The Rumble 2019 presented by Discraft and Clint's Draft House

[JC17393]

I think some water hazards are okay. As with any design element, moderation is key. 3-4 water holes per 18 is about the limit IMO, at least in terms of holes where water is clearly going to be a factor. But even then, they need to be well designed holes. I've seen plenty of poorly made holes that border on abuse due to the way the water hazard is used.

I've only watched the first half of round 1, but one hole stood out to me as ridiculous. I think it was 19. The players were throwing across the water to a very thin strip of grass (less than 20 feet wide) bordered on one side by thick trees and brush and the other by water. Castro had the "best" drive in that he was in circle 1, but his putt was completely obstructed despite being less than 20 feet from the basket. I don't generally have a problem with obstacles like that in the circle, but having that there and an equal portion of the circle on the other side of the basket be water is bad. UDisc says the scoring average on that hole in round 1 was 3.88 (par 3)...most difficult hole of the day. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[AHagglund]

I think holes 18 and 20 are more ridiculous, actually.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I think some water hazards are okay. As with any design element, moderation is key. 3-4 water holes per 18 is about the limit IMO, at least in terms of holes where water is clearly going to be a factor. But even then, they need to be well designed holes. I've seen plenty of poorly made holes that border on abuse due to the way the water hazard is used.

I've only watched the first half of round 1, but one hole stood out to me as ridiculous. I think it was 19. The players were throwing across the water to a very thin strip of grass (less than 20 feet wide) bordered on one side by thick trees and brush and the other by water. Castro had the "best" drive in that he was in circle 1, but his putt was completely obstructed despite being less than 20 feet from the basket. I don't generally have a problem with obstacles like that in the circle, but having that there and an equal portion of the circle on the other side of the basket be water is bad. UDisc says the scoring average on that hole in round 1 was 3.88 (par 3)...most difficult hole of the day. Can't say I'm surprised.

Full disclosure, I'm a 920ish rated player (best estimation).
There's this tension between challenging the very best players and making the same course "playable" (read "fun") for most everyone else.
The design element that is essential for a course like this to be accessible/playable to all levels of play is a "dump" area where 920ish players can make a relatively safe throw and accept par or even bogey. Did I miss those?
If this course were near me, I would not play it often. When/If I did play it, some holes would be skipped entirely, or water-safe temp-tees would be improvised. Most of these Pros get their discs for free. I have to pay for mine.
Otherwise, I enjoyed watching them meet the challenge of the water, wind and OB in that first round.

 

[BionicRib]

West lake from the shorts isnt too bad. If you want a brutal beat down play the longs. You will lose discs either way. They both will test every aspect of your game to the fullest, especially how well you can cope with stress.

It is usually fairly windy there, but those winds during the first round are not the norm.

If you lose a lot of plastic imo its mainly because you havent learned how/when to layup. Most of the crazy water shots have bailout areas (yes some are tight and full of rough).

Either way i still love that course.....its also never crowded because a lot of people are scared of it.

 

[Jolt]

For the FPO field the "West Lake Park" course looks to be on the "not so fun" side . . looking att Udisc they have played 4holes and not a single Birdy in the field, not even that many pars. . mostly bogeys or worse, not that fun

 

[brutalbrutus]

Didn't AM Worlds use this course recently?...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Didn't AM Worlds use this course recently?...

Only Advanced MA1 from what I recall.

 

[sjberry2017]

That sounds familiar, maybe. Regardless, Cale's a great commentator.

I think he's also done some work with Par Save Productions

 

[brutalbrutus]

back9...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnYcK2ULHzQ

 

[ChrisWoj]

Intro to F9 by Jomez - Collin is the only one that doesn't look middle-aged on his way to old.

Man that makes me feel old...

 

[ChrisWoj]

Hole 2 - Paul makes from 30-33 (9 steps, 1 short first step, 1 on point 2nd step, and 7 4' steps) and calls it a 27 footer. Anyone else always amused by how off even the best pros are about how far they are from the basket (unless they're within 5-6 feet of a painted line).....

 

[ChrisWoj]

Hole 11 - Paul: "close to 30 feet, 20 to 30, you know."

For us mortals 20' and 30' are very different, just so you know Paul.

 

[Steve West]

Hole 2 - Paul makes from 30-33 (9 steps, 1 short first step, 1 on point 2nd step, and 7 4' steps) and calls it a 27 footer. Anyone else always amused by how off even the best pros are about how far they are from the basket (unless they're within 5-6 feet of a painted line).....

Wait, if he was throwing from 30-33, wouldn't he be within 5-6 feet of a painted line?

A man's step is about half his height, so you're saying Paul is 8 feet tall? That would explain a lot.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Wait, if he was throwing from 30-33, wouldn't he be within 5-6 feet of a painted line?

A man's step is about half his height, so you're saying Paul is 8 feet tall? That would explain a lot.

As a stats guy you should know full well how absurd it is to use an average when you're presented with direct evidence.

As for the painted line - I assume there isn't one at the event.

Watch the event and tell me: on that putt do you actually believe he is taking 3' paces? And if so - how small do you think his shoes are?

 

[tone4]

27' looks about right. From toe to toe 4' is a long way.

 

[ChrisWoj]

27' looks about right. From toe to toe 4' is a long way.

As someone who has had to spend a few years teaching orienteering - it really isn't a long way. It is a "purposeful" stride with a little tension felt at the hips for a person just under 6' with typical flexibility. The last step McBeth took on retrieving that putt, unless he wears size 6 shoes, was around 4.5 feet easily.

 

[Jolt]

It´s nuts how good Paul is playing at the moment.

I feel like his rating for the last round was kind of "low" . . he shot 5 throws better than the second best, but only got 27points higher rating

 

[TimSyl]

Hole 2 - Paul makes from 30-33 (9 steps, 1 short first step, 1 on point 2nd step, and 7 4' steps) and calls it a 27 footer. Anyone else always amused by how off even the best pros are about how far they are from the basket (unless they're within 5-6 feet of a painted line).....

You think McBeth takes 4' steps??????????? (Oh, I didn't read on to see the further discussion about this. Long time ball golfer, had my strides pretty close to 3'...PM is about the same height...a 4' stride is really long for someone 5'8"ish).

 

[Steve West]

As a stats guy you should know full well how absurd it is to use an average when you're presented with direct evidence.

Your guess is evidence? Then, so is Paul's right? Let me think, who should I trust? One guy is the best in the world at judging his distance to a target and was actually there. The other guy, uh...

As for the painted line - I assume there isn't one at the event.

There is. White line with white flags to make it more visible.

Watch the event and tell me: on that putt do you actually believe he is taking 3' paces? And if so - how small do you think his shoes are?

I did, I do, and I don't see how his shoes matter at all.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Your guess is evidence? Then, so is Paul's right? Let me think, who should I trust? One guy is the best in the world at judging his distance to a target and was actually there. The other guy, uh...

You're making just as big an assumption as I am in saying "one guy is the best in the world at judging his distance to a target." - you have absolutely no idea how well his internal system for calibrating his putts is tied into actual physical feet/meters. All that matters is how he perceives each putt in relation to his other putts based on what he arbitrarily intakes visually.

As for "the other guy" - the "other guy" has flags down at 3' intervals between 2 baskets out to 48' and putts on them daily, and has taught orienteering (the actual physical activity associated with what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about Paul's putting skills) for two years. I've been around Paul and know how tall he is relative to me and I can recognize in his strides whether he's taking a long or short stride relative to 3' (for reference my own orienteering pace is consistently measured at 6'9" or 3'4.5" per step). Each step he's taking there is demonstrating more movement at the hips than someone taking 3' per step even when accounting for the uphill involved in the stride.

There is. White line with white flags to make it more visible.

I saw the flags, didn't see the white line in video - so that was an assumption.

I did, I do, and I don't see how his shoes matter at all.

Because, visually, we can see how long his steps are. Shoe sizes are fairly standard. When you can put screen grabs of the video (Paul is walking horizontally across the frame) into Photoshop and measure out that his steps are each creating easily greater than 2 shoe lengths between heel of lead foot and toe of trailing foot on each step - it makes it fairly obvious.