Most Holes Played in 24 Hours

[MikeK]

I see you got confused by c.a.miller's question to me of where I draw the line. So when I was talking about drawing the line I was referring to me, not the PDGA.

The PDGA's guidelines aren't bound in stone, so by the letter of their law they can't be contradicted. But the PDGA clearly intends to define a minimum distance for both a hole and a course with their choice of lengths.

More evidence that the PDGA doesn't define a course as 18 holes less than 50 feet in length can be found at the start of the PDGA Course Design Recommendations document:

"Design course with the potential for multiple configurations to serve not only beginners but players with advanced skills....Design a well balanced course with a wide range of hole lengths and a good mixture of holes requiring controlled left, right and straight throws."

Can the (extremely weak) argument be made that anything can still be defined as a course since there's no actual standards? Yes, that weak argument can be made...incorrrectly of course, pun intended.

Disc Golf Course Review is clearly the leader in cataloging, rating, and discussing disc golf courses. The PDGA's own database pales in comparison to DGCR. So to me, it's far more important how DGCReview defines a course. So for Rolling Hills Putting Labyrinth to still be listed on DGCReview as a permanent course rather than a practice area IS AN ABOMINATION.

Has Tim G really been given all the facts about the Labyrinth from BogeyNoMore? I sure hope not. I'd like to think Tim hasn't broken his own high standards by allowing the Labyrinth to be called a permanent course, and if Tim was given the full picture he'd do what's best for disc golf and fix the listing.

 

[MarkDSM]

It has a prescribed route of travel for play. With that I believe it would meet a reasonably acceptable definition of a 'course' . That contrasts with practice areas of one or more targets in implied typical usage.

 

[MikeK]

Bubba's Putt Putt Course has prescribed routes of play too. Does that make it a ball golf course?

 

[dreadlock86]

I played 6 rounds in a day.

same course or different courses? how many 18 v. 9?


i did 6 different courses at least one time. the one i'm thinking of was four 18s and two 9s, and i pulled up at a 7th course but the sun was down, i didn't have lights, and decided not to play in the dark.

one time i also did 4 courses a day, three days in a row.


sorry, [/bragging]

 

[Dire Wolfy]

same course or different courses? how many 18 v. 9?


i did 6 different courses at least one time. the one i'm thinking of was four 18s and two 9s, and i pulled up at a 7th course but the sun was down, i didn't have lights, and decided not to play in the dark.

one time i also did 4 courses a day, three days in a row.


sorry, [/bragging]

Same course, 18 holes.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Bubba's Putt Putt Course has prescribed routes of play too. Does that make it a ball golf course?

Exactly. This putt course is a different critter altogether and ought to be categorized as such. I have no issue with how its rated because the rating is clearly based on design intent. How well did the course achieve what it was designed to do?

Right now, I am aware of three basic DG course types:

- Standard course
- Putt
- Mini

Maybe it's time to start breaking those down on DGCR so long as we don't break timg or his creation.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Bubba's Putt Putt Course has prescribed routes of play too. Does that make it a ball golf course?

Yes. It is a course and you use a golf ball to play so by definition it is a ball golf course. Will the PGA ever hold an event there? No because it is a putt putt course. Semi-intelligent people understand the difference and understand what exactly it is by the name Bubba's Putt Putt Course.

Not sure why there is an issue with listing a putt putt course which spells out exactly what it is on the About page. It's a nice addition to anyone going to Rolling Hills to play a very fun wooded course to also enjoy a warm up putt putt round while they are there.

As for the 24 hr record it is up to Guiness to layout the rules and guidelines for their records. Specify the minimum length per hole average for this to count. I would think the Labrynth wouldn't qualify and shouldn't qualify IMO, but it aint for me to decide. If Guiness doesnt want somebody gaming the system then set the expectation.

 

[c_a_miller]

As for the 24 hr record it is up to Guiness to layout the rules and guidelines for their records. Specify the minimum length per hole average for this to count. I would think the Labrynth wouldn't qualify and shouldn't qualify IMO, but it aint for me to decide. If Guiness doesnt want somebody gaming the system then set the expectation.

And the reality is, Guinness does not give a damn. *shrugs* Someone could "break" it at this course, and Guinness would happily give them the record if they hit all the criteria, none of which is a minimum hole length. The only criteria Guinness gives is that it has to be a permanent course recognized as such by the sport's governing body, which is why I think that the person who broke Mike Sale's 2900 record by going over 3000 should not be valid as he shortened an existing course and added holes to minimize walking.

Here is the current record for Most Golf Holes Played in 24 Hours: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...les-played-by-an-individual-in-24-hours-(cart) No word on whether there was a minimum hole length, but I would like to imagine there would be.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I made it to DeLaveaga for one glorious day in 1999. Played it 4 times. All of it. Arm was a little tight after that one.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

And the reality is, Guinness does not give a damn. *shrugs* Someone could "break" it at this course, and Guinness would happily give them the record if they hit all the criteria, none of which is a minimum hole length. The only criteria Guinness gives is that it has to be a permanent course recognized as such by the sport's governing body, which is why I think that the person who broke Mike Sale's 2900 record by going over 3000 should not be valid as he shortened an existing course and added holes to minimize walking.

Here is the current record for Most Golf Holes Played in 24 Hours: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...les-played-by-an-individual-in-24-hours-(cart) No word on whether there was a minimum hole length, but I would like to imagine there would be.

I think FP's point was that Guiness should have minimum requirements for records such as this. Perhaps those standards should be arrived at in agreement with the activity's governing body.

I can't imagine this is problem is limited to disc golf. There must be other records that have been achieved primarily by selecting as extreme a venue as possible (or otherwise tweaking the parameters of the record, still managing to stay within the letter of the rules, but basically violating the spirit of the record), such that that particular attempt greatly skews the odds in that person's favor by virtue of an advantage other attempts didn't have.

Maybe it never gets resolved, and someone breaks the record at Rolling Hills. :\

The Murderer hasn't held the record for Most Rushing Yards from scrimmage in an NFL season since Dickerson broke is record in 1984... but Dickerson and those who pushed the bar even higher had 2 extra games. The Murderer is still holds the "record" for NFL Rushing Yards per Game Single-Season at: 143.1. That's 10 yds/game more than the great even the great Jim Brown managed in his best season. Note how everyone clusters behind Browns 133.1, while the Murderer is way out in front.

If they care anything about integrity, maybe Guinness should look to reconfigure such records so (to the extent possible to eliminate such variables). Maybe distance "Playable distance covered" should have a minimum?

The point is, records only make sense when achieved on at least somewhat level playing fields... quite literally in the case of this thread.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Disc Golf Course Review is clearly the leader in cataloging, rating, and discussing disc golf courses. The PDGA's own database pales in comparison to DGCR. So to me, it's far more important how DGCReview defines a course. So for Rolling Hills Putting Labyrinth to still be listed on DGCReview as a permanent course rather than a practice area IS AN ABOMINATION.

Has Tim G really been given all the facts about the Labyrinth from BogeyNoMore? I sure hope not. I'd like to think Tim hasn't broken his own high standards by allowing the Labyrinth to be called a permanent course, and if Tim was given the full picture he'd do what's best for disc golf and fix the listing.

And the reality is, Guinness does not give a damn. *shrugs* Someone could "break" it at this course, and Guinness would happily give them the record if they hit all the criteria, none of which is a minimum hole length.

Frankly neither do I to be honest. *shrugs*

My point was more to MikeK losing his mind about Bogey working with TimG about adding this putter course to the site. Go rant and rave at Guinness Mike not at DGCR for simply informing golfers of another option to throw pieces of plastics at baskets. This site is an information resource for disc golfers and the more info the better IMO. Not Tim's job to ensure Guinness is doing their due diligence before recognizing "records", that is 100% on Guinness.

 

[c_a_miller]

Frankly neither do I to be honest. *shrugs*

My point was more to MikeK losing his mind about Bogey working with TimG about adding this putter course to the site. Go rant and rave at Guinness Mike not at DGCR for simply informing golfers of another option to throw pieces of plastics at baskets. This site is an information resource for disc golfers and the more info the better IMO. Not Tim's job to ensure Guinness is doing their due diligence before recognizing "records", that is 100% on Guinness.

I have actually broken another non disc golf world record through Guinness recently, and I just don't think they care about the integrity of how their records are broken rather they care that the rules they set forth for the record are followed. At the end of the day, Guinness is completely independent from the PDGA and every other sports governing body that people might break records through.

When I was younger, I had a huge infatuation with Guinness, but after going through their process twice now on two separate records, I have become jaded with them.

 

[c_a_miller]

I think FP's point was that Guiness should have minimum requirements for records such as this. Perhaps those standards should be arrived at in agreement with the activity's governing body.

The PDGA probably either doesn't care about it or doesn't want to touch this controversial issue. Though they have written articles three times about Mike Sale hitting 1310 and then 2900.

https://www.pdga.com/breaking-world-records-great-causes
https://www.pdga.com/bar-has-been-raised