Why So Much OB?

[armiller]

I think the Oregon courses (2014 Worlds, including Milo McIver) are a pretty good example too. Those CCDG vids totally got me hooked on disc golf.

Lol. You said Beaver State Fling. I missed that...

 

[lyleoross]

Lol. You said Beaver State Fling. I missed that...

Yeah , but World's did add another course, and anyone who recognizes that Milo is awesome clearly has great taste!

 

[DavidSauls]

There definitely needs to be a reasonable combination of the two hazards. But disc golf seems more fun to me when there's more emphasis on the need for proper flight path. Some have mentioned USDGC, but I always think it's hilarious when players don't have any idea if their disc landed in bounds or OB until someone raises a colored flag. Even if it provides scoring separation, I will never believe that that is disc golf at its finest.
QUOTE]

I haven't played Withrop Gold with the ropes---but some folks I know who have, whose judgment I trust, tell me it was terrific.

I've played wooded courses, and courses with lots of water, where, without a flagman, I didn't know if my shot ended up good or bad until I arrived at it. I don't see where that would be an issue.

I don't think there's a danger of ropes courses taking over disc golf. Certainly, an open all-ropes course is of limited appeal, to lay or watch, since it becomes a hyzerfest.

Meanwhile, the courses I play most often have a lot of existing-hazard OB, a little bit of contrived OB (well done, in my opinion), and plenty of trees.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

If those contrived areas were water or road or pathways, or other pre-existing features that were incorporated in the course design, would it make a difference? Is it the contrived nature that bothers you, or the O.B. itself?

O.B. provides a different hazard than trees. It gives the player more freedom in choosing his flight path, but less freedom in where the disc lands and comes to rest. And it creates higher-risk hazards, because there's no chance of a great recovery shot saving the player from his bad throw.

It's not to everyone's taste, but that's why it's there. Particularly on top events, when there aren't enough sufficiently-challenging O.B.-free courses in places where people will host these events.

As for golf---we're not golf. We do a lot of things differently. We're free to pick and choose which aspects of golf we wish to adopt, and which don't suit us. If we fall in the trap of doing things just because that's how golf does them, we could just play....golf.

Wonderfully thought out analysis. :clap:

 

[Hampstead]

Disc golf on a ball golf course is boring. Hey look, it's another hyzer!

At least artificial OB makes it kinda sorta interesting to watch.

 

[sidewinder22]

Iron Hill was designed for 1000+ rated pros, par 72 and has very little OB.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Good holes on good courses separate scoring by rewarding good shots, punishing bad ones, and above that, making players think and giving them an array of options. Non-water OB can sometimes add this to an area that otherwise would make for a boring hole. I usually like it if it's done well.

In fact, non-water OB should make everybody happy: casual players can simply ignore it if they wish, but there's an added challenge if a more serious player wants or needs it. Win win.

 

[DavidSauls]

For what it's worth, at least one of the courses for this year's Pro Worlds has very little OB. What's there involves a creek on a few holes, with OB marked at the top of the creek bed.

 

[DavidSauls]

Wonderfully thought out analysis. :clap:

Thanks. Bear in mind that I own what seems like 15 miles of OB, of almost every description, so have a lot of opportunity to think about it.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Idlewild has a ton of OB but is still very hard when most of it is played casual. I have yet to play an event there where they use all the OBs for my division, usually just surrounded by water and roads/parking areas. I cant imagine how frustrated I would be playing full OBs for a tourney. Be interesting to see how the pros do there this year...

 

[DavidSauls]

Good holes on good courses separate scoring by rewarding good shots, punishing bad ones, and above that, making players think and giving them an array of options. Non-water OB can sometimes add this to an area that otherwise would make for a boring hole. I usually like it if it's done well.

I was once told that on a good hole, you should stand on the tee with a mix of anticipation and anxiety. OB can certainly provide the anxiety and, if well designed, perhaps the anticipation too. I can certainly think of some holes that are fun, that would be boring without it.

We don't have enough holes where the player stands on the tee, debating strategy in his head. Usually the mental debate is limited to what disc to throw, perhaps what style of throw to use, and then a matter of execution. A player pondering whether to challenge OB or play it safe has the extra challenge of strategy.

In fact, non-water OB should make everybody happy: casual players can simply ignore it if they wish, but there's an added challenge if a more serious player wants or needs it. Win win.

An excellent point.

Except, of course, for the small number of viewers whose concern is the spectator experience at big events.

 

[UP Mountain Man]

"Great" shot unfairly punished, whuuuuuut?//

All players should know where the OB lines are, and if they don't then it's their own fault. If a shot goes OB, then it probably wasn't a very good shot. It may have been an impressive shot, but if it spills into OB, then it wasn't executed accurately enough. If you still disagree, perhaps you can direct us to at least one moment on film that helps make your case.

Rope OB has its uses, but it can be over-used IMO at times. But I'm not sure I would consider it to be any more or less "arbitrary" than a curb, or other permanent and/or natural delineation.

So far, I'm really liking the quality and variety of answers in this thread. :clap:

^^^THIS! "GOOD" shots do not end up OB. Shots that go OB are not "GOOD".

Granted, that does leave out the PC entitlement/participation award concept, but...

 

[ohtobediscing]

^^^Are the UP courses all so densely wooded that you pine [heh] for open, OB-marked courses?

In the 4-5 years Blue Lake has been there, we've played it less than 5 times each. Pier Park is the only closer 18 to us, yet still we'd rather drive to play McCormick, Horning's, Dabney, Buxton, Milo, Wheatland, et. al. Why? Because open 1000+ ft. holes are tiring and boring---we can play 2 rounds at Milo for the same effort.
Another factor is the marked OB itself---the city doesn't mow that part, and when the grass grows long and lays flat it makes discs disappear with ease.

It is like ball golf, in that an open, marked-OB course is like links golf. And most golf courses are not links-style because golfers don't enjoy them as much.

 

[Hampstead]

Granted, that does leave out the PC entitlement/participation award concept, but...

Tired trope is tired.

 

[mike3216]

Mike, check out this article that discusses better ways being sought than OB to provide more proportional penalties in DG:
http://www.pdga.com/better-granularity-better-sports

Excellent article. Food for thought.

My long-time go to sport has been tennis, and it can illustrate one of the points I am trying to make. In my mind, in any major tournament, the best player should win. Period. From a global standpoint, that kind of parity was missing in tennis from the 1980s to the early 2000s. The four majors are held on three different surfaces: Hard, grass, and clay. Up until 2000, the grass venue, Wimbledon, was so different (faster, less predictable lower bounce) that the tournament could be dominated by a lesser-talent grass-court specialist or (especially on the men's' side) by some guy who served so hard that nobody could return it. There were exceptions, but it was like a different game entirely. The clay venue (French Open) was worse. The clay slowed everything down so much that offense was nullified. Points were long and boring, and the tournament was dominated by lesser talents with a defensive mindset. Good examples of this issue were Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras. Both of them were the best players in the world for a nice stretch, but Lendl could never win the French and Sampras could never win Wimbledon. Both of these situations resolved themselves eventually. In 2000, Wimbledon changed to a new grass which ended up being slower and more predictable. Through the 1990s, equipment and player conditioning improved to the point where players could generate offense more easily on clay, rendering the defensive specialist less effective. Most people consider tennis to be in a competitive golden age today, and a great player can win on any surface.

I know that was a long-winded way of making my point, which is that the biggest venues should reward the best play. A great drive that hits an irregularity in the ground and skips sideways, totally by chance, and then crosses an arbitrary OB line, should not be punished. If you really want to make it a test, judge the OB professional events (if you have a spotter) on the landing spot. Rollers excepted. Just a thought.

I'm not trying to make an argument to advocate for any particular position. I'm just looking at the setup of this sport with fresh eyes and trying to figure out what makes sense to me and what doesn't.

 

[mike3216]

An excellent point.

Except, of course, for the small number of viewers whose concern is the spectator experience at big events.

If a sport wants to grow (and I don't always buy into the thought that a sport HAS to grow), it does need to become spectator-friendly to some extent. Since I picked it up, I find myself wondering why disc golf isn't more popular. It is easy to get started, extremely inexpensive, accessible, and less uptight than traditional golf. What's not to like?

 

[lyleoross]

Excellent article. Food for thought.

My long-time go to sport has been tennis, and it can illustrate one of the points I am trying to make. In my mind, in any major tournament, the best player should win. Period. From a global standpoint, that kind of parity was missing in tennis from the 1980s to the early 2000s. The four majors are held on three different surfaces: Hard, grass, and clay. Up until 2000, the grass venue, Wimbledon, was so different (faster, less predictable lower bounce) that the tournament could be dominated by a lesser-talent grass-court specialist or (especially on the men's' side) by some guy who served so hard that nobody could return it. There were exceptions, but it was like a different game entirely. The clay venue (French Open) was worse. The clay slowed everything down so much that offense was nullified. Points were long and boring, and the tournament was dominated by lesser talents with a defensive mindset. Good examples of this issue were Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras. Both of them were the best players in the world for a nice stretch, but Lendl could never win the French and Sampras could never win Wimbledon. Both of these situations resolved themselves eventually. In 2000, Wimbledon changed to a new grass which ended up being slower and more predictable. Through the 1990s, equipment and player conditioning improved to the point where players could generate offense more easily on clay, rendering the defensive specialist less effective. Most people consider tennis to be in a competitive golden age today, and a great player can win on any surface.

I know that was a long-winded way of making my point, which is that the biggest venues should reward the best play. A great drive that hits an irregularity in the ground and skips sideways, totally by chance, and then crosses an arbitrary OB line, should not be punished. If you really want to make it a test, judge the OB professional events (if you have a spotter) on the landing spot. Rollers excepted. Just a thought.

I'm not trying to make an argument to advocate for any particular position. I'm just looking at the setup of this sport with fresh eyes and trying to figure out what makes sense to me and what doesn't.

The frequency of the events you mention varies depending on surface and conditions. If I'm playing the AO, a course with a very high skip quotient, it is my job to adjust my game to that situation. If I don't, or can't, I'm going to lose to a player that can.

The random event that impacts an outcome is actually quite infrequent. The complaints about events being random, when indeed, they are due to poor course management, is very high. Yes, they happen but it isn't like a surface that impacts every ball that touches it. Most of our game is in the air and you position your landing zone depending on ground conditions. Most ob is due to user error. You can argue that you can define the fairway beyond human capability, but I've not seen that yet.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The randomness with OB has more to do with randomly higher punishment for the same amount of inaccuracy on that hole versus other holes where the same inaccuracy does not result in a penalty. OB is an inconsistent game design element for emulating foliage hazards unless there's equivalent OB for similar amount of inaccuracy on every hole in the same way there are gutters on both sides of a bowling alley for every roll you throw, not just randomly popping up for a roll or two. There are some potentially better ways being tested to temper the OB design "crutch" (especially throw & distance) being used by some punishment-biased designers/TDs so open holes can play a bit more like those with scattered trees.

 

[DavidSauls]

If a sport wants to grow (and I don't always buy into the thought that a sport HAS to grow), it does need to become spectator-friendly to some extent. Since I picked it up, I find myself wondering why disc golf isn't more popular. It is easy to get started, extremely inexpensive, accessible, and less uptight than traditional golf. What's not to like?

There are two types of growth---as a participation sport and as a spectator sport. They are not necessarily connected. Disc golf is, has been, and no doubt will be growing robustly as a participation sport, without spectators. Some of us are of the belief that it will never be a significant spectator sport, regardless of what anyone does, so that should not be a primary consideration for rules, course design, or anything else.

 

[DanJon]

^^^THIS! "GOOD" shots do not end up OB. Shots that go OB are not "GOOD".

Granted, that does leave out the PC entitlement/participation award concept, but...

I agree, if your shot ends up in an OB area, then it wasn't a good shot.

I disagree with your second point on participation trophies (with all due respect my friend), I have rarely heard a kid say that they deserved a trophy for losing. It was usually their parents.

Now entitlement is a different story, that's a very real thing.