Appropriate use of Drop Zones

[Cgkdisc]

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.

Nothing silly about it. This site has spent hundreds of hours on how to set par using competition stats. I'm saying a more natural and direct way to establish that value is basing it off the minimum number of throws players of a distance/skill level reasonably need to complete the hole. Call that a birdie and par is 1 higher. No fancy math or tournament results required.

 

[Steve West]

Nothing silly about it. This site has spent hundreds of hours on how to set par using competition stats. I'm saying a more natural and direct way to establish that value is basing it off the minimum number of throws players of a distance/skill level reasonably need to complete the hole. Call that a birdie and par is 1 higher. No fancy math or tournament results required.

a more natural and direct way to establish that value is basing it off the expected number of throws players of a distance/skill level reasonably need to complete the hole. Call that a par and birdie is 1 less. No fancy math or tournament results required.

I don't know why that shows up as a quote, but FTFY. You could go even further to flesh out "reasonably needed" thusly: Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I'm saying a more natural and direct way to establish that value is basing it off the minimum number of throws players of a distance/skill level reasonably need to complete the hole. Call that a birdie and par is 1 higher. No fancy math or tournament results required.

Well, that's a complete change of subject but I'm glad you aren't still trying to say a birdie is a "score." Face saved, I suppose. Of course, you could also just figure out the highest number of strokes for which it is impossible for anyone to hole out with a C1 putt, and add 1 to get birdie and 2 to get par. Or, you could just make a birdie "2." Or reinvent the wheel any number of ways whether or not it's already been tried before. Have fun. I look forward to going to one of your courses and seeing the birdie listed on the signs.

 

[denny ritner]

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.

Par provides a shorthand approximation of what is good or bad. Par does not tell the whole story. Players win NOTHING for competing against par. Players win for beating the other players on the course.

One of my favorites is when a player donks a 20 footer on the par 3 that averages 3.3 and the announcers say, "well, no harm, they still got .3 strokes on the field." WRONG, they LIST one stroke to all their competitors. Par has NOTHING to do with "scoring".

 

[denny ritner]

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)

When disc golf courses play more like archery than golf, it's due to bad design.

One example: the dog-leg hole with tee shot to a tiny landing zone at the elbow.

 

[Cgkdisc]

When disc golf courses play more like archery than golf, it's due to bad design.

One example: the dog-leg hole with tee shot to a tiny landing zone at the elbow.

Disagree. Every throw off the tee for players in a division who have the distance on a par 3 should have a reasonable chance to reach, even hit the target (it's actually called a target not a hole) or a reasonable chance to land in the intentionally designed landing area or areas on a legit par 4 for players of that distance division. The designer does not have to make it easy to do so but reasonably possible. That's truly the essence of design. Otherwise, it's just planting tees and target placements with no objective plan. Objective guidelines provide the designers' foundation, especially for a course intended for competition. The fun is in the many creative ways to execute the stated objective goals with the terrain, equipment and rules available.

 

[denny ritner]

Disagree. Every throw off the tee for players in a division who have the distance on a par 3 should have a reasonable chance to reach, even hit the target (it's actually called a target not a hole) or a reasonable chance to land in the intentionally designed landing area or areas on a legit par 4 for players of that distance division. The designer does not have to make it easy to do so but reasonably possible. That's truly the essence of design. Otherwise, it's just planting tees and target placements with no objective plan. Objective guidelines provide the designers' foundation, especially for a course intended for competition. The fun is in the many creative ways to execute the stated objective goals with the terrain, equipment and rules available.

The tiny landing zone elbow misses the boat on risk/reward design. It's black and white instead of subtle shades of grey.

Also, I totally disagree that everyone should be able to hit the target in regulation. This idea is what keeps us stuck with putting this "too easy".