USDGC no ratings

[krupicka]

From Facebook

Each year there are always plenty of discussions taking place about how the Winthrop Gold Course will be set up for Championship play. The Official USDGC Caddy Book is available to competitors and fans. We would encourage you to take a look if that is of interest. We also wanted to share this message from USDGC Chairman, Harold Duvall, regarding the course and rules-related discussions with the Professional Disc Golf Association for this year's event.

"As with any good relationship, partners do not always agree. This year for example, the PDGA and the USDGC disagree on certain hole designs elements related to throw-and-distance penalties. The association feels that these designs are too penal and that the ratings produced from throw-and-distance holes reflect a different game. While we agree that throw-and-distance holes can be too penal when designed poorly, we believe that Holes 13 and 17 at the USDGC are fair and generate intense emotional engagement for both the players and the fans. In a spirit of cooperation, the PDGA will show the USDGC rounds in the Official Results page, however the rounds will be excluded from the players' rating calculation.

I am looking forward to a beautiful fall week in the Carolinas, working with amazing volunteers, seeing some spectacular play, and doing our best to make a difference."

-Harold Duvall, USDGC Chairman

It's a shame that some in the PDGA are forcing TDs hands and not allowing ratings for events that know what they are doing. Kudos for Harold for not kowtowing to this.

Beetlejuice should be showing up any minute...

 

[DavidSauls]

Even if such holes distort the ratings, how much can a handful of holes distort them, out of the thousands these guys play?

And how much does that matter?

 

[krupicka]

Might as well not do ratings for courses with fluky trees or impenetrable rough.

 

[brutalbrutus]

We played a hole earlier this year that was <200ft. Roughly half way there was a walking path. After the path, there was a roped area, fairly wide, tapering to and around a small concrete pad. Basket was set on a picnic table on the pad. Anything before the walking path was safe, on path OB, and outside the roped area OB. Your drive had to land safe or re-tee. So there was a safe landing option short and people were still taking 15+ out of pride...

 

[brutalbrutus]

Not sure how many it takes to effect the rating but I can remember at least two players with 20+ and a couple more 15+.

It still boggles my mind that after three or four misses they didn't just lay up twice and make a 5fter...for a 9 or 10.

 

[krupicka]

When players choose to blow up that much, they are outside the normal SD and they are dropped from the calculations.

 

[juju]

I hope someone shoots the highest rated round ever.

 

[bradharris]

This sets a terrible precedent. The rules allow TDs to limit options for throws after going OB by rule 804.04 D.

A player whose disc is out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next throw from:
The previous lie; or,
A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, even if the direction takes the lie closer to the target; or,
Within the designated drop zone, if provided.

Those options may be limited by the Director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.

The precedent being set now is that every time a TD wants to limit one of those options (including sending players to a drop zone rather than allowing play from the OB line), they must go through the tour manager who will also need to review the course in order to determine if the deviation is a fair enough penalty to use for ratings.

 

[JohtoVillage]

I will be very interested to see how the players react to this event being an "X" designated major instead of a regular major. The tour guidelines say that is what should happen here.

 

[DanJon]

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous.

Does the PDGA have any idea about timing?

To announce this, at this time, is just laughable.

Especially considering the USDGC has been around for awhile.

Who is running this show?

 

[lyleoross]

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous.

Does the PDGA have any idea about timing?

To announce this, at this time, is just laughable.

Especially considering the USDGC has been around for awhile.

Who is running this show?

It isn't clear when this discussion and decision was made. Perhaps the negotiation went on for months? Or was decided some time ago and HD just announced?

 

[Lazerface]

Harold is correct on these two holes. The scoring variance on them is almost always due to poor mental play and have nothing to do with the actual hole design. They are only too penal if your pride gets the best of you and you tin cup it.

Good point made above regarding the extremely high number of poorly designed garbage courses with huge luck factors (without OB) that remain sanctioned. I get they changed stroke and distance rules (I think due to Eureka Lake at Ledgestone a couple years ago) but it has to be case to case. Each hole needs to be evaluated to determine if it meets "good design" criteria with risk/reward and luck factor considered. Specifically if there are areas where a player can reasonably opt for a safe play in a situation with a small island green or very tight OB. Drop zones should be considered when appropriate, but they are not always necessary. Unfortunately 40 MPH winds can negate design to some degree, but that affects every hole. Our sport has enough luck factor as it is and when the wind gets high terrible spit outs and roll always will always be a factor. With that said, it again comes down to smart golf and conservative play.

I have certainly played some terrible stroke and distance holes in my day, but for every one of those there is about 50 holes on wooded courses with fairways full trees and no real defined shot shape. Poke and Hopes as they call them. The worst are those that are almost perfectly clean but some A$$hole decides it's a good idea to leave just a few 6 inch diameter trees in the middle of the fairway or just before the basket. Honestly, the vast majority of the wooded courses I play have at least a few of these - terrible for competitive play. Ratings aside, they just are not tournament worthy. I have not had the pleasure to play the some of those I've seen in Youtube videos that are truly fair and heavily wooded. NC and MN seem to have a good amount of those.

If they're worried about accurate ratings/fairness based on course design then maybe each course needs to be evaluated to meet a set of standards to become a PDGA event. I realize they do this for NTs and A tiers (right?) but there are numerous courses that host lower tier events that are absolute garbage. I don't actually support this by the way. The player has a choice to play in the event - just like they have a choice to lay up or go for the green on a risky hole.

I understand the PDGA does not have the resources to evaluate each hole on every course, for every event, but rather than make a blanket rule regarding stroke and distance it should be put back on the TD of the event. If the TD is submitting a bid for tournament that has stroke and distance holes the PDGA can require them to submit some type of design template and if it does not appear to meet standards they can work together to figure it out. Lazy TDs will just scratch their stroke and distance holes (PDGA wins) and those who are confident its a good design will take the time to work it out.

I disagree with those who don't like stroke and distance all together and always try to bring in the ball golf comparison. We are not ball golf, and due to limitations on making putting and approaching difficult OB is a key factor in challenging our top players (the latest PDGA magazine has an article that discusses this in pretty good detail). Hitting an Iron shot into a ball golf green is just hard, period, and putting is even harder. Take our top 100 players and if they get to the spot in the fairway they need to be with no real (fair) obstacles in the way and they are up and down 99% of the time with very minimal effort. Sadly, in most cases I feel like course designers (the bad ones) use unfair tree placement to combat this fact. This, combined with our minimal putting difficulty (compared with ball golf) are huge challenges when it comes to making disc golf a spectator worthy sport - which I think is a mutual goal of the PDGA, it's members and all those working to expand disc golf.

What Harold is saying is exactly right - "Holes 13 and 17 at the USDGC are fair and generate intense emotional engagement for both the players and the fans." I could not agree more. I've been watching live coverage of the USDGC for years and my heart starts beating every time it's coming down to the wire and the players reach these tee boxes. A good example is John E in the 2014 USGDC. It's not apparent from watching players all the time but Hole 17 does have a lay up zone and a pretty large landing area right of the basket. John E let his emotions get the best of him and missed that green 3 times - he could of won the tournament laying up. A player of his caliber could secure a 4 almost automatically by laying up and then throwing to the big area right of the basket. Just being a bit closer to that green makes a HUGE difference. HE HAD A 4 STOKE LEAD GOING INTO THE HOLE.

As a spectator of the USDGC I don't care about ratings, but don't try to make the most premier event in disc golf re-write the book when the event has proved successful in being the true test for the elite in our sport. The player should not suffer (strong word but some are very ratings focused) because the board decided stroke and distance is just not fair. It absolutely can be and is actually crucial in this stage of our sport with limited land and control of design. When we get to sustainable private disc golf courses in the distant future with full control over design from start to finish I could see less of need for S&D for but now it works when done correctly.

 

[DavidSauls]

Who is running this show?

The ratings team.

Which has struck me as the tail wagging the dog since it was first announced.

I'll ask again---what difference does it make if players' ratings get skewed by a few points?

 

[1978]

Interesting that someone from Innova is confident enough to comment on the fairness of a hole design. Have they not reviewed their product around the area in the last 10 years?

I'll bet a nickle that 2017 is going to be a doosey for headscratching PDGA announcements.

Re-cap
2016
Smaller Am worlds
Sign in fiasco for Worlds
Points doubling mid season
Various tours fall-out
Do Discraft and PDGA get along?

 

[krupicka]

Who is running this show?

The ratings team.

Which has struck me as the tail wagging the dog since it was first announced.

Exactly. The ratings team also disguises itself as the Game Development Team.

 

[Lazerface]

This sets a terrible precedent. The rules allow TDs to limit options for throws after going OB by rule 804.04 D.

A player whose disc is out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next throw from:
The previous lie; or,
A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, even if the direction takes the lie closer to the target; or,
Within the designated drop zone, if provided.

Those options may be limited by the Director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.

The precedent being set now is that every time a TD wants to limit one of those options (including sending players to a drop zone rather than allowing play from the OB line), they must go through the tour manager who will also need to review the course in order to determine if the deviation is a fair enough penalty to use for ratings.

I did not see this, so maybe my suggestion for it to be case to case is already the case. My bad. Either way, the PDGA got this one wrong.

 

[krupicka]

I wonder how many Pro's contracts differentiate between M and XM Events?

 

[grodney]

Chuck has been using this "stroke and distance is a different game" excuse for a long time. It is illogical, and lame.

The excuse, that is.

The excuse is ESPECIALLY lame when stroke-and-distance is only used on a couple holes.

 

[lyleoross]

Let me point out that this is not a new issue. The fact that Harold D. is bringing it up now seems more political than clear communication. The PDGA communicated with Ledgestone about this months ago; I'm betting Harold has known for months too.

While I don't personally care about these holes, either one, this issue does strike me as unfair, based on what I've read in the past. At what level do we as a player run association care about this issue? Enough that the Pros playing Ledgestone complained pretty significantly about stroke and distance last year. Enough that many voices have complained here and at other sites, that it is too punitive. Enough that I've heard more pissing about hole 17 over the last 20 years than about any hole, course, or tournament combination, by professional players. Hole 13 gets complained about significantly too, but it doesn't stretch much beyond this event, by my impression. Enough that the PDGA responded to such complaints, and tried to eliminate the use of stroke and distance.

So, everyone is mad as heck about stroke and distance and these two holes and their impact, until Harold says, "hey, not on my watch!" And now, it's time for an exception....

There are a large number of posts here on DGCR about hole design, over use of rope, over punitive holes, and what makes a great hole. Almost all of them piss about the basic element designs of these two holes, if not specifically these two holes.

Yes, especially on hole 17, players could be smarter. But when one hole can be the difference between Ricky W. winning by three strokes, or Paul melting down and losing by three, that hole has a pretty significant impact, even if it is only due to player stupidity. Heck, people were mad that Ricky got eliminated from the Pro Tour final based on an entire round. Imagine the indignation if the win gets taken away from a favored player based on one "quirky" hole?

Overall, I like the upsets and changes that have happened due to these two holes. I've seen significant player position changes a number of times. It's great seeing a number three or four player drop five or six slots in the final round because they blew up on these holes. Or a one two switch because one player threw right on line, but ten feet too long on 17. You can really see the pressure hit them as they step up to the box and look down the fairway, and I like that tension. However, it seems to me that neither the players, nor their specific fans, really care for that outcome.

 

[Lazerface]

Let me point out that this is not a new issue. The fact that Harold D. is bringing it up now seems more political than clear communication. The PDGA communicated with Ledgestone about this months ago; I'm betting Harold has known for months too.

While I don't personally care about these holes, either one, this issue does strike me as unfair, based on what I've read in the past. At what level do we as a player run association care about this issue? Enough that the Pros playing Ledgestone complained pretty significantly about stroke and distance last year. Enough that many voices have complained here and at other sites, that it is too punitive. Enough that I've heard more pissing about hole 17 over the last 20 years than about any hole, course, or tournament combination, by professional players. Hole 13 gets complained about significantly too, but it doesn't stretch much beyond this event, by my impression. Enough that the PDGA responded to such complaints, and tried to eliminate the use of stroke and distance.

So, everyone is mad as heck about stroke and distance and these two holes and their impact, until Harold says, "hey, not on my watch!" And now, it's time for an exception....

There are a large number of posts here on DGCR about hole design, over use of rope, over punitive holes, and what makes a great hole. Almost all of them piss about the basic element designs of these two holes, if not specifically these two holes.

Yes, especially on hole 17, players could be smarter. But when one hole can be the difference between Ricky W. winning by three strokes, or Paul melting down and losing by three, that hole has a pretty significant impact, even if it is only due to player stupidity. Heck, people were mad that Ricky got eliminated from the Pro Tour final based on an entire round. Imagine the indignation if the win gets taken away from a favored player based on one "quirky" hole?

Overall, I like the upsets and changes that have happened due to these two holes. I've seen significant player position changes a number of times. It's great seeing a number three or four player drop five or six slots in the final round because they blew up on these holes. Or a one two switch because one player threw right on line, but ten feet too long on 17. You can really see the pressure hit them as they step up to the box and look down the fairway, and I like that tension. However, it seems to me that neither the players, nor their specific fans, really care for that outcome.

"There are a large number of posts here on DGCR about hole design, over use of rope, over punitive holes, and what makes a great hole. Almost all of them piss about the basic element designs of these two holes, if not specifically these two holes."

Please elaborate??? I think the way they are played and the outcomes speak for themselves. MOST open players go for it. A poorly designed island green with S&D would be a hole that 95% of the field lays up on because the risk heavily outweighs the reward. Obviously these players think this green is doable, otherwise we would see many more layups, and the lay up option on this hole is more than fair and can be executed to secure a 3 or 4 with relative ease.

"Imagine the indignation if the win gets taken away from a favored player based on one "quirky" hole?"

"However, it seems to me that neither the players, nor their specific fans, really care for that outcome"

Of course morons who blow up on it and overestimate their own skill set and refuse to lay up complain about it. That means nothing. And for their specific fans - if a fan get's overly emotional when their respective player ****s the bed on it, then that's probably a good thing. You want fans to get emotional, and you want hole design, while remaining fair, to create drama and scoring separation.

Quirky is poke and hope or steep slanted greens to the degree that roll always are hard to control. 17 is not quirky, it's hard, mostly mentally.

http://usdgc.com/?p=988
Just came across this article searching for scoring spread stats on 17. It is exactly how I feel about the hole and why I believe that contrary to being a poorly designed hole, it is one of the best out there. Check your ego if you're there to win.

Hole 13 is another discussion and I'm not sure if I have a strong argument there. I also don't recall if S&D applied on both the tee shot and the island green, or just the green.