http://www.usdgc.com/12/01/2011-usdgc-dates-set
It’s official. The 2011 United States Disc Golf Championship returns to the breathtaking Winthrop Gold Course in Rock Hill, S.C. Oct. 5-8.

This is the same week as in recent years; however next year’s Championship will be anything but typical. The Championship will undergo its biggest change since its inception in 1999, when an all-inclusive handicapping system will help determine the field.

As in years prior, regional qualifying events will determine many of the competitors. The core change however, is instead of relying solely on stroke play results, performances based on a handicap will decide who gets the coveted invite to Winthrop. Now, players of all gender and skill level have a chance.

Before The Championship’s first round, all players regardless of their division will be given a projected score based on their PDGA player rating. Each round their performance will be assessed by comparing their actual score with their projected score. The Championship’s winner will be crowned based on the cumulative performance of all rounds.

The trophy based tournament will not have a cut, so all players will play all four rounds. Tournament organizers say this USDGC will be one to remember and its accessibility should make it one everyone should try to attend.

Regardless of the format change, you can count on Winthrop Gold being ready – dressed in its finest yellow rope. The USDGC team has every intention of delivering the legendary, on-course experience that Winthrop has become famous for.

“We realize that this format change is a serious departure from tradition. What is important to remember is that the USDGC isn’t going away. The Championship (format) we know and love will return in 2012, bigger and better than ever”, said Event Director Jonathan Poole. “This is an effort to allow all disc golfers, not just the game’s elite, to experience an important piece of our history. Hopefully this will serve to strengthen our fan base for years to come.”

Since the emphasis in 2011 is on more laid back, fun, and fair competition, the tournament entry fee is being lowered to $100. That is down from $230 which has been the standard for years in Rock Hill.

The Last Chance Qualifier will also be in effect, taking place on Monday, Oct. 3. There will be at least 5 spots up for grabs on that day. The fee for that is expected to drop as well although the amounts have yet to be determined.

The 2012 USDGC will return to its familiar stroke play format, with the handicap-based Championship arriving on odd numbered years.

Seems to me to be quite lame. I'm sure Chuck will tell me why I am "wrong".

$100 X-Tiers can be fun too!

Seems to me to be quite lame. I'm sure Chuck will tell me why I am "wrong".
The format doesn't matter to me either way. But, it's another big event that a manufacturer is willing to sponsor and host for the disc golf community at all skill levels, likely for a greater expense and staff time than most events next year, as if they haven't done enough already.

I don't understand handicapped tournaments to be honest? So could Climo or Nikko be on the lead card with a Novice player, beat them by 29 strokes and potentially lose the tournament?

And the problem with that is? Handicapped play determines who has played the most above their known potential that round or event. If a top player is "slacking" playing barely above their rating and another player is playing 40 points above their rating over four rounds, not one round, shouldn't the lower rated player be rewarded if that's the purpose of the event? I think what you'll see at this USDGC is early recognition of potential future stars who are on the improvement fast track. Perhaps the future name will be the US Shooting Star Championship (USSSC). Seems like that would be a good thing - to recognize our up-and-comers.

I don't understand handicapped tournaments to be honest? So could Climo or Nikko be on the lead card with a Novice player, beat them by 29 strokes and potentially lose the tournament?
Yes.

The theory behind a handicap tournament is that you are truly playing against yourself rather than others. A handicap is supposed to represent one's average game. Therefore the better you play relative to your average, the higher in the standings you should rise.

So it isn't about recording the best score against the field, it's about recording your own personal best score. The disadvantage the top players encounter is there is a lot less room for them to better their personal average than there is for most other players.

I imagine that the handicapping they plan to use is the same as they used for the fantasy contest this year. I think the standings here give you a pretty good idea of what we can expect in 2011, though the standings would be based on the performance number rather than the points: http://www.discgolfunited.com/info-center/info-detail.cfm/event_id/44F95C52-5056-B82A-C1E9B40BDB9EBD07

And the problem with that is? Handicapped play determines who has played the most above their known potential that round or event. If a top player is "slacking" playing barely above their rating and another player is playing 40 points above their rating over four rounds, not one round, shouldn't the lower rated player be rewarded if that's the purpose of the event? I think what you'll see at this USDGC is early recognition of potential future stars who are on the improvement fast track. Perhaps the future name will be the US Shooting Star Championship (USSSC). Seems like that would be a good thing - to recognize our up-and-comers.


Not a problem, just asking? Is there a program that will sort this stuff or will there be a statitician on hand to help with the leaderboard. :-)

All in all I think the best players have a bit more of an advantage...they will intimidate the lower rated players if they are grouped together. I can see it now, a 901 rated guy gets put in the lead group with Val, Climo, and Nikko.....better get the autographs before the round starts so you can concentrate!

The top pros also have the knowledge at Winthrop (if the ropes stay where they usually are) which is a huge advantage.

Not hating, just having some fun!

Handicapping is great for your local league with 10 dollars on the line.

But for our national championship?

I'm fine with a national handicap tournament. And I'm also fine with it being at Winthrop. However, to call this the USDGC or anything compared is just silly to me.

It's great that someone who is 870 shoots 960 four times for that person, but not for something as prestigious as this. If that happens Nikko would have to shoot 1130 four times to even come close.

No big deal. Just shoot the four greatest rounds in the history of disc golf to win. Oh wait, the ratings system don't allow rounds to be that high on SSA's in this range. Sorry. You have no chance. Better luck next year.

I hope all the games elite boycott this event. Even though my rating of 950ish is PERFECT for an event like this, you won't see me there.

So what if an Am player wins, do they win a few thousand dollars in plastic and merch or do they get cash?

Also, just playing devils advocate...what if there is a new local Am (boarderline Open) player who is not a PDGA member yet. Lets say their rating is set, but is set very low because they "played terrible" for a few events. Then they go to this National Event and crush their rating by 100 points? IS there some minimum number of rounds a players has to have in their rating before it is considered accurate.

Just sayin'.....

I'm not sure I like this idea for the National Championship either - call it something else maybe?

I think it will expose a flaw in our rating system using a handicap such as this - lets take a look at our best 2 rated players, rated around the 1040 mark - based on last years stroke and distance rule and weather conditions, a 1040 rated player would be expected to shoot a 64/65 in rounds 1 and 2, a 63/64 in rounds 3 and 4

the best score all tournament with these rules and conditions was a 56 - that is only a 7-9 stroke difference, closer to only 7 strokes if you are rated 1044, like Feldberg was at the time of this tournament - in theory you could do better, but honestly, this was a field of the best players in the world, playing the same course for 4 rounds, and this is the best any of them could do

so using Feldberg's rating at the time of last years tournament, and using last years results and dga handicap, Feldberg could have shot 4 12 downs, which would be completely insane, and yet he would have finished 4th

yes, the players who beat him would have to shoot good in comparison to their rating, but I would argue that it is far harder to shoot 4 12 downs on that course under those rules and conditions - I'm not sure how this would be fair to the top players who have a lot less room for improvement

I suspect the plan is for very nice player packs with payout significantly lower than previous years similar to how the Memorial has gone for the past few years but the Am field has still filled there. I think they're still figuring that out. I don't think you'll really see too many players above 1000 trying to qualify and enter except maybe locals and perhaps quite a few in the 950+ ratings range who haven't yet played the Winthrop course in the USDGC setup over the past 10 years.

The qualifiers will be players who have exceeded their rating the most at the qualifier. That will reduce the potential for bagging along with statistical checks on round ratings I suspect Harold will ask us to run on qualifiers as the event gets closer to look for suspicious activity.

I thought it was trophy only?

yes, the players who beat him would have to shoot good in comparison to their rating, but I would argue that it is far harder to shoot 4 12 downs on that course under those rules and conditions - I'm not sure how this would be fair to the top players who have a lot less room for improvement


EXACTLY

It's waaaaaay easier to get from 850 - 950 than it is to get from 950 - 1050. Yet the handicap tournament says they are same.

Same logic in ball golf. Getting from 100 - 90 isn't hard. 90 - 80 is a bid harder. 80 - 70 is hard as crap.

I would imagine that the best players in the world aren't planning on playing this event.
Medium range players like myself would possibly be interested in this type of format.
It's on par with a bowling league, basically. Not that that is bad or anything.
It's just something different, and I like the idea.

BTW: Ball golf has tourneys like this and they are a "hit" with the ams that can play for money. They are just not sanctioned so there aren't any amateur status snafus.
The best pro players don't play in those tourneys very often. They don't have a chance. OK, a little one.

While many will complain about handicapping, the PDGA already practices handicapping. It is called masters, grandmaster, sn grandmasters and legend. Or what about the male player that missed cashing while ending up with significantly fewer strokes than the winning Woman pro. Younger players cannot play in an age protected division. Men cannot play in women's divisions. 20+ year olds cannot play in junior divisions. It does not matter that they shot better and will "cash" at a lower amount. We already handicap. So now someone wants to try a statistical method instead of an age or sex based handicapping. Is that bad?

I looked at the numbers from last years Piney Woods Pro-Am and the players that shot above their rating would have done well at handicapping. Jay Reading would have done well, if handicapping had been used. An excellent player would have still competed well. Even if you don't feel handicapping is for you, why not give it a chance and see how it does. It is not costing you any money, and could be quite enjoyable for the players involved. Imagine getting to compete with some of the top names. It would be a round to always remember.

I'm fine with a national handicap tournament. And I'm also fine with it being at Winthrop. However, to call this the USDGC or anything compared is just silly to me.



^^^this.

I read the announcement this morning and all I can think is, this is a completely lame idea. Seems to be taking a step back, not forward ... at least change the name of the event

My question is that it says that during a qualifier, to qualify a player must play the same course as the pros. Does this mean that they have to play the same course at the same time.
I remember last year at Piney Woods that it rained one round but not the next and because of this certain divisions playing in the open course during the dry round had an added advantage.
I think this is the only way that handicapping can be fair. And you can tell me that ratings get adjusted due to weather but not enough compared to the strokes lost due to high winds/rain

Not to pile on, but ........

In addition to the observations above, seems to also tarnish the brand.

this does sound like fun to me, although it should have a different name.

i can already hear all the rumble, rumble about unfairness of the ratings. as far as beginning/intermediate type players winning the event - it won't happen.

player ratings are based on traditional disc golf courses that randomly punish. sooo many courses have holes that an intermediate player can crank a horrible drive waaay offline and then just have a 120 ft. upshot for a tap-in "par". meanwhile joe pro threw a nice drive that was 6 inches offline, ticked a tree and shot deep into the junk, from where they threw a miracle escape shot and made a 50 footer for "par". winthrop gold is very, very "fair" in its uniform and severe punishment.

intermediate players that haven't experienced a course like that will shoot over-par, handicap adjusted the majority of the time. of course, the logical strategy for them would be to "bunt" their way around the course, but they won't be able to resist the urge to crush over four rounds and will take their beatings.

my question is, will the rounds average 7 hours or 8?

I wonder if it will be stroke and distance?

Didn't Will win the DGU handicap this year?

Using the "throw and distance" rule would be incompatible with handicaps produced all thru the year on courses where that was not the rule.

I didn't feel like re-reading everything, so if this has been asked already please ignore.

Will handicapping be in play during Monday Qualifying? Is it possible that a lower rated Am could shoot a handicapped round good enough to make the cut??

If Monday Qualifying works like qualifying during next year, the top 5 will be those who shot the best net difference in rating points above their rating.

Didn't Will win the DGU handicap this year?
I believe he and Adam Hunt tied for the best overall handicap score. Both finished 32 strokes better than their projected number. Or put another way, Will beat Adam straight up by 16, but based on the projections, had to give him 4 strokes per round which makes up all of the 16 strokes.

My 2 cents.
How on earth is a 901 rated player ever going to qualify or win the event.
Please explain?
(I'd be interested to see more details on what they are planning.)

Even a 966 rated player like myself.

If I do play well enough at certain events I might just get in.
However because of my play my rating will go up due to my scores. So by the time the USDGC event happens my intital qualifying rating won't be the same as when i qualified.

The Adam Hunt and Will Schusterick scores is a good example of how the handicapped system can effect the standings. Players rating between the 980 and 1025 will mean players must play to their potential.
But to say a 901 rated player will be on the top card. It will never happen.

And good for the 901 rated player if he or she does it.
However they won't be 901 rated any longer.

At the end of the day the best players will be at the top.

My 2 cents. Well actually 1.9965 cents

thx

Its frigging cold in canada!

Get Chuck to update the ratings between rounds. :)

Doing it that way versus keeping your initial rating throughout may well produce a different winner. Kind of illustrates the shakiness of this type of "competition."

First, do what you want, but PLEASE do NOT call it The Championships unless the word HANDICAP is in there somewhere.

Second, I find it frightening how much ratings are having an influence on competitions. Stats show trends and work great for that. I love ratings. They are fairly accurate. I use them to pick my team and rate my competitors. But they are a by product and have no place determining results, they are not definitive.

Third, where is the incentive to get better if you are just going to handicap the most prestigious event in the game? Please quit pusifying the game that has taught me so much.

I say the USDGC needs to become more ELITE and less inclusive. There are over 500 players rated 980 or higher, yet 850 rated players find their way in. Let's see a TRUE test in 2012.

Third, where is the incentive to get better if you are just going to handicap the most prestigious event in the game? Please quit pusifying the game that has taught me so much.
The irony in your remark is that's exactly what the 2011 USDGC will do - identify those who are improving the fastest at all levels. It will be a great indicator and reward for those who are demonstrating the potential to be our future stars. Anyone see something wrong with that?

I see nothing wrong with that And thats why we call it USADGC. Let the AMs stick to the AM events. if you want to run it at rock hill thats fine, just the handicap is the problem

But this event is not only for Ams. There are many up and coming Pros who will qualify to play that haven't experienced Winthrop Gold.

I must say, it is very amusing that I have not seen any comments on my earlier statements. We ALREADY HANDICAP. It is called age and sex protected divsions.

Why is it that handicapping is such a big deal? Ever looked at the lines on any sports game? Handicapping. Ever watched Pinks? Handicapping.

Have you ever played someone at a round of disc golf and asked for some strokes? Hummmm, can you say handicapping.

I can certainly see the reasoning behind suggesting a name change or modification, but it is the USDGC's name to do with as they see fit. I see this as a great oppurtunity to let players, that otherwise may not get to that level, play on a level field. What about the up and coming players? This kind of thing to could launch them.

I will never be able to compete with the best of the best. I am simply too old to throw 500 feet, but I would cherish the time I got to play with some of the top players.

but I guess that is just me.......

I thought I would check and see what other sports have major championships with handicapping. The most obvious is horse racing. Here is one of the biggest handicap events in the World where the horses carry different amounts of lead weights in the saddle bag to handicap them:
The Grand National is a world famous National Hunt (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/National_Hunt_racing) horse race (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Horse_racing) which is held at Aintree (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Aintree_Racecourse) in the United Kingdom (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/United_Kingdom). It is a handicap (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Handicap_race) chase (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Chase_(racing)) containing thirty fences which is run over a distance of 4 miles and 856 yards (7,242 m). It is the most valuable National Hunt event in Great Britain (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Great_Britain), and in 2010 it offered a total prize fund of �925,000.<SUP> </SUP>The race is popular amongst many people who do not normally watch or bet on horse racing at other times of the year.

In the U.S. there are 30 Grade 1 (top level) handicap races. Also from Wikipedia: Handicapping is used in scoring many games and competitive sports, including Go (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Go_(board_game)), chess (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Chess), Croquet (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Croquet), golf (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Golf), bowling (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Bowling), polo (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Polo), basketball (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Basketball), and track and field (http://www.pdga.com/wiki/Track_and_field) events. Just because we don't have the tradition yet for handicapping, doesn't mean it can't materialize. We don't have a tradition for match play either and the Players Cup did pretty well as a format.

I'd love to play this event next year sounds like a blast. I am a 919 rated 59 year old MPG and love to play tournaments, I played 35 Pdga events this year across 5 divisions am and pro! I make a trip down from Maryland every year to spectate, take pics, and play the Charlette courses, and have played Winthrop gold on spectator Sunday a couple of times too. I shot mid 80's and was pretty happy with that. Anyway thanks to innova for the opportunity.
There has been a lot of speculation on how players with ascending ratings will do what about a player with a relatively static rating determined over umpteen rounds? I guess it might work in my favor that I do not typically shoot 919 929 909 920 918 more like 900 935 880 990 915 .... Well I had one 990+ last year of course it was on an uber short course . Anyway sorry for the long ramble ( not really) I'm psyched for the challenge!!

A big handicap tourney is a fine idea.

Why sacrifice the best event in the sport though?

$0.02

A big handicap tourney is a fine idea.

Why sacrifice the best event in the sport though?



Because it's Innova's money and they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

I know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of Innova Disc Golf but I'm willing to bet that after giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last decade at this event, they weren't seeing much of a return on their investment. And while the early years of the USDGC tournament were surely influential, a solid argument can be made that the last few years haven't done all that much towards growth of the sport of disc golf.

Maybe this new format will actually do something to further the cause of growing the sport of disc golf at all levels, instead of just giving money away to top Pros.

hide the rope and play some golf

Using the "throw and distance" rule would be incompatible with handicaps produced all thru the year on courses where that was not the rule.

So it won't really be Winthrop Gold?

The irony in your remark is that's exactly what the 2011 USDGC will do - identify those who are improving the fastest at all levels. It will be a great indicator and reward for those who are demonstrating the potential to be our future stars. Anyone see something wrong with that?

It won't be The USDGC...it's something else. Please brand it as such and don't tarnish the brand already created.

And I'm pretty sure the trio from Oklahoma showed that this year, legitimately.

I must say, it is very amusing that I have not seen any comments on my earlier statements. We ALREADY HANDICAP. It is called age and sex protected divsions.

Divisions are separate. Separate pools, purses, people, a separate tournament really.



I will never be able to compete with the best of the best. I am simply too old to throw 500 feet, but I would cherish the time I got to play with some of the top players.


But that isn't going to happen. The top dogs will be on the road working for a paycheck, not a players pack and trophy.

Because it's Innova's money and they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

I know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of Innova Disc Golf but I'm willing to bet that after giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last decade at this event, they weren't seeing much of a return on their investment. And while the early years of the USDGC tournament were surely influential, a solid argument can be made that the last few years haven't done all that much towards growth of the sport of disc golf.




6000 rocs at $25 each = $150,000.00
182 guys at $230 each = $41,860.00
plus sales at the event, sponsorships and spectator revenue.
I seriously doubt the event was running in the red!

6000 rocs at $25 each = $150,000.00
182 guys at $230 each = $41,860.00
plus sales at the event, sponsorships and spectator revenue.
I seriously doubt the event was running in the red!

David,

[email protected]$25ea? is there no cost involved in manufacturing and shipping? [email protected]$230ea? was there no payout?

That said, as an owner of a disc company, you would have a better understanding of the potential markup/profit than I do.

I support Innova and USDGC efforts and look forward to seeing the results in 2011. Was it just a few years ago that the "gimiky yellow rope" idea was roundly boo'ed here?

Seems to have worked out. That said, hopefully they will alter the tournament name for the odd year events. Would not want my level of play to be any indication of what the top level of our sport is.

May have to seek approval from my bride to travel around for some of the qualifiers, might be my only chance to play four rounds @ Winthrop.

(their plan is already working, a golfer who only played two sanction events in 2010, is planing to golf more in 2011):)

Regards,
J. Allen Browder

I'm still confused as to how an AM will qualify. I know that they will have to play the same layout as the pros. But considering that most NT's and events don't, doesn't that mean that AM's will have to play pro? Some clarification would help.

I don't see playing the same layout as important. It's about ratings. Ams on course B are getting ratings at the same time pros on course A are getting ratings.

For instance, this week at Tyler, I doubt the ams and pros play the same four courses, but it doesn't matter as every player will have four ratings for the tourney.

I don't see playing the same layout as important. It's about ratings. Ams on course B are getting ratings at the same time pros on course A are getting ratings.

For instance, this week at Tyler, I doubt the ams and pros play the same four courses, but it doesn't matter as every player will have four ratings for the tourney.

This doesn't sound like it could be completely accurate, which is extremely important IMO. Chuck?

I don't know what they've decided. This is a test event this weekend and we'll get results to review after it's over. Harold, Jonathon and I have been talking about the options for qualifying so they're prepared to look at what happens and make the call for 2011 qualifiers. But to answer your basic question, all who are trying to qualify will have to play the exact same set of course layouts but not necessarily at the same time if we average the round scores on the same layout together before producing ratings.

Chuck,
Has there been any thought on handicapping
Winthrop? More similar to ball golf is what I mean.
Giving strokes on the harder holes. This puts
more responsibility on the players themselves to
perform more consistently. Most players would not
need a stroke on hole one for example. So if you take a
double bogey on that hole it hurts worse than a double
bogey on say 888.

Divisions are separate. Separate pools, purses, people, a separate tournament really.




But that isn't going to happen. The top dogs will be on the road working for a paycheck, not a players pack and trophy.

Divisions are only smaller pools, it is still a means of handicapping. I suspect you are correct to a degree about the big players being on the road. I hope that some decide it is worth the trip because it is a charity, but I do know that there will be some that will not. I also understand the paycheck aspect. I know that I could make a whole lot more money than running a charity benefit, but I do choose to occasionally do things for the love of the game and to promote growth.

LAME-O

The guy from Mexico who shot 600 rated rounds this weekend in San Antonio would have a great shot if he could just get in the 700s.......so stupid unless you have a "scaled handicap"

Sammy, there's no reason to handicap the individual holes unless it's match play. All that matters is the overall handicap for the course for this event.

It's my understanding that players will need to have a rating of at least 850 before being considered for qualifying. In addition, I believe the plan will be to use a player's highest rating during 2011 as the basis for their handicap at the USDGC. So it won't do any good to try and tank your rating after qualifying. These were ideas I discussed with Harold and Jonathon but they probably want to wait and see how the test qualifier goes this weekend before making any plans more official.

As always Chuck thanks for the quick response.
Sounds like a new and interesting event format.
I will always be partial the Open format but now maybe
even I will play one day.

Will TD's be getting exemptions as usual?

Do the top 20 from last year get in this year, or will they be exempt for 2012?

Qualifier TDs will have exemptions but I think they or their substitutes need to meet the minimum 850 rating level. Haven't head about the top 20 exemptions but I'd be interested to see if even one of them considers playing unless they happened to be in the area then.

Divisions are only smaller pools, it is still a means of handicapping.

No, it's not.

So who qualified this weekend?

The ten players who qualified for the 2011 USDGC at Piney Woods were:

Charles Chung, 390 points
Doug Garner, 384 points
Jeremy Bird Grange, 380 points
Rusty Glazner, 371 points
Jeremy Lockwood, 368 points
Christopher Farnham, 356 points
Timmy Dorsey, 349 points
Chrystom Stout, 348 points
John Hatcher, 348 points
Andrew Machinski, 342 points

Will TD's be getting exemptions as usual?

Do the top 20 from last year get in this year, or will they be exempt for 2012?

Tournament Directors will be exempt as usual.

The top 20 from 2010 are exempt for both 2011 and 2012.

Also, the top 10 from 2011 will be exempt for 2012.

The ten players who qualified for the 2011 USDGC at Piney Woods were:

Charles Chung, 390 points
Doug Garner, 384 points
Jeremy Bird Grange, 380 points
Rusty Glazner, 371 points
Jeremy Lockwood, 368 points
Christopher Farnham, 356 points
Timmy Dorsey, 349 points
Chrystom Stout, 348 points
John Hatcher, 348 points
Andrew Machinski, 342 points

Looks like a lot of locals.........who play way higher compared to thier rating on those three courses.

I'm not sure this is needed and it is sad to see no USDGC this year....this isn't even close.

Still can't wait to see 4 74's win the "Champiuonship"

"Still can't wait to see 4 74's win the "Champiuonship"

dont think that will happen as it sounds like the previous winners, world winners and exempt spot are still there..so it almost sounds like easy cash for the exempt players to take off the folks that get in by the new rating system. so not sure why a 936 rated player would want to just donate. personnlly if this is truely a ratings event to get in the every one should qualify the same way.. but then they would have no spectators...

Sammy, there's no reason to handicap the individual holes unless it's match play. All that matters is the overall handicap for the course for this event.

It's my understanding that players will need to have a rating of at least 850 before being considered for qualifying. In addition, I believe the plan will be to use a player's highest rating during 2011 as the basis for their handicap at the USDGC. So it won't do any good to try and tank your rating after qualifying. These were ideas I discussed with Harold and Jonathon but they probably want to wait and see how the test qualifier goes this weekend before making any plans more official.

aside from who qualified, how did the test qualifier go? yall did the handicap thing to see who qualified?

"Still can't wait to see 4 74's win the "Champiuonship"

dont think that will happen as it sounds like the previous winners, world winners and exempt spot are still there..so it almost sounds like easy cash for the exempt players to take off the folks that get in by the new rating system. so not sure why a 936 rated player would want to just donate. personnlly if this is truely a ratings event to get in the every one should qualify the same way.. but then they would have no spectators...
Considering this is going to be a no-payout, trophy-only event, I don't think the italicized is a concern whatsoever.

What people need to get through their heads is that in a handicapped event like this, lowest overall score is not the point. It is beating ones own average by as much as possible. If a top-rated player is able to do that, he's going to win the tournament with scores in the low-60s or even 50s, just like in a straight scratch tournament.

The points system used appears to be the same thing they did the fantasy thing with on DGU. So based on the standing from this year's USDGC (http://www.discgolfunited.com/info-center/info-detail.cfm/event_id/44F95C52-5056-B82A-C1E9B40BDB9EBD07), the winner would have been Adam Hunt, and Schusterick would have come in third. This doesn't appear to be a system that would unfairly punish highly rated players too much. Provided they play well, they will still be competitive.

Until they change the name of this event officially most of the complainers here will continue to bash it, regardless of format, payout, etc.

Until they change the name of this event officially most of the complainers here will continue to bash it, regardless of format, payout, etc.

Agreed!

USHDGC doesn't sound quite as good though.

I thik the issue is in the qualifying......and the fact locals have a HUE advantage when playing on their home course. Plenty of 930 guys average 960 on their local courses.

Until they change the name of this event officially most of the complainers here will continue to bash it, regardless of format, payout, etc.

Yeah, don't hold your breath. The complainers here will bash it no matter what. Leave it the same, make it better, drag it thru the mud, et al. There is no end to the complaining.

USDGC 2011 - Upcoming Stars Disc Golf Championship 2011

Yeah, don't hold your breath. The complainers here will bash it no matter what. Leave it the same, make it better, drag it thru the mud, et al. There is no end to the complaining.


Sure there is, it's called spring when tournaments resume!

And it really is about the name. It's in no way the same as the past 12 years, yet they are calling it the same thing.

I'm actually stoked for players who will get to play Winthrop Gold. I'm encouraging all my local up and comers to try and make it.

USDGC 2011 - Upcoming Stars Disc Golf Championship 2011

didn't see a smiley... is that a joke or the actual thing?

Just a way to think about the event and maybe get less upset about the fact the "acroname" didn't change.

i believe that a player who qualifies at a home tourney on his or her best course will have a hard time duplicating the traverse of yellow rope as effectivly.
the idea that a player can quallify to play with a solid event sounds great to me.
i have had great events.
thats not to say i would navigate the winthrop gold course well.
if the stats that open the door for compitition are based upon the highest rating of the player thru the year then the fast improving player stacks the cards against himself by playing sanctioned rounds of golf afterhe or she has qualified.
with a thaught like this does one think it could hurt tourney numbers?

I believe players who want to play Winthrop Gold in the 2011 UDGC will want to go if they qualify regardless how high their rating goes before the event occurs.

i would certainly enjoy the opportunity to play there.
although i would not expect to compete for the win, just for the expierience.
do you think the 850 to 900 golfer has the easiest opportunity to shoot substantially over their rating?
or is there a way to see into a crystal ball?



is there a statistical way to calculate ahead of the rounds what score a player would have to be at before the handicapping is done if you had their player rating at the start, to get to a 1035 round or better?

There are answers to those questions but it will depend on some decisions the USDGC team has to make on how they are going to do some calculations before the odds and scores can be estimated.

so just so I understand this years USDGC ..

I have heard there is no Payout ? what is the entry fee? also if there is no payout why would players want to spend $$ trying to qualify , then spend $$ to enter the event , the spend more $$ on travel, lodging and food?? for no payout? also if there is not payout why would any of the past winners and the ones with their spots held want to play either. what is the incentive? just curious how the USDGC sees this working out. is this more of a fund raiser for next year's USDGC 2012?

There has been no payout for the Ams attending the Memorial the past few years and the event fills quickly. The player pack is more than worth the entry fee from what I understand. I suspect a similar model for this USDGC. Maybe 750 PDGA members have ever played Winthrop Gold in competition out of 15,000 members. Many players who have entered the USDGC and Worlds had little chance and have never cashed and yet go for the experience. This could be the only time some players ever have their name announced to everyone on the first tee. Priceless...

To win USDGC in 2011, the person who has the most luck during the most rounds, wins the tournament!

Skill is out the window in this format, pure luck will get the win. So don't go practice because that would make you consistent.

So how does a person get ready for this tournament? Go to a witch Dr. and score a lucky charm?


USDGC 2011= United Sandbagger Day Garbage Championship!!!!!

Not likely, Jim. The winner will be as lucky as Shusterick winning this year who shot consistently well above his rating to win.

USDGC 2010 was High Level Consistent Quality Play was produced. The skill level Shusterick had to maintain was at a high level. High level skill produced his �luck� on a different level of play.

USDGC 2011 will not have High Level Consistent Quality Play. The results will be a sub 1000 rated player getting lucky on a lower level of play for a weekend.

By definition, handicapped play does not require high level consistent play to win but higher level consistent play than a person's current skill level. The winner will have performed better than anyone's expectations than past USDGC winners. Shusterick was the only relatively surprising USDGC winner. Climo, Schultz, Doss, Locastro and Feldberg only had to perform barely above their expected skill level to win. They were no surprise. In fact, they are so close in skill that slight differences in luck plays more of a factor in which one of them wins than in a handicapped contest over four rounds. Next year's winner will really earn the title with consistent play much above what people would expect from him/her.

To win USDGC in 2011, the person who has the most luck during the most rounds, wins the tournament!

Skill is out the window in this format, pure luck will get the win. So don't go practice because that would make you consistent.

So how does a person get ready for this tournament? Go to a witch Dr. and score a lucky charm?


USDGC 2011= United Sandbagger Day Garbage Championship!!!!!
Congratulations, you have COMPLETELY failed to grasp the concept of handicapped play. To save myself the time, I'll just quote myself from the other day.
What people need to get through their heads is that in a handicapped event like this, lowest overall score is not the point. It is beating ones own average by as much as possible. If a top-rated player is able to do that, he's going to win the tournament with scores in the low-60s or even 50s, just like in a straight scratch tournament.

The points system used appears to be the same thing they did the fantasy thing with on DGU. So based on the standing from this year's USDGC (http://www.discgolfunited.com/info-center/info-detail.cfm/event_id/44F95C52-5056-B82A-C1E9B40BDB9EBD07), the winner would have been Adam Hunt, and Schusterick would have come in third. This doesn't appear to be a system that would unfairly punish highly rated players too much. Provided they play well, they will still be competitive.

yea Adam is one of those tulsa crew that played hotter than i expected.
i dont think i would play adam heads up.
but with an allowance of one stroke to every 8 ratings points i would stand a great chance of beating him on a deuce or die course.
but on the gold rope course his odds are greatly improved.

Agreed!

USHDGC doesn't sound quite as good though.

[I thik the issue is in the qualifying......and the fact locals have a HUE advantage when playing on their home course. Plenty of 930 guys average 960 on their local courses]

i expect that many may qualify just that way. Then when the play starts at the ropes the players who qualify that way and don't travel and play well will not be at the top of their games, and be near the top of the field at the end of the week.

I think that anyone crying about this is just lame! What is wrong with giving some other players a shot at the big show they may never other wise see? It says nothing about the USDGC being rAn on handicap only the qualifers, if you do not play to play above your rating every round anyways then why are in the PDGA. We play disc golf to be better than our last round from the bottom up, so why not reward some advanced guys that are actually doing IT, I bet a lot of the top pros are for this idea, just none of the mediocre amatures. I am sure there is a way to sand bag your way into this event but once you are there I wish you good luck. I think even the best sand baggers will need it.

Just my 2 cents,
Kent Lockhart
45750.

Please go ahead and quote me, talk your thrash and try your hardest to make it, because you and I know most of the people talk in crap will be trying to qualify anyways, I wish you luck and merry christmas

What is wrong with giving some other players a shot at the big show?

Maybe this event will be called USDGC, bit it definitely ain't the "big show".

When I first read the announcement I thought it was a terrible idea, I have since changed my mind. I was reminded that there was not going to be a USDGC in 2011, it had gone to an every other year format anyway. This sounds like a very fun tournament that gives mediocre golfers like me a chance to play an awesome course and win if I have a good weekend.

My only suggestion is to change the name. The USDGC is known as one of the highest paying tournaments that rewards the best of the best. Run the USDGC in even years and rename this tournament for the odd numbered years. If they just changed the name it would eliminate all of the complaints.

I think they could also have a good payout for it to motivate people to make the trip. My biggest hesitation to playing if I qualified would be the travel expenses and if I thought there was a chance to win that back I would be more likely to go. If I were to somehow quailify for the USDGC as it has been I would not go because I know I have no chance to cash there. I would not pay $230 plus airfare plus hotels plus rental car just to be on the same course as the elite players, I can watch them at worlds while having a small chance to cash in the grandmaster division.

So just to clarify, I think the handicap tournament is a great idea, just change the name.

An 870 rated player can win the USDGC? This is embarrassing. This tournament is for the elite players of the sport. There are plenty of other tournaments for AM's to play and up and coming players to have their talent recognized. In the past, if you qualified for the USDGC it meant that you killed it in a big tournament, against stiff competition. Now, you can lose by 4 shots in advanced grandmasters and get an invite? Seriously, not cool!

I think the handicap tournament is a great idea, just change the name.

Pretty much what the entire DG community is saying. Confusing the brand that's been built over the last 12 years with what is going on this year seems confusing, and fairly disrespectful to past winners.

This seems like a great opportunity to build another brand that could shine just as bright as The USDGC, and really benefit disc golf in the long run.

Pretty much what the entire DG community is saying. Confusing the brand that's been built over the last 12 years with what is going on this year seems confusing, and fairly disrespectful to past winners.

This seems like a great opportunity to build another brand that could shine just as bright as The USDGC, and really benefit disc golf in the long run.

Well Said

How about this, everyone quit referring to this event as an "embarrassing USDGC" and just think of it as a new event to be held at Winthrop Gold. I'm just sick of everyone reiterating the same complaint. More opportunities to bash this event will certainly come up for everyone.

Handicapping is great for your local league with 10 dollars on the line.

But for our national championship?

I'm fine with a national handicap tournament. And I'm also fine with it being at Winthrop. However, to call this the USDGC or anything compared is just silly to me.

It's great that someone who is 870 shoots 960 four times for that person, but not for something as prestigious as this. If that happens Nikko would have to shoot 1130 four times to even come close.

No big deal. Just shoot the four greatest rounds in the history of disc golf to win. Oh wait, the ratings system don't allow rounds to be that high on SSA's in this range. Sorry. You have no chance. Better luck next year.

I hope all the games elite boycott this event. Even though my rating of 950ish is PERFECT for an event like this, you won't see me there.





Couldn't agree more. Such a bad idea for the USDGC, but then again a "Major Corporation" runs the event any way. Until the PDGA steps up and runs this event we will continue to deal with these exotic ideas and it will never be the USDGC, just the InnovaDGC! Not trying to disrespect Innova they are awesome. Im just saying the PDGA needs to own this event!

an 870 player's not going to shoot 960 out there even once, let alone 4 times. they've gotten that 870 rating on pitch and putt courses with no ob's. now, they're going to play one of the longest, most difficult courses out there and shoot way over their player rating - nope!

the winner will be in the 950-980 rating range and have several years of playing experience, including difficult courses. i'd further bet that the winner is a medium-length (350-370 ft. distance) driver that keeps it in play and averages rounds somewhere near 1000.

Look for several NC/SC locals who have very low ratings. The play in day should be interesting. I'm already thinking of someone I know that plays Winthrop consistently who is rated 905. At this years USDGC set-up, the individual shot a 68 and a 70 with stroke and distance during rounds I played with him. Hypothetically, say this person averaged 69 over the four rounds, would he have won over Adam based on the handicap system for this years event?

I'm betting on a local.


After further review, he is only rated 890.

I don't understand this logic..
But hey what do i know... that's why the NFL holds the "Almost good enough Superbowl every year" for the teams that would of liked to make it to the super bowl but just couldn't cut it..


I think that anyone crying about this is just lame! What is wrong with giving some other players a shot at the big show they may never other wise see? It says nothing about the USDGC being rAn on handicap only the qualifers, if you do not play to play above your rating every round anyways then why are in the PDGA. We play disc golf to be better than our last round from the bottom up, so why not reward some advanced guys that are actually doing IT, I bet a lot of the top pros are for this idea, just none of the mediocre amatures. I am sure there is a way to sand bag your way into this event but once you are there I wish you good luck. I think even the best sand baggers will need it.

Just my 2 cents,
Kent Lockhart
45750.

Please go ahead and quote me, talk your thrash and try your hardest to make it, because you and I know most of the people talk in crap will be trying to qualify anyways, I wish you luck and merry christmas

look for several nc/sc locals who have very low ratings. The play in day should be interesting. I'm already thinking of someone i know that plays winthrop consistently who is rated 905. At this years usdgc set-up, the individual shot a 68 and a 70 with stroke and distance during rounds i played with him. Hypothetically, say this person averaged 69 over the four rounds, would he have won over adam based on the handicap system for this years event?

I'm betting on a local.


After further review, he is only rated 890.


2nd

Look for several NC/SC locals who have very low ratings. The play in day should be interesting. I'm already thinking of someone I know that plays Winthrop consistently who is rated 905. At this years USDGC set-up, the individual shot a 68 and a 70 with stroke and distance during rounds I played with him. Hypothetically, say this person averaged 69 over the four rounds, would he have won over Adam based on the handicap system for this years event?

I'm betting on a local.


After further review, he is only rated 890.
So you believe that a player who is rated 890 will average ~1000 rating over four rounds on one of the most demanding courses at one of the biggest events around? When was the last time you saw any 890 rated player shoot 1000-rated golf for four consecutive rounds, let alone tournament rounds?

It's nice that he shot 68 and 70 on the USDGC set-up with stroke and distance, but I'm assuming this was not in an actual tournament round. It was a casual "for fun" round, right? The pressure of a tournament, especially one as big as the USDGC, is a different beast all together.

I think Chuck has it right when he says it'll be someone up and coming for which their rating isn't quite keeping up with their play. A good example from this year's USDGC would be Nick Gagne out of Maine. He was 17, in his first year of seriously competing in tournaments (though mostly local non-PDGAs), and got himself into the USDGC at the last qualifier (Skylands). He was rated around 970 at the time of the USDGC (now 987) and he averaged 1005 at the USDGC. It put him in 7th in the fantasy standings (ostensibly 7th in a "handicapped" USDGC). I think it will be someone like him that will take down the 2011 USDGC before a local with a very low rating.

Assuming your estimate of Mr. Gagne's rating and his USDGC '10 round ratings are correct, for an 890 player to "beat" Mr. Gagne's USDGC '10 performance in the bastardized USDGC '11 "scoring" system, she would only have to average 926 golf. A far cry from having to average ~1000-rated golf, as you posit would be necessary in your opening statement.

So you believe that a player who is rated 890 will average ~1000 rating over four rounds on one of the most demanding courses at one of the biggest events around? When was the last time you saw any 890 rated player shoot 1000-rated golf for four consecutive rounds, let alone tournament rounds?

It's nice that he shot 68 and 70 on the USDGC set-up with stroke and distance, but I'm assuming this was not in an actual tournament round. It was a casual "for fun" round, right? The pressure of a tournament, especially one as big as the USDGC, is a different beast all together.

I think Chuck has it right when he says it'll be someone up and coming for which their rating isn't quite keeping up with their play. A good example from this year's USDGC would be Nick Gagne out of Maine. He was 17, in his first year of seriously competing in tournaments (though mostly local non-PDGAs), and got himself into the USDGC at the last qualifier (Skylands). He was rated around 970 at the time of the USDGC (now 987) and he averaged 1005 at the USDGC. It put him in 7th in the fantasy standings (ostensibly 7th in a "handicapped" USDGC). I think it will be someone like him that will take down the 2011 USDGC before a local with a very low rating.


Yes I believe this identified 890 rated player will average 1000 rated rounds at his home course. His rating is 890, his game is 1000+. He established his rating a long time ago and has not played any pdga events in quite some time.

Are there any perameters in place to avoid someone qualifying early, let's say Piney woods, then tanking rounds to decrease their rating throughout the long timespan between now and USDGC 11'?

As I understand it, for all qualifiers, the player's highest rating at or since Piney Woods will be used for the USDGC handicap.

So when will we find out what tournaments are qualifiers?

What a bunch of crap. For region 1 they chose the ATL Open which means that AM's will have to play Pro to qualify. How is this fair!!! I'm not donating $100 to get my brains beat in for a "chance" to play at the USDGC.

So what are the other qualifiers?

As I understand it, for all qualifiers, the player's highest rating at or since Piney Woods will be used for the USDGC handicap.

So then it would behoove anyone that qualifies to avoid PDGA sanctioned tournaments for the remainder of the year. Why risk having your rating go up. I wonder how much $ the PDGA will lose from those that qualify who normally play sanctioned events all year?

I suspect most of the qualifiers will be the types of players who have been striving to improve and will be practicing hard in sanctioned play so they're sharp when it comes time for the USDGC. Not sure but I think qualifiers need to play at least eight rated rounds in 2011.

I suspect most of the qualifiers will be the types of players who have been striving to improve and will be practicing hard in sanctioned play so they're sharp when it comes time for the USDGC. Not sure but I think qualifiers need to play at least eight rated rounds in 2011.

That requirement is definitely not on the posted 2011 USDGC qualifying/requirements document. I suspect that the requirements and criteria are probably going to change as loopholes like this become apparent. So what are the regional qualifiers Chuck?

I don't know but I saw a few posted on some Facebook page the other day. But I just tried and can't find the link.

Remember that "honor" and "sportsmanship" are important to Harold and Jonathon as TDs. If they review the performances of qualifiers during 2011 and feel there's anything fishy that they may not have foreseen, I doubt they'll have a problem rejecting that player even if they meet the qualifying criteria.

I don't know but I saw a few posted on some Facebook page the other day. But I just tried and can't find the link.

Remember that "honor" and "sportsmanship" are important to Harold and Jonathon as TDs. If they review the performances of qualifiers during 2011 and feel there's anything fishy that they may not have foreseen, I doubt they'll have a problem rejecting that player even if they meet the qualifying criteria.

Word!

CW- I know that the Atlanta Open, Glass Blown Open, and Milwaukee Open are qualifiers for there regions.

Not sure what the formats are for each. I'm hoping that the ADV will play the same format as Pro's.

Everyone is assuming it's a 100% handicap system. In most bowling leagues I've been in, the handicapping is at 80% (you get 80% of the difference between your average and 200 in most cases.) 90% at MOST.

So if I'm averaging 205 and someone is averaging 140. My handicap is 0 and theirs isn't 60, it's 48. So if I bowl my average, the other guy doesn't need a 146 to beat me, he needs a 158. In other words, I don't even have to shoot better than my average because I'm a better player, and the other guy has to shoot 18 above his to beat me.

I could see something quite easily like that going into place, taking let's say 1020 as the top. If each 10 points is a stroke, make it 80% of the difference between your highest rating and 1020. So my 947 would only give me a 58.4 point handicap. I'd have to throw a 984 rated round to match Feldberg's AVERAGE round.

Handicapping doesn't make it UNFAIR to good players - they're still favored - but it just lessens the slope of the favor.

Of course, if it IS a 100% handicapping system, well that's sorta silly.

Everyone is assuming it's a 100% handicap system. In most bowling leagues I've been in, the handicapping is at 80% (you get 80% of the difference between your average and 200 in most cases.) 90% at MOST.

So if I'm averaging 205 and someone is averaging 140. My handicap is 0 and theirs isn't 60, it's 48. So if I bowl my average, the other guy doesn't need a 146 to beat me, he needs a 158. In other words, I don't even have to shoot better than my average because I'm a better player, and the other guy has to shoot 18 above his to beat me.

I could see something quite easily like that going into place, taking let's say 1020 as the top. If each 10 points is a stroke, make it 80% of the difference between your highest rating and 1020. So my 947 would only give me a 58.4 point handicap. I'd have to throw a 984 rated round to match Feldberg's AVERAGE round.

Handicapping doesn't make it UNFAIR to good players - they're still favored - but it just lessens the slope of the favor.

Of course, if it IS a 100% handicapping system, well that's sorta silly.

I agree with this and usually events try a 100% version of handicapping which just makes it too hard for the top players to win. A scaled handicap however works A LOT better and is actually fun.

Everyone is assuming it's a 100% handicap system.
...
Handicapping doesn't make it UNFAIR to good players - they're still favored - but it just lessens the slope of the favor.

Of course, if it IS a 100% handicapping system, well that's sorta silly.

Well it's too late to change anything now. They already qualified 10 players at Piney Woods last month using a one system, so they have to use that one for the rest of the qualifiers or else risk losing a lot of credibility.

or else risk losing a lot of credibility.

Too late.

Well it's too late to change anything now. They already qualified 10 players at Piney Woods last month using a one system, so they have to use that one for the rest of the qualifiers or else risk losing a lot of credibility.

I assume by the tone that they used a 100% handicapping system?

I'm guessing 90%.

from what I have been reading on face book most top pros will not be going to USDGC this year

I may go if I qualify for the simple fact that the top 10 will be exempt for 2012. That is if there is nothing better going on that week.

I don't know but I saw a few posted on some Facebook page the other day. But I just tried and can't find the link.



So where exactly is the information on qualifiers?

I'm supposed to go on some sort of Faceborg treasure hunt?

Official info should be on the USDGC website. I just happened to see that someone posted a few qualifier locations on Facebook.

Official info should be on the USDGC website. I just happened to see that someone posted a few qualifier locations on Facebook.

The USDGC website hasn't been updated in over two months and has no list of qualifiers. I guess that's the "official" word. Pretty lame. Hard to get excited or interested in this event when you can't even find any official information.

The USDGC website hasn't been updated in over two months and has no list of qualifiers. I guess that's the "official" word. Pretty lame. Hard to get excited or interested in this event when you can't even find any official information.

Correction: There are some qualifiers listed on the website on the "Faceborg" app on the right side of the page. Because the internet is being eaten by Faceborg and everything must now go through Faceborg instead of just being put on a website.

I was a co-TD / chief scorer / spotter for a PDGA sanctioned B-tier & USDGC qualifier this past weekend which had 149 competitors. The ability for any disc golfer no matter the skill level to qualify for the USDGC event no doubt led to the popularity and attendance at this event, and it was certainly something which generated a lot off buzz after each round as we tracked the 10 folks who were in contention through the 4 rounds over the weekend. Intermediates & advanced amateurs qualified, pro players who played very well but still didn't cash qualified, as well as many others who beat their projected scores for all four rounds of the tourney. Some of the winners were positively jubilant over the chance to play in the event; it was certainly a win from that standpoint.

However, from an administration standpoint, it was a headache if not a nightmare. The scores had to be entered into the spreadsheet sent to us which was locked, and apparently because of a "glitch" in Office 2010, the locked spreadsheet was not able to be sorted in scoring order. With names listed alphabetically, it took the TD and a course TD working together some 45 minutes to call out names alphabetically after each round, find them on the scoreport, call out the scores, and enter them into the spreadsheet. This delayed the start of the awards ceremony greatly.

For an event that went off practically perfectly and almost entirely without a hitch, this was easily the most annoying part of the event and the TD even quipped that "it ruined the event for him." I feel that this is something that the USDGC organizers should have maybe previously field tested before releasing it for use. With an Intermediate MA2 field of 47 golfers, I dare you to quickly process information when they appear by score on the scoreport and alphabetically in the spreadsheet.

When awarding USDGC spots used to be a piece of cake (it was usually just the top 5 Open players who weren't already qualified) this process is downright laborious in comparison. Greater Milwaukee Open, Zoo Town Open, & High Plains Challenge TDs: please take note and prepare yourself for this. Hopefully this issue may be easily fixed with a quick workaround, but iIf the bug is not fixed, I wouldn't be surprised if in two years, when the handicap (scoring adjustment) format returns, TDs either decide to process it well after the event concludes, or outright opt against the invitation to make their tournament a USDGC qualifier because they don't want to deal with the headache.

bump

for anyone that is going to the usdgc this year and may still be looking for housing, let's try to make a deal. i will be staying in a house about 20 min from the course. however, since i'm flying in i will not have transportation. if you are someone that has access to a vehicle and would like to make a trade please contact me here or on face book at Bird Man.

I like how how the leaderboard makes you guess whom the Top 2 are. It's like a game in itself.

Of course, to get around it all you have to do is drag and highlight the top of the page, copy it and then paste into an editor. Of course, even that gets ridiculous after a while.

Yeah, what's the deal? Why don't they use actual numbers instead of +/-? They don't have par listed to reference....projected is a score, and total is in reference to course par or their "projection"?

personal par. Got it. personal par 7 and multiple par 6's? wtf?

Another thing is that I noticed is for players that have a projected score of 68. Since that is the actual par, you would think that their projected hole pars would match the actual pars for the holes but they don't.

I looked at Tim Barr, and he has deuces projected for him on holes 1 & 7. On holes 11 they projected a 5 and on hole 13, his projection is 6. Both of which are one over actual par.

Par on the course is 70 this year with hole 11 as a par 5 and 13 as a par 6. Players who have a projected score of 70 have a par of 70 and get no changes to the hole pars. Everyone else has at least one and some many more holes where their par on a hole will be different from the listed par.

The overall scoreboard's hard to read. I'd like to see the actual score on each hole, not the player's personal par + or -. It seems to me you put up the raw score for each hole, subtract the total expected score from the raw score at the end to give you the over/under par. The personal par is somewhat informative to each individual player, but not really informative for the rest of us. If they want to put that information on each player's personal scorecard page, that's a fantastic idea, but I'd rather see raw score on the overall page.

Dave Feldberg - 62 (-6)
Ken Climo - 63 (E)
Barry Schultz - 64 (+5)

Wow!

Please don't try to explain, I don't think I want to know...

chappyfade - I'd like to see the actual score on each hole, not the player's personal par + or -.
You are seeing the actual scores that matter for the purposes of determining ranking and a winner. Raw scores mean nothing other than that they're needed to determine the net scores for this type of competition. it would be nicce to see the total raw scores and those will eventually be available on the PDGA site when they figure out how to do it so the ranking order matches what happens for final ranking at the USDGC.

how were Personal Pars for a given hole determined?

i see some players have a personal Par of 4 for Hole 1. How can that hole be a Par 4 for ANYONE?

or looking at it another way, one player whose pre-determined Personal Par for the course was 92 had a Personal Par of 4 for Hole 1 and 5 for Hole 10. From the standpoint of relative difficulty if a player has a Personal par of 4 for Hole 1 there is no way that his Personal Par for Hole #10 should be 5.

i think this year's event is a wonderfully interesting concept. it's the first time that a "major" event has been scored this way. We can all poke holes in the philosophy, the scoring, or any other facet of the event. But i applaud Harold and Jonathan for trying something new that they also knew going in was going to be picked apart by the critics.
knowing Harold and Jonathan, they will be their harshest critics. i'm sure they already have a great handle on what things they would change the next time around. The USDGC as we knew it evolved over many years to become what many viewed as one of THE best events. perhaps given time and tweaking, this new format has a place in our game.

but i would still love to know how Personal Pars for specific holes were created because the statistical soundness of establishing Personal pars is the most crucial piece of data for making this whole scoring system functional.

dandoyle
warwick, ny

It's real simple, if you have a handicap, then the par for as many holes as your handicap will be increased by one based on the sequence of scoring difficulty above/below par that was established last year. If your handicap (projected score) is 18, then your par for each hole will be one higher than the official par on the hole which includes hole 1.

Chuck, how do you think the course plays? Have you played it before?

thanks chuck, but.........

i understand when you say that each hole's par is increased by 1 if you have a handicap of +18.

but intuitively this compromises the integrity of the scoring system. just look at the example i used: comparing Hole 1 as a personal par 4 to Hole 10 as a personal par 5 kind
of makes a mockery of the whole personal par system, which is the basis for leveling the field. i'll bet those two holes are at least 2 strokes different in par for a player with an 18 handicap. a sub-900 rated player can easily get a 3 by throwing 2 125 foot shots. hole 10 can be a nitemare for even a 1000 rated player.

dd

While I totally applaud the nature and concept behind this year's event, my thoughts are in line with what was stated above about hole pars. According to the round 1 scores (http://www.usdgcdots.com/?round=1), several competitors recorded an albatross or double eagle (3 under par) on hole#13, and one competitor recorded the same on hole#11. How often do we typically see such a score in a disc golf event? Or in a ball golf event? Ditto on a 224-foot hole with an elevation drop of 21 feet becoming a par four. It just looks silly.

Keep up the great work. Everything else about the concept & math is sound, but I would recommend doing the handicap adjustment at the end of the round based on total score, and leave the individual hole pars alone.

Keep up the great work. Everything else about the concept & math is sound, but I would recommend doing the handicap adjustment at the end of the round based on total score, and leave the individual hole pars alone.

i agree with this...

The USDGC has always provided scoring updates and rankings after every 6 holes. Personal hole pars allows players and spectators to follow along without waiting until the final round scores. we talked about just doing personal par adjustments for each set of 6 holes and not individual holes. However, following the ball golf tradition, handicaps are applied hole by hole based on difficulty in the same way it's being done here. Ball golf doesn't broadcast handicap events online like the USDGC. if they did, it would look the same as what you see for the USDGC.

BTW, I took a 4 on both hole 1 and 10 today so I'm not sure the adjusted pars are off. The throw and distance format justifies even higher pars than being used for this diverse overall field since it's a gold level course with many non-gold level players who can't regularly handle the challenges to avoid the "2-shot" penalties. So the scoring spread per hole is wider and can be in incremental jumps of 2 shots. Thus, several albatrosses would not be unexpected in this format as we've seen.

I suspect most of the qualifiers will be the types of players who have been striving to improve and will be practicing hard in sanctioned play so they're sharp when it comes time for the USDGC. Not sure but I think qualifiers need to play at least eight rated rounds in 2011.

Check the stats. CW called it on Jan 16th

For the record, I think this whole idea is just an absolute joke. I'm not going to go into why, I think it's pretty clear.

But one thing I actually think they got right was the idea about showing the score in relation to personal par each hole, even if it gets as silly as calling hole 1 a par 4.

The reason is from a competitor stand point, it makes it just about the only way to calculate where you are. Imagine going to the last hole and not knowing what you had to score to win, which was my biggest concern about this format within the tournament.

This concept of personal par and scoring based off of it allows a player to quickly calculate how many strokes he is winning / losing by.

"Ok, he is 5 under his projected and started even. I'm 4 under my projected and started even. This is a par 5 for him and par 4 for me. So to tie him, I need to beat him by 2 on the hole. Got it."

Imagine figuring out if someone shooting in the 80's was beating you when you are shooting in the 50's without the par aspect.

For the record, I think this whole idea is just an absolute joke. I'm not going to go into why, I think it's pretty clear.
Well, that's true from the standpoint players seem to be having a lot more laughter and fun than the previous USDGC format despite the T&D penalties.

Well, that's true from the standpoint players seem to be having a lot more laughter and fun than the previous USDGC format despite the T&D penalties.

Of course players are going to be having fun and laughing. It's not meant to showcase the best players and best talent in the world.

I have no issue with anyone who plays and think it's great that people are playing beyond their level and those that aren't still are laughing and having a great time. But that still doesn't change the fact that a player shot 91 76 and is beating someone by 4 who shot 56 61.

We are trying to market the sport and get people to know what disc golf is. Ok, please explain to those people who are trying to get into disc golf or are somewhat curious how someone shot 50 strokes worse than someone else, yet is beating that person by 4.

No one outside of disc golf understands what a rating is or where it comes from or how its calculated or whats good or whats bad. In fact when you see disc golf coverage in media, you see a total score or a total under par score, b/c that what people know from golf. You don�t see average ratings. So now we are trying to base a winner based on comparative ratings. That�s a bit confusing to the general public. And if we have identified the biggest issue in our sport is getting that general public to understand disc golf, then this is major step back.

Chuck,

Considering your role in the PDGA player rating process and its importance in determining the handicap for this event, can you explain how a player whose rounds over the last year averaged 940 (USDGC projected score of 79) has a player rating of only 880 (USDGC projected score of 89)?

If a player has fewer than 8 rounds in the most recent 12 months since the date of their most recently rated round, we go back up to 12 more months to gather additional rounds to get to 8 if they exist. A player's most recent 25% of rounds do not get double weighted until they have at least 8 rounds:
http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings_detail/59631/2011/43689

Thanks Chuck, I knew you could straighten that out. So in other words, if a player does not play much, the ability of the PDGA player rating to predict that player's current ability is severely degraded. Also, a player's rating will NEVER go up if they do not play. Those factors could tremendously skew a handicapping system such as that used by the USDGC if controls were not in place to prevent that from happening.

United States Disc Golf Tournament should be just that. Nothing against John Key, but looking up his PDGA stats he has very few rounds, doesn't concieve marketability and if he wins will not help the PDGA efforts to showcase the skill levels of the best players for a USDGC Crown. Last time I played a round with Nikko I realized not everyone can do this. Last time I saw Sarah Hokum in her beat up Lexus I realized the dedication these pro's are committed to. USDGC was the most coveted event I thought, considering the amount of coverage I have in the pages of my magazine.

You should have to have a minimum amount of PDGA Rounds to be considered by the math.

You have any idea how much the pros have to pay just to travel the NT circuit and now an 880 rated player can saunter in like that, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around this Chuck.

I absolutely love this concept, but my biggest fear has happenned. I see many big names not present, keep moving forward Chuck, I love and support what you do.

I am sure we can tweek these scoring inconsistencies. Perhaps we can make this ratings systems software available to established clubs so that there tourneys can help get more rounds documented.

Good Luck, we cannot get bet better unless we explore the unknown!

Sub- 900 Rated (880) Players with two tournament rounds recorded this year should not be playing the USDGC! Two rounds of PDGA play is not a true representation of a players ability. A minimum of three tournaments with 6 to 12 rounds of PDGA ratings should have obviously been mandatory...

Well said DWiggMD, its not a true representation and it makes me mad

You ever notice that players seem to lose discs or have the bad kicks or have the bad rolls on the holes that are always really bad design? It's not a coincidence.

This is pretty much the same thing. You have a bad format and now you have a guy who is rated 880 because he only played one event this past year and we are using ratings from a few years back winning.

Is anyone surprised when you get the nasty kick on the bad hole? I'm not. Is anyone surprised that someone found a flaw in the system and is using it to his advantage? I'm not.

It's not like we didn't see it coming 365 days ago.

I understand Harold wants to try something new, and he's probably having more fun with less headaches dealing with golfers who are there to have fun, not the guys who've worked hard to compete at a high level.

While I'm mad and frustrated to be working this week instead of competing, I agree with JP, disc golf is where it was 10 years ago. I don't agree this will change that. I see more sitcoms making fun of the game if we keep doing hokey **** like this.

BTW, Ben Callaway has what it takes to lay down 1050 rounds and could still very well win this thing.

I understand Harold wants to try something new, and he's probably having more fun with less headaches dealing with golfers who are there to have fun, not the guys who've worked hard to compete at a high level.


Here's some additional things which may get accomplished this year:

More people played in PDGA events this past year to establish a rating, and in the USDGC qualifiers around the nation, in an attempt to qualify for this year's event.

Lifetime amateur players who would have otherwise never had the opportunity to play in a PDGA Major got that chance.

Instead of just pros and touring pros with maybe a caddie, there's a good possibility that entire families came along for the ride and infused more money into restaurants and hotels and the local economy.

Innova got to deal with a large amount of people who there just to have fun and wouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill over every perceived detail of the event which went "wrong."

With possibly more merchandise sold, Innova actually gets to see somewhat of a return on their investment instead of just giving money away.

Bottom line is that it's Innova's money and they are free to do with it as they choose. They could have just as easily said "We're going to run the USDGC for the Open division in even years every other year and not run any USDGC event at all in odd numbered years." Instead, they decided to keep the event, but in a different format. If you ask me, people should be grateful!

Not only those many factors (not the least being the generous decision to actually run the thing!) but that many people who would not have otherwise had the chance get to experience an absolutely first-rate tourney and bring it back to their home communities where they may now run better, more creative events themselves.

The sharing of best practices is an agreed upon principle by which all enterprises improve. This might be one of the greatest long-term benefits of the Performance Edition approach, that every other year committed players who are not necessarily top pros get a chance to experience and observe first hand how one of the best run events in our sport works. The creativity and competency viewed may well have an incredible impact in stimulating similar and original approaches elsewhere by those who have partaken. Hats off to the USDGC crew for trying.

The USDGC has always provided scoring updates and rankings after every 6 holes. Personal hole pars allows players and spectators to follow along without waiting until the final round scores. we talked about just doing personal par adjustments for each set of 6 holes and not individual holes. However, following the ball golf tradition, handicaps are applied hole by hole based on difficulty in the same way it's being done here. Ball golf doesn't broadcast handicap events online like the USDGC. if they did, it would look the same as what you see for the USDGC.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in ball golf, when handicaps are applied hole by hole based on difficulty, you're just allocating strokes based on handicap. You're not changing the par of a hole. If I'm a high handicapper playing against a low handicap golfer, a certain number of strokes get allocated to me on each hole, but the par never changes. For example, if I'm a high handicapper on a difficult par 3, I might get two strokes allocated to me versus a low handicap golfer. But it doesn't mean that I think of the hole now as a par 5.

Given the nature of this year's tournament format, I wonder just how important updates and rankings after every 6 holes truly is. And I don't care what your rating is...910, 850, or whatever, in a tournament setting and especially a PDGA Major, a 224-foot hole with an elevation drop of 21 feet and no OB is not a par four. Not this week, not ever.

Here's some additional things which may get accomplished this year:

More people played in PDGA events this past year to establish a rating, and in the USDGC qualifiers around the nation, in an attempt to qualify for this year's event.

Lifetime amateur players who would have otherwise never had the opportunity to play in a PDGA Major got that chance.

Instead of just pros and touring pros with maybe a caddie, there's a good possibility that entire families came along for the ride and infused more money into restaurants and hotels and the local economy.

Innova got to deal with a large amount of people who there just to have fun and wouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill over every perceived detail of the event which went "wrong."

With possibly more merchandise sold, Innova actually gets to see somewhat of a return on their investment instead of just giving money away.

Bottom line is that it's Innova's money and they are free to do with it as they choose. They could have just as easily said "We're going to run the USDGC for the Open division in even years every other year and not run any USDGC event at all in odd numbered years." Instead, they decided to keep the event, but in a different format. If you ask me, people should be grateful!

I agree with your bottom line, but that's about it.

Literally none of those things will be realized.

Which is it? Just for fun? or a Major Championship? If you ask anyone who's won a major sports title, they will tell you it's hard work, and while it might be enjoyable, it's never "just for fun".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in ball golf, when handicaps are applied hole by hole based on difficulty, you're just allocating strokes based on handicap. You're not changing the par of a hole. If I'm a high handicapper playing against a low handicap golfer, a certain number of strokes get allocated to me on each hole, but the par never changes. For example, if I'm a high handicapper on a difficult par 3, I might get two strokes allocated to me versus a low handicap golfer. But it doesn't mean that I think of the hole now as a par 5.

.
i think the difference between our system and bgolf is that our system is based on players and comparing their rounds at a sanctioned event.
ball golf will take the round you play at a specific golf course over the span of maybe a year and then give you a handicap at that particular course where you can then get strokes per hole against another different handicapped person for that course only.
there is another thing i think that is part of the ball golf formula we dont have, and that is hole difficulty. once a course establishes hole difficulty against the pga rating system it becomes part of the formula establishing your handicap for another course if you go play somewhere else besides your local course where you established your handicap in the first place.
in other words we have a "people" system and the pga has more of a "course" system to establish handicaps.
i could be off on this perception, somebody let me know.... :)

I understand fully support the idea of the event being every other year.

And all the things that Jeff mentioned before are without a doubt bonuses of this format that you can't recreate elsewhere.

BUT DON'T CALL THIS THE USDGC! AND DON'T GIVE THESE PLAYERS STARS FOR PLAYING!!

A couple notes: Mkane - just to be clear, this format was not my idea but Harold, Innova and DGU. They asked my assistance and advice. They did not use every restriction I suggested, wanting to be more liberal this first year with who could play. I expect you'll see more restrictions for future events on who can qualify in terms of number of rounds and when they were played to produce a player's rating.

Jeff-LaG: You are correct in how handicaps are handled deducting strokes hole by hole in descending difficulty in ball golf. But that's only for match play. To my knowledge, they've never done online hole by hole scoring for handicaps in stroke play. They simply apply the total handicap to the 18-hole total scores. So Harold could have chosen to display players' hole by hole scores with shots added or subtracted to the actual score on each hole. But I think that would look even stranger and not be easy for the viewer to decipher where a player was in the field. The personal par concept is simply an intermediate step that no one really needs to see and doesn't really mean that the hole par has changed. Perhaps the next time, we should add another row that simply has a plus or minus 0, 1 or 2 underneath the actual hole pars on each players' stat page so viewers have to do the math and just call the row the player's personal par adjustment.

After 3 rounds complete and 25 people of 120 are within 10 strokes of there adjusted par; how accurate are the ratings of the majority of competitors? Or is it such a small sample (3 rounds) that it is skewed so much? 95 people are shooting 3 strokes or more worse per round than their projected par. Just some questions not knocking anything.

95 people are shooting 3 strokes or more worse per round than their projected par.

Keep in mind that they are playing a course where many holes' fairways are lined with OB on both sides and stroke-and-distance rules are in effect every time they go OB.

Try going out to your local course this weekend, and every time you throw off the fairway, you gotta re-throw from your previous lie with a penalty stroke. How much ya wanna bet that you'll shoot 3+ strokes worse than you normally do! :D

Maybe next time they run a tournament with this format, they could just keep the Personal Par numbers off the card. Just put a total for par. Like someone mentioned earlier, player A might be shooting 10 strokes worse than player B, but could potentially be ahead on the final hole. Would just be easier to know where you stand at the end of the round and whether you need to hit the putt or just lay up.

Question. I haven't searched anywhere yet but I noticed that KC has a big ol' DNF on his card..... Injured? Irritated with the format? Just curious.

Tendonitis flared up again.

Keep in mind that they are playing a course where many holes' fairways are lined with OB on both sides and stroke-and-distance rules are in effect every time they go OB.

Try going out to your local course this weekend, and every time you throw off the fairway, you gotta re-throw from your previous lie with a penalty stroke. How much ya wanna bet that you'll shoot 3+ strokes worse than you normally do! :D

So the course par and the adjusted par for each player does not correlate with their rating? In the end its all relative, but the true course par (using stroke-and-distance) is not accurate, if you would want to compare to any other course.

i can see the abuility to throw straight controlled shots is a skill that a low rated golfer could score well in this format.
i would expect with the ob penalties my wife could and would beat me there.

weird.

Indeed.

Thanks to Jonathan, Harold and the rest of the USDGC staff for running the best tournament I've ever played in. The spotters, greeters, score keepers and golf cart drivers were all so friendly and helpful.

It was a pleasant surprise to see Dean Tannock spotting hole 16. He didn't mind giving all of us 880 rated players encouragement and a taste of what it feels like to play in a major. He's a true promoter of the sport.

Despite the fact that few of us deserved to play there and that 4 of the 6 highest rated players DNF'ed for whatever reason, it was a blast. My wife loved caddying, my mom enjoyed watching, an my 5 kids are loving the USDGC swag.

Thanks again to all who made this event possible!

BUT DON'T CALL THIS THE USDGC! AND DON'T GIVE THESE PLAYERS STARS FOR PLAYING!!

Fast forward to 11:00 and listen to the TD himself explain it (http://youtu.be/UVjB6BujjPw). And then go back and listen to the whole interview. Especially what he has to say about touring pros at ~25:25.

You are seeing the actual scores that matter for the purposes of determining ranking and a winner. Raw scores mean nothing other than that they're needed to determine the net scores for this type of competition. it would be nice to see the total raw scores and those will eventually be available on the PDGA site when they figure out how to do it so the ranking order matches what happens for final ranking at the USDGC.

Chuck,

I understand what I'm seeing. However, I think raw score per hole would be more instructive. Raw score means as much as the expected score. If I want to go back and look at what the player did relative to their personal par, I can click on their individual player link. What I would like to see on the overall scoreboard is:

A. Raw score for each hole
B. Total Raw Score
C. Expected Total Score
D. +/- Total Score with respect to personal par Or (B minus C)

Individual +/- on a hole is nice, but not as instructive to spectators for the overall picture. That kind of stuff can be included on the individual player page, if someone wants to look it up.

As far as the PDGA listing goes, I think it would be as simple as adding a couple of things to the database: Expected score as an input, and then the ability to sort by +/- instead of just total score. It shouldn't involve a lot of programming, I wouldn't think, but maybe it's not as simple as that.

One thing I think is interesting is that for four rounds, only one player in the field shot significantly better than his/her expected score.

Chap

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in ball golf, when handicaps are applied hole by hole based on difficulty, you're just allocating strokes based on handicap. You're not changing the par of a hole. If I'm a high handicapper playing against a low handicap golfer, a certain number of strokes get allocated to me on each hole, but the par never changes. For example, if I'm a high handicapper on a difficult par 3, I might get two strokes allocated to me versus a low handicap golfer. But it doesn't mean that I think of the hole now as a par 5.


Jeff, you are absolutely correct.

In a PGA handicap tournament (and I've played in a few), if I have a 22 handicap, then I will get one stroke on the easiest 14 holes, and a two stroke handicap on the toughest 4 holes. The toughness of each hole is determined ahead of time, and listed on the scorecard...the toughest hole is #1 handicap, and the easiest is the #18 handicap (there's some other caviats as well, but that's basic gist of it).

If I'm getting 2 strokes on a hole, and I score a 7, then I would write a 5 on the scorecard. I actually made an eagle on a par-4 hole I was getting 2 strokes on in a tournament, and got to write down a "Zero" on the scorecard (that was fun). Holed one out from 115 yards.

The idea is that par never changes, that it's static for everyone; it's a constant standard for the set course. The idea of "personal par" smells a little bit of the "pro par" and "public par" idea that I thought we'd pretty much done away with.

I'm all for this event...I wish I could have gone and played in it. But yeah, there's a couple of things I'd change. If you replace "personal par" with "expected score", you're probably a little more in line with reality and common practice.

After watching that entire interview, I have nothing but mad respect for Jonathan Poole and the USDGC. I've never seen someone in disc golf get peppered with so many pointed questions and answer them so honestly. I can't wait for the follow up interview. :cool:

Here's my only critique of this year's event: attached is the screen capture of the scorecard for our winner John Key. Again, my beef is with his "personal par" listed as 89, which means not a single hole on the entire course is a par 3. Three other holes are par 6 holes, and hole#13 is a par 8! There surely has to be a better way to make handicap adjustments in the scoring layout without changing what we consider par for the hole. This can still be done individually on each hole, or at the end of the round based on total score. Just call it something like expected score (as Chappy suggests) instead of par.

I played Old Settler's park at the USWDGC the OB lines were murder. Made for an awesome layout. I can't be convinced that OB is that punitive. I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around an 880 player winning this thing. The 7 stroke swing on one hole really confuses me.

Keep in mind that they are playing a course where many holes' fairways are lined with OB on both sides and stroke-and-distance rules are in effect every time they go OB.

Try going out to your local course this weekend, and every time you throw off the fairway, you gotta re-throw from your previous lie with a penalty stroke. How much ya wanna bet that you'll shoot 3+ strokes worse than you normally do! :D

It wouldn't be the same course then. Par would definitely be higher and the 3+ strokes that you added to your score might give you a better score compared to par! Apples and oranges.

I had a mild interest as I know a couple of the players. I checked to see how they did each day. Otherwise, ZZZZ, yawn. I could care less. I really wanted to know who acually scored the lowest. I really don't care won won the event. I wanted to see who had the lowest scores even if they didn't beat their projected scores by as much. I found following USDGC to be a math problem that had was of no interest to me. I suspect it may have been cool for merely excellent players to get a chance to play the courrse with tremendous players. Then again, most of the tremendous players were not there. Beyond that do you really go around saying you beat Feldberg or Schultz or do you merely take pride is saying, "I played way above my rating."

Fast forward to 11:00 and listen to the TD himself explain it (http://youtu.be/UVjB6BujjPw). And then go back and listen to the whole interview. Especially what he has to say about touring pros at ~25:25.

I heard that interview a few months ago. He makes good points and I agree with him.

It's still incredible they think this years tournament is the same as the past 12. It's not.

They missed a huge chance to create another quality brand in disc golf, instead they tarnished one they put so much time and effort creating.

It is interesting to me to read some of the comments. Several of the posters criticizing the format have long posted about how the market determines attendance at tourneys. Run a good tourney, folks will come next time. Run a poor one, they won't come back. I would think that holds true here but I guess not.

Someone else talked about how disc golf is at the same point it was 10 years ago and this change isn't going to help. Ummm, another way to look at it is we have done things the same way for 10 years and we at still at the same point. maybe it is time for a change.

Don't like the name for the different event, don't like the format, fine, don't play. When you have a super nice course, and put up a bunch of money and time, you can set up the tourney however you want and call it what ever you want.

it almost seems like people feel entitled to have "their" USDGC every October. Guess what, it isn't YOUR event but is Harold's and Innova's and they can do what they want.

OK, off my soapbox. I'll now return you to the regular complaining. Enjoy

Fast forward to 11:00 and listen to the TD himself explain it (http://youtu.be/UVjB6BujjPw). And then go back and listen to the whole interview. Especially what he has to say about touring pros at ~25:25.


Thanks for link Jeff. Mr. Poole is one impressive guy, and Mr. Crump did a dam fine interview.

Any time a tourney is held with handicaps involved it is difficult to control the bagging. Same problems have existed in bowling alleys and public golf links for 100 years. Baggers with inflated handicaps are everywhere.

Aside from that, I still would have liked to have played last week. Just too far to travel.

So I look at the PDGA stats on John Key, 1 PDGA Event, looking further the Southern National Tour seems to have John Key as a pretty much I play a whole bunch more than just 1 round, and my rating and experience is over 20 competitive rounds not just one round. Looks to me the Southern National Tour (SN or S/N) Cloaked his rating.

If we can't incorporate a national ratings system, and SN & PDGA can't work together on creating it than how is that gonna work?

I have heard stories that these two organizations are not exactly cooperative, money, power, Blah Blah. The ratings need to merge.

The future of Global Disc Golf is what is at risk, an entirely separate organization is co-existing and created an unfair advantage that made it look like an 880 player wins.

After listening to the Poole interview, and realizing it was not a cash event, only a trophy event, I do suppport the concept, but the ratings have to become a standard. If SN wants it's individuality so be it, but everyone needs to use the same ratings system.

So what happened? Only reason I knew this happened is because Birdman didn't show up to Oktoberfest.

LAME-O...........Thank god for the Player's Cup