Can we do what Merion did?

[Cgkdisc]

The original disc golf targets were primarily trees and poles. I'm sure lofting a putt was done but I'm guessing there were more ballistic throws compared to when the first ground baskets then pole holes came about.

An interesting compromise might be to make the chain support mostly an open top so players could play for the drop in shot or the ballistic putt into a lower height zone. Both types of shots would require a bit more accuracy than current designs.

 

[DSCJNKY]

Chuck is on fire in this thread... Great thoughts...
DSCJNKY

 

[DavidSauls]

Funny, because I already play most of my disc golf on smaller targets---Earlewood's distinctly narrower antique baskets. Seems normal to me.

I'd never thought about reducing the vertical dimension, but I like it. I wonder, though, what would be the ideal size or diffculty for a basket? How small could you go before it made long putting too low percentage, and everyone was just laying up?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Basically we're talking about an adjustment where pros at 975 and higher miss about 40-45% of the putts outside say 15 feet that they currently make. Reducing the target zone height to 42cm/18" (twice the minimum disc diameter) would make a decent dent in the putting percentage. Eighteen inches is also the painted height considered standard when marking poles for object golf.

 

[Cgkdisc]

FYI: current target zone height allowed is 51cm +/- 3cm

 

[Steve West]

What can Disc Golf Course Designers, the PDGA and local clubs do to put that kind of challenge on a major in our sport?

This:

1. Set par so that SSA of n.6 to (n+1).6 is par n. This is where I estimate it needs to be to keep the amount under par near zero for the leaders at major tournaments.

2. Use longer courses. Only the longest disc golf courses are comparable to any tournament course in ball golf – even taking into account the length of a throw vs. the length of a stroke.

3. Make courses tougher. Narrower gaps, steeper roll-away zones, hard, smooth ground to let discs skip out of bounds, no line to the basket, etc.

4. Remove everything from the target that is above the tray.

Then, just as almost nobody would have fun actually playing a golf course in the condition they set it for the U.S. Open, almost nobody would have fun on a course with all these implemented.

I think all 4 ideas are probably the direction we should be moving, just maybe not all the way, except for one tournament per year.

 

[Kenny53691]

This:

1. Set par so that SSA of n.6 to (n+1).6 is par n. This is where I estimate it needs to be to keep the amount under par near zero for the leaders at major tournaments.

2. Use longer courses. Only the longest disc golf courses are comparable to any tournament course in ball golf – even taking into account the length of a throw vs. the length of a stroke.

3. Make courses tougher. Narrower gaps, steeper roll-away zones, hard, smooth ground to let discs skip out of bounds, no line to the basket, etc.

4. Remove everything from the target that is above the tray.

Then, just as almost nobody would have fun actually playing a golf course in the condition they set it for the U.S. Open, almost nobody would have fun on a course with all these implemented.

I think all 4 ideas are probably the direction we should be moving, just maybe not all the way, except for one tournament per year.

That is some food for though.......

 

[jenb]

I just have to throw this out there:

Who cares what par is? It's some arbitrary number that really doesn't matter. If you want pros to have "higher" scores than just make every hole a par 2.

As long as the field is competitive than in all reality it makes exactly no difference what par is set at.

This, except that par is a value judgement. However, I think it is to be expected that pros will score significantly under par over the course of several rounds, just as ball golf pros typically do. I would like to see par set differently for women, even if women play the same layout as the men, so that women also score under par.

Instead of making the short holes par 2, you can leave the long holes as par 3s, instead of calling them par 4s. I think this is typical to do, but on a short course is not possible, so that is why we see the super low scores on the short courses. It's not a really a problem, and it doesn't need fixing. And any attempt to fix the non-existent problem is going to cause actual problems, including making the target area on a basket target smaller. After all, basket targets spit out putts that would have counted on a painted pole, and when the wind kicks up, that smaller basket target is going to be way too hard to hit.

 

[bnbanbury]

This, except that par is a value judgement. However, I think it is to be expected that pros will score significantly under par over the course of several rounds, just as ball golf pros typically do. I would like to see par set differently for women, even if women play the same layout as the men, so that women also score under par.

Instead of making the short holes par 2, you can leave the long holes as par 3s, instead of calling them par 4s. I think this is typical to do, but on a short course is not possible, so that is why we see the super low scores on the short courses. It's not a really a problem, and it doesn't need fixing. And any attempt to fix the non-existent problem is going to cause actual problems, including making the target area on a basket target smaller. After all, basket targets spit out putts that would have counted on a painted pole, and when the wind kicks up, that smaller basket target is going to be way too hard to hit.

At major championships ball golf pros don't score significantly under par, that's the whole point of the thread. Can we do what marion did is the question, and that would mean the top players in the world needing to shoot even par to win the event. Scores like 40 under par at events that are supposed to be the most prestigious in disc golf make disc golf look like clown shoes.

 

[Thumber]

This, except that par is a value judgement. However, I think it is to be expected that pros will score significantly under par over the course of several rounds, just as ball golf pros typically do. I would like to see par set differently for women, even if women play the same layout as the men, so that women also score under par.

This may be one of the silliest statements I have ever seen. First you start off saying par is simply a value judgment, then advocate to have a different par for women so they can feel better about their actual scores? WTF?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Actually, I suspect the USGA/PGA are shooting themselves in the foot doing what they do in some Majors, tricking out the course to reduce birdies on holes. This likely reduces scoring spread on their holes that already had good scoring spread. Reducing scoring spread can compress scores in the field and increases the likelihood that a lower ranked player can win, which if you look at the results, does happen.

We'd have to look at the hole stats in those Majors and calculate the spread to confirm. Ball golf "naturally" gets better scoring spreads on holes designed to average close to par for a player skill level because putting is closer to 2 shots per hole. So they get lots of holes with scoring distributions with maybe 20-30% birds, 50-75% pars, 15-30% bogeys and 5-10% other. Those holes allow the better players to score and separate themselves from the field when they are on.

If you toughen up these holes and shift the distribution to minimize birds, you likely get distributions with birds around 2-10%, pars 60-85%, bogeys 15-30%, others 5-15%. We would have to look and see the actual spreads but it just seems that in the case of ball golf hole design, they are better for high level competition with their baseline design versus the special tough bird designs.

 

[ian.]

some good info here, well done guys :thmbup: ... opcorn:

 

[bradharris]

Here is just one reason that the Vibram Open is one of the best NT events of the year.

Steve Dodge, among others working with him, looks at the stats and tweaks the course every year to try to put together a course that produces the best challenge for pros, as well as a great viewing experience for spectators.

You can see some of his thought process here

 

[Steve West]

Actually, I suspect the USGA/PGA are shooting themselves in the foot.... it just seems that in the case of ball golf hole design, they are better for high level competition with their baseline design versus the special tough bird designs.

Ball golf tournaments at the highest level are extremely poor at separating players by skill. Round to round correlations are small, etc.

There just isn't enough difference in expected scores to overcome the fluctuations, so it's the lucky golfer who wins.

Except when Tiger was at his peak. He was significantly better than the rest of the field, and could win without luck.

So, it may be difficult to find evidence of whether birdie-less is worse.

Sounds like a project for when the snow is covering the ground. Which will be in just a few weeks now.

 

[sloppydisc]

This is interesting. Do you guys think the PGA cares about scoring spread, or more about designing the course in a way that will make for better television ratings and higher interest? I heard some bitching and moaning, but isn't all publicity good for them?

My guess is due to TV and their more complicated financial dealings, the PGA has some different motivations and concerns when designing these championship courses.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think those of us involved with DG course design and stats have been more interested in scoring spread than the BG stats people because they had it naturally with their regular designs and tougher 2-putting average compared with DG. DG has had to be conscious of scoring spread because we would not get it on many open holes with the wrong length where most players get 3s. Once we evaluated our putting stats, it became apparent that we weren't going to automatically get good spread with our putting percentages, so appropriate length became important on more open hole designs. We typically get good spreads on wooded holes but ideally you want it to come more from skill and less from luck.

 

[bnbanbury]

Actually, I suspect the USGA/PGA are shooting themselves in the foot doing what they do in some Majors, tricking out the course to reduce birdies on holes. This likely reduces scoring spread on their holes that already had good scoring spread. Reducing scoring spread can compress scores in the field and increases the likelihood that a lower ranked player can win, which if you look at the results, does happen.

We'd have to look at the hole stats in those Majors and calculate the spread to confirm. Ball golf "naturally" gets better scoring spreads on holes designed to average close to par for a player skill level because putting is closer to 2 shots per hole. So they get lots of holes with scoring distributions with maybe 20-30% birds, 50-75% pars, 15-30% bogeys and 5-10% other. Those holes allow the better players to score and separate themselves from the field when they are on.

If you toughen up these holes and shift the distribution to minimize birds, you likely get distributions with birds around 2-10%, pars 60-85%, bogeys 15-30%, others 5-15%. We would have to look and see the actual spreads but it just seems that in the case of ball golf hole design, they are better for high level competition with their baseline design versus the special tough bird designs.

I think going back through the last few seasons you find very little scoring separation regardless of the setup. This past weekend, on a very scorable course at the traveler's, there were 5 players tied for 1st with 9 holes to go and the result was a 44 year old 1st time winner. The largest margin of victory on tour all year is 4 strokes. While the scoring at the us open was as tight as ever, the top players in the world were well represented among the leaders.

 

[_MTL_]

This is interesting. Do you guys think the PGA cares about scoring spread, or more about designing the course in a way that will make for better television ratings and higher interest? I heard some bitching and moaning, but isn't all publicity good for them?

My guess is due to TV and their more complicated financial dealings, the PGA has some different motivations and concerns when designing these championship courses.

The PGA and USGA is much more concerned with scoring average rathern than scoring spread.

I don't like that concept because I think a hole that produces 333344445555 is a lot better than a hole than one that produces 344444444445, yet they both average the same.

 

[Sadjo]

My idea when posting the questions is really about working at making the Majors more of a challenge...adding to the interest of the overall event.

While I know a lot of players expressed frustration at Merion, as a fan I found it much more compelling to watch and know that someone from a couple of groups back still had the chance to win on the final day.

 

[iacas]

Actually, I suspect the USGA/PGA are shooting themselves in the foot doing what they do in some Majors, tricking out the course to reduce birdies on holes.

Yes, the golf organizations that net millions and millions of dollars and have been running tournaments (the U.S. Open for example) for 113 years are doing it wrong, but disc golfers have figured it out. :\

Reducing scoring spread can compress scores in the field and increases the likelihood that a lower ranked player can win, which if you look at the results, does happen.

Lower ranked players win or place well at regular PGA Tour events too, quite frequently. Why? Because there are so many golfers, very, very, very little separate the best from the 200th-ranked players. Additionally, as we've seen even this year alone from Tiger Woods, there's a very fine line between playing darn good golf and playing so-so golf.

We would have to look and see the actual spreads but it just seems that in the case of ball golf hole design, they are better for high level competition with their baseline design versus the special tough bird designs.

I've seen studies done on this, largely as it relates to whether majors produce more "fluke" winners than regular PGA Tour events, and the result was a pretty resounding "no" (even with Tiger Woods in there skewing things). Higher ranked golfers win on tougher golf courses.

Tiger, for example, tends not to play in the low-scoring "shootout" type events because skill becomes de-emphasized, and a player who is simply hot for a few rounds can easily win (given how close everyone is to Tiger's level, a hot player will beat him unless he's also hot). Tiger plays well in events where par is a good score.

Ball golf tournaments at the highest level are extremely poor at separating players by skill.

I disagree, and I think that golf simply has far more players separated by far less differences in skill level than we currently see in disc golf.

There just isn't enough difference in expected scores to overcome the fluctuations, so it's the lucky golfer who wins.

Well gee, then Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus were awfully damn lucky then!

It's not the lucky golfer that wins. It's the golfer who hits greens in regulation (i.e. a good mix of driving, iron play, distance, and a little recovery skill when they don't find the fairways) and has a good week putting that will win or place very highly any given week.

I can't remember the last time "luck" played a dominant role in deciding whether someone finished in the top five or outside the top 10.

Disc golf, with how close you often play towards trees, seems far, FAR more likely to reward (or punish) luck than golf. It's not often that a golfer who is on the leaderboard plays Plinko with the trees, but you see it all the time in disc golf coverage.

My idea when posting the questions is really about working at making the Majors more of a challenge...adding to the interest of the overall event.

While I know a lot of players expressed frustration at Merion, as a fan I found it much more compelling to watch and know that someone from a couple of groups back still had the chance to win on the final day.

Consider that the scoring average on the barely 100-yard par three 13th was 2.814. There were no 1s. A few made 2, most made 3, and some made 4.

The hole was still very exciting because every player - and fan - knew there was a chance for a 1, or knew there was a chance for a tap-in 2, or a longer putt for a 2. The fact that almost everyone got a 3 was irrelevant. It was still an exciting hole and provided an opportunity to gain ground on the leaders if you could manage to birdie it.