#121  
Old 03-07-2014, 11:26 AM
Jay Dub's Avatar
Jay Dub Jay Dub is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Years Playing: 34.7
Courses Played: 81
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,361
Send a message via Yahoo to Jay Dub
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hammer View Post
The biggest thing holding this sport back is the fact that every hole is a par 3.

Watching someone shoot a -91 at the Worlds will bring the crowds!!!11!1!

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:19 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.4
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradharris View Post
That's not true, the Olympics have not yet been mentioned...
I stand corrected.

The O.P. certainly did a fine job launching the thread, managing to package a a bunch of these topics with his height and shoe size, but kudos to everyone else for filling in the ones he missed.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:37 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.5
Courses Played: 22
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Dub View Post
Watching someone shoot a -91 at the Worlds will bring the crowds!!!11!1!

Stepping around the questionable assumption that making scores closer to even 'par' will bring more spectators, I'm expecting that the Portland Worlds will do a fairly good job of keeping (negative) scores down a bit. The two Milo McIver courses are each par 60, with SSA's right in to 60 range. Blue Lake doesn't appear to have ever hosted a sanctioned round on the full ~10000ft. layout in fair weather before, but SSA's on the par 69 course so far have been in the 68-69.9 range. Trojan is similar. McCormick hasn't hosted a sanctioned event yet, so that one is an unknown factor.

Pier Park is the only one of the six courses that I'd expect to see Pros well under par on.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-07-2014, 01:46 PM
depster depster is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Years Playing: 7.6
Courses Played: 32
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 272
I'm pretty sure that ball golf is called "the greatest GAME ever played." So being that disc golf is designed after ball golf so would it not be prudent to embrace that it is a game and not try to get it recognized as a "sport"...either way sport or game, I ****ing love hucking discs.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-07-2014, 01:58 PM
Jay Dub's Avatar
Jay Dub Jay Dub is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Years Playing: 34.7
Courses Played: 81
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,361
Send a message via Yahoo to Jay Dub
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
Stepping around the questionable assumption that making scores closer to even 'par' will bring more spectators, I'm expecting that the Portland Worlds will do a fairly good job of keeping (negative) scores down a bit. The two Milo McIver courses are each par 60, with SSA's right in to 60 range. Blue Lake doesn't appear to have ever hosted a sanctioned round on the full ~10000ft. layout in fair weather before, but SSA's on the par 69 course so far have been in the 68-69.9 range. Trojan is similar. McCormick hasn't hosted a sanctioned event yet, so that one is an unknown factor.

Pier Park is the only one of the six courses that I'd expect to see Pros well under par on.
I doubt that would be the case but playing everything as par 3 McBeth would have shot a -23 I think.
It's a small thing but still, a -23 looks more respectable than a -91. I shoot a -91 at putt-putt courses as long as I miss the clown and windmill.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-07-2014, 03:22 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Tigard, OR
Courses Played: 36
Posts: 987
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
Stepping around the questionable assumption that making scores closer to even 'par' will bring more spectators, I'm expecting that the Portland Worlds will do a fairly good job of keeping (negative) scores down a bit. The two Milo McIver courses are each par 60, with SSA's right in to 60 range. Blue Lake doesn't appear to have ever hosted a sanctioned round on the full ~10000ft. layout in fair weather before, but SSA's on the par 69 course so far have been in the 68-69.9 range. Trojan is similar. McCormick hasn't hosted a sanctioned event yet, so that one is an unknown factor.

Pier Park is the only one of the six courses that I'd expect to see Pros well under par on.
McCormick is a heavily wooded course, and at least as difficult as Milo for scoring -- it's very unforgiving of an errant shot. However, if a player can stay on the 20' fairways, good rounds could be lower than a good round at Milo. A lot will depend on the use of OB, and any tee/basket changes.

One thing about these courses, is the different challenges offered. Pier is trees, McCormick is trees & underbrush, Trojan is water, Blue Lake & Milo are more about distance & accuracy. Should be very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-07-2014, 05:46 PM
DiscinFiend's Avatar
DiscinFiend DiscinFiend is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Waukesha, WI
Years Playing: 15.5
Courses Played: 60
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigSky View Post
I think I'm kind of past the whole "grow the game" phase. Let's just keep throwing plastic at metal cages. Whatever happens will happen.


To the OP
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-08-2014, 07:42 PM
CHUKAR CHUKAR is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: nevada
Posts: 2
IS PDGA LEADERSHIP IN TOUCH WITH THE COMMON PLAYER?

The following is an excerpt from the current Disk Golf Magazine's (official publication of the PDGA) Editorial:

“Speaking of dreams. I had one recently that has haunted me and I’d like to share it with you because I think it’s interesting, if not somewhat provocative.

More than once, when talking to folks about disc golf, I’ll hear from ball golfers that, Well, yeah, but you’re not putting into a little hole. More than one ball golfer has looked down his or her nose at me because they believe that our baskets are way too easy.

I agree. I know a few dozen disc golfers who have had more than 100 aces. I know very few ball golfers who have recorded more than one or two aces. It’s just much, much harder to score an ace in ball golf. While I think that gives disc golf a certain attractiveness—I mean, who doesn’t like to hit an ace!—it also holds us back. It keeps us in the game world rather than the sport world.

So my dream presented this solution. A much smaller basket. Virtually Mini sized, but modified to handle a full-sized disc after it’s traveled a few hundred feet; I don’t want to prevent aces, just make them more rare. So the new basket is perhaps lower, smaller, but noticeably beefier. The more I have been thinking about this, the more I like it, the more I think it makes sense. Yes, I know your scores will go up but we’ll also make aces and when we do, wow, we’ll have really done something. This is, of course, my own particular fantasy and in no way involves the PDGA; I’m out on a limb with this but I think it’s worth discussing.”

The above was written by Randy Michael Signor who is the Editor. I have a few questions of Mr. Signor which I will post here as there is no option to respond to the article via the magazine.

Mr. Signor:

What percentage of players have scored more than 100 aces as compared to those of us who have one or two or are still looking for our first?
If a few dozen as you say (I know of none) and assuming that everyone of them is a PDGA member (20,000 members) that would be about 0.02% which leads to the next question.

Does your mag purport to represent the majority of Disk Golf players? If so, how can it have an editor who represents an elite few and fosters “dreams” that would discourage current and potential future players?

How do you have the audacity to call our SPORT a “game”?

Who gives a bleep what the “ball” golfers say or think?

You say that your “dream” does not represent the PDGA position BUT with you being one of a handful of PDGA employees what can we expect?

How can you say your “dream” is “worth discussing” when you have the only soapbox?

I for one will not be renewing my membership in the PDGA until they get an Editor who represents the majority of the players. Cut his limb!
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-08-2014, 07:59 PM
Matt B. Matt B. is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Years Playing: 22.2
Courses Played: 46
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 402
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Reply With Quote
 

  #130  
Old 03-08-2014, 08:00 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.7
Courses Played: 591
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,930
Randy is not a PDGA employee. He's contracted to produce the magazine. He also wrote those remarks as an "editorial" which is a personal opinion, not a PDGA position. BTW, I think you'd discover several more closely affiliated PDGA employees, contractors, committee and Board members who personally believe the sport, not the game, might be somewhat improved with a smaller target (or wouldn't be against it). But most recognize the impractical aspects of pursuing a smaller target at this point in DG development. So it remains a dream, just like Randy's.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.