The Inevitable 2022 Pros Switching Sponsors Thread

[brutalbrutus]

so many buzzkills

we already have a bajillion events that are all essentially all the exact same format/scoring/faces etc other than location.

I for one wish we had more pro events that try something different.

I would what a DG Stableford tourney would look like?... lol

 

[biscoe]

I could be wrong, but I can't recall a ton of male players using a disc primarily because of an FPO players success. JK valks maybe?

When those discs were around i think players used them more in spite of the name on them than because of. There was definitely talk that having a female's name on them was not a help to sales.

 

[Moose33]

When those discs were around i think players used them more in spite of the name on them than because of. There was definitely talk that having a female's name on them was not a help to sales.

That was my thought as well, but you would know better than I would since I came into the sport around that time. 2011/12

 

[Bush122]

I would what a DG Stableford tourney would look like?... lol

About the same as novice players on Northwoods Black I'd imagine.

Which now that I think of it....

 

[Dcinmd]

I would what a DG Stableford tourney would look like?... lol

Something like this. Bored TD on New years day.

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/47844

 

[txmxer]

I mean - sure. If you either a) don't put in the time practicing or b) you're bad at developing practice routines. If one of those options is true of any given pro - utilizing a minimalist approach on the course is a good idea for your performance. But, given that these players are out there on tour throughout the year ostensibly focused on their disc golf careers: there is no reason to not be wholly dialed with both the backhand and the forehand option, outside of personal physical or mental limitations.

Why would James, or Drew, or Calvin not have a killer forehand if it's just a matter of putting in the work?

 

[pjhayes7]

Why would James, or Drew, or Calvin not have a killer forehand if it's just a matter of putting in the work?

Maybe they don't feel the need for a strong forehand enough to put in that work. Just because something may make you better, you may determine the effort required is not worth the slight benefit.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I think someone with a disc golf themed restaurant/bar (does this exist?) needs to celebrate Tattar's new contract by introducing a new menu item.

TattarTots.

I'm sure someone more creative than me could come up with the right menu description/dipping sauces...

 

[ChrisWoj]

Why would James, or Drew, or Calvin not have a killer forehand if it's just a matter of putting in the work?

Because they haven't.

You could have asked the same question of Nikko Locastro for over 10 years.

 

[Steve West]

I would what a DG Stableford tourney would look like?... lol

It would actually be a better test of skill than regular scoring.

See page 6 of: http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Squeezing_More_Information_out_of_Disc_Golf_Scores.pdf.

 

[pjhayes7]

It would actually be a better test of skill than regular scoring.

See page 6 of: http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Squeezing_More_Information_out_of_Disc_Golf_Scores.pdf.

Not going to read that whole thing, but is the gist of it that eagles and birdies require skill where bogeys or worse are often cause by unlucky breaks? I mean it is rare that a slight tree kick would make a birdy or better more likely than a throw that was completely clean. Vs a bogey or worse often happens by being off by just a little.

 

[BryanC]

Why would James, or Drew, or Calvin not have a killer forehand if it's just a matter of putting in the work?

Calvin has a pretty good forehand, he just doesn't use it that often.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

Why would James, or Drew, or Calvin not have a killer forehand if it's just a matter of putting in the work?

Calvin has a pretty good forehand, he just doesn't use it that often.

Calvin has an underrated FH for certain. Drew also utilizes his FH more often than the comments here suggest. He used it a fair amount at USDGC, most notably flicking his Firebird on the vaunted Hole 17.

 

[dehaas]

Back in the day I can't remember any of the guys I played with who thought negatively of the jk valk or aviar.

They were great discs and she dominated the ladies field at the time, no big deal.

 

[Steve West]

Not going to read that whole thing, but is the gist of it that eagles and birdies require skill where bogeys or worse are often cause by unlucky breaks? I mean it is rare that a slight tree kick would make a birdy or better more likely than a throw that was completely clean. Vs a bogey or worse often happens by being off by just a little.

Pretty much. Another way to look at it is that a 7 can turn into an 8 a lot easier than a 3 can turn into a 2.

 

[rjnoodlearm]

It would actually be a better test of skill than regular scoring.

It's not at all clear to me that your thesis is correct. One of the easiest axles to get wrapped around is mathematics. You're basing a mountain of a mathematical postulation on a foundation of "par". Par is at best a fun target to aim at, nothing more.

If your suggested system were adopted then a massive furor would immediately breakout over what the proper par is for every disc golf hole in the world. Furthermore the argument that "luck" only (or mainly) affects "bad" scores and not "good" scores is specious. When throwing through woods, if hitting a tree is "bad luck" then missing all the tree has an element of "good luck". It doesn't have any logic otherwise. One can't have ying without also taking yang.

We just saw Ricky take a 7 on Hole 2 at the Hornet's Nest. Quite frankly I didn't see much "luck" involved. As much as I like and root for Ricky he just played the hole terribly. Even if you somehow ascribe "luck" as the culprit on his initial throw, he still should have taken a four at worst.

Should guys who drive a baseball to the warning track get credit for .25 of a home run? If the center-fielder leaps above the fence to snag your drive should you get .667 of a home run? Any system will have some technical flaws and anomalies especially at the extremes but the current scoring system is just fine.

 

[Rastnav]

I would what a DG Stableford tourney would look like?... lol

Well, Gatekeeper Media has their "Iron Man Scratch" series. It's similar to Stableford, except that they play every hole as a Par 3. "Pars" are worth 1 point, "Birdies" are 3 points, Aces are 10 points. Bogey twice in a row and your score resets to zero.

Works better on some courses, worse an others. Still interesting.

 

[Steve West]

It's not at all clear to me that your thesis is correct. One of the easiest axles to get wrapped around is mathematics. You're basing a mountain of a mathematical postulation on a foundation of "par". Par is at best a fun target to aim at, nothing more.

If your suggested system were adopted then a massive furor would immediately breakout over what the proper par is for every disc golf hole in the world. Furthermore the argument that "luck" only (or mainly) affects "bad" scores and not "good" scores is specious. When throwing through woods, if hitting a tree is "bad luck" then missing all the tree has an element of "good luck". It doesn't have any logic otherwise. One can't have ying without also taking yang.

We just saw Ricky take a 7 on Hole 2 at the Hornet's Nest. Quite frankly I didn't see much "luck" involved. As much as I like and root for Ricky he just played the hole terribly. Even if you somehow ascribe "luck" as the culprit on his initial throw, he still should have taken a four at worst.

Should guys who drive a baseball to the warning track get credit for .25 of a home run? If the center-fielder leaps above the fence to snag your drive should you get .667 of a home run? Any system will have some technical flaws and anomalies especially at the extremes but the current scoring system is just fine.

Par has been solved. That's not an issue.

Which do you think says more about the way Emerson Keith played at USDGC: The 10 over par on one hole, or the 10 under par total on 68 other holes?

Would it be at all credible to say I was better than Emerson if I got only 9 over on that particular hole? Or would it be more credible to say I was better if I got 11 under total on 68 other holes?

Obviously I have no chance at one of those. Yet, the raw scores can't tell the difference.

 

[ILUVSMGS18]

Who wins in said hypothetical match?

Discraft, and it's likely not close. Paul, Paige, Hailey and ? would be hard to beat at almost any course.

 

[glassila]

Par is at best a fun target to aim at, nothing more.

Seriously? That's your interpretation of "par" :doh: