DGPT: 2020 The Preserve Championship July 3-5

[BillFleming]

oldmandiscer's post count is currently 71. But, if you view the list of all his posts, you will see this the post above was #69. So, most likely ChrisWoj's comment refers to the sophomoric connotations of that number.

That's what I thought it might be.....but can't assume anything That's also one thing about commenting on number of posts in a forum as they change frequently and a later reader might miss the intent. Especially in a thread where there are joking posts about qualifications to make comments about something. I thought there was a possibility it might have been a continuation of that joke going on.

 

[BillFleming]

That's what I thought it might be.....but can't assume anything That's also one thing about commenting on number of posts in a forum as they change frequently and a later reader might miss the intent. Especially in a thread where there are joking posts about qualifications to make comments about something. I thought there was a possibility it might have been a continuation of that joke going on.

Can't edit my post....so here is a 'fix/update'.

I've read too many threads today and got a bit mixed up. I thought the comment about the number of posts 'may' have been related to a set of joking posts about what it takes to have an opinion. The posts are actually in Brody Smith PDGA # 128378 (posts 1582, 1589, 1590, and 1592) if anyone wants to see them.

 

[araytx]

Not always. The hole with the least scoring spread was hole 5, the longest hole. Players of all sized arms got a lot of 4s.

Steve, I neglected to explain what I meant there by "lengthening the holes would exacerbate the big arm advantage" (speaking about those 600-750' par 4s). I wasn't talking about scoring spread -- not at all. Because an accurate 375' thrower still gets the same score as a big arm on those holes. The "big arm advantage" I failed to point out was the obnoxious (imho) number of NAGS I saw for the big arms on their second throws. They threw NAGS after NAGS after NAGS. SO no the scoring spread wasn't the issue in exacerbating the big arm advantage; it was the number of times they had NAGS.

 

[ChrisWoj]

That's what I thought it might be.....but can't assume anything That's also one thing about commenting on number of posts in a forum as they change frequently and a later reader might miss the intent. Especially in a thread where there are joking posts about qualifications to make comments about something. I thought there was a possibility it might have been a continuation of that joke going on.

Yep, was just a plum chance to make a bad joke.

 

[swhite]

Yep, was just a plum chance to make a bad joke.

I should admit here that I, also, can't resist making bad jokes far too often.

 

[teemkey]

Thorogoodly bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-bad.

 

[roblee]

Steve, I neglected to explain what I meant there by "lengthening the holes would exacerbate the big arm advantage" (speaking about those 600-750' par 4s). I wasn't talking about scoring spread -- not at all. Because an accurate 375' thrower still gets the same score as a big arm on those holes. The "big arm advantage" I failed to point out was the obnoxious (imho) number of NAGS I saw for the big arms on their second throws. They threw NAGS after NAGS after NAGS. SO no the scoring spread wasn't the issue in exacerbating the big arm advantage; it was the number of times they had NAGS.

Please expand/explain this. Seemed to me that most throws after the tee advanced in a predictable route toward the pin and often resulted in a birdie. Are those NAGS?

 

[brutalbrutus]

 

[araytx]

Please expand/explain this. Seemed to me that most throws after the tee advanced in a predictable route toward the pin and often resulted in a birdie. Are those NAGS?

Well, unless you naturally throw 500' hyzers, then I'm not sure you can say those were "predictable routes that weren't NAGS". Nearly every approach shot of say, 225 and under with little obstruction is a NAGS. And that's what takes the teeth out imho, and the excitement out -- guys throwing a NAGS for easy birdies. That should really ONLY occur (imho) when the player was attacking for eagle, trying a risk/reward shot -- not playing it by design. The designed birdie route shouldn't be a NAGS.

Re-looking at just round 2, front 9, lead card here is my assessment on the par 4,5s:
Hole 1 NAGS 2nd shots -- all four guys, JC, Nikko, Simon, & Vinnie
Hole 4 NAGS 2nd -- JC, Simon, Vinnie
Hole 5 NAGS 2nd -- (none)
Hole 8 NAGS 3rd -- Nikko


So just in that little section my eyes saw 50% NAGS -- way too high. And if my memory was right it might be just the same on the back 9. So to answer your question -- YES. No doubt.

 

[Bogeyman928]

So just in that little section my eyes saw 50% NAGS -- way too high. And if my memory was right it might be just the same on the back 9. So to answer your question -- YES. No doubt.

Forgive my ignorance what does NAGS mean?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Forgive my ignorance what does NAGS mean?

Not A Golf Shot, i.e., not long enough or challenging enough shot.

 

[Bogeyman928]

Not A Golf Shot, i.e., not long enough or challenging enough shot.

Ahhhh gotcha thank you

In that context I kinda have to agree with araytx. Where im torn is whether that should change or not.

 

[Casey 1988]

Ahhhh gotcha thank you

In that context I kinda have to agree with araytx. Where im torn is whether that should change or not.

I say no and here is why... The wind was not there until later, and knowing course was in the more open parts Minnesota, the wind is normally out for a course like this at 20-25 mph for Minnesota most of the time, if not then 15-20 mph. As Simon said in his latest in the bag: The course was so calm in the first two rounds it was like playing indoors. Then the other part he went on to say: , then wind never really picking up to be a problem the last day. this why in his new in the bag change he said he never used some discs at the Preserve that one normally should for an open course like that in a windy part of USA.

 

[Lazerface]

Because it's bringing in a large luck factor. I think that was what Simon was saying in that luck played little into the results at the Preserve. The person who played best won. Same thing with making baskets that don't cut through. You don't want to lose because the baskets are cutting through or bouncing out often.

Adding artificial OB just to raise the scores is silly. It's a poorly designed course if you have to rope everything off. Sorry Winthrop Gold, etc...

I think we disagree on what "luck" means.

 

[Ryan C]

when did you start the timer?

Sorry for not responding sooner. I started the clock per the PDGA rules. I just waited a few seconds after the previous thrower, or whenever it felt like he had "reasonable time" to get to his disc. Its a little subjective, but that exact time is going to be different if you're 200 ft. in front of your card-mate than if your disc is right next to his.