Scoring in Disc Golf

[gdub58]

There were some better examples I should have taken screenshots of later in the tournament, but when players are on different holes, having accurate/meaningful Par info makes following along on live scoring much more meaningful. It allows you to see who on the lower card/s are making a charge.

Totally disagree. If you took the two rightmost columns (round score and cumulative score), and added the number of holes they have completed as you see on the leaderboards in ball golf, you would be fine. What is "meaningful" about -8 when we all seem to agree that on many of the holes the par itself is not meaningful?

Much of this conversation is interesting - we've talked the whole "what is par" subject to death, and yet now it's a big concern because the winner of worlds has a score relative to par that seems out of line with what we see in ball golf (which is a comparison that also has been discussed ad nauseum).

Is that really the issue? Is it that the courses used for championships are too easy? If so, would we prefer them playing every round on a single toughened up par-72 course as is done in ball golf? If Worlds evolved to an event for a limited number of Open players only that could work - that's a concept worth considering.

In the end, it sure looks to me like the best players in the world finished at the top of the leaderboard, which is the outcome we hope to see regardless of the number relative to par...

 

[bhadella]

IMO: Lemon Lake just doesn't have balance between risk/reward. More OB/tighter fairways/tougher greens are needed to balance the skill these guys have. The results from Lemon Lake are like Winthrop Gold without the OB. Yes it's long but these guys just eat up the distance. McBeth's only bogey was due to a 3 putt.

 

[Steve West]

I think this entire discussion comes down to this. Disc golf putting is easier than golf putting, therefore pars and scoring are substantially different. The question is, Why do we compare golf scoring to disc golf scoring?

Maybe we should be talking less about how far under par people shoot and just talk total score. Personally, I don't think there is going to be a fix to this "problem." Changing baskets is out of the question, they are established. Par 2s are just silly. Disc golf is not golf, so why do we think there is a problem when they don't match up exactly?

If par 2's are silly, why do we keep playing so many of them, even in World Championships?

 

[sneakytiki]

I fail to see what the problem is. Are big negative numbers scary? Are we saying because we don't like such big negative numbers we should just adjust that number so that instead of a spread from -90 to 0 it should be -45 to +45? Why does it matter!? Some players will be better than others, and will finish a course in a lot less strokes.

Failing to understand the issue.

 

[New013]

I just laugh at many of you who want to take things away for the sole reason that you just don't like it.

For me and for many others it is helpful to look at the scoring and see who is playing the best that day by seeing what relation to par they are at. Just because it does not benefit you does not mean it just shouldn't be there.

Yeah you can just look at their overall score for the round is and look and see how many holes they've played and figure it out but you know what is much much simpler? Just looking at what their score in relation to par is.

If player A has played 10 holes and is 6 under and player B has played 7 and is 5 under you know with very little thought and effort and that player B has 3 holes to get that one stroke back and get tied with player A.

You people who want to eliminate helpful information just because it doesn't suit you are what is wrong with the world. You're to self centered, grow up.

 

[Steve West]

And for that purpose, big negative numbers are not nearly as useful as little negative numbers.

 

[simpletwist]

Maybe we should be talking less about how far under par people shoot and just talk total score. Personally, I don't think there is going to be a fix to this "problem." Changing baskets is out of the question, they are established. Par 2s are just silly. Disc golf is not golf, so why do we think there is a problem when they don't match up exactly?

He gets it.

Yes score relative to par is important for a specific tournament but honestly the arbitrary par number really doesn't matter in that for that day and that tournament par is... 2, 3, 5, 15...

In the end the lowest score wins, PERIOD!

This weekend Dufner won the PGA at -10. Compared to what? To that courses particular TOTAL par for that tournament. But is that how they determined who won? Emphatically NO. It was his total score. And his score was the lowest.

And as for Par 2s, I agree here too. Par 2 is silly. Even on the Pro golf tour there are easy Par 3s and difficult ones. That goes for the Par 4s, and Par 5s. And some pros golfers can shine on longer courses while others are better with tight and technical, just like us disc golfers.

 

[gdub58]

I just laugh at many of you who want to take things away for the sole reason that you just don't like it.

For me and for many others it is helpful to look at the scoring and see who is playing the best that day by seeing what relation to par they are at. Just because it does not benefit you does not mean it just shouldn't be there.

Yeah you can just look at their overall score for the round is and look and see how many holes they've played and figure it out but you know what is much much simpler? Just looking at what their score in relation to par is.

If player A has played 10 holes and is 6 under and player B has played 7 and is 5 under you know with very little thought and effort and that player B has 3 holes to get that one stroke back and get tied with player A.

You people who want to eliminate helpful information just because it doesn't suit you are what is wrong with the world. You're to self centered, grow up.

I guess it's much simpler if you are bad at math, but since most people seem to agree that disc golf par is inconsistent and relatively meaningless I'm not sure how it helps you.

In your example, if Player B has three holes to make up a stroke, that's only helpful if the two players are on the same card, which they are not. If the three holes B has yet to play are easy "par 2" holes as has been described here, then you would look at the deficit in a completely different context than if they were three 480' wooded par 3 holes.

The point is, whether you use numbers related to par (whatever that is) or the total number of throws, it's the same thing.

You people who can't look past their own perspective and are openly critical of other opinions is what's wrong with this thread... :\

 

[New013]

I am looking past my own perspective. I'm not coming on here saying we should be taking away information, you are. You want to limit others, not me.

 

[Dave242]

I am looking past my own perspective. I'm not coming on here saying we should be taking away information, you are. You want to limit others, not me.

Standardizing on a system.....or coming to consensus on almost anything in life......takes compromise. That is giving a little to take a little.....limiting a little in some areas to loosen the limits in other areas. Making something that is best for everyone makes it best for no individual. Everyone is a loser when there is compromise.....and I suppose everyone is a winner too.

One last piece of philosophy: Confucius say "he who stands on toilet is high on pot".

 

[Kraid]

Is there a way to bring the scores closer together so us par/slightly over par guys think we have something to shoot at?
Shorten the holes? Lengthen the holes? Have a different number of holes?
I know most here will say to practice practice practice but talent goes way beyond that.
I dont' want to change this game cause it's the best game out there. But could there be a way to get the scores closer to golf scores?

Honestly I think the elephant in the room with Disc Golf vs Ball Golf and the scores are the pins.

Ball Golf has hole that are 4.25 inches in diameter and a ball that is 1.680 inches in diameter. The target in ball golf is about 2.5 times that of the object being shot and the lengths of putts in both disc and ball golf are comparable. Do ball golfers routinely make 20-30 ft putts like in disc golf?

Disc Golf on the other hand has a target that has a PDGA defined target zone of around 20 inches. A typical putter is around 8 inches in diameter. Meaning that although the target is comparable in size in comparison to the thrown object, about 2.5 times as large, the ability for a disc to land in a basket is much more forgiving than getting a ball in a hole.

Additionally, you are aiming at a target that is physically at least 5 times larger than a golf hole! Its like playing ball golf with a 2 ft hole in the ground.

If something like the Gateway Bullseye target was the norm on the course I believe that the scores would adjust upwards and be more comparable to those seen in ball golf.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Since we're comparing ball golf to Disc Golf, Jack Nicklaus said in one of his books that he felt that the hole in golf was too small. He felt that with the distance of course and the improvement in ball and club technology, that he believed golf would be truer to its roots to have 6" holes for the ball. this would take something away from putting and put the emphasis on ball-striking ability.
Food for thought.
I'm not one of those that thinks we should compare ourselves to bolf.
I'm not one of those that thinks we have an image problem because the World Champ was -90.

 

[PMantle]

Why do people here say ball golf? You guys know it's golf, right?

 

[mashnut]

Honestly I think the elephant in the room with Disc Golf vs Ball Golf and the scores are the pins.

Ball Golf has hole that are 4.25 inches in diameter and a ball that is 1.680 inches in diameter. The target in ball golf is about 2.5 times that of the object being shot and the lengths of putts in both disc and ball golf are comparable. Do ball golfers routinely make 20-30 ft putts like in disc golf?

Disc Golf on the other hand has a target that has a PDGA defined target zone of around 20 inches. A typical putter is around 8 inches in diameter. Meaning that although the target is comparable in size in comparison to the thrown object, about 2.5 times as large, the ability for a disc to land in a basket is much more forgiving than getting a ball in a hole.

Additionally, you are aiming at a target that is physically at least 5 times larger than a golf hole! Its like playing ball golf with a 2 ft hole in the ground.

If something like the Gateway Bullseye target was the norm on the course I believe that the scores would adjust upwards and be more comparable to those seen in ball golf.

I think part of the issue is that we need to stop thinking of 10m as the putting green. Think of 100' as the putting green and suddenly the percentages look pretty similar. 15-20' is a tap in for us in disc golf, you can't compare that to a 20' putt in golf.

 

[Stardoggy]

Seriously, who cares about under par scores, as it relates to golf and DG. They're different games...you're not throwing a golf ball at the hole.

This reeks of "Little Brother" syndrome. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

 

[biscoe]

I think part of the issue is that we need to stop thinking of 10m as the putting green. Think of 100' as the putting green and suddenly the percentages look pretty similar. 15-20' is a tap in for us in disc golf, you can't compare that to a 20' putt in golf.

ding ding ding! i actually think it's around 120 unobstructed feet.

 

[sneakytiki]

I'm not one of those that thinks we should compare ourselves to bolf.
I'm not one of those that thinks we have an image problem because the World Champ was -90.

Right on.

Ball golf and disc golf have different criteria for setting par. Their bodies of players have different skill densities. The sports themselves except for the fact that stokes are counted to reach a goal they are VERY different. Why should the image of disc golf depend on how well ball golf players play with respect to their system of par? Should we have to change our sport so that when people hear our scores they are more in line with what people have accepted as common in a completely different sport?

Should water polo nets be made smaller because a typical game might have scores in the teens while an average soccer score will only have a few goals?

 

[Royal Hill]

I will rehash some of the things I put over on the Marion thread:

One technique is setting an "event par" (per hole) that may be different than "standard". This works best when the field is pre-qualified for skillset - and the event par better matches the anticipated reality of this pre-qualified group. I'm ok with par 2s, and from what footage I've seen from scandanavia they've rolled them out before so its not new ground. This is less likely to happen at a worlds as many division play is the norm - thus no one wants to confuse it all up. Perhaps more likely at something like the Vibram, or other, where selectivity and control to innovate without tradition shackles is there. The big guys could handle the psychology of par 2, or at least they should be able to.

True championship layouts are a great concept - again best serving a pre-qualified super gold player field.

One facet I've espoused before is that golf treats the course as a worthy competitor herself and desires to reach that end. It is the course superindendants and crews job to see that "she"(the course) plays respectably against the competitors. If the field has their way with the course, the course crew gets scolded. Much talk and scrambling happens when She is getting beat up mid event. (fortunately, they have the luxury of letting things dry out, which is an option we don't have). Maybe we don't view our courses this way? or should we? (or maybe we do for local play, but don't adjust enough for tailoring to the top of the heap)

 

[fountg]

I may have missed it, I looked but couldn't find any definitive answers..But could somebody explain the way Worlds works? Im seeing -90 and that sounds outrageously good...and obviously thats a total from multiple rounds, but how many rounds exactly? Is that an average or is that the actual total?

 

[mashnut]

I may have missed it, I looked but couldn't find any definitive answers..But could somebody explain the way Worlds works? Im seeing -90 and that sounds outrageously good...and obviously thats a total from multiple rounds, but how many rounds exactly? Is that an average or is that the actual total?

The top players played 8 rounds including the final 9, that -90 is an aggregate over all those rounds. There was a big discussion in the worlds thread about exactly this, the main take aways are that you either need to make putting harder, artificially deflate pars for big events, or stop caring that the top guys come in way below par.