2012 PDGA Worlds - Charlotte, NC - July 14-21

[ChingLizard]

Originally Posted by derek

Yes I'm in the minority with Avery and a few other players because there is a huge misconception out there with newer players and lower rated players. Most of these heavily wooded courses, while difficult, are not high level or 'gold' courses. They are highly out of balance with fluky lines and more luck than skill. These types of courses favor intermediate and beginners because they can benefit more from luck than pros can.

Heh-heh-heh... I think someone was just called an "Am" by Derek.

[derek]

Originally Posted by ChingLizard

Heh-heh-heh... I think someone was just called an "Am" by Derek.

Nah, I am not calling anyone anything. I am not even a real pro myself, but I think I have an understanding of the many levels of design concepts.

There is room in the world for heavily wooded courses and they are fine. I think there is just a misunderstanding about how they are classified and they certainly should not be Worlds courses.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by derek

Yes I'm in the minority with Avery and a few other players because there is a huge misconception out there with newer players and lower rated players. Most of these heavily wooded courses, while difficult, are not high level or 'gold' courses. They are highly out of balance with fluky lines and more luck than skill. These types of courses favor intermediate and beginners because they can benefit more from luck than pros can.

There's also a huge misconception from Texas players about what disc golf is outside their state. Some other states have trees, lots of trees, and they use them on their courses. Players that learn to play on those courses develop the skills to accurately hit lines, as opposed to just being able to throw 450'.

I didn't play Nevin, but from talking to those who did that course might have some unrealistic lines. The six courses I played in Charlotte were for the most part fair. Yeah, there were a few holes (e.g. Winget #7, Angry Beaver #8) that I would say could be more luck than skill. But over the course of six or seven rounds the players that threw the lines were the ones coming out on top, not some lucky beginners.

Originally Posted by derek

intermediate and beginners because they can benefit more from luck than pros can.

I'm curious how you rationalize that.

[ChingLizard]

Originally Posted by ERicJ

I'm curious how you rationalize that.

Higher skilled players don't need luck. They are highly skilled without it and luck can usually only worsen their scores. Ams/less skilled players tend to benefit more from luck as their scores tend to only be able to move in the direction of improvement...otherwise they'd be considered higher-skilled. Does anyone really notice if an unskilled player does 2-3 throws worse than usual because of unlucky kicks off from trees? Take those 2-3 throws away from a skilled player, and it drops them significantly in their standings. 2-3 throws at the bottom of the skill list doesn't affect a player too much, but 2-3 throws from players near the top of the skill list makes a big difference.

[derek]

Originally Posted by ERicJ

There's also a huge misconception from Texas players about what disc golf is outside their state. Some other states have trees, lots of trees, and they use them on their courses. Players that learn to play on those courses develop the skills to accurately hit lines, as opposed to just being able to throw 450'.

I didn't play Nevin, but from talking to those who did that course might have some unrealistic lines. The six courses I played in Charlotte were for the most part fair. Yeah, there were a few holes (e.g. Winget #7, Angry Beaver #8) that I would say could be more luck than skill. But over the course of six or seven rounds the players that threw the lines were the ones coming out on top, not some lucky beginners.


I'm curious how you rationalize that.

I've played just about as many courses out of state as I've played in Texas.

Distance is just as much of a skill as accuracy. On the best courses, both are required. I don't know why distance gets such a bad rap. Distance is useless without accuracy, but you can have accuracy without much distance, and that's where I think we get these misconceptions about good and bad design.

Pros ultimately do come out on top some of the time because they can make save shots and get out of situations where poor design has punished good drives.

Circle C and Golden Gate Park come to mind as good examples of some wooded golf with realistic lines and fairways.

[derek]

Originally Posted by ChingLizard

Higher skilled players don't need luck. They are highly skilled without it and luck can usually only worsen their scores. Ams/less skilled players tend to benefit more from luck as their scores tend to only be able to move in the direction of improvement...otherwise they'd be considered higher-skilled. Does anyone really notice if an unskilled player does 2-3 throws worse than usual because of unlucky kicks off from trees? Take those 2-3 throws away from a skilled player, and it drops them significantly in their standings. 2-3 throws at the bottom of the skill list doesn't affect a player too much, but 2-3 throws from players near the top of the skill list makes a big difference.

Well said.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by derek

Distance is just as much of a skill as accuracy. On the best courses, both are required. I don't know why distance gets such a bad rap. Distance is useless without accuracy, but you can have accuracy without much distance, and that's where I think we get these misconceptions about good and bad design.

I think you answered your own question there.

Any reasonably intelligent competitive player will take being able to throw 250' consistently accurately over being able to throw 400' with little accuracy.

Accuracy is fundamental to success. Distance is nice to have.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by ChingLizard

Higher skilled players don't need luck. They are highly skilled without it and luck can usually only worsen their scores. Ams/less skilled players tend to benefit more from luck as their scores tend to only be able to move in the direction of improvement...otherwise they'd be considered higher-skilled.

Disagree with the part in red. Ask some Ams and I think you'll find they have their share [or their perception] of bad luck that seems to worsen their scores more often than it betters them.

Originally Posted by ChingLizard

Does anyone really notice if an unskilled player does 2-3 throws worse than usual because of unlucky kicks off from trees?

I bet those unskilled players do.

Originally Posted by ChingLizard

Take those 2-3 throws away from a skilled player, and it drops them significantly in their standings. 2-3 throws at the bottom of the skill list doesn't affect a player too much, but 2-3 throws from players near the top of the skill list makes a big difference.

You seem to be making the assumption that lesser skilled players will have the same amount of bad luck as higher skilled players, i.e., 2-3 bad luck strokes each. I don't think that's what happens in reality. Lesser skilled players are going to hit more trees and thus have more opportunities for bad luck to effect them.

So for the same layout that causes higher skilled players to average 2-3 strokes of bad luck, the lesser skilled players are likely going to be averaging 6-10 strokes worse. And then, yes, people do notice that.

[derek]

Originally Posted by ERicJ

I think you answered your own question there.

Any reasonably intelligent competitive player will take being able to throw 250' consistently accurately over being able to throw 400' with little accuracy.

Accuracy is fundamental to success. Distance is nice to have.

Let me rephrase that; Distance is not as useful without some accuracy, but distance is just as important of a skill as accuracy. You were co-designer of the Links, one of the best examples of a high level course, so you get this concept.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by derek

Let me rephrase that; Distance is not as useful without some accuracy, but distance is just as important of a skill as accuracy. You were co-designer of the Links, one of the best examples of a high level course, so you get this concept.

Guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I see accuracy as a more important skill to have than distance.