Harder Courses for worlds?

[Keller]

Yeah, Like that image hasn't been rubbed into the ground

 

[Vonbeezy1]

I'd like to see more big tournaments played on wooded monster courses, but I can see how that isn't conducive to good spectating or filming.

This right here all day. A course with a ton of hyzer shots or wide open is not what worlds or even major tourneys should be. There needs to be some mix of heavy wooded courses and narrow lines. While I strongly agree being able to throw far looks cool and is a skill, throwing accurate shots and having to land in specific areas is what big tourneys need.

 

[tbird888]

Yeah, Like that image hasn't been rubbed into the ground

Are you calling Morgan Freeman dirty?

 

[gdub58]

Only the second part of that is true. The actual definition "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions" works fine. However, that doesn't seem to be the way TD's set par. They either use the par from the tee signs, or set par to be "everything is birdie-able".
Watch this video preview of Jones East, Replace any references to par with the implied score, apply the actual definition to what he says, and you get the real par.

2. "is gonna be a must-[2] hole.."
3. "Most people are probably going to be getting a 3."
4. "…really easy [3]."
6. "If I miss that tree, I've got a pretty good look at potential [2]. Lot of people going to be getting 3s or 4s."
7. "…then it gives you a 20 to 30 foot putt for your [2]."
…

It's been settled. See above. Now, we just need to wait for TDs to decide that getting par right is an important-enough part of their job.

It may be settled in your mind, but IMO it's a fool's errand. How do you define "errorless play"? Never hitting a tree? Never missing inside of 80'?

We've had this debate several times, and I am astounded that you think it's as easy as you describe to assign a whole-number "real par" to individual disc golf holes...

Oh well, I guess someone has to tilt at windmills...

 

[youdidwell]

High scoring seems to work for a lot of other sports. I find seeing pros crush the same courses I can play just as impressive. Disc Golf is a participation sport and shouldn't be geared towards the elite.

 

[DanJon]

no, correct.

You saved the day!

 

[HarkeyPuck]

English teacher for a father. I just want you to sound intelligent.

 

[bhadella]

8000 ft and relatively open just isn't as much of a challenge as the Pro World Championships should have (for 3 of the 5 rounds). All of the courses from last years worlds were better tests for Open. 8000 ft courses need much more woods to provide the kind of challenge that the World Championships deserves.

 

[RistoS]

8000 ft and relatively open just isn't as much of a challenge as the Pro World Championships should have (for 3 of the 5 rounds). All of the courses from last years worlds were better tests for Open. 8000 ft courses need much more woods to provide the kind of challenge that the World Championships deserves.

Par on the ECC gold course at GBO was over 1000 rated, so it's plenty challenging from that standpoint.

 

[JTacoma03]

If putting in some way (not a smaller basket) were made tougher by 1/2 a throw per hole so it's similar to ball golf metrics, then you would see over/under scores more like ball golf and TDs would not need to use gimmicks like oppressive OB to challenge players.

We could *gasp* stop adding so many extra dang chains, and stop trying to make a "better" basket.

But then mid level pros will whine on facebook about spit-outs and how they deserved to make a 12' putt @ 60mph.


("better" is written as such because it doesn't make it better, it favors a one style over another)

where's that kermit meme...

 

[bhadella]

Par on the ECC gold course at GBO was over 1000 rated, so it's plenty challenging from that standpoint.

9712 ft (Country Club) is definitely a better distance for an Open Championship level course than 8038 ft (Jones East).

 

[esdubya]

We could *gasp* stop adding so many extra dang chains, and stop trying to make a "better" basket.

But then mid level pros will whine on facebook about spit-outs and how they deserved to make a 12' putt @ 60mph.


("better" is written as such because it doesn't make it better, it favors a one style over another)

where's that kermit meme...

Excellent! My opinion is that the Mach III is just about right as far as # of chains and layout. Not a big fan of the newer style baskets that catch everything.

 

[RistoS]

9712 ft (Country Club) is definitely a better distance for an Open Championship level course than 8038 ft (Jones East).

Yeah I mixed up distances of the courses, the European I am Courses like Jones East might be a reasonable compromise considering there's a wide variety of divisions in the event though.

 

[DavidSauls]

Only the second part of that is true. The actual definition "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions" works fine. However, that doesn't seem to be the way TD's set par. They either use the par from the tee signs, or set par to be "everything is birdie-able".
Watch this video preview of Jones East, Replace any references to par with the implied score, apply the actual definition to what he says, and you get the real par.

2. "is gonna be a must-[2] hole.."
3. "Most people are probably going to be getting a 3."
4. "…really easy [3]."
6. "If I miss that tree, I've got a pretty good look at potential [2]. Lot of people going to be getting 3s or 4s."
7. "…then it gives you a 20 to 30 foot putt for your [2]."
…




It's been settled. See above. Now, we just need to wait for TDs to decide that getting par right is an important-enough part of their job.

Did they take out the "assuming 2 shots from close range" part.....or did you? (Sorry, I don't have time to check right now).

That---and the interpretation that "close range" means the 10-meter circle---is the source of a lot of the problems.

 

[bhadella]

Yeah I mixed up distances of the courses, the European I am Courses like Jones East might be a reasonable compromise considering there's a wide variety of divisions in the event though.

Jones East is only being used for MPO and WPO. From the course map it looks like they used every inch they could to make Jones East as long as they could, it just isn't that close to being a Gold course.

 

[araytx]

Mechanically, score relative to (posted) par is much less important than actual scoring spread. Basically, the function of a hole in tournament play is to (fairly) spread out the scores of the competitors. A 'good' hole, then, is one that is effective at producing a variety of scores among the competitors.

Looking at the MPO leaderboard (with 55 players on it), for example, I noticed the following:

Hole 2: 74.5% of players took 2's. That's way too high.
Hole 3: 72.7% of players took 3's. Again, slightly too high.
Hole 14: 74.5% of players took 3's. A little high.

There are other metrics to look at too (and you'd really want to look at the full field). Here are simple descriptives, for example:

View attachment 59257

Hole #13 is the par 4; it seemed to have more scoring spread. Hole #14 is a par 3. I suspect that even the top pros don't wish to challenge the OB deep off the tee shot with the basket on the top of the dam hill (not damn hill). Plus if you're even as much as 25 ft short, it's a risky putt. If you're not putting parallel to the water, even they wont go for it, because anything missing even just barely falling on the back side of the basket is gonna roll into the OB water.

Also, I know from personal experience that when it's the PDGA's tournament, they make some decisions about pin placements and tees that the tourney hosts may or may not agree with. E.G., hole #2 is probably more challenging in the short position because it's close to the OB road. The position they are playing is a pure Hyzer deuce or die for either lefty or righty.


Jones East is plenty hard -- you just need to play it. I can see that complaint more about Country Club. These guys are just that good. Especially when you look at where Paul made some of his putts from. The issue with the top pros scoring that close to one another is the putting issue. When there are guys that are 80-90% plus with a wide open 40-45 foot putt, and above 50% from 75-feet, that is what needs to be addressed. I would go on but that's another thread...

And don't forget that having arm speed and OS discs at 14-speed does help.

 

[araytx]

If putting in some way (not a smaller basket) were made tougher by 1/2 a throw per hole so it's similar to ball golf metrics, then you would see over/under scores more like ball golf and TDs would not need to use gimmicks like oppressive OB to challenge players.

Smaller targets would lead to less agressive putting, less score separation, and a more boring game.

I'm not a fan of smaller targets; I'd prefer to have an attachment (for pro tournaments only -- don't change any current dg courses) It would be something that connects cage to bottom of the top rim and blocks about 1/3 of the basket, so that the approach shot becomes a bigger part of the game especially on par 4/5's. Approach to the "good side" and you still have your wide open putt. Approach to the "bad side" and you're blocked. Approach to somewhere between and you'd have to curve your putt in, either Hyzer or anhyzer -- kinda like ball golfers having to play the slopes on the green.

I agree that smaller targets would lead to less aggressive putting ... I don't think this would. It would lead to even more skillful drives on par 3 holes to birdie and even more skillful approaches on par 4/5's. It would also make some 20-footers super challenging, rather than routine, thus addressing 75% of the field deucing any hole.

 

[araytx]

Pretty much.



Preliminary stats say par for Jones East should have been 53. Only #9 is a par 4 for Gold.

It is easy to set par correctly for Open players. See here.
Even if we do, we still likely need harder courses.

Interesting ... but 53??? With one of the 18 holes you're telling me is a par 4, that means two of the holes are par 2s. Which ones? I am guessing #2 and #12?

 

[ejvogie]

I was thinking the same thing. I'll take a 15' putt in disc golf over a 2' putt in golf 100 times out of 100.

Yep. I can't tell you how many times I've bounced one perfectly around the railroad ties, only to lip out my 18" putt because of a wrinkle in the astroturf.

no, correct.

No, correct.

FTFY

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

I'm not a fan of smaller targets; I'd prefer to have an attachment (for pro tournaments only -- don't change any current dg courses) It would be something that connects cage to bottom of the top rim and blocks about 1/3 of the basket, so that the approach shot becomes a bigger part of the game especially on par 4/5's. Approach to the "good side" and you still have your wide open putt. Approach to the "bad side" and you're blocked. Approach to somewhere between and you'd have to curve your putt in, either Hyzer or anhyzer -- kinda like ball golfers having to play the slopes on the green.

I agree that smaller targets would lead to less aggressive putting ... I don't think this would. It would lead to even more skillful drives on par 3 holes to birdie and even more skillful approaches on par 4/5's. It would also make some 20-footers super challenging, rather than routine, thus addressing 75% of the field deucing any hole.

I have always liked the idea of directional targets.

Maybe we need baskets like this:

From Crystal Lake IA