Scoring in Disc Golf

[fountg]

Wait, so the -90 is only really an average of about -10 per round? If im understanding correctly? That would make more sense to me, and doesnt seem as outrageous.

 

[DavidSauls]

It seems outrageous to some people, myself not included, since in (ball) golf, a few strokes under par is enough to win.

 

[fountg]

Ah. I mean you can't really compare the two. The fact is, I dont consider myself to be a great disc golfer, and I seem to average +7 or so. To me the top pro's should be averaging -10 or so a round. That makes sense to me.

 

[justactnormal]

Ah. I mean you can't really compare the two. The fact is, I dont consider myself to be a great disc golfer, and I seem to average +7 or so. To me the top pro's should be averaging -10 or so a round. That makes sense to me.

This is true and you can't really compare scoring between the 2. By and large DG scores are going to be a lot lower than par than what a ball golf scorecard would look like.

I personally don't expect to play -10 anywhere that I play, but it just illustrates at how high a level the top players are playing. It's also kind of important to put things in perspective. After 8 rounds (if you include the finals) the winning score was (only)5 strokes ahead of 2nd, and places 2-4 were within 3 strokes of each other. That's pretty tight if you think about it. After a total of something like 135 holes it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary for a PGA leaderboard to look something like that. -90 is crazy low, but the spread is still relatively tight.

Also, you'll never see a PGA event where the Open Men, Open Women, Legends Tour (or whatever they call the Seniors now), Senior Women, Super Senior Men, Super Senior Women, etc. etc.etc. all play the same courses with the same pars at the same time. I mean, for a major like this they have to make courses that are fair to all the other divisions as well as the Open Men, who play on such a high level that of course their winning score is going to be super low when compared to everyone else. All divisions play the same courses, right?

There's an argument to be made that pars should be adjusted for MPO when all other divisions play the same courses, I suppose. But I'd hate to see the game changed because people have score envy.

 

[sion]

very simple solution to making putting hard for elite pro tournaments: leave the basket but pull the pole and chains.

your target would then be this:

at its normal height and position. I guarantee scoring goes WAY down, but elite players will still be elite and the best players will win most of the time.

...when the tourney is over, reinstall the upper poles and chains for the rest of us duffers to throw at

 

[gcr_russell]

very simple solution to making putting hard for elite pro tournaments: leave the basket but pull the pole and chains.

your target would then be this:

at its normal height and position. I guarantee scoring goes WAY down, but elite players will still be elite and the best players will win most of the time.

...when the tourney is over, reinstall the upper poles and chains for the rest of us duffers to throw at

Im gonna argue this one cheapens the game. It is a completely different concept then the game currently. If we are going to modify the game to change scoring let's at least keep the same concepts.

 

[sion]

Im gonna argue this one cheapens the game. It is a completely different concept then the game currently. If we are going to modify the game to change scoring let's at least keep the same concepts.

cheapens? how?

its the same concept...which is to get the disc in the basket...this way just takes more, dare I say, skill to accomplish...we'd find out in a hurry who among the top players truly has that magic touch and who is just a chain-banger.

I'm not sure the game needs changing, but IF the idea is to make putting more like ball golf, this does it more simply and more effectively than any other suggestion I've seen.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

>>Why are we so far away on scores in disc golf? <<

...because we are a vastly different (and in my opinion, better) sport and there is no need to compare ourselves to it.

>>Now real golf <<

What? I thought Disc Golf was the "real" golf!

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

>>If I had been Steady Ed I would have ____ holes instead of 18<<

Since I believe we needn't obsess ourselves over comparing Disc Golf to ball golf, the number of holes that exist on the course shouldn't be a fixed number, only the exact number to make the best course possible on the given land.

If X Park has enough room and interesting terrain to put in 15 holes, and Y Park enough for 17 holes, and Z Park 31, then I believe there should be 15 at X Park, 17 at Y Park, and 31 at Z Park.

 

[Steve West]

The -90 happened because the total par was set at the score a player rated only 957 would score (analysis of the 6 rounds everyone completed).

This is not a useful way to set par. Each birdie gained only 0.37 throws on the leader, or 0.71 on the cash line, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player.

Is this the thinking we want; "Wow, a birdie. That'll help me beat the bottom 15 percent. Whoopee."

If total par were set at the score a player rated 1000 would be expected to get, each birdie would have gained 0.66 throws on the leader, and a full 1.00 throw on the cash line.

All this happened primarily because we refuse to admit that many holes are par 2.

We don't need special "event par", we just need to set par at what a competitive player would score, not what the players near the bottom of the Open field will score. Pretty much all we need to do to accomplish that is call a 2 a 2.

 

[Dave242]

We don't need special "event par", we just need to set par at what a competitive player would score, not what the players near the bottom of the Open field will score. Pretty much all we need to do to accomplish that is call a 2 a 2.

I have yet to hear a good argument against calling holes where most score 2's "Par-2". The only thing I hear is that it doesn't feel right.

I have not gone back and compared individuals who say this to people who say "-90 does not feel right" but if they are the same people in some cases, they can't have it both ways (easily at least).

 

[DavidSauls]

We don't need special "event par", we just need to set par at what a competitive player would score, not what the players near the bottom of the Open field will score. Pretty much all we need to do to accomplish that is call a 2 a 2.

As long as we cling to the definition that par is how many throws it takes to reach the basket, plus 2 close range throws to putt out; and the close range throws are within the 10-meter circle; it's hard to "set par" to what a 1000-rated player, or anyone else, should score. And impossible to set Par-2s on holes more than 10-meters long.

"Event par" would allow us to cling to the current definition, while setting a more appropriate par at major pro events. Not my preference, but it would serve this purpose.

 

[DavidSauls]

I have yet to hear a good argument against calling holes where most score 2's "Par-2". The only thing I hear is that it doesn't feel right.

It's the inalienable right to birdie philosophy.

 

[Stardoggy]

I have yet to hear a good argument against calling holes where most score 2's "Par-2". The only thing I hear is that it doesn't feel right.

I have not gone back and compared individuals who say this to people who say "-90 does not feel right" but if they are the same people in some cases, they can't have it both ways (easily at least).

I would think the only argument is that on any hole longer than an attainable putt, you're stuck with ace for birdie. A hole with no real chance of a birdie is tough to swallow.

Now, back to the par 2.5 argument....

 

[DavidSauls]

Very timely post, there.

 

[Stardoggy]

Very timely post, there.

If I didn't have to work, I'd have gotten that out at least 12 seconds faster than you.

 

[DavidSauls]

.....and my post would have come off as a smart-*** reply!

 

[Dave242]

It's the inalienable right to birdie philosophy.

I would think the only argument is that on any hole longer than an attainable putt, you're stuck with ace for birdie. A hole with no real chance of a birdie is tough to swallow.

Now, back to the par 2.5 argument....

Like I said, I have yet to hear a good argument against Par-2's, although this is another weak argument I did not recall.

I was planning to include a 15' hole in a goofy PDGA tournament a few years back I was planning.....so that everyone could leave the event touting a tournament ace (or feeling really bad that they didn't). That would have been a Par-1 hole I suppose.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not just the "No Par 2s" where people feel they must be able to birdie. We had a couple of holes at Stoney Hill with par set where it was the most common score for better players, very doable, but very hard, almost impossible, to birdie. Tough pars, where saving par is the name of the game, and screwing up is a bogey or worse. A number of people howled about this and, because personally I don't care that much about "par" under any definition, we relented and changed them.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Non-full number pars are bad because by definition, 2 people can play equally skillfully and score differently.

Par 2s are bad because there's no chance for awesome recovery, and there should be a chance for a bad teeshot.

Just my opinions here. I don't think there's any math or data to support that.