Would you like to see the PDGA limit number of disc carried in tournaments?

[Old Dog]

I think pre or post round or tournament WITB interviews with the top players would be real interesting and informative.

Think about the added challenges. Players would essentially have to formulate a game plan for each hole prior to every round and be able to make on the fly adjustments using a limited arsenal if/when things go awry.

 

[lucasgg]

Limited bags could be a game mode between friends or a game mode set by the PDGA. Maybe around the 7-10 range? Or less?

 

[iacas]

Someone, anyone, who is a proponent of limiting discs, come up with a sample plan on how this would look. Come up with a number and explain your rational as to why that number is ideal in your vision of the future of competitive disc golf. No more abstract concepts...let's discuss exactly what this kind of thing should look like, in your view. Nothing I dislike more in a debate than the "they/we should do this" without ever specifying what "this" really is.

FWIW, I already did this. And rather than do it again…

I'm not the most ardent supporter of this, but I'll give it a shot:

- Limit of 12 discs to start a round. Why 12? Sounds limiting enough to me that players will have to give some real thought to what they will carry.
- Unlimited substitutions between rounds - you can use a completely different set each round

I'm good to this point.

- If a disc is lost or damaged during a round, it can immediately be replaced with the same mold/plastic, as long as it doesn't cause a delay in the round. If it takes three holes for someone to get a replacement, that's fine. If a player wants to have someone following him around with a bag of replacements, that's fine.

I don't support that one. If you lose two discs during a round that aren't relatively quickly recoverable (i.e. you can reach it in the water with a stick that's nearby), you'll finish the round with 10 discs. I don't think that someone who has a dedicated "follower" should have the advantage of being able to immediately replace discs.

- If a disc is not lost or damaged it cannot be replaced during a round.
- Players cannot use each other's discs.

Yeah, those are fine. I just disagree with the one.

I wouldn't see this as a viable rule for your local c-tier - as many have said, TDs do not need to deal with this kind of thing.

They shouldn't have to.

Seriously, disc golfers must be a bunch of cheats, because everyone keeps mentioning this. In golf, the "TD" doesn't have to count people's clubs, or check whether their clubs and balls conform. This should be a complete non-issue.

 

[DavidSauls]

Did you not read post #274?

Yeah, but I'd want all takers of JC's offer to be as thorough as you were.

 

[DavidSauls]

The point I've made a few times is that if you can make the same throw and just choose a different disc, that requires less skill than forcing a smaller number of discs to hit more lines and flights by changing the throw.

Changing the throw, IMO, requires more skill than changing the plastic.

Even as I agree that it takes more skill to play with fewer discs, I think it's oversimplified to say players just throw the same way every time, and change discs to suit the hole.

I haven't said that.

.

Apologies. That's how I read it (and earlier posts, I don't care to track down).

 

[gdub58]

I don't support that one. If you lose two discs during a round that aren't relatively quickly recoverable (i.e. you can reach it in the water with a stick that's nearby), you'll finish the round with 10 discs. I don't think that someone who has a dedicated "follower" should have the advantage of being able to immediately replace discs.

I think there are too many courses (especially those used for major tournaments) that have water hazards, and I think the "no replacement" rule would discourage aggressive play too much.

I'll also address a specific example. Player throws drive in lake, wants to immediately replace and throw replacement. That would be allowed, but the original disc is deemed out of play even if it can be retrieved, similar to the declaration of a lost ball in bolf - once it has been deemed lost you can't find it.

I believe top players would have key replacements in close enough proximity to keep the playing field level.

In ball golf you can repair or replace a club if it is damaged during the normal course of play. I think unintentionally throwing a disc in the water would count as "normal course of play" and thus allow replacement. Same if you hit a tree and damage a disc.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think pre or post round or tournament WITB interviews with the top players would be real interesting and informative.

Think about the added challenges. Players would essentially have to formulate a game plan for each hole prior to every round and be able to make on the fly adjustments using a limited arsenal if/when things go awry.

True, but....

In the first case, it would be only interesting to the very few people who watch the small number of webcast events. Not much of a reason to make it a blanket PDGA rule, applying to all players (or pros) in all events. Perhaps on a limited basis, perhaps someone like the DGPT would have interest in it. (Not necessarily the DGPT, promoted by a manufacturer, but someone with a limited series for top players with the intent of having spectators).

In the latter case, for years I played tournaments with a 10-disc bag, and this is absolutely right. Though, in my opinion, it doesn't make the game better, and doesn't strike me as a good reason for changing the rule.

 

[iacas]

I think there are too many courses (especially those used for major tournaments) that have water hazards, and I think the "no replacement" rule would discourage aggressive play too much.

I don't. It would add to the strategy and the risk of going for a shot.

I'll also address a specific example. Player throws drive in lake, wants to immediately replace and throw replacement. That would be allowed, but the original disc is deemed out of play even if it can be retrieved, similar to the declaration of a lost ball in bolf - once it has been deemed lost you can't find it.

My rule doesn't have to deal with that, because you can't replace it.

I believe top players would have key replacements in close enough proximity to keep the playing field level.

The rule should be fair to all. If I'm playing advanced or something, and am one of the only people with a dedicated follower with a "refresh" of discs, that's not fair.

In ball golf you can repair or replace a club if it is damaged during the normal course of play. I think unintentionally throwing a disc in the water would count as "normal course of play" and thus allow replacement. Same if you hit a tree and damage a disc.

I don't care what the rules of golf are in this context. I think comparing the rules of both is pointless. Clubs, balls, and discs don't serve the same role, and clubs are rarely damaged during the course of play.

 

[BrotherDave]

Yeah, I couldn't get that driver to work for me. The mid that year was also pretty understable, but that's what he started using off the tee after his driver was gone. Once he got it in his head to power down he started scoring well. It took seeing that firsthand to get me to trust mids and putters off the tee on some holes.

Yeah, the Matrix (the Mid) had the most HSS of the 3 and a lot of people in my Circuit abandoned the Signal (driver) and Spin (putter) on throws. The domey Matrices were actually moderately OS. The Signal was beat Pro Leopard flippy so only super slow arms and OAT free, finesse throwers could appreciate them. That's cool that it opened your eyes to using mids and putters off the tee more, though. :thmbup:

Even as I agree that it takes more skill to play with fewer discs, I think it's oversimplified to say players just throw the same way every time, and change discs to suit the hole.

Yeah, sorry I still disagree with this. I think we're confusing different skill with less skill. For the record, not trying to single you out Senor Sauls.

At this point in the discussion, it feels like everyone's going round and round making the same points over and over again. How about a new direction?

Someone, anyone, who is a proponent of limiting discs, come up with a sample plan on how this would look.

I'm an opponent but here's how it would affect me to maybe give an idea of something.

12 disc limit, unlimited mid-round exchanges, no during round substitutions for losses/damage (otherwise what's the point of a limit? If we're emphasizing strategy and 'making do with less' skill then if you lose a disc, tough titties.)

No-limit bag, roles in parentheses:
Max Distance: VIP Giant (beef), C-DDx (stable), VIP King (flippy/BH rollers), Fuzion Trespass (expendable)
Distance: Star Starfire (OS FH), S-PD (stable/FH), P-PD (US/FH)
Fairway Drivers: Ch. Banshee (beef, FH rollers, OH), Ch. Eagle-X (Stable), TP Seer (US)
Midranges: ESP Nebula (stable), Lucid Evidence (stable-US), Opto Fuse (US)
Putters: P line Breaker (stable/FH), DX Polecat (Touch shots), Plutonium (actual putter)
= 16 discs (10 drivers, 3 mids, 3 putters)

12 disc limit bag:
Giant, DDx
S-PD, P-PD
Banshee, Eagle, Seer
Nebula, Fuse
Breaker, Polecat, Plutonium

So I lost the disc I use for risky holes (Trespass) which means I'll have to use a disc I like more (Probably Giant or P-PD depending on can't fade/must fade). That will induce more sphincter tightening for me and cause me to play more conservatively (boring). Lost the disc I like to throw FH flex shots with (Starfire) but I can probably make do between the Banshee and Giant. Lost my straightest mid (Evidence) but if I lose any of my other mids now I'm screwed on wooded courses. Polecat is too instrumental to my approach game to drop and I don't like throwing my putting putter so I have to roll with 3 putters.

Conclusion:
I don't really see how I would be displaying more skill using this slightly smaller bag. I'm likely to score the same as my usual bag but I'd just be more annoyed at not being able to carry some expendable discs for risky holes or some discs for tricky lines like rollers. I would probably be even less likely to register for tournaments with lots of water hazards b/c it could be too masochistic. Furthermore, I'd probably carry more mids and putters on short and or wooded courses and lose the max D drivers so the limit wouldn't have hardly any effect there. I'm not even that good so a properly good player would probably do more with even less than twelve. I think you'd have to set the limit to inside single digits to see whatever it is a limit would make beneficial b/c anywhere from 10-15 discs just seems more annoying than substantial.

 

[Steve West]

It seems to me that the only way to practically implement a disc limit is to limit the number of discs carried. The groups show their bags to everyone else in the group during the two minute warning, then the group watches each other to make sure they don't add discs or use any discs they weren't carrying themselves.

I don't think it would be at all likely that a group can remember which 12 discs have been used out of the 24 being carried. Especially if there are 4 of the same color and mold with different wear.

I'd lean toward no replacement for the sake of the spirit of the rule, and to make enforcement easier.

("I'm going to my car to get ONE disc to replace that one I threw in the water. You remember that one, don't you? Sure you do.)

I also think that the rule - and the number of discs - should be one of those rules the TD can implement if they want. Like OB, mandos, or two meter.

One thing I'm wrestling with is the penalty for carrying too many. If the violation was THROWING an extra disc, then a one-throw penalty each time seems about right. No disc could possibly give you enough advantage to overcome a one throw penalty, could it?

But, I wouldn't want a cumulative type penalty for carrying an extra disc (or 10), because I don't want players to have to leave a disc out there in the middle of the woods or find someone to take care of it.

I'd also like some fail safe to allow a player to replace the last disc so they can always keep playing with one.

For team play, teammates could share discs and the total limit would apply to the team.

 

[josephreese]

Yeah, the Matrix (the Mid) had the most HSS of the 3 and a lot of people in my Circuit abandoned the Signal (driver) and Spin (putter) on throws. The domey Matrices were actually moderately OS. The Signal was beat Pro Leopard flippy so only super slow arms and OAT free, finesse throwers could appreciate them. That's cool that it opened your eyes to using mids and putters off the tee more, though. :thmbup:

I think those are this year's discs. My experience with the cardmate that lost his driver was from the year before. I think the pack that year was Relay, Tangent, and Atom. (My Atom is pretty flat, and is the putter I now use for tight shots off the tee).

 

[wvu1867]

If this rule was to be used , I think 14 would be a good number , no replacement during a round (players would just have their buddies carrying discs) . If you find a disc during the round , declare it to the group(cannot use) . This would not hurt disc sales as players who play a lot of tournaments will have discs set for each course they will play. May even increase disc sales. The best result would be an added factor to risk/reward. For those who say you can't compare clubs to discs are partly wrong, If a pro could use 25 clubs they would set loft angles and toe angles set for draw/fade and smaller increments of distance. They call it shot-shaping for reason . I still enjoy doing this with my discs. There is not real right or wrong on the issue , but I would like to see one tournament where discs are limited to see what the pros could and would do.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Because this isn't a nature vs. nurture argument. I understand that you see it as a similar thing, but we're not discussing whether being gay is nature or nurture. We're not discussing how much nature vs. nurture leads to alcoholism, or a person's IQ, or whatever.

This is exactly what I mean by focusing on inconsequential differences. My point is that specialized skills do not apply to your overall skill proportionally. The ability of that skill to positively effect your score is ultimately tied to how relevant that skill is in the game your playing. Being able to throw really, really far is a great skill to have but it's not as useful if you're playing a tight wooded course, or a short distance course. Likewise being able to throw a smaller number of discs is only ever advantageous when the course itself is designed in a way that you only really need a smaller number of discs. The only time I could really see that being true is by designing a course so narrow and restrictive that there is literally only one line to the basket.

If every hole was a pitch and putt par 2 with a single unbroken fairway and a triple mandatory I think you would have something. Maybe what we're witnessing is the emergence of mini-disc golf as a activity? Do you think mini golf provides a better separator than regular golf? All snark aside I'm really interested to hear your answer.

 

[iacas]

But, I wouldn't want a cumulative type penalty for carrying an extra disc (or 10), because I don't want players to have to leave a disc out there in the middle of the woods or find someone to take care of it.

FWIW, there's no penalty in golf if you pick up someone else's club for the sake of returning it to them, the pro shop, etc.

This is exactly what I mean by focusing on inconsequential differences.

Steven, I wish you the best, but I'm done discussing this with you.

You've not made much sense, and when you have, I've disagreed with you. As I said, blame me if you want, I don't really care.

Take care.

 

[DanJon]

As I've mentioned before, this is a super fun thought experiment, but ultimately we are talking about putting some people's source of income at jeopardy.

Not enough money in Pro Disc Golf to start limiting their ability to play the game.

 

[teemkey]

Does everyone agree that setting a limit at 12 discs would result in lower rated rounds for the touring pros?

 

[dontBLAMEtheDISC]

Does everyone agree that setting a limit at 12 discs would result in lower rated rounds for the touring pros?

I bet it wouldn't be more than 100 points at the very far outliers till they get used to it

Sent from my SM-T237P using Tapatalk

 

[slowplastic]

I bet it wouldn't be more than 15 points. In fact on non-windy days I bet it would be no difference at all. Only a few people would be truly affected (Feldberg?).

It takes a ton of skill to know the intricate differences between so many discs, and to know when/why one would have an advantage. McBeth has like 6-8 Roc3's in his bag I think? Plus a couple of Mako3's. If I were a Roc thrower I doubt I would be able to bag more than 3 of them and gain any sort of advantage. Because my skill level just isn't high enough to take consistent advantage of the tiniest differences between such similar discs.

 

[DavidSauls]

Does everyone agree that setting a limit at 12 discs would result in lower rated rounds for the touring pros?

I don't. If the same conditions and rules apply to everyone, then the touring pros will beat everyone else just as thoroughly, and get about the same ratings for doing so.

I doubt a 12-disc limit would make much difference in overall scores, either. With 12 discs you can have a putter, 3 mids, 3 fairway drivers, and 5 distance drivers---you should be able to cover almost all situations with that lineup.

 

[tampabay]

Honestly, every time I see this proposal I scoff a little bit and assume that no one will actually vote 'yes' in favor of disc limits. However, 25% of people vote yes so clearly I am out of touch with a large portion of the disc throwing community.

I'll ask this question, how many of you who are voting in favor of a disc limit already carry less than 20 discs? How many discs are you currently carrying?