2018 USDGC

[lyleoross]

Maybe, just maybe, when you're a top Innova Sponsored Pro, you feel a little more compelled to do well at an Innova Sponsored Event.

Aha, so it's magic!

 

[Allurex]

...and I totally agree with you, it's silly to regulate like that. Pros and Ams should be treated differently. I'm on the PDGA's side of the policy when it comes to general tournament play, but for the pros? Rules exceptions should be allowed for them without affecting ratings.

I think this is a good point that shouldn't be overlooked.

I have to imagine one of the main driving points for the rule was to protect AMs from this kind of thing.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think this is a good point that shouldn't be overlooked.

I have to imagine one of the main driving points for the rule was to protect AMs from this kind of thing.

With a pretty heavy hand. Ams have the option of not attending tournaments with "island holes" and the like.

The rationale is that the game is too different, so shouldn't be rated. As if players likely to lose, become likely to win if there are a couple of mandated drop zones.

 

[Flick Maniac]

This isnt something that happened just now. Wasnt the x-tier added like 2016 or sth like that. It applies obviously also to other tournaments than thw USDGC. The funky OB in Ledgestone may have had an influence in the past too.

 

[DiscJunkie]

After puking up a double-digit score on Hole 11 during Spectator Day (Sunday) from the ridiculously difficult Hole #11 Drop Zone, I agree with the PDGA's reasoning on Stroke and Distance.

I also agree with USDGC's reasoning that it's their course and their tourney, they can do what they want.
They continue to be a forum for experimentation and exploration.
They have to keep making it harder to challenge the best players in the game.
What was it, +2 to be 1000-rated.
I know my round this year was a few strokes higher than 2010, but it got a higher rating.

As someone has said already, to paraphrase: Ratings are meaningless, lowest score wins.

 

[DavidSauls]

If ratings are meaningless, what would it hurt to include USDGC rounds?

Ratings are meaningful for amateurs under 40, as they divide players into skill level divisions. Hard to see how that would be hurt by including USDGC rounds for the pros, either.

After that, and particularly for pros, they are interesting but not important.

The theory behind ratings is judge how players compare to each other. The ratings folks at PDGA have said the USDGC game is too different from standard disc golf. Or, for that matter, any course with one forced re-throw. But I suspect that players who are better than their opponents at the USDGC are also better on other courses. And if they're not, the effect of these events, diluted by hundreds of rounds on other courses, would be miniscule.

 

[lyleoross]

The goal of the PDGA and of the USDGC are different here. The PDGA doesn't want a round where 11% of the players shoot double bogy or worse, to skew the ratings. It's a big change. The USDGC wants holes where a mistake punishes you and levels the field. Specifically, 17 is meant to throw a wrench in the works, late, so that a miss throw can upset the apple cart creating drama.

For those who say that taint fair the answer is simple, don't miss throw. Or don't play if ya don't like that structure.

 

[lyleoross]

As an aside, if the PDGA made such things legal, or scored such rounds, how many tournaments would use them? Do you throw out the rule that major changes in scoring for a round are tossed? Ratings would swing in big ways from tournament to tournament. One goal of a rating should be consistency. You expect a player's rating to be consistent, or reasonably so, unless something is seriously wrong. That builds expectations and makes commentary and fan analysis easier.

 

[Steve West]

...
They have to keep making it harder to challenge the best players in the game.
....

That's true, but penalties don't make it harder. Penalties just make scores bigger. You have to make the exact same throws to complete the hole whether there are penalties or not.

Required re-throws do make it harder. The player has to execute the throw correctly to advance, not just take any distance they happen to get.

Now that Relief Area (no-penalty OB) is available, there is no need to add the penalty just to get the effect of forcing players to execute certain throws.

 

[philstine]

As an aside, if the PDGA made such things legal, or scored such rounds, how many tournaments would use them? Do you throw out the rule that major changes in scoring for a round are tossed? Ratings would swing in big ways from tournament to tournament. One goal of a rating should be consistency. You expect a player's rating to be consistent, or reasonably so, unless something is seriously wrong. That builds expectations and makes commentary and fan analysis easier.

Sanctioned tournaments can only use "such things" with prior approval of the Tour Manager. The PDGA can limit their usage to a select number of events by either not approve the requests for a waiver or not sanction events that want to use them. In either event, it has no bearing on the ability or willingness to rate a round and include rounds so rated in the overall player ratings. In fact, quite the opposite: the granting of a rules waiver is an implicit acknowledgment that the variance from the "normal" rules does not alter the event to a degree that it fundamentally changes the game.

 

[MattS]

It revolves mostly around Hole 17, and the PDGA's new-ish policy regarding Stroke and Distance.

PDGA recently mandated that players must always be allowed to advance their disc, aka "no stroke & distance allowed", even on island holes.

USDGC balked at changing their rules to fit this policy.

PDGA retaliated.

...and I totally agree with you, it's silly to regulate like that. Pros and Ams should be treated differently. I'm on the PDGA's side of the policy when it comes to general tournament play, but for the pros? Rules exceptions should be allowed for them without affecting ratings.

I don't see the 'XM' classification as retaliation. The USDGC is still featured prominently as a Major. It still factors into the World Rankings. It still has all the prestige it ever had.

It just doesn't factor into player ratings, because the player rating model can't handle highly skewed high variance holes.

This is really the ideal compromise. USDGC is always exciting, because no lead is safe when players are frequently on the knife's edge from taking a triple-bogey (or worse). I don't think that all (or even most) events should be so punishing, but it's absolutely in the blood of USDGC and shouldn't change. At the same time, the Player Rating system necessarily makes certain assumptions about scoring distributions that are wildly incorrect for Winthrop Gold in the USDGC configuration, so it's much better off simply ignoring it.

 

[Alobar]

That's true, but penalties don't make it harder. Penalties just make scores bigger. You have to make the exact same throws to complete the hole whether there are penalties or not.

Required re-throws do make it harder. The player has to execute the throw correctly to advance, not just take any distance they happen to get.

Now that Relief Area (no-penalty OB) is available, there is no need to add the penalty just to get the effect of forcing players to execute certain throws.

The potential for penalties makes the mental game harder.

There is more to disc golf than number of throws per hole and Par 2.

 

[Steve West]

The potential for penalties makes the mental game harder...

Really? If hole 17 were just re-throw without penalty, would anyone actually play differently if the risk was re-throwing two from the tee than re-throwing three from the tee?

If so, would making the penalty two throws (re-throw four from the tee) make it even more mentally harderer? How about DQ?

From what I've seen, (and judging from the two-thousand five hundred and eighteen penalties) players' "mental" game seems to be hardly affected at all by penalties. If it were, they would avoid them. Instead, they just seem to try to always try to make the most successful throw they can, without a thought as to what might happen if they miss.

 

[_MTL_]

Well, since you decided to hijack a post meant to thank volunteers and staff for their labor in order to slide your opinion in on how Fulcrum decided to switch the show it was warranted.

Trust me, I didn't want my face on screen that much, I didn't choose this career with hopes of becoming famous. I would think it's obvious that when I'm on screen, I'm not the one making the decisions regarding which cameras to show at what times.

I misread and recognized my error. It happens.

You completely ignored the positives I had to say about the broadcast in this very thread.

Not surprised, sadly. Par for the course.

 

[_MTL_]

It revolves mostly around Hole 17, and the PDGA's new-ish policy regarding Stroke and Distance.

PDGA recently mandated that players must always be allowed to advance their disc, aka "no stroke & distance allowed", even on island holes.

USDGC balked at changing their rules to fit this policy.

PDGA retaliated.

...and I totally agree with you, it's silly to regulate like that. Pros and Ams should be treated differently. I'm on the PDGA's side of the policy when it comes to general tournament play, but for the pros? Rules exceptions should be allowed for them without affecting ratings.

Stroke and distance only applied randomly isn't fair. And not for some "it's stupid" crap like that.

Stroke and distance on 17 but not on 16 or 3, for example, means that the tee shot of 17 is more important and counts more towards what is a good round than a bad round. If you throw every tee shot in bounds except one, it shouldn't matter where that error occurred. But in the example of doing it on 16 or 3 and not on 17 results in different outcomes.

I like 17. I like that it creates drama. I like the concept of a big swing. But it should occur organically, not across the board.

The PDGA's call to eliminate it is 100% the correct decision. The USDGC can choose not to sanction the event and they would have the same attendance or maybe even more.

 

[krupicka]

From what I've seen, (and judging from the two-thousand five hundred and eighteen penalties) players' "mental" game seems to be hardly affected at all by penalties. If it were, they would avoid them. Instead, they just seem to try to always try to make the most successful throw they can, without a thought as to what might happen if they miss.

There are two different effects on the mental game. One is shot selection, but other than when ledgestone went overboard, most players see all reward and no risk. The other effect is on execution. We all know that when the brain kicks in thinking about something (hitting the your mark on a run up, hitting that small landing zone, what about that last putt you missed, how you flubbed this hole before), your execution is often not as good as you are capable of. Being able to handle that stress and mental game is part of the game of disc golf. Why shouldn't that be included in the the ratings?

 

[Flick Maniac]

Really? If hole 17 were just re-throw without penalty, would anyone actually play differently if the risk was re-throwing two from the tee than re-throwing three from the tee?

If so, would making the penalty two throws (re-throw four from the tee) make it even more mentally harderer? How about DQ?

From what I've seen, (and judging from the two-thousand five hundred and eighteen penalties) players' "mental" game seems to be hardly affected at all by penalties. If it were, they would avoid them. Instead, they just seem to try to always try to make the most successful throw they can, without a thought as to what might happen if they miss.

If it was +2 and rethrow for every miss I think we would see more layups for par from the tee. It seems that play is much more rare than I thought.

edit: Of course, there is nothing in the PDGA rules that would make it possible to play it +2 for every miss. Now they can choose to ignore the ratings, but hardly to ignore the rulebook.

 

[DiscFifty]

I'd be curious to know, now that we've come through it, what would folks want? We've seen top to bottom of the lead card, and this mash-up (and yes, I thought they did a decent job). What percentage of lead, vs other....

Fwiw..I'm guessing they originally intended to be primarily a hole 17 live coverage with alot of banter, but as things progressed they realized they needed to cover the lead card more but the media, etc, was already designed with the "Hole 17 Live" thing.

In regards to what most folks want or expect, I think we're at this point now..

Booth commentating. Please no more out of breath commentators walking with the players.
cameras 1-2 following the lead card.
camera 3 on the chase card(s) as needed.
roaming camera 4 for general use, interviews, crowd interactions, etc.
If the chase card(s) heat up then cameras 3-4 should pair up and start covering them.

 

[lyleoross]

Fwiw..I'm guessing they originally intended to be primarily a hole 17 live coverage with alot of banter, but as things progressed they realized they needed to cover the lead card more but the media, etc, was already designed with the "Hole 17 Live" thing.

In regards to what most folks want or expect, I think we're at this point now..

Booth commentating. Please no more out of breath commentators walking with the players.
cameras 1-2 following the lead card.
camera 3 on the chase card(s) as needed.
roaming camera 4 for general use, interviews, crowd interactions, etc.
If the chase card(s) heat up then cameras 3-4 should pair up and start covering them.

I agree. I'm wondering if you might even have a camera offline recording, and then wheel it back into wifi to do fill in material?

 

[lyleoross]

For what it was, the show was fine. Rough, but if you expected perfection first go round you were sort of foolin' yourself. I'm more interested in the top two cards than what was going on with a single hole. I know the PGA does that, but they don't do it cause it's better, they do it cause it's cheaper. There was at least one DGPT event where they balanced off between events on the second card and the lead. Again, rough, but I liked what I was seeing.

Yeah, the lead by Steve on moving it into the booth (Steve's idea or Smash's?) was the best thing to happen to coverage this year, IMO.

The idea of introducing voices into the booth might be a good one, I think DGPT has done this? I'm not sure, but it is one way to fill up air. I don't care whether you do it or not, but if you're gonna do it, be timely, and keep it less than more. I want play by play on folks who matter.