USDGC 2012 Who's Going?

[notroman]

So why aren't the performance flight rounds rated if everyone was playing the same tees on the same days and by the same rules?

[Cgkdisc]

They will be when official ratings are done. The SSA course rating upon which the official ratings will be calculated will only be based on the Open players' ratings and scores though. But everyone who played in either flight will get ratings for all four rounds.

[notroman]

Cool! Yeah, I was seeing how I fared by looking at the open ratings anyway so that's fine. Thanks!

[Discwrangler]

Originally Posted by frasnow

Just noticed Josh Anthon is bogey-free through 2 and 1/3 rounds. Wow!

I saw that and was impressed, but then I wondered how many OB shots did he have? The number doesn't really tell the story anymore.

[Discwrangler]

Originally Posted by notroman

Nope. His projected par was a 74, compared with actual course par of 68.

His "eagles" and "albatrosses" were on holes where his projected par was 5, 6, or 7. For instance, 3 of his albatrosses came on hole 13 where his projected par was a 7 but he carded a 4. If you counted actual par, it would just be a birdie.

LOL! projected 7 on a par 5 (easiest hole on the course?) for a guy who bombs +400ft regularly?

[JC17393]

Originally Posted by Discwrangler

LOL! projected 7 on a par 5 (easiest hole on the course?) for a guy who bombs +400ft regularly?

Hole 13 is actually statistically the hardest hole on the course, at least in terms of the average strokes thrown on it relative to the assigned par. When assigning the handicap strokes to individual holes, which is what the projected score was doing, the practice is to start with the statistically toughest, and work down from there.

The rankings from highest to lowest were in the caddy book (http://www.usdgc.com/competitors/2012-caddy-book). The top five most difficult holes were 13 (par 5), 11 (par 4), 5 (par 5), 18 (par 4), and 17 (par 3). From the looks of performance pars, the players with handicaps of 4 or less (performance par of 72 or under) had all their handicap strokes accounted for in the two hardest holes, 13 and 11. From there, as handicaps got higher, hole 5 gained a stroke, then hole 18, then hole 17 and so on.

The five easiest holes are 7 (par 3), 1 (par 3), 12 (par 5), 6 (par 3), and 8 (par 4). Few if any participants played with a performance par higher than "normal" par on those holes, because statistically, those holes have averages that are closest to par or perhaps even below it.

A simpler way of doing this, at least in stroke play competition, is to just take the number of handicap strokes each player has (performance par - normal par) and deduct them from their total at the end of the round. So in Jared's case, with a handicap of 6, his 61 becomes a net score of 55, his 64 becomes a 58, and so on. It works the same way, just doesn't have the special proprietary look of the "performance score".

[Cgkdisc]

Performance par also does away with the complications of decimals in handicaps and doing the math while trying to post hole-by-hole net scores. In other words, easier to do realtime scoring and know what's going on.

[grodney]

Anybody else pause 150 ft down the #15 fairway and look at the old Clown's Mouth tee and the Mouth itself? Ahhh, the good ol' days.

[_MTL_]

Originally Posted by grodney

Anybody else pause 150 ft down the #15 fairway and look at the old Clown's Mouth tee and the Mouth itself? Ahhh, the good ol' days.

Ha, I did in practice - and then I showed it to my caddy during round 4. I seriously do not like the new 15....

[dusty5150]

Does anyone else think there's something wrong when the winner's score is 48 under par; average 12 under per round for 4 rounds. I know this isn't bolf, but man, it doesn't seem right to me. The questions that come to my mind are, should the par for that course be lowered or is it just realistic that our top disc golfers are that much better than "par".

I'm curious what others think (and I apologize in advance for any ensuing thread derailment).