2013 USDGC

[jeverett]

Some really good responses and analyses of the 'blow ups' here. I agree there's definitely a question here of, "were the risk/reward opportunities provided by the USDGC somehow different than those provided by other types of NT-level courses?" As Dave242 noted, the layout was statistically 'riskier' (higher range between best and worst rounds than for other NT-level events) than many other events.. but how much of that came down to poor decision-making (regarding judging probability of shot success/failure), and how much of it came down to the course layout/rules itself? It's not an easy question to get at with statistics (as someone already mentioned).

Further, I think it's very valid to question if a closer correlation between 'skill' (rating) and event outcome would really make the event better or not. I mean, realistically, the only truly anomalous outcome was possibly Climo not cashing for the first time in however-many years it was. Everyone else, despite maybe some extra randomness in exact place, still cashed. It's not like the event was so random that the 'touring' players that typically cash at NT-level events didn't. I doubt the amount of randomness in event outcome present will make anyone (on its own) think twice about playing in the event again next year, anyway.

 

[notroman]

After I had typed that and thought about the hole in question a bit more; you are right. More poor shooting than footing. All the same; that is one of the design features of that hole that has almost everyone playing from that uphill stance.

Nope. You can lay up on the left side of the ravine and get yourself a downhill stance that is more on the flat side. Or you can risk it and push the OB near the curb to get a nice level flat ground there. There are many places to lay up your second shot where you don't have an uphill stance... I actually don't know why he laid up in the middle of the ditch that far up. That actually leaves a difficult third shot. From down there you have a tree on the left side that forces a low ceiling shot, at the same time you have to throw high enough to not hit the ground in front of you AND carry the distance to the green.

 

[Dave242]

I actually don't know why he laid up in the middle of the ditch that far up.

My suspicion is that Barry Schultz knows how to play 888 pretty well......and the entire USDGC course for that matter.

 

[Dave242]

I think it had to do with poor execution on a couple shots that he had high confidence he could execute......just like Will did on 17 when he gacked 2 in a row into the branches on the right to take himself out of the running. Nerves maybe/probably......but both these guys know a thing or 2 about winning the USDGC.

 

[New013]

888 is dumb design. the rest is fine.

 

[notroman]

My suspicion is that Barry Schultz knows how to play 888 pretty well......and the entire USDGC course for that matter.

He does, but I have a feeling that second shot got away from him a little bit. Maybe he hasn't practiced the second shot as much from the hazard area. In previous years if they were OB they just played from where they went out... So most of these pros haven't really practiced throwing second shots from the hazard area. That's a new territory.

 

[JC17393]

He does, but I have a feeling that second shot got away from him a little bit. Maybe he hasn't practiced the second shot as much from the hazard area. In previous years if they were OB they just played from where they went out... So most of these pros haven't really practiced throwing second shots from the hazard area. That's a new territory.

Did his throw from the hazard area really need to be practiced to be executed, though? He was barely over the sidewalk in the field...a relatively flat and unobstructed lie. Seems a fairly straight forward throw even if it was "uncharted territory".

If anything, the throw from the depression/ditch area was the one that was difficult to execute sans practice, but it is also an area that has always been an in-bounds area on that hole. It's a tough angle to get up and out of the ditch, past/under/between whatever trees are in the way, and far enough to get on to the island. Given that he was the tournament leader (or vying for the lead) at the time, it's understandable that he went for the green from there in an attempt to maybe salvage par or at worst bogey.

As I posted earlier, his biggest error in judgment and execution were the two throws that followed the throw from the ditch. Both of those throws were from a position which a veteran player like Barry should be at least mildly familiar with after this many years playing the hole. Experience or not, he still made a poor shot choice and failed to execute from that position.

 

[Dave242]

888 is dumb design. the rest is fine.

Why is it dumb? Not that I disagree, but I like to hear perspectives.

 

[jeverett]

Why is it dumb? Not that I disagree, but I like to hear perspectives.

Personally, as this hole would be #1 on my list to fix/change too, I feel like it has the following problems:

1). tee shot randomness. That fairway is just too narrow, and the specific tree placements lead to the potential of a ricochet randomly dropping OB, or not. Or a bad skip/roll down the slope and once again you're randomly getting penalized. It's also just not very interesting to watch a lot of forced layups.

2). stroke and distance on the parking lot. This is de-facto.. you throw over the parking lot, and don't cross in-bounds, you're left with essentially a re-tee with penalty. I'd rather see some kind of drop zone (maybe only for part of the parking lot), so players aren't potentially just throwing the same shot over and over with penalty strokes stacking up.

 

[notroman]

The tee shot on 888 is really a low ceiling shot. People are just throwing up higher to cover more distance to make their second shot easier. Those trees did grow in a bit over time, though. It's getting a little tougher to advance the fairway without challenging them. I still don't think they come into play enough to really introduce luck.

As for all the OB on the parking lot carry shot, usually a third shot for most, the problem is that people are trying to throw a 400ft shot to the green. That green is relatively close to the parking lot. They only need to throw a 250-300ft shot to land safely in the short grass. Nobody is forcing people to throw the aggressive third shot.

That is the nature of the entire course (aside from hole 1)... The pars are relatively easy and safe to get, but if you want to pick up birdies you bring a lot of OB and danger into play. It's a great risk/reward course. This is why I sort of like the new triple mando on 7 - it matches the feel of the rest of the course, unlike the previous design.

 

[coupe]

Personally, as this hole would be #1 on my list to fix/change too, I feel like it has the following problems:

1). tee shot randomness. That fairway is just too narrow, and the specific tree placements lead to the potential of a ricochet randomly dropping OB, or not. Or a bad skip/roll down the slope and once again you're randomly getting penalized. It's also just not very interesting to watch a lot of forced layups.

2). stroke and distance on the parking lot. This is de-facto.. you throw over the parking lot, and don't cross in-bounds, you're left with essentially a re-tee with penalty. I'd rather see some kind of drop zone (maybe only for part of the parking lot), so players aren't potentially just throwing the same shot over and over with penalty strokes stacking up.

A RHFH or LHBH hyzer off the tee takes the trees and the parking lot completely out of play and has the disc moving away from the hazard area. The fact that most players chose to throw RHBH off the tee, despite the clear risks that entails, says more about their decision making than the design of the hole.

 

[JC17393]

A RHFH or LHBH hyzer off the tee takes the trees and the parking lot completely out of play and has the disc moving away from the hazard area. The fact that most players chose to throw RHBH off the tee, despite the clear risks that entails, says more about their decision making than the design of the hole.

Exactly. The two to watch in terms of approach off the tee, at least from the video coverage, are Brinster and Rico. Rico forehands off the tee along the line coupe describes. Brinster uses a stand-still backhand with a midrange and throws a low safe shot under the tree branches...essentially laying up in order to lay up again, then throw to the island. I don't think it's coincidence that these two managed to stay out of trouble on this hole (four birdies for Rico, three birdies and a par for Brinster) compared to some of the players who blew up taking more aggressive lines (Schultz's 11, Doss's 8 & 10).

 

[Harold Duvall]

The analyses and reviews are good to read. One of the most compelling aspects of the Championship is the opportunity of "next year". Only 50 weeks to prepare for USDGC 2014.

 

[roclover]

A RHFH or LHBH hyzer off the tee takes the trees and the parking lot completely out of play and has the disc moving away from the hazard area. The fact that most players chose to throw RHBH off the tee, despite the clear risks that entails, says more about their decision making than the design of the hole.

^This

I thought the exact same thing after watching Rico take easy birdies all weekend. I don't know why someone like Doss, who has a decent forehand, wouldn't choose this route. The first two shots are so short anyways, so why risk it?

Another hole that I feel plays to a sidearm advantage is 14. I've seen Ricky stick it on the green there with no risk of skipping O.B. Multiple times. I wonder why more players don't take that line. The only thing that can really go wrong with that shot is to throw too far (not likely) or have the disc stand up and roll away. Is it just the distance that keeps other pro's from throwing that shot?

 

[DiscJunkie]

A RHFH or LHBH hyzer off the tee takes the trees and the parking lot completely out of play and has the disc moving away from the hazard area. The fact that most players chose to throw RHBH off the tee, despite the clear risks that entails, says more about their decision making than the design of the hole.

In my mind, this is an understandable, but false presumption.
Have you played the hole?
As far as the RHFH and LHBH off the tee, there is a relatively spindly, growing tree that spreads out a good bit not far off the tee that requires you to carry the hyzer/FH way to the left. I saw pros throw over there and still go OB/Hazard. There are no throws from 888's that take you away from the hazard and OB threat.
The point made about the randomness that is inherent to the design of 888 is well made. It takes several tough shots that require a lot of skill, but the randomness is apparent if you watch it played, or if you play it.
The other point that has merit is that it should be an easy par for pros, but they continue to risk long throws for a lower score.

 

[coupe]

In my mind, this is an understandable, but false presumption.
Have you played the hole?

More times than I can remember. And I can't remember the last time I threw a backhand on it.

Have you, and have you tried a RHFH/LHBH off the tee?

As far as the RHFH and LHBH off the tee, there is a relatively spindly, growing tree that spreads out a good bit not far off the tee that requires you to carry the hyzer/FH way to the left. I saw pros throw over there and still go OB/Hazard.

Only if you get greedy and go for max distance. You can easily throw a controlled placement shot to the right of that tree to set up your second throw without OB/Hazard coming into play.

Steve Rico, Round 3

Steve Rico, Round 4

Sure, you can throw over there and go OB/Hazard if you throw a bad shot. But that's because you threw a bad shot, not because the hole design is defective.

There are no throws from 888's that take you away from the hazard and OB threat.

The point is that a RHFH/LHBH is turning away from the OB/Hazard on the left and is finishing into the slope on the right, not turning toward the OB/Hazard and finishing with the slope, thereby reducing the odds of skipping/rolling into OB/Hazard. So even if a RHFH/LHBH skips, it's skipping uphill, reducing the chance of skipping into the OB parking lot.

The point made about the randomness that is inherent to the design of 888 is well made. It takes several tough shots that require a lot of skill, but the randomness is apparent if you watch it played, or if you play it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You see randomness; I see questionable/debatable shot selection.

 

[DiscJunkie]

More times than I can remember. And I can't remember the last time I threw a backhand on it.

Have you, and have you tried a RHFH/LHBH off the tee?



Only if you get greedy and go for max distance. You can easily throw a controlled placement shot to the right of that tree to set up your second throw without OB/Hazard coming into play.

Steve Rico, Round 3

Steve Rico, Round 4

Sure, you can throw over there and go OB/Hazard if you throw a bad shot. But that's because you threw a bad shot, not because the hole design is defective.



The point is that a RHFH/LHBH is turning away from the OB/Hazard on the left and is finishing into the slope on the right, not turning toward the OB/Hazard and finishing with the slope, thereby reducing the odds of skipping/rolling into OB/Hazard. So even if a RHFH/LHBH skips, it's skipping uphill, reducing the chance of skipping into the OB parking lot.



We're going to have to agree to disagree. You see randomness; I see questionable/debatable shot selection.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I have played the hole maybe a half-dozen times and I always throw LHBH. I have been unable to bring myself to take the left line because it just doesn't suit my eye. I have always thrown a flippy disc backhand on an anny line and have almost always been happy with the result.
I will agree that you greatly reduce the risk by being conservative and careful, but even conservative shots have gone bad at 888, especially from the tee.
So yeah, agree to disagree.

 

[Dana]

Did his throw from the hazard area really need to be practiced to be executed, though? He was barely over the sidewalk in the field...a relatively flat and unobstructed lie. Seems a fairly straight forward throw even if it was "uncharted territory".

If anything, the throw from the depression/ditch area was the one that was difficult to execute sans practice, but it is also an area that has always been an in-bounds area on that hole. It's a tough angle to get up and out of the ditch, past/under/between whatever trees are in the way, and far enough to get on to the island. Given that he was the tournament leader (or vying for the lead) at the time, it's understandable that he went for the green from there in an attempt to maybe salvage par or at worst bogey.

As I posted earlier,his biggest error in judgment and execution were the two throws that followed the throw from the ditch. Both of those throws were from a position which a veteran player like Barry should be at least mildly familiar with after this many years playing the hole. Experience or not, he still made a poor shot choice and failed to execute from that position.

Barry went with that shot because he is a veteran.

 

[Halcón]

I know it's late to mention this...

I just got a chance to watch the excellent coverage by McFlySoHigh of the final round. You do some incredible work in bringing us high quality video coverage of these events.

Also, I almost feel like Will was either posessed, or wanted to lose the tourney. How do you else do you explain those ridiculous shots on 17? Unbelievable.

Watching Steve Brinster's wife speak, and seeing that he's a family man instantly made me a fan. Congrats again on a great tourney.

 

[Toro71]

Day late and a $ short here, may have not seen this discussed amid the reams of mando/LOP rules analysis.

If Feldberg pars 18, he takes it, meaning 1st place. He was -32 thru 17, no? Double circle 7 on 18?

To me, that's gotta sting as much if not worse than Schultz's big number on 888.