Regional Titles?

[JenniferB]

I was actually kind of surprised to find that the PDGA doesn't have much in the way of regional titles. I mean, there's Wrolds and Nats, but Worlds isn't a playoff between national title winners or anything. Plus, there's ambiguity, like the Women's Nats advanced master's title versus the Tim Selinski advanced masters title. Which one is the national champ? It's really not very satisfying. Meanwhile, there don't really seem to be regional titles, so much as each torunament has it's own title. I realize that ball golf, tennis, and the like are much the same way, but I still wish that state coordinators were empowered to designate certain local tournaments as offering regional titles, and only people from the region could compete for it, and then there could be a state playoff, and so forth, but the rules actually prohibit TDs from refusing entry to PDGA members on such a basis.

[davidsauls]

The TD could request a waiver to limit a tournament to state or regional players. I suspect it would be granted.

But the problem might be whether players would want to play in it, and whether TDs would want to run it. If, for example, I ran a tournament designated as the Southeast Championship. The championship nature alone wouldn't draw many players from more than 100 miles away, especially if they had other events closer. I'd have to have something more compeling---like a ton of outside money for the payout---to entice them.

Then I'd have to decide if I really want to do that, or run a more traditional tournament.

Little South Carolina has 2, sometimes 3, tournaments that designate themselves as state championships of some sort. In truth, they're way down the list of popularity among players. But we have a points series that crowns state championship, and that means a lot more.

I'm with you on the muddled state of championships but, it seems to me, few people talk about "National Champions". The real plum is the World Championship, and the USDGC which, though it's a "United States Champion", is recognized as the winner of a prestigious event and thus like golf's "Masters".

The closest thing we have to regionals is the National Tour, with a string of big events around the country and an overall champion.

[JenniferB]

There is a match play team event in Texas that draws over 600 players every year. That's part of the reason I think regional title matchplay could work. Of course, it's not a PDGA event, becasue it doesn't fit within their vision.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

There is a match play team event in Texas that draws over 600 players every year. That's part of the reason I think regional title matchplay could work. Of course, it's not a PDGA event, becasue it doesn't fit within their vision.

I have a hard time believing the PDGA rejected the team event (which is what I infer by you saying it's not PDGA because it "doesn't fit within their vision"). Far more likely that there was little to no benefit for making the Texas team event PDGA sanctioned, so they don't bother to do so.

There are no scored rounds, so no ratings. It's not divisional (doesn't follow PDGA divisions, anyway), so awarding points is difficult. Other than inexpensive insurance (and Houck and Circle R probably have their own insurance that covers them for the event anyway), there's really no benefit to the players to sanction the event as a PDGA tournament.

As for a regional/national tournament system based on the USGA's championships, I think it's entirely feasible in disc golf. But it would take a concerted effort to organize the whole thing, and it really isn't something I'd expect the PDGA to undertake itself. But I certainly think it's something they would wholeheartedly support should someone or a group of someones want to get the ball rolling, not unlike the way they support the USDGC, USADGC, and every other event in the world short of Worlds and the PDGA Championship.

[araydallas]

Personally, I'd like to see a consensus on which 4 tournaments constitute the "Grand Slam" of disc golf. We should strive to make it like tennis, bolf, etc., and everyone talk about these being the four. I guess for open pros, it be Worlds, USDGC (Open Flight), and then what??? The Memorial, Vibram, Beaver State, Steady Ed Cup, Brent Hambrick...??? Maybe Stockholm???

And then, someone else can discuss the implications of other divisions...

[cgkdisc]

Worlds should not be one of the four in the slam. It's more like the Olympics even if we hold it every year. With 7-8 rounds, it's not like any of the other events which have no more than 4.5 rounds. USDGC, Memorial, European Open and Vibram with the PDGA Championship subbing for the Euro Open in opposite years. Or maybe the Match Play Championship should be used instead of the Memorial since it would sort of be like our equivalent of the oddball French Open played on clay.

[davidsauls]

Matchplay is more different from the other events than a 7-8 round Worlds.

Anyway, I disagree that Worlds shouldn't be included. If there's a "big 4" that doesn't include the biggest, most prestigious title, it hardly seems worth the trouble. To me, anyway.

I've long lamented the proliferation of championships and tiers we've got, including so many "Majors" I can't name them. I imagine a few being declared "Super Majors" one day.

For what it's worth, it wouldn't have to be 4 for a "grand slam". It could be 3 for a "triple crown". I remember this coming up in discussions on the Am side when someone won Bowling Green, Am Nationals, and had a shot at Am Worlds (I think).

*

At any rate, there are a lot of difficulties with a system of "regionals", limited to players from those regions. But, in addition to the NT, the qualifier tournaments for the USDGC, Vibram Open, and, I guess, Tournament Players Championship, have something of a regional character.

[cgkdisc]

Matchplay is more different from the other events than a 7-8 round Worlds.

Exactly. That's why it makes sense to include it to demonstrate all around excellence. If ball golf didn't already have their 4 Majors, the Accenture Match Play may have been considered. After all, the biggest event for ball golf amateurs is match play.

[davidsauls]

Oh, I'd agree that if we had a Triple Crown or Grand Slam, match play would be a suitable, even desirable, component. I'm just not clear why you say Worlds should not be a part because it's different (7-8 rounds) from the other tournaments, but match play could be even though it's much more different.

[cgkdisc]

Including Worlds with the other Majors lessens it's importance in the same way including the Olympics with other events wouldn't make sense since it's held every four years. We double weight Worlds compared with other Majors for ranking calculations for example.

[davidsauls]

I see what you're saying.

But it's a catch-22. If you have a Triple Crown or Grand Slam and include the Worlds, you devalue the Worlds. If you don't include the Worlds, you devalue the Triple Crown or Grand Slam.

If the USDGC continues with the prestige it had in the past, and one of the other big events elevates itself above the rest, I predict we'll have a de facto Triple Crown, whether official or not. I don't know the history of horse racing or golf or tennis, as to whether someone decided to create a top-level series, or a consensus formed grouping some of the sports' top events.

[JenniferB]

Well, do state coordinators or anyone else at least have control over what tournaments can be named? It just seems like the word "championship" is getting thrown into event names willy nilly, and proliferating to the point it's losing any prestige or "draw factor."

[davidsauls]

No, no censorship of tournament names.

Several years ago I counted 72 tournaments on the schedule with "championship" in their names. Probably even more now. I don't think it warrants a PDGA mandate.....but I do find it a bit silly. As I've mentioned, my little state has had 3 of them in some years, not even counting the USDGC.

Then again, some tournaments are dubbed "---Classic" in their first year.

[gvan]

Originally Posted by davidsauls

Then again, some tournaments are dubbed "---Classic" in their first year.

We've had this discussion locally. "Classic" is a format designation more than a description of historical importance.

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Worlds should not be one of the four in the slam. It's more like the Olympics even if we hold it every year. With 7-8 rounds, it's not like any of the other events which have no more than 4.5 rounds. USDGC, Memorial, European Open and Vibram with the PDGA Championship subbing for the Euro Open in opposite years. Or maybe the Match Play Championship should be used instead of the Memorial since it would sort of be like our equivalent of the oddball French Open played on clay.

I do see what you're saying ... but a different playing surface in tennis , to me is the Memorial with all the likely wind. To win the Euro/PDGA, Vibram, USDGC, and Memorial in the same year kinda does feel like a slam. And if someone can win those and Worlds, then that is like Steffi Graf's "Golden Slam" in 1988.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

Well, do state coordinators or anyone else at least have control over what tournaments can be named? It just seems like the word "championship" is getting thrown into event names willy nilly, and proliferating to the point it's losing any prestige or "draw factor."

I find "championship" to be a fairly generic term for a tournament. If a tournament is the only event at a particular course, or it is viewed as the biggest event at a course, and the winners are viewed as the course "champion" for the year, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the word championship for the event.

There certainly ought not to be more than one "championship" on a particular course in any given year, but I don't think there needs to be any formal controlling or governing of event names.

[Karl]

Presently, dg is more akin to international Track & Field or Swimming. Although held annually and not every 2 or 4 years, our World's would be like the Olympics and our USDGC would be like the World's (assuming - with some debate by some I'm sure - that our world's is slightly more "prestigious" than the USDGC).
We really couldn't roll the Tennis / Ball Golf 'championship' thing into the T&F / Swimming thing - like David said, one would 'downer' the other(s).
We have to choose...is having "4 biggies" important or just 1 or 2?

Karl

[davidsauls]

....or 9 or 13? How many "Majors" do we have?

[Karl]

I'm thinking that bg went through this "evolution" of their 'biggies' back decades ago. Everyone would LIKE to have a 'biggie' - no, don't go there... - as their tournament but the players as much as anyone else actually determine which are considered "majors". And vote with their feet (attend). The sanctioning body (which all sports end up having) starts the ball rolling but, in time, 'street cred' is determined by the masses.
And as much as the world golf championships TRY to make themselves into "biggies", there are 4 bg majors (although the public's perception of the PGA Championship is that of the 'black sheep' of the 4...and it's credibility is somewhat being usurped by the Tour Championship).

We, in the PDGA, have numerous different world titles (gender, age, singles / doubles, etc.) and that's fine, but because we DO have all of these catagories we probably can't have numerous majors for each of them (i.e. a "masters" for Pro/Am, women/men, over/under the age of x, playing 1-handed, etc., etc., etc.,...and THEN have a US Open for the same).

So whatever we have, it won't be right or wrong, it will just be. But I'm guessing that in this age of A.D.D. people will vote on having "more".

Karl

I know when people ask me to 'explain' the significance of my "title" (GM Am 2bls) I say it's like having "The Walker Cup of Wimbledon Doubles". And after they give me that "Duh, what?" look, I say it IS a sanctioned (by our governing body) world title but I have no delusions of grandeur of thinking I can "hang with Doss". But it's something! As long as we are all realistic about things, I think we (the masses) pretty much put things into their righful place(s).