A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Rules Discussion and General PDGA discussion.

Moderators: Timko, Solty, Frank Delicious, Blake_T, Fritz, Booter

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Fritz » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:53 am

Chuck Kennedy wrote:
Now you could argue you could still have shorter par 4's & 5's, but Im not sure that spectators would get the same wowfactor from the shorter shots, as when the topgolfers really crank it.

We have few spectators. Frankly, I'd be more impressed with an accurate, long shot flat footed than with a runup. I guarantee that when you see a pro like Schwebby, who has thrown a 300-ft thumber from his knees, execute a shot with no runup, there's more of a Wow! factor there.


Whoa! How does he still have an arm left? I would have loved to have seen that.
FRITZ
Team Millennium
Play Smart. Keep it Simple. Throw MILLENNIUM.
#26702 ♦ CE Omega ♦ Omega SS ♦ QMS ♦ Q Sentinel ♦ CE JLS ♦ Q Polaris ♦ Q Astra ♦ QOLS ♦ QOLF ♦ Q Quasar ♦ CE Exp-1
Fritz
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Fruita, CO
Favorite Disc: QMS

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby black udder » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:00 am

Chuck Kennedy wrote:
Now you could argue you could still have shorter par 4's & 5's, but Im not sure that spectators would get the same wowfactor from the shorter shots, as when the topgolfers really crank it.

We have few spectators. Frankly, I'd be more impressed with an accurate, long shot flat footed than with a runup. I guarantee that when you see a pro like Schwebby, who has thrown a 300-ft thumber from his knees, execute a shot with no runup, there's more of a Wow! factor there.


Couple things... I agree that it spectators can be impressed without a long throw (for what we in the sport consider long). Average folks have seen me throw putters 200' and been impressed. However, isn't it the pro scene that's driving for the legitimate par 4 and par 5 courses? While I guess they could all be technical high pars, I thought that distance was a predominant factor? Or is that just the easiest thing to do for course designers?

I ask because it has to be easier to create a difficult course with shorter holes than longer ones just because of the space required, right? Less space required = greater possibility for a course.

Just curious...
black udder
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Richmond, VA
Favorite Disc: The one in my hand

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Fritz » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:06 am

black udder wrote:
Chuck Kennedy wrote:
Now you could argue you could still have shorter par 4's & 5's, but Im not sure that spectators would get the same wowfactor from the shorter shots, as when the topgolfers really crank it.

We have few spectators. Frankly, I'd be more impressed with an accurate, long shot flat footed than with a runup. I guarantee that when you see a pro like Schwebby, who has thrown a 300-ft thumber from his knees, execute a shot with no runup, there's more of a Wow! factor there.


Couple things... I agree that it spectators can be impressed without a long throw (for what we in the sport consider long). Average folks have seen me throw putters 200' and been impressed. However, isn't it the pro scene that's driving for the legitimate par 4 and par 5 courses? While I guess they could all be technical high pars, I thought that distance was a predominant factor? Or is that just the easiest thing to do for course designers?

I ask because it has to be easier to create a difficult course with shorter holes than longer ones just because of the space required, right? Less space required = greater possibility for a course.

Just curious...


I know that Feldberg, Cale and Valarie loved the Par 4's we had for States. I think we had 4 holes over 800 and 1 over 900 classified as a par 4. And they kicked their butts :twisted:
I would love to see legitimate Par 4/5's on courses. I think it would add so much to the sport, then just everything being par 3.
FRITZ
Team Millennium
Play Smart. Keep it Simple. Throw MILLENNIUM.
#26702 ♦ CE Omega ♦ Omega SS ♦ QMS ♦ Q Sentinel ♦ CE JLS ♦ Q Polaris ♦ Q Astra ♦ QOLS ♦ QOLF ♦ Q Quasar ♦ CE Exp-1
Fritz
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Fruita, CO
Favorite Disc: QMS

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Dig It » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:08 pm

Fritz wrote:
I know that Feldberg, Cale and Valarie loved the Par 4's we had for States. I think we had 4 holes over 800 and 1 over 900 classified as a par 4. And they kicked their butts :twisted:
I would love to see legitimate Par 4/5's on courses. I think it would add so much to the sport, then just everything being par 3.



You make me miss Paco.
Darmok and Gilad at Tanagra. Shaka, when the walls fell.
Dig It
1000 Rated Poster
User avatar
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:13 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Favorite Disc: circleStamPooPlate

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby garublador » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:20 pm

Chuck Kennedy wrote:No. But the point is that we essentially don't differentiate between what a player may do when throwing from the tee versus a throw from the fairway whereas the tee is the difference in ball golf.
If we were talking about whether or not we could bring portable teepads with us for fairway shots I'd agree, but because we aren't I think the analogy is bad. There is no analog in ball golf, so we have to make our own rules.
garublador
Disc Whore
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:37 am
Location: Urbandale, IA

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Chuck Kennedy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:20 pm

However, isn't it the pro scene that's driving for the legitimate par 4 and par 5 courses? While I guess they could all be technical high pars, I thought that distance was a predominant factor? Or is that just the easiest thing to do for course designers?

I don't think the pro scene is driving more par 4 and 5s, just the incentive to create more challenges for everyone in the same way ball golf has par 4s and 5s. Distance is usually necessary to do that unless you have enough trees to create forced doglegs. Unfortunately, we still don't get enough property for most new disc golf courses to truly design more than a handful of par 4s.

I ask because it has to be easier to create a difficult course with shorter holes than longer ones just because of the space required, right? Less space required = greater possibility for a course.

You'll be hearing more about the new option for PDGA competition starting in 2009 called Super Class. This will turn many holes on existing courses into par 4s and 5s making the game more like ball golf. The feature article about it I believe will be in FDM Issue 4 due to go out any day now.
Chuck Kennedy
1000 Rated Poster
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby marmoset » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:23 pm

For those of us who do not get FDM can you explain the Super Class theory?
Golf is a lot of walking, broken up by disappointment and bad arithmetic. ~Author Unknown
marmoset
King of Calipers
User avatar
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 10:23 am
Location: 24073

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Chuck Kennedy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:33 pm

It's not a simple post. Whether FDM comes out soon or not, I'll post the full text and tables on the PDGA Home page within a week or so. I just don't want to mess with PDGA HQ while they're getting the new site set up. It's not a theory but a new subset of discs that will be sanctioned for competition in 2009 with a separate set of player and course ratings.
Chuck Kennedy
1000 Rated Poster
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Fritz » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:44 pm

Oh man, I can hear the complaining and crying from future already...
better purchase the earmuffs.
FRITZ
Team Millennium
Play Smart. Keep it Simple. Throw MILLENNIUM.
#26702 ♦ CE Omega ♦ Omega SS ♦ QMS ♦ Q Sentinel ♦ CE JLS ♦ Q Polaris ♦ Q Astra ♦ QOLS ♦ QOLF ♦ Q Quasar ♦ CE Exp-1
Fritz
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Fruita, CO
Favorite Disc: QMS

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Chuck Kennedy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:47 pm

I think CO could be a hotbed for Super Class and Mikey could be the odds on favorite to win the World title.
Chuck Kennedy
1000 Rated Poster
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Fritz » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:25 pm

Chuck Kennedy wrote:I think CO could be a hotbed for Super Class and Mikey could be the odds on favorite to win the World title.


Can't wait to see it. I always like to see the new things and new ideas.
FRITZ
Team Millennium
Play Smart. Keep it Simple. Throw MILLENNIUM.
#26702 ♦ CE Omega ♦ Omega SS ♦ QMS ♦ Q Sentinel ♦ CE JLS ♦ Q Polaris ♦ Q Astra ♦ QOLS ♦ QOLF ♦ Q Quasar ♦ CE Exp-1
Fritz
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Fruita, CO
Favorite Disc: QMS

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby MIdiscgolfer » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:50 pm

Chuck Kennedy wrote:
My opinion is that this goes against the spirit of the game.

Sort of how you can't tee up your ball on the fairway in ball golf? Is that totally against the spirit of that game?

I'm not using that as justification for a stand & deliver rule, just pointing out that our sister game does have different rules for the fairway versus the tee.


Bad analogy chuck. People have always taken run ups as needed and it has only been since the rules were codified that there is any indication that there is a problem with this. If people had always been teeing up golf balls and then, because of the way a rule was worded it made it illegal to do so, I would say yes it's against the spirit of the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me the purpose of defining a correct stance the way it was has more to do with close to the basket and around obstacles and was never intended to prevent reasonable run ups in the fairway.
(And even if I am wrong I still think the analogy was bad :wink: )
"Wise men don't need advice and fools never take it." ....................... Mark Twain
MIdiscgolfer
Tree Magnet
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: Mid Michigan
Favorite Disc: Wasp/Buzzz/Comet

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Chuck Kennedy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:36 pm

Bad analogy chuck.

If the analogy is that something is different between what a player does from the tee versus what they do from the fairway, then it's spot on. Not only do ball golfers not use tees on the fairway, they also are not able to realistically use drivers. Granted, we don't have too many longer par 4s and 5s in this sport yet. But there's little different in what a player can do between an open fairway shot versus a tee shot, especially on courses with no cement tees. In fact, some courses, a fairway shot will have better footing than the tee!

Stand and deliver may not be the best option to differentiate betwen tee shots and fairway shots. Some people thought that was a good thing in addition to making it easier to call foot faults which appears to be a more improtant problem to solve. Or, just get rid of the rule if it's not called. Just let players throw from anywhere they want. Seeing that this is ridiculous makes the point that we need to make players actually throw from where they are supposed to, at least in competitive play. Because the alternative makes no sense and the sport devolves to even less than a game.
Chuck Kennedy
1000 Rated Poster
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby black udder » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:51 pm

Chuck Kennedy wrote:
I'm with you most of the time, Chuck, but you also don't use a running start with ball golf either, do you?

No. But the point is that we essentially don't differentiate between what a player may do when throwing from the tee versus a throw from the fairway whereas the tee is the difference in ball golf. Not saying we need to emulate BG by any means, but some have suggested that requiring stand & deliver for fairway throws would be our equivalent to the more restrictive 'not teeing up' that BG uses. In addition, we don't do a very good job calling foot faults so a "stand & deliver" rule might also reduce that problem.

Some don't think a player has an advantage if they foot fault by a few inches on an open fairway throw. However, it's the fact that it takes some attention to make sure you hit the mark within 12 inches behind the marker that matters, not the few inches in the length of your throw if you miss it. Imagine if a baseball hitter was required to look down at his shoes briefly once the pitcher released the throw before he was allowed to swing. I suspect that quick shift of concentration would drop batting averages if it were required. If you don't have to worry about hitting the mark on a runup, it's one less thing that might go wrong on your throw.


I agree with the rule that you need to be behind your marker. What I disagree with is the thought that a rule could be created because players either wouldn't enforce faults or players refuse to abide by the rule.

Play-wise, the number of players that use an x-step vs those that don't is huge and the distance that some gain by using an x-step is also considerable.

I will say that when I use an x-step off the tee, I am focusing on landing right behind my mini, so it does require focus. I accept that as part of the game, a required skill and the mark of an experienced player that is able to take advantage of using their x-step off the tee and still not gain a penalty.
black udder
Naturally Athletic
User avatar
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Richmond, VA
Favorite Disc: The one in my hand

Re: A PDGA Rule Question About A Second Shot

Postby Chuck Kennedy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:11 pm

I agree with the rule that you need to be behind your marker. What I disagree with is the thought that a rule could be created because players either wouldn't enforce faults or players refuse to abide by the rule.

So what is your solution?
Chuck Kennedy
1000 Rated Poster
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Twin Cities

PreviousNext

Return to Rules Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests