biscoe]

All in all it will be a change for the better. i do feel they have gone too far though and that the ideal setup would be a bit longer. Playing only 4 rounds just cheapens the World Championship down to the level of just one more in a chain of "Majors". I am also apprehensive that we will get stuck with one course that is there to provide good video moreso than good disc golf since that seems to be where "high end" disc golf is headed in general.

 

[Steve West]

If the length of the Kentucky Derby is good enough to determine a champion horse, then why haven't the Preakness and Belmont Stakes races been shortened to match the Kentucky Derby's 1 1/4 miles? Because there's something to be said about endurance as an element of competition. Playing 8.5 to 9.5 rounds in 5 days on 3-4 different courses is a different experience and diversified test than 4-5 rounds played over 4-5 days on just two courses with only one round per day.

I think the point is that the Kentucky Derby hasn't been lengthened, and it is the one that brings the most fans to watching horses run.

 

[wolfmandragon]

The more rounds, the more likely the best player wins. Pretty simple concept. If you're trying to determine a world champion, it seems that would be what you would want.

No, at a certain point it is no longer about skill but physical endurance. Smaller, lean players benefit over larger players, be it fat or muscle. Youth over age. The difference between four and six rounds do not show skill but how fit one is.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the point is that the Kentucky Derby hasn't been lengthened, and it is the one that brings the most fans to watching horses run.

It's only because it's first. You can't win the Triple Crown without winning it to start. Belmont only gets the popularity bump if a horse wins the first two.

 

[biscoe]

No, at a certain point it is no longer about skill but physical endurance. Smaller, lean players benefit over larger players, be it fat or muscle. Youth over age. The difference between four and six rounds do not show skill but how fit one is.

How is fitness not a part of what is presumably an athletic pursuit?

 

[biscoe]

It's only because it's first. You can't win the Triple Crown without winning it to start. Belmont only gets the popularity bump if a horse wins the first two.

There is a lot more pageantry involved in the Derby than the other 2 races as well.

Personally I think analogizing the World Championships to the entirety of the Triple Crown makes more sense than one race. The entirety tests a full set of horse "skills"- endurance and recovery being among them.

 

[esdubya]

Good change, well done PDGA.. :thmbup:

If the quality of the course (even if it's only one) is high that should represent a complete challenge where one specialized player cannot dominate. No one complains that the USDGC should include more courses do they? It's all about the quality of the course. This format (4 days, 4 rounds) seems to lend itself to setting up one really great course and doing tee times throughout the day for the entire field, yes? This way all of your resources can go to one site, which should make it logistically easier for the organizers.

 

[dontBLAMEtheDISC]

If the length of the Kentucky Derby is good enough to determine a champion horse, then why haven't the Preakness and Belmont Stakes races been shortened to match the Kentucky Derby's 1 1/4 miles? Because there's something to be said about endurance as an element of competition. Playing 8.5 to 9.5 rounds in 5 days on 3-4 different courses is a different experience and diversified test than 4-5 rounds played over 4-5 days on just two courses with only one round per day.

Im not sure this really makes sense. The horse only runs one race that day and usually just one race a week at most.

Also the difference between the Kentucky Derby and the other two is about 20-30 seconds.
Where another round or final nine is hours.