Is 36 down okay? What should par be?

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

I think it's cool to experiment with different baskets, and would be interested to see if it makes a difference on where certain players rank on the leaderboard. Obviously the scores will be higher, and might even get disc golf par closer to ball golf par.

However, to me part of the appeal of watching ball or disc golf is seeing pros play the same course with the same equipment as us mere mortals.

Again, I'm not bothered one bit by -36 winning a disc golf tournament.

 

[Dan Ensor]

It seems to me that the biggest scoring difference between dg and bg isn't the overall score. I'm pretty sure Tiger shot close to -30 at Pebble Beach one year. The difference I see is the scoring swings of 6+ that sometimes happen in dg. And also, the ability of the leader to be untouchable in the final round. Seems like bg does a better job of making the last few holes important.

 

[tallpaul]

It seems to me that the biggest scoring difference between dg and bg isn't the overall score. I'm pretty sure Tiger shot close to -30 at Pebble Beach one year. The difference I see is the scoring swings of 6+ that sometimes happen in dg. And also, the ability of the leader to be untouchable in the final round. Seems like bg does a better job of making the last few holes important.

Perhaps this is because there is a million dollars on a swing or two; vs. couple hundred bucks?

*And I could be speaking of betting money vs. prize money....*

 

[teemkey]

I think that was his conclusion.

After 334 posts, I thought a reminder was in order.

 

[skurf]

When I see Paul McBeth park a 550' hole on an island green with OB all around for an Eagle, well, I'd say he deserves to end at -40.

 

[DG_player]

However, there was just an event in Idaho where they used the narrower practice baskets by DD.

This seems like the obvious solution if your goal is more ball golf like tournament scores. Based on the original article the primary stroke difference is due to putting difficulty, and this gets right at the heart of the problem. The other benefit of a smaller basket is that a great approach shot is rewarded over a simply good one, since 20-25 footers would no longer be automatic for pros.

Has anyone ever done any statistical comparison of putting rates between a marksman and standard basket? It would be interesting to see how much it would reduce scores.

 

[biscoe]

Markedly smaller basket= markedly more laying up= markedly less interesting.

 

[DavidSauls]

This seems like the obvious solution if your goal is more ball golf like tournament scores. Based on the original article the primary stroke difference is due to putting difficulty, and this gets right at the heart of the problem.

Why not change the scoring, instead of the game?

Still seems like the obvious solution to me. Assuming, of course, that it's a problem in need of solution.

 

[Steve West]

This seems like the obvious solution if your goal is more ball golf like tournament scores. Based on the original article the primary stroke difference is due to putting difficulty, and this gets right at the heart of the problem. The other benefit of a smaller basket is that a great approach shot is rewarded over a simply good one, since 20-25 footers would no longer be automatic for pros.

Has anyone ever done any statistical comparison of putting rates between a marksman and standard basket? It would be interesting to see how much it would reduce scores.

The Game Development Team had data from one tournament where they took off all the outer chains between rounds. It made no difference in the scores.

But we need more data, if any TD is willing to swap out baskets during a tournament. Especially at a tournament with putting stats being collected.

 

[DavidSauls]

Markedly smaller basket= markedly more laying up= markedly less interesting.

True, and even more pertinent if we return to the original theme, which is making disc golf a spectator sport. Make the scores look better but the game look worse?

 

[DG_player]

Markedly smaller basket= markedly more laying up= markedly less interesting.

I don't know that this is necessarily the case. A lot of baskets are put in very precarious spots because putting is so easy (edge of steep drops, next to OB, etc.). If baskets were smaller this would no longer be necessary to enhance the difficulty. A death putt would still be a death putt, but it wouldn't be necessary to have death putts on every other hole to inflate scores.

 

[lyleoross]

Markedly smaller basket= markedly more laying up= markedly less interesting.

This is a point to be considered, but I'm not sure it's valid. As someone pointed out just above, it'd be good to actually look at what happens.

While smaller baskets do something to address the problem, they are what I least advocate for. I advocate for greens development. Don't waste time trying to regulate baskets, push for higher pars, 3 vs 2, and get course developers to reconsider green development. Pretty minor changes.

To biscoe's comment. In ball golf, players don't lay up to those little cups, instead, they use a measured technical approach that gives a good chance, but leaves the ball close. Disc golf putters used to be more measured. As the baskets got more "catchy" we have gotten increasingly likely to go hard at the basket. Perhaps a balance? BG could do something similar to what we've done. A little pole in the hole with chains to stop roll through. They don't because they have a different perception of what is exciting.

By making putting more difficult you place more emphasis on drives and the short game. I've always thought it was unfair that a player could make a great technical drive and lay the disc under the pole, and that is equivalent to a guy who turns his disc over and lands thirty feet away. Because our putting is so easy, the shots come out the same.

Last, as an organization we should consider the two juxtaposed positions. Easy vs hard putting. As biscoe has rightly pointed out, runs at the basket are fun, but have we created a situation that makes such things easy simply because they are fun?

 

[DG_player]

True, and even more pertinent if we return to the original theme, which is making disc golf a spectator sport. Make the scores look better but the game look worse?

Right now essentially any putt inside of 25 feet could be eliminated from coverage, since they're pretty much automatic for the pros. I'm not sure how adding some tension to these putts and making them worth watching is going to make the game worse for spectating.

 

[DavidSauls]

Right now essentially any putt inside of 25 feet could be eliminated from coverage, since they're pretty much automatic for the pros. I'm not sure how adding some tension to these putts and making them worth watching is going to make the game worse for spectating.

Either way goes to factors that make disc golf a poor spectator sport.

But if you make 20' putts uncertain, you make players lay up from 60', because they can't afford the miss that might cost 2 strokes.

What's more fun to watch? A 20' uncertain putt, or a 60' uncertain putt?

Of course, a lot of that depends on just how much smaller the target is. Where's the sweet spot? I don't know. One of my local courses (Earlewood) has old baskets that are noticeably narrower than modern baskets, but not so much that it discourages people from making runs from greater distances. If you could find the point where shorter putts are less certain, but not enough to discourage players from running longer putts, I think it would be perfect.

But the degree you'd have to shrink baskets to add a 1/2 stroke per hole---to get rid of those -36s---would greatly cut down on the exciting long putts that go in, or are even attempted.

*

On the other hand, if you correct the definition of par, or the application of par, to reflect what expert players actually expect to get, then with very little effort you've brought the winning scores closer to par, without tinkering with the baskets at all.

We can still shrink the baskets---to the sweet spot, if we agree upon it---but for reasons of making it a better game, to play or even watch, and not just to make the score look like golf.

 

[DavidSauls]

Questions:

If the goal were to make disc golf putting difficult enough to produce scores similar to golf, how small would the target have to be?

What are pro golfers putting averages from 5', 10', 20', 30'?

What would it take for pro disc golfers to have similar averages?

 

[air show]

Markedly smaller basket= markedly more laying up= markedly less interesting.

I couldn't agree more. I love watching the chains fly when someone hits one from Ricky Range. And sometimes the disc spins in the chains like a swish in basketball.

 

[Steve West]

Questions:

If the goal were to make disc golf putting difficult enough to produce scores similar to golf, how small would the target have to be?

What are pro golfers putting averages from 5', 10', 20', 30'?

What would it take for pro disc golfers to have similar averages?

I put a chart up there in the previous comments somewhere.

But, the first thing you have to do is the take away the pole and the chains and have just the tray for a target. That will change the curvature of the function of putts vs. length to be more like that of golf. Then, you can make the tray smaller.

Of course, ball golf is moving toward a bigger cup, so we can meet in the middle somewhere.

 

[Steve West]

Right now essentially any putt inside of 25 feet could be eliminated from coverage...

Or, you could eliminate them from the game. For any putt that does not go in, move back along the line of play to the 25 foot circle and putt from there.

 

[DavidSauls]

I put a chart up there in the previous comments somewhere.

But, the first thing you have to do is the take away the pole and the chains and have just the tray for a target. That will change the curvature of the function of putts vs. length to be more like that of golf. Then, you can make the tray smaller.

Of course, ball golf is moving toward a bigger cup, so we can meet in the middle somewhere.

I found it, thanks.

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, you could eliminate them from the game. For any putt that does not go in, move back along the line of play to the 25 foot circle and putt from there.

Yeah, I've thought about that after the USDGC did something similar one year (but not as severe).

Like many other "solutions", it would be a cure worse than the disease, and certainly unpalatable for general play.