2017 Aussie Open DGWT Event Discussion

[mavsfan0434]

Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time

 

[sandman16]

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.

Ah I forgot about Barsby mentioning trilogy discs

 

[Steve West]

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.

 

[esdubya]

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?

 

[lyleoross]

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.

Steve West for par czar!

I drank the coolaide a long time ago. Legitimacy matters to me. Now we need a bumper sticker that says, Par Matters!

I'm torn between par 2 and changing the holes. I don't really think drive and drop holes are interesting.

 

[sandman16]

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.

 

[Steve West]

Par is just another way of stating the overall shots/throws. Even if you change the pars, players will still shoot a 48.

But we'll know just how good that 48 was, without exaggeration.

 

[takman]

Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time

It seemed like Eagle shortened his run-up on 18 which may have led to the pull right. Doesn't seem fully set when he starts the throw IMO.

 

[lyleoross]

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?

Yes. They film, edit highlights, then add commentary.

 

[SD86]

I'm torn between par 2 and changing the holes.

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.

 

[SD86]

Yes. They film, edit highlights, then add commentary.

Also, there was one CCDG video where Simon Lizotte was commentating... he was in Europe and Ian (and maybe someone else?) was in America. You'd never know it except they told us.

And that's part of the dynamic of these announcers, like Avery and Barsby or Jamie and Ian... they may well not be in the same room when they're commenting on the same round! They figure it out, but it's something to remember when talking about 'commentator dynamics' (sounds like a p-chem course, but I digress...)

 

[Steve West]

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.

 

[gdub58]

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.

Without data to back it up, you will never convince me that there are people who don't take disc golf seriously because 80% of a pro field birdies a hole or because the winning score is -50. People don't take disc golf seriously for a number of reasons, mostly because they don't play it seriously. I don't take the sport of curling seriously - I think it's ridiculous. So is competitive dodge ball IMO.

My biggest issue with calling a hole a Par 2 is that, by doing so, you effectively make it impossible to birdie it.

We've had these discussions many times before, and I understand you are the #1 advocate for "correct pars". What I always find interesting though, is that you quite often make these judgments after seeing how the players performed on a hole. In this case, because 57% of the players got a two on #18, you say it should be a Par 2. What if only 35% did, perhaps because the wind was really strong during the tournament? Would it still be a Par 2?

 

[SD86]

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.

Respectfully disagree. I don't have numbers on hand, but I'm thinking of the percentage of PGA ball golf players that birdie par 5 holes. Also, I might grant you the 70% figure, but 57% birdie means 43% otherwise, and that's not an overwhelming percentage for the birdies, IMHO.

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?

No, I don't think it would be taken more seriously if those "accurate pars" were Par 2, and see below for why.

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.")

Because of golf ball golf, yes, people WILL have a pre-programmed situation in their head. Par 3 is the minimum they will expect. They will consider Par 2 to be gimmicky (at best). I sincerely believe "Par 2" will have a chilling, negative affect on the game's popularity and growth.

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.

Not sure which "alternative facts" are being discussed. I do wish we could make it where all holes are at least a legitimate par 3, and where the par 4s were a legitimate challenge to get a birdie 3 upon. And I know that the Eagle McMahons and Paul McBeths are going to shred almost any course that a 1000 rated player would score par upon.

I also wish more big-time tournaments like Worlds had at least half the holes go through the woods instead of open fields. THAT is what will help bring overall scores back down from the -42s and such. But I also know there are problems making that happen.

My bottom line is that I believe having "Par 2" holes will hurt what the DGWT (among others) is trying to do to grow the sport. Others will disagree. Maybe we should start a DGCR poll... no better scientific way to determine it for sure.

 

[RomServo]

Good lord I just finished watching...that may be the most painful last 2 holes I've seen in a long time

That was by far the most gripping disc golf battle ive ever witnessed! Jeeeeez.

 

[Lazerface]

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.

I agree with most of this. I'm assuming the concern you guys have on the PARs is that a 16 under round sounds illegitimate to an outsider and since we are a golf game it would be nice if the score relative to PAR was more in line with traditional golf PAR. I agree that would be ideal, but simply changing the PARs on existing holes, or having a PAR 2 just creates that same sort of problem in a different way. Players would no longer be putting for birdies, but throwing/approaching for birdie. The underlying issue is the difficulty of traditional golf, specifically with getting "up and down" and putting. I don't think being 100 foot out on PAR 4s for a birdie, or having to throw an ace for a birdie (1 under PAR on a PAR 2) is a good solution. It has to come through course design or equipment alteration (smaller baskets maybe, but I'm on the fence on that). 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. So we need a much deeper pool of talent in our sport. There are a few courses on tour that produce realistic scores relative to PAR for the whole field, but like the talent pool, we need a deeper pool of those kind of courses.

I think with the addition of the new tours (DGWT, DGPT) and the ever growing talent pool, especially with young guns, we will start to see an increase in quality courses at our big events. Demand is being created for championship course design from the tours and players alike. Hopefully we will start to see more courses on dedicated land and in less of a park setting.

The putting/small basket discussion wraps into this "PAR problem" concept as well.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

I just luv par talk

 

[SD86]

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...

 

[Lazerface]

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...

Right.

Steve you can't reply because we derailed the thread. Called it, no fair changing.

 

[armiller]

Maybe this should all be in the "Should the Aussie Open be a Major?" thread. I think the 16 under round was very impressive. These were the best (or at least a decent sampling of the best) players in the world playing lights-out golf and shooting a great score on what would be a difficult course for mere mortals. That's fine for a tournament, but maybe not fine for a major.

I think people have said this in other threads. But it largely comes down to course design.

[MakePeopleMadByComparingToGolf]
Golf majors are played at particular difficult courses. I'm not a big golf guy, but isn't the US Open famous for being difficult? 6 of the last 9 winners have finished at par or over par. The problem is that we don't have any (or maybe we have very few) courses up to standard with golf majors and don't have the resources to tweak existing courses. Even on courses with lots of difficult holes, there are always a couple (two, in the Aussie Open's case) which are basically jammed in for practical reasons and a "must get," as Ian might say. A top pro isn't often going to finish above par on these courses because even on an off day he/she ought to get a few easy ones.
[/MakePeopleMadByComparingToGolf]

So, you want course par at a tournament to be legit? You need to start designing a course from scratch on empty/unused land with 1) changes in elevation, 2) existing water or terrain where water hazards can be added, 3) money for all the landscaping/trimming/excavating and other costs, and 4) a designer who has the creativity along with the understanding of the game.

Of course that's my opinion. By the way, I really don't think the par is an issue. I suppose I'd like to see these awesome players on courses that challenge them more, but watching more players get bad scores won't make disc golf more fun to watch. Is there any reason not to kill par altogether? Maybe there's some other measure of hole difficulty that could be used, e.g. Steve's assessment of what a 1000-rated player should get. If nothing else, eliminating similar terms would at least help me stop comparing to golf.