2023 The Open at Austin presented by Lone Star Disc

[Rastnav]

Also, I find McBeth's complaints about hole 17's approach ridiculous. Hole 11 at the course Paul designed in VA has almost the exactly same approach (albeit on a longer hole). It's a tight tunnel for the last 80' of the hole, about 10' wide, and the saplings are so numerous that if you're in them, the only options are a FH roller or a vertical shot.

Video of him and Sexton playing the hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFlaeRGQic

Timestamp where you can see the tunnel: https://youtu.be/hUFlaeRGQic?t=208

My attempt at embedding the timestamp, which never works for me:

Uhhhhh, those tunnels, and the woods lining them, only look the same if you think one is a scale model of the other or something. That New London tunnel is (SWAG) something like 4 or 5 times as wide, and the gaps between the trees are similarly 4 or 5 times as wide. The trees lining the tunnel in New London are probably 10 or 15 years more mature as well.

 

[nothinbuttree]

I saw the same with this course as I saw with Idlewild. First time playing it, Idlewild destroyed many players. Now, -10 is not an unheard of round. And they keep adding to its difficulty.

This course it seemed more and more players were getting the lines and angles down by round three. I imagine if it stays on tour next year, -30 may be the winning score.

 

[Shallows]

A dreary and disappointing replacement of the Lindsey Park courses on the Elite Series but I suppose this is the future. Not quite the worst course on tour but in that bottom quarter conversation. The lack of a forehand for Eagle and Vaino is really what cost them with so many favorable left to right holes.

Not much elevation to work with but they did their best. If the wind is not up this course gets easy real quick.

 

[Ryan P.]

Uhhhhh, those tunnels, and the woods lining them, only look the same if you think one is a scale model of the other or something. That New London tunnel is (SWAG) something like 4 or 5 times as wide, and the gaps between the trees are similarly 4 or 5 times as wide. The trees lining the tunnel in New London are probably 10 or 15 years more mature as well.

I disagree. I've played the course multiple times, and been in the rough of that tunnel multiple times. The tunnel this weekend, as measured by competitors, was approximately 8' wide. The tunnel at New London is about 12' wide. Additionally, the rough is approximately the same. Exactly? No. But 4-5x clearer? Objectively it is about 1.5 times as wide in the tunnel. I don't know how to objectively measure how thick rough is (trees per square foot times average tree diameter?) but it's very similar.

To focus on the point at hand, if you were in the same position as McBeth was in round 1, you'd have a very similar approach.

 

[Ryan P.]

Well, as long as we are just bloviating for our own amusement:

I'm reminded of how photographers who are just getting started tend to overdo the color saturation and contrast. The result is people saying "Look at that picture!"

When people look at pictures by more experienced photographers, they say things like "Look at the character in that gnarly tree growing in those ancient rocks."

This design puts all the features, risks, and intended lines right in your face (even when blind shots are part of the risk). I imagine the players feel like they are being dared by a design. I'd prefer a course where the players feel like they are being challenged by the course.

The difference is between designing for where the discs will fly vs. designing for what will happen in the players' heads. Often, designing to get in players' heads will result in less real risk in favor of apparent risk, less sharply defined risk in favor of fuzzier risk, and certainly less rope in favor of physical features.

Is this a way of saying you'd prefer less OB rope, but with good reasons? If not, what am I missing/what are you saying?

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this more.

 

[porkturtle]

Nice to see Cole Redalen on that lead card in the final round. I've seen his name on leaderboards before but now we finally got to witness him play amongst the heavies. Thought he held up pretty well considering the pressure.
While I'm not too familiar with DGA discs, I noticed he was leaning heavy on the Hurricane off the tee. Also of note, he was throwing some Discraft later on the back 9.

 

[BillFleming]

My viewpoint on the complaining about the course. It's a first time course. Except for practice rounds, it had never been played before. My take on the complaining is that it was the players providing their input...which could/should lead to improvement if the course is used in the future. Yes, it may have seemed more like whining, but I think it was mostly honest feedback. I'm not a pro, so I don't know if the DGPT supplies surveys to the players asking what they think about a course....so what the players did/said may be the best way to get their opinions heard/considered by the DGPT folks. Yes, they made their opinions public, but what is wrong with that? I thought it was interesting hearing what players thought about the course as I had my own opinion from watching it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the course is solid for a ball golf course. There are some neat risk/reward opportunities, and there are plenty of places where it makes you think. I'm very interested to see how pros play a lot of the holes.

General ball golf course negatives to get out of the way:

• There's a ton of wide open holes, which encourages throwing your best shot over and over again (there are few forced lines), which isn't a great test of a pro's skill
• So much OB (whether it's artificial or natural, OB doesn't have scaled punishment, and it doesn't allow for recovery from a bad shot)
• The difficulty to modify the land to make a good DG course (although clearly they were able to on some holes)

In regard to OB penalties, if the penalties on a specific par 3 hole are randomly distributed among the field, then getting an OB penalty depends on luck. If only the lower-skilled (typically lower rated) players are getting the OB penalties, the OB on the hole has been better designed to test skill. On par 4 holes where players can go OB on their first or second throw, you'll need to break out which players are getting the penalties on the first throw from those getting them on their second and additional throws to check for luck vs skill tendency.

Of course, the OB stats being tracked on UDisc (not on PDGA) are not organized to make it easy to analyze whether skill or luck is favored. The better players would prefer to skillfully avoid OB and not get randomized penalties. Lower rated, likely shorter distance, throwers might prefer more lucky OB to somewhat level the playing field and occasionally tighten up the scoring. Luckier OB adds more drama for viewers, especially when the scoring is tight in the final round.

Promoters want more viewers. So, they're biased toward producing drama sometimes unintentionally with flukier design elements that have the superficial veneer of testing skill to appease the players with the old saw in their hip pocket to dodge most design criticism pulling out the well-worn phrase, "They all have to play the same hole/course." Granted, in the case of The Open, much of the OB was required and it would have been difficult to determine in advance the luck/skill balance of each required OB line around the course.

Should some of the OB lines be tweaked for next year? Depends whether you're a player or on the promotion side.

 

[Ryan P.]

I think that a good part of being a course designer is knowing how a hole will score. This helps a designer craft the experience of a course. With that said, here are my predictions (which are almost certainly wrong, but maybe I'll learn from it)

Average Score: 58.8
Hot round: -9 under
Winning score: -20 under

Predicted score breakdowns (with listed par for clarity Steve, not for accuracy )
1. par 3, 3.15 average, 10% birdies, 65% par, (and I'll do the math once) 25% bogey or worse
2. par 4, 3.7 average, 50% birdies, 30% par
3. par 3, 2.8 average, 35% birdie, 50% par
4. par 5, 5.2 average, 20% birdie, 50% par
5. par 3, 3.15 average, 5% birdie, 80% par
6. par 3, 2.8 average, 25% birdies, 70% par
7. par 3, 2.8 average, 40% birdie, 40% par
8. par 3, 2.65 average, 55% birdie, 30% par
9. par 3, 3.2 average, 5-10% birdie, 65% par
10. par 3, 3.1 average, 15% birdie, 55% par
11. par 3, 2.5 average, 60% birdie, 30% par
12. par 4, 4 average, 25% birdie, 50% par
13. par 3, 3 average, 15% birdie, 70% par
14. par 3, 2.6 average, 65% birdie, 25% par, with a noteworthy amount of pros carding 2x bogey every round to throw off the easy math
15. par 3, 2.75 average, 45% birdie, 35% par
16. par 4, 3.15 average, 80+% birdie (or better), 15+% par, and someone will find a way to bogey this every round (even if there's a cut)
17. par 4, 3.85 average, 30% birdie, 55% par
18. par 4, 4.2, 15% birdie, 50% par

Not that anyone cares, but here's how I did with predictions.

Average score was 58.44, I predicted 58.8. So pretty solid.
I predicted a hot round of -9, and it was -10. Then I held Cole Redalen's beer (even though he's not old enough to drink) as he shot -12.
winning score was -22 by Buhr, so I was 2 off.

Score predictions are below (white means I was very close, red means I predicted too low, green means I predicted too high, more intense colors mean I was further off.

 

[Ryan P.]

In regard to OB penalties, if the penalties on a specific par 3 hole are randomly distributed among the field, then getting an OB penalty depends on luck. If only the lower-skilled (typically lower rated) players are getting the OB penalties, the OB on the hole has been better designed to test skill. On par 4 holes where players can go OB on their first or second throw, you'll need to break out which players are getting the penalties on the first throw from those getting them on their second and additional throws to check for luck vs skill tendency.

Of course, the OB stats being tracked on UDisc (not on PDGA) are not organized to make it easy to analyze whether skill or luck is favored. The better players would prefer to skillfully avoid OB and not get randomized penalties. Lower rated, likely shorter distance, throwers might prefer more lucky OB to somewhat level the playing field and occasionally tighten up the scoring. Luckier OB adds more drama for viewers, especially when the scoring is tight in the final round.

Promoters want more viewers. So, they're biased toward producing drama sometimes unintentionally with flukier design elements that have the superficial veneer of testing skill to appease the players with the old saw in their hip pocket to dodge most design criticism pulling out the well-worn phrase, "They all have to play the same hole/course." Granted, in the case of The Open, much of the OB was required and it would have been difficult to determine in advance the luck/skill balance of each required OB line around the course.

Should some of the OB lines be tweaked for next year? Depends whether you're a player or on the promotion side.

I very much agree with what you said. One day soon I'd love for UDisc or StatMando to record every throw's landing spot for a multi-shot hole (par 4 or 5) and create a heat map for it so we could see what landing zones lead to better and worse scores.

It might be easier to start with a par 3, and then they could gather a heat map for the putting area. This would provide a lot more data, but we already know a lot of that stuff (longer putts are harder to make, putts from behind trees are harder to make, etc.). I think it'd be really helpful to see on baskets surrounded by elevation. I'd theorize that downhill putts are easier to make but lead to roughly the same average score as uphill putts from the same distance because missing a downhill putt tends to leave you with a longer comeback putt. Is that actually true? Are uphill putts more likely to roll away? I'd love to see data for that.

I think it'd also help designers understand appropriate obstacles to put into play to achieve design goals. For instance, hole 12 saw a bunch of players take the dogleg tightly. However, some players (McBeth and Klein come to mind) go outside of the trees. Which one led to lower averages? I'd love to see that.

 

[nothinbuttree]

I very much agree with what you said. One day soon I'd love for UDisc or StatMando to record every throw's landing spot for a multi-shot hole (par 4 or 5) and create a heat map for it so we could see what landing zones lead to better and worse scores.

I wonder if knowing what discs were used in addition to, or instead of, landing zones would be more valuable to the players. If 30% of all drivers went OB, but only 10% of fairways, and 0% of mids, that could be useful to know.

Ideally, you could see every disc and where it landed, and where it ended up, because ground play is quite important. Problem is how to get all that data? Someone would have to be on every hole, and somehow know what the disc was, whether it was LHFH, RHBH, etc.

 

[CincyIllinifan]

Rick took a DNF with three holes to go. Does anyone know what happened?

Looks like his wrist hasn't healed enough.

https://twitter.com/sockibomb13/status/1637679634379669504?s=20

 

[Shallows]

I wonder if knowing what discs were used in addition to, or instead of, landing zones would be more valuable to the players. If 30% of all drivers went OB, but only 10% of fairways, and 0% of mids, that could be useful to know.

Ideally, you could see every disc and where it landed, and where it ended up, because ground play is quite important. Problem is how to get all that data? Someone would have to be on every hole, and somehow know what the disc was, whether it was LHFH, RHBH, etc.

That's exactly the kind of data that sports books and peripheral gambling companies, individuals etc. will be incentivized to gather.

 

[foxdawg10]

That's exactly the kind of data that sports books and peripheral gambling companies, individuals etc. will be incentivized to gather.

It is slightly disconcerting to think that course designers could be enticed to design courses to favor certain players, or a certain type of player, based on this type of data.

 

[Ryan P.]

I wonder if knowing what discs were used in addition to, or instead of, landing zones would be more valuable to the players. If 30% of all drivers went OB, but only 10% of fairways, and 0% of mids, that could be useful to know.

Ideally, you could see every disc and where it landed, and where it ended up, because ground play is quite important. Problem is how to get all that data? Someone would have to be on every hole, and somehow know what the disc was, whether it was LHFH, RHBH, etc.

Perhaps, yes. The more data, the better the chance at finding something meaningful. However, there's also a practical requirement that you need to be finding meaningful information or the process of gathering data becomes fruitless. All I'm trying to say is that whoever does this needs to start by gathering data they expect to be meaningful and move along from there.

I don't think the logistics of getting that data is a significant obstacle. There's a UDisc person on virtually every card now; it just needs a little more precision. Gk Pro already gathers all the discs in a person's bag to list them on their round preview. Additionally, determining where a disc ended up is as simple as adding dots (think USDGC) to a graphic. I'm confident that it wouldn't take UDisc too much work to add that feature. Training is probably a slightly harder obstacle, but most people could pick it up with a video or after a few holes.

In the future, if DG continues growing, stuff like SportVU could be added to drones that fly above holes to automatically gather disc flight paths, landing location, rolls and skips, type of shot (RHBH/LH/FH/OH/etc.) and who's throwing it. It might even be able to determine the model of the disc based on the stamp. The NBA has had this system in place for a decade now, and it leads to some pretty neat heat maps like the one halfway down this article. I realize that it'd take a lot more for disc golf (18 cameras cost a lot more than 1-2), but if the money comes, that will come in time.

That's exactly the kind of data that sports books and peripheral gambling companies, individuals etc. will be incentivized to gather.

Yep. You'll notice the link to gambling on the SportVU website fairly quickly.

It is slightly disconcerting to think that course designers could be enticed to design courses to favor certain players, or a certain type of player, based on this type of data.

Sure, but that sounds a lot better to me than the slightly intentional, slightly haphazard designs we have now. Hole 5 this weekend was aimed at longer players, and hole 17 at accurate players. While having more data would increase the ability for devious designers to do devious things, we can as a community go in the right direction and create better courses.

 

[Steve West]

Here are the scoring spread charts. I changed on thing, the scoring spread with of total scores is for the sum of all three rounds, not the average scoring spread width of total round scores.

There are two reasons I did this. First, it is closer to what we are interested in - the actual sorting of players at the end of the day.

Second, this allows us to look at the effects of penalties. Penalties are not easily attained for hole-by-hole score, but we can get the totals for each player. So, we can look at the penalties as a kind of 19th hole.

For FPO, if the penalties were a separate hole, it would have averaged 3.42. This "penalties hole" would have contributed 4.21 to the scoring spread width of final scores, which is just about as much as any of the real holes.

Note that if we performed a penaltectomy on the real holes, they're contribution would likely have gone down, so the penalties hole was likely the most effective.

Which is not surprising if you think of it as a hole where players can average anywhere from 1.33 to 7.00 over three rounds. How else could you design an easy ace run which could result in a quadruple bogey?

For MPO, the penalties hole would have contributed less, just 2.71 to the 34.42 scoring spread width of final scores (about as effective as a typical hole), it would have averaged 2.85, and the range of average score over three holes would be 0.66 to 8.33.

It makes me wonder if the next big thing in strategy will be to think of penalties as an extra hole - one where you could score zero or eight - and make a plan to get a low scores on the penalties hole.

Spoiler

But, I digress. As for what the numbers reveal about the design, for MPO one take-away is that there are too many 3s. Most new courses have this problem. The solution here is more 4s (instead of 3s) on some holes.

FPO also has a lot of holes with too many 3s, but the course overall offers about the right amount. Also, the course is generally just too hard, they should get more 2s and fewer 5s+.

 

[Steve West]

Here are the charts showing how the courses fit the players who played them.

Spoiler

 

[Steve West]

And the performance tracks:

Spoiler

 

[araytx]

A dreary and disappointing replacement of the Lindsey Park courses on the Elite Series but I suppose this is the future. Not quite the worst course on tour but in that bottom quarter conversation. The lack of a forehand for Eagle and Vaino is really what cost them with so many favorable left to right holes.

Not much elevation to work with but they did their best. If the wind is not up this course gets easy real quick.

This course was the replacement for Belton, not the Texas States at Lindsey Park in Tyler where it had been the last few years.

Texas States has always been a tournament that moves around every couple years. Texas States is owned by the Houston DGC, and they had given it to Tyler the last few years. This year it is back in Houston at a newly designed course. We will see what the pros comments are at Brock Park.