mavsfan0434
Par Member
Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Not the case at all and it was clarified earlier in the thread. Ricky should have been probed more for sure, but he was not told he could not mention the molds being thrown.
Yeah, yeah, enough talk about video coverage from the few thousand who are interested in that sort of thing. Let's talk about whether par was accurate - for the several who are passionate about that sort of thing.
You could have thrown even par with an average round rating of just 977. That's too easy in my book. That resulted in the winning score being 12 under par per round, which is more than even Steve Dodge's liberal 9 under tolerance. It's also 3 throws per round out of the money.
Based on the scores, a par of59 would be justified with Holes 18, 11, 4, 2, 6, and 13 (in that order) most in need of having par be one lower than it was. That would have produced an average round rating for par play of 1022. Seems tough, but remember the "How to speak Australian" commercials? Appropriate for the location. Par of 59 would be near the middle of those who cash. Also, it would make the value of a birdie most nearly equal to the cost of a bogey.
Of course, to avoid having certain pro players' heads explode at the sight of par 2s, it wouldn't be the end of the world to keep holes 13 and 18 as the two easiest-to-birdie holes at par 3 for a total par of 61. That would be rated 1007 and also would be in the bottom half of the money winners. Winning scores would have been 8 under per round.
Yeah, yeah, enough talk about video coverage from the few thousand who are interested in that sort of thing. Let's talk about whether par was accurate - for the several who are passionate about that sort of thing.
You could have thrown even par with an average round rating of just 977. That's too easy in my book. That resulted in the winning score being 12 under par per round, which is more than even Steve Dodge's liberal 9 under tolerance. It's also 3 throws per round out of the money.
Based on the scores, a par of59 would be justified with Holes 18, 11, 4, 2, 6, and 13 (in that order) most in need of having par be one lower than it was. That would have produced an average round rating for par play of 1022. Seems tough, but remember the "How to speak Australian" commercials? Appropriate for the location. Par of 59 would be near the middle of those who cash. Also, it would make the value of a birdie most nearly equal to the cost of a bogey.
Of course, to avoid having certain pro players' heads explode at the sight of par 2s, it wouldn't be the end of the world to keep holes 13 and 18 as the two easiest-to-birdie holes at par 3 for a total par of 61. That would be rated 1007 and also would be in the bottom half of the money winners. Winning scores would have been 8 under per round.
Par is just another way of stating the overall shots/throws. Even if you change the pars, players will still shoot a 48.
Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time
Nice work overall The SpinTV and the event organizers. Just finished watching the final round. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Well edited, and nicely called. Total of one hour time investment is totally doable. I enjoyed watching the players navigate this course and seeing the shots it required.
Crazy how easy those guys make it look.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but is Jamie commenting already having known what happens? Must be right?
I'm torn between par 2 and changing the holes.
Yes. They film, edit highlights, then add commentary.
I still genuinely believe that if we want Disc Golf to be taken seriously as a competitive sport (and I know I want that, y'all can speak for yourselves), then "Par 2" would utterly destroy any chance of that. I'd rather have those holes birdied by the pros in a "drive and drop" every time than humiliate the game of Disc Golf by having "Par 2" on any hole at any time. JMHO, YMMV.
After watching the Aussie Open, I've come to the general conclusion that some of these guys are just so good that the "what is a proper par" issue is never going to be resolved. Golf ball golf figured it out by "Tiger-proofing" courses. In Disc Golf, anything "Paul-proofed" or "Ricky-proofed" or "Simon-proofed" or "Eagle-proofed" is going to be ugly for the main body of pro players. So it is what it is, and it will be what it will be... provided the humiliation of "Par 2" is not made a part of the great game of DG.
That's why I don't base par on what "some of these guys" do. I base it on what a 1000-rated player would do. In this case, 69% of 1000-rated players got a 2 on 13, and 57% got a 2 on 18. That's enough for me to call these par 2s for Open players.
Some of these guys will get a lot of 2s on par 3s (even legit par 3s). There's no problem with that. However, on some holes being labeled "par 3" that score of 2 will gain them a throw, and on others it won't. That's means the par is not correct, or informative, or serious.
We know which holes are par 2; we have a whole list of euphemisms for them. Wouldn't the sport be taken more seriously if it had accurate pars than if we had to explain why getting a birdie on some holes is good, and on others is nothing; while getting par on some holes will hurt the player's chances and on others it won't?
I'd like to know what is so magical about the phrase "par 2" that it has the power to "utterly destroy". Do people who watch a new sport have pre-programmed phrases in their head that will trigger a NOT SERIOUS reflex. ("What is this futbol? I'll watch it, but if they say 'bicycle kick' I won't take it seriously.")
Anybody who plays or watches knows within the first few minutes that there are some holes an expert player would expect to get a 2 on.
Maybe we should eliminate all holes that are so easy they are actually par 2. But, until then I'm not OK with trying to use an alternative fact to make the sport look more serous.
In this case, 69% of 1000-rated players got a 2 on 13, and 57% got a 2 on 18. That's enough for me to call these par 2s for Open players.
We know which holes are par 2; we have a whole list of euphemisms for them. Wouldn't the sport be taken more seriously if it had accurate pars than if we had to explain why getting a birdie on some holes is good, and on others is nothing; while getting par on some holes will hurt the player's chances and on others it won't?
I'd like to know what is so magical about the phrase "par 2" that it has the power to "utterly destroy". Do people who watch a new sport have pre-programmed phrases in their head that will trigger a NOT SERIOUS reflex. ("What is this futbol? I'll watch it, but if they say 'bicycle kick' I won't take it seriously.")
Maybe we should eliminate all holes that are so easy they are actually par 2. But, until then I'm not OK with trying to use an alternative fact to make the sport look more serous.
Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time
I still genuinely believe that if we want Disc Golf to be taken seriously as a competitive sport (and I know I want that, y'all can speak for yourselves), then "Par 2" would utterly destroy any chance of that. I'd rather have those holes birdied by the pros in a "drive and drop" every time than humiliate the game of Disc Golf by having "Par 2" on any hole at any time. JMHO, YMMV.
After watching the Aussie Open, I've come to the general conclusion that some of these guys are just so good that the "what is a proper par" issue is never going to be resolved. Golf ball golf figured it out by "Tiger-proofing" courses. In Disc Golf, anything "Paul-proofed" or "Ricky-proofed" or "Simon-proofed" or "Eagle-proofed" is going to be ugly for the main body of pro players. So it is what it is, and it will be what it will be... provided the humiliation of "Par 2" is not made a part of the great game of DG.
As SD eludes to we can't just lengthen everything out, although that is the most straight forward solution. For example, having 800-1000 FT PAR 4s would put these guys 400+ foot out on lots of up shots. They would be hitting their "long irons" and we would see less birdies, but a large % of the field would be at such a huge disadvantage because of the distance gap between the top guys and everyone else, which turns out to be a disproportionate % of the field.
You made a lot of good points. The above quote is what I wanted to respond to. All-open courses are IMHO part of the problem. The Eagles and Simons (and Rickys and Pauls) can accurately torch a 300 ft. throw, a 400 ft. throw, and get the disc out there to 500 ft. and maybe more.
Ergo: my own potential solution for the low overall scores is to have more holes in wooded/technical conditions. It's still a separator (the best players will still come out on top), but it will reduce the "easy" open shots for the big arms.
So a "balanced" course, with at least half the holes being non-open or "technical" holes, would IMHO improve how the overall scoring looks in relation to par, still provide a strong challenge to the best players, still provide separation, and be fun to watch (at least for me). And no need for "Par 2" holes...