• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

United States disc golf championships

Is pay per view at US dgc a good idea or not?


  • Total voters
    152
Agreed. DG is inherently lucky. .

A single shot can have some elements of chance involved, but a tournament involving hundreds of shots removes that element. I suggest you take a look at the law of large numbers. Once you wrap your head around that, you'll understand there is no luck involved in an event involving multiple rounds. It's pure and raw skill, 100%..

I love the USDGC and the course from the footage I have seen. I enjoy that it gets into everyone's head and there is an element of gamesmanship between the course designers and the players. I love that they haven't folded to the pressure from the pro players to make the course more standard and basic. There has been a long standing history of this place being "different", and I hope they keep that going as long as possible.

I have not been to the course before. For those that have, is there room available to continue to stretch the course out as the players go farther and farther? Perhaps smaller baskets could be an option one day. That would have some players probably have a full scale nuclear meltdown, which would only make it even better.
 
I have not been to the course before. For those that have, is there room available to continue to stretch the course out as the players go farther and farther? Perhaps smaller baskets could be an option one day. That would have some players probably have a full scale nuclear meltdown, which would only make it even better.

I don't think there's much room to stretch it.....in fact, over the years they've lost some of the areas they once used.
 
A single shot can have some elements of chance involved, but a tournament involving hundreds of shots removes that element. I suggest you take a look at the law of large numbers. Once you wrap your head around that, you'll understand there is no luck involved in an event involving multiple rounds. It's pure and raw skill, 100%..

That's not how the law of large numbers works. If you had said "reduces" not "removes" you would have been closer.

That law works by increasing the denominator (attempts) to bring the ratio back to expected. The difference between the actual number of successes vs. the expected number of successes in the numerator (successes) actually tends to get bigger and bigger with more trials.

So, for example, someone's fairway hit percentage would tend to get closer to the percentage expected, but the count of fairway hits would tend to get farther from the count expected.

Nothing about the law of large numbers would cause the one-hundredth drive to be better in order to make up for that bad first drive.
 
That's not how the law of large numbers works. If you had said "reduces" not "removes" you would have been closer.

That law works by increasing the denominator (attempts) to bring the ratio back to expected. The difference between the actual number of successes vs. the expected number of successes in the numerator (successes) actually tends to get bigger and bigger with more trials.

So, for example, someone's fairway hit percentage would tend to get closer to the percentage expected, but the count of fairway hits would tend to get farther from the count expected.

Nothing about the law of large numbers would cause the one-hundredth drive to be better in order to make up for that bad first drive.

Well, the assumption here is that we are trying to separate the people who have a lower percentage of success from those with a higher percentage, so the absolute number only comes into play for people who are similarly skilled.

If you have two players with the same amount of "skill", ultimately something arbitrary/non-skill based is going to determine the outcome. Yeah, you could nitpick what skill even means, but given the broad contours of the discussion that's not really the point.
 
Last edited:
I think where OB tends to be more arbitrarily punitive is when we are talking about OB placed very near a required landing zone.

Let's take OB near the basket as an example. In some of the recent tournaments we saw OB placed downhill of baskets where the approach was from uphill and the playing surface was hard and rocky. Yes angle and speed control matters, but there really isn't any way to truly mitigate the risk of a roll away into OB, or a very odd skip, etc. Two quite good shots can have very different outcomes.

Of course, that's also true of these outcomes without OB, but the OB doesn't allow a skill based recovery to prevent the loss of the stroke. (I know a certain someone is going to chime in with a certain suggestion. That's not a solution, as it imposes a similar penalty, lowering the possibility of a skill based recovery.)

If you are going to have OB near the ideal landing zone for a shot, ideally there is a safer, but less rewarding option that can be chosen. Then you are at least making a risk/reward choice, rather than simply being forced to roll the dice.
 
I think where OB tends to be more arbitrarily punitive is when we are talking about OB placed very near a required landing zone.

Let's take OB near the basket as an example. In some of the recent tournaments we saw OB placed downhill of baskets where the approach was from uphill and the playing surface was hard and rocky. Yes angle and speed control matters, but there really isn't any way to truly mitigate the risk of a roll away into OB, or a very odd skip, etc. Two quite good shots can have very different outcomes.

Of course, that's also true of these outcomes without OB, but the OB doesn't allow a skill based recovery to prevent the loss of the stroke. (I know a certain someone is going to chime in with a certain suggestion. That's not a solution, as it imposes a similar penalty, lowering the possibility of a skill based recovery.)

If you are going to have OB near the ideal landing zone for a shot, ideally there is a safer, but less rewarding option that can be chosen. Then you are at least making a risk/reward choice, rather than simply being forced to roll the dice.

All that makes sense to me.

Particularly your description of the basket with a roll away to OB as more than a possibility but a likely outcome given the surface.

We talk a lot about risk/reward. A missed putt is a punishment of one stroke or more. Adding OB to that and big roll always is additional penalty. Limiting the number of ways a player can reasonably be penalized for a single bad throw seems reasonable.
 
A single shot can have some elements of chance involved, but a tournament involving hundreds of shots removes that element. I suggest you take a look at the law of large numbers. Once you wrap your head around that, you'll understand there is no luck involved in an event involving multiple rounds. It's pure and raw skill, 100%..

I love the USDGC and the course from the footage I have seen. I enjoy that it gets into everyone's head and there is an element of gamesmanship between the course designers and the players. I love that they haven't folded to the pressure from the pro players to make the course more standard and basic. There has been a long standing history of this place being "different", and I hope they keep that going as long as possible.

I have not been to the course before. For those that have, is there room available to continue to stretch the course out as the players go farther and farther? Perhaps smaller baskets could be an option one day. That would have some players probably have a full scale nuclear meltdown, which would only make it even better.

Luck is a major factor when we are talking about a shot or two. While there are hundreds of shots, one player could get 65% of the lucky bounces or rolls. While another player could be unlucky for that week and get 35% of the lucky rolls or bounces. Then you have to consider that most of these events comes down to less than a handful of shots, many times 1 shot can be the difference.

While we will never remove all elements of luck, we should try and determine the best player for the week. Not have luck being a deciding factor like in Portland (KJ).

I personally have played in events where I have ended up OB by less than a foot 5 times in 1 round, which when you factor in the stroke, plus drop zone, ends up being a swing of 5-10 shots just on one round. "Yeah you should have thrown it better, throw it in bounds." Yeah yeah sure. I hit a harder packed part of the green and skip OB by 6 inches while my competitor doesn't.

I've also been lucky and thrown terrible shots multiple times in a round and end up winning, my shots were simply greasy or I hit the right tree to kick me back in bounds and the shots parked.

Just look at 888 for instance. One player skips hit the curb and lands in. Next player skips, hits the curb and ends up taking a 10 after throwing OB a couple more times. Eagle a few years ago in case you forget for example.

All the narrow rope lined fairways and greens, bricks under the basket, skipping off the parking lot on 888 are only increasing the luck factor.

Heck even Jerm won the USDGC without even playing a final round. Would he still have won or was he lucky? I'd bet he wouldn't have won, but there he is with a title. No offense of course to Jerm. He earned it and got lucky by having the last round cancelled.
 
Currently watching the same old commercials during the PPV live coverage. ��
 
Heck even Jerm won the USDGC without even playing a final round. Would he still have won or was he lucky? I'd bet he wouldn't have won, but there he is with a title. No offense of course to Jerm. He earned it and got lucky by having the last round cancelled.

Hell you could argue that since they shortened Worlds from 8 rounds + final 9 to 5 rounds that Ricky, Barsby and James have been the benefit. On old format of 8+ rounds, Paul comes back (higher rating) and beats all of them, and is a 9 time consecutive and current world champ.

Maybe Ricky wins in 17, he looked really solid that year, but if I had to bet, I'd bet on Paul beating both Barsby and James if there are 3 more rounds.
 
so probably user error, but i just bought the 20$ pass but it's not loading on my android app or my tv, all i see are the pressers which were already there.

halp!
 
welp, you have to go your library>purchased (which if only they had created a video that shows how to actually load it instead just taking your money) and it doesn't load in xbox (and you have to kill the app each time instead of backing up).

wtf
 
welp, you have to go your library>purchased (which if only they had created a video that shows how to actually load it instead just taking your money) and it doesn't load in xbox (and you have to kill the app each time instead of backing up).

wtf

Thank you. I had no idea what I was doing wrong.
 
I forgot we are pretending. Water will also play different, rollers don't work too well.

You pretend all day that you know wtf you're talking about, so I'll forgive you for forgetting.

You also pretend that you are nearly 1000 rated golfer, but when someone asks for some proof of your obvious lie, crickets. I won't forgive that however.
 
I've got a question. On hole 12, the caddy book says that any OB plays from previous lie or dropzone in the middle of the fairway. Would it be legal to just drop your disc off the back of the tee pad where it is OB and proceed to the dropzone? For the women, if someone doubts they could get to the dropzone in 2 strokes, is this a cheat to basically turn the hole into a par 3 from the drop zone? Doesn't seem very right, but it guarantees you a chance at birdie from the drop zone, for the women. Doesn't make sense for the men since it's a par 4.
 
I've got a question. On hole 12, the caddy book says that any OB plays from previous lie or dropzone in the middle of the fairway. Would it be legal to just drop your disc off the back of the tee pad where it is OB and proceed to the dropzone? For the women, if someone doubts they could get to the dropzone in 2 strokes, is this a cheat to basically turn the hole into a par 3 from the drop zone? Doesn't seem very right, but it guarantees you a chance at birdie from the drop zone, for the women. Doesn't make sense for the men since it's a par 4.

If you don't think you can reach the drop zone in 2 then it would seem a prudent play.
 
If you don't think you can reach the drop zone in 2 then it would seem a prudent play.

I just wonder if anyone has even considered it. If the rains shows up like it's being predicted, it would make even more sense. That second shot can get tricky
 

Latest posts

Top