When we played the Pro Worlds in Flagstaff in 2003, the Snowbowl course ranged from 9500-10,000 feet. We elected to limit that course only to Masters and Open men and women. We still had a few high altitude issues (separate from the lightning and hail storm). For Am Worlds, the course changed such that 9500 was the highest elevation.

Today's article about the potentially poor weather outlook for the World Series cited a FIFA (soccer) policy that now limits any World Cup events including early qualifiers to fields located under 9840 feet elevation. Their athletes are all under 40 and more in shape than many of our best players. My question is whether the PDGA should consider a similar elevation limit for A-tier and higher events? I'm not sure we need a restriction for B and C-tier events which are typically going to draw from players in the area already more used to the elevation.

Uh, soccer players have to be able to run for 90 minutes. I don't see any correlation. No limit should be imposed.

It's not like any players are going to be running to thier disc after throwing it. I don't see why the PDGA would set a limit to A and B tiers. What about Solitude Mountain Resort in the great state of Utah? It's over 9,000 feet at the base of the resort. This would be silly.

I said A-tiers and higher where more players are coming from low altitude environments. Not B-tiers and lower. Here's a relevant article on conditioning. Apparently, your gender and level of conditioning are not relevant to how fast your body acclimates:

<font color="blue"> There are compensatory mechanisms which allow you to change altitude, within limits, without getting out of balance. You can move from sea level to about 8000 feet with minimal effect. In the short term, there will be an increase in respiratory rate with associated chemical changes (elevated pH) in the blood. If you stay several days, your kidneys will re-balance the pH of the blood, resetting your system to your new environment.

If you were to continue even higher, your body would compensate and re-balance again. Over the course of weeks, you would undergo further physiologic changes, such as an increase in red-blood-cell production. Ultimately, you would reach the limit of your body's ability to compensate.

This ability of your body to adapt to altitude and the speed with which it happens vary widely from person to person. They appear to have no relationship to physical fitness or gender. Some people adapt to altitude better than others. However, everyone's ability to adapt to higher altitudes is reduced by dehydration, alcohol and other depressants, and overexertion. </font>

With A-tiers in particular being time efficient weekend only events, it seems like most won't be able to take the extra day to acclimate or even realize they should if an event happens to be at 10,000 feet.

How bout you think of better division names instead of these hypothetical situations that affect less than 1% of the membership?

I've offered the colors as better names to match our already defined skill levels but have been out voted.

The altitude issue needs to be considered in relation to future bids for championships at minimum. It only came up due to today's news.

Since I reside in Houston, I think that events should be limited to something around 500 feet in elevation.

I think Chuck's concern is the high number of Masters players that had problems, was it at Snow Bowl? Honestly, if you want to play at the highest level in this sport, even if you're over 40, you should expect to be in good enough shape to play at altitude. Those who properly prepare will have an advantage, should they not?

On the other hand, given our size and structure, do we not have an obligation to protect all our participants. Tough question. I wouldn't vote for it but I understand the thought.

I think there are really two questions. (1) For A &amp; NT events, should we expect players to expend an extra day or two for acclimation for events that are barely breakeven for most assuming ideal results anyway. (2) Should players be expected to have high altitude tolerance above a certain level for Championships even though it's apparently a more inherited versus trainable characteristic over the span of a week?

I think there are really two questions. (1) For A &amp; NT events, should we expect players to expend an extra day or two for acclimation for events that are barely breakeven for most assuming ideal results anyway. (2) Should players be expected to have high altitude tolerance above a certain level for Championships even though it's apparently a more inherited versus trainable characteristic over the span of a week?



I understand your point Chuck, and I concede it. However, I think there are many other issues that are more pressing right now. You're right if you're saying that it's unfair. On the other hand, I have an advantage over players from the mountains who come down to Houston. discs fly different here and it is going to take them a while to adjust.

This reminds me of a Nick Night argument. An attempt to make everything fair and equal. The world isn't fair nor equal. If I go to a high altitude tournament, I'm going to carefully pace myself and do what I can to compensate for the altitude. Yes, someone who is acclimated will have an advantage. It's my job to take that into account in my game.

Personally, I felt queasy being up on Snowbowl during the first day of Pro Worlds 2003 because of the elevation. I'm an avid skiier and the same thing happens to me in Colorado and other resorts at high elevations until I've been there for a few days.

On a separate matter, how about the Sugarbush NT in Vermont last month where you were required to ride the chairlift to play in the event. What if you were too afraid of heights to ride the lift?

Personally, I felt queasy being up on Snowbowl during the first day of Pro Worlds 2003 because of the elevation. I'm an avid skiier and the same thing happens to me in Colorado and other resorts at high elevations until I've been there for a few days.

On a separate matter, how about the Sugarbush NT in Vermont last month where you were required to ride the chairlift to play in the event. What if you were too afraid of heights to ride the lift?



Oh man, I'm afraid of sand (it's the whole doggy doo in the litter box thing) can we have a rule for no holes on the beach?

Look, I'm a good liberal, even a progressive, but some days I wake up and wonder if the conservatives don't have a point.

I think I'll take a libertarian approach to this. Enough with the rules already!

...some days I wake up and wonder if the conservatives don't have a point.


:eek: Did Lyle really just say that? Must be getting cold down in Houst.....I mean Hell.

I'd separate A-tiers from NT &amp; World Championships for this discussion. There are players trying to compete in most or all NTs, whereas I doubt anyone is trying to play all A-tiers. It's easier for a player to decide not to play the A-tier if he doesn't want to deal with the elevation.

Could a similar argument be made for events in the Southeast in the summer, with the heat &amp; humidity? Quite an adjustment for players from cooler climes, and I would guess a greater health risk than high elevation.

I'd separate A-tiers from NT &amp; World Championships for this discussion. There are players trying to compete in most or all NTs, whereas I doubt anyone is trying to play all A-tiers. It's easier for a player to decide not to play the A-tier if he doesn't want to deal with the elevation.

Could a similar argument be made for events in the Southeast in the summer, with the heat &amp; humidity? Quite an adjustment for players from cooler climes, and I would guess a greater health risk than high elevation.



I agree coming from flagstaff to play in the iowa worlds or minnesota worlds where the humidity was almost unbearable at times made it difficult to compete at the highest level. The elevation defiantly plays a huge role but i think it is a players decision whether they chose to play in said events. Players playing in world championships "should" be fit enough to handle playing at elevation as long as they, give themselves a day to acclimate, drink enough water, and don't go out drinking every night. I remember from 2003 ron russell and barry were both there at least 3 weeks early. I think more of the issue is the time of year that we hold the World championships as it seems to be tough weather to play in many parts of the country, whether it be heat, humidity, or monsoons.

Also where are their soccer fields above 10,000 feet? That just seems pretty high to have anything but ski areas.

Peru and Ecuador have fields up to 13,000 feet. The typical power teams from South America, Brazil and Argentina, never beat the home teams when they are forced to play at these high elevation stadiums. That's what triggered the FIFA elevation rule. The thing is, these countries do have stadiums at elevation lower than 10,000 feet but were trying to schedule games at even higher elevations to gain an advantage for World Cup qualifiers.

Are the Red Sox complaining about having to play in Denver?

Depends if they lose three in row there. Everyone should be upset that the World Champiosnhip is played outdoors in cold places like Denver (snow?) this late in the year that has nothing to do with the elevation.

Denver is around 5000 feet which apparently doesn't require much adjustment if any. It's over 8000 feet where most people need some adjustment time.

Denver's altitude reputedly has a detrimental affect on breaking balls---a disadvantage for junkball pitchers. As I understand higher altitude has on golf discs.

Personally, I think this, and the southern heat and the high altitude courses, fall in the category of "live with it." At least until the day we have multiple locations clamoring to host worlds, and perhaps this can be one of the criteria in selecting among them. In the meantime, if someone at high altitude is willing to undertake hosting a premier tournament, I say God bless them, and look forward to the adventure.

Depends if they lose three in row there. Everyone should be upset that the World Champiosnhip is played outdoors in cold places like Denver (snow?) this late in the year that has nothing to do with the elevation.



Spare the climate talk. If MLB wanted to prevent this from happening they could have either not granted Denver a franchise OR forced them to have a domed stadium.

Sat
Oct 27

Partly Cloudy
53�/38� 20%
53�F
Check Your Local Event Forecast
Sun
Oct 28

Sunny
63�/41� 20%
63�F
Mon
Oct 29

Sunny
65�/40� 10%
65�F
is this bad weather?

Lucky, not normal.

i think the thought / topic is somewhat interesting.

however, i don't think we need any rules for this subject.

it's not like we're considering having an event at an Everest base camp. There are probably a handful (at most) of courses that are at elevations approaching 10,000 feet that could host an NT or world's event. If and when that happens, it behooves players to prepare for those events. Those players that have more developed respiratory and cardio systems will have an advantage. Players that incorporate some aerobic conditioning into their exercise program will benefit.

Some players are better able to handle high heat and humidity than others, either because they're acclimated, have some basic anatomical efficiencies that others don't have, or have trained for that environment.

I don't see that we need to create rules for one environmental situation vs. another.

Let natural selection and survival of the fittest rule.

Then, we shouldn't need basket standards for events either as long as they are PDGA approved? The premise in this topic is that players be required to adapt to extreme conditions for Championships that are more favorable to others used to them. In which case, since baskets without chain assemblies are PDGA approved, we could hold World Championships on those baskets? This would be just as valid since players would have time to practice on them? Everyone plays the same course under the same conditions so anything goes?

Just devil's advocate here since we're just exploring the issue for what players think is fair, safe and appropriate for events.

I agree with warwickdan, no need to create rules that would ultimately vary from one geographical area to another. However, I do think it would be wise to excercise the same caution that was in effect at the 2005 Am Worlds in Flagstaff. I had no problem traversing the course. That was because I was prepared for the altitude. I read articles, cross trained and had lots of water and electrolites.... So take on a case by case basis and let the Tour director and the TD make the proper adjustments and enforce limitations on the appropriate divisions

luv ya' chuck, but that analogy is lame.

rules regarding standardization of equipment shouldn't be analagous to rules attempting to "standardize" climate and topography.

i believe an overwhelming number of players feel standardization of equipment is critical. equipment is man-made and lends itself to more black-and-white disctinctions. attempting to legislate all grey areas with regard to climate and elevation is a permutation nitemare.

in my opinion playing in 90-degree weather with high humidity is far more extreme than playing at an elevation of 10,000 feet, as far as taxing one's body. heck, playing Winthrop Gold is more extreme than playing a course at 10,000 feet.

watch those analogies Chuck.

Lucky, not normal.



You forgot about global warming! [strictly for the benefit of 28003]

luv ya' chuck, but that analogy is lame.

rules regarding standardization of equipment shouldn't be analagous to rules attempting to "standardize" climate and topography.

i believe an overwhelming number of players feel standardization of equipment is critical. equipment is man-made and lends itself to more black-and-white disctinctions. attempting to legislate all grey areas with regard to climate and elevation is a permutation nitemare.

in my opinion playing in 90-degree weather with high humidity is far more extreme than playing at an elevation of 10,000 feet, as far as taxing one's body. heck, playing Winthrop Gold is more extreme than playing a course at 10,000 feet.

watch those analogies Chuck.



I don't know, I think we should pool our resources and invest in developing a machine to control the weather and atmospheric conditions. NO MORE RAIN ON TOURNAMENT DAYS!

the future of disc golf - indoor courses with air conditioning!

large fans for artificial wind

i believe an overwhelming number of players feel standardization of equipment is critical. equipment is man-made and lends itself to more black-and-white disctinctions. attempting to legislate all grey areas with regard to climate and elevation is a permutation nightmare.



I think we need to shore up both the equipment and playing conditions guidelines. States have guidelines for maximum heat index fo athletics as an example.

Ecuador bids to host the 2015 Pro Worlds at 12,000 feet using baskets and no chain assemblies or perhaps a basket type only manufactured there but meets our liberal basket guidelines. I'm not sure you can separate whether the altitude or basket issue is the more relevant one to address, if not both?

I don't think there needs to be any restrictions. If you can't handle altitude, then don't go play the event. Pretty simple I think. Disc golf happens where the course is at, no matter how high or low.

Then, we shouldn't need basket standards for events either as long as they are PDGA approved? The premise in this topic is that players be required to adapt to extreme conditions for Championships that are more favorable to others used to them. In which case, since baskets without chain assemblies are PDGA approved, we could hold World Championships on those baskets? This would be just as valid since players would have time to practice on them? Everyone plays the same course under the same conditions so anything goes?

Just devil's advocate here since we're just exploring the issue for what players think is fair, safe and appropriate for events.



Sounds good to me as long as we are all playing the same course with the same baskets. Heck you could use those horrible skillshots if you wanted, just as long as it is the standard for all who play the course.

hopefully whoever is responsible for reviewing 2015 Worlds applications would reach the conclusion that the Ecuadoran proposal as presented wasn't a good idea.

It's one thing to not play an A-tier event that's at high elevation. But there's only one World Championship. There's no choice.

hopefully whoever is responsible for reviewing 2015 Worlds applications would reach the conclusion that the Ecuadoran proposal as presented wasn't a good idea.



That's true. And the rejection is on what basis? Do we give them, "It's us not you. We're just not ready for that kind of commitment" line? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

How about the "you have zero PDGA members" line?

How about their line of $200,000 added due to the tourism benefit?

Well since we are in the hypothetical world.....by 2015, inflation and gas prices will cause the price of international air line tickets to skyrocket to $10,000 a piece.

Your move.

the decision-makers would most likely reject the proposal because it is absurd to contest a World Championships at 15,000 feet with non-standardized disc-catching targets.

it isn't because there is a rule against it. it is because on balance, using the common sense of the appointed or elected decision-makers, it is a less than ideal option.

besides, have you tried to throw a forehand while clenching an oxygen cannister?

using the common sense of the appointed or elected decision-makers


BWAAAHAAAHAAA.......ROTFLMAO!

Oh, that was a good one. I needed that laugh.

are you discussing reality or someone's pipe dream?

ecuador could have 75 degree weather, at 150 feet above sea level, 35% humidity, a smooth glassy wind, and cheerleaders in miniskirts lining every fairway. but it wold still be rejected because GUESS WHAT - we dont have players in ecuador.

this is interesting and fun, but 100% hypothetical.

creating rules based on perceived fear of what might possibly happen in some farfetched situation is an ineffective way to lead or manage. see the TurboPutt approval and subsequent hair-on-fire reaction for a relevant example.

using the common sense of the appointed or elected decision-makers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BWAAAHAAAHAAA.......ROTFLMAO!




(good thing we also have some volunteers to also guide them then) :D

creating rules based on perceived fear of what might possibly happen in some farfetched situation is an ineffective way to lead or manage.



Not perceived but actual. We already had the high altitude Worlds in Flagstaff and the decision was made to not have GM and older divisions play that course. Right decision or not? Why? Is that now the de facto guideline for future Worlds? The Dr. Fred baskets and Skillshots are approved for PDGA play but no one has attempted to run a high tier event using only them yet. We would reject them on what basis, or would we allow them?

The Ecuador example just placed the altitude and basket issues together in the same location to merge the two issues.

Lucky, not normal.


Actually I would consider that a fairly normal forecast for Denver for this time of year. We're all amused that the one snowy Broncos game each season makes everyone think that Denver is snowy come October. The western slope is snowy, yes, but Denver is in the plains east of the continental divide. In fact, Denver normals, means and extremes (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/include/showProduct.php?product=octn.txt&amp;parentdir=cli) shows that is pretty "normal" for late October.

There are noticeable altitude effects even at Denver's elevation of 5,280 feet if you come up from sea level. Denver's pressure is typically around 850 mb, which means that you have 15% less air to breathe than at sea level. This is why many professional athletes (e.g., cyclists, runners) train in Colorado. It's easy breathing when we come down to sea level. Pressure falls off exponentially with height though, so the noticeable difference at 8000 feet is most likely because that is the 750 mb level, or you have 25% less air to breathe.

Now, as far as disc golf goes, I think that the effects of altitude on the body would be less of a concern than the effects of altitude on disc flight. As long as you drink plenty of water and always wear layers, you should be fine, at least at Denver's elevation of 5,280 ft. However, the original question was above say 9,000 ft, which I'd like to think about a little more before responding :)

Another Colorado golfer here. Personally I think more folks are affected by the heat and humidity of, say, Augusta, GA in August than would be by the high elevation in the mountains.

Let's cut to the chase, if they have the World Championships at 15,000 feet in Ecuador I'm there. I'll be there hauling my little Oxygen tank around enjoying the view. BTW - I won't be there to win, I'll be there to play disc golf in what would be one of the most incredible venues ever.

Oh, and I'll be laughing my donkey off as some local who can breath whips up on Barry and Ken by taking advantage of his acclimation to the playing conditions...

Lucky, not normal.


Actually I would consider that a fairly normal forecast for Denver for this time of year. We're all amused that the one snowy Broncos game each season makes everyone think that Denver is snowy come October. The western slope is snowy, yes, but Denver is in the plains east of the continental divide. In fact, Denver normals, means and extremes (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/include/showProduct.php?product=octn.txt&amp;parentdir=cli) shows that is pretty "normal" for late October.

There are noticeable altitude effects even at Denver's elevation of 5,280 feet if you come up from sea level. Denver's pressure is typically around 850 mb, which means that you have 15% less air to breathe than at sea level. This is why many professional athletes (e.g., cyclists, runners) train in Colorado. It's easy breathing when we come down to sea level. Pressure falls off exponentially with height though, so the noticeable difference at 8000 feet is most likely because that is the 750 mb level, or you have 25% less air to breathe.

Now, as far as disc golf goes, I think that the effects of altitude on the body would be less of a concern than the effects of altitude on disc flight. As long as you drink plenty of water and always wear layers, you should be fine, at least at Denver's elevation of 5,280 ft. However, the original question was above say 9,000 ft, which I'd like to think about a little more before responding :)




No No No!

It's global warming, luck, kismet, propaganda by the Come See Denver tourism board or similar. You're lying to us with this it's normal baloney!

I suppose we could bring all of the snow makers down from the ski resorts and make it "snow" for the world series. Yes, lots of snow combined with 60 deg. F temps... Then the ski season would start to boom early and Colorado would have a great kick in ski tourism this year... now you've got me thinking...

:D

I hate the humidity of Augusta in July. I would rather play in Flagstaff.

agreed....I'm from the humid midwest and now live in CO and would take a summer day above 10,000 feet anyday over a humid day in the midwest or the south. The humidity is much more taxing on the human body IMO