2019 United States Disc Golf Championship Oct 2-5

[chevis]

I'm not a fan of hole 4. It simply is not fun to watch. I get the idea, but the 2nd mando needs to change. If you want to create a tunnel shot on that hole at least 1 mando is necessary. I think if the first mando is placed in the right spot then players will still be forced to throw a straight shot. If they hit a tree after that, then they can likely make an easy PAR, but it is what it is. No reason to create a 250 foot layup for every competitor.

I think only the 2nd double mando is needed; not many players will choose to throw outside of the tunnel. i feel the real problem with 4 is that it comes after 3 which has a somewhat similar double mando. if 4 was somewhere inbetween all those holes with the ropes, i think it would feel better

 

[Cgkdisc]

... Not that it should be a requirement, but I think it would behoove Andrew to register and compete in a few tournaments to give him the perspective of a competitor. Having the angst of not being able to see your landing spots and other mental anguish players deal with could significantly benefit his course design.

Note that Master Designer, John Houck, has not played a sanctioned round in the past 20 years so he has no rating. But I agree with the idea that designers can get a better perspective with experience in competition.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

Note that Master Designer, John Houck, has not played a sanctioned round in the past 20 years so he has no rating.

I've seen you call him out on that before, but at least Houck has had 11 years of PDGA tournament play. I believe those 11 years of competitive play surely has played some role in his designing prowess.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I've seen you call him out on that before, but at least Houck has had 11 years of PDGA tournament play. I believe those 11 years of competitive play surely has played some role in his designing prowess.

If you can't or won't play competitively, just casually, you can eventually become a good enough designer from study and especially observation, both of players competing and analyzing scoring data for fine tuning designs.

 

[bhadella]

In my mind, hole 3 is not that much different than 1 at Maple Hill Gold. I think it's more about the manufactured feel than the way the hole plays. Maybe it's because Maple Hill has the Christmas trees and road that frame up the landing zone for the players. What I noticed at Winthrop is players not giving much thought to the landing area. At least it seemed that way on video. Maple Hill hole 1 produces the same kind of results though. Land where you need to, or lay up to the mouth. Obviously Maple Hill is a way better hole with the lake, elevation, cool green cut into the woods, but from a strategy and scoring perspective, I'm not sure it's that much different. Maybe Steve can put them on a graph for us.

If you land in the lake, you don't move up to a 80' jump putt drop zone. That's the biggest issue with 4, people miss the mando on teeshot and get rewarded with an auto par. The teeshot has zero risk at all (other than somehow throwing so left that you get on other side of pine trees). The teeshot at Maple Hill has all kinds of risk. As does the upshot.

 

[brutalbrutus]

If they keep the hole as is, the golf green should be OB and maybe move the basket backwards so its stuffed in the space between the green and bunker a bit more.

 

[ThrowBot]

If you land in the lake, you don't move up to a 80' jump putt drop zone. That's the biggest issue with 4, people miss the mando on teeshot and get rewarded with an auto par. The teeshot has zero risk at all (other than somehow throwing so left that you get on other side of pine trees). The teeshot at Maple Hill has all kinds of risk. As does the upshot.

I agree that there's little risk on the tee shot of 3, but I kind of like that aspect. On a course with so many punishing OBs and mandos and hazards, it's refreshing to have a wide open bomber with a less punitive double-mando. The easy par if you miss the mando off the tee incentivizes players to try and make the mando off the tee--which is exciting! How friggin sweet would it be if someone rolled one through the double mando? (Not sure that anyone did, at least not in the rounds I've watched.)

And for anyone who does miss the mando on their tee shot, and accomplish the fairly routine up-and-down scramble for par, remember that they got there by throwing a ~600' bomb or a well executed roller! I guess I'm not too sour about that result. They still did better than someone who missed the mando on their 2nd throw and wound up with a 5 from the drop zone, and the scores fairly reflect that.

 

[ToddL]

If you land in the lake, you don't move up to a 80' jump putt drop zone. That's the biggest issue with 4, people miss the mando on teeshot and get rewarded with an auto par. The teeshot has zero risk at all (other than somehow throwing so left that you get on other side of pine trees). The teeshot at Maple Hill has all kinds of risk. As does the upshot.

In order to miss the mando on the tee shot on 3, you have to throw it around 600'. That's a pretty tall task, even for the big arm players.

 

[Chains Bailey]

it would be a yearly subscription model

IMO the above seems to make the most sense to me as a consumer. Not sure about the monthly part, but a one time fee to the production company for access to their content is simple and I know what to expect from previous years free content.

If the consumer demand allows for a production company to require payment for access, then more power to them. Seems simple enough - if these companies are good at their craft, they should get paid for their efforts.

I, in now way, claim to know if this move would generate funds for the companies to further progress their products or if it would result in them "biting the hand that feeds them" and causing some sort of negative divide. You guys with the inside knowledge I am sure have a handle on the timing of any changes.

I would support the change, but that is coming from a person who feels spoiled and blessed to be witness to the birth, growth and coming of age of disc golf media. I am from a time where I would order the VHS tape of Worlds, wait the 6 or so months to get the tape and have no problem with "spoilers" during that time.

I do not even think "spoilers" were invented until 2003 or so.

 

[Casey 1988]

Nice to see a backhand thrower win the United States Forehand Championships. James certainly proved people wrong. Or maybe it is just the putt-putt course scrambling the scores.

Actually it was the Course being so tight due to skinny in bounds, not so much putter only/friendly course being what helped James Conrad, this is where James Conrad Shines is on Courses that are long and tight with OB. That and trying to make the course penalize Paul McBeth due to going from Innova to Discraft by going to where Paul Normally wants to go on the Older OB markings that did not help most of the rest of the field. You saw some who play well on tight courses almost win but for the majority of the players the course was just tight and badly designed for some of the OB. Of course the Odd weather could have played a factor on some of the players as well.

I did like new hole 4 very well despite what others have thought of it. It was hole 3 that needs a redo possibly on the Drop Zone if a top level pro (Eagle) is going drop zone on purpose to make it easier for his style of game.

 

[Casey 1988]

I do not even think "spoilers" were invented until 2003 or so.

Spoilers Or Spoiler Wings were invented by Doge in the late 1960's to very early 1970's just to keep up with the Ford vehicles in NASCAR.

 

[Flick Maniac]

That and trying to make the course penalize Paul McBeth due to going from Innova to Discraft by going to where Paul Normally wants to go on the Older OB markings that did not help most of the rest of the field.

What are you saying? Really? Really, that they looked at footage of Paul from previous years, and planned new OB where he normally likes to land? :doh:

Now I've read everything on this forum.

BTW Paul himself said that early this season he was trying to throw his usual lines but with new discs and couldnt quite make it click. So he had to learn new lines. So its not like he was throwing his old lines anyway.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Casey has officially jumped the f'n shark...

 

[davetherocketguy]

That and trying to make the course penalize Paul McBeth due to going from Innova to Discraft by going to where Paul Normally wants to go on the Older OB markings that did not help most of the rest of the field.

Please tell me this is a joke.

 

[Streets]

Actually it was the Course being so tight due to skinny in bounds, not so much putter only/friendly course being what helped James Conrad, this is where James Conrad Shines is on Courses that are long and tight with OB. That and trying to make the course penalize Paul McBeth due to going from Innova to Discraft by going to where Paul Normally wants to go on the Older OB markings that did not help most of the rest of the field. You saw some who play well on tight courses almost win but for the majority of the players the course was just tight and badly designed for some of the OB. Of course the Odd weather could have played a factor on some of the players as well.

I did like new hole 4 very well despite what others have thought of it. It was hole 3 that needs a redo possibly on the Drop Zone if a top level pro (Eagle) is going drop zone on purpose to make it easier for his style of game.

Log out and lose your password.

 

[racer93]

Spoilers Or Spoiler Wings were invented by Doge in the late 1960's to very early 1970's just to keep up with the Ford vehicles in NASCAR.

Spoilers are wings that are physical continuations of the car. Wings are separated (but connected, just not continuous) from the car.

 

[rhatton1]

The challenge is for young Harold, Pete, Steve and Chuck to play nicely together. That's the motivation for the original question. I agree that there is no need to add two to a score for traditional disc golf which is mostly for the players. Championship disc golf, which is also about the spectator, may need *some bad shots to count two to increase the emotional engagement for both player and spectator. But in either traditional or Championship disc golf, good throws with good strategy should be in. *

~ Harold

Fascinating reading your design insights for the USDGC, thanks for sharing them with us. Andrew has done the same at Reddit and is a great way to engage with your audience. One comment that struck me from Reddit that chimed with my own disengagement in recent years with the tournament as a viewer was:

"The way I feel about USDGC is that the winner is often the least-unlucky of the highly skilled players."

This coincides with Steve's point 2 stroke vs 1 stroke penalty or the higher possibility of good strokes being punished (unfortunate kicks/uncontrollable bounces/skips off fallen twigs leading to OB roll aways etc.) The level of punishment this year felt like it had tipped to far away from enjoyment for the player/spectator. watching one after another tournament hopeful tincup on hole 17 was painful to watch.

I'm personally curious as to two things and a bonus third.
1. why every hole HAS to have OB/Mandos/something overtly punitive -

Could you not create some balance on the course by having a couple of holes that don't?

Two or three holes where the arms can be unleashed without fear, a chance to wow the crowd, the golf course is there, surely some good holes can be found there where the scoring separation isn't as great but the crowds are allowed to see something spectacular? Players want to throw big, crowds want to see big, whats wrong with one or two holes that say "show us what you've got"

There is a psychological factor to this as well where players will chase these holes and try to score well because of the lack of OB, giving you a great chance to test a different facet of their mental play.

A whole course of these would be boring as hell but 2 or three scattered in amongst the others could surely add something and get rid of the need for the forced mandos on 3 and 4 that neither look aesthetically pleasing or looked a lot of fun to play or spectate (layups to the mando on three or back into the channel on 4 are not what players turn up to play for or what spectators come to watch, when you have more of those than the attacking shot there is an issue)

2. The woods to the North East, all 80 acres of them, is there no way these can be used in some way, instead of trying to recreate the feel of woods golf, make some woods golf?

Bonus 3rd. Please,please, please consider your responsibility as the premier event currently in the world. You are viewed widely by club members putting courses in. They see hole 13 playing across a parking lot. They think "oh we've got a parking lot let's play across it, USDGC do it." (had this conversation with clubs more than once) Hole 13 is undoubtedly a great hole to play and test skills and it is tied up in the history of the course but we need to be moving past that as a sport. We can't be showcasing holes designed to be played across carparks/sidewalks etc and then be surprised when local clubs copy this and people/property gets hit.

Thanks for all your innovation over the years, I'm intrigued to see where it goes from here.

 

[Steve West]

Hi Steve, ...

~ Harold

I know we don't want to move all the way to courses that are perfect tests of skill, but I want to know how to get there. We're pretty far away. For example, the scoring spread width of just 49.52 for the total scores of the 111 players at USDGC is what would be expected if holes gave out any particular score randomly to anyone in a group that includes 75% of the field.

If that was tightened up so the holes would only give out scores to a more-targeted 40% of the field, the SSW could be 70 to 80. At that point, we would have tests of skill that are about as good as possible, but with plenty of randomness remaining to satisfy our craving for a not-quite-controllable activity.

As for viewer emotions, I don't think they are enhanced by piling on penalties. The most emotional part of watching is cheering for the flight to be good; especially that moment when you can finally tell whether a throw was bad or good. (Usually when it leaves the hand for James!)

Subtleties of "how bad" or "how good" come later via rational thought. Especially for check-the-caddybook penalty assessments. Those just add a delayed bad feeling. Who wants that?

To emotionally engage in a throw, we need to be able to see what's coming during the flight so we can "help" the disc fly with our cheers. The fields of septic tank vent pipes didn't do that. Even the commentators who had played the course didn't know which side of the pipes was good.

Bottom line: I don't see any conflict between the goal of moving closer to better tests of skill and your other goals. Excess penalties don't help anything. Visual impact (including video effects) is what will get viewers engaged.

 

[bhadella]

If they keep the hole as is, the golf green should be OB and maybe move the basket backwards so its stuffed in the space between the green and bunker a bit more.

At most it's 15' between green and bunker. I'd tuck the basket behind bunker with both bunker and green ob. And I personally would take the left side mando away (so you don't have to hit gap but need to play left around right mando) but then make the drop zone a more skilled shot to get up and down.

 

[biscoe]

IMO removing the left mando would just make the hole more distance biased than it already is (which when the big guns can try to miss the mando intentionally is already quite a bit). Personally I simply do not "get" this hole- with pretty much everything else out there I can see what the designer is trying to accomplish whether I agree with the implementation or not.