Can you win without distance? ... YES!

[zepphead33]

It's definitely more useful than anything I have ever posted. I don't use this site for info, I use it to get attention to feed my ego. But I am going to quit trolling now b/c I do realize that he put a lot of work into this and there is no reason for it to go to the landfill. So don't pay any attention to me, I was never here.

 

[JFink2011]

I'm a stat geek, I love all stats whether they be NBA, NFL, MLB, disc golf, etc.

So, I figured why not share some of my stats with other disc golfers?

Thanks for checking out my post!

 

[chickenonabun]

Thats interesting and gives me hope that I can still not suck if I ever develop more of a noodle than I have now.

 

[AshleyH]

I think it's an interesting point of view. I have progressed more with my game in the last year by not worrying about distance. I have been working more on my putting and consistently putting my drive in a good spot for the next throw.

The funny thing is, I have also been increasing my driving distance. I think that picturing my line and how to get there has made me smoother off the tee.

 

[scarpfish]

Sabremetrics for disc golf? Awesome. Based on this line of reasoning, I should be able to shoot a 40 on my home course, even though I've never shot a 50 on it.


But yes, I do agree that emphasizing getting clean drives, and sharpening up the short game is the way to go for those of us who aren't blessed with cannon arms. It won't make you a world champion but it could win you an Intermediate division title some day.

 

[Smigles]

All those stats are BS.

Anyone arguing that distance does not help your game should get their head checked. It's like saying that making long putts does not help your game.

The theorethical perfect 300/30 player does not exist. Even though I am working on it

Long story short : tell me all the stories you want, in the end you should still work on your distance. Amongst other things.

 

[scarpfish]

Anyone arguing that distance does not help your game should get their head checked. It's like saying that making long putts does not help your game.

The OP was implying nothing of the kind.

 

[Rip Van]

Yeah, if you think the perfect 300' driver plays good golf, wait until you see how well the perfect 400' driver plays! Lots of rounds in the 30s, that's for sure.

For a humbling experience, set up a pole hole in an open field and throw ten Aviars (or your approach disc of choice) at it from 200' or so. If you're not getting up and down 10 out of 10 times you need to work on accuracy (or putting) more than distance.

 

[Stan McDaniel]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into proving something that is pretty obvious. Good work, just kind of pointless.

Au contriar, mon am! One of my tactics when I design wooded courses is to try to lure people into trying to throwing longer shots. A player who can throw 260-300' accurately will score better than a 1040 rated player trying to get that little bit more. There are a number of courses like that her in Charlotte. The risk is very high on trying to eke out that extra 30-50'.

I agree with you that is sounds obvious. But while I watch people playing courses like these they seem to forget the obvious and frequently go for the high risk shot and pay the penalty. Slow and steady wins the race. Short and accurate wins the round. Placement and accuracy wins the round.

 

[garublador]

What would be interesting is to see what the perfect 350' thrower, the perfect 400' thrower and the perfect 450' thrower would score. You'd want to do all of those distances with 10', 20' and 30' perfect putters, too. The actual score you see for any one of those players isn't nearly as interesting as the difference between those player's scores are.

It is a bit surprising just how high the ratings are for the two players. I think that's what's most interesting about those stats alone. There are lots of people that claim to be accurate at 250'/20' but aren't anywhere near scratch golfers. If anything what was posted proves how important consistency really is, not how unimportant distance is.

 

[Lewis]

Does anybody keep stats for the top pros? I would like to see hard numbers on what percent of fairways they hit, their average driving distances, their putting percentages from inside and outside 30', the number of putts they take in a round, the number of penalty strokes they have to take, etc. Get those hard numbers and compare them against each player's ratings, and you could build a scientific case for the relative importance of the different skills, as well as who really is the "king" of each skill. opcorn:

 

[JTacoma03]

Does anybody keep stats for the top pros? I would like to see hard numbers on what percent of fairways they hit, their average driving distances, their putting percentages from inside and outside 30', the number of putts they take in a round, the number of penalty strokes they have to take, etc. Get those hard numbers and compare them against each player's ratings, and you could build a scientific case for the relative importance of the different skills, as well as who really is the "king" of each skill. opcorn:

I'd love to see this too (golf does it, great way to analyze rounds/tournaments for major tour events) but it would be difficult to get a meaningful stat IMO out of anything having to do with drives in disc golf without modifying those categories. We don't often play with clear cut fairways/roughs and even when we do if it's elevated or uneven terrain the hole can make the fairway shot just as difficult as one from the rough.

The putting stats would be crucial though...and GIR would be a good approach accuracy indicator.

 

[garublador]

Does anybody keep stats for the top pros? I would like to see hard numbers on what percent of fairways they hit, their average driving distances, their putting percentages from inside and outside 30', the number of putts they take in a round, the number of penalty strokes they have to take, etc. Get those hard numbers and compare them against each player's ratings, and you could build a scientific case for the relative importance of the different skills, as well as who really is the "king" of each skill. opcorn:

It's only a matter of time before some pro gets successful by tracking all of that stuff on themselves. If I had a caddy that's what I'd want them to do full time. I'll carry the bag and pick the discs, you just track every single thing I do to get hard data on all my strengths and weaknesses. That way there's no guessing at what I need to work on. I won't get stuck working on trying to sink more 35' shots when it will only get me a stroke every other round when I could be working on 300' turn overs that will get me 1.5 strokes per round.

 

[mashnut]

It would take a lot of volunteers and a lot of effort to get that kind of data for a full field of pros, but that would be awesome to see. Maybe a tournament like the USDGC that gets a bunch of spotters etc. could track those kinds of stats, I think you'd get a lot of interest from us online dg nerds with that type of project.

 

[bholy08]

What would be interesting is to see what the perfect 350' thrower, the perfect 400' thrower and the perfect 450' thrower would score. You'd want to do all of those distances with 10', 20' and 30' perfect putters, too. The actual score you see for any one of those players isn't nearly as interesting as the difference between those player's scores are.

It is a bit surprising just how high the ratings are for the two players. I think that's what's most interesting about those stats alone. There are lots of people that claim to be accurate at 250'/20' but aren't anywhere near scratch golfers. If anything what was posted proves how important consistency really is, not how unimportant distance is.

That's an excellent word! Of course distance is crucial but controllable consistency is even more so.

 

[sidewinding]

The other piece of the eqation you left out is an advantage the big guns have is they can throw big hyzers up and around obstacles. You may have a 300' hole that is impossible to get there in one shot if you have to go under the canopy but if you can go up and around you have to be able to throw 400' plus to get there.

 

[rupet]

True, off topic but this is one part of DG that I dislike. For me it gets boring watching pros throw hyzers over trees.

The other piece of the eqation you left out is an advantage the big guns have is they can throw big hyzers up and around obstacles. You may have a 300' hole that is impossible to get there in one shot if you have to go under the canopy but if you can go up and around you have to be able to throw 400' plus to get there.

 

[AshleyH]

The other piece of the eqation you left out is an advantage the big guns have is they can throw big hyzers up and around obstacles. You may have a 300' hole that is impossible to get there in one shot if you have to go under the canopy but if you can go up and around you have to be able to throw 400' plus to get there.

This is definitely true, but I have found that I can make a lot tighter lines than guys that can outdrive me by 100+ feet,because it's all I've got.

 

[araytx]

All those stats are BS.

Anyone arguing that distance does not help your game should get their head checked. It's like saying that making long putts does not help your game.

The theorethical perfect 300/30 player does not exist. Even though I am working on it

Long story short : tell me all the stories you want, in the end you should still work on your distance. Amongst other things.

Sorry, I don't totally agree. Now, should everyone always work on getting better distance? Well, yes, of course. Who thinks they can continue to be competitive at the same level they're currently at and lose distance? But the OP (nor anyone I read) never said emphatically, "...[increasing]distance does not help your game....] What was postulated was that you could compete at a high level maxing out around 300 or a little higher. And I believe that to be true.

The Champ is often said to throw not much more than 350-400 ft at his peak -- yet he has 12 World titles. He set the record for highest rated round ever (1117) just 3 years ago (not during his run in the 1990's), by being that near-perfect 300/30 guy. [Well, granted he made a couple/three 50-60 footers.,] He did it in a 24-hole round, and he finished at -23 without any aces. He missed a birdie look on the first hole and parred it. He proceeded then to birdie 23 in a row. And it was on a championship course. So you CAN compete without having to throw 450 ft or more; Climo still proves it!

 

[Stud Muffin]

Some of those courses have holes that you need 300+ just to clear water or the OB.

Still, very cool article. Accuracy and putting really is the key.

^That

Distance matters more than we care to admit.