2010 USDGC

[1978]

One thing I will concede though is that it is odd that playing extremely safe and laying up to bogey each hole is a 950 rated round...shows you how poorly/not patient people are playing.

 

[Thumber]

can someone post the link to Avery's comments on stroke and distance please

 

[Steve West]

The "throw and distance" element used on 17 of the 18 holes is a significantly different design structure rare to find on even one hole on all of the courses globally that have been involved in producing the player ratings. While overall you would expect better players to still score better, it's quite possible that among players of similar ratings, some will handle the throw and distance challenge better than others. Unless this becomes a very common structure in course design (like having trees), then these round ratings shouldn't be included.

To throw these scores out would be to make a fundamental error which is, unfortunately, all too common. Trying to substitute what you think the statistics should say for what they actually tell you.

If some players handle the throw and distance challenge better than others, then they are better players and should be rated higher. Duh!

The ratings math is near-enough to being mathematically sound that hand-adjustments will tend to make it less accurate, not more.

Like using correlation to ratings to rate courses, throwing out these scores would tend toward ratings that only reflect the most common set of disc golf skills.

 

[DiscChainBasket18]

Come on out & throw playa

Alright, ya'all nigguz came in and straight jacked up my meetup post talkin' 'bout scores and strokes and OB and sheehit. Who cares... all those guys suck anyways and I'd crush 'em.

I'll be down there tomorrow and Saturday all day. Who is down for a round at Winny Gold tomorrow after the event? We can call it DGCRC and get Billy Crump to film it and talk all his smack! We dont even have to play this new silly "stroke & distance" rule either! :thmbup::hfive:

I'll film it. Billy's gonna be busy milking the pros.

 

[Cgkdisc]

To throw these scores out would be to make a fundamental error which is, unfortunately, all too common. Trying to substitute what you think the statistics should say for what they actually tell you. If some players handle the throw and distance challenge better than others, then they are better players and should be rated higher. Duh!

Not correct. Let's say the sport in the U.S. was started based upon players playing only 100% open courses on level ground (i.e. soccer field layouts) and ratings were calculated for five years based upon this structure. At the same time in China, they played only wooded courses for the same five years and developed ratings. It would be improper to use the Chinese players as propagators for ratings when playing the open US courses and improper to use US players as props in China. The 950 players in the U.S. might be quite different from the 950s in China. Likewise, using a player's Super Class rating for propagation might also be improper so it's not done.

Certain uncommon design features are more disruptive to the game format than others. Some might only be a ripple in terms of ratings calculations (elevated baskets). I'm saying the 2-shot penalty appears as one of the most disruptive simply by looking at the scoring instability. No other design feature has ever triggered the wide ranging scores on holes.

The round score correlation with player ratings is also double digits worse than last year with buncrs. There isn't enough data at this point to truly justify including the rounds. It's unlikely we'll get any more useful scoring data for at least two years to determine that.

 

[bazkitcase5]

I see your point Chuck and don't necessarily disagree, however, I was curious what the scoring spread is like for 1000+ rated players only

this may be the first layout that truly challenges the "super pros"

a look at the ratings thus far shows shooting a 68 is a 1032, then a 1029, and so far in round 3, a 1028 (although I suspect that will drop with the more improved conditions today) - so to shoot under par is to be in the ratings range of these "super pros"

so basically using the mid point of 1025, and going +/- 25 ratings points it would be interesting to see the scoring spread on each hole for this range of players

 

[Cgkdisc]

this may be the first layout that truly challenges the "super pros"

That may be the case although it's possible some of the design areas are still too much even for super pros to handle consistently (i.e. Nikko with a 10 yesterday). It's sort of like that kids game where you have a wand with a metal loop on the end and you have to move it along a snaking wire track without touching it or a buzzer goes off and you have to start over. Some people will never have the nerves to do it, some can even get partway, while those who might be surgeons (there's another game with electrodes like this, Operation?) will have the steady nerves to execute the track regularly.

My biggest concern is that others will emulate this concept on courses and in tournaments where players of much lower skill will be brutalized. It's already happened over the years with poor island hole designs trying to emulate hole 17 at the USDGC.

 

[bazkitcase5]

yea, I agree, stroke and distance is too much on some of these holes, especially where several baskets sit on and near hills, where an unlucky roll could cost you a lot

picture a 400' shot that hits right next to the basket - 1 time it might sit while the next time it might roll - except this time, it rolls OB, costing you 400' and a stroke

seems kind of brutal for just a little bit of "luck" - which is very possible on this course

 

[bazkitcase5]

normally, it is windy on this course, and the scores generally reflect that, especially with all the rope

however, look what players do to course on days when it is not very windy, such as so far today and round 4 from last years tournament

there are way too many players shooting way way under par - rope or not, when it is not windy, this course is just not very difficult for the better players

holes like 1 and 7 are nice and scenic, but they are just too easy and hole 6 should never be bogeyed except by players being too aggressive - 12 is an easy par 5, tough par 4 without the stroke and distance rule - i don't know what exactly, but slight adjustments to several holes on this course instead of adjusting the rules to say stroke and distance would be much better in my opinion...

 

[martinb]

That may be the case although it's possible some of the design areas are still too much even for super pros to handle consistently (i.e. Nikko with a 10 yesterday). It's sort of like that kids game where you have a wand with a metal loop on the end and you have to move it along a snaking wire track without touching it or a buzzer goes off and you have to start over. Some people will never have the nerves to do it, some can even get partway, while those who might be surgeons (there's another game with electrodes like this, Operation?) will have the steady nerves to execute the track regularly.

My biggest concern is that others will emulate this concept on courses and in tournaments where players of much lower skill will be brutalized. It's already happened over the years with poor island hole designs trying to emulate hole 17 at the USDGC.

Bravo!! Bravo!! my sentiments exactly about hole 17. the only hole on that tournament course that should be corrected as far as the landing area is concerned, in relation to a proper throw that a majority of players should be able to execute. as it is, that hole lessens the entire experience that is called the USDGC. and yes ive seen other "island" holes in other tournaments emulating that hole, but most are less difficult than hole 17.

 

[bazkitcase5]

although after thinking about it, in regards to Nikko taking a 10 on hole 12, I do not consider that a design flaw

while I agree that stroke and distance is a bit too brutal on several holes, on that particular hole, Nikko was being way too aggressive... after all, it is a par 5 - if he had played for the birdie 4, he would never have gotten a 10... in fact, I would argue he would likely never get worse than a 6 (1 OB), and at his caliber, I would expect him to get a 4 99 times out of 100 if he were playing for the 4 (not including extreme wind)

I do not throw as far nor am I nearly as good as Nikko, and I feel like I can get a 4 on that hole nearly every time I play it - for pros its a simple long hyzer off the tee, a fairly short hyzer to the biggest landing zone, then a 150' - 200' putter approach - going for the 3 was his downfall on that hole, not the new rule

 

[Cgkdisc]

Design elements are probablistic by nature for each particular skill level to execute. If a design element results in some players taking 6s, 8s and 10s, that's in the determination whether an element is too punitive for that skill level. It's not about Nikko in particular, but the choices and capabilities in a larger pool of players in the super pro skill range.

 

[gcr_russell]

How has no one noticed shusterick shooting a -12 right now, to be leading nikko by 2 when nikko also shot hot at -9. They're learning to play the course.

 

[Cgkdisc]

PDGA.com appears down right now.

 

[JustSayin']

56

Shusterick with the smokin' 56.

 

[gcr_russell]

Www.usdgcdots.com and Www.discgolfunited.com/leaderboard are both up and running

 

[JustSayin']

Johansen

Go MJ!!!

 

[hogleggbob]

Go MJ!!!

2nd:hfive:

 

[peabody]

The cut was at 34 over?
What kind of rating is a 56 round anywho?

 

[Usher]

What kind of rating is a 56 round anywho?

1083