What is the best way to make courses challenging for the DGPT?

[BogeyNoMore]

No I think courses need to be highly improved as well. I also think it would be easier to design fairer lines if landing inside C1 more often wasn't such a liability to the design and birdiefest that ensues.

Your posts and logic need improvement more than the game does.

PM me your addy and I'll send you a big pack of red Twizzlers.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Your posts and logic need improvement more than the game does.

PM me your addy and I'll send you a big pack of red Twizzlers.

Are you going to post something worthwhile or are your 13K posts nothing but garbage? Strange way to spend your time.

 

[DanJon]

Nope, I did 66 feet on in.

What a great, thoughtful response to someone absolutely shutting you down with actual reasoning.

 

[txmxer]

Are you going to post something worthwhile or are your 13K posts nothing but garbage? Strange way to spend your time.

You don't like red twizzlers?

 

[Hampstead]

 

[oldmandiscer]

What a great, thoughtful response to someone absolutely shutting you down with actual reasoning.

He lied. I did 66 feet on in as the putting stat, Not 33.

If I did 33 it would have been way worse then 1.19 PPH.

You have no clue what you read or what is even being talked about.

 

[DavidSauls]

What a great, thoughtful response to someone absolutely shutting you down with actual reasoning.

This surprises you?

 

[davetherocketguy]

He lied.

Liar calling someone else a liar. That's rich.

 

[DavidSauls]

A reminder that bad math isn't always 2+2=5.

It can also mean choosing the wrong numbers to describe something, or comparing percentages created with different denominators, or averaging a non-homogenous range of numbers.

 

[Nick Pacific]

No I think courses need to be highly improved as well. I also think it would be easier to design fairer lines if landing inside C1 more often wasn't such a liability to the design and birdiefest that ensues.

You could have wider fairways with larger gaps and less random trees on the fairway because you weren't trying to wall off C1 like it's some castle that cannot defend itself.

 

[oldmandiscer]

You could have wider fairways with larger gaps and less random trees on the fairway because you weren't trying to wall off C1 like it's some castle that cannot defend itself.

Exactly it's not rocket science. Imagine how great it would be to watch great fair yet challenging courses and still have drama inside of 33 feet too.

Right now I see Ricky at 33 feet and think, well he can't miss that putt. It's more of a shock when he does versus thinking when he does make it he did something well.

 

[ru4por]

Exactly it's not rocket science. Imagine how great it would be to watch great fair yet challenging courses and still have drama inside of 33 feet too.

Right now I see Ricky at 33 feet and think, well he can't miss that putt. It's more of a shock when he does versus thinking when he does make it he did something well.

Well.......here's your problem.

 

[DavidSauls]

Help a lazy man out.....what's Wysocki's percentage from 33', in tournaments?

Not C1X, with a mix of various distances in an unknown ratio, but actual percentage from 33'?

 

[ru4por]

Help a lazy man out.....what's Wysocki's percentage from 33', in tournaments?

Not C1X, with a mix of various distances in an unknown ratio, but actual percentage from 33'?

I imagine it is "pretty high". I don't think he misses "many". "All" the "pros" "regularly" hit from "around there", I think.

 

[johnrhouck]

I've posted this before. Hoping someday it'll sink in for some people.

It IS extremely hard, but it is still possible to make good, fair holes where players hit C1 less than 20% of the time and hit C2 less than 60% of the time. Here are two examples from the 2020 Mid-America Open at Harmony Bends, with pins in the Gold position.

#11 is a par four: https://udisclive.com/live/midamerica2020/2/11?t=courseStats&d=MPO

And #14 is a par three: https://udisclive.com/live/midamerica2020/2/14?t=courseStats&d=MPO

Now, to be fair, the field was not all Gold-level players, and the conditions weren't perfect, but you get the idea. And hole like this could be toughened up a bit as needed to make sure that only the most exemplary play gets a C1 putt. And where getting to 50' or 60' requires great shots. This kind of design is one potential way to make putting more interesting and to reduce round scores.

 

[DavidSauls]

That would be my hope -- more or less -- a lot of upshots (drives on par 3s) landing 25-50' out, so a higher proportion of shots where putting skills matter (on current targets).

Is missing C2 40% of the time desirable? Seems like that would produce a lot of layups or very-low-percentage runs.

It'd be great for a serious discussion, but I'm not sure this thread is up to it.

 

[araytx]

What we really need is a radically re-designed target.

I'm thinking of a hoop, like a croquet wicket but taller, that a disc can only pass through vertically. Then people will have to roll discs through it, instead of flying them, giving us 2 distinct styles of projecting discs, the way golf does. This will encourage designers to smooth out those rough greens.

It goes without saying that it will also eliminate targets up on poles, and unless designers and TDs are really sadistic, targets on mounds as well. Everyone will surely cheer.

I'm sure as time goes by, putters will be re-designed for better balance and easier rolling. But that may not go far enough, and sooner or later some non-designer, non-TD geniuses will solve that problem, too -- make the disc spherical, so it rolls more consistently.

At which point we'll be rolling balls on smooth, nearly-level greens, and have achieved the perfection we've all been longing for.

I actually agree with this part.

Like Lake Stevens DGC??

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Help a lazy man out.....what's Wysocki's percentage from 33', in tournaments?

Not C1X, with a mix of various distances in an unknown ratio, but actual percentage from 33'?

I dunno if there's much data collected for DGPT player that breaks down putts by distance much more than C1 or C2. There might be one more category for tap ins.


...but I doubt there's sufficient data to break down C1 putting percentages at 5-10 ft, vs 25+ ft, or similar range dependant analysis.

 

[DavidSauls]

There's more design freedom if you give up on being omnidirectional. You could use a big fish net, with its pole stuck in the ground. If the net is deep enough there'd be no kickbacks or slice-throughs.

Other thoughts.

Those old cone targets I've seen might work, too, particularly with deeper trays. And reward softer touches.

Somebody could invent a pole with electronics and a light, signaling a hit, for a modern object course.

Yeah, somebody could probably come up with a target of some sort that (1) catches or counts what it should (2) doesn't catch what it shouldn't, and (3) reduces the putting percentages to whatever we want it to be.

Though if it means giving up the satisfaction of hitting chains, I'm not sure if it's worth it.

 

[DavidSauls]

I dunno if there's much data collected for DGPT player that breaks down putts by distance much more than C1 or C2. There might be one more category for tap ins.


...but I doubt there's sufficient data to break down C1 putting percentages at 5-10 ft, vs 25+ ft, or similar range dependant analysis.

Well, if someone's going to claim that they make them all the time, some data would be nice.

Were we to seriously consider changing the targets to reduce putting percentages from different distances, it seems we'd like to know what were the percentages that we were starting with.

A formula that treats 11' and 32' the same, isn't exactly it.