Distance

[mostlynorwegian]

Ok so, I want to be able to play pro in a few years. I'm 16 and my goal is to be able to tour at around 18. What is the ideal distance to make the cut on the dgpt? I currently throw 450' golf lines and 500' distance shots. I think that a good goal is 550' golf lines and 600' distance. What are yalls thoughts?

Watch Gannon Buhr get chased down by Drew Gibson at Las Vegas.

 

[crushboi]

A Horizon DD1 I've been thinking about them. I've had an S-Line the past few months for wind play 15 to 45 mph in my region. Have you given any thought to a Horizon Cloudbreaker? It added distance compared to an S-Line Cloudbreaker a year ago, I use for the reason wind.

As with the others, work on putting.

So I use my dd1 for hyzer flips to go really straight. Yes I've got a horizon cloudbreaker, mine is one of the golden ones though, I use it as my more overstable driver but I ordered the black box to get the Pd2. But for me my s-line cloudbreaker goes really far and flies like my first run s-line dd3. And I get a lot of wind as well so I'm really excited for the Pd2

 

[Sheep]

I understand this, but putting is not rolling the dice. These stats are not the results of resolving dice rolls lol.

That's literally how it works. Stats on an action are the measure of the odds. Rolling dice is an action. Throwing darts is an action, putting is an action.
Odds are measured in statistical format. The odds of winning are chances of success.


It's odds. And yes, the stat referenced by you is practically 9/10, not 99% but whatever. That's also C1X, which is not really a correct C1 stat.

but its all good.

 

[RowingBoats]

That's literally how it works. Stats on an action are the measure of the odds. Rolling dice is an action. Throwing darts is an action, putting is an action.
Odds are measured in statistical format. The odds of winning are chances of success.


It's odds. And yes, the stat referenced by you is practically 9/10, not 99% but whatever. That's also C1X, which is not really a correct C1 stat.

but its all good.

Past results of athletic actions by specific human beings are not analogous to dice rolls.

I honestly am trying to understand why you would compare these two things but am absolutely failing, so if Im missing something, sorry.

 

[GripEnemy]

Past results of athletic actions by specific human beings are not analogous to dice rolls.

I honestly am trying to understand why you would compare these two things but am absolutely failing, so if Im missing something, sorry.

Don't mean to jump in but it's like when Jordan, Kobe, or Bron Bron are "hot" and shooting well. Just because they're shooting 39/40 doesn't mean it effects shot #41 at all.

You can get 9999999999999 tails in a row on a coin flip but every single chance is 50% each time.

One instance does not effect another. Just like a dice roll.

 

[RowingBoats]

Don't mean to jump in but it's like when Jordan, Kobe, or Bron Bron are "hot" and shooting well. Just because they're shooting 39/40 doesn't mean it effects shot #41 at all.

You can get 9999999999999 tails in a row on a coin flip but every single chance is 50% each time.

One instance does not effect another. Just like a dice roll.

Yes, I understand this concept lol.
But, if we are talking about what % of C1/2 putts need to be made in order to succeed on the pro tour, looking at actual results of players who accomplished this gives us a good idea.
Saying that you need 60-70% C2 to succeed is not accurate in that discussion.

And, I still don't know why we are comparing this to dice rolls. The assertion that two people making a disc golf putt is equivalent to those same people rolling dice is...I just dont get it. There is no model for universal disc golf putting probability, there is a model for universal 6 sided dice roll probability.

 

[GripEnemy]

Capable of 99% C1 and actually making 70% are directly comparable.

I digress.

Cheers

 

[Sheep]

And, I still don't know why we are comparing this to dice rolls. The assertion that two people making a disc golf putt is equivalent to those same people rolling dice is...I just dont get it. There is no model for universal disc golf putting probability, there is a model for universal 6 sided dice roll probability.

It's the laws of stats and averages. We record them for every sport and almost every action players make. Batting averages, home run averages, all those things. It gives us an idea based on historical statistics how probably of an outcome said player will have.

Those are called "odds" and we play games based on our odds. The better we are, the better our odds are.

Dice rolls are an example because its pure odds, pure statistics with no outside influences. Same with a coin flip as exampled above. you an roll tails 3000 times despite there being a 50/50 chance. Just as you can roll a 1 on a d10 500 times despite there being a 1 in 10 chance.

When putting, if your statistics are 9 putts in 10 on circle 1.
There is a 90% chance you'll make it statistically. Just like there is a 10% chance you roll a 1.

If you cannot understand the correlations. Then I don't know what you tell you. This is just basic stuff. Maybe read a sports betting book?

 

[Mist Mando]

No, you're still not explaining anything. The question was, why if pros make 99% of C1 putts then why do these stats show they miss ~10%? ChrisWoj already gave the simple and likely answer: the stats exclude tap-ins, which doesn't tell us that the observed C1 rate would go to 99% (honestly it seems unlikely) but it would be more than 88% for sure.

 

[RowingBoats]

I understand probability as a concept lol. Your most recent post seems to be a divergence from your initial dismissal of the relevancy of the stats that I posted, so I guess we agree.

But the elite players are not missing putts.

For the record, Im going to just quote part of the initial take that you posted that was the source of my disagreement. Elite players do miss putts. It seems you agree with this with your newest post as well.

And I will just simplify my other point of contention:

and at least 60-70% in circle 2.

I don't have a huge disagreement on your C1 numbers, I agree that C1 vs C1X is going to be higher, so that makes sense. I disagree with your take on C2 requirements. This is a thread asking what it takes to succeed on the pro tour. I posted actual statistics from the TOP players and no one is even close to this as their baseline percentage.

Thats all I was saying lol.

I really don't understand the simultaneous lecture on probability and the shrugging off of actual numbers that you are putting forth in this thread.

 

[ChrisWoj]

That's literally how it works. Stats on an action are the measure of the odds. Rolling dice is an action. Throwing darts is an action, putting is an action.
Odds are measured in statistical format. The odds of winning are chances of success.


It's odds. And yes, the stat referenced by you is practically 9/10, not 99% but whatever. That's also C1X, which is not really a correct C1 stat.

but its all good.

C1X is an improved C1 statistic. Once you're inside 3m the make rate skyrockets to the point that it obliterates the comparability of overall putting rates, basically papering over statistical differences between great putters and good putters. There are ways to include C1 putts and still evaluate putting meaningfully, but most people aren't going to take the time to learn about interpreting logistic units (logits), so it is far simpler to cut the bullseye putts out entirely for the practical purposes.

Since I'm here, a thought on your initial point...

Is your initial post saying that someone with 450-500 has enough distance to cash on tour, and to actualize being able to cash they need to be able to drain 99% C1 and 60-70% C2? If so - I just disagree with that on its face. There are plenty on tour who cash with much worse putting numbers and not much more distance.

 

[GripEnemy]

Capable******

They need to be capable of 90%+ C1 and 60% or more C2. That does not mean said person will actually perform that well.

Yes I'm speaking for Sheep he can correct me if necessary.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I really don't understand the simultaneous lecture on probability and the shrugging off of actual numbers that you are putting forth in this thread.

I feel like there's a disconnect associated with communicating which sample he's talking about in which post... where is he talking about one event, where is he talking about a whole season. And if he's done/said everything he has wholly intentionally and doesn't feel he left something out, there's a disconnect somewhere in context around sample sizes.

 

[RowingBoats]

60% or more C2

But what is this based on? 60-70% C2 is very literally double what some top players cashing perform at.

Even if you are trying to say that you need to peak way outside of your normal range to do well (this makes no sense to me, but will address it anyways), its just...wrong.

Udisc literally lets you break down a players performance PER tournament. Go look at C2 numbers for high placing players, its nowhere close to 60-70% on average. Players regularly get top 8 with 25% or even less.

 

[RowingBoats]

I feel like there's a disconnect associated with communicating which sample he's talking about in which post... where is he talking about one event, where is he talking about a whole season. And if he's done/said everything he has wholly intentionally and doesn't feel he left something out, there's a disconnect somewhere in context around sample sizes.

I tried to think about it that way too, still doesn't check out.

So, I guess to simplify this - anyone claiming that you need to drain 60-70% C2 putts to compete on the pro tour, please explain why you are making this assertion. I must be missing something fundamental.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You can get 9999999999999 tails in a row on a coin flip but every single chance is 50% each time.

Assuming you balance (or at least randomize) the starting position, the probability of 9999999999999 flips is 50% heads and 50% tails, however the probability of each individual flip is 51% in favor of the starting position. If you start heads every single time your outcomes will, as your sample size increases, approach and stabilize around 51% heads.

Not an argument, just a factoid I've found neat. I didn't know it until somewhat recently.

 

[Sheep]

[/QUOTE]

Is your initial post saying that someone with 450-500 has enough distance to cash on tour, and to actualize being able to cash they need to be able to drain 99% C1 and 60-70% C2? If so - I just disagree with that on its face. There are plenty on tour who cash with much worse putting numbers and not much more distance.

If you mean cash by get the "participation trophy" money, then yes, you don't need to try that hard.

If you wanna be good on tour, that's what I'd strive for.

Most of these guys who are not in the top ranks, its not because of their distance, it's all because of their putting.

 

[Sheep]

Capable******

They need to be capable of 90%+ C1 and 60% or more C2. That does not mean said person will actually perform that well.

Yes I'm speaking for Sheep he can correct me if necessary.

Nailed it.

I probably shouldn't have typed 99%
Because I usually say "you need to make 9 out of 10 putts in circle 1"

I think the 99% thing is causing some controversy.

 

[Sheep]

But what is this based on? 60-70% C2 is very literally double what some top players cashing perform at.

Even if you are trying to say that you need to peak way outside of your normal range to do well (this makes no sense to me, but will address it anyways), its just...wrong.

Udisc literally lets you break down a players performance PER tournament. Go look at C2 numbers for high placing players, its nowhere close to 60-70% on average. Players regularly get top 8 with 25% or even less.

Those u-disc numbers are not that accurate.
Close, but not accurate.

The players don't mark those, random people follow the card and do it. It's a source of controversy with some players. Other pro players don't care about them because they know how wrong they are.

We had a pro lady player rip a volunteers phone out of his hand because she didn't like how he was doing her stats and she started changing them on his phone. This is.. Not allowed for starters, and she basically wanted to argue with him about something he put in. He actually has golfed for a long time and knows what's correct or not. But a lot of the u-disc volunteers barely know the rules let alone how to play.

So, basically what I'm telling you with those stats is don't hang your hat on them so hard. They are great information, but don't have the accuracy to make realistic number arguments from them. While if we were out doing the u-disc stats for a card, we'd be doing our best to make it accurate, most of the volunteers are in the "get it close" range, because the actual information isn't "that" important.

U-disc stats and all that, in my opinion, needs to go the fk away from tournaments. If u-disc wants stats, they need to send their own people. I have almost no volunteers for spotting and assisting on the course because everyone is ate up by u-disc stat keepers.

 

[Sheep]

C1X is an improved C1 statistic. Once you're inside 3m the make rate skyrockets to the point that it obliterates the comparability of overall putting rates, basically papering over statistical differences between great putters and good putters. There are ways to include C1 putts and still evaluate putting meaningfully, but most people aren't going to take the time to learn about interpreting logistic units (logits), so it is far simpler to cut the bullseye putts out entirely for the practical purposes.

I can see where you're going on that. but I'd honestly have to look at the bullseye statistics per players, because most of the low cash people are not hitting it, only the top elites are.

It feels more at this point of "lets make an argument for arguments sake" vs "lets strive for greatness"

Plus, if were looking at it pound for pound, you should be looking at statistics for winning tournament rounds, not overall. With how averages work, 2 bad rounds can take a 95% make rate down to 60-70% pretty quick.

But, were all in a set of "lets argue about it" vs "lets understand the concept were shooting for."

Someone go ask Paul McBeth how many circle 1 putts he says you should make if you wanna be good.
I bet you he'll say "all of them."

With as easy as putting is in disc golf, you should be making almost all your circle 1 putts unless you're playing casually or just dont care.

And if we wanna split hairs. 20 meters out circle 2 edge, isn't really "putting range" anymore. It's closer to "toss with hope"

Your important circle 2 putts are 10-15 meters. Those are the ones you gotta be hitting 60-70%.

Just like C1x.
You take parts out of the equation and suddenly numbers get skewed.