Scoring in Disc Golf

[peabody]

McBeth wins with a 90 under par.
If your regular int,./adv. player played all those holes chances are they would be around par or over. Mabey by as much as 30 strokes. The best player we had around here (Zakeriath Johnson -51) was always 3 to 5 strokes better per 18 than the best we had to offer. I am sure every course has these (ratchet arms) that have the course record and are rarely beat.

Now real golf you have a par 72 and even duffers shoot less than 90 and most decent players shoot within 10 strokes. Like that 62 we almost saw in professional golf yesterday. Unheard of.

Why are we so far away on scores in disc golf? If you make the courses hard enough for the Mcbeths and Locastros to shoot within 10 strokes of par then the rest of us would loose interest because their 72 translates to our 85-125.

I guess my question is o these crazy scores (-90) make disc golf look less legitimate than ball golf? 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?

 

[DavidSauls]

What's your definition of an average intermediate/advanced player?

Looks like, shooting 950-rated golf, a player would have lost to McBeth by 10-12 strokes per round. That's like a golfer shooting in the low 80s, from the same tees that and layout that top pro golfers are using. A player in a pro golf tournament shooting in the low 80s, for 6 rounds (no cut?) plus semis & finals, would probably lose by 70-80 strokes.

 

[DavidSauls]

I guess my question is o these crazy scores (-90) make disc golf look less legitimate than ball golf? Is there a way to bring the scores closer together so us par/slightly over par guys think we have something to shoot at?

No and yes. See the thread on whether we can do what Merion did for ways that it could be done, if desired.

 

[thrembo]

Golf has had to add length to their courses over the years, primarily for the pros, as technology and athleticism has increased. We will too. And have. if you consider the shorter lengths of the original courses. Just like ball golf, we will need courses that cater to all skill levels, with long and short courses, or multiple tee pads. I also think that 18 holes is a good standard amount, but that more (alternate) holes are nice for larger sized tournaments, or for those that wish to torture themselves.

 

[pmatt1969]

I think 18 is just right. Though it would be nice to play casual rounds on courses with upto 24 holes. Sometimes 18 just won't quench the thirst.

 

[timj5304]

We need to do what they do at Winthrop and add more mandos to force guys to throw a 200ft shot placement then open up if they wanna go for it, not throw a hyzer shot over the tee sign 400 ft and have a upshot for 400 ft to take a not too tough 3 for these guys. The power they have is unreal and force them to throw golf shots vs power shots.

 

[peabody]

Very good players that shoot 50 under and find themselves 40 strokes off the lead seems like too much of a difference. People that don't know the game seem to think that this must be an easy game.
I really don't see any fixes for this and mabey that is for the best.

We love this crazy game and these scores are fun to watch. I guess we need to just accept the fact that this is THE way it has been and the way it will always be.

 

[Allurex]

We need to do what they do at Winthrop and add more mandos to force guys to throw a 200ft shot placement then open up if they wanna go for it, not throw a hyzer shot over the tee sign 400 ft and have a upshot for 400 ft to take a not too tough 3 for these guys. The power they have is unreal and force them to throw golf shots vs power shots.

This is a big thing, that many of the top players can throw shots that change how a hole is played. There may be a hole with a tough gap to hit, but all the big arms can simply throw over all of the trees which is a much easier shot. Most amateurs can't throw those shots.

 

[ScottyLove]

Even though I didn't see many of these guys go OB much this week, first thing I'd do is Throw and Distance penalty for OB. Re-throw from same spot and add a penalty stroke. That's exactly what happens in ball golf.

Every time I get a circle-3 par from where I went OB near the basket, I feel dirty.

 

[Henline]

We need to do what they do at Winthrop and add more mandos to force guys to throw a 200ft shot placement then open up if they wanna go for it, not throw a hyzer shot over the tee sign 400 ft and have a upshot for 400 ft to take a not too tough 3 for these guys. The power they have is unreal and force them to throw golf shots vs power shots.

This right here. While to an extent it's not the raw distance pros have, but their control and accurate placement, adding mandos to force holes to be played the way they want would easily be one of the best ways to "lower" scores under par.

Tbh I don't care much though. -90 or -23, it's still not the number of strokes he won by which is the only one I pay attention to.

 

[Znarf]

Now real golf you have a par 72 and even duffers shoot less than 90 and most decent players shoot within 10 strokes. Like that 62 we almost saw in professional golf yesterday. Unheard of.

The difference between a "duffer" and a professional in golf is incredible. The learning curve and difficulty of golf is much higher than it is in disc golf. A "duffer" would not shoot 90 at Oak Hill this week in the PGA Championship. Heck, a duffer wouldn't shoot 90 anywhere. 90 is bogey golf, which is an accomplishment for anyone.

But I agree with you. 90 under par is just not right for a tournament. The course needs to be elevated for professional play (just like golf does for the majors, have you seen that rough?). As for beating people by over 40 strokes. Who cares? That's not the courses fault.

And if we want better courses for a more serious disc golfer, we need to have private courses that we pay to set foot on. In order for things to move forward, we need to move beyond the public park.

 

[Dave242]

McBeth wins with a 90 under par.
If your regular int,./adv. player played all those holes chances are they would be around par or over.

Below are the actual numbers for 2 sets of courses used at Pro Worlds 2013.

You are basically correct. Adv winners would be under par on both sets, but middling Adv would be over par on the MPO courses.

Intermediate winner would be usually slightly under Par on the courses used by the old guys, but over par everywhere else.

For the Open (MPO) set of courses (Gold, Blue, White), here is average rating and how they finished to Par (and per round)
1050 -83 (-12)
1025 -60 (-8.5)
1000 -29 (-5)
975 -10 (-1.7) - High Blue/Advanced level is just under Par
950 +9 (+1.5) - Blue/Advanced level is over Par
925 +27 (+4.5) - Intermediate (White)
900 +46 (+7.7) - High Recreational (Red)

For the GrandMaster (MPG, 60+) set of courses (Blue, Red, Hidden Lakes only - Gold excluded)
1025 -71 (-14)
1000 -52 (-10.4)
975 -26 (-5.2) - High Blue/Advanced level is just under Par
950 -7 (-1.4) - Blue/Advanced level is over Par
925 +18 (+3.6) - Intermediate (White)
900 +36 (+7.2) - High Recreational (Red)
875 +50 (+10) - Low Recreational

I guess my question is o these crazy scores (-90) make disc golf look less legitimate than ball golf? 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?

As you see above, the problem is that the SuperGold players (head and shoulders above local Pros) are playing on Blue level courses. It is like the PGA championships being played from the Blue/Men's tees. They would shred those courses and post Par's like what we are seeing.

To set up golf courses for PGA events, they often use tees longer than the Black/Gold/Tournament/Championship tees and they grow the rough higher, narrow the fairways, and make sure the greens are nice and fast/dry.

Easy and inexpensive tweeks like that are not available to us (at least without using what most consider to be gimmicks).

 

[rj29274]

24 Holes w/ a few par 4s and a par 5. 18 isnt enough and sometimes 2 rounds back to back can be too much. It really depends on where you play.

Great for events so you can get your round finished and still have a big part of the day to explore the city or park you are visiting. A round of 24 each day during a weekend event is perfect.

 

[Dave242]

24 Holes w/ a few par 4s and a par 5. 18 isnt enough and sometimes 2 rounds back to back can be too much. It really depends on where you play.

Stan McDaniel has put this concept in place in Charlotte with Renny Gold, Hornet's Next Web layout, and Nevin Long. Par 70-ish 18-holers with SSA somewhere right around 70. If these courses could be expanded by say 9 holes, it would make sense to just play 1 round per day for the 5 days of Worlds.

But McBeth averaged 1054 which is about 8 throws under par on these types of courses. So, he would still be -40 after 5 rounds. If the courses were lengthened by 50% (adding 9 holes), that would increase to around 60 under Par.

As you see (if you know these courses), the answer does not lie in fairway design. It lies in making putting much harder......smaller baskets.

 

[scarpfish]

If you used the old "all par 3" way of thinking, McBeth was only -23 (and before anyone says it, I'm not that I'm saying these holes should have all par 3). But it does seem to me that the issue at Worlds was that there were a number of holes designated as Par 4 or 5 that perhaps should have been down a notch.

Actually "notches" are exactly the problem, because as long as we insist that par on each and every hole be set to a whole number, namely a whole number that may be .4 or more of a stroke higher than said holes SSA, pros are going to finishing ridiculously far under par at Worlds. That .4 or more starts adding up after 135 holes.

 

[Dan Ensor]

McBeth was about 350 points down for the tourney. +/- depending on the final 9 I'm not willing to compute.

 

[Dthunderchicken]

But could there be a way to get the scores closer to golf scores?

Why? And FWIW, 18 holes is fine with me.

 

[peabody]

Thanks Dave 242. Great numbers there. Kinda puts it in perspective.
You say a smaller target? What about 5 chains 8 inch circle with a basket 18 inches instead of current 27? What about smaller diameter discs?

 

[DavidSauls]

Part of the problem with the -90 --- if it is a problem --- still goes back to our definition of "par". If it's the number of throws an expert takes to reach the basket, plus two, the guys who almost always reach the basket in that number of throws and usually only take 1 putt, are going to be way under par. This is true no matter how high the par is.

You can change this by changing the fairway to reduce the frequency of reaching the green, but not so much that you change the par for the hole; changing putting to make it much harder, which probably means a change in the basket; or changing the definition of "par".

The issue of the wide margin of scores is magnified by the fact that our pro tournaments, even and especially Worlds, are full of a wide range of players. PGA events are placed by the top tiny percentage of golfers. If disc golf were proportional and, say, only the Top 20 players competed at Worlds, the margin wouldn't be as noticeable.

 

[KG505]

Every time I get a circle-3 par from where I went OB near the basket, I feel dirty.

Same here, always just a little bit of guilt, especially if someone on the card made a bogey while managing to stay in bounds the whole time...