Appropriate use of Drop Zones

[Cgkdisc]

While I agree somewhat with your general premise the bolded red is nonsense and using that verbiage simply clouds the entire matter.

Perhaps a "not scoring" stroke is more precise than a "penalty" for every stroke thrown beyond the birdie score on a hole. The question is what is the game design rationale a full stroke should arbitrarily be added to a "not scoring" throw location?

No area within a course property is naturally a stroke penalty area by rule. Water is casual by default with the potential risk of losing a disc, playing from a crummy lie, and/or losing distance using free relief on LOP or to DZ, all considered sufficient penalties without adding a stroke. Natural or designated "required relief areas" are disc golf's equivalent to rough and sand traps in ball golf which also provide appropriate penalties from the potential for lost ball, crummy lie and/or losing distance without adding stroke to the shot.

Adding a full penalty stroke unnecessarily doubles the value of a "not scoring" throw with no benefit to the game other than making the game artificially look tougher. The scoring separation provided by "not scoring" throws on a hole are, and have been historically, enough to appropriately differentiate lack of execution on that hole.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Nobody ever says that about trees, or dense woods. But I've had plenty of shots that hit early trees and had the same effect on my score that OB would have had.

Natural or artificial surface challenges - water, rough, gravel, protected ground foliage and designer marked areas - are attempts to emulate the challenges of vertical obstacles, primarily trees. Striking trees may result in lost disc, crummy lie and/or loss of distance. They are the disc golf equivalent to rough and sand traps in ball golf.

Would we want designers/TDs marking various trees to where striking them added a stroke penalty became a popular design element matching the arbitrary stroke penalties for artificial penalty areas marked on the playing surface? The sport eliminated the default 2m penalty partly for flukiness but also recognizing that landing in a tree usually provided the non-stroke penalties of possible loss of disc, loss of distance and crummy lie, the same as just hitting a tree.

All I'm saying is the way to emulate the non-stroke penalties of trees with natural or artificial playing surface challenges is by requiring lie relocation to a position or DZ that's farther from the target and in some cases with a tougher throwing route to the target. No added stroke is needed, but the player may still lose a stroke by not executing their "recovery" throw. In ball golf, pros landing in the rough or sand traps lose a stroke with inadequate recovery shots about half the time based on PGA stats but at least they always have a chance to save it with good execution.

 

[ejvogie]

I'm not sure I want to accept the touring pros' current definition of 'scoring' given that they often can't even use the term 'hyzer' correctly.

 

[denny ritner]

In a vacuum I don't really see a problem with having what is basically a tap in after you take your OB penalty. Depends on other characteristics of the hole and what your goal for it is though.

It's certainly less than ideal, but doesn't merit the criticism it usually receives, unless the ground near the basket is uneven/sloped.

 

[denny ritner]

I'm not sure I want to accept the touring pros' current definition of 'scoring' given that they often can't even use the term 'hyzer' correctly.

Correct. They think of "scoring" as relative to par. Take a hole with an average of 4.5 and call it a par 5. The commentators will call it a "scoring" hole. Take the same hole and call it a par 4 and they'll call it a super-hard hole that nobody can score on. The hole didn't change.

"Scoreable" is a function of score variance. It has NOTHING to do with par.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Correct. They think of "scoring" as relative to par. Take a hole with an average of 4.5 and call it a par 5. The commentators will call it a "scoring" hole. Take the same hole and call it a par 4 and they'll call it a super-hard hole that nobody can score on. The hole didn't change.

"Scoreable" is a function of score variance. It has NOTHING to do with par.

Scoring is making the minimum number of throws players of a skill level can realistically throw on a hole. Scoring is done by playing the hole/course, not against others. Score distribution and setting par are constructs for derived medal play competition with others independent from players playing the holes/course. That realistic minimum score, considered "scoring" by many, exists whether the current competition constructs call it a birdie or par. It makes more sense and will be easier for players, commentators and spectators to comprehend if that minimum score is always defined as a birdie on each hole with par being one stroke higher. Then, when you see a blue score on a hole, the player has scored against the challenges of the hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

Natural or artificial surface challenges - water, rough, gravel, protected ground foliage and designer marked areas - are attempts to emulate the challenges of vertical obstacles, primarily trees. Striking trees may result in lost disc, crummy lie and/or loss of distance. They are the disc golf equivalent to rough and sand traps in ball golf.

Would we want designers/TDs marking various trees to where striking them added a stroke penalty became a popular design element matching the arbitrary stroke penalties for artificial penalty areas marked on the playing surface? The sport eliminated the default 2m penalty partly for flukiness but also recognizing that landing in a tree usually provided the non-stroke penalties of possible loss of disc, loss of distance and crummy lie, the same as just hitting a tree.

All I'm saying is the way to emulate the non-stroke penalties of trees with natural or artificial playing surface challenges is by requiring lie relocation to a position or DZ that's farther from the target and in some cases with a tougher throwing route to the target. No added stroke is needed, but the player may still lose a stroke by not executing their "recovery" throw. In ball golf, pros landing in the rough or sand traps lose a stroke with inadequate recovery shots about half the time based on PGA stats but at least they always have a chance to save it with good execution.

I disagree with the bolded part. Vertical obstacles restrict where a disc may fly; ground features restrict where it may land. Those challenges play out quite differently.

I agree that we should make better use of non-stroke rules as well, and applaud the PDGA for adding to that toolbox over the years. We use a few of them at Stoney Hill, and the only reason we don't use more is that the ground rules are already cluttered enough. We also use LOTS of trees, so we certainly haven't foregone that option.

 

[Steve West]

Y

Does it matter if we were talking about a large, elongated island with the pin tight to one end? Very easy to land inbounds unless you are trying to park it.

I'd think there would be a distinction between those that got close enough for an easy deuce (or made a long risky putt) and those who played it safe on the drive and take the easy 3. Then you have the group that missed the island. Minimum/ok/bad?

Does it matter if we were talking about a large, elongated island with the pin tight to one end? Very easy to land inbounds unless you are trying to park it.

I'd think there would be a distinction between those that got close enough for an easy deuce (or made a long risky putt) and those who played it safe on the drive and take the easy 3. Then you have the group that missed the island. Minimum/ok/bad?

Anything that avoids the gap in scores helps. I was responding to the false notion that using a penalty throw to create a 2/4 scoring distribution made the hole better than one with a 2/3 distribution.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Depending on the size of the island and the distance to the green, the issue with low-percentage drop zones can be donut-hole scoring: lots of 2s & 4s, few 3s. It gives that hole disproportionate effect on the results.

While I do value statistics, I don't see the donut hole as a problem as long as it is the result of a decision made by the player on the tee. If, by hole layout, I present to the player the opportunity to take the risk of bogie with the reward of getting a birdie on the one hand and the option to "play it safe" and have a reasonably assured par, then I don't really care what effect that hole has on scoring. To me that is a fair choice and any penalty or reward comes from the player's skill or lack thereof in both shot execution and strategy.

On the other hand, I'm not one of those players who insists that everyone put all their money into the pot on the last hand of the night, erasing all of skill needed to win the bulk of the previous hands. So while I wouldn't want such a hole if your choice was only birdie or bogie, as long as playing it safe for par is an option, I don't see a problem even if no one lays up. And I prefer glazed donuts to filled donuts anyway.

 

[DavidSauls]

While I do value statistics, I don't see the donut hole as a problem as long as it is the result of a decision made by the player on the tee. If, by hole layout, I present to the player the opportunity to take a risk of bogie with the reward of getting a birdie on the one hand and the option to "play it safe" and have a reasonably assured par, then I don't really care what effect that hole has on scoring. To me that is a fair choice and any penalty or reward comes from the players skill or lack thereof in both shot execution and strategy.

We should make a distinction between where the donut hole is due to players' risk/reward decisions, or just execution (a true island).

The downside is that they give a particular hole a disproportionate effect on the outcome. (Not that other hole types can't do the same).

That's not a conclusive argument against them. But I think it's preferable that a hole has a smoother scoring spread.

 

[biscoe]

Should every shot be "weighted' the same? Granularity says yes. Design goals for a given hole/course may say no on occasion. The game has reached the point where we can no longer make cookie cutter judgements on such things- there is too much disparity between the various types of disc golf out there.

Is Hole 17 at Winthrop a "successful" hole in terms of the designer's goals for it? I would argue that it is whether I personally care for the hole or not. No hole in disc golf has generated more memorable moments over the years and "spectator golf" whether the spectators be live or through broadcast is clearly a primary goal at Winthrop.

Personally I like to attempt to generate some mental push and pull with players in hole designs. Some should be "friendly," some should be "hostile." (All should in theory be fair.) Generating a variety of emotional responses from players in the course of a round is imo one sign a course is well done. Traditional golf courses often begin with a very scoreable Par 5 as something of a welcome to the course. Sometimes you get to cut loose your drive with little worry about a bad shot but a payoff for a good/great one. Sometimes you have a more punitive shot which causes some cheek clench. As with pretty much all things you should not overdo either.

 

[Steve West]

current competition constructs

Ha ha, "current competition constructs"! Which means the way the game has been played since the beginning, and how golf was played for decades before that. Ooh, I guess I'm supposed to be primed to expect it will change any day now, right?

Just so everyone knows, "scoring" is actually defined. It's adding up the number of throws; fewest wins.

It is true is that, in golf, trying to get the minimum score and competing against the course is older than adding up the number of strokes. From USGA's FAQ page:

"What is the origin of the word 'bogey?' top

The term 'bogey' comes from a song that was popular in the British Isles in the early 1890s, called "The Bogey Man" (later known as "The Colonel Bogey March"). The character of the song was an elusive figure who hid in the shadows: "I'm the Bogey Man, catch me if you can."

Golfers in Scotland and England equated the quest for the elusive Bogey Man with the quest for the elusive perfect score. By the mid to late 1890s, the term 'bogey score' referred to the ideal score a good player could be expected to make on a hole under perfect conditions. It also came to be used to describe stroke play tournaments - hence, in early Rules books we find a section detailing the regulations for 'Bogey Competitions.' It was only in the late 1900s/early 1910s that the concept of 'Par' started to emerge - this being the designated number of strokes a scratch player could be expected to take on a hole in ideal conditions. In this way par was distinguished from bogey. The term par itself is a standard term in sports handicapping, where it simply means 'level' or 'even.'"

Note that there WAS a term for the perfect score, and that term was "bogey". Obviously, the meaning of "bogey" has changed. However "par" has always meant the score expected of a scratch player - in both golf and disc golf.

Also, "birdie" has always meant scoring better than par:

"How did the terms 'birdie' and 'eagle' come into golf? top

The term 'birdie' originated in the United States in 1899. H.B. Martin's "Fifty Years of American Golf" contains an account of a foursomes match played at the Atlantic City (N.J.) CC. One of the players, Ab Smith relates: "my ball... came to rest within six inches of the cup. I said 'That was a bird of a shot... I suggest that when one of us plays a hole in one under par he receives double compensation.' The other two agreed and we began right away, just as soon as the next one came, to call it a 'birdie.' In 19th-century American slang, 'bird' refereed to anyone or anything excellent or wonderful.[…]"

Note that the switch from chasing perfect score of "bogey" to stroke play against other players (and using par - not as a score, but as a way to measure how well they are playing), happened long before disc golf was started. So, disc golf has no words for - or tradition of - playing against the perfect score.

Chuck, you are correct that there is no need for any throw to get punished more than creating a bad lie. And that the game would be better for it. But, getting so much else wrong - whether by lack of knowledge or by intentional deceit - undermines your credibility.

If there needs to be a vocabulary for playing against the course by seeking the perfect score, make one up. Use new words. Don't corrupt words which already have established meaning. Even if you were to successfully mess up what "scoring", "par", and "birdie" mean, that wouldn't lead to everyone being convinced penalty throws shouldn't exist. It also wouldn't lead to touring pros high-fiving each other when they get a 3 on a wide open 600 foot hole.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The historical stuff regarding golf and its terminology is irrelevant to the topic of what is "scoring against the course" in disc golf (which is arguably more of a target sport like archery than golf) versus against other competitors. Of course, the scoring score on a hole for a player skill level could be called something else than birdie, but why?

Scoring constructs for medal play competition should evolve from the scoring score for players playing each hole alone and not the other way around. By defining the scoring score as a birdie with par being one stroke higher, there's a definable and consistent way for players, commentators and spectators to know what score is the target (pun intended), expected, or good on each hole.

Whether shooting the scoring score is hard or easy, it should still be a birdie. It's just that some holes are "less good" for that player skill level because birdies are either too common or not common enough. The good news is if a hole is less good in terms of birdie percentage for one distance/skill level, there's a good chance it falls in the good birdie range for the distance/skill level either above or below it.

 

[biscoe]

The historical stuff regarding golf and its terminology is irrelevant to the topic of what is "scoring against the course" in disc golf (which is arguably more of a target sport like archery than golf) versus against other competitors. Of course, the scoring score on a hole for a player skill level could be called something else than birdie, but why?

Scoring constructs for medal play competition should evolve from the scoring score for players playing each hole alone and not the other way around. By defining the scoring score as a birdie with par being one stroke higher, there's a definable and consistent way for players, commentators and spectators to know what score is the target (pun intended), expected, or good on each hole.

Whether shooting the scoring score is hard or easy, it should still be a birdie. It's just that some holes are "less good" for that player skill level because birdies are either too common or not common enough. The good news is if a hole is less good in terms of birdie percentage for one distance/skill level, there's a good chance it falls in the good birdie range for the distance/skill level either above or below it.

The history IS relevant as it is the way many folks understand the game and is a shorthand to explain the game to those who don't know anything about it. An individual shot may be target based but the sum of the game is far greater than the sum of a series of target based shots. The disc sport which resembles archery is known as "Accuracy" and encompasses none of the things which make golf beautiful- problem solving, mutability from shot to shot, recovery, etc.

"Scoring constructs" for medal play = counting and comparing to an opponent or opponents, same as "scoring constructs" (often referred to as just "the score") for many games/sports.

I honestly don't even know where you are trying to go with this stuff at this point.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The history IS relevant as it is the way many folks understand the game and is a shorthand to explain the game to those who don't know anything about it. An individual shot may be target based but the sum of the game is far greater than the sum of a series of target based shots. The disc sport which resembles archery is known as "Accuracy" and encompasses none of the things which make golf beautiful- problem solving, mutability from shot to shot, recovery, etc.

"Scoring constructs" for medal play = counting and comparing to an opponent or opponents, same as "scoring constructs" (often referred to as just "the score") for many games/sports.

I honestly don't even know where you are trying to go with this stuff at this point.

1. Golf and its derivatives are a player against the course not other people.
2. There is a minimum number of shots a player with enough distance with skills can reasonably achieve on each hole.
3. That score in golf is called a birdie. It should also be called a birdie in disc golf if the idea is to use parallel terminology where appropriate among golf derivatives.
4. Par is simply one stroke more than birdie.

This construct is clear and easy for everyone to understand. What's "scoring" for individual play should determine what's scoring for medal play. To achieve this on each hole is where the designer creatively uses the terrain, their design skills and creativity so birdies can be reasonably achieved on each hole for players within that distance/skill level.

If a hole design does not allow players to score/birdie, is it really a suitable scoring hole for that distance skill level? Or does it just mean the par was set too low to allow birdies even if it meant 80% would get them? Using this "design for birdies" approach, there are no par 2s even on the shortest holes, just lots of birdies for several skill levels.

The birdie design approach objectively allows for birdies on each hole but says nothing about whether the resulting percentage is too high or too low. That's a competition judgment call for whether the hole is too easy or too hard for a division to play and should potentially be modified.

My motivation is to help simplify and clarify the underlying game mechanics to provide better guidance for designers, not to sterilize the richness of playing the game which can continue to thrive with existing terminology and a variety of old and new design elements. As I've posted before, a score called a birdie for one player distance/skill level might be a par or bogey for other skill levels. Most holes are only less good for some but still good for others in terms of scoring.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

. . .
2. There is a minimum number of shots a player with enough distance with skills can reasonably achieve on each hole.
3. That score in golf is called a birdie. . . .

. . .

If a hole design does not allow players to score/birdie, is it really a suitable scoring hole . . .

My motivation is to help simplify and clarify . . . a score called a birdie for one player distance/skill level might be a par or bogey for other skill levels. Most holes are only less good for some but still good for others in terms of scoring.

Chuck, the problem with all this nonsense is that not even you can use the words "score" and "scoring" without them having two different meanings, one the actual meaning and the other the one you want them to have. This reminds me of almost any contentiouse topic in which people want to control the language of those with whom they disagree by insisting that terminology have only the meaning that implies the correctness of their opinion. You keep insisting that in order to score on a hole you must get a certain score, that scoring requires that score that that it isn't scoring unless you score, i.e., that only scoring a good score is a score. Why do this? It's just silly.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

This convo is going pretty deep down the rabbit hole.
I hope someone's keeping score of who's scoring...

 

[PastorofMuppets]

So if I ace did I double score, or birdie birdie, or just score, none of the above? Or what if I make a 5 on a par 5 on a Friday at 6 PM playing solo with only one shoe on, but card another 5 in a tournament on Saturday throwing only thumbers and rollers in a cardigan sweater but my division averages 7 throws and 2 curse words each on that hole, did I score then since I made only made par but gained 2 strokes over the field? Just want to make sure I'm using drop zones appropriately and using terminology as God intended.

 

[biscoe]

Did Boebert's Beetlejuice date score?

 

[Countchunkula]

Did Boebert's Beetlejuice date score?

They were rounding the bases in the theatre, but it looks like the ump called them out.