The direction of Disc Golf

[DavidSauls]

I know you are insinuating that this is somehow about me and my "bad" luck. This is about the overall game, even more so I am purely referencing courses on the DGPT and how the best players in the world are playing luckfest courses or more specifically certain holes.

That wasn't my intent, at all.

I'm insinuating that the raised baskets and artificial OB and tight fairways don't produce a "luckfest".

Luck is actually measurable. Luck would result in bad players scoring just as well as good players, like rolling dice. If the better players are scoring better, then it's not luck, not skill. (Smarter people than I, can calculate the degree of luck on a particular hole).

I keep seeing the same handful of players on the leaderboards at these courses. Your allegation of "luck" isn't reflected in the actual results.

 

[oldmandiscer]

That wasn't my intent, at all.

I'm insinuating that the raised baskets and artificial OB and tight fairways don't produce a "luckfest".

Luck is actually measurable. Luck would result in bad players scoring just as well as good players, like rolling dice. If the better players are scoring better, then it's not luck, not skill. (Smarter people than I, can calculate the degree of luck on a particular hole).

I keep seeing the same handful of players on the leaderboards at these courses. Your allegation of "luck" isn't reflected in the actual results.

Not overall 3-4 rounds no it will balance out usually to a fairly high degree. But it doesn't mean that many holes within a course are not highly based on luck. If two players who are both 1040 rated play very similar to their rating and it did come down to one getting a few lucky breaks then yes a tourney could be won or lost because of it. The point in to make courses fair and challenging so luck comes into play as little as possible.

If one player lands one inch on the side of the rope and one the other, then again a high degree of luck came into play. Artificial OB is not equitable most of the time to how a throw was performed. Like in my description. One player 1 inch in bounds, one player not.

So sure over several rounds most of these lucky breaks can balance out and usually do, but they also may not and when we are talking winning or losing by a shot here or there luck will and does play a roll into who wins in the end.

So the goal should be to try and eliminate much of these lucky/unlucky design features. Roll aways, artificial OB, etc. Make fair and challenging courses should be the goal and if the target was smaller that would be easier to do in my opinion. In the open and in the woods. Both areas improve with a smaller basket.

 

[DavidSauls]

Trees are extremely arbitrary. 1" can make a huge difference. Miss a tree by 1", and your drive goes 300' further. If your drive is 1" over, it nicks the tree and kicks God knows where, sometimes costing you a stroke. Another 1", and you get smacked down, maybe landing directly behind the tree, maybe too close for a stance or follow-through, and maybe fine. It's all luck. Let's get the trees off the course.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Trees are extremely arbitrary. 1" can make a huge difference. Miss a tree by 1", and your drive goes 300' further. If your drive is 1" over, it nicks the tree and kicks God knows where, sometimes costing you a stroke. Another 1", and you get smacked down, maybe landing directly behind the tree, maybe too close for a stance or follow-through, and maybe fine. It's all luck. Let's get the trees off the course.

Would you say the trees were arbortrary?

 

[DavidSauls]

Hit a baseball well, sometimes you line into an out. Hit a baseball poorly, sometimes it dribbles in for a single.

Other sports are full of odds. A well-played action has greater odds of success. A poorly-played action has greater odds of penalty. So you play the best odds, a lot.

In disc golf, if you throw your drive near the OB line, you risk the greater odds of being OB. If you throw well away from OB, you don't. It's a test of skill -- and a mental test.

*

There's a reason that tricky pin placements, fairways with defined landing areas, and other design features proliferate. Disc golfers want them. They like the mental game of risk/reward, of playing the odds and trying to beat them. They like it playing, they like it watching.

Your argument comes down to what you stated before, in so many words: that disc golfers shouldn't get what they like, they should get what you like.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Did I say 10 foot testers? No you need to focus rather then just tapping it in with a bag on. lol

Yeah, having to focus or else face a miss is what I'd call a tester. It's where you make about half of them. For most people that's about 20'-25' or so now. It's fine the way it is, obviously.

Picture a basket that will catch some but not all 10-footers that involve concentration and good execution. Now picture that same basket with all the 30-footers we encounter in Disc Golf.

Putting would look dorky. Everybody would be missing all the time from normal putting distances. We might as well have people putting with minis at those mini baskets designed to catch them. It's about the same success rate you're looking for from specific distances, right? Now hardly anybody is nailing a 50-footer to save par from a scramble. Good drives leaving 30-footers would almost always be two-putt pars. The game would be awful.

Think about the vast majority of active players, those rated in the high 800's who bring their money to events and to stores where Discs are stocked. No matter what they do, they're missing most outside of 25 feet.

Putting is fun now. I look forward to my 30-footers because I have a decent chance to make them if I concentrate and execute. It turns out to be about half the time. The chains ringing are euphoric and deliver endorphins and it keeps us coming back.

I'm totally okay with the elite making most of their putts from where I make half of them. They're good. They're supposed to make them. Why ruin the sport so Eagle McMahon will miss one extra putt from circle's edge?

There are some videos of the Kalamazoo putting league from last winter on YouTube by Crew 42. Andrew Marwede comes to some of them. I counted once. He made 80% from 30'. He's one of the best in the world. I made 61% the one night I was hot. It's a fun distance for me and I'm an ordinary player.

I can't imagine our game where I'm making a quarter of 30-footers. How dreadful.

Like all of us have said, this is a free country. If your idea is so revolutionary, it should catch on. Design that basket and build a movement. If the PDGA isn't on board then form a new association. Come back in a decade and gloat about it. Go for it, man! Put your money where your mouth is. I'll give credit where credit is due if this gains traction and becomes the new norm. Do it.

 

[Steve West]

So you like wide open birdie or die rec courses and walls of trees in the woods "fair" ways? ...

Actually, yes, I do.

Even if I didn't, I would not want to eliminate those extremes. So we can have all the courses in between, not just one standard course.

As for luck, the most interesting human activities are at the edge of chaos. When giving out only a few little numbers as scores, you can't avoid luck. I've never seen any course where it was possible to narrow down which player got any particular score on a hole to within less than about 80% of the field.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Trees are extremely arbitrary. 1" can make a huge difference. Miss a tree by 1", and your drive goes 300' further. If your drive is 1" over, it nicks the tree and kicks God knows where, sometimes costing you a stroke. Another 1", and you get smacked down, maybe landing directly behind the tree, maybe too close for a stance or follow-through, and maybe fine. It's all luck. Let's get the trees off the course.

Trees in the middle of the "fairway" yes. I'm watching coverage of some of these courses the last couple months and wondering where is the actual fairway? Then I watch the best players in the world from the lead card all hit trees.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Actually, yes, I do.

Even if I didn't, I would not want to eliminate those extremes. So we can have all the courses in between, not just one standard course.

As for luck, the most interesting human activities are at the edge of chaos. When giving out only a few little numbers as scores, you can't avoid luck. I've never seen any course where it was possible to narrow down which player got any particular score on a hole to within less than about 80% of the field.

I'd prefer to see the player who played the best win and the goal should be to eliminate as much luckiness so skill can prevail.

I would prefer to see wide open rec courses have some challenge and the hardest courses play much fairer, it would be the best of both worlds.

 

[Streets]

Then I watch the best players in the world from the lead card all hit trees.

They should have thrown better shots.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Yeah, having to focus or else face a miss is what I'd call a tester. It's where you make about half of them. For most people that's about 20'-25' or so now. It's fine the way it is, obviously.

Picture a basket that will catch some but not all 10-footers that involve concentration and good execution. Now picture that same basket with all the 30-footers we encounter in Disc Golf.

Putting would look dorky. Everybody would be missing all the time from normal putting distances. We might as well have people putting with minis at those mini baskets designed to catch them. It's about the same success rate you're looking for from specific distances, right? Now hardly anybody is nailing a 50-footer to save par from a scramble. Good drives leaving 30-footers would almost always be two-putt pars. The game would be awful.

Think about the vast majority of active players, those rated in the high 800's who bring their money to events and to stores where Discs are stocked. No matter what they do, they're missing most outside of 25 feet.

Putting is fun now. I look forward to my 30-footers because I have a decent chance to make them if I concentrate and execute. It turns out to be about half the time. The chains ringing are euphoric and deliver endorphins and it keeps us coming back.

I'm totally okay with the elite making most of their putts from where I make half of them. They're good. They're supposed to make them. Why ruin the sport so Eagle McMahon will miss one extra putt from circle's edge?

There are some videos of the Kalamazoo putting league from last winter on YouTube by Crew 42. Andrew Marwede comes to some of them. I counted once. He made 80% from 30'. He's one of the best in the world. I made 61% the one night I was hot. It's a fun distance for me and I'm an ordinary player.

I can't imagine our game where I'm making a quarter of 30-footers. How dreadful.

Like all of us have said, this is a free country. If your idea is so revolutionary, it should catch on. Design that basket and build a movement. If the PDGA isn't on board then form a new association. Come back in a decade and gloat about it. Go for it, man! Put your money where your mouth is. I'll give credit where credit is due if this gains traction and becomes the new norm. Do it.

You're still going to be 97-98% from 10-12 feet, but you probably don't want to leave your bag on. So the tap in will take some focus rather then nearly none.

The smaller basket does not drop your percentages in half. It would take Eagle McMahon from 88% C1X to maybe 80%. So no it's not drastic, just marginally more difficult. Bad putts that go in now wouldn't. You know when you hit high and wide and got lucky, you shouldn't have made that putt. I know I have had more then enough (probably thousands) that shouldn't have caught.

So say Eagle misses 1-2 C1 putts per round now he's missing 2-4. The guy who misses 3 now misses 6. Not drastic but then again a big enough spread so that the rest of the game could be made fairer or "easier" or less lucky.

 

[wolfhaley]

Better shots are gimmicky.

 

[oldmandiscer]

They should have thrown better shots.

It's not possible.

 

[Streets]

It's not possible.

Says you lol

 

[oldmandiscer]

Says you lol

Says the best players in the world and the statistics. If the chance to birdie is 1-2% from 1000+ rated golfers then I would say it's mostly luck at that point. Sure you need to throw a great shot but then you need to hope you get lucky.

 

[Streets]

Says the best players in the world and the statistics. If the chance to birdie is 1-2% from 1000+ rated golfers then I would say it's mostly luck at that point. Sure you need to throw a great shot but then you need to hope you get lucky.

Sauce plz

 

[Steve West]

...Sure you need to throw a great shot but then you need to hope you get lucky.

Both of those are what make a sport a sport.

Sure, an important part of a sport is to let better players have a better chance of winning. Or, better throws to have a better chance of resulting in a better score. But, it should not be absolutely true that better throws always result in better scores, or that better players always win.

The origin of the phrase "That's why they play the game." is because a game allows for the possibility that someone other than the best will win. Take that away and you take away the very reason to play.

If you want to take luck out of disc golf, you want it to not be disc golf anymore - you want it to not even be a game anymore.

 

[hiflyer]

58 seconds in.



I'm Paul McBeth.

^^ Slander ^^

They should have thrown better shots.

It's not possible.

So you believe the pros are infallible and it's impossible for them to improve at all: They are incapable of learning? You are the most ignorant of ignoramuses.
What's not possible is for you to get it through your Neanderthal skull that your opinion is nothing more than that. You can't produce facts, only speculation and made up statistics.

 

[oldmandiscer]

^^ Slander ^^






So you believe the pros are infallible and it's impossible for them to improve at all: They are incapable of learning? You are the most ignorant of ignoramuses.
What's not possible is for you to get it through your Neanderthal skull that your opinion is nothing more than that. You can't produce facts, only speculation and made up statistics.

What are you smoking? :\

 

[oldmandiscer]

Both of those are what make a sport a sport.

Sure, an important part of a sport is to let better players have a better chance of winning. Or, better throws to have a better chance of resulting in a better score. But, it should not be absolutely true that better throws always result in better scores, or that better players always win.

The origin of the phrase "That's why they play the game." is because a game allows for the possibility that someone other than the best will win. Take that away and you take away the very reason to play.

If you want to take luck out of disc golf, you want it to not be disc golf anymore - you want it to not even be a game anymore.

I didn't say best player would win, I said the player who played the best should win.

With luckfest courses and TD designs luck is a much greater factor.

Would a smaller designed basket help McBeth? Absolutely I think so. Because now courses are going to be fairer and not as much based on lucky rolls or OB strokes.

If I was playing McBeth and I was 1030 rated I would want him to face as much bad luck as possible. Give me a wall of trees with 3 foot gaps on every hole. Give me baskets next to artificial OB. Give me miles of rope to screw up his score. Now it may not work still but bringing skill out of the game would be in my favor.