• 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)

2019 United States Disc Golf Championship Oct 2-5

Maybe Paul and Jomez are in cahoots together, though maybe he dug his hole a little deep.

Disc golf conspiracy theories that don't involve medical debates....
 
I think it´s kind of huge that Paige beat lots of BIG names on one of the hardest courses in one of the biggest tournaments of the year
 
The scores on hole 17 is just nuts. . .not often you see an ACE and an 11 on the same hole?!?

And again. . .BIG field, and not a single player is bogey free. . .that must be unusual
 
The new holes 3 and 4 were hardly birdied compared to the old holes 1 and 2 that were replaced, meaning the common -2 for those holes was replaced by par as the likely common score on the new ones.

Can that (the lack of birdies) be chalked up to it being the first time the holes were played in competition? Obviously everyone had a chance to practice them and develop a strategy, but doing it in the pressure-free practice environment and when the bright lights are on are two different things. With more collective experience, I would expect scores to come down a bit overall as the weekend progresses.

Essentially what I'm asking is how much stock should we put in those numbers as being indicative of what to expect going forward? We had years and years of data on the old holes, and only one round's worth on the new ones. Is it enough to draw meaningful conclusions?
 
Can that (the lack of birdies) be chalked up to it being the first time the holes were played in competition? Obviously everyone had a chance to practice them and develop a strategy, but doing it in the pressure-free practice environment and when the bright lights are on are two different things. With more collective experience, I would expect scores to come down a bit overall as the weekend progresses.

Essentially what I'm asking is how much stock should we put in those numbers as being indicative of what to expect going forward? We had years and years of data on the old holes, and only one round's worth on the new ones. Is it enough to draw meaningful conclusions?

Nah, old 1 and 2 were holes even Ams are thinking are birdies. The new hole 3 requires 600' on the right turnover or roller angle to get a decent angle at hitting the gap for a 3. And hole 4 has all of the risk and none of the reward that typically makes USDGC holes so effective. If they used a single mando (moved the first mando another two sets of trees to hole) it would be balance the risk/reward more.
 
Nah, old 1 and 2 were holes even Ams are thinking are birdies. The new hole 3 requires 600' on the right turnover or roller angle to get a decent angle at hitting the gap for a 3. And hole 4 has all of the risk and none of the reward that typically makes USDGC holes so effective. If they used a single mando (moved the first mando another two sets of trees to hole) it would be balance the risk/reward more.

I'm not talking about their designs or relative difficulties. Only the math that Chuck was bringing up suggesting the new holes weren't yielding the same frequency of birdies as the replaced holes. One round (~110 samples) versus years of past rounds (thousands of samples). It's entirely possible that with the same amount of play, the new holes will yield closer to the same number of birdies as players become more familiar with the holes and the best ways to attack them (specifically getting the angles and disc selections down).

The new holes should be more of a challenge to birdie...for now. After all, 10-15 years ago, the original holes 1 and 2 represented much more challenge than they did of late. With the advancements in disc tech and the proliferation of players who can throw equally well with both spins, those holes started to become less of a challenge. The challenge of hole 2, for example, was placing one's drive in a position where the approach to the green minimized the chances of ending up OB. With more players coming along with a strong forehand game, the calculation on approaching that green safely changed. You don't necessarily need to be close enough or at the right angle to throw a putter to the green that won't skip or fade. You can be in a position where you can hyzer a forehand so it's moving away from the OB as it hits the green, and the speed/rim of the disc was less of a factor.
 
i love reading comments about the old timers reliving the glory days of what the course used to be
 
I wondered about the thought process behind 2 mandos rather than just one.

Yeah, it does seem like overkill.
First set of mandos: "Ok, you gotta pipe the tunnel. No hacking the hole with a sneaky outside line."
Second set of mandos: "Uhh...you still gotta pipe the tunnel?"

The double-double doesn't really add much to the hole in terms of strategy. What it does do is cram extra complication (more mandos, extra drop zone) into a hole that's less than 300 feet long! More than one mando for every 75' of hole length, is that some kind of a record?

I wish they'd reversed the first set of double mandos, so you have to go outside (either side) off the tee, then navigate back into the tunnel to hit the 2nd set of mandos. (Maybe move the tee back to open up options for the 1st throw.) That would still be gimmicky, but at least it's a little unique and original, unlike EVERY OTHER TUNNEL HOLE IN THE WORLD. It would also add a LOT more decisions for the player to consider: left vs. right, try to reach the green on 1 throw or lay up in front of the 2nd set of mandos, which gaps to get out of and into the tunnel, etc.
 
Dunno if this is the best spot to discuss, but it's USDGC relevant ...

Ricky's Lyme Disease, that could've been anybody, just the bad luck it was him. How long before health insurance is part of contract deals? I think there had been talk before about McBeth either getting coverage or trying to get it provided. Obviously it's good to have in the case of injury also, look at Jerm's nerve pain in Europe.

It's a double whammy, not being able to compete limits your income potential, but also having medical bills to cover if you're either not insured or have minimal coverage. I'm wondering if him essentially withdrawing for the rest of the year is opening eyes for any of the other touring players.
 
Watching players either putt up to a mando or putt through one is not really my cup of tea. Neither is the triple island hole.

Agreed, watching the front 9 from SpinTV it looks like these holes were designed by Andrew Duvall, have to assume hes related to Harold Duvall. To me it seems like he likes to design more of a putt putt golf style of disc golf hole in that they are more gimmick then practical. If this is the direction that the USDGC is going to take going forward then this tournament will soon become less and less prestigious. Sexton said that the USDGC is better then worlds and I agree with him but if this trend continues then that will not be the case.
 
Agreed, the 2 new holes just arent good imo. The oddly placed mandos on 3 and 4 are just gimmicky to me and take the course down a notch for sure.


After seeing the two new holes in the JOMEZ Big Sexy intro, I'm OK with #4. Maybe make only one double mando to force the tunnel shot, I'm seeing more tunnel shots through pine trees on courses I play, kind of nice to see the pros have to make the same shot.

I do think the mando on #3 is a little gimmicky. Throw 600' then have to hit a 10-12 foot double mando? Seems a little over the top.
 
Top