-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
18 Down @ Waco: Soft?
- Thread starter DiscFifty
- Start date
gammaxgoblin
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 820
^^^
Sooo Mcbeth and Wysocki show us that who makes the discs doesnt matter....then Simon shows us the type of disc doesnt really matter either.
I guess that just means its about they are thrown that is all the matters =)
Sooo Mcbeth and Wysocki show us that who makes the discs doesnt matter....then Simon shows us the type of disc doesnt really matter either.
I guess that just means its about they are thrown that is all the matters =)
Just to bad Simon missed that putt. . .but a really insane drive, such a nice flight of that P2 compared to all the driver hyzers everyone else throws.
I think the sport would be more fun to watch if speed 4 disc was max you could throw, and cource design easier
I think the sport would be more fun to watch if speed 4 disc was max you could throw, and cource design easier
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,783
I know that the thread is about how "soft" the course at Waco was.
However, I'd rather hear about score separation.
My question would be, did this course ensure the best disc golfer would win?
I don't get how worked up some people get about par, but I do care about score separation.
Did the player who played the best win?
If the answer is "Yes", then who cares what the score was???
However, I'd rather hear about score separation.
My question would be, did this course ensure the best disc golfer would win?
I don't get how worked up some people get about par, but I do care about score separation.
Did the player who played the best win?
If the answer is "Yes", then who cares what the score was???
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
It IS hard to build a course that the best players just dont destroy . . Ale Discgolf Center build a HARD course, but then Simon came and played -11 rated 1075( par was rated 993 )
I think Par at Waco was 976 rated. . . how many courses have a +1000 rated Par in
normal circumstances, not many.
Found the stats. Hot round for Finnish Nationals was -6 (1052 rated) by Leo Piironen the winner. He played -1 for the next 3 rounds. Par 64 was 1013 rated.
There was also the opening ceremonies round earlier with Leo & Teemu Nissinen (#1 lefty in Finland) playing "only" -10, Simon & Nate -5 and Ricky & Paige -4 to give some perspective. Of course, they were playing it semi-blind I believe, so I am sure if and when they host a tourney with the best of the best out there, the -6 hot round will be no more the hot round. But anything into double digits must be 1100 territory or close.
I think it is an indication of how much better the elite players are than everyone else. If it we're really soft everyone would be shooting 18 down, but that is not the case.
And also an indication of how the course type favors certain kinds of players.
And also an indication of how the course type favors certain kinds of players.
I don't see how you can talk about 18 under par, and say it has nothing to do with how par is set.
Were it set differently, he would might have shot 12 under par, but still won by the same margin (add 6 to everyone's score), indicating the same gap in talent between the elite players and everyone else.
Or, for that matter, were it set differently, he could have shot 24 under par.
It's all about how par is set. At least and until it's set the same way, everywhere.
Were it set differently, he would might have shot 12 under par, but still won by the same margin (add 6 to everyone's score), indicating the same gap in talent between the elite players and everyone else.
Or, for that matter, were it set differently, he could have shot 24 under par.
It's all about how par is set. At least and until it's set the same way, everywhere.
It almost seems that par is irrelevant and player rating is where it is at.
I don't know about irrelevant.....but it's not a currently a measure of how easy or hard a course is.
I'm not sure what is, other than the eye test---how many throws seemed to really challenge the players, and how many seemed too easy.
Though perhaps a percentage of gimme putts, or putts under, say, 20', might say something about it. If an excessive number of drives or approaches are ending up very close to the basket, maybe those drives or approaches weren't taxing enough.
I'm not sure what is, other than the eye test---how many throws seemed to really challenge the players, and how many seemed too easy.
Though perhaps a percentage of gimme putts, or putts under, say, 20', might say something about it. If an excessive number of drives or approaches are ending up very close to the basket, maybe those drives or approaches weren't taxing enough.
Player rating is the better indicator of course difficulty. Par is the better marketing tool because that is the language most players and sponsors understand.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I agree with your second sentence, but don't understand your first. I'm not being snarky. How do you use player rating to determine the difficulty? I've always thought player rating was based on propagators. That adds in complexity, relative to course difficulty, in that it rates you relative to the propagators. Can I get more of what you're thinking? Sorry for being dense.
I think the only way in which ratings can be used to judge courses is in what the SSA is. The higher the SSA, the tougher (?) the course is. At least from a certain point of view.
For example, if a course SSA is 62 (Waco), it suggests that it should provide a greater challenge than if it was 50 (Fountain Hills) or 57 (Vista), regardless of what par is set at.
I'll probably need to think it through more honestly. Player rating is measurement of how players do relative to each other not necessarily to the course.
I was thinking more on an individual level, if a player has a consistent low rating on a particular course relative to players of his/her ability/ rating, it is a difficult course for that player. I'm not sure if there is a way to use aggregate player ratings to determine course difficulty.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
That was all that came to mind for me too. While par has its issues, as Hyzer wrote, for certain things it brings a lot of value. If part of the goal is to invest fans, then par provides a lot of entertainment, if used correctly, at least for me.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Except raw distance will also drive the SSA up regardless of difficulty- ssa/distance is a better metric.
The super-elites you're referring to are increasing in number every single year. Paul was just the first drip of an opening in the dam. Then came Rick. The Eagle generation is a tiny trickle. And now the hole is getting bigger. The number of 13-14 year olds with 1000+ rated rounds under their belt and parents identifying the sport as a viable career path is growing with each passing year. Design the courses, the players are coming.
Would the frequency of very high round ratings (say, 1070+) indicate a softer course? Or just a shorter one?
You're correct in that rating is based on props, and is about what it rates you relative to other props - but with a deep enough dataset you develop reliability. In essence the players themselves are "raters" of the course. Each time a tournament round is played, the course is given another "rating" which we call SSA and assign to the point at which a round is rated 1000. JC17393 (hi Jeff!) mentioned that Waco had an SSA of 62, so 62 is 1000 rated. When you accumulate enough rated rounds on a course - provided you know the weather conditions and the ratings of the players competing, so that you can look at inter-rater reliability (inter-round reliability) - you can assess the true difficulty of the course through the SSA.
Neither. It indicates that the course is designed to test a very specific skillset. Lets say you have 100 players in a field all with comparable ratings. You put them on a course that tests a broad variety of skillsets - and you'll likely wind up with ratings that fall along the ratings of the players involved. Whereas if you put them on a course that tests a very specific skillset - the players with that skillset are going to be rated extremely well. For example: if you have a course that has a monstrous forehand favorability (maybe it has holes that travel left, but they all favor a forehand shot's slow-turn-no-fade finish as opposed to backhand hyzer finishes). That field of 100 players has 30 guys who are truly proficient at forehand. All 100 have similar ratings, but the 70 players without much of a forehand are all going to score poorly. The 30 with forehands on the other hand are going to look way better to the rating system, because it rates players against each other, and their rounds are going to skyrocket.
