PDGA Major Event: 2012 Pro/Am Disc Golf World Championships, Charlotte, NC

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by Jeff_LaG

I'll be the first to chime in on that, with the expected response:

And Bruce, if Am Worlds is such an "am-scam event" as you definite it, and which obviously displeases you so much, then you are always free to choose not to attend.

I exercise that option more often than not, but I'm also free to advocate for change.

Most PDGA tournaments are am-scam. It is a proud PDGA tradition. Here's a list of PDGA tournaments I've played "recently" that were not am-scam:

Am Nationals
Roscoe's Revenge
Harbin Rat
Discraft Michigan State Championships

There just aren't that many TDs who see a pack of ams and don't hear the gentle lowing of cattle or the bleating of sheep.

[davidsauls]

Luckily for me, in 17 years as an Am I can't recall a tournament where I didn't get my money's worth for my entry fee---including 2012 Worlds, which I DNF'd.

[Jeff_LaG]

Originally Posted by davidsauls

Luckily for me, in 17 years as an Am I can't recall a tournament where I didn't get my money's worth for my entry fee---including 2012 Worlds, which I DNF'd.

Well said!

[Rhyno]

Tournament value is almost always subjective... I've played in AM events where players packs and payout was little to nothing... but the venue was well worth the price.

I don't have a complaint per se regarding the 2012 World Championships... I just want to see the books. As a voting member, and if they are truly a 501.C.3 then I do believe their books have to be made available.

Georgia allows voting members access to minutes and accounting
records of the nonprofit corporation.
law.justia.com/georgia/codes/14/14-3-1602.html

Originally Posted by Jeff_LaG

Well said!

[davidsauls]

Originally Posted by Rhyno

Tournament value is almost always subjective... I've played in AM events where players packs and payout was little to nothing... but the venue was well worth the price.

Agreed.

I put a high value on someone organizing and running an event that I get to play in, so I'm easily satisfied.

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by keithjohnson

Putting Qualifying results are all messed up with several pros listed in the AM Division, thereby causing the payouts to be wrong for the TRUE AMS and maybe for the TRUE PROS also - although I would be happy to take the $3 in merch as it would be my only Worlds cashing this year.


http://www.pdga.com/2012worlds/resul...events/putting

Just got my $3 check in the mail from the PDGA for my AM Senior putting -12th place

Although I play like an AM most times, there is NO excuse for this not to have been corrected or checked out before sending them out and it was 3 full days from my post stating there were errors before the postmark of the sent check

I wonder who was REALLY supposed to get the money if the PROS were taken out of the equation?

Anyways, I'm gonna frame it and put it right next to my Hall of Fame plaque that I made for myself.

[Jeff_LaG]

FYI, here's the player's pack you received for your entry fee:

Originally Posted by 12StonesScott

Discs: Lat 64 Saint, Discraft TI Nuke, Champ Super Stingray, DGA Undertow, mini

Towel, coozie, miscellaneous stickers, vouchers for Worlds and Innova t-shirts (shirts were handed out at player's meeting and FlyMart, respectively), FlashFlight disc light for night golf, s-clip carabiner, mini first-aid kit, bottle opener, various FlyMart and local business coupons, Tournament Program/Caddy Book, Charlotte tourism mag, Fuze drink. Plus the Innova bag it all came in.

Wow!

[CraigS]

This was my first worlds experience (played AM1), and all in all, I am glad that I went to Charlotte. I have but one "suggestion" regarding future world championships NOT held a centralized multi-course venue ...

I believe that a previous posted in this forum or elsewhere made the suggestion of a "Pool TD" ... This would definitely alleviate some of the transition issues in moving players between courses on the same day.

However, for non-centralized city venues (ala Charlotte), I'd like to see pools that play two rounds on a specific day, do so at the same course. This may reduce the overall number of courses played, but I think it would reduce some of the confusion and logistical issues that arose last week. It would also increase the viability of a region hosting a world championship that has enough courses within an hour drive of a central location, but not enough close enough together to avoid long drives.

[davidsauls]

Originally Posted by CraigS

This was my first worlds experience (played AM1), and all in all, I am glad that I went to Charlotte. I have but one "suggestion" regarding future world championships NOT held a centralized multi-course venue ...

I believe that a previous posted in this forum or elsewhere made the suggestion of a "Pool TD" ... This would definitely alleviate some of the transition issues in moving players between courses on the same day.

However, for non-centralized city venues (ala Charlotte), I'd like to see pools that play two rounds on a specific day, do so at the same course. This may reduce the overall number of courses played, but I think it would reduce some of the confusion and logistical issues that arose last week. It would also increase the viability of a region hosting a world championship that has enough courses within an hour drive of a central location, but not enough close enough together to avoid long drives.

There are other implications of playing 2 courses in the same day. Under the current formula, after 3 days all players in a division have played the same courses, though not at the same time, and you can have the "great shuffle". Between the shuffle and the semi-final cut, everyone again plays the same courses, though not at the same times.

As best I can tell, to play the same course twice in the same day you can either (1) have no more than 2 pools in a division or (2) keep everyone in the same pools until the cut for the semi-finals. There are drawbacks to both.

Unless I'm missing something in the logistics.

I'm sure they're pondering this, but a pool TD or some reliable volunteer scoreboard-couriers, one for each pool, might alleviate the problems we had.

[davidsauls]

----now that I wrote that.....Did they have the Great Shuffle in MA1 and all multi-pool divisions this year?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by davidsauls

----now that I wrote that.....Did they have the Great Shuffle in MA1 and all multi-pool divisions this year?

Great Shuffle happened Wednesday night for all the multi-pool divisions (it's what "screwed up" the unofficial ratings in those divisions). You're right, with multiple pools within the same division, it presents a logistics problem to do two rounds on the same course in the same day.

The current Worlds format is three rounds prior to the shuffle, then three rounds after the shuffle. So to have any pool playing the same course more than once would require only using two courses for the three rounds prior to or following the Shuffle. That works only if there are just two pools. If you've got three pools, you need three separate courses to play the three rounds. Either that, or some fancy schedule shuffling that allows four rounds to be played at a single course in a day (two rounds by Pool A, two rounds by Pool B).

[bruce_brakel]

There are only two divisions that have more than two pools, so that concept could work for most divisions.

The Worlds team did a good job of recruiting volunteers. There were spotters on every course I played. Most of them were sober and old enough to drive. None of the excuses for the leaderboards showing up 2.5 hours after the last round ended really make much sense.

It is really a Great Sort, not a Great Shuffle. It would be funny if they shuffled, but they don't. They sort.

[cgkdisc]

They sort players within pools then shuffle players between pools, thus the traditional "shuffle" term.

[Don Boutin]

It has been a while since worlds has ended. Even tough I think the overall experience was great again this year, I have one one thing that still bothers me to this day.
Angry Beaver! I do not believe this course should have been played in a worlds event. I don't know how this course ever passed the PDGA check list to be eligible for a worlds event. Most of the fairways should have failed and some of the greens. Except for a few holes I think the overall course design is poor. Cut down a couple of trees, add a Tee box and a basket, and call it a hole. If this was the case we would have thousands of courses popping up every where. It takes a lot more work to build a proper course.
It may sound like I am complaining, well it's true. I am very bitter that I had to play through the woods like that. I consider myself a par golfer, who can do what ever it takes to get par on a hole. At Angry Beaver if you get a kick off a tree, it is likely to take two strokes just get back into what they call a fairway. I understand the concept of placement shots, but on just about every hole is stupid. Take a new player to that course and their likely never to play again. How can we expect to grow the sport when courses like this are being built.
After playing this course I have learned a lot about making a fairway fair. I have now walked my course a few times and reevaluated my fairways. I took a year of walking the property that I built my course on. To make sure I could come up with the best layout possible. I have finally looked at it as a player and not just a designer. There is some work I feel must be done. Yes a couple of holes may get easier, but everyone should have a way to get par on a hole.

[bruce_brakel]

Angry Beaver was about the same as R.L. Smith and Hornets Nest, and similar to but longer than Wingett. On those carved out wooded holes you have to throw mids and break the hole down into manageble pieces. Just because you can throw 280 and the hole is 280 does not mean that it pays to go for the birdie.

There were a couple of holes at AB that had impossibly narrow gaps halfway down the fairway that I thought were stupid. There was that downhill shot in a tunnel that crosses an o.b. creek with an impossibly narrow gap when you get to the creek. Flying that creek was a crapshoot for players at my skill level and laying up in the narrow part of the tunnel was not a good option either. Everyone I saw play the hole just went for stupid greasy tree love. You could replace that hole with Vanna White and a wheel with the numbers 2 through 6 on it.

[Jeff_LaG]

I didn't play Angry Beaver, but if it played anything like R.L. Smith then it was a completely appropriate Worlds course. R.L. Smith was a tremendous woods course, with perfectly ample fairways. If folks think that the level of tightness at R.L. Smith is somehow unfair, then they should not play disc in the state of North Carolina. Better yet, they should just go out to a wide open field and set up a basket 325 ft. away from each tee.

The rest of the country could learn a thing or two about disc golf course design by playing a round at R.L. Smith. It's easily the best new course I've played in the last 2 years.

[davidsauls]

I had a dreadful round at Angry Beaver---unofficially, about 140 points below my already pitiful player rating----but I found it a perfectly appropriate course for Worlds. I don't recall a hole where I didnt see a gap that I felt I should be able to hit, and certainly someone competing for a championship should be able to hit.

For what it's worth, it's also pretty well regarded by the reviewers at DGCR.

[ERicJ]

There's little doubt that Angry Beaver was the toughest course that the MA1 pools played (regardless of the crappy conditions on Friday). The physical design of the holes didn't bother me that much... yeah hole #8 could lose a tree or two... But the real problem at the Beaver was stupid OB rules, compounded by spotter(s) that didn't know the OB rules.

As Bruce points out #10 was a hard enough hole to hit the gap on, without a thin strip of unnecessary and random luck OB flagged creek. On that hole a very good shot got through the gap, a bad but lucky shot got through the gap. But poor shots with already bad lies had an unnecessary element of luck that they might further be penalized with an OB stroke. If you're going to do that put a DZ on the basket side of the creek.

Even worse though was OB creek on #8/18. As defined in the written rules the only OB was in the flagged creek, not beyond the creek. A poor throw landing in the creek, or a decent throw with a bad kick landing in the creek get penalized with OB strokes. But a really bad throw across the creek gets no penalty stroke. And a really, really bad throw on #8 getting all the way through to #18's fairway can play down that unobstructed. But the compounding I mention above was the spotter on #8 who would pick up [fair] discs across the creek, toss them back, and say "this is where you crossed out". I know that cost one MM1 player at least two penalty strokes he shouldn't have taken.

Saying "everyone should have a way to get par on a hole" makes no sense to me. [Ignoring the neverending discussion of "what is par?"] If you have a dog-leg right hole and the RHBH player can't throw an anny or flick does that mean you need to bore out a diagonal path through the trees just for that one player?? Designing holes such that every player can get a par would result in really boring courses.

[bruce_brakel]

I thought 8 was a random hole until I saw some guy just pitch a forehand shot about 200 feet down the fairway and off to the right. From there there is a 200 foot straight shot to set up a putt. I did that during the round throwing an anny and got a 3. Another guy in my group did the same thing but did not execute the straight shot. So that becomes one of those holes where you can break it down and settle for a good score, or just chuck it and pray.

I thought 18 was a fine hole. The grassy fairway eliminated a lot of the luck of the bad skip. I did not know that completely over the creek was in bounds on 18 and 8. A spotter picking up a disc would not cost the player any throws. Under the rules he gets to play the disc where it landed. Not knowing the rules might have cost the player some throws.

And I was not complaining about #10 because I had a bad score there. I missed a short putt for 3. It just seemed that of the 20 or so players I saw throw that hole, the results were random. I saw weak players get lucky and very good players get very unlucky. After 108 holes of disc golf the luck evens out. I suppose one dumb luck hole tests a player's mental game.

[pterodactyl]

Anyone know where I can purchase leftover shirts, discs, etc with 2012 worlds stamps? I went to sunking and didn't see anything.

[Spinthrift]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Anyone know where I can purchase leftover shirts, discs, etc with 2012 worlds stamps? I went to sunking and didn't see anything.

I know DD says they have nothing left, and there's no Host Committee event shirts (players pack, volunteer, staff) left either. There is discussion of doing another batch of the white w/blue Worlds logo staff dri-fit for sale. If we do it, I'll post details here.

[pterodactyl]

Those shirts the TD's were wearing were sweeeeet!

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Anyone know where I can purchase leftover shirts, discs, etc with 2012 worlds stamps? I went to sunking and didn't see anything.

I don't think any of the vendors did much Worlds stamping. Dynamic Discs had nothing on Saturday at Worlds.

[Fossil]

Pictures from World Championships

[drdisc]

Nice Pix. Thanks,

[Patrick P]

I've watched about 20 or so hours of the Worlds on discgolfplanet.tv. At first, I thought wow these are some amazing tough courses in a forest that look challenging and fun. Then after hearing the chatter online and talking to players in person who played the event, I've had some reservations. One player told me that he threw only one driver off the tee during the entire tournament. The rest of his drives were putters and midranges on 250ft holes and that most of the holes finished to the right, over and over and over.

When I first heard Avery complaining about this, I chalked it up as a player who was a little bitter with his performance. But I have to come to summize that the Worlds courses in Charlotte possibly did not provide an overall playability of all skills. I believe that if you are to host a Worlds, there should be a mix of different courses challenging all levels of skill. That includes tight wooded courses, big open fairway courses, and a mix of elevation, OB or water coming into play. An ideal course would have a mixture of all these elements.

[cgkdisc]

I believe most if not all divisions had several holes on courses where they could throw full power drivers. However, they may not have been good enough to throw them safely or take the risk such that mid ranges were a better choice for them. In fact, being able to throw putter and midrange discs as far as others can throw drivers is one sign a player can play at the highest skill level and this ability should be tested by the courses.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from Jack Nicklaus, arguably one of the longest hitters in his prime. "Golf is primarily a game of precision, not power. As Jack always says, "It's a thinking man's game. That's what makes it fun." And his belief is that length in itself does not spell quality, let alone fun."

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by Patrick P

I've watched about 20 or so hours of the Worlds on discgolfplanet.tv. At first, I thought wow these are some amazing tough courses in a forest that look challenging and fun. Then after hearing the chatter online and talking to players in person who played the event, I've had some reservations. One player told me that he threw only one driver off the tee during the entire tournament. The rest of his drives were putters and midranges on 250ft holes and that most of the holes finished to the right, over and over and over.

When I first heard Avery complaining about this, I chalked it up as a player who was a little bitter with his performance. But I have to come to summize that the Worlds courses in Charlotte possibly did not provide an overall playability of all skills. I believe that if you are to host a Worlds, there should be a mix of different courses challenging all levels of skill. That includes tight wooded courses, big open fairway courses, and a mix of elevation, OB or water coming into play. An ideal course would have a mixture of all these elements.

The three courses played by MPO in the first six rounds weighed in like this:
Par 58, 6725 feet (~373 feet per hole)
Par 63, 7110 feet (395 feet per hole)
Par 67, 8843 feet (491 feet per hole)

Just on the surface, none of those courses strike me as being constituted of 250-foot putter/midrange holes one after the other. A few of those types of holes are surely part of the mix, but by no means the majority.

Of those courses, I've only played Renny (the par 67), and that course offers the players everything all by itself. There are open field bomber holes 600-1000+ feet in length, short (<300 ft) and tightly wooded holes, two-shot placement holes, OB and elevation change galore, and everything in between. You need a full complement of shots and discs to score well on that course.

From watching the online coverage, the other two courses weren't quite as diverse as Renny, but each did have a blend of a few open air but controlled distance shots and tightly wooded finesse shots.

In my experience over the years, there seem to be quite a few players "on tour" who aren't happy unless they can get through the majority of tournament course/courses by throwing hyzer bombs and making their putts. Basically, the objection is to courses that they have to learn and "figure out" to any extensive degree.

I don't think it's an accident that Ricky Wysocki and Michael Johansen played so well all week, or that Sarah Hokom won FPO. They're from the area or moved to the area and have been playing those courses for a while. They "learned" the line to hit to negotiate the hole best. Not that there are any great tricks to the holes, but it's the difference between throwing a Roc on a hole because you *think* it's the right play and throwing a Roc because you *know* it's the right play. That subtle difference in comfort/confidence makes a difference in the execution.

In general, it strikes me that if a player is complaining that "too many" holes require a certain type of shot that it is not the holes or the course that has short-comings, it's the player. I think anyone who found the Worlds courses inadequate only found them lacking in enough of the shots that they themselves are most comfortable with, because the diversity was certainly there.

[ERicJ]

The last three posts all have some good points made. I'd read the reviews on DGCR before heading to Worlds so I knew what I was getting into from a course perspective. But as a 938-rated player who learned to play on the long & open courses of Houston I will say I was somewhat disappointed that there weren't at least a couple bomber holes. Across all the MA1 courses I think Hornet's #2 is the only hole that falls into that category.

Regarding Drivers off the tee, I threw only 12 out of 108:
R1 Hornet's #2, 3, 17
R2 Kilborne #3, 16, 17
R3 RL Smith #2
R4 Winget #14, 18
R5 Angry #7, 16
R6 RL Smith #2

There may have been a few more candidates, but as Chuck said: I thought the smarter play was a more controlled midrange on those.
My complete Worlds round listing: here.

I'm not complaining; like I said, I knew what I was getting into. Just adding another data point. And expressing my opinion that AM Worlds 2012 favored the control player more than the past two years' AM Worlds.

[cgkdisc]

I know you said "off the tee" but I'm thinking driver possible on second shot on Hornet's 12 and RL 5.