The Open @ Belmont Mar 19-21

[wolfhaley]

If it makes you feel better, I seen this thread a bunch of times before seeing coverage pop up on youtube. When I seen the videos, my brain read it as "Belmont" a for a few more times than I'd like to admit, and because of this thread title.

I was calling it the Belmont all week too. But I always thought that wasn't quite right.

Anyways. LET'S GO RICK!!!

 

[brutalbrutus]

If my brain is that contagious...




...the world is ****ed

 

[biscoe]

I think you're right. Now, let's hope the guy with the saw knows enough to leave the trees that define the main line of play, but take away some of those off to the sides that are preventing any chance of successful recovery throws.

I would just cut the broken double tree clogging the fairway half way down and be done with it. I have come to realize that pretty much every time the process of "should I cut this one particular tree or not?" begins, that tree is doomed in the long run. Amount of time spent hemming and hawing about it varies.

 

[oldmandiscer]

I would just cut the broken double tree clogging the fairway half way down and be done with it. I have come to realize that pretty much every time the process of "should I cut this one particular tree or not?" begins, that tree is doomed in the long run. Amount of time spent hemming and hawing about it varies.

Agreed, Ricky said the hole had to be eliminated!

Paul said it would make a good Par 3 and I agree with Paul. Just make an actual fairway and it's a good Par 3. That main tree in the middle needs to go along with a couple branches hanging over the fairway, as far as I could tell. Just ask Paul what to cut and cut it. It'll be good.

 

[trasf]

Sometimes Uli and Jerm (mostly Uli) won't cut himself off for the sake of the action. A player could have a 200 foot throw in, and Uli won't drop whatever story or bit he's on.

Has Jerm changed his style, because you just described him perfectly. He always kept going on with some random story from past while Sexton quietly waited for a chance to commentate about what happens now.

 

[Ryan P.]

I never disagreed with you on hole 13.

IMO "(Birdie) or Deuce or Die" or the "ones you got to get" might have a higher fear factor pressure on players than a "tough par" where you might be more relaxed if everyone is getting or settling for par, and possibly create more tension and drama for the viewers. I think it really depends on the hole itself, not the par. Just because a player expects to birdie, doesn't guarantee it.

How would Par indicate test of skill?

I abbreviated your post; the part I took out had some good thoughts.

While the words you said didn't outright disagree with me, they communicated that you disagreed with me. When someone says "I think X" and someone else responds, "But you don't think Y," that comes across as disagreement, whether you meant it or not.

I agree that there are some good ways to challenge players psychologically, and that "deuce or die" golf does that. By "Duece or die" I assume you mean holes that average well under par (or something similar to that), regardless of whether it's a par 3, 4, or 5. I'm going to call that "Birde or die." If so, then I have two thoughts for doing that better than DG currently does.

First, far too many of the holes employ this method of psychologically scaring players. In round 3, 8 of the holes averaged at least .2 under par, which means the best players thought of it as "birdie or die." There were some par 4s that did this as well, some of which players took a 2 (eagle) on. Some of these could have been a par 3. Making them a par 3 would create the same tense situation from from a different viewpoint: players aren't thinking "birdie or die," they are thinking "par or die". The course design could also potentially change to account for this, where there's a local route that provides a better change at birdie (and at bogey!). What I'm getting at is that the same method of psychologically scaring players gets old when that's the main one used.

Second, there are many other, better ways of psychologically scaring players. What about having a par 3 with a very small gap to hit at 200 feet, but the hole is another 100' plus behind the gap, and there's no other way through. I'm thinking hole 12 at Belton, but with a smaller gap and pulling the gap closer to the tee (and one that you can't go over practically). I don't mean making it stupidly small, but definitely small enough to where you see some pros lay up to it. Golf also has has a school of design called "heroic," where a course builds up to a shot where you have to be heroic to go for it. Either you go for it and fail, go for it and succeed, or don't go for it and you feel like you've failed. Usually these involve some sort of long water carry. Laying up means you're aiming for half the distance. These are two simple examples of holes we rarely see on tour, and if you think these are impractical, there are tons of others.

These two ideas together show that we have other ways to psychologically affect players and we aren't using them.

Also, I wasn't saying so much that par indicates a test of skill, but that it's a good gauge for how course designers can measure themselves. We can't set par in terms of decimals (I mean, we could but no one wants that), designers can use par to measure whether they achieved what they set out to do. The guy that designed hole 13 at Belton and said it was a par 5 (I'm assuming it was the same person/group of people) didn't achieve what they intended to in their design. This allows designers to go back to the drawing board and get better. Hole 13 is an obvious example, but there are many holes that aren't as obvious. What if someone makes a birdie or die hole only to find out that it's easier than expected, and is a pointless hole? A designer should learn from that.

Also, I realize that I'm sort of conflating par and average here. It's difficult to separate them without just rambling on and on, and I've already done that somewhat.

 

[Steve West]

I would just cut the broken double tree clogging the fairway half way down and be done with it. I have come to realize that pretty much every time the process of "should I cut this one particular tree or not?" begins, that tree is doomed in the long run. Amount of time spent hemming and hawing about it varies.

It looked to me like that double tree indicated the flight path to get to the target. Aim for the gap up and right between the two trunks, get the 2. One of the players on video did that. But, take the chance of hitting the branches and landing short. So, I would leave it as a reticle. It would make the hole easier to play for me.

Then take out a few that are forcing you to throw near the tree, to give players a way to avoid the high risk/high reward route.

But, that's just a style choice. Nothing wrong with unclogged fairways.

 

[Ryan P.]

It looked to me like that double tree indicated the flight path to get to the target. Aim for the gap up and right between the two trunks, get the 2. One of the players on video did that. But, take the chance of hitting the branches and landing short. So, I would leave it as a reticle. It would make the hole easier to play for me.

Then take out a few that are forcing you to throw near the tree, to give players a way to avoid the high risk/high reward route.

But, that's just a style choice. Nothing wrong with unclogged fairways.

John/Steve,
I thought the same thing. I don't like the clogged nature of the fairway and I've love to chop down a couple trees, but I think that tree framed the line. I wonder what the shortest legitimate par 4 or 5 is. Steve, mind answering that in the par thread? or point me to where in that long thread you've already answered that?

 

[nothinbuttree]

Second, there are many other, better ways of psychologically scaring players.

I think this concept doesn't get enough attention, not just scaring them, but making them think out there.

A hole where par is clearly 'off' can create score separation simply in how different players will approach it. If one goal of a hole is score separation, then can't this be psychological as well?

Take hole 13 at Belton--some will see this as an albatross opportunity and try to pure it with everything they have. They will or won't get through--big score difference there.

Some may look at as a possible eagle, with a less dramatic drive, lower chance of going way off the fairway, etc.

Some may see just an easy birdie, throw a couple 150' putter shots, and maybe a bid at long eagle, or just layup for tap in birdie.

One does wonder if the scoring separation would be there were it a par 4. Or even 3 with a few trees out.

Hole 18 is the reverse example. Make that a par 4, and most will probably do what Ricky did in the last round, a fairly routine safe drive, easy up shot and tap in (though his up shot was short). I just think even top players' expectations and desires can change depending on how par is marked. The closer to how a hole plays that par is set, the less variability we might expect to see in the actual scoring. In short, I think it possible that par not only reflects a reasonable expectation of what a player 'should' shoot, but also affect their very approach to playing the hole. Perhaps there is more power in setting par then we think.
If this post needs copied to the par thread, I am cool with that--I put it here since my two examples are from this course.

 

[glassila]

This is the PDGA's Par Guidelines chart based on Skill Level, Hole Length and Foliage Density.
According to this, hole 13 should not be a par 5 for any skill level.
It would be a par 4 for red tees (825-875 rated players).

 

[DiscFifty]

What about having a par 3 with a very small gap to hit at 200 feet, but the hole is another 100' plus behind the gap, and there's no other way through.

THIS is the kind of discussion we should be having when it comes to anything regarding making the course more challenging for the elite pros. Let's challenge the drive more and stop worrying about changing the basket. While it's interesting banter at times, the basket is simply not going to be changed anytime soon.

I'd like to see some real discussion on producing a professional portable product that could be placed anywhere on a fairway to better challenge players on the DGPT. For lack of a better description, it might be called a "PATM" or "portable adjustable triple mando". Haters gonna hate...lol...but surely it's a more plausible idea compared to asking the entire industry to adopt a new basket design. opcorn:

 

[BogeyNoMore]

^ Thanks but no thanks. I don't want the game to become artificial, contrived, and gimmicky.

Design fairways with tight gaps that can lead to consequences. Don't design a tight gap in search of a fairway.

 

[spinachd]

I enjoyed the tournament. It was intense.

The coverage and commentary was great.

Hole 13 needs a fairway and a par of 3. Otherwise I thought it was good and a fair test of skills.

 

[txmxer]

Regardless of Par on 13, it was cool to see Uli park it.

 

[Ryan P.]

THIS is the kind of discussion we should be having when it comes to anything regarding making the course more challenging for the elite pros. Let's challenge the drive more and stop worrying about changing the basket. While it's interesting banter at times, the basket is simply not going to be changed anytime soon.

I'd like to see some real discussion on producing a professional portable product that could be placed anywhere on a fairway to better challenge players on the DGPT. For lack of a better description, it might be called a "PATM" or "portable adjustable triple mando". Haters gonna hate...lol...but surely it's a more plausible idea compared to asking the entire industry to adopt a new basket design. opcorn:

Good thoughts. The more this has bounced around in my head, the more I like that hole 13 exists (and is on video) because it shows an extreme we don't see as much (anymore): a hole that at least some have said isn't cut out enough. This allows for good discussion about what the limits of good design are. Other people don't like wide open holes.

Finding the limits of good/bad course design helps designers see the baseline for being good. Crafting holes that appropriately test the skills of a golfer for whom the hole/course is designed is where design can really be elevated to the next level.

 

[Steve West]

Good thoughts. The more this has bounced around in my head, the more I like that hole 13 exists (and is on video) because it shows an extreme we don't see as much (anymore): a hole that at least some have said isn't cut out enough. This allows for good discussion about what the limits of good design are. Other people don't like wide open holes.

Finding the limits of good/bad course design helps designers see the baseline for being good. Crafting holes that appropriately test the skills of a golfer for whom the hole/course is designed is where design can really be elevated to the next level.

If you take the view that a hole's only job is to give lower scores to better players, #13 performed quite well. Its pattern of scores is reminiscent of the 444 foot tunnel at Blue Ribbon Pines. About 40% of all players across all ratings got fours, but the number of threes goes up as ratings go up, and the number of fives goes down. #13 contributed the most to sorting of 970+ players.

On the other hand, #18 contributed the least to sorting 970+ players. It gave out too many threes; a cardinal sin for a disc golf hole.

Below are the scores by rating for the two holes. These show the percent of players who got the listed score or less. So, the number of fives scored on #13 is the difference between the 5 line and the 4 line. That gap is narrowing as ratings go up, so there are fewer fives as ratings go up.

A hole is performing well if these lines are going consistently up to the right, and the more lines which appear the better. You can see that hole #18 served the lower ratings well, but flattened out for the highest rated players.

I'm not saying #13 shouldn't be trimmed - holes should still be fun. It could be less frustrating and still perform well enough.

Hole #18 worked fine for FPO. MPO should play #18 from a shorter tee to allow more twos to be scored so better play can exhibit a lower score.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

If you take the view that a hole's only job is to give lower scores to better players, #13 performed quite well. Its pattern of scores is reminiscent of the 444 foot tunnel at Blue Ribbon Pines. About 40% of all players across all ratings got fours, but the number of threes goes up as ratings go up, and the number of fives goes down. #13 contributed the most to sorting of 970+ players.

On the other hand, #18 contributed the least to sorting 970+ players. It gave out too many threes; a cardinal sin for a disc golf hole.

Below are the scores by rating for the two holes. These show the percent of players who got the listed score or less. So, the number of fives scored on #13 is the difference between the 5 line and the 4 line. That gap is narrowing as ratings go up, so there are fewer fives as ratings go up.

A hole is performing well if these lines are going consistently up to the right, and the more lines which appear the better. You can see that hole #18 served the lower ratings well, but flattened out for the highest rated players.

I'm not saying #13 shouldn't be trimmed - holes should still be fun. It could be less frustrating and still perform well enough.

Hole #18 worked fine for FPO. MPO should play #18 from a shorter tee to allow more twos to be scored so better play can exhibit a lower score.

FYI, I agree 100% with this analysis.

 

[txmxer]

#18 is not a great finishing hole. The only significant challenge is attacking it on the drive and going OB.

 

[DiscFifty]

^ Thanks but no thanks. I don't want the game to become artificial, contrived, and gimmicky. Design fairways with tight gaps that can lead to consequences. Don't design a tight gap in search of a fairway.

Agreed! Fix the problem at the design level from the ground up, but when it comes to adding challenge to existing courses or maybe just on a hole or 2, there's nothing wrong with adding something artificial if that's what it takes. I just think that's a more realistic conversation than continued hyperbole about basket size.