I admit it, I suck at Disc Golf

[JHern]

Blake T,

You may have just started a billion word argument with Chuck Kennedy...

Maybe so, but Chuck won't actually stick his neck out and tell us how good his numbers are, and give error bars for every player rating he publishes (using, say, a 95% confidence interval). I object to throwing out numbers without also giving a reasonable margin of error estimate. I also object to ratings being used for anything other than to prevent bagging in Am divisions. Any relative measure between players (e.g., touring pros and the like) can be done head-to-head, and should. For example, Nate Doss beat Nikko Locastro heads-up in 2011, yet Nikko had the higher rating boost because of the way it averages over time, and this was unfortunately used as a criteria for 2011 player of the year...unless PDGA fixes this mess, nobody will take these awards seriously, which is not good for anyone (for the recipient OR the granting organization).

...The rest of us won't understand any of it but we can cheer from the sidelines. Bring in Bruce Brakel and it may expand by a few billion words or so...

Trust me, this isn't rocket science, and you CAN understand it. Don't let Chuck, or anybody else, snow you with fancy lingo, to the point where everyone just gives up and let's them run amok.

[Blake_T]

JHern: yeah, there is definitely some variance. I was mandatory advanced for one rating update but didn't play a tournament. the next year there was a rule change.

A long time ago (the first 2 years of ratings) i remember wondering why certain areas seemed to be "heavy" with high rated players while other areas were "light." after a while, i realized the average course difficulty in said area can skew the ratings in one way or another.

Around 2004 I developed a calculation for how to predict the winning score for a course in the pro division (this requires at least one player rated ~1000 in attendance).

This year i've been working with an am2 player that plays LOTS of tournaments and I was able to predict the winning am2 score over 2 rounds within 1 stroke in 5 straight tournaments. I then developed a calculation that fairly accurately predicts that as well.

when you compare the average winning scores of MPO vs. AM2 it explains both what I wrote before about raising your rating if you are rated under 930 and why certain areas have more higher rated pros.

A few quick definitions:

MPO Birdie Opportunity* = a hole that can be birdied with a nearly perfect 450' drive and a 50' putt.
Trouble Hole = a hole that has leaves a strong chance for bogey if you throw an errant tee shot (thick schule, OB, etc.).
AM2 Birdie Opportunity** = a hole that can be birdied with a nearly perfect 380' drive and a 30' putt.

To predict the single round score average that will win MPO:
Winning MPO average round score = MPO Birdie Ops x 0.7 - Trouble Hole x 0.25
multiply this by the number of rounds to get the total score prediction.

Note: in nearly every tournament someone in MPO will shoot a single round score better than the predicted winning score, but the overall winning score will usually be within 0-3 strokes of the total score predicted by the formula.

For an example: http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=MN&c=kaposia
(this is not the current kaposia layout, but will work for the calculation)

MPO birdie ops: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (10 and 17 play longer than measured) = 16 MPOBO
Trouble Holes: 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 = 12 TH
Predicted average round score to win pro: -8.2 (-16.4 for 2 rounds, - 24.6 for 3 rounds, etc.)

For Am2, the calculation differs a bit.
Winning average score = AM2 birdie ops * 0.5 - Trouble holes * 0.5

AM2 Birdie ops: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (short only), 6 (short only), 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 = 14 short, 12 long

Winning average score for AM2 = -1 in the shorts, E in the longs.

Average difference in score for winning pro vs. AM2 = 7.2 to 8.2 strokes. (14.4 to 16.4 strokes across 2 rounds).

the trouble hole % is really what kills lower rated players more on harder courses.

If you take a course of similar length to the sample but reduce it to 4 trouble holes instead of 12 and you get:
MPO predicted winning round score: -10.2
AM2 predicted winning round score: -5 in the shorts, -4 in the longs.
Average stroke difference between MPO and AM2: 5.2 to 6.2 strokes per round.

increasing course length and the number of trouble holes will really drag the AM2 scores down but the pro scores will only decrease by a little bit.

at the same time, this calculation breaks down if you played a course with all 18 holes under 400' and no trouble holes. This predicts that pros will need to average a -12.6 per round to win, which is very realistic. It predicts that Am2 will need to average a -9 to win... which is unrealistic. On a course like this there will probably be an Am2 that shoots a -9 in each round, but the winning score will probably be more like a -6 average per round since i don't think most Am2's are consistent enough to throw consecutive -9's, even on an easy course.

* for larger events, such as NT's and majors, increase the drive length to 480'. to retrofit pre-wraith tournaments use 450' for majors and 430' for standard tourneys.
** the 380' marker has been adjusted for technology. to retrofit these to pre-wraith tournaments use a 350' drive as the Am2 birdie op range.

[JR]

Mark i aimed my post to Dag who is a Swede because the cultural background of his country can easily have influenced his thought and behavior processes in a way that hurts his score. He explained how it happens i was giving him pointers about the possible reasons that aren't all automatically his choices. I'm glad as long as Dag understands it and benefits from it.

The obvious answer to one questions is that the Norwegian roots for Norwegians or whomever he likes or the opponent of his fave dissed player or does not give a toss. And tosses himself. I hope that the Norwegians root for me having had something to do with some of them DG wise I played with a Norwegian GM the last time i played dubs in a mixed country team. I warmed up and trained with three Norwegians at the Dutch Open 2011. I've filmed Norwegians some of which has been for their training benefit and some of it has been published.

I played dubs in the Dutch Open 2010 course with a masters player and i had a totally frozen putt at the time. We used most or all of my drives IIRC. On a normal day in singles i would have made most or each of the putts the other guy made. I may have made on putt but probably not even that. The course was long for much of the field but short enough for me to usually gain 3s with my drives and mostly my approaches. I'm sure had i played singles with my drives and approaches i wouldn't have lost anything because i was playing those parts well for my then worse ability than now. The score we posted was rated 999 the next day in competition in i think 2C cooler weather. With normal putting from then (again a little better now) i think that playing the same and making brain farts i should have made not too far from that 999 or maybe even that. I am not that good. Back then even less.

The top players didn't usually reach many holes at all per round with fewer shots than me if they weren't longer than i could make and they'd reach the basket with their first shot. There were some but not many courses where i lost to the top players. There were many holes where i got comfy 3s if my putting weren't blocked and much of the field had to risk on the first shot and still had to have a decent approach which meant that i fell in between top players and above much of the field. The course was like tailor made for me with hazards. Top players sometimes got in trouble ripping hard trying to reach a hole in one where i took a placement shot because i knew i can't throw that far. And much of the field needed 3 shots for a short putt where i needed 2.

DO 2011 dubs was with a guy driving 200' on a long course so barring tight short few dog legs in the beginning and my trying to save a stroke vs a placement shot the drives were mostly mine. I don't think each were mine but most. My partner was helpful with approaches and putts but i made some birdies alone and my partner commented on that. We didn't place high but our score was only two or max 3 better my score alone would have been playing with normal style. This was a different course and there were tighter and more dangerous places. My score alone wouldn't have placed me last. Again i had a distance advantage over a fair share of the field.

I'm no getting into numbers game because that ain't fun.

I'm saying that on courses where there are open or manageable ripper holes and you hold enough of a distance advantage over much of the field but do not lose many strokes to driving D and consistency vs the top guys you should score much better ratings than your actual skill overall is. Playing to your advantages helps always. If you are a world class putter you should play so short and easy courses that you have many possibly over 14 birdie chances so that you'll make most of them. Even on easy course all top pros won't make 18 birdies so you may lose 4-5 strokes to the best round of the tourney and maybe not at all on most top pros on average. Of course this means that you need to be able to drive fairly well or have a stupid easy course. Even pros avoid pitch and putts so finding top pros playing those probably won't happen. If you are rated 800 and have a 1000 rated player or few on a pitch and putt course where you can reach each hole and putt great you might easily gain 150 points more. How do you pull off finding such an unlikely situation? Some may pull it off. Most won't ever. But finding a 950 rated player on an easy course shouldn't be too hard. They are much more common. 100 points better unless you live in the land of everyone parking everything or putting world class.

Lessons shopping tourneys playing to your advantage disarming big boys helps. Having good distance can help and even more so it is consistent. You could do with less than pushing hard distance if it is consistent if you hold an edge to others. Some areas where DG is new may help. That seemed to help me in Central Europe. Putting world class helps everywhere. What you can do to increase the amount and types of competitions and relatively beatable crowds is to at least polish one part of your gave so good that it gives a concrete often repeated advantage. So you must know which courses give you advantages with hopefully little risk for you and a lot more for others. In an ideal case both better and worse players get disadvantages over you. If there is such a distance look for courses with majority of holes that long and shaped with the level of danger that disarms others better or worse.

Real world situation: I heard analysis from others that vesakai here won in his division in Tali Open this year because in the tight spots (plenty of those on that course) his ability to throw short for others straight accurate shots every time beat twice as far driving guys who had trouble with avoiding trees.

You might need tight or open short or long, dangerous or forgiving courses and any mixture of that to gain an advantage to worse or better players or shorter or farther driving players or differently putting players. Going through every combination may reveal the easiest course type for you that is the hardest for others. Combining the ideal type of course with the ideal length may allow you to pick a course, learn it and compete in it.

If you are serious about inflating your score you should be prepared to go far in search of the ideal course and train hard on it and competing in it once you see who plays there. Of course you gotta know the strengths and weaknesses of the other players. Such detailed info is not always to come by so shopping may prove useless because when you gather all of that data you might have moved so far up the ladder in skills that rule on your own

Or you could ask club mates, experienced players etc. about other players. If you find a fave opponent list that plays to your strong sides somewhere look for them registering there and don't hesitate to participate.

Anyone still awake? Hee hee. The true point is this: Gaining an advantage doesn't come easy because then everyone would do that and you had many play against you negating you playing against some others. Sure gain intel and skills and experience of courses that suite you and you're well on your way. This all seems not sportsmanlike and mercenary so how about spend as much or more effort on getting better yourself? Go out and train.

[JHern]

...Around 2004 I developed a calculation for how to predict the winning score...

Hey Blake, this formula sounds like a reasonable thing to try, and I agree that something like it should work roughly for most courses. Probably the greatest difficulty is in deciding which holes fall into which category. Also, a course with a lot of easy birdies (e.g., 200'-250' shots), or a lot of tough pars (e.g., 420'+ doglegs) can throw off the calculation, or you might need more categories (easy vs tough birdies, etc.). But you could probably calibrate this for every course.

Another thought is that it could be tougher to predict the very best scores, since they are way out on the curve and therefore representing fewer players and subject to more variance. Even better would be to predict the average and the dispersion, which I guess also would yield an estimate of the best score for a group of a given size.

I hate that TDs often throw away scorecards after a tournament is finished, there is very valuable data in there, especially for the home club. It would be easier to download and analyze all the data if the scorecards were electronic, for example, something like a USB key that plugs into a standard electronic device and records the scores in a standard format. If PDGA switched to this kind of scoring system, perhaps starting with NTs and majors, then it would be easy to harvest and process the data in useful and interesting ways.

[Blake_T]

Jhern:

it's actually really quite accurate since I'm not trying to predict the field's average score, just the winning one. inevitably someone will get hot and shoot a single round score that is better than this calculation. however, those capable of shooting that super hot score generally are very consistent and have a very high peak ability level.

it's funny when these composite out for both MPO and AM2 because in reality, the winner generally shoots 1 round that is VERY hot and 1 round that is about an average day for them, aka 1 round slightly better and 1 round slightly worse than the single round calculation.

the easy vs. tough birdie tends to balance out since when someone is hot they will often pick up a challenging birdie, and no one usually picks up every easy one either.

[keltik]

Okay so I played two rounds with sloppydisc and Brother Dave. and it was a less than stellar performance on my part. we played Cedarock and Wellspring. Cedarock is wide open and long while Wellspring is the exact opposite. I guess it is NC's version of Darkside/Sunnyside but not as good. Cedarock is kinda boring it's so wide open (I never thought I would say that) and most of the holes in Wellspring are too short and too tight (even by NC standards).

But sloppy and BroD said I use too many molds and that is true. They also said that I have poor hole management which is also true. I'll admit that I have a lack of consistency with my drivers. And that is from discing down for too (and for no good reason).

So I had a thought during these rounds. I may need to quit driving with putters past 250. It's not because I can't do it but because it may be better for my game. I may also need to readjust my playing ranges for all my discs.

and I need to work on my personal enjoyment factor.

[JR]

Learning which disc works the best for each hole off the tee makes or breaks a round. Getting to know the powered down ranges and how many feet the fade increases is also crucial for course management and disc choosing based on the shape and length of a hole. To get this data (how much turnover there is from flat and any given hyzer angle) is done the easiest on a practice field with known distances and a line going in the direction you throw at. So that you can estimate how much the disc turns right and then fades at which distances. When you know that and know the distances of a hole you can pick the easiest flight path to the correct distance you're aiming to.

Blake doesn't advocate disc minimalism for fun. There is real considerations that support doing it at least in the learning phase. Of not only throwing technique but also course management and disc selection.

This is what you last had in the bag thread and not all Cores turn as much as the Warship and i think the glide and distance of the Warship surpasses that of the Core although i haven't thrown a Core in years:

EX
Leo
Buzzz
Fuse
Pure
xXx
Zone
Polecat

You don't exactly have a torrent of discs coming out of your bag when you open it. Three molds ain't overkill especially when one of them is storm/utility disc and there's nothing fast in there. Depending on the condition of the EX and if the Leo is in good shape and not DX those may cover all usual needs. So you need to know the ins and outs of only two drivers now and you must in order to score well.

Adding a fast disc should not hurt a player's score as long as he has power and the skills to manage the disc. And knows when, which lines to pick, how much to power and tilt the disc in which direction. To get this data field work helps the fastest. Especially if you take notes. I don't think that having drivers is your problem. I don't know if your nose up angles or some other aspect of throwing fast discs is problematic either. What i know is that the faster you go the more things you need to perform correctly form wise. Planning, shot selection, disc selection and line shaping wise fast drivers are only a part of the continuum going from putts to longer distances. It ain't different to picking should i drive with a putter or a mid.

Why do you think you should limit putter drives to 250'? Consistency, accuracy, needing to run too fast to maintain those or what? It may be a disc issue. Which plastic is your Pure Opto? That could be slick leading to early release program in humid conditions. Softer Pures are less HSS. And the Zone is worlds apart in being so much more HSS and LSS. Getting a great forgiving straight driving putter closer to the Pure than the Zone in HSS and LSS but with more HSS than the Pure you now have may solve all your putter driving issues beyond 250' alone. If you have a softer plastic Pure getting an Opto may well be the best solution. It is easier to drive with than softer Pures. If ceilings are the limiting factor to your playing with such a fast (can be thrown lower for the same distance than a slow putter) putter as the Pure then picking a mid for that shot ain't a poor idea at all.

[keltik]

I have pures in Zero, Grip and Opto and maybe a GL coming soon. I guess I see the Pure as a straight driving putter that doesn't really carve lines. I was limiting myself on the putter driving distance for the sake of possibly using a faster disc that will fly the line I need and at the height I need. and also to maybe conserve energy since I'm a bit out of shape (okay a lot out of shape).

yeah I got to see a Warship close up yesterday and it is completely different from what I was thinking. It reminds me more of the squall/storm than anything else (just looks alone.)

[JR]

Pure can turn at low power and good anny angle but give it power and it will plough on through straight a long while before the anny kicks in and moves the disc right at distance. What distance that is i'm not sure. Because my Opto Pure swims with the fishes. I think i'll replace it. On an uphill hole of 200' it faded out on a 3 degree anny. When i gave it more oomph it pushed straight while being annied and then faded out to be 40' long. So it does seem to need a quicker turning partner.

Many mids are straight enough at 250' given a snappy throw especially as long as you pick one that is very straight. I prefer the Comet over the Fuse for straight shots but the Pure turns right fast. Buzzzess vary but 250' ain't a lot of power to keep straight especially on uphill throws so you most likely need to use a lower power requirement less LSS mid for straight 250' and up shots. And the Fuse ain't the best option for that IME. Using a mid at that distance especially with low ceilings is perfectly ok by me as long as you know that the faster flying mid is gonna skip and slide more and in case of nicking a tree it often kicks way farther into shule than a putter. Especially if that mid absorbs some of the impact. There are plenty of those kinds of putters that are eminently drivable as well.

The Warship ain't the most HSS straightish mid out there and being on the fast end of the mid spectrum makes it skip, slide and kick hard. The great thing about it and other mids is that once you learn to power them down they take a lot less power to as far as a ripped putter. So it is natural that given good snap a mid needs very little from the rest of the body to go as far as a full run up full power putter drive goes. Even more so with a Comet, Fuse, Coyote, Kite, Skeeter and Warship vs most other mids. Not in order of distance and power requirement. The Comet is legendary for the superbly low power requirement. The Kite and the Skeeter like to pop up high with the immense glide if given any sort of power.

The Squall and the Storm are faster than the Warship. And a little longer.

[JHern]

When Crazy John Brooks came in 2nd to Climo at Worlds 3 times, they say he only carried 4 discs, a towel, and no bag. His discs were an Aviar, 2 Rocs, and a Whippet...all in DX plastic, of course. His throws were apparently a manifestation of extraordinary beauty.