Scoring in Disc Golf

[#19325]

They will.....with a Buzzz, Roc, Stalker, or Leopard

Exactly!!

Courses are getting harder and harder and they continue to get better and better.

I was laughing at some of the spectators Friday. If you haven't seen these guys play it's impossible to imagine what they can do. If you think you have a hole designed perfectly they will find some crazy route to make it look simple.

 

[coupe]

The only way to do this without cheapening the game is to implement Bullseye (or similar) style baskets. No other way around it.

I question whether or not this would accomplish what it's intended to accomplish.

I spent a couple of hours, on and off, putting from various distances and angles on a Bullseye that Dynamic Discs set up at the Tim Selinski US Masters in May, and actually made a significantly higher percentage of putts on them than I did on the Mach Light and on the practice baskets (Discatchers) in the warmup area, because I took more time to focus and concentrated more when I was putting on the Bullseyes than on the Mach Light and Discatchers.

It would be interesting to do a series of controlled experiments involving four groups of players, tracking their eye movement and recording the percentage of made putts: one group warming up on a regular basket and testing on a regular basket; one warming up on a regular basket and testing on a bullseye; one warming up on a bullseye and testing on a bullseye; and one warming up on a bullseye and testing on a regular basket.

My hunch is that the group warming up on a regular basket and testing on a bullseye would score highest because the narrower margin of error when putting the bullseye would sharpen their focus, while the one warming up on a bullseye and testing on a regular basket would score lowest because, subconsciously, the wider margin of error on a regular basket would cause their focus to lessen when putting on a regular basket.

 

[New013]

You're crazy if you think anybody can regularly hit a 350' fairway that is 10' wide.

 

[Bhoffman09]

I agree that the -90 score looks kinda ridiculous.

The answer, I believe, is to force a greater number of good/great shots in order to birdie (I.e. par 4 based courses) and to increase the difficulty of putting (I.e. smaller baskets - as others have advocated). This will bring back the relevance of par haha.

 

[mashnut]

I agree that the -90 score looks kinda ridiculous.

The answer, I believe, is to force a greater number of good/great shots in order to birdie (I.e. par 4 based courses) and to increase the difficulty of putting (I.e. smaller baskets - as others have advocated). This will bring back the relevance of par haha.

I don't have the data to back it up, but a lot of 2 shot (par 4) holes seem to offer even more of a chance for the top guys to pick up a stroke on the field than tough par 3s (not that I think it's a bad thing to have more multi-shot holes, I think they offer a lot more fun and variety in course design).

 

[Scoot_er]

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.

I believe you can achieve a balance......until the technology creeps up on you..along with increasing talent.

You can create legit par 4s and 5s....but most places that try fail to achieve this objective and fall into the categories you describe.

Courses can catch up.....but that will take increased financial resources for land and professional course design...<<----probably a new breed of designers.

 

[Scoot_er]

You're crazy if you think anybody can regularly hit a 350' fairway that is 10' wide.

If there is nothing AT ALL in the way.....basically a 10ft hallway with no ceiling....I would suggest more people would hit it than you think.

A dead straight shot is the break and butter of many....although they will always take an easy hyzer line when available.

 

[DavidSauls]

I believe you can achieve a balance......until the technology creeps up on you..along with increasing talent.

You can create legit par 4s and 5s....but most places that try fail to achieve this objective and fall into the categories you describe.

Courses can catch up.....but that will take increased financial resources for land and professional course design...<<----probably a new breed of designers.

Note that legit par-4s and par-5s, in themselves, won't make much difference.

A par-4, by current definition, is a hole than an expert player can reach in 2 throws. You could have a course full of these, par-72, and top players would still be far under par. Yet they'd be legit, in that they'd match the PDGA definition.

Really challenging par-4s and par-5s might help some, because the players have more chances to get derailed, and add strokes, on the way to the green. If the drive on a par-3 is executed 80% of the time, you'll get birdies almost that often. If you need 3 shots, each executed at 80% of the time, you'll reach the green in 3 in, what, about half the time?

 

[#19325]

You're crazy if you think anybody can regularly hit a 350' fairway that is 10' wide.

Go watch the top 2 cards at Worlds each year. They shred anything you throw at them.

Holes like Blue Ribbons Pines #3 come to mind. They cut that fairway like a hot knife thru butter.

 

[jrawk]

OB rules should match the new mando rules. Designate a drop zone or rethrow.

Heck, the rule can even be that you must rethrow from the previous spot the first attempt such as re-tee, and then use the drop zone if the re-tee ends up OB.

 

[Znarf]

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?

 

[gcr_russell]

How about the USDGC uses bullseyes (if only it weren't Innovas premiere event) as a test like they always do with various rules. They've done Buncr, stroke and distance, performance flights, and maybe more?

 

[mashnut]

It wouldn't be at all hard for Innova to put out 18 bullseye style baskets with no outer chains if they really wanted to try that without getting Gateway involved.

 

[Dave242]

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?

Other than what I have heard everyone ever give for not wanting Par-2's (which is a contradiction to what I quoted from you), what is "just silly" about Par 2s?

 

[mmoxley]

Why do we even have par 4s and 5s? The winner is choose off total score anyways. We just display -90 instead of 382, so it looks better to spectators and other fans following the tournament.

It is just a personal preference for how you like to keep your score. I personally just play all holes as par 3s when i play. I don't want to hear anything about, what about those 750ft holes through the wood? Who cares. The par on the course is just set there to make yourself feel better about saying "I got a 4 and got a par."

 

[Dave242]

That's funny you ask since I took a screenshot while following Worlds coverage to show one big reason why Par is important.

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.

.

 

[mmoxley]

I see what you mean, but this topic will always be discussed. I understand that have the hole marked as a "Par 4" help the person following the tournament live or looking at the scorecard later, they know that the hole is a bit more difficult to hole out in 3 strokes. When you said "It allows you to see who on the lower card/s are making a charge." It doesn't matter what the par is on the course, every player in that division played the same course(s) at the end of the day and a person can see what player(s) are making a run for the leader spot by there total score.

The argument about comparing disc golf to ball golf score is completely out of the question. Even though both sports have the name "golf" in there, they are very different. In the small disc golf community we are in (comparing to other sports nationwide), a score of -90 over seven and a half round can looked normal to us but non-disc golfer may look at that and see something completely different. Again going back to what i was trying to say in that Mcbeth won by 5 strokes, no matter how they set the "Par" at the different courses.

 

[Brokensaint]

I've always felt that the idea of par is more important than the mathematics of par. The game is scored by adding up the points scored. Par just tells you about how difficult this hole is going to be. Here's how that sounds:

"Holy cow, Jeff! What a fantastic round by Chuck McFlatsnaps! He put up an amazing 68 to take the win here at Anhyzer Bush DGC memorial!"

"You got that right, Sally! He snatched victory from "Flicks" Treelove by 4 strokes! Just amazing stuff! Amazing stuff."

"Now you know that the Anhyzer Bush course is rated par 72, Jeff, which makes McFlatsnaps win all the more impressive!"

"Yes it does, Sally, yes it does."

It's the score that matters. Regardless.

And 9 holes are fine, but if not 9 then no less than 18. But I have no problem with additional holes. I think additional holes should come in either 4, 5 or 9 hole sizes. 4 is square, five is one hand, and 9 is (see above comment)

 

[Time2Shine]

So he played 7 rounds.

What would he have averaged each round , If they were all par 3's?

 

[simpletwist]

First off, most "duffers" never get a chance to play at Marion. And even a good average player, an average player when I used to track these things was shooting well over 90. And those scores were mostly from average courses with average difficulty. And shooting for the most part from much shorter tees than the Pro tees. Now take a look at how the Club Pros this past weekend shot, now these Club Pros are far better than an average golfer. Not really ever in contention. So take that good average player who couldn't beat a Club Pro on their best day how do you think they would fair against true world ranked Pros? For 6 rounds? From the Pro tees?

As this sport gets more serious, and I do think its heading more and more to that so called legitimacy, course will be built for Pros. Courses will or should be built that most of us would be lucky to score in double digits. Where our scores for 18 will be in the 100s. Now that thinking is based on the golf model of 18 holes with a par from 70-72. Its a good model so I think it should be maintained.

And as close as golf and disc golf are, they aren't the same. One of the differences is our lower average scores than traditional golf. OK, so look at to very similar sports, traditional soccer vs. indoor soccer. Or even the NFL vs Arena Football. The traditional sport soccer in particular is much much lower scoring that the faster paced indoor variety. And if we're honest with ourselves we can hope for the legitimacy of the MISL, not MLS.