Hole Length

How long is too long for a hole that should be reached in one shot?

Suppose you take the best half of the players in a division (not necessarily the longest throwers, just the top half of the players).

Suppose you know the average length of their average drive.

Suppose you also know their average drives have a Normal distribution and a standard deviation of 10%. In other words 68% of the players have average drives within 10% of the group average. And 95% have drives within 20% of the group average.

Now suppose you are designing a hole that is pretty much wide open and is on level ground.

From time to time, you may design a hole that intentionally favors the longer throwers. But suppose you want most of your holes to be "fair" for most of the players. That is, at the longer end of this "fair" range, the shorter throwers will need to make up for their shorter drives with more accuracy and better putting. Yet, you don't want the hole to be so long that they don't have a reasonable chance.

How long is the longest this hole should be?

As an example, suppose you know that the best 50% of the players in a division have average drives that average 350 feet.

Given the above parameters, that means 68% of the players will have average drives between 315 and 385 feet (350 /- 10%). And 95% will have average drives between 280 and 420 feet.

So how long, at their longest, do you want your "fair" holes to be (assuming, again, they are open and level)?

Ideally, your answer would be expressed as a percentage of the average drive for the group. In this way, the design decisions can be appropriately scaled to various skill levels and different sets of tees.

As a bonus, how short should the shortest hole be (again, wide open and level)?

Thanks for your answers.

[sandalman]

ok so you want to design a hole on flat, wide open ground that can be reached by almost everybody...

one question... <FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE=" 2">WHY???</FONT></FONT>

a "fair" hole would be 500-550 feet, since the 280' thrower will be challenged to throw accurately 2 times and the long arms will not get a drop in birdie except with a perfect throw. many times you make a hole more "fair" by lengthening it, not by shortening it.

[neonnoodle]

"a "fair" hole would be 500-550 feet, since the 280' thrower will be challenged to throw accurately 2 times and the long arms will not get a drop in birdie except with a perfect throw. many times you make a hole more "fair" by lengthening it, not by shortening it."

one question... WHY???

A "fair" hole gives advantage for skill and accuracy, not just distance. Any Hole over 350 with no or little in the way of obstacles is there for one reason, and one reason only; to give those that can throw far a chance to birdie and those who can not no chance to birdie. Boring.

IMO the only holes that should be over 350 are downhill ones or ones that require approach shots for everyone. There are getting to be too may holes 380 to 480 in length that only allow power throwers any chance of birdying and with no downside to just blasting it as hard and as far as they can manage. Boring.

Better holes now have a preferred drive landing zone of between 280 and 350, then change direction and go another 150 to 300 feet. These holes are "GOLF" holes that penalize going too far as much as going too short. Holes like #11 at Seneca, #3 at Patapsco, and #16 at Lums. These are golf holes.

There is an excellent article about this written by John Houck.

Trent, perhaps you should consider a 600 ft hole with a dry (roped off) lake that starts 350 down the fairway and reaches to withing 40 feet of the target with no short cuts. Yellow rope luped through 1 inch wooden stakes looks good and is pretty sturdy. The best shot is one that goes 300 to 340 feet, setting you up for a 250 to 300 foot up shot to the green. If you can add a turn to it somewhere then you are really talkin'golf.

Sandalman, foliage and elevation are adjusted for later.

Also, multi-shot holes will be covered later.

Right now, I'm looking for a baseline for 1-shot holes.

Nick, sounds like your answer is 350 feet, but to what group does that apply? If you're talking about my example, then you're saying 100% of the average drive. But if you're talking about C-tier Advanced fields or NT Open fields, then the answer might be different. Remember, if expressed as a percentage, then we can scale it down to all groups that have been sampled, instead of just talking about a particular group.

As for the rest of your post, multi-shot holes will be covered later.

Thank you for your response.

how wide are the roped fairways at the USDGC? I realize it varies on hole length but I would love some examples like 600' hole with the last 500' being a 50' fairway. I couldn't find any info on the USDGC page.

sorry for the drift.

[neonnoodle]

"Better holes now have a preferred drive landing zone of between 280 and 350" is the answer I think you were looking for.

[sandalman]

nick i dont know if you realize it, but your answered basically agreed with mine.

Nick, is that last post responding to me?

How are those lengths appropriate for the Intermediate Women's division?

My point is that I'm asking what's the longest a fair hole should be as a percentage of the average drive of the group of people playing it.

Your top end is 350. But is that for a group that averages 300? Or is it 350? Or 375? Or 425?

And I'm only talking about single-shot holes for now. Not landing areas on multi-shot holes. There may be a difference.

Thanks.

[neonnoodle]

Pat, actually if you read them I think that you will find that we do not agree. There is nothing I find more boring than a grip and rip hole with no risk for throwing too far. A good golf hole needs a defined area for which to reasonably aim, whether it's a Duece or Die hole or a 3 direction true par 5 hole. To have a hole that is 390 to 600 feet across an open flat feild does not offer any challenge other than pounding it as far as you possibly can. That is what I would define as a boring hole.

Yes there obviously should be more benefit the closer you get to the hole, but there should be some risk involved as well, particularly for over drives. I hate to do it, but consider ball glf courses. On many drives, approaches and putts going too far is worse than going short.

Trent, I'd say choose a distance that fits somewhere near the top 75% of each division. In Open that would be around 330 to 370.

Trent, one of these days you should go play Tyler state park in PA. They have true par 3,4 &amp; 5's. It's an excellent course for all player abilities.

[morgan]

Why make a hole fair? Make it unfair. If it's fair, everybody will get the same score. If it's unfair, you separate the scores.

Make a hole that unfair to the bad players and favors the good players. The whole point of design is to make a hole that lets the good players get much better scores than bad players. If everybody gets the same score that's a stupid hole.

Morgan, I don't think it is a Good vs. Bad thing but a Long Arm vs. Accurate Arm. The point is to have a hole that gets equal results from accurate shorter throws as you do from less accurate long throws.

Lesser level players can play the short, or less difficult teebox, to get the same score or close to a higher skilled players score. Then, to elevate their game, they can move over to the harder tee boxes. That is what I consider fair.

I think we're confusing "fair" with "not stupid".

>>By Brad Osterloo on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 09:56 pm:
I think we're confusing "fair" with "not stupid".<<<


You may be right on that one.

[chris]

I agree with Morgan Wright. Why would you want a hole that every one can duece?? The whole point is to see who's better and if someone else can reach a 450' hole and you can't, they deserve the 2. People say that distance shouldn't matter, but if you take 2 people that have the exact same putting ablity but one can throw 450' and the other can only throw 350' I would think the longer thrower is the better player and he should have a chance to get those extra strokes on the longer holes. If the guy who can throw farther is a worse putter then it wouldn't matter anyways cause he'll miss his putt and you'll both take 3's. I think the best holes out there are the 375-450' range. They make you work real hard for the duece. You guys mentioned the long arm vs. the short accurate arm, well what about the long accurate arm guys, shouldn't they have an advantage over the short accurate arm guys? To be the best you should be able to putt, throw accurate AND throw far.

The discussion is about wide open holes and that is what I was talking about. It is my opinion that in the case of a wide open hole that it is a stupid hole/unfair if it just favors the long arm thrower. Throw trees, water or any OB in the mix and it is a different story IMO. I won't get into my opinions on that so that I don't drift off the question at hand.

[morgan]

Basketball is unfair to short people. Football is unfair to skinny people. Baseball is unfair to guys with multiple sclerosis. Hockey is unfair to guys with one leg missing.

Let's make disc golf unfair.

Ahem.

As I said in the original post "From time to time, you may design a hole that intentionally favors the longer throwers."

That's not what I'm trying to do here. As some people pointed out, the intent here is to separate throwers by their accuracy and their putting, not by their length. (Also, keep in mind, just because everyone can <U>reach</U> a hole doesn't mean everyone can get a 2 on it, <U>especially</U> once we start adding in elevation and foliage.)

Chris, Morgan, etc., you don't have to agree with the concept of a length-neutral hole in order to name a number. If it helps, think of it in the reverse and come up with the number where a hole really starts to favor a longer thrower (as you would like it).

Given the distribution figures stated above:
- If you make it 315 (90% of the average drive), then 95% will be able to get their average drive within 35 feet (by length only!) of the hole.
- If you make it 350 (100% of the average drive), that means 81% can get their average drive within 35 feet (length-wise!) of the hole.
- If you make it 385 (110% of the average drive), less than 50% can get their average drive within 35 feet (length-wise!). And almost 20% will come up 70 feet short or more on average.
- If you make it 420 (120%), only about 15% can throw within 35 feet (length-wise!), and only about 50% can get within 70 feet.

So where is a good "rule of thumb" as to the point where a hole starts to favor the longer throwers?

In effect, I'm asking for your course design philosophy here, without flat-out saying so. If you're the designer, and you don't want length to be an advantage, does that mean that a length-neutral 1-shot hole needs to be less than 90% of the average drive so that over 95% of the field can reach it? Or is 80% of the field reaching it good enough for you? Or if you want a hole that purposely favors longer throwers, what percentage of the field to you want to be able to reach it? 50% of the field? 15% of the field?

Chris, are you saying 375, since that's the low end of the "best holes"? And if so, for what group of people is that? Top level pros?

Or is the answer this?:
- At 90%, 95% of the field can reach it, so it is pretty much length-neutral.
- At 120%, only 15% of the field can reach it, so it strongly favors the long arms.
- Therefore, the turning point is somewhere in between 90% of 120% of the group's average drive.

Here's a good one for you ball golf fans.

On the PGA Tour, the average drive for the top half of the money list is around 285 yards.

How long are the longest par 3's on the Tour (on flat ground)? 220? 240? Let's say 220 just for an example.

If it's 220, that would be 77% of the average drive.

But it seems like ball golfers aren't expected to use the driver off the tee on 1-shot holes, yet in disc golf we are. (And that's a whole other discussion.)

So let's look at 2-irons instead. We don't have any stats on that, but I'm guessing the average 2-iron for the top half of the money list is probably around 220.

If that's the case, then the 220-yard par 3 is 100% of the average 2-iron.

Finally, consider the shortest par 3's on Tour. I'm thinking they are around 140 on flat ground. That is about 64% of the average longest iron. Maybe even 120, which is 55% of the longest iron.

How do all these compare to disc golf? Come on, this is for fun. Stay with open and flat, but this will all get more interesting and realistic when we add in obstacles and elevation.

[larrywhitson]

I think it was Bill Burns in another thread who recently described this as well as I have ever heard--and I totally agree with him.

If it's a one-shot hole: Everyone should be able to reach it in one shot.

If it's a two-shot hole: Everyone should be able to reach it in two shots.

If it's a three shot hole: Everyone should be able to reach it in three shots.

Of course, these are generalizations, but the exceptions to these rules should be just that--exceptions.

The situation in DG is tougher because there is a greater variation in drive distance among those who compete at the top levels, so it is more difficult to adhere to those guidelines. And the greens are less well-defined.

I believe his final point was something like: The advantage gained by long arms should be a shorter approach with less club (aviar instead of roc). Not the too-large advantage of reaching the green in one less throw.

LW

[gnduke]

In ball golf, a par 3 hole is one that all the players should be able to drive with an iron. It needs to be an iron because they need the ability to stop the ball on a small target. Woods do not usually allow for enough backspin to keep the ball on a small green.

In DG most of the comparable holes have some type of small target as well, and require accuracy more than distance. BTW, Most of the players I see playing those 170 - 220 foot holes are not using drivers off of the tee.

"But it seems like ball golfers aren't expected to use the driver off the tee on 1-shot holes, yet in disc golf we are. (And that's a whole other discussion.) "

Yes, it certainly is. I don't think we should be expected to always use a driver on 1-shot holes. In ball golf, as TJ just pointed out, virtually everyone can reach the par 3's in one. Also, everyone can reach the par 4's in two. Big hitters can reach par 5's in two, and that's where they get a chance to pick up a stroke on everyone. And of course, they get shorter approaches on par 4's... if they can hit the fairway.

Players who don't hit as far can make up for that with great accuracy.

I would also point out that short people who can hit from three-point range can be good basketball players. Skinny guys who can get open downfield can be good football players. And guys with one leg who, um, ...

Man, I need to type faster. Larry and Gary are right on.

So Larry channeling Bill Burns says everyone should be able to reach a 1-shot hole. Using the standard deviation quoted above, a hole that is 90% of the average drive would have 95% of the field (nearly "everyone") getting within 10% of the length of the hole. Wow, that's a lot of percents.

Example: If the average drive for a group of players (division) is 350, a maximum one-shot hole of 315 would allow 95% of the field to get within 35 feet (distance-wise!) on average.

Example 2: If the average drive is 200 (think juniors, novice, etc.), a maximum one-shot hole of 180 would allow 95% of the field to get within 20 feet (distance wise!) on average.

Does anyone care to retort?

You guys keep getting ahead of me on multi-shot holes. You're gonna love how this works out.

[larrywhitson]

I agree that 90% is close enough to "everyone!"

We jumped ahead of you to multi-shot holes because the principle is the same.

Also, one other point: Different tee pads may be the only way to get these guidelines to apply to the vast array of divisions/skill levels we have in DG.

LW

A hole that is 100% of the average drive would have 80% of the field reaching it (assuming, again, a standard deviation of 10% of the average).

Is 80% of the field close enough everyone?

Where the heck is Chuck? He's got more charts and spreadsheets than you can shake a 2-iron at. He can answer this question very precisely. If we don't hear from him soon, I'll dig into my Chuck files.

You can see his driving stats from pro and am worlds at

http://circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm

[chris]

Where are you getting these numbers from anyway? (only 15% will get within 35' of a 420' wide open hole) Almost every top pro out there (1000 player rating) will be able to get within 35' of that hole, I'd say it's more like 90% not 15% which makes a 400' hole a great hole for compition. I really can't see why people would want to play short holes, courses are already too short the way it is. Personally I would love to see 1000' holes everywhere then it would be great just to get 3's. If you want to compare it to ball golf . . . what do they usually shoot?? lower 70's? what do we shoot?? lower 40's?

Chris, I'm talking theory, but for some real numbers, go here:

http://circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm

and you will find this:

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>399 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>360 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>384 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>408 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>366 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>375 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>384 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>405 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>342 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>354 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>387 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>393 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>375 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>369 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>453 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>459 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>408 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>360 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>366 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>369 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>342 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>300 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>336 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>351 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>477 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>354 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>324 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>420 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>354 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>363 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>384 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>420 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>336 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>348 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>369 </TD></TR><TR><TD>MPO</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>366 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

which is 10 groups of MPO measured at Worlds 2002.

This was on a fairly flat, fairly wide-open hole.

The average drive was 376ish, and the standard deviation was 37ish, which is nicely 10% of the average.

Now, this is an extremely small set of data. However, if these drives represent average drives for each person (some probably threw better than average for themselves, some probably threw worse than average for themselves), then we have a good starting place to work from.

These are real numbers. Yours are anecdotal at best.

Regardless, as I said, I'm interested in theory.

Once more: Take a base group of players. For you, Chris, you can take the top half of an NT field if you like. Now get (or guess) the AVERAGE of the AVERAGE drive for these players. What is that number? Now, how long should one-shot holes be as a percentage of that number?

I don't care if you say the AVERAGE drive is 450. Fine. Knowing that is the average and some will be above and some will be below, how long should the hole be?

Do you agree that "everyone" (in your base group!, the top half of an NT field!) should be able to reach the 1-shot holes?

If so, and if the 10% standard deviation is correct, then your longest hole should be 405 (in order to get 95% of the players within 45 feet of the hole).

Obviously 450 is WAY too high for a given set of players in real life, but you can use it if you want. The question for theory of design remains the same.

To answer your question more directly: Where are you getting these numbers from anyway? (only 15% will get within 35' of a 420' wide open hole)

I've been giving examples. I've never said this group represents an actual group, certainly not top pros. My example group is a group of players with an average drive of 350 and with a standard deviation of 10%. That's where I'm getting the numbers. They are made up for example purposes in order to get to the theory of design.

It is an undisputed fact of mathematics and real life that <U>if</U> the average of a group is 350 and the standard deviation of a normal distribution is 10%, then only about 15% will be able to get within 35 feet of 420.

[ck34]

Trent is doing fine. I'm just watching the show. Rollers mess with the numbers but can't be thrown or thrown that far due to terrain issues, but we are talking about flat open holes in this initial exercise...

Sorry. Just looked at Trent's identity.

A very confused individual. Or maybe just diverse. Multi-facted, that's it.

[specialk]

I think the content of Trent's posts should have given his identity away.

How about shortest holes anyone?

As a percentage of group average?

50%, 60%, 75%?

Example: If your group (division) of players averages 350, then is a 175-foot hole (wide open and flat) too short? How about 200?

Example2: If your group (division) of players averages 450, then is a 225-foot hole (wide open and flat) too short?

Example3: If your group (division) of players averages 200, then is a 100-foot hole too short?

We're talking about design advice here. What would you counsel as the shortest hole that should be considered?

Again, we'll worry about obstacles and elevation later.

I know he is not one to toot his own horn, but John has put good course design to use at his courses at circle r 2 in san saba most par threes are 320 or less and par 4s greater than 430 w/ a par 5 mixed in for good measure. these are not all about distance but accurate drives. throwing an accurate drive is key. I would often throw midrange off the tee only to throw driver from the fairway. quit complaining and play some cr2

ce

forgot this /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks, Colin.

A group just came off the Colorado River course, and I asked them what they thought. One guy said, "That was a FAIR course. I found just as many as I lost."

I'd never heard that definition of fair, but it works for me.

[gnduke]

That was always my ball golf definition of a good round.

A good course design should challenge different skills. We have a 911' hole at The Chili course in Rochester, N.Y. It tests the ability to throw long and is considered to be a "signature" hole. It is not "boring". Long holes are o.k. if they are mixed with other types of holes.

I agree with Nick about holes with landing zones. There should be more of them. The player is challenged to reach both the landing zone and the green. Accuracy and control are tested.

Morgan, you are right that holes don't always have to be "fair". If you don't have the skill for a particular hole, work on improving it or concentrate on the holes that favor your best skills.

[morgan]

My definition of a good course is where you find as many beer bottles as you toss and some of the ones you find still have beer in them.

On a bad course, they have butts in them cause that ruins the beer.

[mule1]

Morgan, you did a post that made me smile. Sounds like a course that you would find in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

Hole design should be considered different than course design. A course is a collection of holes. What is good design for one hole is NOT going to be good for all holes of a course.

Ideally each hole of a course presents a different set of reasonable and recognizable challenges for the golfer to overcome in holing out in the fewest possible strokes.

Long distance par 3ish in DG hole design is over stressed by many as being the cat's meow of challenges.

What is more challenging are holes with S configurations (RL or LR) which require precise throws of discs throw windowed fairways with discs that exhibit the proper controlled flight behavior to negotiate the S shaped fairways.

One also should consider how it may take a lot more power and skill to throw 300 ft with a strong dog leg than 400 ft straight.

Also, much this sort of stuff changes when one graduates to par 4 design. Good par 4 design frequently require identifying ideal landing zones that may be less than max distance or curvature to be able to play the next fairway shot to the basket.

Good course design requires a balance of distance, curvatures (R, L, RL, LR), orientation (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW), up and down, sidehill orientations, and over various terrains and window settings.

An objective system to evaluate this is available online. (http://www.dolf.com/course/design/index.htm) As a general goal for good design, I try to get over 30 in course design ratings using this system. Not all sites and situations can achieve this goal.

In my experience, most good courses rate in the high 20s or better. Sadly, there are many poorly designed courses with a course analysis rating that falls in the mid to low 20s... Some of these could be fixed with a few minor modifications by folks who know what they are doing. Many require major workovers, which is usually not an easy sell to folks who aren't interested in having their easy course made more challenging. Such is the nature of DGers.

It's different in BG where course designs are rated by the reasonably object slope system. BGer generally look forward to playing higher sloped courses and are usually intrigued by local courses who undertake design upgrades to raise their course slope ratings.

Go figure...

[riverdog]

...and the railroad bulls are blind.........in the Big Rock Candy Mountains...

(old guy humor Stan? And yup I qualify too)

[mule1]

Good catch Jamie. I'm not sure about old guy humor.I'm not dodging the old guy thing, but it took my 16 year old to cue me in on that song. He memorized it and did it as a presentation at his school.What a great movie.

[xterramatt]

Speaking of Railroads and course length and Stan...

My hips, forearms, and biceps are a hurting from lugging railroad ties down to lengthened hole 4.

Now where were all those reserves you had called in?

[mule1]

I should thank those of you who did show up Matt. For those who promised me that they would be there and did not show ,,,, well,,, they just won't be as sore as you and I and Todd Hardesty and Mike Warner and Brian Meiggs and Sam Nicholson and late arrival but not a no-show, Greg Watson. The concept of this green is still evolving, and hopefully does not necessitate moving many more pieces of heavy wood.

[larrywhitson]

Here's the song (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/bigrock.htm).

There's a lot of good lyrics, and note that this song is from the '20s.

Stan, remember that old things do become new again, and I'm banking on it.

Here's to the hobo life!

LW

Fred, I downloaded your course design tool and I have a few questions after applying it to a few courses that I'm very familiar with.

1. You award points for holes with tees "15 to 30 yards" from the previous hole, and award no points for other distances. Could you elaborate on the design principles behind this criteria?

2. On your "par 3" analysis, you have a large section for "Fairway Terrain". If a hole is a par 3, what difference does it make what the ground is like between the tee and the green?

3. For both your Lake Stevens analyses, over 50% of the course's final score is derived from the category for "Putting Diversity". Could you elaborate on the design principles that allow a course's design to be judged so heavily on what happens around the target?

4. Is this a Course Design evaluation or a Course evaluation? You award points for an extra set of tees. First, many courses I know of have 3 full sets of tees, but this isn't covered in your analysis. Second, isn't this a course feature but not a course design feature? It seems to me that the design would need to be evauated independently from each set of tees, and the mere existence of those other tees shouldn't weigh into the evaluation of the design.

* 1. You award points for holes with tees "15 to 30 yards" from the previous hole, and award no points for other distances.

Good course design (course flow) doesn't put tees too close or too far from previous holes. It's not a big factor overall to have one or two walking holes.

* 2. On your "par 3" analysis, you have a large section for "Fairway Terrain". If a hole is a par 3, what difference does it make what the ground is like between the tee and the green? *

Terrain comes into play in a variety of ways. For one, rollers... Terrain also impacts how a hole plays in the wind. It's not a commonly recognized feature by most DGers, but wind attempts to follow the contour of the terrain. What may seem a cross wind at the tee, on flat terrain is a cross wind the entire flight, with a RL down slope the cross wind will "knock down" flat shots; with a LR down slope, it will get under the lid and flip the disc. Finally, the terrain also may determine the flight pattern for how to ideally land a disc in the landing area to maximize or minimize roll or skips.


* 3. For both your Lake Stevens analyses, over 50% of the course's final score is derived from the category for "Putting Diversity". Could you elaborate on the design principles that allow a course's design to be judged so heavily on what happens around the target? *

A challenging hole design is one that presents reasonable degrees of recognizable challenges all the way from the tee to basket. While most DG courses have a variety of challenges to reach the "effective putting green", putting green challenges are frequently limited to the rather simple challenge of holing out to an open chain hole style target on flat terrain. Which is all find and good, if that is all the challenges a course designer is striving to reach. When a course designer pushes the envelop of challenges by adding multiple trees around the basket, plus complex sloping terrain, plus deflection systems that adds a directional component to the course challenges, the design analysis will objectively rate the effort to provide a more challenging course. Such is the nature of Lake Stevens Course, with mulitple trees around the greens, with anchor locations with all sorts of sloping and back sloping challenges, plus a different directional challenge at every hole (no two deflection systems are the same).

Most anyone who has played Lake Stevens will tell you it's hard to break par, even for advanced players, in a large part because the challenges go from the tee all the way to the basket. Many DGers are initially unaccustomed to such challenges. After playing a few rounds, many of the better players will come to recognize and overcome many of the nuances of these challenges thru better course management and technique adjustment.

If the average BG course slope were 120 and one came to play on a course with a 140 rating, you have the same sorts of (love/hate) complaints by many BGers about how hard and unfair the 140 rated course plays. Most of this would be due to their lack of course management and tecnhical skills, which most would eventually overcome with practice and familiarity. Because BG course design provides an objective measure of course difficulty (the slope), the trend is towards courses that have higher and higher slopes to satiate BGers desire for higher and higher challenges.

Contemporary DG course design typically doesn't include any provisions for an objective analysis of the diversity of challenges of a course such as course slope. To a significant degree, this derth 'protects' DG course design philosophy which says that wide open greens at most every hole are good design... Where in BG has marketplace movement towards designing more challenges around the greens, most DG green challenges are rather stagnant. It's also a significant reason that the typical DG course play significantly under "par" for most advanced players. Which is fine, if that is all one wants. However, if you wish to measure how various designs might push that envelope, the course analysis I've provided works to objectively measure such movement.

4. Is this a Course Design evaluation or a Course evaluation? You award points for an extra set of tees.

Multiple tees is a factor effecting overall course diversity.

* many courses I know of have 3 full sets of tees, but this isn't covered in your analysis. *

I suppose one could add some additional credit for each tee set, up to a limit of perhaps 3/hole, at least as far as overall course diversity goes.

* Second, isn't this a course feature but not a course design feature? *

Yes and no. One can use the course analysis to develop a number for each set (blue, white, red) of tees and green challenges (usually multiple anchor locations), as well as for the entire course, lumping all together.

An individual tee and green analysis will generally predict how challenging any particular individual set of parameters plays in comparison to another.

When grouped together in a single analysis rating, one ends up with a number that one can use to relate to how the whole course (with all of it's variants) compares to other courses (with all of it's variants).

[morgan]

I read all that, and my head hurts.

[Chris Hysell]

I skipped it and I feel fine.

[bigchiz]

I read some of it, skipped the rest, and now I'm laughing.

I read it and fulfilled all of my summer reading for school. And then some.

[morgan]

Fred I checked your essay. In #4 you say effecting instead of affecting. At the end you say it's instead of its. Only 2 points off, you get a grade of 98 for composition and spelling.

That gives you a "high A," pretty good for a dentist, but there is still an opening for a journalist gig at Rolling Stone.

[larrywhitson]

So, did Trent decide to build a par-3 course??

He mentioned something about how we would love how this turned out when he got to par-4 and par-5 design.

I can't stand the suspense!

LW

[august]

I didn't read it, and I'm glad.

Let's hope a hole that most players can reach in one stroke has some risk involved to make it a challenge. For example, a 210' hole is certainly one that a majority of disc golfers can reach in one stroke. But there should be some nasty rough or OB water or a drop off close by to reward accuracy.

Why do we feel our par 3 holes need to be thrown with driver?

ANSWER: Because putting is too easy!

Take away the chains, and this game becomes much much better.

And while you're at it, do away with the fairway run-up.

These two simple changes, along with the continued development of true par 4's and par 5's, will do wonders for the challenge and competitive legitimacy of this game.

And after taking away the fairway runup and the chains off our baskets, institue a rule that forces everyone to putt standing on their heads while balancing on a unicycle and do away with every hole that's less than 700'.

Sometimes this board is more fun than a comedy club and has the added bonus of no cover charge. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[tbender]

Don't take away the fairway run-up. Institute cattle prods for being off the LOP...

Come on Mark, you seem to be more forward thinking than your sarcasm here suggests.

Putting being too easy and especially removing the fairway runup are serious topics that merit serious consideration. If you fail to see that, you fail to see the big picture.

C'mon Justin, sarcasm is fun. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Okay, all joking aside, I'm all for adding the competitive legitimacy to the sport we all love that you say you seek. But, in all seriousness, I think your two suggestions provided above are a bit silly. (So much so, in fact, that I thought you were joking and I'm still not totally convinced that you're not.)

Taking away the fairway runup, on a 700' uphill hole, for example, strikes me as a way to reward only those with the biggest arms, not the best technique. Although technique from a standing throw is still important, it would seem that the bigger arms would have a distinctive advantage over the guys that use a runup and release angle technique to compensate.

As for taking the chains off the baskets, it boggles the mind that I'd actually have to find an argument against such a thing. The chains on our targets are such a singular distinguising part of the evolution (always use that word whenever possible) of our sport from the tape on the tree days that I can't possibly understand why anyone would want to change it.

It seems to me that both of these suggestions are designed only to add strokes to total scores. That doesn't mean competitive legitimacy, it just means higher scores. A properly designed golf hole, of any length, can offer challenges to every arm and skill set, whether it be on a second shot on a lengthy fairway or a putt on a tricky pin placement. Just adding strokes ain't the way to get it done, IMO.

BTW, I'm a big fan of the big picture, its just an eye of the beholder kinda thing. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Well stated Mark. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Abolishment of the fairway runup has been discussed before, with great arguments on both sides. The huge advantage to abolishment of the runup is that you no longer need so much land to make par 4 and par 5 holes. I'm undecided on whether it will really benefit the big arms all that much, as I'm not sure big arms are big arms because of their arms /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif. A pretty big side advantage is the enforcement of fairway stance.

As for the no chains, well, it's one idea for making putting harder. I'm not ready to buy stock in Dr [*****] and his goofy targets, but there is a point in there somewhere. Our game as we know it is drive-putt, and the putt is way too easy. In other words, people can make up for inadequacies in driving and approaching by being able to putt. This isn't bad to some degree, but in our game it is stunning the low scores that some horrible throwers can put up.

Either way thanks for your nonsarcastic response. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Putting is too EASY! Man if that is the easy part of this game then I have lost all hope of ever being a good player. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

You're welcome. Just trying to do my part as a forward thinker. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I'm with you Scott. If they make putting any harder than it already is for me, I'll either have to be a TD only or the PDGA will have to come up with a division below MA3.

[morgan]

Par 7 = tee shot 4 fairway shots 2 shots on green

Par 6 = tee shot 3 fairway shots 2 shots on green

Par 5 = tee shot 2 fairway shots 2 shots on green

Par 4 = tee shot 1 fairway shot 2 shots on green

Par 3 = 1 fairway shot 2 shots on green

Par 2 = 2 shots on green

Par 1 = 1 shot on green

[morgan]

Do the math. Say the green is 50 feet in radius, fairway shots are 250 and tee shots are 350:

par 7 = 1400

par 6 = 1150

par 5 = 900

par 4 = 650

par 3 = 300

par 2 = 50

par 1 = ??

[morgan]

From the above, we see that the jump from par 3 to par 4 is the biggest jump. The others all jump by 250 feet per par number, but going from par 3 to 4 you jump by 350 feet!

It's interesting that the par 3/4 jump is the biggest because that's relevent to disc golf.

Darn glad to find out putting is easy. BTW for those of you who find putting easy, there is much dough to made so you can now quit your day job and tour baby tour.

Mark and Scott, if you can't putt, then making putting harder makes you a BETTER player. Relative to other players, that is. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Take a 320 foot hole. You throw a great shot that gets clean to about 20 feet. You miss the putt most of the time because you can't putt. Your opponent throws some skankass griplock that doinks off a couple trees and ends up 45 feet away. Your opponent CAN putt, so he steps up and makes it. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif See?

If putting were more difficult, people wouldn't be able to cover up their game just by being able to putt.

Another way of saying putting is too easy is to say that putting is too important a part of our game. Mark said it best when he said the EVOLUTION of our game. It's still evolving. And right now, me and some others think that putting is TOO important. There needs to be more of a balance.

Look at it another way, if good putters can make a high percent of putts from 35 feet, then their putting range is over 10% of an average par 3. That's a little silly. Or another way, they have over 3800 square feet in which to land. See, way too easy.

Finally, above I said that eliminating fairway runup allows par 4s and 5s to be made shorter. In a similar way, making putting harder means you can make par 3s shorter. Right now at the top levels of the game, any fairly open hole under 300 is BORING because all the players can get within 30 feet and then drop in their EASY putts. Take away those chains, and they need to get closer with their throws in order to have an easy putt. And for those who don't get closer, you get to see a fairly exciting run at the basket, instead of just a bullet at the chains.

Thanks for listening. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

If you have a response, get it in now before Dr [*****] wakes up on the west coast and comes in with his aerial putting green and his recognizable challenges around the hole. :p

By the way bilybman, some people for whom putting is easy ARE quitting their day job and going on tour. Have you ever watched any of the touring pros? Some of them don't THROW very well. It's kind of sick actually. But almost all of them PUTT very well.

Justin, just so you know, you've articulated your points well enough, but I strongly disagree with them.

"Right now at the top levels of the game, any fairly open hole under 300 is BORING because all the players can get within 30 feet and then drop in their EASY putts."

There are 3 things wrong with that statement.

1) Most top Pros may tell you a 30' putt is easy because they expect to make it. It isn't a drop in, however, and its not at all a certainty.

2) Any fairly open hole under 300' is boring because, well, because its fairly open and under 300'. Well designed golf holes should be what we're striving to promote, not chainless baskets.

3) Why would you use only "top Pros" for your example of the reasons to change things? When you start talking about a radical change to the most distinctive aspect of our sport, our targets, you really ought to consider the vast majority of our players, not just top Pros.

Another real problem that I have with the very basis of your arguments is that you say "good putter" like its a dirty word. In disc golf or ball golf, there are players at all skill levels that excel more on one aspect of the game than another. This guy's a great distance thrower, this guy's got an awesome midrange game and this other dude is a lights out putter. None of them have all the parts to make up a championship caliber game (check the top 10 on the Pro Worlds scoreboard right now for examples of those who do have all the pieces to the puzzle), but they can all be competitive in spite of their weaknesses because of their strengths. That's called golf. What's wrong with that?

Let's demand better hole and course design before we start changing rules and equipment just to add difficulty and strokes to the game.

For an example of that, check out the USDGC course design and see if that sounds like the competitive legitimacy you seek. I think you'll find that it does, complete with fairway runups and chains on the baskets. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Demand better course design.

[LouMoreno]

Justin, it sounds you want to cover up the lack of putting ability for the player that lands 20 feet out. /clipart/happy.gif

Lou, you got me. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Mark, the USDGC course design is tricked up beyond belief, just to make it more difficult, or competitive. I'd much rather see no fairway runups and no chains, instead of rope, cement, and clown's mouths. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

I agree wholeheartedly that we need better course and hole design. But these things can HELP MAKE better holes and courses. The USDGC venue has the luxury of space, if not obstacles. Other courses could be made much better if putting were harder and second shots couldn't be just as long as drives. Our disc equipment is evolving, has evolved, beyond our space limitations and our target equipment.

But I can see we both have opinions on this and those probably won't change. A buddy of mine might run an X-tier without chains on his private par 63 course. I think it will be interesting, if nothing else. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks for the conversation.

[dannyreeves]

This is the dumbest thread I have seen in a while. Chainless baskets and no fairway run-ups??? Is this a joke?

[dannyreeves]

Let's make a rule that you have throw throw with your opposite hand on afternoon rounds of sanctioned events. I mean, disc golf is just too easy for me throwing right handed all the time. And I can't throw as far or accuratly with my left hand so that means that short open holes would be harder.

HAHA!!! I am writing the PDGA about that one.

Kid, just to humor you, exactly what is dumb about no fairway run-ups?

I'm serious here, answer that question, and that question only, as clearly as you can.

For someone who thinks this is the dumbest thread, it shouldn't be too difficult.

Go ahead and thrill us with your acumen. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[dannyreeves]

Justin,

Running up in the fairway is a choice that we have to make when we are looking at our lie. Most of the time I do not do a fairway run up becuase I am hardly ever that far out. I play some course with 600' holes but I havn't played a lot of 800'ers. Anytime that do need to run up for a 400' upshot, I have to take some things into consideration. What obstacles do I have to throw around? What kind of flight path do I have to make the disc do? What about the wind? Sure, we think about those things every time, but for me I can be more accurate when I do not run up. I don't have to worry about a foot fault or slipping on any terrian.

So this is a CHOICE we make. Run-ups can help you throw a little bit farther but can make accuracy more of a challenge.

I say that if you can throw a 400' drive and then throw a 400' upshot (with run-up) and put it close to a basket, you are doing very well. It is a difficult thing to do. But not allowing the player to run up (and do the proper mechanics to get full power on the shot), you have taken options away on the course.

The reason why no fairway run-ups are dumb is becuase we should make the choice dependant on the particular shot.

I have a question for you. If we are making 600 feet holes harder by doing this, why would you allow for a run up off the tee on a 300' hole? What is the difference?

What are you going to say next? We can't have fast drivers anymore, becuase they help us throw farther? The holes would be harder if we all threw putters. Right? So let's do that.

[dannyreeves]

I am done with the dumb thread. The fact is that we will always have chains in the baskets and allow for running up in the fairways. It won't change.

You're probably right about the chains, Kid.

But don't be so sure about the fairway run-up. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Things change. Often for the better.

Games evolve. This one is no different.

Kid, did you know goaltending used to be legal in basketball? In fact, it wasn't made illegal until dozens of years after the game was invented. I wonder why?

/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[dannyreeves]

There is a big difference. Goaltending allowed for an unfair advantage with the defense. Disc golf is a sport that you really compete against the course (or yourself, however you look at it). It all comes down to everyone has the same chance on the course.

If I play basketball against Michael Jordan, my score is going to be way different than if I play someone close to my ability. If I am playing disc golf with Climo, his ability doesn't hurt my score.

Sure, there is a possibility that a rule could be changed in the future. But, the goaltending analogy would never apply to disc golf.

[dannyreeves]

There is no way to argue that a rule will or will not change in 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. I really don't think that it will happen because this sport will be more attractive to sponsors if they see us throwing farther. It is just like new players and joggers at the park. They don't say anything to you when they see you make a putt. They are quite impressed with a 500' drive though.

one advantage to "no run up" is accuracy in playing one's lie. how many times have you witnessed foot faults on fairway shots? too many to mention i assume. the game loses credibility when this happens, in my opinion. i'm not sure, with practice, one couldn't drive nearly as far standing still as running up. i think the trend would be toward lighter and less stable discs. at nockamixon (the course i'm installing) one is often limited to stand still shots due to the rocky terrain. it has helped in creating par 4s and 5s.

as far as putting, i don't agree that it is too easy. i would venture to say that most players are putting from 80 feet away (or more); greens should be viewed as being much larger than the 10 meters they're considered now.

no fairway run ups: stupid

no chains: moronic

and vice versa
common sense, no explaination needed

[warwickdan]

no fairway run-ups? makes no sense to put in a rule mandating the type of throw or stance one must execute for a particular circumstance (in this case the circumstance being a fairway shot).
we already have a rule regarding where contact points must be. that is enough. i'm not sure what kind of analogy i could use that wouldn't be silly. e.g. you must use a sidearm/forehand for fairway shots? just as silly as no run-ups. a rule like that would also change the dynamics of many holes on many courses. properly designed holes consider distances the average player throws and will eliminate those "tweener" holes where the majority of players all get the same score. by mandating no run-ups the average distance an approach shot will travel will be reduced, thereby requiring re-design of holes because there would now be new "tweener" holes. requiring no run-ups for the sake of eliminating foot fault issues is too steep a price to pay. the downside exceeds the upside.

Anything that makes the game harder is stupid and moronic. I propose we make baskets twice as big and holes half as long.

OK. A lot of things sound great in theory, but are simply impossible to pull off in the real world. (Like the "travelling" rule in the NBA.)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a "No Fairway Run-up" rule is implemented, consider the following scenarios:

Scenario one: Player A, a left hander, marks his lie and prepares to throw a backhand shot. He assumes a stance with his left foot 1" behind the mini and his right foot 3' behind his right foot, on the LOP. In the course of his reach-back, he shifts his weight over his right foot and lifts his left foot 8" off the ground, then as his weight shifts forward, replants his left foot 3" behind his mini on the LOP. Is this a run-up?

Scenario two: Player B, a right hander, marks her lie and prepares to throw a backhand shot. She assumes a stance in which her right foot is 3" behind the mini on the LOP and her left foot 2.5' behind her right foot, also on the LOP. In executing her reach back, she lifts her right foot and draws it back 18", and, without touching the ground, shifts forward onto her right foot, re-planting it 4" behind her mini on the LOP. Is this a run-up?

Scenario three: Player C (RH), same mechanics as Player B, except that, during the reach-back, instead of merely drawing back her foot, she touches it to the ground momentarily beside her left foot. Is this a run-up?

Scenario four: Player D (RH), same mechanics as Player C, except that, during the reach-back, instead of touching the ground even with his left foot, he momentarily touches the ground 18" behind his left foot. Is this a run-up?

Scenario five: Player E (RH), same mechanics as Player D, except that, instead of merely touching the ground momentarily with his right foot during the reach back, he plants his right foot 2.5' behind his left foot and shifts his weight over it before "unwinding." Is this a run-up?

Scenario six: Player F begins 6' behind her mini, shoulders square, facing perpendicular to the LOP, executes an X-step, with her plant foot coming to rest 2" behind her mini, on the LOP. Is this a run-up?

Beyond the simple (!) problem of definition, there's the practical problem of enforcement. Given the near-impossibility of getting players to call something as simple and clear-cut as stance violations, a "No Fairwy Run-up" rule is simply unenforceable, especially in light of the "benefit of the doubt" clause in Rule 803l00.C.

felix, felix, felix. I hesitate to respond to you because you seem so smart. But I'll take a chance.

1. A player must place a support point within 30cm and on the LOP. At some point after this support point is placed, all forward motion must cease. This is the SET position.

2. After the SET position, until release, the support point may not move.

3. If the support point moves after the SET position, the process must start over again.

Of course that's not the exact wording, but you get the idea. It's really not that hard. Not unlike the balk rule, as if I understand that. ;)

Certainly no harder to enforce than any of our current rules. Ummmm, like a jump putt and making sure the release is before the support point is raised.

(Note that the SET position allows the legality of the stance to be monitored by other players, if they wish. A cool side benefit.)

Oh, and if it's not obvious, the answer to all six scenarios is "Yes, it's a runup, and illegal.".

[rhett]

felix,

how enforceable is the current stance language? have you ever even heard of anyone calling a stance violation on a fairway runup? How about making an 804.05 call.

It would seem all our rules are pretty unenforceable in practice. Maybe we should all just put downs ones on our scorecards.

Oh I get it. The ball golf people will soon be shrinking the size of the hole to make putting harder. This all makes sense to me now. Where are those darn chain cutters when you need them? BTW I have spotted holes for the touring Pros and I thought they all threw very well indeed.

Justin, I think its becoming a pattern that the no runup and no chains ideas are getting very little support. What bugs me is why someone who appears to be very intelligent keeps pushing these concepts. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm dying to know who you really are.

[gnduke]

Oh, so it is not only no run up (implies actually taking steps that produce forward movement) it is actually no foot movement at all ? No shifting of weight that lifts either supporting point off of the ground. No forward movement (follow through) after the throw. There goes my knee.

At least we could save money by swapping out all of the baskets with trash cans.

geez, take it easy. i enjoy the discussion for discussion sake. don't worry, i won't steal your bicycle! i have no doubt in my mind that it's 1,000 times more enforceable, but equally despised. i enjoy the run up for rhythm, however i do believe it would be a fairly easy adjustment to learn to stand still and throw. billybman, i hit my lie too, it's not the traveling pros who screw this up...much. it might make technical, short courses more interesting? dan, holding a doubles tournament where you and your partner share one disc (in this case a rat chewed 160 gram xl) with your randomly drawn foursome partners is silly, i don't think this even comes close.

Justin, in any of the six scenarios, at what point does the player arrive at a "set" position? Is it when he/she initially places a foot within 30 cm of the marker along the LOP or after the foot has returned to a spot w/in 30 cm along the LOP?

If it's when the foot is initially placed w/in 30 cm along the LOP, then a player can stand in front of the thrown disc to place the marker then walks around it to a point 15' behind the marker and take a full run-up as long as his/her foot comes to rest w/in 30 cm along the LOP, AND he/she doesn't continue forward after establishing a "supporting point." (Note that it is entirely possible to take a run-up, establish a support point w/in 30 cm of of the marker along the LOP, and throw without the support point continuing to move forward until after the release.)

> 2. After the SET position, until release, the support point may not move.

> 3. If the support point moves after the SET position, the process must start over again.

So, presumably, under your proposed rule, if, the the process of reaching back, the heel of the foot that establishes the support point comes up off the ground, or the player's foot pivots prior to releasing the disc, the process starts again?

(BTW, how do you propose to incorporate the principle of giving "benefit of the doubt" to the thrower, as mandated by rule 803.00.C, into enforcement of your rule?)

Rhett:

1) the current stance language is entirely enforceable. What is not enforcable is the responsibility/obligation of players to call violations.

2) yes, I have heard of someone calling a stance violation on a fairway run-up. Earlier this year, an MPO foot-faulted on a fairway throw and got called for it, foot-faulted on the rethrow and got called and stroked for it, and would have gotten another stroke on the re-re-throw, except one of the others in the group stopped him and told him to look at his foot. (Most NC pros and quite a number of Ams will know the incident I'm referring to.)

Is it a common occurrence that stance violations are called? No. The fact that you asked whether I had even heard of a violation being called indicates how rarely it happens.

But that is exactly my point: a "No fairway run-up" rule, while fine in theory, will be no more WORKABLE than stance rules or 804.05 as long as players do not "buy" the logic behind the rule, and are therefore unwilling to call it.

if it's a hypothetical situation "benefit of the doubt" need not apply. how about at rest behind one's lie for 3 second before one's throw? no lift, constant contact.

[rhett]

felix, nice to see rules calls somewhere. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

So here is my synopsis of the whole Big Picture: the current PDGA rules are quite adequate and rather well encompassing of the situations that occur during disc golf competition, and if called would do a great job of ensuring a level playing field for all competitors. The problem is the "culture" of disc golf, with it's roots in the free spirited counter-culture and a natural resistance to order. We have good rules, but nobody wants to call them. The culture of disc golf makes you a dick if you call rules violations. It is rather strange that we want to compete against each other but we hate it when someone tries to ensure that the competition is fair.

I guess the only logical conclusion is that there shouldn't be competitions at all. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

I put the smiley not because I'm not serious, but because it is a pretty funny truth.

> how about at rest behind one's lie for 3 second before one's throw? no lift, constant contact.

RHFH/RHOH, left foot 2" behind mini, on LOP, right foot 18" IN FRONT and to the right of mini. Stand still 3 seconds to establish "at rest," step back with right foot to shift weight while keeping left foot planted (no lift, no pivot), plant right foot 3' behind and to the right of mini, step forward with right foot, releasing disc before right foot touches ground ahead of mini. Permissible or impermissible?

(Note that 803.03.A does not prohibit contact with the ground closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc prior to releasing it, it merely requires that no supporting point contact the marker disc or any object closer to the hole ***when thd disc is released***. See discussion of the "karate kid crane" stance here (http://www.pdga.com/discus/messages/42/5341.html?TuesdayMay1420020254pm#POST22300))

felix, you seem to be making this harder than it is. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I don't really understand your 10:27pm scenario. Sounds like a falling putt to me, if inside 10m. Let's see:

RHFH/RHOH, left foot 2" behind mini, on LOP, right foot 18" IN FRONT and to the right of mini.

Got it. Left foot on LOP behind mini, right foot somewhere in front of mini.

Stand still 3 seconds to establish "at rest,"

Got it.

step back with right foot to shift weight while keeping left foot planted (no lift, no pivot),

Got it. So the support point on the LOP is stationary, and the right foot is moving backward.

plant right foot 3' behind and to the right of mini,

Ummm, so at this point, the left foot support point is still fine, and your right foot is now behind the mini. Okay, still fine.

step forward with right foot, releasing disc before right foot touches ground ahead of mini.

So now you're just stepping back forward with the right foot? Okay, no problem. No problem by current rules. No problem by new rules.

Permissible or impermissible?

Again, unless I'm missing something, this is all good. Unless it's inside 10m, then it's going to be a falling putt if that right foot lands in front of the mini after the release of the disc (assuming full control of balance wasn't demonstrated).

Sorry for excessive keith johnson-like quoting. Just tyring to answer the questions.

Justin, in any of the six scenarios, at what point does the player arrive at a "set" position?

Well, I don't know if they do. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif But the scenarios are illegal either because there was no SET position, or because the support point was raised after the SET position, in which case they should've started over.

I like the later suggestion of a time span for the SET position. Maybe 1 second. Just to get out any gray areas about split-second no-forward-motion instances in a normal run-up.

Is it when he/she initially places a foot within 30 cm of the marker along the LOP or after the foot has returned to a spot w/in 30 cm along the LOP?

With the new 1-second rule, I think this question goes away.

If it's when the foot is initially placed w/in 30 cm along the LOP, then a player can stand in front of the thrown disc to place the marker then walks around it to a point 15' behind the marker and take a full run-up as long as his/her foot comes to rest w/in 30 cm along the LOP, AND he/she doesn't continue forward after establishing a "supporting point." (Note that it is entirely possible to take a run-up, establish a support point w/in 30 cm of of the marker along the LOP, and throw without the support point continuing to move forward until after the release.)


All forward motion must stop, not just of the support point.

1. Place support point.
2. Stop all forward motion for 1-second.
3. Continue with putt doing whatever you want, as long as the support point does not move until after release. You can rock, spin, squat, spit, whatever, just don't move that support point. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif
4. If you want to start over, you are more than welcome to move your support point and start over at step 1.

So, presumably, under your proposed rule, if, the the process of reaching back, the heel of the foot that establishes the support point comes up off the ground, or the player's foot pivots prior to releasing the disc, the process starts again?


It depends if the heel is the only support point, or if more of the foot is on the LOP. There would only need to be one point that doesn't move. So if the LOP goes through the length of the foot, lifting the heel would be fine. Or lifting the toe would be fine. But not both.

In fact, I think Julianna, for example, sometimes lifts her LOP-foot toe during the rock-back on a putt. If she rocks forward, rolling from the hell to the toe, this would now be illegal. Sorry Julianna. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Mark, the no chains is a bit out there.

But the no fairway runup has support. I'll bet 4 people posting to this thread are for it. Or at least would like to see it in experimental fashion. And many more reading but not posting.

As for intelligence, things are not always as they seem. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

By GnDuke on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 08:14 pm:

Oh, so it is not only no run up (implies actually taking steps that produce forward movement) it is actually no foot movement at all ? No shifting of weight that lifts either supporting point off of the ground. No forward movement (follow through) after the throw. There goes my knee.

GnDuke, after reading my clarifications to felix, your question(s) should be answered. You can shift all the weight you want. You can follow through. You can have forward motion. Everything can move (after the SET position is achieved) except a single support point.

The injury argument can be made, and has been made, on both sides of this rule. Some say there would be more injuries due to contortion with no runup. Some say less injuries due to no movement during run-up. It's a wash in my book. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[warwickdan]

kevin...i suspect your reference to silly random doubles formats is a reference to some of the silly formats i have occasionally used at non-sanctioned winter-time events? i would absolutely admit some of the formats have been wacked. but in every case i publicized well in advance that i would be experimenting with some type of unusual format. one was a doubles event near X-mas and 2 times i did something wacked at an ice bowl. the main purpose of those events was NOT to offer a traditional competitive format. they were more just to get out and have fun and play an unusual round with a group of friends. some people have begged me to keep coming up with strange formats. an equal number have begged me to stop being strange (which would be a challenge for me). i don't think an analogy comparing silly format informal events with changing the way we are required to throw is sound. i still fail to understand why there are those who feel we need to legislate throwing styles. to me there is far more downside than upside. why should we be forced to change the way we throw? how does that improve our sport? i, too, am wondering if this whole thread is just a goof. it's way too far out there for me....

[chains11864]

Read the beginning of the thread.........nothing like the end of it.....so I will stick to the reason the thread was created..."hole lengths"...

my "2cents"...afetr all the studying, debating and numbers...a simple answer exists...whatever the course lengths, number of holes etc...MAKE SURE there are 33% that favor length, 33% that favor accuracy and 33% that take both into consideration...that is it!

...and IMO NEVER have those "safari nine holes" @ the tournaments, this seems to ONLY reward the long thrower with another 9 holes to extend a lead, or to catch-up with the others...do not allow the work done by the "accuracy players" to get shoved aside when the TDs want a "neat for galleries" final nine...NOT against final 9s, just make them as previously stated. 33%, 33%, 33%...that is, incorporate the same fair ideals into the final nine also.........

Peace Chains

[warwickdan]

Brandon...a properly designed "Safari 9" doesn't have to favor just the long arms. your 3 33's makes some sense. a long hole that maybe combines 2 shorter holes for a safari hole can be done in a way that accuracy is rewarded more than strength....i agree that having 9 safari holes that are just long and open is not fair...have 3 like that....

[chains11864]

Just read Justins' ideas...make no sense at all...

...getting rid of chains, so bad I will not even comment on it........

...the "run-up" is part of the disc golf "swing", it along with the rest of the motion creates the entire "swing"...why would anyone limit the ways to propel a disc?...people choose to stand still, and choose to use a "run-up", and others find something comfortable in between.........this would be the equal to asking "ball golfers" to only strike the ball from the "top" of their swing down, not allowing them to take a "back" swing at all, again putting limits on something for NO good reason....

baffled by the ideas at all.....Brandon

Brandon: "this would be the equal to asking "ball golfers" to only strike the ball from the "top" of their swing down,"

Or, Brandon, it might be the equal of asking a ball golfer to not tee up his shot in the fairway. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Dan: i still fail to understand why there are those who feel we need to legislate throwing styles.

So, Dan, you want to get rid of the falling putt rule then? /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif It legislates a player's style for no step-through follow-through when less than 10m. And what about people who want to jump in the air before they release...like from behind a bush or on a jump-putt? Their style is legislated...by the stance rule...against doing so.

No fairway run-up:

For it: It helps to effectively shorten up courses. This allows multi-shot holes to be designed in less space.
Against it: People want to see big bomber long throws on every shot.

For it: It helps monitor fairway stance violations.
Against it: It's not any more enforceable than current rules.

For it: It will decrease injuries from run-ups.
Against it: It will increase injuries from twisting while planted.

For it: It requires players to demonstrate a skill very different than driving and putting.
Against it: It removes a player's choice regarding how to throw a shot.

For it: It makes for three unique shots: Run-up drive, no-run-up approach, no-follow-through putt.
Against it: It further muddies stance rules.

For it: It removes the advantage that long drivers get from their run-up.
Against it: It gives a huge advantage to big-arms, that is, people who can throw a long way without any run-up.

For it: It mirrors the tee-for-drive, play-it-where-it-lies of ball golf.
Against it: Why do we need to be like ball golf?

For it: The number of existing holes that will be negatively impacted is small in the grand scheme.
Against it: Existing multi-shot holes will need to be re-designed due to the shorter throws.

[warwickdan]

justin...your analogy about the falling-putt rule legislating a player's throwing style loses it's merits, in my opinion, in that we've known that to be a constraint and therefore have adopted our styles accordingly. whereas with respect to now trying to legislate fairway throwing styles would completely change how i and others play this game. i have certain muscle memories from playing for 30 years. i hate throwing a backhand from a planted position when trying to throw anything longer than a putt. i find it difficult and uncomfortable from an anatomical perspective to get proper leg, hip, and lower spine action when planted. i would love for a chiropractic or orthopedic expert to weigh in on this from a muscular/skeletal perspective. regardless, it still feels unnecessary to me to make a change like this. i don't feel like re-designing my course that has 4 layouts that allows for virtually every kind of shot, including those that favor run-ups and those where a planted shot is preferred. we have many Par 4's and some Par 5's. the dynamics of our layouts would be dramatically altered in many cases. i think if this were ever put to a vote i can't imagine there'd be much support for a rule change of this kind, and i think many would be downright nasty about it, from the posts we often see up here....i enjoy a healthy debate without making it nasty or personal...

> you seem to be making this harder than it is

Nope, just describing scenarios that I've actually seen and used. If you're going to establish a meaningful rule that has any realistic chance of enforcement, it will need to differentiate clearly and precisely what is and what is not a violation. (Again how do you propose to incorporate the principle of granting benefit of the doubt to the thrower into enforcement of a "no fairway run-up rule"?)

You would call all six scenarios described above as run-ups. I (and I would venture to say, most others) would not. So now, we have to come up with a mutually accepted definition of what precisely constitutes a "run-up," and even then, players will come up with throwing motions that stretch the boundaries of what is permissible, to the point that, for all practical purposes. the rule becomes unenforceable in actual play.

Essentially, the arguments for promulgating a "no fairway run-up" rule boil down to:

a) it will reduce, if not eliminate, foot faults; and

b) big arms are able to throw farther with a run-up, and therefore have a greater advantage over lesser arms than they would if fairway run-ups were prohibited.

In regard to (a), the current stance rule already addresses the problem. The way to address non-enforcement is not to institute another rule that will not be enforced; it's to promote enforcement of the current rule.

Regarding (b), the argument that run-ups give big-arms an advantage over lesser arms applies just much for throws from the tee as from the fairway (and footfaults on the tee aren't called any more regularly than those on the fairway),
so why restrict the rule to throws from the fairway? Why not take the next step and prohibit run-ups on the tee as well? That would have the added benefit of require even LESS room for courses.

[warwickdan]

why do we want to penalize players who are athletic and flexible enough to use many body parts in harmony thereby resulting in being able to throw a disc farther? power, strength, flexibility, endurance, quickness, speed, hand-eye coordination, accuracy, attitude, confidence, the ability to come up with creative shots, etc are all attributes possessed by disc golfers to varying degrees. a well-designed course uses diverse design features that require maximum usage of as many of the above skills as possible. eliminating use of some of those natural or learned/acquired athletic skills is unfair to the player who possesses the total package. i have a weenie arm, and from a competitive standpoint would be better off if the gap between my distance and the distance of the big arms was lessened. but me thinks this rule would take away an important aspect of our game. like it or not if we want our game to become more mainstream and provide opportunities for more players and administrators to be able to make a decent living off the sport it needs to be sold to the uninformed. spectators should get to see booming approach shots just like they get to see great putting. they don't ooh and aah at 40' putts. but watch steve brinster huck an approach 500 feet and now we've got their attention. just another angle. probably not the main one though.....

My god felix, what part of the 4-step rule in my 4:33am post do you not understand? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Here it is again:
1. Place support point.
2. Stop all forward motion for 1-second.
3. Continue with putt doing whatever you want, as long as the support point does not move until after release. You can rock, spin, squat, spit, whatever, just don't move that support point.
4. If you want to start over, you are more than welcome to move your support point and start over at step 1.

That is my proposed rule. Simple. It covers everything (until you show otherwise /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif), and is very easily understood.

As for your last post, you're missing the boat on part b). The motivation is not to increase or decrease advantages between players. Indeed, none of us know who will benefit and who won't. Rather, the motivation is to shorten all non-tee shots in order to create more multi-shot holes in less space.

The stance thing is a side-benefit.

Another cool side-benefit, in my opinion, is that players will be forced to develop another skill that must be demonstrated well in order to score well. For some backers of this change, this is a main motivation, and not a side-benefit.

Finally, to try to answer your "benefit of the doubt" question, I have no idea how it is any different than any other rule. Do we have benefit of the doubt in current stance rules? If so, fine, we'll have the same ones. If not, then we won't. What are you looking for here? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[warwickdan]

i won't redesign my course. i want to be able to let my weenie arm rip one on tee shots AND fairway shots. i don't want to eliminate long approach shots on Par 4 and Par 5 holes where distance is a factor. (but i DO want holes where approach shots are tighter and control/accuracy is more important then distance. maybe i plant myself for those shots). i don't want further legislation of my anatomical machinations. i don't have a desire to be overly concerned about being forced to watch every single foot placement of my fellow players. in 99% of throws it makes no difference if there is a minor foot fault. for those throws where it might make a difference then i ought to sneak a peek. if my competitor is in the middle of the fairway 250' from the pin and he commits a minor foot fault has he gained any unfair competitive advantage? probably not. i've expressed my opinion on this matter. i'm done.......hopefully....

<H3>Formatting Error</H3>The special character - does not exist.

[jconnell]

You know what Justin's proposed rule about stand-still fairway shots sounds like other than ludicrously complicated? The balk rule in baseball.

"Stop forward motion for 1-second" sounds a lot like "come to a full and complete rest at the set position." Can't wait to see that call on the course...

"Stance fault! You didn't stop forward motion for 1-second!"
"PROVE IT"

How often do you see a balk called in baseball where there isn't at least a short argument about it?

This is simplifying the game? Adding restrictions rarely simplifies a situation, wordy and extraneous rules tend to cloud and confuse rather than clarify.

>>For some backers of this change...
What backers? You're the only one who seems in favor of this and those of us reading all this are (or at least I am) still wondering who you are and where you are coming from.

If the name you are posting under is your true name...there's no PDGA member by that name. I therefore won't respond any further since a non-member poses no chance to bring about a change like this anyhow.

--Josh

dan, i didn't mean anything by it other than to point out "silly." i don't recall previous knowledge of the format but had fun anyway in two feet of snow! it may be whacked out, but i think i would gain a significant advantage with the stand still and i'm really selfish and only care about me, me, me. either that or i'm an orthopedic surgeon specializing in reconstructing shoulders and elbows secretly plotting a rules change to drum up some extra business. felix, i disagree with b. i think the difference in distance would be in a similar ratio to how it is now. i'll start watching more closely to thrower's feet, but will i get stroked if i don't watch the disc? how many sets of eyes do we need? or maybe we can designate jobs to each member of the group before each throw to make sure that all eyes are being used efficiently? whew. i would love to see tournaments with restrictions on what types of discs one could use. for example, mid-range discs and below (down to putter molds) would be all one could use. lengthening many courses that have become somewhat obsolete by technology. what about that?

[warwickdan]

kevin....no problem. i didn't take your comments personally. it was a good point!! i just wanted to keep this thread on track (even though it's already veered off several times). have we been had? is Justin Case really just "just in case"?

not sure, but as technology increases, courses become obsolete. not warwick long to long mind you, but tinicum long to long? i would love to play that layout with rocs/wasps/mid-range discs. i was intrigued by the thread too, because of my designing nockamixon. however, for me, hole length is better dealt with as a ratio to fairway width. i don't believe it's possible to deal with one without the other, assuming it's a somewhat wooded course. will you be coming to the td summit in september? i'd love to get input on the design. come down anytime, i'll show you around.

felix, prohibition references? cool. i would argue vehemently that there was a social benefit to prohibition and current research could refute the health benefit as well. josh, i'm not sure anyone is carrying the no-run-up flag as you surmise. but you're right about the anonymous business, how dare he? or her? or it? for crying out loud it could be a robot! or worse yet, a communist! just kidding around a bit. there are so many cool possibilities to this game that exploring them here is harmless.

Please address the issue of movement as it relates to fairway throws, not putts.

What can I say? It's self-explanatory. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

You can do anything you want, just don't move that support point.

You can rock back. You can spin around. You can move your non-support-point foot, and it can impact the ground any number of times during your throwing motion. Whatever.

As for your "benefit of the doubt", again, it's just like any other call. Stance violation, 30 seconds, falling putt. Called by one, seconded by another. Or whatever it is. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif Sure, it won't be called by anyone, except in the most obvious cases. Only when somebody starts to push the line. But that's how it is with any of our rules. Not a good thing, but that's real life. Josh, that goes for you too. It's just like any other call. If it had been on the books 10 years already today, we'd all be used to it. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Oh and there are other backers. They've spoken on other threads. They've shown a modicum of support on this thread. There are some not on this board. Guess I'm just the only one with no life. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

And if I'm not me, it doesn't change the discussion. It's still a reasonable...well to me and a couple others...discussion that has remained darn civil for this board.

Other backers, with pointers to other discussions at this link. Wow, this is highly recycled.

http://pdga.com/discus/messages/42/4967.html?1017896195

Somewhere, there's someone, not named Justin Case, having a good belly laugh at our expense. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

> You can do anything you want, just don't move that support point.

So, we arrive back at the last scenario:

Player A, throwing sidearm, walks up to his mark with his disc even with his shoulder. The instant his plant foot hits the ground, he draws his arm back slightly, creating a momentary (.8872 sec ±.113 sec) pause in his forward motion, then snaps his arm forward. (And don't try to argue that it can't be done. It can, as anyone for whom sidearm and/or overhead throws are a regular part of his/her game will attest.)

Is this a violation? Presumably, the answer is "Yes," because the player used a "run-up" to arrive at the "set" position. OTOH, he did establish a support point and did cease forward motion for something on the order of 1 sec, thereby fulfilling all the requirements of the hypothetical "no fairway run-up" rule, so presumably it's not a violation. So even with a "no fairway run-up" rule, some fairway run-ups would still be legal, which begs the question, "Why permit these types of run-ups and not others?"

> it won't be called by anyone, except in the most obvious cases.

Which begs the question: what's the point of having it to begin with?

Most fun wins.

three seconds would make it an easier call.

So would 15 seconds, but that ain't gonna happen either. /clipart/happy.gif

Dan Doyle: "in 99% of throws it makes no difference if there is a minor foot fault"

I am guessing that 99% of fairway shots in this week's PGA Championship would have the same result if the ball were nudged a few inches in any direction prior to playing the shot. Having a rule that is easier to enforce would add legitimacy to a sport that needs some.

In regard to the comments about injuries, I find them to be meaningless and ignorant by people who most likely have no real knowledge of the human body's anatomy, physiology, biomechanics and kinematics.

BTW, I am in favor of a "no run-up" rule and making putting more challenging (not to mention standardized targets).

B.J. Gardner, MPT
Physical Therapist
Director of Therapy Services
Brodstone Memorial Hospital
Superior, NE
PDGA# 11278---non-current member
Promoter of Disc Golf

[warwickdan]

bej...disc golf lies and ball golf lies are NOT analagous. there is a huge difference. the lie is everything in ball golf. even a difference of an inch can be important because of the way the grass lays, divots, sand, etc. as far as anatomy is concerned, i indicated i have little knowledge and specifically asked for experts to weigh in. all i know is that i have trouble with hip rotation in many rrecreational activities. i find it uncomfortable to reach back when i am planted and get any hip rotation into my throwing style. when i am able to take a 3-step run-up (it's more like a walk-up) i find it less uncomfortable and i can increase my hip rotation. same thing with my lower back. i am not advocating leaving the rule as is just because i'm not flexible.

[rhett]

foot faults on fairway runups ABSOLUTELY MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE 100% OF THE TIME!

Think about it: two throws from the same lie. One time you make sure you land your foot legally within 30cm of your mini on the LOP. The other throw you just basically execute a drive from the tee-box without worrying at all about where your foot lands. It makes a huge difference! Anybody that claims that it makes no difference obviously NEVER makes an attempt to land their fairway runups legally.

Consider the scenario where foot faults are always called: will you just execute a tee-box drive if you know that when you miss you will have to rethrwo the shot and take penalty strokes for the 2nd on on times you miss per round? Or will you play "golf" and make dang sure your footwork is good?

Currently almost no-one will call a foot fault so you don't have to decide. Don't be deluded into thinking that because no one calls you on your rules violations that those violations make no difference in your game!

i agree rhett. i believe this is especially true in awkward situations. i not only have to execute a difficult s-shot through a small gap, but make sure my foot plants directly behind the mini, between a stump and a rock in accordance with the rules. or i don't care where my foot lands, no one calls it anyway. or i stand still to execute the shot. would stricter adherence to the current rules lead to an increase in stand-still shots?

[warwickdan]

i think either i'm not expressing myself clearly or my comments are being mis-construed. let me try again. i am not suggesting that we should ignore foot faults. in principle i agree that foot faults are always wrong and should not occur. i am also not suggesting that i don't care about where MY foot lands when i play. i am anal about rules and if i am lame about following a specific rule i hope someone points it out to me. i've even had situations where i've been a spaz during a run-up and felt i may have foot-faulted when no one has called it on me and i've asked those in my group if they saw my foot placement and asked if they wanted to call me on it. anyone who has played with me knows integrity is important to me. ( i will also admit that i get pretty ****** at myself when i play and have definietly been guilty of courtesy violations although no one has ever called one on me. i have called them on myself after i finished my tantrum and realized how much of a nimrod i just was and can actually laugh at myself.) when i said that 99% of throws it doesn't make a difference if there is a foot fault, i should have been more specific. what i believe is that when throwing from an unobstructed position in the middle of an open area the END RESULT of my shot won't be much different 99% of the time if my plant foot is legally positioned or a little bit away from legal. and my words "little bit" are kind of vague. i'm not talking about a throw where the player is nowhere near his marker disc. and again, i am not advocating that we not care when there is a foot fault. call it. my point in my prior post is that a ball golf lie cannot be compared to a disc golf lie. if a golf ball stops in a divot in the middle of the fairway the next shot will probably require a different club and a different kind of shot than if it had landed one inch away from the divot in a clean lie. if a golf ball is in 4" of thick gnarly rough 1" off a cut fairway, and this happens a lot, it is obviously completely different. i am also not referring to awkward situations, shots where footing is an issue, shots where there are obstacles all over the place, etc. in those cases it is obvious that legal foot placement is critical and foot faults should be called. if a particular player is way too casual with where he places his foot he should be called on it. does this help explain my position? the bottom line, getting back to this thread topic, is that i can't see changing how we've been throwing for years because we have an unwillingness to enforce foot fault rules. it's not a good trade-off, in my opinion. (i wish i had played santa maria 2 weeks ago, rhett, so we could have met and hopefully you'd have found i present my thoughts better in person than on this site).

In my experience, players are more inclined to call foot faults in instances where the foot fault can make an appreciable difference in the outcome of the shot, i.e., where obstacles and/or footing are an issue.

Technically, on an open shot with firm, level footing, it's a foot fault if a player's foot lands 8" behind the mini and 6" to the left or right of the LOP, but most players aren't inclined to call it because from that particular lie, most would judge the probability that 6", or 10", or possibly even 18" off the LOP will make a significant difference in the result to be relatively small. The same foot (mis-) placement from an obstructed or uneven lie is more likely to elicit a call because of the perception that even 2-3" of leeway can make a significant difference when throwing from an awkward lie. It's very similar to the "No harm, no foul" or "Play the advantage" approach to rule enforcement in football, basketball, hockey, and any number of other sports, in which the foul is whistled only if, in the mind of the official, the violaton significantly advantages the offender. While I would prefer to see the rules more strictly enforced than is common presently, by and large, the "no harm, no foul" approach strikes me as a reasonable compromise between overly strict and overly lax enforcement.

Dan, felix, it DOES make a HUGE difference on every single shot. Read Rhett's post again. Slowly. He's right. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Justin, if I were in an ornery mood, I'd challenge you to demonstrate that empirically. I would insist, however, that you do so by throwing two shots which were identical in all aspects except for the placement of one's plant foot relative to the LOP. /clipart/happy.gif

It MAY make a huge difference in terms of a player's mental process, but it doesn't necessarily ALWAYS make a discernable difference in terms of the practical result.

Most, if not all, players make a distinction between incidental and flagrant violations. Most also distinguish between the spirit and the letter of a rule. As a rule, violations are called only when they are perceived to breech the spirit of fair competition: consequently, incidental violations are not called; flagrant violations are. That approach is commensurate with the intention of the rules, which is "to promote fair play for all disc golfers." (Preface, PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf, © 2002)

One may not like it, but that's the way it is, and the way it's likely to continue to be.

[warwickdan]

thank you felix....excellent analogies...i like the no harm, no foul analogy....justin: it does NOT make a HUGE difference on every single shot if you define difference as the outcome of the throw. no way. some shots i'd agree that outcome could be quite different. if you define difference in black and white terms, in that you either foot-faulted or you didn't and therefore your throw was either legal or illegal, then i'll give it to you that there is a huge difference. one way is right; one way is wrong.

i like the "no harm, no foul" idea as well because i recognize it as the reality. however with the rules the way they are written, it's a foul and should be called. why can't the spirit become the letter? you can't be a stickler about the rules and then admit you let things slide.

much of what rhett (correct me if i'm wrong) is saying concerns the mental exercise that is required when one makes sure he or she has a legal stance before a throw. it's no problem getting it close without any thought at all, and as you state no one calls it and no one should (felix's compromise). but playing by the stated rules, it can really add extra, unnecessary challenge to a shot. getting close, no problem, no extra thought, good shot. getting exactly correct (as the rule states), extra thought, additional problem, good shot, maybe? bad shot, much more likely than not worrying about it. so you're essentially telling me that for the last 9 years i've been wasting my time attempting to throw by the rules...thanks, i'll stop trying now, maybe my rating will go up.

> so you're essentially telling me that for the last 9 years i've been wasting my time attempting to throw by the rules.

Nope, what I'm saying is that for 85-90% of shots, most players of average coordination don't explicitly think about foot placement on fairway run-ups because getting their plant foot within a 12" radius semi-circle of the marker is not a significant problem. Technically, that's a violation of "w/in 30 cm along the LOP", but for practical purposes, most would consider it "close enough." It's the other 10-15% of shots from obstructed or awkward lies where accurate foot placement CAN make a substantive difference in the outcome in terms of distance and/or accuracy that stricter application of the stance rule come into play.

> you can't be a stickler about the rules and then admit you let things slide.

One need not resort to wooden, literal application of the rules to apply the rules in a judicious, consistent manner. Mature, responsible rules application takes into account the intent of the rule (see, e.g., Dave Dunipace's summary of the Rules Committee's intent in writing the practice throw rule) as well as the particular circumstances of the violation and determines whether the violation is substantive or merely incidental in nature.

Technically, not watching other members of one's group throw to help locate errant discs and to ensure full compliance with the rules is a courtesy violation. Literal, wooden application would required a player to call a courtesy violation on another player who is not watching. Funny thing is, however, that he would not notice that the others are not watching the thrower unless he himself was not watching the thrower, so, technically, he must call a courtesy violation on himself as well.

Likewise, it is technically a courtesy violation to advance from the tee area toward one's lie ahead of the away player or to pass the away player, except on the tee, the green, and between holes (801.01.B. Note, however, that it may be permissible if one precedes the away player by walking in the rough. "Hey! You're in front of the away player: that's a courtesy violation!" "No it isn't: it's only a violation if you're on the fairway. I'm in the rough!" /clipart/happy.gif) Literal, wooden application requires all such technical violations to be called; consistent, judicious application looks at the violation and says, "No harm, no foul."

Given the choice between the two, I'll take a consistent, jujdicious application of the rules over a wooden, literal one every time.

like i mentioned previously felix, i recognize no harm, no foul as the reality--no problem. however, the fair, judicious, consistent, impartial application of the rules by your "philosopher-king" is not practical in reality. the p-k can't be in every group and all p-k's don't have the same idea of fair or impartial or judicious. player a is playing with your p-k and gets called for nothing during the round even though a few non-calls were technically foot faults. player b is warned early in a round by another p-k that he may have foot-faulted and should be careful. he decides to heed the advice of this less-than-perfect p-k and doesn't foot fault at all(by the letter of the rules) for the rest of the round. player a beats player b by one, has fair play been promoted for all disc golfers?

Kevin, you play with the players you're grouped with. Some will be more strict than others. Guess what: that's life, and life isn't always fair. One can't force others to call the rules in accordance to one's own personal standards. The most one can do is to play up to the level of enforcement at which he or she desires to compete, and attempt to apply that level of enforcement to one's own group--"attempt" because some violations require a second to be validly called: if no one else is willing to second a call, you put it behind you and move on--and trust that one's competitors are attempting to compete within the spirit of the rules. That doesn't require a philosopher-king; it simply requires a modicum of goodwill toward others, a large measure of humility regarding one's own competitive integrity, and a reasonable level of maturity.

that's not life, it's a round of disc golf and as you quoted from the rulebook, "to promote fairplay for all disc golfers." so again, does the above scenario promote fair play?

i think we both agree that everyone has a different take on what "fair play" looks like in practice, this is the point. the rules were written (flawed or otherwise) to eliminate this discrepancy as much as possible. in my opinion, in doing so, they've created an artificial standard when applied in the real world with real humans and real emotions. it's similar to legislating morality, might look good on paper, but lousy when put into practice, that's why i liked your prohibition analogy (not your personal perspective of it necessarily). for you to say it's ok to allow some foot faults and not others is to make a discretionary call. if i was playing a round with you, it seems i'd be happy with this discretion--with others, i might not be so happy. i'm interested in discussing the stand still throw simply because i've always felt that this particular logistical problem (the run-up to one's lie or attempt thereof) keeps our sport hokey and backyardish.

> does the above scenario promote fair play?

To the extent that players believe that their competitors are making a reasonable effort to adhere to the rules, it does; to the extent that players believe that their competitors are intentionally stretching the boundaries to "gain an edge," it doesn't.

> for you to say it's ok to allow some foot faults and not others is to make a discretionary call.

All calls that require a second (e.g., stance violations, marking violations, excessive time, etc.) are, by nature, discretionary by virtue of the fact that the Rules Committee gives other players in the group the power to confirm or veto any given call. In other words, the enforcement mechanism expects, and perhaps even requires, players to exercise their judgment as to whether a violation is substantive and consequential or minor and inconsequential, and to respond accordingly. So discretion is written into the warp and woof of the rules.

> that's why i liked your prohibition analogy (not your personal perspective of it necessarily

Actually, I doubt you know or can safely infer my perspective on prohibition. /clipart/smile.gif

[rhett]

I swear I've typed the exact words that Kevin typed in this back-and-forth at least three different times in the last five years. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

And no, the scenario does not promote fair play as the player that won by 1 stroke was not playing the rules the same as the other player.

> I swear I've typed the exact words that Kevin typed in this back-and-forth at least three different times in the last five years.

Well then obviously you ain't growin' wiser with the passage of time./clipart/proud.gif