Throw far or putt good

[garublador]

Ball golf and disc golf are two different games,let's talk disc golf.

In this case I think it makes a lot of sense to use ball golf as a comparison. All of the same ideas are there, it's just the numbers are different. Rather than "the circle" being 9' (or whatever it really is) in ball golf, it's 30' in disc golf. A "big drive" is 400' in DG instead of 300 yards in BG. There are still drives, approaches and putts. There is a ton of statistical data that has been gathered for ball golf that almost certainly applies to disc golf if you know how to apply it correctly. Anyone wishing to score better who pays attention to those statistics and apples them correctly will have an advantage over someone who just wings it by feel. They'll have a lot better idea of what skills to work on.

Granted, there are a few differences that must be understood (in BG you get to the green in hopes of making it in two putts, in DG you only want one), but those differences can easily be accounted for if you understand them.

 

[Hampstead]

I'm a putter not a driver.

 

[foo_g]

I'd rather have the ability to throw 500 feet.
If I had that distance potential, I could then work on controlling it and improving accuracy.
I'd also be throwing a lot more mid-range discs on the 300-350' holes.

I don't need to make 90% of my putts inside the circle.
I'll settle for 75% between 20-35 feet.
I'll just try to land my approach within 20' and make 90% of those.

 

[DeadEye]

In general, putting is better than distance a majority of the time. I don't have the distance some of my friends do, but I typically beat them because of my putting. When you're 90% within 15 feet and other people are only 50% from there, you're gonna get strokes on them.

Also, it depends on the course. Player A only throws 300, but is 90% from 15. Player B throws 400 but is only 50% from 15. First course they play has no holes that are over 300 feet, so of course Player A has the advantage. Second course they play has no holes under 350, so of course Player B has the advantage.

 

[davistd0]

I'd rather have the ability to throw 500 feet.
If I had that distance potential, I could then work on controlling it and improving accuracy.
I'd also be throwing a lot more mid-range discs on the 300-350' holes.
I don't need to make 90% of my putts inside the circle.
I'll settle for 75% between 20-35 feet.
I'll just try to land my approach within 20' and make 90% of those.

^ This = more birdie putts. I'd rather hit 50% of my 10 birdie putt attempts per round than hit 90% of my 6 birdie putt attempts per round.

 

[davistd0]

Furthermore, I see all this adivce on DGCR that discing down and throwing more mids and putters is the best way to improve your game. If you can throw a warp speed driver 500'+, then you can disc down to a midrange and still get birdie attempts on 80% of the holes out there.

 

[Will Burke]

500+ without a doubt. Why? Because that's a long frickin way for a frisbee to fly. I know it's possible just not with my broken technique.

 

[Dan Ensor]

I played for a few months without ever putting. Drive, lay-up underneath the basket, take my 3. Anything over 15' I didn't even attempt to make. It was a very consistent way to play. I never 3-putted.

If I could pick any distance to be able to throw well, it wouldn't be 20-40', or 400+'. It would be 100-200'.

 

[sgamerp]

putt /end thread.

 

[JC17393]

^ This = more birdie putts. I'd rather hit 50% of my 10 birdie putt attempts per round than hit 90% of my 6 birdie putt attempts per round.

50% of 10 birdie attempts = 5 birdies.
90% of 6 birdie attempts = 5.4 birdies.

What am I missing? Why is 5 of 10 preferable to 5 of 6? Wouldn't 4-5 more missed birdie putts per round be that much more frustrating?

I certainly understand and agree with the idea of wanting to be accurate with mids up to 300 feet. But I still think being an excellent putter (80%+ at 20') will trump all on any course under 6000 (~330 feet per hole) feet in total length. Are there figures on how many courses exist above that total length and how many are below? I gotta figure there are far more under 6000 than over.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Granted, there are a few differences that must be understood (in BG you get to the green in hopes of making it in two putts, in DG you only want one), but those differences can easily be accounted for if you understand them.

I think this is a bigger difference than you think. Putting in ball golf is all about getting the ball a percentage of the way to the target. In dg, it's about the percent of hits vs. misses.

I think. I've been thinking about it and that's the best concise way I can put it right now, although I'm not sure it's exactly true. It's close to what I mean though.

Mostly, I think there's a huge difference between a ground target and elevated target.

 

[davistd0]

50% of 10 birdie attempts = 5 birdies.
90% of 6 birdie attempts = 5.4 birdies.

What am I missing? Why is 5 of 10 preferable to 5 of 6? Wouldn't 4-5 more missed birdie putts per round be that much more frustrating?

I certainly understand and agree with the idea of wanting to be accurate with mids up to 300 feet. But I still think being an excellent putter (80%+ at 20') will trump all on any course under 6000 (~330 feet per hole) feet in total length. Are there figures on how many courses exist above that total length and how many are below? I gotta figure there are far more under 6000 than over.

I meant it to be 50% of 12 birdie attempts, a conservative estimate for the number of holes one might be able to birdie if they can throw the far/well.

It does depend on the course length/make up though. I am def curious about the distibution of total course lengths (would have to be normalized to 18 holes) and the breakdown of average hole length.

 

[garublador]

I think this is a bigger difference than you think. Putting in ball golf is all about getting the ball a percentage of the way to the target.

Which is what we call an "approach" in disc golf

In dg, it's about the percent of hits vs. misses.

That's the same for both. It's just that the circle is a different size. If you recognize that difference then you can still get a lot out of golf statistics.

Mostly, I think there's a huge difference between a ground target and elevated target.

That doesn't matter at all. Ball golf statistics would apply to basketball golf where you threw a basketball and had to make it into a hoop in the lowest number of throws, or horseshoe golf where you had to make it from the tee to around a pin in the ground or bowling golf where you had to roll a bowling ball into a hole. The actual distances would all be different and how easy it was to "hole out" might affect the last shot before the putt, but as long as you understood those differences you could get a lot of information out of ball golf statistics for any of those games.

My guess is that in all of them you'll find that how far you can throw super accurately will have a bigger effect than actual putting once you get past a minimum required putting competency, which will likely be attainable by most golfers. There's a bigger chance to knock off a throw by eliminating the need to putt (not requiring an approach) than there is making long putts.

To give a disc golf example, someone who can only throw 250' super accurately but can make 95% of 30' putts will have a very difficult time competing with someone who's super accurate up to 300', but is only 95% accurate at 15'. There isn't a distance where the first person has an advantage. The first person only gets twos on holes <280' but the second person gets twos on holes <315'.

 

[Dan Ensor]

That doesn't matter at all. Ball golf statistics would apply to basketball golf where you threw a basketball and had to make it into a hoop in the lowest number of throws, or horseshoe golf where you had to make it from the tee to around a pin in the ground or bowling golf where you had to roll a bowling ball into a hole. The actual distances would all be different and how easy it was to "hole out" might affect the last shot before the putt, but as long as you understood those differences you could get a lot of information out of ball golf statistics for any of those games.

I'm not sure about that. It's way easier for an approach to go in in ball golf, because you want it to come to rest as close to the hole as possible, at all times. Going in is just as close as you can get. In disc golf, coming to rest under the pin doesn't count, so to make it, you have to aim for your disc to come to rest some number of feet away from the basket.

 

[Bonks]

Someone could drop all their drives around the circle,but if they can't make the putt,their bad putting just trumped that good drive.

I don't care how good a person can throw,if they 2 putt most holes they are gaining nothing on the guy who takes 2 shots to get to the circle but drains the putt.

Except on the holes where they don't two putt because they're under par where the other guy is still at par.

Also, it depends on the course. Player A only throws 300, but is 90% from 15. Player B throws 400 but is only 50% from 15. First course they play has no holes that are over 300 feet, so of course Player A has the advantage. Second course they play has no holes under 350, so of course Player B has the advantage.

Not necessarily since player B will be throwing mids and putters to holes on course one. Player A better throw his drivers pretty damn accurate because I don't know about you but I'd rather throw my mids/putters for accuracy that my drivers.

 

[Steve West]

The fact that there isn't one single clear answer means that the courses are fairly well balanced. It's a more interesting game if we can't tell whether putts, drives, or approaches are most important.

 

[iacas]

I'm not sure about that. It's way easier for an approach to go in in ball golf, because you want it to come to rest as close to the hole as possible, at all times. Going in is just as close as you can get. In disc golf, coming to rest under the pin doesn't count, so to make it, you have to aim for your disc to come to rest some number of feet away from the basket.

Huh? It's easier for an approach shot to go in a 4.25" hole from 100+ yards away when hit with a stick than it is for a an approach with a disc to go in a basket from 100-200 feet?

 

[Star Shark]

Personally, I'd like the distance. I'm a decent putter already.

As to the differences between regular golf and our game, I think the main one is mentality. People seem to get upset if they have no chance at birdie. Ball golfers are much more content to play most of the holes for par and get a few birdies per round. A good example is this past USDGC. The pros complained that the rules in 2010 and 2011 were too punitive for misshots. I think I just made up a word. Our pros seem to feel out of sorts if they can't be -14 for 18 holes.

 

[Tiny]

Lol, big germ can throw a putter 510' soo. I wanna do that

 

[foo_g]

I played for a few months without ever putting. Drive, lay-up underneath the basket, take my 3. Anything over 15' I didn't even attempt to make. It was a very consistent way to play. I never 3-putted.

If I could pick any distance to be able to throw well, it wouldn't be 20-40', or 400+'. It would be 100-200'.

Yes, but anyone here has the ability to make those short-range throws and improve on that aspect.
Most will never throw 500'.
I'd gladly take that ability and then practice the other aspects.