Par Talk

[Hyzflip10]

I'm not talking about legislating when people use putters, at all.

I'm saying that people use all sorts of definitions for "putting", when arguing that putting in disc golf is easier than in golf, or not.

If we say putting is any shot where a putter is thrown, the made percentage goes way down. It's not a good definition, not one that I would use, but it's about as valid as any of the others.

Putting can be defined as inside the 10-meter circle, or where a certain percentage of shots should be made, or where we'd expect to hole out in 2 shots, or where putters or thrown, or some arbitrary line (20-meters, etc.), or God knows how else. None are definitive.

Seems that circle 1 and circle 2 are good definitions of putting. Even if the player doesn't use a putter. There is no rule as far as I know in regular golf that says a player needs to use a putter on the green.

These discussions further convince me that disc golf and regular golf are two distinct sports.

 

[Karl]

Seems that circle 1 and circle 2 are good definitions of putting. Even if the player doesn't use a putter. There is no rule as far as I know in regular golf that says a player needs to use a putter on the green.

These discussions further convince me that disc golf and regular golf are two distinct sports.

They're terrible definition(s). They are nothing but arbitrary distances (one twice as long as the other) from the target. And c2 is a VERY new term (never used until a couple of years ago...which might be younger than this thread let alone the debate on 'what is a putt').

Yes, a player may use any club at any time anywhere on the course.

Two different sports...but one is a DIRECT decendent of the other. As much as some dg people TRY to dissociate from golf there's just no getting around the fact that we share a LOT of the same 'dna' as our ball-brothers.

 

[DavidSauls]

Im gonna assume you don't like the putting motion definition?

I don't think there can be any clear demarcation. Even in golf I see players use putters out in the rough.

It's as good as any, better than most.

 

[Hyzflip10]

They're terrible definition(s). They are nothing but arbitrary distances (one twice as long as the other) from the target. And c2 is a VERY new term (never used until a couple of years ago...which might be younger than this thread let alone the debate on 'what is a putt').

Yes, a player may use any club at any time anywhere on the course.

Two different sports...but one is a DIRECT decendent of the other. As much as some dg people TRY to dissociate from golf there's just no getting around the fact that we share a LOT of the same 'dna' as our ball-brothers.

I wouldn't say they are completely arbitrary distances. The "green" is generally regarded as circle 1, and there are different rules inside circle 1 compared to the rest of the course. Although it doesn's fit for us mortals, Circle 2 seems like a good measurement for pros. Their putting really is that much better than the casual 900 - 950 rated player.

There is no doubt our game partially descended from golf. But it doesn't mean we need to use the same terminology and definitions, especially when it isn't a good fit. We share alot of dna with other animals, but we are still distinct species.

 

[Steve West]

Well, as far as how it relates to par, it's a good thing we don't NEED to define a putt. The word "putt" has never been in the definition of par.

Maybe someone could start the Putt Talk thread.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Well, as far as how it relates to par, it's a good thing we don't NEED to define a putt. The word "putt" has never been in the definition of par.

Maybe someone could start the Putt Talk thread.

However, the PDGA rules do define a "putt" as throws inside the 10m circle.

 

[Steve West]

However, the PDGA rules do define a "putt" as throws inside the 10m circle.

Save it for the Putt Talk thread, bub.

 

[ejvogie]

The problem with defining a putt, IMO, is that it involves intent. Which can be very different thing for different people. If I had to define a putt, it would be something like:
"A throw attempted from a putting stance intended to land in the basket."

I will not be defining putting stance or obvious ace runs.

 

[Hyzflip10]

The problem with defining a putt, IMO, is that it involves intent. Which can be very different thing for different people. If I had to define a putt, it would be something like:
"A throw attempted from a putting stance intended to land in the basket."

I will not be defining putting stance or obvious ace runs.

Intent is hard to define also. Lay ups, lags....

 

[ejvogie]

Intent is hard to define also. Lay ups, lags....

Intent is the inherent trouble in defining a putt, again IMO

 

[cheesethin]

What, you don't feel duty-bound to read 3600 posts, first?

lol.

What if we define putting by when we use a putter? That'll expand the green quite a bit.

So a 492ft green then, according to some guy called Simon.

 

[Steve West]

I came across the requirements for being a Premier Pro (formerly Touring Pro). One of which is:

"Player Rating of 1000+ (Men) or 930+ (Women)"

Since 930 is the cutoff for women, that's what I'll be using now instead of 925 for FPO par.

 

[lyleoross]

I wouldn't say they are completely arbitrary distances. The "green" is generally regarded as circle 1, and there are different rules inside circle 1 compared to the rest of the course. Although it doesn's fit for us mortals, Circle 2 seems like a good measurement for pros. Their putting really is that much better than the casual 900 - 950 rated player.

There is no doubt our game partially descended from golf. But it doesn't mean we need to use the same terminology and definitions, especially when it isn't a good fit. We share alot of dna with other animals, but we are still distinct species.

You are correct, they aren't arbitrary. Circle one, or the 10 meter circle was a distance from which it was felt that a tall player, say, Dan Stork Roddick, couldn't fall forward and drop his disc into the basket. Now if Dan had been seven feet six inches, instead of six feet and a lot of inches, it might have been the 12 meter circle.

As for circle 2, that is a recent metric, possibly a DGWT metric, to make Jussie happy and give commentators something to discuss.

 

[lyleoross]

We are back to discussing what is a putt. What gets me is that we know how many stokes a hole plays. UDisc tells me. I don't understand why this is so hard?

 

[zontar]

We are back to discussing what is a putt. What gets me is that we know how many stokes a hole plays. UDisc tells me. I don't understand why this is so hard?

a putt is something I make. if I miss, it's an upshot.

 

[Hyzflip10]

You are correct, they aren't arbitrary. Circle one, or the 10 meter circle was a distance from which it was felt that a tall player, say, Dan Stork Roddick, couldn't fall forward and drop his disc into the basket. Now if Dan had been seven feet six inches, instead of six feet and a lot of inches, it might have been the 12 meter circle.

As for circle 2, that is a recent metric, possibly a DGWT metric, to make Jussie happy and give commentators something to discuss.

I agree that the falling putt rule was a result of Dan Roddick being able to slam dunk putts. But 10 meters seems like a long way for a 6'6" dude to fall and drop his disc. Even with a 3 foot reach, that is only around 10', not 30' +.

 

[Steve West]

Discraft presents Sun King's Throw Down The Mountain VII (Weekend 3)/Gran Canyon DGC/

Holes #7 and #14 could have gone either way. Hole #13 is the only obvious miss.

Par of 64 was rated less than 1000. Par of 60 would have been rated about 1022. Par of 62 would have been rated 1011.

 

[Steve West]

Discraft presents Sun King's Throw Down The Mountain VII (Weekend 3)/Gran Canyon DGC/
FPO

A few pars could have been higher, but they're pretty close.

 

[Casey 1988]

You are correct, they aren't arbitrary. Circle one, or the 10 meter circle was a distance from which it was felt that a tall player, say, Dan Stork Roddick, couldn't fall forward and drop his disc into the basket. Now if Dan had been seven feet six inches, instead of six feet and a lot of inches, it might have been the 12 meter circle.

As for circle 2, that is a recent metric, possibly a DGWT metric, to make Jussie happy and give commentators something to discuss.

Circle 2 was made as something for the Pro Tour that the DGWT made popular, as I saw this on a older Utah Open back when it was a non PDGA sanctioned event due to using the Marksman from Dynamic Discs. They were the first to track that circle 2 because that tournament was trying to get the Pro Tour to adopt the Marksman and MVP basket like that for the players to be forced to use as the basket of the Pro Tour was made harder the way Ball Golf is. Also Utah Open was trying to Persuade the PDGA but got a not even going to listen to the idea of making the skinny Practice baskets the new standard as putting had gotten too easy for even recreational players with even the older baskets that had the lower catcher height. The Ball golf course kept the practice baskets just for that formerly used course on the Pro Tour when it the Utah Open was played on that ball Golf Course.

 

[lyleoross]

I agree that the falling putt rule was a result of Dan Roddick being able to slam dunk putts. But 10 meters seems like a long way for a 6'6" dude to fall and drop his disc. Even with a 3 foot reach, that is only around 10', not 30' +.

I had the same tought, I'm wondering if his "drop in" was good up to 20 feet, and they added 10? He could extend and semi drop it in?