• 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)

[PDGA Major] 2024 United States Women's Disc Golf Championships

Says who? It may be different for someone from North Dakota who has never seen a tree. Anyway, even if true it does not lead to the conclusion that OB somehow messes up ratings.
Separate from the fact that human binocular depth perception disappears around 18-20 ft away, people will not be able to judge how far away some scattered white wire flags are located around a pond with its front edge equal to a tree also at 200 feet. Even if they've seen where they are or taken laser measurements, the tree will still be easier for a player's unconscious throw mechanics to make judgments on where and how much energy to throw.

The issue about OB messing up ratings is that GOLF, whether ball or disc, with unthrown strokes in the scores is a different game the same as the difference between shooting stats in basketball before versus after the 3-pointer was introduced. An unthrown penalty stroke is like adding a 2-stroker to a game where, by design, every stroke shot counts just 1 whether a 500 ft drive or a drop-in. Golf scoring doesn't evaluate the goodness of any throw, just how many actual strokes/throws are made along the pathway your disc takes from tee to target.

There's nothing inherently wrong with OB and other penalties where unthrown strokes are regularly tacked on, it just needs to be defined as a different game and courses designed with penalties regularly generated on every hole in the same way 3-pointers can be scored throughout a basketball game. Most would agree that Stableford and mulligans on every hole are also different games that need separate stats calculations.

While there's some crossover in terms of skills/ratings, each of these games should have separate player ratings and only use propagators to generate those ratings whose ratings were generated from playing that specific game. Imagine if mulligan rounds where players had up to five to use were introduced at the USDGC as a legit version of disc golf back when significant OB was introduced instead. Everyone would be saying the mulligan game was not real disc golf as people understood it back then and needed to be X-tier and have its own ratings. However, more and more OB slipped into the game since then with few questioning its validity as the same game and not a separate variant like including mulligans.

When significant OB started to be introduced in the early 2000s, it was thought to just be a tougher form of disc golf because OB was allowed by the rules in DG and BG and there were no well-known design standards discouraging it. However, OB was primarily in BG rules because it was needed for shots beyond the outer boundaries of the course. It was not a specific design element within the regular play area.

You might say, "look at all the water hazards with penalty strokes in BG." However, at the PGA level, the average penalties for the tour (not just water hazards) is 1 stroke per player every 2.5 rounds or 0.4, essentially zero if rounding down. In other words, they have designed to keep that number below 0.5 so from a practical standpoint, every stroke in a player's score has been struck. It keeps their statistics uncluttered with no phantom strokes. For example, even though the famous island green hole seems intimidating, it only generates a penalty 17% of the time and that's the highest percentage on tour (and not beyond criticism as ideal).

By comparison, look at many courses on our elite tour with significant OB and they range from 2 up to 7 strokes per player on average per round with a few holes averaging over 1 penalty per player per round. BTW, I'm not saying that's too high for courses that are intentionally designed with penalties on every hole, just that design guidelines, stats and ratings should be established for this separate disc golf game. Many courses currently on tour that are penalty tweeners with penalties in the 2 to 4 penalties per player per round would ideally decide to shift their design rules to either produce less than 1 stroke per player per round (call it Traditional DG) like W.R. Jackson before "dismembering" or ramp it up to at least 5 penalties per player per round (call it Pressure DG) to get in the typical range of USDGC, Lake Eureka and DDO.
 
Last edited:
There are countless places on disc golf courses where striking a tree has the same result in score as throwing OB would. Do inferior players somehow wind up on top based on the presence of OB on a course? Are good shots not rewarded and bad shots not punished? It's the same game. OB is just another design element- not my favorite one but one just the same. Is it overused? Probably, but designing for broadcast has different goals than designing for every day play.
 
There are countless places on disc golf courses where striking a tree has the same result in score as throwing OB would. Do inferior players somehow wind up on top based on the presence of OB on a course? Are good shots not rewarded and bad shots not punished? It's the same game. OB is just another design element- not my favorite one but one just the same. Is it overused? Probably, but designing for broadcast has different goals than designing for every day play.
Design elements provide challenges. The choice to intentionally tack on a one, two or three stroke penalty when failing a design challenge is a game scoring decision. For example, the main controllable design challenge for kicking a field goal is the width of the uprights. However, changing the points awarded for a successful kick to 2 or 4 points instead of 3 is a scoring decision that would change the game and the statistics not just related to field goals but play choices and game outcomes. Several stats from the year before the scoring change would not be comparable to those stats after the change.

It's the same with tacking on penalties to golf design challenges. There's nothing wrong with doing it but it produces a different game, with different challenges and different statistics. And if the plan is to tack on penalties, consistently tack them on every design challenge throughout every course designed with the intent for penalties to be tacked on.
 
There are countless places on disc golf courses where striking a tree has the same result in score as throwing OB would. Do inferior players somehow wind up on top based on the presence of OB on a course? Are good shots not rewarded and bad shots not punished? It's the same game. OB is just another design element- not my favorite one but one just the same. Is it overused? Probably, but designing for broadcast has different goals than designing for every day play.
I don't see how additional OB would benefit a broadcast since I'm sure most viewers want to see a lot less OB. (I would like to see a poll of viewers regarding the use of artificial OB)
If you mean OB along thick rough speeds up play which creates a better broadcast, then I agree with that.
Personally, I enjoy seeing players throwing from really tough spots even though a lot of the time the camera doesn't get a good shot of the throw.
 
I don't think broadcast quality has nearly as much to do with it as spectator ticket revenue.
 
Design elements provide challenges. The choice to intentionally tack on a one, two or three stroke penalty when failing a design challenge is a game scoring decision. For example, the main controllable design challenge for kicking a field goal is the width of the uprights. However, changing the points awarded for a successful kick to 2 or 4 points instead of 3 is a scoring decision that would change the game and the statistics not just related to field goals but play choices and game outcomes. Several stats from the year before the scoring change would not be comparable to those stats after the change.

It's the same with tacking on penalties to golf design challenges. There's nothing wrong with doing it but it produces a different game, with different challenges and different statistics. And if the plan is to tack on penalties, consistently tack them on every design challenge throughout every course designed with the intent for penalties to be tacked on.
Not saying it's ideal, but the big sports' rules have evolved over the years too. There have been plenty of changes affecting field goals, but defensive holding/pass interference changes really created what you might call a different game. Changes to hand check and zone defense rules in basketball have had significant impacts too. For hockey, the size of goalie pads (not to mention the size of the athletes in goal) have changed the game. Don't get me started on baseball.
 
Not saying it's ideal, but the big sports' rules have evolved over the years too. There have been plenty of changes affecting field goals, but defensive holding/pass interference changes really created what you might call a different game. Changes to hand check and zone defense rules in basketball have had significant impacts too. For hockey, the size of goalie pads (not to mention the size of the athletes in goal) have changed the game. Don't get me started on baseball.
I agree there are many examples in other sports. It's no problem when a sport changes the rules or scoring, as long as all future games use the new rules or scoring changes. They don't continue to randomly play some games the old way and some the new way. When the NFL recently moved back the extra point distance, all extra-point kicks were moved back. Note they also moved the 2-pt attempt to only 2 yards away versus 3 yards previously. Those changes changed the game such that certain stats could not be combined from before the change with after the change.
 
It's no problem when a sport changes the rules or scoring, as long as all future games use the new rules or scoring changes.
counter point, it's a huge problem and dramatically impacts the fan's experience for good and ill.
 
I don't see how additional OB would benefit a broadcast since I'm sure most viewers want to see a lot less OB. (I would like to see a poll of viewers regarding the use of artificial OB)
If you mean OB along thick rough speeds up play which creates a better broadcast, then I agree with that.
Personally, I enjoy seeing players throwing from really tough spots even though a lot of the time the camera doesn't get a good shot of the throw.
Note that the issue is not about having boundaries beyond where an errant shot should not be played, it's simply about tacking on a stroke penalty when it happens. In golf, when a shot lands in the rough or sand trap, the player has to deal with any combination of these items on their next shot: a tougher lie, tougher stance, possible constrained swing, needs more power to get sufficient distance, or has a more difficult trajectory to judge and hit. But they don't tack on a stroke for landing there because the nature of their lie provides sufficient challenge for their next shot that their 200-player tour stats show they are successful avoiding losing a stroke only about half of the time. Our equivalent when players fail various boundary challenges would to move the new lie longer and/or to a tougher angle position with the player option to rethrow without penalty and no stroke is tacked on.
 
I agree there are many examples in other sports. It's no problem when a sport changes the rules or scoring, as long as all future games use the new rules or scoring changes. They don't continue to randomly play some games the old way and some the new way. When the NFL recently moved back the extra point distance, all extra-point kicks were moved back. Note they also moved the 2-pt attempt to only 2 yards away versus 3 yards previously. Those changes changed the game such that certain stats could not be combined from before the change with after the change.
Ok. I thought you were saying that after a significant rules change, the result was effectively a new game. Rereading the post that my reply was directed to, I still think that, up until the last sentence.
 
counter point, it's a huge problem and dramatically impacts the fan's experience for good and ill.
My comments aren't whether a change is good or bad, just that it's consistent for all future games, and stats calcs are adjusted as needed to identify a revised/new game format.
 
counter point, it's a huge problem and dramatically impacts the fan's experience for good and ill.
I tend to agree with this. Rule changes (and other factors) have made comparing players of today to players of previous eras using stats an exercise in apples and oranges. In the case of football, (necessary) rules changes to reduce injuries potential liability are remaking the game.
 
I tend to agree with this. Rule changes (and other factors) have made comparing players of today to players of previous eras using stats an exercise in apples and oranges. In the case of football, (necessary) rules changes to reduce injuries potential liability are remaking the game.
The latest example is Caitlin Clark blowing past Pistol Pete Maravich's collegiate scoring record. Yes, she objectively scored more points. But on further research (Google it), their comparison includes several stats that aren't comparable due to different game rules such as no 3-pointers in Pete's era, he wasn't allowed to play as a freshman and the game clock hadn't come into play, for example.
 
Last edited:
The latest example is Caitlin Clark blowing past Pistol Pete Maravich's collegiate scoring record. Yes, she objectively scored more points. But on further research (Google it), their comparison includes several stats that aren't comparable due to different game rules such as no 3-pointers in Pete's era, he wasn't allowed to play as a freshman and the game clock hadn't come into play, for example.

The rule changes that made Caitlin Clark's collegiate performance the stuff of legends were worth it, IMO.
 
I'd like to apologize to anyone from the USWDGC staff, volunteers and players wading through this thread for our significant topic drift regarding OB and ratings. This drift has nothing to do with the quality of Sprinkle or your event which looked and sounded great based on what we watched and feedback from those attending. Your only connection with this topic drift is your course had OB just like many other tour courses. Your event randomly triggered this discussion drift about OB in general.
 
I'd like to apologize to anyone from the USWDGC staff, volunteers and players wading through this thread for our significant topic drift regarding OB and ratings. This drift has nothing to do with the quality of Sprinkle or your event which looked and sounded great based on what we watched and feedback from those attending. Your only connection with this topic drift is your course had OB just like many other tour courses. Your event randomly triggered this discussion drift about OB in general.
Maybe we can bring it back a little.

I was looking at the USWDGC FPO scores anyway. (Checking whether the pars all matched the PDGA Guidelines - which they do.)

I got curious about something. I wondered how much of the scoring variation for a player was due to factors other than how they would be expected to play.

So, I calculated pars for every player's rating using the Par by Scoring Distribution method. This gave me the scores expected of each player with errorless play.

I then calculated the difference between actual scores and expected scores.

The average number of throws a player gained from better-than-expected play was 3.30 per round. The average number of throws a player lost from worse-than-expected play was 7.97 per round.

This nets to 4.67 per round which indicates the course offered more chances for errors than for lucky breaks - which is typical for a tough course.

Of the 7.97 Throws resulting from Bad Things, the OB penalties were 1.18 throws per round, leaving 6.77 throws resulting from Other Bad Things.
 
I don't see how additional OB would benefit a broadcast since I'm sure most viewers want to see a lot less OB. (I would like to see a poll of viewers regarding the use of artificial OB)
If you mean OB along thick rough speeds up play which creates a better broadcast, then I agree with that.
Personally, I enjoy seeing players throwing from really tough spots even though a lot of the time the camera doesn't get a good shot of the throw.
That is exactly what i mean. Speed of play is very important to the live broadcasts. I agree with you on personally enjoying watching players scramble. Some of the most entertaining disc golf of the past few years was watching Dickerson execute crazy scrambles at Idlewild going down the stretch.
 
Would this, by itself, be enough?
I'm actually a fan of getting the choice of stroke and distance or rethrow without penalty when it comes to OB (unless otherwise specified by the TD). I can either move my disc forward to the last known spot in bounds, count the throw, add the penalty stroke, and now be throwing 3 (if my tee shot was what went out of bounds for instance), OR getting the choice to simply rethrow from the original spot WITHOUT an additional penalty stroke but still counting the previous throw (so throwing 2 this time from the tee again) because you are sacrificing distance. The Hole 17 at the European Open second shot is an example, but it is not a standard option across the board at other events. Whether or not giving the player the choice of taking the distance plus penalty, verses rethrowing with no penalty could evoke strategy and decision making, or it could be a complete disaster. lol But in a vacuum I like the idea in theory, while giving the flexibility to course designers/TD's to eliminate one of those options based on the design/demand of the hole.
 
Would this, by itself, be enough?
It would help crystalize the separate "pressure" version of the game where a 1-stroke penalty is added for failing challenges created by the designer (in addition to loss of distance and sometimes position) by limiting the damage for failing those challenges to potentially just 1 stroke if the player chooses the rethrow and successfully executes it.

And sometimes the scoring in this pressure version of the game would look like traditional golf (where almost every throw counts 1 stroke in a round) in the case where a player always chose the rethrow option instead of a penalty. However, the reality from a game scoring and statistics standpoint, is there would always be the equivalent of a non-throwing stroke in the scoring when players fail challenges created by the designer whether they sometimes take the stroke penalty directly or must count 1-stroke for the poor throw and have not yet advanced because they chose the rethrow.
 

Latest posts

Top