Pro Vs. Avg Joe- Skill Gap

[bluTDI09]

Originally Posted by BigSky

I still fail to see why making the game more difficult would result in it becoming more popular, especially on TV. The beauty of the game, to me, is the disc's flight. Not putting difficulty. If anything, changing the difficulty would result in slowed growth by casuals, which would equal less eyes glued to TVs if the game ever reached TV audiences. I could be in the minority here, but that's my take.

I think it would help to highlight the differences between the pros and the joes, which is a big reason that people like to watch professional sports. People like to see the wide receiver make the impossible catch or the baseball player hit the home run because most of us can't do it like they can.

I also fail to see why making putting more difficult would be discouraging to rec players. It would just change the perspective on what is a long putt and their expectation of making it. No recreational golfer expects to make all of their 20 foot putts. It makes two-putting in disc golf a reasonable expectation instead of a disappointment.

[Martin Dewgarita]

I've never been one to conform to be more popular.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by larrod25

I think this is a large part of the perception that there is less seperation in disc golf: there is far less social/class seperation between casual players and professionals.

I think that's a very real part of the reason why there's the perception.

Put it this way: Will Schusterick is the currently the best disc golfer. At his skill level, he'd likely be only a slightly better than average tour pro if you could win a million dollars for winning a DG event.

The average amateur will be no better if top pros can win a million bucks. The average pro will be a LOT better.

We saw it with golf itself. DG is too young and too poor to attract potential players who can excel, and the players it does attract aren't as driven to practice. Not everyone practices like Vijay or Tiger, but the average PGA Tour pro spends 8-10 hours a day on their game (and two to three even when they're playing a round).

The gap in golf is larger than it is in DG at any two comparable levels. It's simply the money.

Originally Posted by kingjames1014

Ball golfers have been trying to limit technology for years. Greg Norman even wrote a letter to the USGA about limiting the Golf ball to "protect and preserve the game of Golf"

And people wrote letters in the early 1900s when the rubber ball was invented too.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Notice how there are innovations that are illegal for tournament ball golf that rec players use such as the smaller ball, square groove club face and now belly putters. We'll have a similar divergence in the pro versus rec game equipment so the playing field is more consistent for tournament play when there's much bigger money involved.

Chuck, the smaller ball is not legal and nobody has produced it since it was banned by the R&A decades ago (the R&A used to allow for a 1.62" diameter ball IIRC, the USGA a 1.68. For decades all golf balls have had a minimum size of 1.68 inches). No bifurcation on that issue, and "rec players" don't use a smaller golf ball.

The grooves rule applies to both types of player, and equipment manufacturers are not even allowed to manufacture larger grooved clubs. Square grooves are still allowed, the rules change modified the dimensions, not the shape per se. Amateurs (except those playing in high level amateur events) can continue to play the old grooved wedges they had prior to 2011, but they'll wear quickly and grooves don't affect the play of an 18 handicapper like they do a PGA Tour pro or advanced amateur player anyway, so for all intents and purposes the delaying of the enforcement of that rule for amateurs was just to soften the blow to their pocketbooks, with no real practical effect.

And the anchored putting rule (currently it's a proposed rule) will affect ALL golfers equally if it goes into play in 2016.

So really, none of the three rules you listed are are "divergent" or allow for "rec players" to play different equipment than the pros. Golfers have historically NOT favored bifurcation of the rules or equipment because they like that they can play the same equipment, the same rules, the same everything as the guys they see on TV week after week.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

I think a lot of your duffers in ball golf shoot in the 100-110 range.

That may be what they say they shoot, but they cheat like crazy to do it. If you took the average score of the average rec golfer you'd see the score go quite a bit above 105 or so. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in the 120s.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

I believe they only do handicaps up to around 35-36 or so which would be around 108 scoring average.

That's incorrect. Not only is your handicap index not the same as your course handicap, but it's the best 10 of your last 20 differentials, so your average score is almost always several % higher than your index or course handicap.

A 36-handicap golfer playing a par-72 index course with an average slope will average 115 or so. And that golfer would struggle like crazy to break 200 on a PGA Tour level course from the back tees.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Woj would be shooting the equivalent of 77-80 in ball golf.

If you're talking about Woj playing on a PGA Tour course, I agree he'd likely shoot about 80. If you're talking about good local courses set up for regular member play (still 7200 yards, par 72, 72.5 rating or so, slope of 135) he'd shoot 70-73. The best player in NW Ohio is going to be a +1 or +2 in golf (on the better side of scratch or 0).

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

So, I would say the shot differential range is about the same: 25-35.

Nah. Let's say he has a horrible day and shoots 90 on a PGA Tour level course. The average amateur shoots 170 and plays (for him) out of his mind. Tiger or Rory shoot 69 and have an average to mediocre day.

That's your scoring spread.

On a "regular" course (72, 7200, 72.5, 135) Tiger and Rory shoot 64 without breaking a sweat, the Woj equivalent shoots 71 and wins maybe one or two holes total, and the average amateur "rec" beer league player (assuming he doesn't crap his pants) shoots 120 playing everything by the rules.

Originally Posted by Lewis

What Chuck and Threeputt are saying about ball golf sounds about right to me. Joe Average on the ball golf course is a "double bogey golfer," i.e., he gives up two strokes against par on almost every hole, and finishes his round at 108, give or take ten strokes. And that's from the middle tees on a course designed for amateurs. His cousin, the scratch golfer in town, isn't going to score in the 70s from the Championship tees at Pebble Beach.

Sure he can. He'll shoot "in the 70s" often enough or he's not even close to being a scratch golfer. The course rating from the back tees is 75.5. So the better half of his scores should average to 75.5 or he ain't scratch.

[QUOTE=Scoot_er;1772228]Tour Pro in golf is more like a 1020+ player.

on a normal par 72 (not home course) he would probably shoot 75-78...tour guy would be 68-72 on the same course

Avg Ball golf player"hovers around 100"...according to what i found

There's no way to know for sure. 20% or so of golfers have handicaps. And even those who do will often violate the rules constantly to fluff up their ball, give themselves putts, etc.

Originally Posted by Scoot_er

"i'd believe that 10% of people WITH HANDICAPS are single digits. but 75% of golfers don't have handicaps"

http://www.usga.org/handicapping/art...dicap-Indexes/

25% are single digits. That doesn't mean their course handicap is single digits, just their index.

Par being lower does have a bit to do with it.

But again it comes down to this for me: At any two equivalent levels, between golf (or any other sport with lots of money) and disc golf (or any other sport with little money, like bowling, or billiards, etc.) the gap in ability is noticeably smaller in the sports with less money.

Again, if disc golf offered $8M purses with $1M+ going to the winners, you might never have heard of a lot of the guys who are on YouTube videos winning A-Tiers and NT events.

[Cgkdisc]

@iacas - It's one thing to disallow something but will that actually stop rec players from using that something? Cheater Balls I also suspect belly putters and the practice will not disappear after 2016 among rec players.

[New013]

Damn chuck get on the bus, you're going to school

[justactnormal]

Originally Posted by bluTDI09

I think it would help to highlight the differences between the pros and the joes, which is a big reason that people like to watch professional sports. People like to see the wide receiver make the impossible catch or the baseball player hit the home run because most of us can't do it like they can.

I also fail to see why making putting more difficult would be discouraging to rec players. It would just change the perspective on what is a long putt and their expectation of making it. No recreational golfer expects to make all of their 20 foot putts. It makes two-putting in disc golf a reasonable expectation instead of a disappointment.

I personally couldn't disagree more, but in the end it doesn't matter. Courses around the country aren't going to be ripping out discatchers and installing bullseye baskets any time soon. For me two or three putting is a reasonable expectation on regulation baskets and I see no reason to make that one aspect of the game any more difficult. Watching pros throw to a smaller basket would also not be appealing to me at all. Longer, more challenging courses on the other hand would be a welcome change. Playing a par 65 course is more challenging and more fun for me than playing a par 54, because the is entire course is what you're playing against not just the basket. It is also more impressive, and likely more attractive to newer players and audiences, to watch pros play a super tough course and shoot -10 rather than a -3 on a par 54 with skinny baskets. That's my 2 cents.

The desire to see the impossible catch or home run in other sports doesn't really compare for me, b/c for me and maybe it's just me, b/c the beauty of this game is that I can go out and play the same courses that I watched the top level players destroy and try to accomplish the same thing using the same equipment. I can't do it, but that's why I practice. I can make a direct apples to apples comparison to the game that I'm playing and the game that the elite players are playing with the same equipment and conditions. That is impossible for other sports, espescially team sports b/c I'll never have Tom Brady trying to hit me on an out route or Jason Verlander trying to get me swing at a slider on the outside corner of the plate. That's an experience I like to watch, but I'll never be able to actually relate to. No average Joe will. But any average Joe can pick up a few discs and head out to park, usually for free, and play this great game then see how their game stacks up.

Pros putt very well, but making putting even more difficult than it already is is silly. It's the hardest part of the game, IMO, and does anybody think that making an already difficult part of the game more difficult would attract new players? That's kind of like thinking that more people would enjoy fishing if you could only use a canoe and a cane pole, b/c it's more difficult. Sure catching a striped bass on a cane pole would be hard to do and if you actually did it it'd be impressive, hell, even watching somebody else do it would be impressive.... but more likely people would get super frustrated before they caught their first one and give up. I know I would. I feel the same way about skinny baskets on courses.

Putting doesn't need to be any more difficult for anybody, new player, seasoned veteran or first time spectator to realize 'wow, these guys are good.'

End rant now and back to work.

[bluTDI09]

Originally Posted by iacas

...

But again it comes down to this for me: At any two equivalent levels, between golf (or any other sport with lots of money) and disc golf (or any other sport with little money, like bowling, or billiards, etc.) the gap in ability is noticeably smaller in the sports with less money.

Again, if disc golf offered $8M purses with $1M+ going to the winners, you might never have heard of a lot of the guys who are on YouTube videos winning A-Tiers and NT events.

I do think it is true that sports with more money are more effective at getting the cream of the crop to participate, and that if all of the potential elite disc golfers grew up playing disc golf we would never have heard of many of the guys who are currently the elite. However, I think some of them would be among those who compete at the highest level because disc golf is not a game that requires a particular body type or lifetime of strength or endurance training. If there were 1000 more Dave Feldbergs and Ricky Wysockis out there, who is to say that Will Schusterick wouldn't also play at a higher level?

[BigSky]

Iacas, I was waiting for you to show up and back up what I said a few pages ago with numbers.

Just out of curiosity, what would a duffer, or "Joe" equivalent shoot at the U.S. Open? 200?

What is DG's equivalent to the U.S Open? The USDGC? What would a rec player throw there? 100? 120? I don't know what course was played for round 1 of the Minnesota Majestic, but the INT scores were in the 100's. I assume that's a very tough course, maybe similar to the U.S. Open type golf courses.

[diskhead]

sorry guys just popping in to say something. Gotta post this before I lose the thought forever.

Imagine how good Kevin Durant could be at Disc Golf. By comparison, he makes Will Schusterick look Terry Miller in terms of gangliness

[Cgkdisc]

One thing that's hard to assess between sports is the overall difficulty of one shot. Is the "skill value" of the average ball golf shot easier, tougher or the same for people to execute? You would need to assess that value before determining whether the difference between players 10 shots apart in either sport is the same, wider or narrower. My thought would be that the average shot in ball golf is tougher than DG which would widen the skill range differences even more than they already appear.