biscoe
* Ace Member *
I don't think you will find very many people who consider Winthrop to be a complete test of dg skills.
-
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)
PDGA announces World Championships to split. Open / Age Protected
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
I don't think you will find very many people who consider Winthrop to be a complete test of dg skills.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
No, But I think the point is that Worlds has been a different type of competition (due to length and variety of courses) than the USDGC.
esdubya
Double Eagle Member
Good point, although anytime you are doing something just because "that is how it was done before" you end up doing something just because that is how it was done before. I like that the PDGA has taken a hard look at the format and decided that a change would most likely be beneficial.
High stakes, though for sure.
Not easy changing something called the "World Championship" at the height of the popularity of the sport.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Sure, but now the 2017 PDGA Pro World Championships has become a 2 course / 4 day tournament that has a smaller payout than a 2016 planned A-tier with the same format.
The bolded is a bit presumptuous, isn't it? The host hasn't even been determined yet...heck, no one has even had a chance to put a bid together to host it yet. How about we hold off on some of the assumptions until we at least know the who and where as far as how the first edition of this new Worlds format will unfold.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Point taken.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I fail to see the relevance of this, other than as a chest beating exercise. Unless you're trying to say that the PDGA needs to develop a relationship with an insurance company that will give it a large chunk of money for a couple of years, based on relationships, not on ROI, that will peter out eventually; well, bad business model IMO.
The PDGA has incrementally, and rather maturely built an organization that his increased payout and support year to year for thirty years now. It is good old fashioned smart business, the way we used to do business. I look for the PDGA, it's payout, and its business model to be around a long time after flash in the pan sponsors are gone. That is because they are building a business instead of looking for a golden goose that is unsustainable.
BTW - as a point of snark, that 2016 A tier is only there because of the thirty years of support laid down by the PDGA and it's membership. You're welcome.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Full disclosure: Yes I'm involved with the Ledgestone event, but I would have made the same statement even if I wasn't. My point was not a chest beating exercise and I probably should have left the purse part out. Personally I am not a fund raiser and take no credit for what Nate is doing on that front (actually I take no credit for pretty much most of the event).
Pro Worlds was distinctly different from any other event in it's format. With the planned change in 2017, it is now (from a competition format perspective) no different than the Ledgestone event (and others in the DGPT) in 2016.
Pro Worlds was distinctly different from any other event in it's format. With the planned change in 2017, it is now (from a competition format perspective) no different than the Ledgestone event (and others in the DGPT) in 2016.
It is different in that they are playing less courses. I think the longer events are better, the better player rises to the top the more rounds your play. But I think a part of the problem is the lack of quality bids that come through. All that they say aside...I bet there is a desire to offer variety in World Championship locations (including overseas) Much easier to have 2 courses per division than 3. Look at right now...how many big events are around Emporia...because they are getting really good at running events.
This gives markets like us here in Colorado a shot at hosting Worlds (not that we are planning on it right now.)
We have a huge base of players and volunteers, but donr have 4 championship level courses nearby each other. Im sure other areas share this problem.
We have a huge base of players and volunteers, but donr have 4 championship level courses nearby each other. Im sure other areas share this problem.
DirtyMeathook
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 421
To everyone saying that more rounds just means that the same guy wins as if there were fewer rounds, only by more strokes, need only look back to last years Worlds to see that line of thinking is farce.
wolfmandragon
* Ace Member *
I was replying to a comment about six rounds showing more skill than four. It doesn't, but it shows whom has more endurance.
Endurance does not equal skill. If we want to see endurance, the first stepis to ban all caddies. Perhaps make the players do calisthenics before the round as well.... Hell, let's have them sprint from hole to hole.
This is not American football where skill takes a very big backseat to physical ability. We are playing a game of skill.
The argument for 6 rounds---or, more accurately, for more rounds---is that it rewards more than just endurance. It rewards consistent excellence. The fewer rounds, the greater effect a hot streak can have.
DirtyMeathook
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 421
^^ Exactly, DavidSauls.
McBeth would be 1x champ if all his championships were 4 rounds. MJ would have won in 2012, Wysocki in 2014, and Will this year.
McBeth would be 1x champ if all his championships were 4 rounds. MJ would have won in 2012, Wysocki in 2014, and Will this year.
(emphasis mine) Yeah, I too wonder how much this will help add bids to host because...
Worst case scenario is Worlds ends up being played on two courses that are "gold caliber" and chosen more for filming and superfluous perks rather than actual testing of disc golf ability. With the old format, it was better odds that there'd be some course design variety whereas now it will be a lot easier to have a homogeneous Worlds. I don't want to see Worlds evolve into two Winthrop Gold looking courses every year.
wolfmandragon
* Ace Member *
Statistically, yes, more rounds minimizes hot streak, but the players rating is a better indication of skill level than any single tournament.
MJ, I think is an exception as to how smooth he throws, but from the tournaments I have watched, after early thirties, the more rounds one plays, the lower the placement.
Watch Doss or Climo have real nice early rounds that they can't maintain deeper in the tournament. This is even with only four rounds being played.
I think four rounds is the sweet spot between weeding out hot rounds but not making it a physical endurance match. Ball golf figured this out years ago, and our sports (games, whatever) are very close in how much endurance is needed to play.
Yes, I am also aware that my sentence structure may be causing some English teachers to roll in their graves.
Last edited:
jeffmonty
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,425
Would that be a bad thing? A top player is going to win it no matter what, but it will really be important to come out of the gate quick, and maintain it over 4 rounds, not hang and make a run in the 8th round, like we've seen in the past. Does Paul have to win it every year? Who cares who wins it, they still have to earn it at that level.
The Preakness is shorter than the Kentucky Derby. It's only 1 3/16 miles.
Stick to making things up about ratings please (like "tournament pressure is worth 20-30 points") and leave the thoroughbreds out of this
brandocommando9
Double Eagle Member
Not really, Mcbeth has a talent for coming back and winning tournaments no matter how many rounds. He knows when he needs to turn on and does so.
There's no way you can judge it like that anyway different amount of rounds means one might play more or less aggressive.
Has McBeth won because he shoots lights-out in the later rounds, or because he doesn't have a bad round? (I have no idea; I don't follow the top pros that close).
It seems that a consistently-excellent player, in a field of less consistent players, would get a similar result. In the early rounds, some of the field would shoot really hot and put him behind, while others would have weak rounds early. Some would have weak rounds in the middle of the competition. And some would have their weak rounds late, giving the impression that the consistently-excellent player is pushing past them.
I'm not saying that's the case, because I don't care enough to look it up or analyze the results. In theory, however, it would be a rationale for more rounds.
On the other hand, making each shot and each round more important would be a rationale for fewer rounds. In a shorter tournament there's less time to rally, thus more pressure to be tops from the very first throw.
It seems that a consistently-excellent player, in a field of less consistent players, would get a similar result. In the early rounds, some of the field would shoot really hot and put him behind, while others would have weak rounds early. Some would have weak rounds in the middle of the competition. And some would have their weak rounds late, giving the impression that the consistently-excellent player is pushing past them.
I'm not saying that's the case, because I don't care enough to look it up or analyze the results. In theory, however, it would be a rationale for more rounds.
On the other hand, making each shot and each round more important would be a rationale for fewer rounds. In a shorter tournament there's less time to rally, thus more pressure to be tops from the very first throw.
