United States Disc Golf Championship 2022

[Neil_Rankin]

After last year's coverage disaster it looks like the additional pay-per-view fee has been dropped. Good. I've still not seen the playoff hole.

 

[frasnow]

After last year's coverage disaster it looks like the additional pay-per-view fee has been dropped. Good. I've still not seen the playoff hole.

Don't worry, they raised the price of DGN at the beginning of the season to makeup for it. Looks like their plan to fool people worked.

 

[biscoe]

Harold, great to here your insights here.

I know you didn't ask , but here is a change I think would really enhance Winthrop Arena - since the "island" on #17 seems pretty consistent from year to year, why not make it a true island?

Dig a trench to outline the island, let it fill with water from the pond, then either pile that dirt up (or add bushes) on the green side (replacing the hay bales). I know the barrier of clearing the hay bales adds a lot of stress, and excitement, but how stressful would it be to see your drive hit that mound and roll back into the trench (it would only need to be a few feet wide)? A bridge could be added near #18 tee.

That would really increase the asthetics of the hole and make it a year round obstacle! :thmbup:

I would imagine Winthrop U. and quite possibly the Corps of Engineers would have some things to say about that.

 

[Neil_Rankin]

Don't worry, they raised the price of DGN at the beginning of the season to makeup for it. Looks like their plan to fool people worked.

Hey wait a second. . . .:doh:

 

[txmxer]

Quite a conundrum.

"The course sucks."
"The production sucks."
"The commentary sucks."
"It costs money to watch."
"I didn't get to watch last year's event for free."

 

[Steve West]

I'll just toss out a little prediction from my model: 50% of the tee throws will result in penalties on Hole 11.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Yeah, for all the complaints and even my own personal quibbles with some of the weird design elements.... it is Monday October 3rd and I am extremely excited that it is USDGC week.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I try to be "curious" instead of being "in control." Curiosity allows me to let go.

This is something I've only recently arrived at. I've found it to be spot on. I've been very aware for years now that I can't actively try to control the putt, that does nothing but distract. Exactly as txmxer says - trying to control the putt makes it feel like this:

But ultimately, what I'm struggling with is the sand castle. The feel/mechanics are off when I'm on the course. It's like what feels so natural in practice and at times on the course is just lost to me.

Much like you use the term "curious" - when I step up to a putt I'm trying to put myself into the mindset of "I wonder what this is going to do..." and then I try to simply move the center-of-mass through the line I envision. The feel is gained in the pre-shot, but I'm trying to release all focus on that before I throw and just focusing on getting my hand into the correct point in the reach back and then letting what-happens-happen.

've tried slowing down in practice and setting a routine and I've tried to go the Isaac Robinson route.

A note on this - I don't think, given you can take your putt within the requisite time limit, that it matters. Faster isn't better. Slower isn't better. And you shouldn't restrict yourself to being a fast or slow player. You should go when you're ready to go. Find the feel of the disc (in my case, as noted above, the feel of center-of-mass), and once you feel right toss it through your line. Find that for you. It might even be that you're neither fast nor slow and it varies.

 

[ru4por]

Quite a conundrum.

"The course sucks."
"The production sucks."
"The commentary sucks."
"It costs money to watch."
"I didn't get to watch last year's event for free."

While I cannot speak for the quorum you are paraphrasing above, I don't think "sour grapes" is accurate.

I don't have any need to watch any disc golf. I am not angry, irritated or dissatisfied. I find joy in far different aspects of the sport, starting with playing. I DO have a great interest in seeing the sport grow, advance and become a more popular recreational activity. I am not greatly concerned with the poor choice of the course, sub par production and I personally do not listen to much commentary. I continue to see charging as a problem. Paywalling pro disc golf ensures that the audience is disc golfers only. No outside, mildly interested, first time viewer is going to pay. Aren't those the very eyeballs you would want on one of our games most prestigious events? Disc golf is now and will be for the foreseeable future a volunteer driven, amateur played and hopefully, attractive family activity. I don't see where paywalling a few dozen players, who really don't represent the vast demographic of our game, is making headway on the sport's growth.

I have tried to clearly delineate my point on this before. Some agree, some don't. That is ok. I apologize for derailing the thread and belaboring my point.....but, the snark made it seem necessary.

 

[acrosley]

I know I could just look this all up but I'd rather just ask here

1) Can you subscribe for just one month of DGN and how much would that be?
2) Will the final round be live on YouTube?
3) will there be post produced on DGN?

I may just splurge for one month if I can get post produced. Figure I could check out the movies as well to make it worth it.

 

[seedlings]

I'll just toss out a little prediction from my model: 50% of the tee throws will result in penalties on Hole 11.

Would you say the 50% hole 11 penalties will be due to inability by the thrower (rewarding the more skilled players) OR blind luck (rewarding random throwers)?

 

[biscoe]

I'll just toss out a little prediction from my model: 50% of the tee throws will result in penalties on Hole 11.

I will take the under on that one.

 

[Harold Duvall]

I'm loath to bet against Steve Andrew designed the landing areas to be ample (even in the wind), and they seemed to play that way in testing. And yet the hole design puts a far greater premium on "too far" and "end-of-flight" compared with most par-4 holes. The results may meet or even exceed 50% penalties, and yet it seems like each player choice and result will be different than a mere coin flip. I am interested to see if the field can adapt throwing behavior to the situation.

 

[Ryan P.]

Yeah it all boils down to testing a player's skill to me. A green where a poor approach leads to an uncomfortable/ unconventional putt is great. A green where a poor approach leads to a pitch out is not.

If you designed a fairway where large(ly unavoidable) sections of the fairway are so blocked off that a pitch out is the only real play to make, we generally see this as bad design. For some reason we don't apply this logic to greens as much.

Good points. I think the logic applies to greens, but not as strictly. I'd hate to have a wall of trees on a green that won't allow a disc through and requires me to throw sideways to have a putt on the subsequent shot. I don't think that's the situation on hole 13. It seems that, as Harold said, the hole allows for a putt from most anywhere. I was suggesting with my "take your medicine" comment that a long putt from the side looks to encourage throwing a faster shot, which means longer comeback putts if it misses. Some players will see this option, and probably "take their medicine" by doing a soft bid at it instead of throwing a low screamer. What I'm saying is, I think I get your point, and I agree, but here's why because I'm not 100% sure.

I don't have a problem with objects (trees, OB, hazards etc.) making putts difficult inside the circles so that you have to avoid a certain part of the green to have a good line to the basket. But I don't think there should be any obstacle inside the bulls eye. If you park the hole, inside the bulls eye, I believe you should have an easy tap-in.

I don't think these trees will cause any pro trouble from 11' and in. Every pro should be able to straddle for an 11' putt. However, if you can prove me wrong a week from now by comparing the bullseye putting stats for holes 13 & 15 vs. all the others, I'm all ears.

 

[biscoe]

I'm loath to bet against Steve Andrew designed the landing areas to be ample (even in the wind), and they seemed to play that way in testing. And yet the hole design puts a far greater premium on "too far" and "end-of-flight" compared with most par-4 holes. The results may meet or even exceed 50% penalties, and yet it seems like each player choice and result will be different than a mere coin flip. I am interested to see if the field can adapt throwing behavior to the situation.

Do you think there is a threshold where the percentage of players penalized off the tee is too high? I guess having a lot of the stuff be hazard lessens the concern a bit and allows it to be more like a wooded course where a lot of players can't hit a gap but 50% seems high to me.

 

[txmxer]

While I cannot speak for the quorum you are paraphrasing above, I don't think "sour grapes" is accurate.

I don't have any need to watch any disc golf. I am not angry, irritated or dissatisfied. I find joy in far different aspects of the sport, starting with playing. I DO have a great interest in seeing the sport grow, advance and become a more popular recreational activity. I am not greatly concerned with the poor choice of the course, sub par production and I personally do not listen to much commentary. I continue to see charging as a problem. Paywalling pro disc golf ensures that the audience is disc golfers only. No outside, mildly interested, first time viewer is going to pay. Aren't those the very eyeballs you would want on one of our games most prestigious events? Disc golf is now and will be for the foreseeable future a volunteer driven, amateur played and hopefully, attractive family activity. I don't see where paywalling a few dozen players, who really don't represent the vast demographic of our game, is making headway on the sport's growth.

I have tried to clearly delineate my point on this before. Some agree, some don't. That is ok. I apologize for derailing the thread and belaboring my point.....but, the snark made it seem necessary.

You've been clear about your perspective and my post isn't directed at you or how you approach DG entertainment.

With regard to cost and limiting who will see the event to those already following it, those are business decisions. Maybe right maybe wrong and I think that is what you are questioning. OTOH, there are those who want to have access to the production but don't want to pay for it and their complaint seems to be focused on that. They want it to be free to them. And when that "free" production isn't perfect then we hear complaints about that as well.

As far as what happened this year with DGN and the post production teams, IMO they may have made the move too early and too far. I think the growth of DG as entertainment was largely due to the post production efforts people could watch for "free" on YouTube and the 2022 changes severely limited that growth opportunity.

But that's business and we will see how it works out.

 

[Ryan P.]

I'll just toss out a little prediction from my model: 50% of the tee throws will result in penalties on Hole 11.

I'm loath to bet against Steve Andrew designed the landing areas to be ample (even in the wind), and they seemed to play that way in testing. And yet the hole design puts a far greater premium on "too far" and "end-of-flight" compared with most par-4 holes. The results may meet or even exceed 50% penalties, and yet it seems like each player choice and result will be different than a mere coin flip. I am interested to see if the field can adapt throwing behavior to the situation.

Do you think there is a threshold where the percentage of players penalized off the tee is too high? I guess having a lot of the stuff be hazard lessens the concern a bit and allows it to be more like a wooded course where a lot of players can't hit a gap but 50% seems high to me.

According to this video: at 3:03 the hazards have longer grass. Seems like the longer grass will probably prevent some shots from getting out of the hazard. Idk how this factors into design thoughts, but I'd love to hear it from the more seasoned designers.

 

[biscoe]

Seems like the longer grass will probably prevent some shots from getting out of the hazard. Idk how this factors into design thoughts, but I'd love to hear it from the more seasoned designers.

In theory I tend to like the higher grass in the hazards as it will allow for less ground action which will produce fewer random outcomes. I also like the aesthetic juxtaposition of tightly mowed fairway with shaggier hazards/rough. In practice we will have to wait and see.

 

[Ryan P.]

My thoughts on the changes, where applicable:
2: I like the tee shot. I think this is a much better version of what they've done on 9: there are distinct gaps, and you have to hit one. The gap right of the big oak (about 50'-60' off the tee) seems better to me, as throwing a lot shot on hyzer will allow a disc to skip if it is too low, vs. throwing it flat and too low will likely bite the grass.

3: that's a long tee shot to get far enough left, on hyzer, and past the hazard (500'ish). I know the top guys can do it, but this looks like it'll be one of the hardest holes to birdie.

5: I like the move closer to the water. The old location allowed for a safe layup and a long putt. Now that safe layup results in a much riskier putt.

8 & 9: I like the removal of the mozz sticks.

11: Now that I've seen it, I think the landing zones are large enough. They aren't much different than last years. I don't like the green's size, but that's almost certainly due to the nightmares I have about rolling away on that green, which seems to happen almost every time I play the course.

12: seems like the hazard in the middle of the fairway is to make players decide off the tee instead of delaying the decision about whether to go for the green until they see what happens on the drive. I think I like it.

13: I love the unique tee shot, and I think the difficulty of the shot is fair because the landing zone is so large. I don't like the huge bushy tree nor the extreme rough on the left. And I think I really like the green now that I've seen all of it. seems difficult but mostly fair.

18: I do not care for the mandatory on the tree stump (although there needs to be a mando in that general location for safety). It's too hard to make a judgment call on the course without a distinct line that separates making the mando or not. Will a pole be put into the tree stump?

Anyway, thanks for reading my thoughts. Please disagree where applicable.

 

[ToddL]

18: I do not care for the mandatory on the tree stump (although there needs to be a mando in that general location for safety). It's too hard to make a judgment call on the course without a distinct line that separates making the mando or not. Will a pole be put into the tree stump?

Hole 18 last year. Mando pole mounted in stump with flag on top: