gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
The only way to do this without cheapening the game is to implement Bullseye (or similar) style baskets. No other way around it.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Scoring in Disc Golf
- Thread starter peabody
- Start date
I second this! :clap:
rj29274
Double Eagle Member
Maybe just for big events. Pull the regular baskets and have a set of bullseyes on hand for each course. (I have no idea who would fund said venture, but it's an idea)
I bet Gateway would donate 18 baskets......
Actually I think the PDGA should take bids for the NT baskets...there are a few companies that would probably like to increase their visibility among the DG public.
To do what? If it's get the top scores close to "par", there are a number of other ways to do it, without changing the target.
Out of curiosity, which methods would "cheapen the game", and why would they cheapen it.
Standstill upshots?
Golf can change how a course is played just by changing the pin position on the green, moving a tee, and lengthening the rough. Only two of these options is available to disc golf, and I'm not sure moving the tees is going to do a lot at some courses.
As long as the NT tournaments are played on courses that are essentially the disc golf equivalent of a "public" golf course, we're going to see these low scores. Set Tiger and Phil loose on your local municipal course and they'll shoot in the 50s for 18. We need to have courses that are not designed for amateur players - they are specifically designed for touring pros. Maybe they'll have shorter tees for the rest of us, but they will be designed specifically for high level professional tournaments. And it will probably be a miserable day for the rest of us when we play those courses.
I know that at St. Andrews, you can't get on the course if you have above a certain handicap as calculated by the USGA or the RnA. I doubt anyone here really wants that to happen to disc golf, but if we're trying to bring the pro scores down, that may be what it takes.
Personally, I'm not worried about it too much. I shot a 74 at Bradford Park just a few days after MJ shot a 47. Hearing what he shot on the course didn't make me think the game was easy, or that the course was easy. It didn't even make me think that I suck (though there could be an argument made there). It made me appreciate how good he plays, and how skilled players at that level are.
As long as the NT tournaments are played on courses that are essentially the disc golf equivalent of a "public" golf course, we're going to see these low scores. Set Tiger and Phil loose on your local municipal course and they'll shoot in the 50s for 18. We need to have courses that are not designed for amateur players - they are specifically designed for touring pros. Maybe they'll have shorter tees for the rest of us, but they will be designed specifically for high level professional tournaments. And it will probably be a miserable day for the rest of us when we play those courses.
I know that at St. Andrews, you can't get on the course if you have above a certain handicap as calculated by the USGA or the RnA. I doubt anyone here really wants that to happen to disc golf, but if we're trying to bring the pro scores down, that may be what it takes.
Personally, I'm not worried about it too much. I shot a 74 at Bradford Park just a few days after MJ shot a 47. Hearing what he shot on the course didn't make me think the game was easy, or that the course was easy. It didn't even make me think that I suck (though there could be an argument made there). It made me appreciate how good he plays, and how skilled players at that level are.
I've been hearing about making putting harder for years. The bullseye basket is a great concept however I think it would have the direct opposite effect. Have you ever seen these top players putt on those baskets? Nikko continues to bang putts on those. I can't find the video but I've seen McBeth putting on a small version of chains. He continues to bang. These guys would continue to make putts while the spread would get wider. Average putters would become below average to bad.
That's just the putting side of the game. These guys are so good at driving and upshots that the spread gets even bigger.
That's just the putting side of the game. These guys are so good at driving and upshots that the spread gets even bigger.
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
That's one people had discussed. Another is par manipulation. I think making par 2s out of regularly birdied par 3s doesn't do any good, and artificially lowering par to 3 on 5-700' shots doesn't either just because the top names can do it. The only 2 ways to change score relative to par that are reasonable would be to design incredibly challenging courses (which has a long list of pros and cons and is certainly not feasible at the majority of land used for disc golf courses), and to make the target more difficult (but fair) to hole out on.
The thing is that most of the top pros still have just as big (if not more) of an advantage on the technical holes too. With the distance they can throw, they walk up to a 300' hole able to throw every disc in their bag to get there, while a rec player is pulling out a high speed driver. If you want to make course design that takes away all the advantages of power, you end up with pretty silly design by current standards.
That's all assuming that taking away the advantage of being able to throw far is desirable. It's just as valid a disc golf skill as accurate upshots or great putting, and takes just as much work to get to the point the top guys are. It's a bit silly to me to say we need to design courses to take that away.
Difference of opinion, then. I wouldn't describe it as "par manipulation", but "par correction." The current definition of par doesn't match the way the top players score. We could change the game, or change the definition of par. The latter is certainly easier, at least for our top events.
Personally, I don't feel that assigning par as the score a top player is most likely to get on a hole would cheapen the game in any way.
Assuming that it matters enough to bother with, of course. I'm not convinced it does.
Personally, I don't feel that assigning par as the score a top player is most likely to get on a hole would cheapen the game in any way.
Assuming that it matters enough to bother with, of course. I'm not convinced it does.
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
I would agree with that, with the exception of creating par 2s. It would be difficult though to determine what par would be without running a tournament and taking stats on every hole.
Why are par 2s a problem if you're adjusting things anyway?
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
I guess I have no good answer, they just feel strange to me?
In the scheme of things it seems one of the collective goals of proposed par manipulation is to make the game seem more difficult and more relatable to the public's perception of Ball Golf. Par 2s wouldn't serve any purpose towards promoting the second part of that IMO.
If we don't want things to "feel strange", we should stick with what we have now and just not care about how it looks. Otherwise, because our putting is so much easier than golf, we're going to have to do something strange with either putting or how we look at par if it's important to us to bring it into line with that.
I calculate stats for our course after every event. It'd be guesswork for the first one, or with major changes, of course, but I think experienced course designers could do it fairly well.
Personally, I'm not bothered by Par 2s. Whether we call them that or not, they still are---a hole that most competitors get a 2 on, and if you get a 3 you're losing ground to the competition. If par is what a top player expects to get, then it's a par 2. (Some might suggest that championship courses shouldn't have such holes. They can have holes players can get a 2 on, but not usually.)
Were the "par correction" approach desired, there are a number of ways to do it. It could be by historic totals, average score or median score. Or an estimate, if the stats weren't there. Or CR Par. Or declaring the vague "close range" in the PDGA description to be something like 150 feet, close enough that most top pros will only need 2 shots to putt out.
I'm not claiming this is the only way to bring top player scores closer to par. Course changes, with very challenging fairways, very dangerous O.B., or more difficult putting, would work too.
350' holes with 10' wide fairways. Let's see them birdie that on the reg...
Just means we will eventually need more land......
I am a fan of only allowing discs <10 speed in Pro events.....meaning in the pro division...
I have had plenty of discussions with Pros that agree........considering most can get a Teebird out to 400ft.....
They will.....with a Buzzz, Roc, Stalker, or Leopard
More land doesn't help though, you're either setting up two drive holes that the top guys will card 3s on anyway leading right back to this same debate over lowering par, or making silly holes where it takes a drive and a short stupid upshot just so they can't get a 2.
