United States disc golf championships

[tmattoon]

From DGN's website about the USDGC passes:
" Exclusive access for 30 days following the event (after which it becomes available to Disc Golf Network subscribers for free)"

Does that mean even if you wait a month you will still have to pay $10 to watch any of the USDGC coverage because that is how I am reading that. I won't be able to watch the event live so I figured I'd wait but seems like a even worse value to pay $10 to watch month old coverage.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Much easier to see a tree than some arbitrary rope on the ground 300+ feet away.

Ropes create a spectacle as well in the same way people enjoy watching a car crash or train wreck.

Very little difference in shot execution is punished or rewarded from 400 feet away, one shot on the rope and one a few inches on the other side. Meanwhile a 3rd shot could also cross the rope and go 60 feet OB in the same spot.

We have 2 essentially identical shots, one lands in bounds. One just out of bounds. Resulting in different results.

Then we have one good shot that is just barely OB and another bad shot way OB. Both are taking the same result.

In the end the result is most of the time far different from the quality of shot thrown. It ends up being illogical, quite a bit lucky, most definitely silly and factually inconclusive to determining the best player for the week.

 

[biscoe]

Ropes create a spectacle as well in the same way people enjoy watching a car crash or train wreck.

Very little difference in shot execution is punished or rewarded from 400 feet away, one shot on the rope and one a few inches on the other side. Meanwhile a 3rd shot could also cross the rope and go 60 feet OB in the same spot.

We have 2 essentially identical shots, one lands in bounds. One just out of bounds. Resulting in different results.

Then we have one good shot that is just barely OB and another bad shot way OB. Both are taking the same result.

In the end the result is most of the time far different from the quality of shot thrown. It ends up being illogical, quite a bit lucky, most definitely silly and factually inconclusive to determining the best player for the week.

Not that I am a fan of rope but all 3 of the shots would have the same result at Winthrop without ropes.

...and your determination that one shot which lands inbounds near rope and one that lands out of bounds near rope are of the same quality is demonstrably incorrect. It is not like the players don't know the rope is there.

 

[txmxer]

Ropes create a spectacle as well in the same way people enjoy watching a car crash or train wreck.

Very little difference in shot execution is punished or rewarded from 400 feet away, one shot on the rope and one a few inches on the other side. Meanwhile a 3rd shot could also cross the rope and go 60 feet OB in the same spot.

We have 2 essentially identical shots, one lands in bounds. One just out of bounds. Resulting in different results.

Then we have one good shot that is just barely OB and another bad shot way OB. Both are taking the same result.

In the end the result is most of the time far different from the quality of shot thrown. It ends up being illogical, quite a bit lucky, most definitely silly and factually inconclusive to determining the best player for the week.

This isn't accurate. Ropes don't do a good job of differentiating between bad play and really bad play.

But accuracy is rewarded. Being a little off is still off or OB.

I'm not arguing it's the most entertaining DG, but your take on it is errant.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Not that I am a fan of rope but all 3 of the shots would have the same result at Winthrop without ropes.

...and your determination that one shot which lands inbounds near rope and one that lands out of bounds near rope are of the same quality is demonstrably incorrect. It is not like the players don't know the rope is there.

Two discs are 3 inches apart, one in bounds one out. The third disc is 60 feet away but crossed the same spot.

So actually one guy would be 60 feet further away and both guys next to each other are on the same shot, not one apart because one is across the rope.

 

[oldmandiscer]

This isn't accurate. Ropes don't do a good job of differentiating between bad play and really bad play.

But accuracy is rewarded. Being a little off is still off or OB.

I'm not arguing it's the most entertaining DG, but your take on it is errant.

Nope, one disc is on the line but in bounds, one is out by an inch. The other shot would be 60 feet further away.

Two shots thrown virtually identical taking different scores. Two shots thrown vastly different taking the same score.

I think it's fairly easy to understand.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I don't love the course, but I think there are a lot of really important/critical parts of this course from a course design perspective.

• Ropes. I've never heard someone say they like the ropes the ropes, but ropes have made their way onto many other courses. USDGC popularized the use of ropes. Their main benefit is a simple way of making a course harder (which can be important when pros come to visit). Ropes are also very fair; generally much fairer than trees. I'm sure you've had a bad shot hit a tree and kick back out into the fairway; shots that go into OB rope very rarely get an odd bounce back into the fairway (exception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHzZ53Vx8nM). I think this is made even better by the combined use of hazard and OB areas. Many would respond by saying that water is a much more aesthetically pleasing way of doing this. That's true, but it doesn't offer ...
  
• Flexibility. The USDGC (because of the ropes and other man-made obstacles) has stayed relevant and competitive for 20+ years, despite pros being able to throw 100ish feet further than they did 20 years ago. They also can improve the course from year to year. Trying to improve the course will inevitably lead to bad ideas (the dock on hole 5 made the hole worse according to most), but also leads to good ideas. IMO, one of the best ideas they've had is ...
  
• Strategy. There are multiple schools of hole design, one of which is a strategic hole. Strategic holes offer different ways to play the hole according to one's skill level (or, less politely stated, according to the size of a player's arms and heuvos). Hole 17 has three distinct landing zones off the tee, despite it being a par 3. You can try and park it (which almost everyone does), go for the safe drive off to the right (which a few do), or accept your fate and throw an 80' upshot (which I've seen no pros do but many smart ams do). Not all the holes have this, but most do. There are other courses that have done it much better, but the USDGC was able to jump-start this because of its ...
  
• Visibility. I mean this in two senses: in-person and on video/worldwide knowledge. For "in-person", while you're on the course its easy to see holes and shots. You know where the disc should go and where it shouldn't. Then, when the shot is thrown, you know where it went. Therefore, not only does it have interesting design features, but you can also see them, even on video. The USDGC is one of the most well-known events in the world (2nd being worlds in my estimation). So everyone sees and discusses these course changes from year to year. We've been able to see a course that's under development for 20+ years. That's a great way to help others learn to design.

Ultimately I think all of this comes from the fact that the property is BIG enough to be championship caliber, but it is not GOOD enough to be championship caliber. The ropes are necessary because the property simply doesn't fit championship caliber disc golf. The ropes add to the strategic play, I agree. They serve the intended purpose. But they do not solve the fact that they are an effort to shoehorn a championship caliber course onto a property that is not on its own championship caliber. The ropes have, sure, helped the course remain "relevant" as the property has been increasingly outgrown - but I'd argue that a better agenda would be for Innova to invest in actually developing a championship caliber property. They've chosen to go with (for the sake of nostalgia, convenience, and cost) sticking it out on a property that just isn't nearly on the level with much of what else is on tour.

They're in the Carolinas - there are places. Disc golf is booming Innova, come on: lets wean off of the rope addiction and start developing a property that can truly be developed toward the purpose of a United States Disc Golf Championship - instead of shoehorning the event onto a college campus that the sport has simply outgrown (if it was ever truly appropriate in the first place).

I appreciate nostalgia, convenenience, and cost - but at some point you should look at the place objectively. You can have your experimental major at some place more appropriate, you don't NEED to stick it out at Winthrop for the sake of the past.

 

[Ryan P.]

Innova and Winthrop have an agreement through 2024 per a recent podcast (either Nick and Matt or the Upshot). So set your hopes for 2025 USDGC Chris.

I'm not convinced that they should move; at least not yet. DG is still in a growing phase, especially as far as course design goes. I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade the worst touring pros are all throwing as far as Eagle is now. If they dump a lot of money into developing a property and what I said happens (even if its in 20-30 years), the course might be considered a middling course and not one worthy of the USDGC. That might be worth it; it might not. Do I personally want it to go in that direction? Definitely.

I realize that a course like this could (and should) be designed with ample space between holes (allowing Innova to lengthen it in a decade or two). However, that would require a significant amount of work. While DG is still growing, ropes allow greater flexibility than trees. While I don't like them, they've made a lot of sense in the past. Let's not be shortsighted and demand that now is the time to change.

 

[Flick Maniac]

Soooo.... Are we gonna chat here about the tournament when it starts or what

 

[Ryan P.]

Ropes are great for distinguishing between good and bad shots. The shots that are on either side of the line are clearly either "good" or "bad" because the hole defined them as such. How the course punishes those shots is a different matter, but you can't argue that a shot landing outside the rope was good, even if it is 3 inches outside the rope. I don't like the hard line that a rope provides, but it clearly distinguishes between them.

OMDs positions are all covering the fringe cases.

Perhaps there are better ways of punishing ropes. Hazard does it somewhat well. I think one way to do it would be to force a player to go back along the ropes however many feet outside the ropes they land times 2 (or 3 or whatever). This requires a lot (volunteers to quickly measure and mark the next throw, clear and thoughtful designs, and a threshold that's easily distinguishable to where a player is simply given a penalty stroke).

Maybe there are other ideas to make landing outside the ropes more of a punishment fits the crime situation. At some point, the amount of work it requires to make a better course with ropes means that the ropes should go away and trees should be added.

 

[Ryan P.]

Soooo.... Are we gonna chat here about the tournament when it starts or what

Makes sense to me

 

[Ryan P.]

Getting into the realm of conjecture, the more I think about the poles on hole 9, the more I think they are a publicity stunt. Innova wants their course to be the one talked about and wants it to stand out (I don't think anyone would disagree with this). They appear to be placed in a pattern, but not a very logical one when you think about the design of the hole. They know people will post about these holes on social media. And then people will have all offseason to talk about whether it was a good hole. All of these thoughts lead me to think Innova is simply using them as a publicity stunt.

I realize that I'm helping them in their little stunt, but the only way to redeem the hole for me is if the scores seem fair, pros like playing it, and pros have thoughtful reasons for why they like playing it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Getting into the realm of conjecture, the more I think about the poles on hole 9, the more I think they are a publicity stunt. Innova wants their course to be the one talked about and wants it to stand out (I don't think anyone would disagree with this). They appear to be placed in a pattern, but not a very logical one when you think about the design of the hole. They know people will post about these holes on social media. And then people will have all offseason to talk about whether it was a good hole. All of these thoughts lead me to think Innova is simply using them as a publicity stunt.

I realize that I'm helping them in their little stunt, but the only way to redeem the hole for me is if the scores seem fair, pros like playing it, and pros have thoughtful reasons for why they like playing it.

Pros liking a design feature or not historically has little bearing on whether it will be duplicated on other courses.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

Not that I am a fan of rope but all 3 of the shots would have the same result at Winthrop without ropes.

...and your determination that one shot which lands inbounds near rope and one that lands out of bounds near rope are of the same quality is demonstrably incorrect. It is not like the players don't know the rope is there.

Agreed, the result is literally the same if the line is water or rope, the only difference is in aesthetics.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Innova and Winthrop have an agreement through 2024 per a recent podcast (either Nick and Matt or the Upshot). So set your hopes for 2025 USDGC Chris.

I'm not convinced that they should move; at least not yet. DG is still in a growing phase, especially as far as course design goes. I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade the worst touring pros are all throwing as far as Eagle is now. If they dump a lot of money into developing a property and what I said happens (even if its in 20-30 years), the course might be considered a middling course and not one worthy of the USDGC. That might be worth it; it might not. Do I personally want it to go in that direction? Definitely.

I realize that a course like this could (and should) be designed with ample space between holes (allowing Innova to lengthen it in a decade or two). However, that would require a significant amount of work. While DG is still growing, ropes allow greater flexibility than trees. While I don't like them, they've made a lot of sense in the past. Let's not be shortsighted and demand that now is the time to change.

Traditional golf is hundreds upon hundreds of years old, and we're still seeing developments in terms of player and technology. If they wait 10 years, or they wait 20 years - who's to say they still won't be dealing with what you said 20 years after that? You're letting perfect be the enemy of great here. One thing that should be clear is: if YOU can think about the fact that this new piece of wonderful property needs room for growth, Innova is capable of thinking about the fact that a new piece of wonderful property would need room for growth.

I shall set my hopes in line with 2025.

 

[Ryan P.]

Traditional golf is hundreds upon hundreds of years old, and we're still seeing developments in terms of player and technology. If they wait 10 years, or they wait 20 years - who's to say they still won't be dealing with what you said 20 years after that? You're letting perfect be the enemy of great here. One thing that should be clear is: if YOU can think about the fact that this new piece of wonderful property needs room for growth, Innova is capable of thinking about the fact that a new piece of wonderful property would need room for growth.

I shall set my hopes in line with 2025.

Me representing the other side of the argument often ends with this. I'm all for USDGC being on another course. But I recognize that, from another perspective, there are good reasons for it to stay. I could also say that you're letting your desires get in the way of being great. There are valid ideas on both sides.

Innova will make the call of whether or not they think sinking money into another course is worth it when they have a venue that offers them what they want: flexibility (and spectacle). I can't stand that Innova uses the USDGC to draw attention to themselves.

 

[Ryan P.]

Pros liking a design feature or not historically has little bearing on whether it will be duplicated on other courses.

I don't care if pros like the hole, but if they dislike it, then I see no benefit in it whatsoever.

 

[dehaas]

Lol McBeth left Innova for a big fat contract with Discraft and is building his own championship caliber course.

They could've just paid Paul and let him do all the work for them.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Ropes are great for distinguishing between good and bad shots. The shots that are on either side of the line are clearly either "good" or "bad" because the hole defined them as such. How the course punishes those shots is a different matter, but you can't argue that a shot landing outside the rope was good, even if it is 3 inches outside the rope. I don't like the hard line that a rope provides, but it clearly distinguishes between them.

OMDs positions are all covering the fringe cases.

Perhaps there are better ways of punishing ropes. Hazard does it somewhat well. I think one way to do it would be to force a player to go back along the ropes however many feet outside the ropes they land times 2 (or 3 or whatever). This requires a lot (volunteers to quickly measure and mark the next throw, clear and thoughtful designs, and a threshold that's easily distinguishable to where a player is simply given a penalty stroke).

Maybe there are other ideas to make landing outside the ropes more of a punishment fits the crime situation. At some point, the amount of work it requires to make a better course with ropes means that the ropes should go away and trees should be added.

Isn't landing further away from the basket a punishment or punishment enough? Why do we add strokes? Why do we have to add strokes? Why do we pick up our discs and place them in the fairway?

How about making the circle a hazard itself. Players try and land outside 33 feet but close to the edge and then make a putt. (I might have just given them an idea.:gross: )

Maybe even better make the entire hole hazard so every time you don't land in the basket you take an extra shot. That should make up for the easiness of the course/putting.

 

[Horsman]

Isn't landing further away from the basket a punishment or punishment enough? Why do we add strokes? Why do we have to add strokes? Why do we pick up our discs and place them in the fairway?

How about making the circle a hazard itself. Players try and land outside 33 feet but close to the edge and then make a putt. (I might have just given them an idea.:gross: )

Maybe even better make the entire hole hazard so every time you don't land in the basket you take an extra shot. That should make up for the easiness of the course/putting.

Go troll elsewhere, no one cares what you have to say.