USDGC Updates

[DiscFifty]

but what can we do? if you make a Par 3 that players CAN reach, or a Par 4 that CAN be reach in two. . the best player will reach it most of the time. . and then they hit +90% of all C1 putts. . so scores WILL be low.

Adjusting par is really just for the fans, it won't affect round ratings or who wins.

 

[Steve West]

Absolutely. But par is arbitrary and we definitely use it differently than golf does.

Actually, we use the TERM "par" the same; in both sports it is the score expected with expert play. Granted, we aren't as good at setting par according to the definition. Yet. Many tournaments are starting to get it right.

Even if par is set analogous to ball golf (score expected of an expert), we will see a few far-under scores, for two reasons. One, we just prefer to offer more (legit) birdie opportunities to more players. Two, the difference between the "expert" player and the very best players is bigger than it is in golf.

Paul's first 18 under would have been 15 under if par had been set according to the disc golf definition. His second would have been 12 under. Still incredible, but it would not indicate a problem with par. It would indicate how well Paul actually played those days.

but what can we do? if you make a Par 3 that players CAN reach, or a Par 4 that CAN be reach in two. . the best player will reach it most of the time. . and then they hit +90% of all C1 putts. . so scores WILL be low.
If you make a Par 3 that the best players can´t reach. . that would be boring to.
As long as the players hit every putt scores will be low

If players can hit every putt, then par should be based on the score the experts expect to get with one putt.

If *course* par is set for a 1000 rated player, then Winthrop is doing pretty well with its par 67. Round 1 a 67 was 1003 rated; round 2 a 67 was 997 rated (unofficially).

Pretty well? Yes. Good enough? Well...

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Par is based on errorless play of an expert. If we take that expert to be the 1000-rated player, then par would be the score that a 1000-rated player would get with no errors. But, 1000-rated players do make some errors. On a course that severely punishes errors, the 1000-rated player would average a few throws over par. Therefore, an even-par round should be rated higher than 1000. Up to about 1030. That would imply par on this course maybe should be five parlecules lower.

 

[teemkey]

...
Par is based on errorless play of an expert. If we take that expert to be the 1000-rated player, then par would be the score that a 1000-rated player would get with no errors. But, 1000-rated players do make some errors. On a course that severely punishes errors, the 1000-rated player would average a few throws over par. Therefore, an even-par round should be rated higher than 1000. Up to about 1030. That would imply par on this course maybe should be five parlecules lower.

A while back (2 years?) in your par thread IIRC, you said your quest for setting the correct par started with the thought that the course (or sections of the course -- 3-4 holes groupings) would be the right sized unit of analysis; however the PDGA definition of par is only for a single hole, so you went with hole-by hole analysis.

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, as determined by the Director.

There are a number of posters that find the PDGA definition wanting because of the nebulous meaning of "expert" and "errorless" so in my post I specifically said "If *course* par is set for a 1000 rated player" to qualify why I thought Winthrop pars were well set. KISS.

 

[lyleoross]

Actually, we use the TERM "par" the same; in both sports it is the score expected with expert play. Granted, we aren't as good at setting par according to the definition. Yet. Many tournaments are starting to get it right.

Even if par is set analogous to ball golf (score expected of an expert), we will see a few far-under scores, for two reasons. One, we just prefer to offer more (legit) birdie opportunities to more players. Two, the difference between the "expert" player and the very best players is bigger than it is in golf.

Paul's first 18 under would have been 15 under if par had been set according to the disc golf definition. His second would have been 12 under. Still incredible, but it would not indicate a problem with par. It would indicate how well Paul actually played those days.



If players can hit every putt, then par should be based on the score the experts expect to get with one putt.


Pretty well? Yes. Good enough? Well...

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Par is based on errorless play of an expert. If we take that expert to be the 1000-rated player, then par would be the score that a 1000-rated player would get with no errors. But, 1000-rated players do make some errors. On a course that severely punishes errors, the 1000-rated player would average a few throws over par. Therefore, an even-par round should be rated higher than 1000. Up to about 1030. That would imply par on this course maybe should be five parlecules lower.

And all that really matters....

"Yet. Many tournaments are starting to get it right."


I don't spend as much time on the internet as I used to. That's because the internet loves to belittle. Compromise doesn't exist. That isn't directed at you Steve, I've always been impressed at your ability to act professionally.

DGCR doesn't represent disc golf. It's a tiny microcosm of the sport. I'm not even sure it is an accurate reflection of the online disc golf community.

Many tournaments are starting to get it right because they are a reflection of what pros want, not because of what gets discussed here.

 

[Ryan P.]

Anybody care to leave the par discussion to the threads dedicated for it?

 

[lyleoross]

Anybody care to leave the par discussion to the threads dedicated for it?

My apologies, and yes please.

I have to admit, I'm rooting for Klein. But there are a lot of Dickerson fans who would really love to see him take this.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Dickerson's definitely put himself in the cat bird seat, and he's demonstrated an ability to finish strong.

Unfortunately, the weather looks like it's gonna play a role. Assuming it gets played to completion, conditions could make it very tough for Eagle, and perhaps Klein, to gain strokes. Could come down to how well each player handles the elements, mentally and and in terms of execution.

 

[lyleoross]

Dickerson's definitely put himself in the cat bird seat, and he's demonstrated an ability to finish strong.

Unfortunately, the weather looks like it's gonna play a role. Assuming it gets played to completion, conditions could make it very tough for Eagle, and perhaps Klein, to gain strokes. Could come down to how well each player handles the elements, mentally and and in terms of execution.

Dickerson looked unstoppable. And like you, I'm am curious to see what the weather is gonna do. Eagle did himself in. Not as bad as poor Barella, but bad enough. Klein has the nerves of an 18 year old. Death, what death?

 

[Pevio]

In Round 3 in MPO, there were 21 strokes between the best score and the worse score (55 to 76). Anthony Barela shot 21 strokes worse Round 2 than he did Round 1 (54 to 75).

 

[Jolt]

Paul had a good run in R3. . then hole 13 and 14 came. . but same for Eagle, two holes just messed up his round

 

[pmay5]

Getting back to the commentary ...

Nate is doing a great job! For those of you not watching, they are using him as kind of the studio analyst, I know, everyone is in a "studio", but Nate is not doing the play-by-play, he's watching, updating on hot scores, doing some post round interviews and chiming in occasionally. His insights on the course and experience (along with Philo's) are great to have.

Such as this gem: "#14 Green is diabolical, putting an elevated basket on a sloping green. Because, on putts that miss, they have longer to fall to the ground, increasing chances they will come down on an edge and roll away." :clap: :clap:

 

[lyleoross]

Getting back to the commentary ...

Nate is doing a great job! For those of you not watching, they are using him as kind of the studio analyst, I know, everyone is in a "studio", but Nate is not doing the play-by-play, he's watching, updating on hot scores, doing some post round interviews and chiming in occasionally. His insights on the course and experience (along with Philo's) are great to have.

Such as this gem: "#14 Green is diabolical, putting an elevated basket on a sloping green. Because, on putts that miss, they have longer to fall to the ground, increasing chances they will come down on an edge and roll away." :clap: :clap:

I'm a huge Nate fan, player and commentator. I would really love it if his family time allowed him to do more commentary. But he is a good parent and prioritizes his daughter.

 

[lyleoross]

No rain... And it looks like if it comes it will be later.

 

[Ryan P.]

Dickerson's definitely put himself in the cat bird seat, and he's demonstrated an ability to finish strong.

Unfortunately, the weather looks like it's gonna play a role. Assuming it gets played to completion, conditions could make it very tough for Eagle, and perhaps Klein, to gain strokes. Could come down to how well each player handles the elements, mentally and and in terms of execution.

I think the weather makes it more likely that someone can catch him. More variables = more variation.

That said, Dickerson has a ton of experience playing in the rain.

 

[lyleoross]

Does anyone know if Korver still plays? Her thinking about angles and elevation is really tight. So either she has a great long-term memory from her playing time or she is still playing and thinking.

 

[lyleoross]

I think the weather makes it more likely that someone can catch him. More variables = more variation.

That said, Dickerson has a ton of experience playing in the rain.

Does it rain a lot where he resides or have you just seen him in a lot of rain settings? Curious. Managing rain is a skill!

 

[Ryan P.]

Does it rain a lot where he resides or have you just seen him in a lot of rain settings? Curious. Managing rain is a skill!

I've seen him play once in the rain, and it was in the woods too. He was very deliberate in his approach. Drying his discs frequently, being methodical, etc. That's kind of his M.O. to begin with, but it remained the same in the rain. I can't find the vid right now.

He also plays in a ton of tournament in the Southeast, especially the Appalachian's, where the rain will just sit on the mountains for a weekend. I'm inferring a little bit from that, but my guess is that he has played tourneys where it rains during multiple rounds, so he's learned how to make the adjustments in rain. That's an educated guess (emphasis on the guess). He also just plays a ton of tournaments period, so he definitely has more experience playing in the rain than most people.

I'm not saying he's any better in the rain than the guys chasing him, but if I had to take one guy to play a solid round in the rain, it'd be him.

 

[Three Putt]

Does anyone know if Korver still plays? Her thinking about angles and elevation is really tight. So either she has a great long-term memory from her playing time or she is still playing and thinking.

I think the whole "she quit playing" storyline is a bit of a myth. It's been 15 years since she played regularly in competitive events, went to World's, etc. Since then she shows up in event results once or twice a year most years. A lot of times it is for the disc golf portion of the WFDF events. This year she played in the Memorial; she won Pro Masters by 11 strokes.

Obviously she stopped playing competitive disc golf as a touring pro, but she shows up in sanctioned events just often enough that you have to assume she still plays. A lot of the time when I hear her name mentioned, it's a story where you hit 2006 and she becomes a ghost. She's played in an awful lot of sanctioned events recently for a ghost.

 

[Monocacy]

Does it rain a lot where he resides or have you just seen him in a lot of rain settings? Curious. Managing rain is a skill!

Limestone, TN averages 43 inches of rain per year.

 

[McCready]

Getting back to the commentary ...

Nate is doing a great job! For those of you not watching, they are using him as kind of the studio analyst, I know, everyone is in a "studio", but Nate is not doing the play-by-play, he's watching, updating on hot scores, doing some post round interviews and chiming in occasionally. His insights on the course and experience (along with Philo's) are great to have.

Such as this gem: "#14 Green is diabolical, putting an elevated basket on a sloping green. Because, on putts that miss, they have longer to fall to the ground, increasing chances they will come down on an edge and roll away." :clap: :clap:

He's been a highlight for sure. I enjoy his insight as a recent champion, and he's intelligent with a dry, witty delivery. Natural talent for broadcasting.

Philo and Ian are doing a fine job. My one critique would be for Philo to spare us the Schwarzenegger impression. On Thursday it gave me a chuckle, yesterday it was more than enough.