Distance

[Steve West]

This is from a couple of years ago when Chris Dickerson (orange) was the top putter. Black is the average of the top 100 putters.

 

[ChrisWoj]

If you mean cash by get the "participation trophy" money, then yes, you don't need to try that hard.

By "cash" I mean the commonly accepted definition of the word "cash." In your first post you said those were the numbers someone needs to get to to cash. Yes, if you change entirely what you said - you can be exactly right.

Your important circle 2 putts are 10-15 meters. Those are the ones you gotta be hitting 60-70%.

Okay, so you need to hit putts halfway out into C2 at 60-70% - thats a lot closer to correct than what you said. Yes, I agree with this.

This is from a couple of years ago when Chris Dickerson (orange) was the top putter. Black is the average of the top 100 putters.
View attachment 330316

Thank you for sharing this. Theres barely any discernible distance between those C1X putts. If you're just using averages - all including them is going to do is mask the actual difference in skill between the putters, unless you do some kind of transformation to take into account the ease of the closest putts.

 

[RowingBoats]

Those u-disc numbers are not that accurate.
Close, but not accurate.

This is such a perplexing thread. Udisc stats are heavily referenced by tons of people discussing pro results.

If you aren't going to base your claim about putting requirements on these, I'm going to have to ask what you are basing your claim on. Please don't say personal anecdotal observation. You are a cool dude and contribute a lot here, but let's be honest…half of your posts are roasting people for being fast and loose with numbers and science. This is a weird divergence and it's confusing me lol.

And if we wanna split hairs. 20 meters out circle 2 edge, isn't really "putting range" anymore. It's closer to "toss with hope"

This is maybe an explanation for your claim about C2, but this is also an invention of a new brand of C1x vs C1 applied to C2. If you want to use your own definitions of things most of us define differently, cool but say that first maybe

Whoops meant to quote where you defined the important c2 range second. On my phone and don't wanna try to fix that lol.

 

[RowingBoats]

This is from a couple of years ago when Chris Dickerson (orange) was the top putter. Black is the average of the top 100 putters.
View attachment 330316

Nice, this is pretty much in line with what I expected to see too. There is no indication that even early C2 distance putts are hit at a 60-70% rate.

 

[ChrisWoj]

This is such a perplexing thread. Udisc stats are heavily referenced by tons of people discussing pro results.

I actually agree with his point on this, to an extent. They were REALLY bad, now thanks to the flags marking bullseye and C1 and C2 it has improved. They're heavily referenced because they're the best we've got - but people are seriously horrible at judging distances. I remember in 2018 I played a round at GBO with Austin Hannum, and our scorekeeper at the time was asking us what to mark our shots. There were no flags at bullseye and C2, just the C1 circle.

Hannum repeatedly told them that 10-15 foot putts were in the bullseye, until I pointed out to him late in the round that he was telling them that C1X putts were bullseye. At the time I was very confident in my ability to eyeball and pace putts because I kept, and had kept for a year at the time, flags at 1m intervals to 20m from both of my baskets. I saw a visual reminding me what 1m, 3m, 5... 10.. etc look like every time I let my dogs outside, and experienced it every time I practiced putting.

A few days ago I played a league, no flags out, some local dude who loves lots of DG, just the sort of person that'd wind up scorekeeping at a big tournament, asked if he was C2 on a 45-48' putt... he and another guy got into a short discussion over whether it was circles edge or 40' and I'm just standing by the putt, after he took it, thinking "wut?"

 

[RowingBoats]

I actually agree with his point on this, to an extent. They were REALLY bad, now thanks to the flags marking bullseye and C1 and C2 it has improved. They're heavily referenced because they're the best we've got - but people are seriously horrible at judging distances. I remember in 2018 I played a round at GBO with Austin Hannum, and our scorekeeper at the time was asking us what to mark our shots. There were no flags at bullseye and C2, just the C1 circle.

Hannum repeatedly told them that 10-15 foot putts were in the bullseye, until I pointed out to him late in the round that he was telling them that C1X putts were bullseye. At the time I was very confident in my ability to eyeball and pace putts because I kept, and had kept for a year at the time, flags at 1m intervals to 20m from both of my baskets. I saw a visual reminding me what 1m, 3m, 5... 10.. etc look like every time I let my dogs outside, and experienced it every time I practiced putting.

A few days ago I played a league, no flags out, some local dude who loves lots of DG, just the sort of person that'd wind up scorekeeping at a big tournament, asked if he was C2 on a 45-48' putt... he and another guy got into a short discussion over whether it was circles edge or 40' and I'm just standing by the putt, after he took it, thinking "wut?"

Fair enough, and I definitely don't think the stats are perfect. I do maintain that they are good enough to confidently say that successful pro golfers are not hitting 60-70% C2 putts That's really the only point I have had this entire thread.

I cannot see how anyone who watches a lot of pro disc golf would disagree with this. Anyone that actually watches this sport knows there is a huge drop-off in putts made at this range.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Fair enough, and I definitely don't think the stats are perfect. I do maintain that they are good enough to confidently say that successful pro golfers are not hitting 60-70% C2 putts That's really the only point I have had this entire thread.

I cannot see how anyone who watches a lot of pro disc golf would disagree with this. Anyone that actually watches this sport knows there is a huge drop-off in putts made at this range.

True. But it does inspire further conversation about the quality of the statistics we are using. I agree with your point, but I also quibble with the methodology of what we're doing. Which does bring to mind a question for Steve...

This is from a couple of years ago when Chris Dickerson (orange) was the top putter. Black is the average of the top 100 putters.
View attachment 330316

Was this taken during some specific event(s) where specific putt distances were measured? Because, as far as I've been able to tell, every DGPT event has used the UDisc system that lists every putt-range by its mid-point. Not that I intend to disparage the quality of the infographic or the utility of what we can glean from it. But I'm assuming this is just smoothed from data that gave us 5 16 27 38 49 or 60 ft?

My problem is less with the methods used to create the graphic, as much as the necessity for the smoothing that has to happen because UDisc simply isn't sufficient for getting more granular information.

 

[biscoe]

U-disc stats and all that, in my opinion, needs to go the fk away from tournaments. If u-disc wants stats, they need to send their own people. I have almost no volunteers for spotting and assisting on the course because everyone is ate up by u-disc stat keepers.

I agree that it is a big strain on the volunteer base but imo Udisc doesn't need to send people. The players should be doing it. They are the ones who stand to benefit from making dg look like a "real" sport.

 

[RowingBoats]

Ya, a thread just dedicated to the best putting percentage analysis possible would be cool, but I don't think better data exists right now.

I was just trying to keep my replies somewhat relevant to the OP question, and the putting requirements put forth just seemed unrealistic for what he was after.

 

[Sheep]

I'ma just gonna casually drop this in here.....

 

[Sheep]

I agree that it is a big strain on the volunteer base but imo Udisc doesn't need to send people. The players should be doing it. They are the ones who stand to benefit from making dg look like a "real" sport.

The players are already keeping score.
U-Disc scores/stats are for DGPT coverage and the fans, and the fans only.

But I'm required to have a volunteer WITH the card to run u-disc. Vs having them spotting on the course, running water to players, relieving another spotter who's already been out there 3 hours with no break, because I have 30+ volunteers tied up in u-disc stats alone.

Also, the players are not allowed to keep u-disc stats. As if you read above with the issue of a player taking the phone from a volunteer to "change their stats" is not allowed.

The reason I said u-disc needs to send people is because it's Pushed on the tournament as a mandatory thing, when the reality is it has absolutely 0 to do with the tournament.
It has 0 effect on the outcome of everything, while a good spotter can have a huge effect on the outcome of a shot.

You tell me where you want volunteers as a competitor. Spotting, or making sure you have u-disc stats for whatever award they give out?

At least half of the volunteers do 2 rounds with players also. But the stats are not accurate either way. Talk to some of the players about it, they put almost 0 stake into them. u-disc stats are for the fans, period.

 

[biscoe]

Stats are for the fans, fans=$, $ is what the players presumably want. When specifically did players get disallowed from keeping Udisc?

If you want to say someone should be bringing the staffing it should be DGPT/DGN- their broadcast is dependent on it.

Bottom line is that the desire for those volunteers is a known factor when you sign up to run these events.

 

[Sheep]

Bottom line is that the desire for those volunteers is a known factor when you sign up to run these events.

Actually, just more recently, it was thrust upon you and demanded of you. This ended up being an issue after we had all the volunteer's assigned a few years ago. We spent hours scouting the courses to make sure all spotting and volunteer positions were filled. This was when we ran our A-Tier with the NT event. U-disc shows up "we need volunteers to do score per PDGA."
So, none of the A-tiers got any spotting, they lost ALL their volunteers to help on the courses. So every A-Tier had 2 people to do everything on them, no spotters, no helpers for water/trash, nothing. I was the A-Tier coordinator that year. It was bad. I had to rush between 4 different courses every morning to help them setup and get stuff out on the courses because there were 0 volunteers for them, they were all doing u-disc scoring.

Now its something you know about ahead of time.

But it's hard to get volunteers now because they don't want to do u-disc stats. And that's where 95% of your volunteer pool goes to.

What I'm saying is, there shouldn't be a mandatory demand for u-disc stats over me placing a spotter in a key position on the course. When it comes to volunteers, we have to fill u-disc before we fill any other position on the course. That ... isn't right.

Players keep their scores through PDGA live scoring, so no they don't run their "player stats" on u-disc unless there is no volunteers available.

And now with the new score keeping rules for PDGA/DGPT events, I don't think they would even have time to do both their score and u-disc stats. Which, they are there to play, not keep arbitrary stats on the game. The goal is to let them focus on the game.

I know this isn't really on topic anymore, but were using stats to argue against my suggestion of what you should be focusing on to compete at a high level. So, lets work to bring it back on topic.
And then the stats being brought on me are not even the same stats I'm referencing, cause were arguing that C1x stats don't match up to what I'm suggesting. But were using long term average vs winner for event averages. Ricky isn't winning a pro tour major by making 60% circle 1 putts 3 days in a row. But this also shows a huge lack of understanding of odds, averages and statistics. As posted above, KT, 88 C1 puts in a row. 88/18 is 4.8. That was one whole tournament plus almost 2 days in another tournament she was 100%. What's her overall average for the year full circle 1? It's not 100%. That's ludicrous to expect.

Averages in stats are created over time. If you wanna win, you need to hit 9/10 minimum in circle 1. Period. These big matches of pro's duking it out, it literally is a game of "who misses the first putt looses."
I watched Conrad and Dickerson in 2018, the first A-tier I helped run, have a 6 hole play off. Neck and neck. It was a game of "who misses the first putt."
Conrad did get kinda pimped cause some drunk ass started falling and stumbling around while he was trying to putt.

Then when you have a bad shot, it's about making EVERYTHING you can in circle 2 to stay on top. Of course its going to average over time to lower, cause you're not gonna make them all the time.

But if you're thinking that 50% putting in circle one and 30% putting in circle 2 is going to make you cash in pro tour, then I have ocean front property to sell you in Nashville TN. It's even got a view of the golden gate bridge.

Point being, set goals to strive for that win you tournaments. Don't set goals that are "good enough, cause its the pro average"
The pro average doesn't win. Exceptional play wins.

And don't put so much stake into u-disc stats. A majority of players who are out there on the field with the cards who are putting in the information, they don't even know what circle 2 is before that day. They are average casual golfers who want to be involved and see pro's play. They don't know what a bullseye is. They know what circle 1 is, and that's about it. That's why guys like me are on the course for 6 to 8 hours putting whiskers in on every hole. And it sucks. It absolutely sucks to do. Especially bullseye on every hole too, why? Because it means jack diddly squat to the game, its all for stats. Stats we use to give out some awards at the end of the year and so players have SOME level of information on what their favorite pro is doing.
Stats are part of how you make a sport more official. But we are still keeping them in a more unofficial format at this current time.

 

[RowingBoats]

Literally no one argued against 90% C1. 30% c2 is a very normal result for top 8 places on the pro tour.

The difficulty of C2 is the reason a big run during a single round can have such a huge impact, but look at results for top 8 and you won't find that commonly being why people scored well that day.

 

[Steve West]

It would be quite typical for a really good player to be both 90% within C1 and 40% at exactly 10 meters. The trick is to land closer than 10 meters a lot of the time.

 

[Sheep]

It would be quite typical for a really good player to be both 90% within C1 and 40% at exactly 10 meters. The trick is to land closer than 10 meters a lot of the time.

I apply that more into the circle 2 region of things.

You'd see probably a 50ish % hit rate on 10-15 meters, but 15-20 meters you watch that fall way off the charts. Which in turn, averages would look really bad.

Majority of good pro's are making the 10-15 meter putts. Those are clutch level putts, you gotta make as many as possible.

I kept trying to think over the last year what really makes a lot of these really good players suffer. They throw great shots, they are good golfers... And, the simple answer is how good their putting is. Their upshot's probably are not clean enough to put them in their best putting range, then they are suffering from a more difficult range.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

OP's original question included two different phrases, "...be able to play pro in a few years..." and, "...make the cut on the DGPT." He stated he's 16 and asserted he has 450' golf lines.

I've gotten to tag along with one of the world's best 14-year-olds when he played some practice rounds with my son. This player took 2nd at MJ-15 worlds two years ago, falling to the champion in a tie breaker, only having turned 14 years old that year, and this past summer he won the USADGC at Toboggan as well. He's currently 995 rated and was 998 at his peak last year. He can rip drives, putt, and do it all, from the three or four casual rounds I've seen him play in person.

He's going to need to get about 2 strokes better before he can reliably finish in the middle of the pack on tour. I imagine those 2 strokes, going from 1000 to 1020 rated, are the hardest to get in the sport.

The big discussion about putting prowess in DGPT players was entertaining, but all OP needs to do is look at Steve West's graph there. Chris Dickerson a couple of years ago was making almost half of his 30-footers in the stress of real competition, with weather factored in, not having a tarp to stop his missed putts, you name it. The average of the top 100 putters in the world from that distance was about 5% worse. Just 1 extra missed putt in 20 attempts, or so. Interestingly, that's the biggest spread between him and his competition on the whole graph, 30-footers.

I'd think "making the cut on the DGPT" would be a top 100 player, so there you go OP. Just be 1 out of 20 worse than the best putter in the world from 30 feet...while playing under the stress of a real DGPT event during a grueling tour season, of course!

Climo used to putt 500 reps a day for practice...

 

[RowingBoats]

OP's original question included two different phrases, "...be able to play pro in a few years..." and, "...make the cut on the DGPT." He stated he's 16 and asserted he has 450' golf lines.

I've gotten to tag along with one of the world's best 14-year-olds when he played some practice rounds with my son. This player took 2nd at MJ-15 worlds two years ago, falling to the champion in a tie breaker, only having turned 14 years old that year, and this past summer he won the USADGC at Toboggan as well. He's currently 995 rated and was 998 at his peak last year. He can rip drives, putt, and do it all, from the three or four casual rounds I've seen him play in person.

He's going to need to get about 2 strokes better before he can reliably finish in the middle of the pack on tour. I imagine those 2 strokes, going from 1000 to 1020 rated, are the hardest to get in the sport.

The big discussion about putting prowess in DGPT players was entertaining, but all OP needs to do is look at Steve West's graph there. Chris Dickerson a couple of years ago was making almost half of his 30-footers in the stress of real competition, with weather factored in, not having a tarp to stop his missed putts, you name it. The average of the top 100 putters in the world from that distance was about 5% worse. Just 1 extra missed putt in 20 attempts, or so. Interestingly, that's the biggest spread between him and his competition on the whole graph, 30-footers.

I'd think "making the cut on the DGPT" would be a top 100 player, so there you go OP. Just be 1 out of 20 worse than the best putter in the world from 30 feet...while playing under the stress of a real DGPT event during a grueling tour season, of course!

Climo used to putt 500 reps a day for practice...

This is the real discussion if one is earnest about the desire to go pro. There is no way to practice winning tournaments, other than by winning tournaments. Distance in a field is literally meaningless if it doesn't correlate to results when it counts.

I'm not a competitive disc golfer, but I have been competitive in my life at other sports. There is no substitute for the stresses of performing when it matters. Even in league play, my mentality is a hurdle sometimes!

 

[timothy42b]

I'm not a competitive disc golfer, but I have been competitive in my life at other sports. There is no substitute for the stresses of performing when it matters. Even in league play, my mentality is a hurdle sometimes!

Some of you are too young to remember Willie Mosconi, but years ago he did the college lecture/demonstration circuit and I was lucky enough to see him. He passed in 1993, so the rest of you missed your chance. He was a pool player, ran 526 consecutive balls once playing straight pool.

Anyway, he said he didn't practice, he just competed. He already knew how to play. He had only so much concentration, and he needed to save it for when it counted. That was an interesting viewpoint.

 

[Sheep]

Some of you are too young to remember Willie Mosconi, but years ago he did the college lecture/demonstration circuit and I was lucky enough to see him. He passed in 1993, so the rest of you missed your chance. He was a pool player, ran 526 consecutive balls once playing straight pool.

Anyway, he said he didn't practice, he just competed. He already knew how to play. He had only so much concentration, and he needed to save it for when it counted. That was an interesting viewpoint.

It's one of the reasons I discourage field work unless you're trying to work on 1 specific concept to learn it.
Then immediately use it on the course.

It's why my putting practice routine i teach is the way it is, it's to simulate real world putting as best as possible to make it easier.

When you practice in a field, you'll never get the competitive results, when you practice on the course, you're forced to make it work.

And when you can compete, you need to practice competing as well, not just the game itself.