Scoring in Disc Golf

[mashnut]

I'm not confusing upside down holes with holes that have no scoring spread.....I'm combing them into a category of holes that are wasted with regard to the purpose of the course: to crown a champion based on skillful play.

The "a little above and a little below" par thing is of small value or interest. Of interest is holes that produce a decent number of each of 3 different scores (birdie, par, and bogey.....and a few eagles and double bogeys sometimes on multi-throw holes). It really does not matter if birdies slightly outnumber bogeys or visa versa.

I'm a little confused by your second paragraph. It seemed like earlier you had an issue with holes that were in that scoring range, this post says you want good scoring spread and don't care if that comes from the x.7 or the x.3 holes. I agree with the points you make here, it just seems like a different opinion than you had a page or two back.

 

[Dave242]

On another topic, "bogie" holes (where the only scoring separation is from the minority of players getting higher scores) do spread all of the field equally well. At least according to one study I did of the USDGC.

It is sort of an optical illusion that bogie holes spread the bottom of the field better. This comes from the fact that birdie holes do a better job of spreading the field for the top third, and don't do much to spread the field for the bottom third.

However, for the top third, bogie holes and birdie holes are equally important for spreading the field.

But is it the hole that is doing it to them? In other words, is it the specific challenge of the shot shape required and obstacles encountered when the airway is not hit?

I suspect not so much. I am guessing that it is the more simple execution mistakes that happen on any hole regardless - missed putts, shanked drives, poor approaches.

A course of all 270' wide open and flat holes (on a calm day) will cause some scoring separation too that correlates positively with skill level.

 

[sneakytiki]

It also drives me crazy when people argue that we're not golf and shouldn't be compared. We're a direct derivative of golf from out vocabulary to the game structure. When new players step into the game it's golf terms they're going to relate to because that's what we've presented them. To try and argue that one of the most basic facets of the game doesn't mean what you think it means makes you look dumb.

It is fine to draw similarities, but why should we mold our sport such that our pros score the same in relation to our par as ball golf pros score in relation to their par? It makes no sense. The sports are different enough to have large differences in the skill distribution in the population of players. THey have the same basic concept, but are still very different. I proposed the question earlier in this thread, but take water polo and soccer. Two teams try and get a ball past a goal keeper to score a point. Same basic game right? The average score in water polo is in the teens and the average score in soccer is only a few goals. Should water polo change the value of getting the ball in the net to like .1 so that final scores are near soccer scores? Should they shrink their net size to decrease scoring so that they are more like soccer scores?

 

[1978]

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.
QUOTE]

This is WAY off most decent golfers shoot 95-110 duffers in the 120's to 130's. AND most of them cheat to get there. Someone shooting under 90 will almost always be the "A" player in corporate best ball tournaments. They are so rare. The average professional @ around par 72 is probably 30-40 strokes better than the rec golfer. In disc golf the professional is 15 -20 strokes better than the rec golfer. Only 5-10 better than the mid to upper level advanced. Remember 10 ratings pts is about a stroke so on average a 900 rated player is 15 strokes worse than the best pro. To compare to golf, it would be like comparing a 1050 rated player to a 750 rated player. Almost no one is 750 rated. Most golfers are over the 100-110 range.

Im not sure how that answers anythign but it is better numbers. What I take from it is that there is a smaller range between the best and worse in disc golf. Anyone can have a good round and shoot as well as a pro (so no one is a bagger) cause anyone can do well. So I guess it deligitimizes the sport when anyone can seemingly do it...but then legitimizes the regular winners because of how hard it is to play that well for 4-8 rounds straight.

 

[1978]

I didnt read on, but the poll is silly, doesnt affect how good someone is, how many holes there are. If rounds were 1 hole, at the end of Worlds people would be like max 8-10 under par. That would solve the -90 issue.........................

 

[Dave242]

I'm a little confused by your second paragraph. It seemed like earlier you had an issue with holes that were in that scoring range, this post says you want good scoring spread and don't care if that comes from the x.7 or the x.3 holes. I agree with the points you make here, it just seems like a different opinion than you had a page or two back.

I had par-3 (1-drive) holes in mind since that was my impression of what we were discussing in this thread mainly. I well could be confused on that and it is easier just to clarify than go back and re-read everything.

So, thanks for the request for clarification.

 

[mashnut]

Minor point 1978, but on a par 72 disc golf course a stroke wouldn't be worth 10 points, it would be worth more like 6 meaning that the difference between 1040 and 900 rated is more like 24 strokes which puts it more in the range you're talking about in golf.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

I didnt read on, but the poll is silly, doesnt affect how good someone is, how many holes there are. If rounds were 1 hole, at the end of Worlds people would be like max 8-10 under par. That would solve the -90 issue.........................

I am in favor of these "1 hole rounds." show up for a one day tourney, get outta there by 9:30. boom

 

[Dan Ensor]

I like the fact that ratings tell me exactly how many strokes worse than an average good pro I'll shoot. 13. I've been playing for 3 years +/-. I played trad golf for about 6 years, and only in the last year did I start shooting below 80. So the scoring separation seems to be just about perfect, if not a little light in dg. So if you don't like -90, you just have to make par lower. That's my thinking. It's probably already been said. Sorry for coming in late and being repetitive.

Duffers shooting 130 is good ... my 4th year of golf I shot 63. On 9 holes ... The trick in golf is "keep the snowman off the card".

 

[1978]

But is it the hole that is doing it to them? In other words, is it the specific challenge of the shot shape required and obstacles encountered when the airway is not hit?

I suspect not so much. I am guessing that it is the more simple execution mistakes that happen on any hole regardless - missed putts, shanked drives, poor approaches.

A course of all 270' wide open and flat holes (on a calm day) will cause some scoring separation too that correlates positively with skill level.

Better players score better on anything. However hole design can play a part in true separation happens the closer you get to a shot being impossible for 1 group. Like a 400' water carry with no bail out. The best putter in the world with amazing upshots that throws 350 will almost never beat out the 500' thrower that putts terribly. The hole creates separation based on skill and design. For the specific skill of distance, this hole design would separate the longer from shorter throwers, then again the best putters might save bogey/par and the worse bogey or double it.

 

[Dave242]

It is fine to draw similarities, but why should we mold our sport such that our pros score the same in relation to our par as ball golf pros score in relation to their par? It makes no sense. The sports are different enough to have large differences in the skill distribution in the population of players. THey have the same basic concept, but are still very different. I proposed the question earlier in this thread, but take water polo and soccer. Two teams try and get a ball past a goal keeper to score a point. Same basic game right? The average score in water polo is in the teens and the average score in soccer is only a few goals. Should water polo change the value of getting the ball in the net to like .1 so that final scores are near soccer scores? Should they shrink their net size to decrease scoring so that they are more like soccer scores?

I like this!

I think it is because we have an inferiority complex. We want golfers to like us and appreciate us as legit.

I do not know if everyone here is like this, but I cringe at times waiting for the response when I tell peers I disc golf. I work in a yuppie career and live in a yuppie neighborhood and drive a yuppie car (and try to no dress too yuppie). Heck, just yesterday someone noticed I had gotten some sun and asked me if it was from playing golf. I simply said "yes" and didn't bother to get into the whole DG thing.

 

[Dave242]

It also drives me crazy when people argue that we're not golf and shouldn't be compared. We're a direct derivative of golf from out vocabulary to the game structure. When new players step into the game it's golf terms they're going to relate to because that's what we've presented them. To try and argue that one of the most basic facets of the game doesn't mean what you think it means makes you look dumb.

Just tell them that our top players play from the ladies' tees and they will get it rather quickly......the -90 part at least.

 

[DavidSauls]

My personal feeling is that we shouldn't do things just because golf does them, but we should note what golf does and see which facets we can adopt or adapt to improve our game.

Having par as a standard, that represents what a top player would likely score on a hole, might be one of them.

 

[Goldengary]

I think it is because we have an inferiority complex. We want golfers to like us and appreciate us as legit.

I wonder if this is more of a regional thing. I live in SW PA where there are not many DG courses yet and the general response I get when telling ball golfers I play (after the long drawn out description) is pretty favorable. All this discussion makes me want to go out and play!

Also...hate to have to ask this, but could someone explain how the round ratings are figured out?

 

[Dave242]

Also...hate to have to ask this, but could someone explain how the round ratings are figured out?

http://www.pdga.com/ratings has most of what you'll ever want to know.

Oh - funny story. When I first met one of our main managers at our main client, we were chatting over lunch and I told her I played DG. She said, "Really? I thought only nerds played DG". I laughed and told her that she had me pegged. Turns out her son was a junior in high school and a chucker on a local course near her home.

 

[Stardoggy]

I like this!

I think it is because we have an inferiority complex. We want golfers to like us and appreciate us as legit.

I do not know if everyone here is like this, but I cringe at times waiting for the response when I tell peers I disc golf. I work in a yuppie career and live in a yuppie neighborhood and drive a yuppie car (and try to no dress too yuppie). Heck, just yesterday someone noticed I had gotten some sun and asked me if it was from playing golf. I simply said "yes" and didn't bother to get into the whole DG thing.

I love pulling up to the DG course and getting out of my 2012 somewhat-luxury vehicle after changing out of my dress pants and polo/button up and into shorts and a tie-dye. I've gotten plenty of funny looks.

Oh, and I'm officially the "dirty hippy" at work.

 

[Bubbajoe]

It is fine to draw similarities, but why should we mold our sport such that our pros score the same in relation to our par as ball golf pros score in relation to their par? It makes no sense. The sports are different enough to have large differences in the skill distribution in the population of players. THey have the same basic concept, but are still very different. I proposed the question earlier in this thread, but take water polo and soccer. Two teams try and get a ball past a goal keeper to score a point. Same basic game right? The average score in water polo is in the teens and the average score in soccer is only a few goals. Should water polo change the value of getting the ball in the net to like .1 so that final scores are near soccer scores? Should they shrink their net size to decrease scoring so that they are more like soccer scores?

Again it's not so much about current players as about recruiting new ones. There are 20 million golfers in the world who know Par is what a scratch player is expected to shoot. When you present inflated scores it makes you look clueless. This isn't what you want when you're introducing a game. We have enough to work around as it is.
The scoring spread you mention is just as prevalent in golf, it's just that the skill level though out the field in a major is much tighter than the field of a disc golf tournament. If everyone playing MPO had a rating a few points above or below 1030 for example I think you would see more compressed scoring.

I like this!

I think it is because we have an inferiority complex. We want golfers to like us and appreciate us as legit.

I do not know if everyone here is like this, but I cringe at times waiting for the response when I tell peers I disc golf. I work in a yuppie career and live in a yuppie neighborhood and drive a yuppie car (and try to no dress too yuppie). Heck, just yesterday someone noticed I had gotten some sun and asked me if it was from playing golf. I simply said "yes" and didn't bother to get into the whole DG thing.

I'm in a very similar situation! I hate bringing up the fact I disc golf at work. At times though it's even worse talking about it away from work,

Me: "Well for fun I fish, ride a bike, play disc golf.."
Them: "Oh! Disc golf. So...how long have you been unemployed?"

Just tell them that our top players play from the ladies' tees and they will get it rather quickly......the -90 part at least.

Ha! It's for another thread but I hate the term "Ladies Tees"

 

[Steve West]

My reasons for wanting a par that is set based on what a competitive player would expect to score have nothing to do with comparing it to golf. It's simply that a lower par would work better to compare how players that have played different holes (or a different number of holes) are doing during a tournament.

Everyone starts at exactly even par. If the par was set at what a 1000-rated player would score, then everyone would know all during the tournament whether they are on track to be above or below the cash line, simply by looking at their score relative to par, without any mental adjustment for "how many under do you think will it take to cash?"

Or, if par were set at the expected score of the highest-rated player, then everyone would know whether they are in the hunt for first place by simply looking at whether they are over or under par, without the mental adjustment of "how many under will take it?"

Perhaps somewhere in between these two would be an optimal balance. But, I know setting total par at what a 957-rated player would score is not the most useful.

A minor, but nice, side benefit is that "ridiculous under par" would go away.

The other changes discussed (longer holes, smaller baskets) are independent decisions. They can also be done AND we should reset par to what a 1000-rated player would score under those conditions.

 

[Bubbajoe]

The other changes discussed (longer holes, smaller baskets) are independent decisions. They can also be done AND we should reset par to what a 1000-rated player would score under those conditions.

Exactly

 

[Prostar47]

If you want disc golf to be relative to ball golf for pars. There should be at least 10 courses built around the US where par is set by a 1020 player breaking even. Then you hold your 10 Major tournaments at those courses during the year.

Obviously with expansion of the game afterwards you get more quality courses being built and modeled after the new standard for championship caliber courses in 'expansion' cities. So the 10 courses should be chosen based on the largest population of the disc golfers reside.

thoughts?!?