_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
Agree and disagree.
The data from MA2 players won't matter, you are spot on there.
Sure, you don't get data from Wysocki in a C tier, but plenty of 1010-1020 players over the course of a year.
-
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)
2017 USDGC
- Thread starter tom12003
- Start date
Agree and disagree.
The data from MA2 players won't matter, you are spot on there.
Sure, you don't get data from Wysocki in a C tier, but plenty of 1010-1020 players over the course of a year.
ScottyLove
Double Eagle Member
Thanks! That is a page I needed to find. I was doing the work manually using old results!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,838
Minor leagues and pre-season games are full of a lot of players with top-level skills. The only way you get enough top-level disc golfers to show up is have big event. One or two at each of several events just doesn't provide enough data.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
C tier events have plenty of 1000 rated guys play them.
There's only 12 people 1030 or over (where the real elite level begins) and only 9 of them are playing USDGC.
chrissauls
Par Member
I wonder how many strokes will be saved by these post from discs hitting them and dropping next to the basket. It seems to me a red roped OB line or hazard line near the fence or basket would serve the same purpose and would have looked a whole lot better.
BionicRib
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,617
Maybe not, but it could give us a good idea of whether it's worth trying or not.
You wouldn't want to see bigger or smaller baseball's implemented only during the world series would ya?
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
Harold Duvall
Bogey Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 90
Hi Lyle,
One of the design limitations for hole 2 is the proximity of the fence to the target. It's relatively easy for the players at this level to use the fence as a backstop, particularly for sidearm, anyhyzer, and rolling approaches. Low hanging limbs mitigated the backstop advantage in the past, but the limbs were cut over the winter leaving (as you can see in the picture) a pretty easy putt from the fence and taking a lot of the teeth out of the left side OB. The old limbs did not preclude a putt, but they forced an altered putt. Likewise, the new posts do not block putts, but they force an angled release. As in other places, a huge wall does not quite seem like the right solution.
My son Andrew has overseen the design layout and course updates for Winthrop Gold this year. Andrew's goal with the specific arrangement of the posts was to:
1) Avoid stymies for sure and also avoid the need for extreme angles. Andrew chose gaps of about two and a half feet between posts. It appears that players should be able to negotiate the posts with less than 45 degrees of angle.
2) Lessen the boundary effect that MTL described. As with all obstacles, there is a consequence boundary. Andrew chose a semicircular design in concert with width of the gaps to lessen the boundary consequence. A little bit longer or righter is harder but not much harder. Way right against the fence is definitely harder, but not impossible. We wanted to approximate the effect of the old branches; adding hazard near the green would have been a much higher consequence than the branches posed previously.
3) Avoid having the posts themselves acting as a backstop as Chris described. The posts are four feet from the pole. The close distance seemed to keep the potential backstop small while allowing sufficient room for the players to negotiate reasonably angled putts.
4) Be reasonably conservative. This is a new concept that may have applications on other courses. It could have been made tougher and still have been fair and reasonable. But we did not want to introduce the concept with an extreme version. I feel the Championship works as venue to introduce new ideas because it has a lot of interested stakeholders and we know we can learn from input for next year just as we did in the past with tee times, multiple multiple shot holes, fundraising discs, hazard, etc.
The jury is still out on the height of the posts. The current height seems to look better, but it provides a bit more of a backstop. Coming back and chainsawing the tops off if necessary seemed easier than pulling them out and raising them.
Real trees would definitely look better. We looked at Italian Cypress, but adequately sized ones were pretty expensive. I was also concerned about the need to adjust the layout in the future. Transplanting trees is always a dicey proposition, even when care is taken. We looked at artificial trees, but there were also pricey. When we finalize the arrangement, we might plant English Ivy to wrap around the posts. I think that would be a nice look. For now, I will say that the posts are quite drought and critter resistant.
~ Harold
One of the design limitations for hole 2 is the proximity of the fence to the target. It's relatively easy for the players at this level to use the fence as a backstop, particularly for sidearm, anyhyzer, and rolling approaches. Low hanging limbs mitigated the backstop advantage in the past, but the limbs were cut over the winter leaving (as you can see in the picture) a pretty easy putt from the fence and taking a lot of the teeth out of the left side OB. The old limbs did not preclude a putt, but they forced an altered putt. Likewise, the new posts do not block putts, but they force an angled release. As in other places, a huge wall does not quite seem like the right solution.
My son Andrew has overseen the design layout and course updates for Winthrop Gold this year. Andrew's goal with the specific arrangement of the posts was to:
1) Avoid stymies for sure and also avoid the need for extreme angles. Andrew chose gaps of about two and a half feet between posts. It appears that players should be able to negotiate the posts with less than 45 degrees of angle.
2) Lessen the boundary effect that MTL described. As with all obstacles, there is a consequence boundary. Andrew chose a semicircular design in concert with width of the gaps to lessen the boundary consequence. A little bit longer or righter is harder but not much harder. Way right against the fence is definitely harder, but not impossible. We wanted to approximate the effect of the old branches; adding hazard near the green would have been a much higher consequence than the branches posed previously.
3) Avoid having the posts themselves acting as a backstop as Chris described. The posts are four feet from the pole. The close distance seemed to keep the potential backstop small while allowing sufficient room for the players to negotiate reasonably angled putts.
4) Be reasonably conservative. This is a new concept that may have applications on other courses. It could have been made tougher and still have been fair and reasonable. But we did not want to introduce the concept with an extreme version. I feel the Championship works as venue to introduce new ideas because it has a lot of interested stakeholders and we know we can learn from input for next year just as we did in the past with tee times, multiple multiple shot holes, fundraising discs, hazard, etc.
The jury is still out on the height of the posts. The current height seems to look better, but it provides a bit more of a backstop. Coming back and chainsawing the tops off if necessary seemed easier than pulling them out and raising them.
Real trees would definitely look better. We looked at Italian Cypress, but adequately sized ones were pretty expensive. I was also concerned about the need to adjust the layout in the future. Transplanting trees is always a dicey proposition, even when care is taken. We looked at artificial trees, but there were also pricey. When we finalize the arrangement, we might plant English Ivy to wrap around the posts. I think that would be a nice look. For now, I will say that the posts are quite drought and critter resistant.
~ Harold
While the "appropriateness" of testing new rules at one of the highest level tournaments in the world is debate-worthy, I really don't see these new posts as a test or experiment at all. The design concept of having obstacles that close to the target, such that it shapes the "green" in the sense of where best to position oneself for a putt, is not new at all. It's not even new to Winthrop. Hole 15's green has similar obstructed sides of the basket. The only difference being that those are naturally occurring trees rather than man-made posts.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
TheOtherBill
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 2,615
And just like 15, if you are in the tress to the right you are going to have to work a putt around some mess- sometimes you get nothing but a lay up. But if you are on the left side you get an simple putt down a path to the basket.
This takes out the randomness of natural trees without taking away from the player's chance at making a tricky putt through some obstacles.
Also, if this works out it would be a cost-effective way for courses that have lost trees near baskets to reintroduce a similar challenge.
This takes out the randomness of natural trees without taking away from the player's chance at making a tricky putt through some obstacles.
Also, if this works out it would be a cost-effective way for courses that have lost trees near baskets to reintroduce a similar challenge.
I don't necessarily hate the idea in a general sense if it is implemented properly and used only when necessary, like on a property that has limited space or limited obstacles in an area where there are few to no other options for a disc golf course, then I understand. I like that it is on one side of the basket compared to Steve Dodge's idea of posts scattered about the green, much more fair this way.
But with all the ropes and OB and mandos and now this on top of it, maybe just maybe this isn't a good place for a premier disc golf tournament. Perhaps the best experiment would be to move the USDGC away from this property.
But with all the ropes and OB and mandos and now this on top of it, maybe just maybe this isn't a good place for a premier disc golf tournament. Perhaps the best experiment would be to move the USDGC away from this property.
tom12003
Eagle Member
2 days gives you a lot of options. For the first day, I'd spectate hole 1 for the first 3 groups, follow the 3rd group to hole 2, follow the 5th of 6th group to hole 3, etc., etc.; that way you see every hole on the course and see almost the entire field of players. Second day, you can spectate on a "favorite" hole and then follow a specific card of your choice for the rest of their round. Many options of how to spend the 2nd day but the first day scenario of sampling 2-3 groups on all the holes while catching almost every player will give you a good sense of the Championship.
From Facebook, hole 2:
Directional hazards. I think I like it. Land on the right and you have an obstructed putt. Land on the left and you have an open putt, but you risk going OB.
Something about this rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure those posts really discourage me from using the fence for a backstop. I'd much rather deal with putting through those posts than flirt with OB.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
As an aside, thanks Harold, for taking the time to explain the rational. It wasnt just informative, it was educational.
Hole 2
Well, I agree and disagree. If the trees against the fence have grown sparce or been cut back, thus making the bail out right that much easier, then that should be addressed. This however punishes a shot that didn't bail out but is 20' right, which would normally be considered a great approach to an already tight green.
If they felt that the shrinking foliage was going to drastically lower the scores on the hole then they should try to recreate the hazard that was lost, not put in a totally new one. Perhaps the same sort of obstacle but at the tree line and not a few feet from the target.
From a foundational stand point, I just disagree with Harold et. al, about testing this sort of thing at the USDGC. Granted, the USDGC of the last 7 years is not the same as the USDGC in my head (every other iteration) and maybe that is the rub. This isn't the head and shoulders above event that it used to be. It is still granted "major" status but that is a marketing decision.
Well, I agree and disagree. If the trees against the fence have grown sparce or been cut back, thus making the bail out right that much easier, then that should be addressed. This however punishes a shot that didn't bail out but is 20' right, which would normally be considered a great approach to an already tight green.
If they felt that the shrinking foliage was going to drastically lower the scores on the hole then they should try to recreate the hazard that was lost, not put in a totally new one. Perhaps the same sort of obstacle but at the tree line and not a few feet from the target.
From a foundational stand point, I just disagree with Harold et. al, about testing this sort of thing at the USDGC. Granted, the USDGC of the last 7 years is not the same as the USDGC in my head (every other iteration) and maybe that is the rub. This isn't the head and shoulders above event that it used to be. It is still granted "major" status but that is a marketing decision.
PoorPutter
Par Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2017
- Messages
- 157
I like the concept, but don't like that obstacles to putting (like this) can also serve to stop approaches and putts coming from the "good" side.
That's why I prefer the Marchant solution of a vertical plank attached directly to the basket, spanning from the band down to the top of the tray.
Two thin planks (or bars), about a foot apart, on the fence-side of the #2 basket would seem to accomplish the same thing.
Found this on a google image search:
That's why I prefer the Marchant solution of a vertical plank attached directly to the basket, spanning from the band down to the top of the tray.
Two thin planks (or bars), about a foot apart, on the fence-side of the #2 basket would seem to accomplish the same thing.
Found this on a google image search:
PoorPutter
Par Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2017
- Messages
- 157
Ugh, that reads as confusing. The "like this" in parentheses is referring to the USDGC posts. Sorry.
In short:
- The USDGC posts are a good concept but can stop overthrows (putts and approaches) that come from the good side.
- The on-basket barriers solve that problem.
In short:
- The USDGC posts are a good concept but can stop overthrows (putts and approaches) that come from the good side.
- The on-basket barriers solve that problem.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
No one seems to want to answer this question:
Wouldn't a hazard to the right of the pin achieve the same goals of making the OB on the left more in play with the ivy on the fence down?
Better yet, it wouldn't have this silly look and now you have an obstacle that could stop a L to R shot that should be 20 - 30 right (AKA in the area they are trying to avoid people from putting from).
I'll stick to my original point. I get the concept just don't understand the execution at all.
Wouldn't a hazard to the right of the pin achieve the same goals of making the OB on the left more in play with the ivy on the fence down?
Better yet, it wouldn't have this silly look and now you have an obstacle that could stop a L to R shot that should be 20 - 30 right (AKA in the area they are trying to avoid people from putting from).
I'll stick to my original point. I get the concept just don't understand the execution at all.
Similar threads
