After an amazing week at Worlds (minus my last round due to injury) I have been left with a little sour taste in my mouth pertaining to the 2 meter rule and the PDGA making it optional. During the players meeting there was an equal amount of booing and approval for the 2 meter rule being in effect. We were sitting in a group of European players which would not stop going on about how stupid the rule is and how they have never played it that way...ever. During my week of golf I had at least one European or East coast player in my group who wanted to "discuss/complain" about the rule and how "silly" (that seemed to be the word of the week for the rule) it is to even be a rule.

Now, growing up in Norcal, we have always played the 2 meter rule and never given it a second thought. There seems to be a lot of opposition to this rule but every one I "discussed" it with could not come up with one real reason why it shouldn't be a rule except they didn't like it or you shouldn't be punished. If you are stuck in a tree 30ft. above the basket on your first shot, can anyone explain how that should be considered a birdie? This "optional" non rule promotes crashing the trees instead of a risk/reward shot which could trickle down or not. I mean, why take the risky fairway shot winding thru the trees when I can try to launch it into the tops of the trees and take my lie wherever it ends up!?!

In this way, I think the PDGA is lessening our sport by allowing some areas to play one way while another plays it differently. The PDGA needs to make a set standard and enforce the rules world wide! I think the 2 meter rule should be a permanent rule with no option otherwise. I know this has been discussed before but seeing it first hand this week opened up my eyes on how large the rift is about this rule. I'm going to start a poll to see what every one thinks and all opinions are welcome. Disc On!

I really wish my area had to deal with a too-many-trees problem, or super-sticky trees, but we don't. So it's nice to be able to treat it like the random flukey experience it is.

I agree with you, but the issue is kind of stale. My main thing is I don't see why the rules heavily punish an unplayable lie in a thicket of thorns or a dense patch of cactus with stroke and distance, but treat an unplayable lie at the top of pine tree as if the disc landed on the ground. The disc didn't land on the ground and we don't want you throwing from the top of the tree, so that ought to be penalized with stroke and distance too. Or both ought to be treated more like the two club lengths rule in golf, in my opinion, which was the five meter rule back in the day.

Around here (SC) the 2-meter rule is quite unpopular, and I haven't known it to be used in years.

Bruce's point comparing it to other bad lies is valid. On the other hand, a throw into briars almost always ends up in briars. A throw into an O.B. lake almost always stays O.B. A throw into a tree, 99% of the time comes down; further penalizing the unlucky 1% strikes some as rather random. After all, the thrower's already penalized by loss of distance and, in many cases, a bad lie at the foot of the tree.

My experience---we all have our own unique experience---is that I've NEVER seen a disc stuck in a tree over the basket, or close enough for an easy putt. 99.9% of the stuck-in-trees I've seen were further up the fairway, already penalized by hitting the tree and losing substantial distance. In the very rare example of a hole where crashing into the trees might be advantageous, the 2-meter rule can be applied to that particular hole. Much better than applying it everywhere, just to cover that rare situation.

2 meter rule=random penalty...

What exactly are we "voting" on in the poll? Yay for the penalty and nay for having no penalty? Too black and white if that's the case. I actually think the rule as it is currently is as good as it gets (it could be written a bit cleaner, but the spirit is right).

The decision on when and where the 2-meter penalty applies absolutely should rest with the person(s) responsible for designing the course. Same as deciding where out of bounds areas are (there are no automatic OB areas per the rules, after all), designers/directors have the power to say where the 2-meter penalty applies and where it doesn't.

I don't understand the idea that it's "allowing some areas to play one way while another plays it differently". Everyone is still playing by the same rule book. Again, I'll equate it to out of bounds. Everyone's idea of out of bounds varies, does it not? Some courses will rope off areas as OB to "tighten" otherwise open fairways, plenty of other courses have minimal OB or none at all on their open fairways. How is that any different than some courses instituting the 2-meter penalty and others not? Both are within the rules, and each decision is probably motivated by how those in charge at those courses feel is the best way to play THAT course.

That's the key here. There is no universal solution to this. There are courses where the penalty makes sense, and there are courses where the penalty is simply unneeded. I'd break it down even further and say it's certain holes where the penalty makes sense and holes where it isn't necessary, even if those holes are all on the same course. The current rule covers all those contingencies.

Here in San Angelo, Tx. we play the 2 meter rule as "in effect" for all minis and most tourneys(unless the TD forgets to announce it).

What David said, random double penalties are not fair. I would support a 2 meter penalty within the putting circle, but that is it.

After an amazing week at Worlds (minus my last round due to injury) I have been left with a little sour taste in my mouth pertaining to the 2 meter rule and the PDGA making it optional. During the players meeting there was an equal amount of booing and approval for the 2 meter rule being in effect. We were sitting in a group of European players which would not stop going on about how stupid the rule is and how they have never played it that way...ever. During my week of golf I had at least one European or East coast player in my group who wanted to "discuss/complain" about the rule and how "silly" (that seemed to be the word of the week for the rule) it is to even be a rule.

Now, growing up in Norcal, we have always played the 2 meter rule and never given it a second thought. There seems to be a lot of opposition to this rule but every one I "discussed" it with could not come up with one real reason why it shouldn't be a rule except they didn't like it or you shouldn't be punished. If you are stuck in a tree 30ft. above the basket on your first shot, can anyone explain how that should be considered a birdie? This "optional" non rule promotes crashing the trees instead of a risk/reward shot which could trickle down or not. I mean, why take the risky fairway shot winding thru the trees when I can try to launch it into the tops of the trees and take my lie wherever it ends up!?!

In this way, I think the PDGA is lessening our sport by allowing some areas to play one way while another plays it differently. The PDGA needs to make a set standard and enforce the rules world wide! I think the 2 meter rule should be a permanent rule with no option otherwise. I know this has been discussed before but seeing it first hand this week opened up my eyes on how large the rift is about this rule. I'm going to start a poll to see what every one thinks and all opinions are welcome. Disc On!

the 2 meter rule at worlds was overly-punitive. ex.- hole 27 csumb oaks with a fairway full of trees and yellow rope down both sides. now, if i had a couple of weeks to play that hole, i might have figured out how to play it without bringing the trees into play. maybe. but like most players there, i had one day to practice and one actual shot at negotiating the trees and ob. now theres some sour taste....

Backers of the 2 meter penalty like to use the case of landing more than 2 meters above the basket as their pivotal rationale for using it everywhere. Here's an example of fluky good luck with a player landing above the pin with no 2m penalty and replace it with random fluky bad luck everywhere. A way to deal with that "good luck" a player might rarely get landing above the pin with no 2m penalty is to simply require the player to mark at the closest point on the 10m circle to where their disc would be marked on the ground below where it sits in the tree. No penalty but they have to make a 10m putt. I believe TDs would be able to establish this rule on specific holes where it might occur without needing a waiver by invoking the Special Conditions rule. Essentially, it's identifying the space above the 10m circle for casual relief with drop zone along the 10m circle.

I understand that every one at a tourney plays with the same rules so it affects every one the same. That is not the issue to me.
The issue to me is two fold--1. Along the lines of what Bruce was saying. How can you penalize a player for an unplayable lie while the disc is close to the ground or in a bush but not penalize a player for having an unplayable lie 40ft. in the air? And for every one who says it's random, it's not. You are throwing into trees with the possibility of getting stuck, how's that random? If you don't want to get stuck, don't throw that high. Most TD's are not the course designer so to say they know how it should be played is ludicrous.
2. Do you see the PGA having optional rules? No. There is a set rule book which clearly explains how the game is to be played everywhere. That way you don't have the experience I had with all the complaints and "discussions" on optional rules.
I've played multiple competitive sports over the years and I can't think of one which has "optional" rules. Choose one rule and go with it. This "if you feel like playing it this week but not next" is hog wash. If you don't have many trees at the courses you play, the 2 meter rule really won't change much. If you do, then be aware if you launch into the trees, there's a possibility of a penalty.
The PDGA needs to have continuity across all areas of play, be it in Norcal, Utah, Australia, Europe, where ever. And the poll seems pretty clear to me, yes if you want the 2 meter rule, no if you don't.

the 2 meter rule at worlds was overly-punitive. ex.- hole 27 csumb oaks with a fairway full of trees and yellow rope down both sides. now, if i had a couple of weeks to play that hole, i might have figured out how to play it without bringing the trees into play. maybe. but like most players there, i had one day to practice and one actual shot at negotiating the trees and ob. now theres some sour taste....

I feel you on that hole. I was -8 with 4 holes left and went O.B. twice on that hole(yellow rope). If we're going to start lining rope everywhere at majors and inserting a ton of O.B. down the fairway where you can't see it, why then would we take away a rule that's been in place for +20 years. We're going to include O.B. where there normally is none, and take away a rule that's been around forever. Doesn't make any sense.

I understand that every one at a tourney plays with the same rules so it affects every one the same. That is not the issue to me.
The issue to me is two fold--1. Along the lines of what Bruce was saying. How can you penalize a player for an unplayable lie while the disc is close to the ground or in a bush but not penalize a player for having an unplayable lie 40ft. in the air? And for every one who says it's random, it's not. You are throwing into trees with the possibility of getting stuck, how's that random? If you don't want to get stuck, don't throw that high. Most TD's are not the course designer so to say they know how it should be played is ludicrous.
2. Do you see the PGA having optional rules? No. There is a set rule book which clearly explains how the game is to be played everywhere. That way you don't have the experience I had with all the complaints and "discussions" on optional rules.
I've played multiple competitive sports over the years and I can't think of one which has "optional" rules. Choose one rule and go with it. This "if you feel like playing it this week but not next" is hog wash. If you don't have many trees at the courses you play, the 2 meter rule really won't change much. If you do, then be aware if you launch into the trees, there's a possibility of a penalty.
The PDGA needs to have continuity across all areas of play, be it in Norcal, Utah, Australia, Europe, where ever. And the poll seems pretty clear to me, yes if you want the 2 meter rule, no if you don't.
I'm the one that said the poll wasn't good enough, because I'm an advocate of the rule as it is which is neither a flat yes or a flat no.

As for what other optional rules exist...ummm, how about PDGA rule 803.09 Out of Bounds? That is an optional rule. The course designer and/or the TD decides where and what is out of bounds and what isn't. What one TD plays as OB can be different than what another would. Roped off OB can be added to a course for one event and taken away for another.

Seems to me all of your arguments for making the 2-meter penalty universal again applies to out of bounds too. Either every course has to have certain things be OB, or no course has OB at all, right? Otherwise, there's no continuity, as you put it.

The rule book should be a tool for course design, not a course designer itself. The 2-meter penalty is an element of course design, therefore it should not be dictated strictly by the rule book, but by the design of each course on an individual basis, just like out-of-bounds and mandos are.

I feel you on that hole. I was -8 with 4 holes left and went O.B. twice on that hole(yellow rope). If we're going to start lining rope everywhere at majors and inserting a ton of O.B. down the fairway where you can't see it, why then would we take away a rule that's been in place for +20 years. We're going to include O.B. where there normally is none, and take away a rule that's been around forever. Doesn't make any sense.

well ok, give and take is what you are talking about i think. reduce the amount of ob on particular holes, or no mandys that make you play into negative situations..... i see the same with the 2 meter rule, even if its been around for 20 years, ob has been around longer i would bet, and mandys....the two meter rule is just that. a rule. which can be changed, or not.....depending on the circumstances, yes?
for the worlds this year i would have liked to have seen a rule that gave any player who got poison oak a two stroke reduction on every scorecard they turned in. :)
now thats a rule i could have voted yes on...

Ball golf has the similar "optional rules" to what we have in disc golf although we're not talking rules we're talking optional design choices. In ball golf they have hazard, relief, unplayable and OB options as examples within their rules. In disc golf, we have OB, 2 meter and casual relief as some examples of options within the rules. In both sports, the rules are still there regardless of the options chosen by designer or player.

A shot stuck in a tree is a less than optimal throw regardless whether it's penalized since you might lose the disc in addition to the lost distance and potentially poor stance underneath. When penalty scenarios are defined in a sport, they are usually specific to an incident or to a specific location. The blanket 2-meter rule as applied by NorCal and few remaining places does not meet that criteria.

A true blanket 2-meter rule would penalize players for a disc flying above 2 meters in general, thru the air, thru the trees, every time. We know that doesn't make sense unless we agree a disc flying above 2 meters any time is a "bad throw." It's not. We consider any flight height acceptable.

Narrowing it a little bit to applying a 2-meter penalty when a disc flying above 2 meters simply strikes something would be a possibility, that is if we agree that a shot should be penalized more than what might be lost from striking something in the first place. This version of the rule could be fair but would fail in practice because we couldn't always see the flight path and how high a disc hit on an object.

Now we look at an even narrower definition, the blanket 2 meter rule as it was before 2006 where it's only applied when a disc sticks above 2 meters. It sounds specific and in theory could be consistently applied. However, it fails in fairness because not ALL objects above 2 meters secure and penalize the disc passing thru at a high enough percentage to justify a consistently applied penalty compared with hazards like water or other OB where the capture percentage is typically higher than 95% and sometimes 99.9%.

If in fact most vertical objects could grab and secure discs flying above 2 meters even say 80% or more of time, then maybe a blanket penalty could be fairly and consistently applied. Certain specific foliage may exceed 80% capture rate but most vertical objects aren't even close to that. And that's the reason for the 2-meter rule as it currently reads. It can optionally be used where it can be fairly and consistenty applied based on the hole design and the existence of 80%+ catching foliage in strategic positions. That's a professional design approach that still has some luck involved but much less than buckshotting the 2-meter rule everywhere.

Martin_Bohn - for the worlds this year i would have liked to seen a rule that gave any player who got poison oak a two stroke reduction on every scorecard they turned in.
I wonder how many Santa Cruz regional players were afflicted by poison oak before and during the event versus those attending from elsewhere?

I'm the one that said the poll wasn't good enough, because I'm an advocate of the rule as it is which is neither a flat yes or a flat no.

As for what other optional rules exist...ummm, how about PDGA rule 803.09 Out of Bounds? That is an optional rule. The course designer and/or the TD decides where and what is out of bounds and what isn't. What one TD plays as OB can be different than what another would. Roped off OB can be added to a course for one event and taken away for another.

Seems to me all of your arguments for making the 2-meter penalty universal again applies to out of bounds too. Either every course has to have certain things be OB, or no course has OB at all, right? Otherwise, there's no continuity, as you put it.

The rule book should be a tool for course design, not a course designer itself. The 2-meter penalty is an element of course design, therefore it should not be dictated strictly by the rule book, but by the design of each course on an individual basis, just like out-of-bounds and mandos are.

You are incorrect about 803.09 being "optional". O.B. is always O.B. What is O.B. can change but O.B. is always Out of Bounds. In that sense O.B. is not optional, just what can cause O.B. is-- I know, that's pretty picky :)
The 2 meter rule is not O.B., they are two different rules. That would be silly to state that every course needs to have the same O.B.s to maintain continuity.
Tell me how the 2 meter rule in effect directly pertains to O.B. It doesn't. You can have the 2 meter rule anywhere, but O.B. is not on every course.
I still don't see any other examples of sports which have "optional" rules. You used another disc golf rule to try to prove your point. That's not what I was talking about.
Most courses were made and designed before the 2 meter rule was optional. I don't think any one made the rule book a "course designer" as you refer. They made the course how they saw fit. O.B.s and Mandos are different than the 2 meter rule,

You are incorrect about 803.09 being "optional". O.B. is always O.B. What is O.B. can change but O.B. is always Out of Bounds. In that sense O.B. is not optional, just what can cause O.B. is-- I know, that's pretty picky :)
The 2 meter rule is not O.B., they are two different rules. That would be silly to state that every course needs to have the same O.B.s to maintain continuity.
Tell me how the 2 meter rule in effect directly pertains to O.B. It doesn't. You can have the 2 meter rule anywhere, but O.B. is not on every course.
I still don't see any other examples of sports which have "optional" rules. You used another disc golf rule to try to prove your point. That's not what I was talking about.
Most courses were made and designed before the 2 meter rule was optional. I don't think any one made the rule book a "course designer" as you refer. They made the course how they saw fit. O.B.s and Mandos are different than the 2 meter rule,
We're apparently talking past each other here. I'll try again.

The rules tell you how to play certain situations, the design of the course determines where you use those rules. With the way the rule is currently written, I as a TD can designate a certain tree or a certain group of trees or a certain hole is where the 2-meter penalty will be in effect. That is me determining how and when the penalty is applied. No different than me, as a TD, saying that this road is OB or this pond is OB or this stream is not OB. Or that it is mandatory to go to the left side of this tree, or right side of this post.

Imagine if the rule book said that you had to pass every deciduous tree on the left side and every evergreen tree on its right side. The blanket 2-meter penalty (as we used to have and as you are advocating for) applied all the time with no exceptions is the rulebook imposing a design element on my course along the lines of that mando example. Something in the rule book that is blindly applied to a course regardless of its necessity or practicality. That is what I mean by the rulebook being a course designer.

On one of the courses where I run events, there is one hole with one tree for which the 2-meter penalty applies. On the rest of the course, the penalty is not applied. But on that hole, which is one in which that particular tree is a good "bomb a disc into it and let it fall under the basket" tree, the 2-meter penalty is in play to discourage that shot. But just because of that one tree on that one hole, that shouldn't mean that the tree along the fairway of another hole needs to invoke a penalty if a disc happens to get caught up in it when the player is still 300 feet from the target.

Again this is what I mean by it being a design element provided by the rules rather than a design element dictated by the rules. To me, declaring a blanket 2-meter penalty because of that one tree on hole 17 is equivalent to roping off the perimeter of every fairway as OB because one hole borders a road or another property which needs to be OB to prevent players from throwing and playing from there. It's unnecessary.

So the 2-meter rule, like OB and mandatories, is and should be an element of design utilized by TDs and course designers to create a challenging course. It doesn't need to be universally applied in order to be effective.

"Ball golf has the similar "optional rules" to what we have in disc golf although we're not talking rules we're talking optional design choices. In ball golf they have hazard, relief, unplayable and OB options as examples within their rules. In disc golf, we have OB, 2 meter and casual relief as some examples of options within the rules. In both sports, the rules are still there regardless of the options chosen by designer or player."

---You are way off in this paragraph Chuck. To compare an optional sand trap or water hazard when designing a course to an optional rule is completely off base. Can you remove the hazard once it's been installed?--no. The PGA has no "optional" rules. They don't say for this tourney the sand trap is O.B. or the water isn't a stroke this time. It's the same for every tourney. Maybe where the relief is changes but not the actual rule.



"A shot stuck in a tree is a less than optimal throw regardless whether it's penalized since you might lose the disc in addition to the lost distance and potentially poor stance underneath. When penalty scenarios are defined in a sport, they are usually specific to an incident or to a specific location. The blanket 2-meter rule as applied by NorCal and few remaining places does not meet that criteria. "

---We all have less than optimal throws while playing disc. Being caught up in a tree directly refers to an incident or a specific location. It certainly does meet the criteria.



"A true blanket 2-meter rule would penalize players for a disc flying above 2 meters in general, thru the air, thru the trees, every time. We know that doesn't make sense unless we agree a disc flying above 2 meters any time is a "bad throw." It's not. We consider any flight height acceptable."

---Any flight height is acceptable and above 2 meters is not a "bad" throw. We're not talking about how or where your disc flies, we're talking about where it ends up. This paragraph makes no sense pertaining to the 2 meter rule.



"Narrowing it a little bit to applying a 2-meter penalty when a disc flying above 2 meters simply strikes something would be a possibility, that is if we agree that a shot should be penalized more than what might be lost from striking something in the first place. This version of the rule could be fair but would fail in practice because we couldn't always see the flight path and how high a disc hit on an object."

---Thus, only when it's stuck in a tree over 6'6". I mean, come on. We're not talking about where it hit an object, only where it comes to rest.



"Now we look at an even narrower definition, the blanket 2 meter rule as it was before 2006 where it's only applied when a disc sticks above 2 meters. It sounds specific and in theory could be consistently applied. However, it fails in fairness because not ALL objects above 2 meters secure and penalize the disc passing thru at a high enough percentage to justify a consistently applied penalty compared with hazards like water or other OB where the capture percentage is typically higher than 95% and sometimes 99.9%."

---What!?! The disc is either stuck in a tree or any object above 2 meters or it's not. Doesn't matter what you passed thru. It is completely dumbfounding for you to start quoting percentages compared to O.B. You are either safe or O.B., there are no percentages pertaining to either.



"If in fact most vertical objects could grab and secure discs flying above 2 meters even say 80% or more of time, then maybe a blanket penalty could be fairly and consistently applied. Certain specific foliage may exceed 80% capture rate but most vertical objects aren't even close to that. And that's the reason for the 2-meter rule as it currently reads. It can optionally be used where it can be fairly and consistenty applied based on the hole design and the existence of 80%+ catching foliage in strategic positions. That's a professional design approach that still has some luck involved but much less than buckshotting the 2-meter rule everywhere."

---This is not a scientific sport where a percent should dictate what rules we have. Plain and simple--If you are stuck above 2 meters, it's a penalty. If not, then not. You are trying to overly complicate the rule to prove your point Chuck. It doesn't matter if I play in and amongst Cypress trees and Texas plays in and amongst Cedar trees, we all have the same chance of getting stuck or falling out. Are you going to start breaking down what percent these two trees have for grabbing a disc?

We're apparently talking past each other here. I'll try again.

The rules tell you how to play certain situations, the design of the course determines where you use those rules. With the way the rule is currently written, I as a TD can designate a certain tree or a certain group of trees or a certain hole is where the 2-meter penalty will be in effect. That is me determining how and when the penalty is applied. No different than me, as a TD, saying that this road is OB or this pond is OB or this stream is not OB. Or that it is mandatory to go to the left side of this tree, or right side of this post.

Imagine if the rule book said that you had to pass every deciduous tree on the left side and every evergreen tree on its right side. The blanket 2-meter penalty (as we used to have and as you are advocating for) applied all the time with no exceptions is the rulebook imposing a design element on my course along the lines of that mando example. Something in the rule book that is blindly applied to a course regardless of its necessity or practicality. That is what I mean by the rulebook being a course designer.

On one of the courses where I run events, there is one hole with one tree for which the 2-meter penalty applies. On the rest of the course, the penalty is not applied. But on that hole, which is one in which that particular tree is a good "bomb a disc into it and let it fall under the basket" tree, the 2-meter penalty is in play to discourage that shot. But just because of that one tree on that one hole, that shouldn't mean that the tree along the fairway of another hole needs to invoke a penalty if a disc happens to get caught up in it when the player is still 300 feet from the target.

Again this is what I mean by it being a design element provided by the rules rather than a design element dictated by the rules. To me, declaring a blanket 2-meter penalty because of that one tree on hole 17 is equivalent to roping off the perimeter of every fairway as OB because one hole borders a road or another property which needs to be OB to prevent players from throwing and playing from there. It's unnecessary.

So the 2-meter rule, like OB and mandatories, is and should be an element of design utilized by TDs and course designers to create a challenging course. It doesn't need to be universally applied in order to be effective.

I do understand where you are coming from as a T.D. and being able to make choices pertaining to O.B.s, Mandos, and the 2 meter rule. T.Ds do have a vision on how they want the course to be played during their tourney and what is in bounds and out. When you run a tourney, you reserve the right to have it done your way within the rules.

To me, that one tree is no different than any other tree on the course. That is how the course was designed originally. Risk/reward launching into the tree, or any tree for that matter. What makes that tree so special? Because you can bomb into it and trickle down? How is that any different than an errant shot off to the right of the fairway? Because you meant to go into the one tree but not the other? You are rewarding people for, as chuck put it, "less than optimal shots." It has no bearing on how far away from the hole you are when you get stuck above 2 meters. And it does seem to be the trend to string O.B. rope all over the courses now. Unnecessary, yes. Does it happen, yes.

There's a reason why it was played with the rule for decades before +6 people felt they new better and changed the rule to how they liked it--that's how the game was designed. The PDGA and the rules board could have sent out forms to let the current members vote on the subject. I'm not saying it would've been any different, but...

According to your arguments and what I heard during the Worlds, why not remove it completely so there is no misunderstandings or grumblings when it comes to the rule? I'm not advocating this, just wondering. Every round at Worlds I had to listen to some one bashing the rule--lame. My whole point to this is how are we ever going to be taken seriously as a major sport if we don't have one set of rules for everyone world wide? Can you imagine the announcers at a major on television saying "oh, that's a bad penalty to take. Wait, last week when we were in Kansas City that was a penalty but not this week. Oh, and also the road was O.B. last week but not this week." In the PGA there is a set standard for all courses.

Of course, I'd like the rule to be permanent, but I also understand where people are coming from when explain why they don't like it. I mean, the amount of strokes it would've shaved off my game in the last years would've been huge, but I prefer it to be active all the time.

As a deterrent to people circumventing the course, I don't think the 2 meter rule is very effective. Most discs don't get stuck in trees, as others have pointed out. It's one penalty stroke every 100 overheads. That's not much of a deterrent.

I've seen TDs string mandos and require players to throw under them. That's a real deterrent to circumventing the course with an overhead.

But what the two-meter rule does do is penalize players every single time an out of reach disc results in delay of play. However, it would seem like 2 meters is too low. Those discs are reachable by most people, or at least someone in the group. Make it three meters and it would make a little more sense.

As for the argument about the unplayable lie because the disc does not come to rest on the playing surface, why stop at two meters then? Why not penalize for any disc that comes to rest above or below the playing surface?

According to your arguments and what I heard during the Worlds, why not remove it completely so there is no misunderstandings or grumblings when it comes to the rule?
Not my arguments. I don't want it removed. As I've said multiple times, I like the rule as it is. Getting rid of it completely doesn't work for me because, again, I do think there are times where it can be an effective element of course design. But it doesn't have to be in place all over the course to be effective. Selective use is the optimal use, IMO. Best of both worlds, if you will. The courses at Worlds, as you say, were "designed" with the rule in mind, so the rule was in place. But just because a course was designed prior to 2006, doesn't mean it was designed specifically with the rule in mind. I really don't think a designer left a tree 100 feet down the fairway and 200 feet short of the target because it brought the 2-meter penalty into play. I'd bet it was left there to force a choice of which direction in which to throw the disc. Penalty or not, no one is throwing into that tree intentionally. The penalty is not discouraging anything in that case. It's punishing a shot that already has been punished by being stopped 200 feet short of its destination.

My whole point to this is how are we ever going to be taken seriously as a major sport if we don't have one set of rules for everyone world wide? Can you imagine the announcers at a major on television saying "oh, that's a bad penalty to take. Wait, last week when we were in Kansas City that was a penalty but not this week. Oh, and also the road was O.B. last week but not this week."
See, this is the part of your argument I have the most trouble with. This is why I keep emphasizing the DESIGN ELEMENT aspect of things. Rules determine how a situation is handled. But each individual course determines where those situations arise. Your comparison to OB is incorrect because you are assuming that roads should always be and always are OB. They're not. Show me in the rule book that roads are always OB. In fact, show me in the rulebook where anything (pavement, water, etc) is always OB. This is my point. Just like it can vary from course to course whether roads, sidewalks, streams, ponds, etc are played as OB or not, which trees/objects for which the 2-meter penalty apply can and will vary from course to course.

In the PGA there is a set standard for all courses.
Standard set of rules, yes. Standard definition of the obstacles/elements to which each rules applies, no. A body of water on the course, for example, can be played a few different ways per the rules. It depends on the individual course whether it is treated as a hazard or an out of bounds, and whether there is a drop zone or line-of-play relief (or a choice), or whether there is a penalty or not. There's a reason there are a myriad of rules officials scattered all over the course at PGA events. Each course has its own ground rules, and what was done one week at Pebble Beach doesn't necessarily carry over to Whistling Straights the next week. And so on.

I'm reminded of the PGA Championship last year when Dustin Johnson was penalized for grounding his club in a bunker. On 99% of courses, where he played from wouldn't be considered a bunker. But on that course, it was, and so he was penalized.

So this idea that there is some kind of inherent inconsistency to the current 2-meter penalty rule is incorrect. The penalty, and where it is applied, is no different than an out-of-bounds penalty. The TD/designer of the particular course chooses where the OB is or where the 2-meter penalty is in play, and the rule book tells us how to proceed should we land in the OB area or have a disc suspended above 2-meters in a designated area.

Not only do I find the arguments against a blanket 2-meter rule persuasive---

Subjectively, I've played many years with it, and now several years without it, and I greatly prefer the current opt-in version. When it was used I never looked at a stuck disc and thought anything more than "bad luck".

See, this is why I love the discussion board. I normally just read posts but this subject struck a chord with me and I had to get other peoples opinions. I do understand where people are coming from pertaining to the 2 meter rule and it being optional. It is my opinion that it should be non optional, but that's just my opinion. I see logical arguments for both sides. It just rubbed me the wrong way listening to everyone all week complaining instead of just playing golf. Keep the opinions coming :)

Some really good arguments here for yes, a random penalty, or is it random? First, I'll start by saying that the 2M rule can be a brutal double edge sword. Not only do you get accessed a penalty stroke, but then you have to play at a lie that in a lot of times is a bad lie. Whereas other penalty stroked areas you have the benefit of calling an optional rethrow, the rule applied here is a double whammy. I for one do think the 2M rule should always be in effect, however give a player up to a 5 meter relief from the lie; they are already being penalized.

Now to assess is this a random penalty? Well, look it at this way. If I have a fairway with OB marked along the right edge, one could say, don't throw to the right side so to avoid the OB penalty. If you have trees down the fairway, well then don't throw near those trees. You have the option of throwing around, over, or even using a roller in these heavily dense foliage obstacles. The random part would be the disc sticking or not sticking in the tree. But who hasn't thrown a shot that skips, catches an edge, rolls OB, and then to roll back in and out, and back in again. Would that be considered to be random as well?

I am intrigued by the idea of Connell having certain trees declared 2M, those trees that protect the basket, and yes I've opted to hyzer bomb these trees hoping my disc will spike through, and on occasion I've had those shots land right above the basket, assessing the 2M, and getting the 3ft putt with a 3P.

I think there is a risk and reward nature of applying the 2M rule across the board. If it were simply taken away, then I would throw a lot more hyzer spikes, vs. a low ceiling line drive that I think poses a more difficult shot.

Anyhoot, I think Chuck got a little carried away with the whole disc flying above 2M in the air explanation, sometimes I don't getcha there buddy.

Yes, many of the rules are not black and white, play the concrete walking path OB at one course, play the water creek casual at another course, have water edge as OB, or string around body of water as OB, etc. So clearly there are a lot of options the TD has and not every course will and is played the same. I do think the 2M is one rule that could be played the same across the board. It's simple, and why 2M, cause that's about what most people have to reach above their head, so it's somewhat an easy measurement, vs. say 3M.

It does seem like a bonus to players when the TD announces the 2M rule is not in effect, but I don't necessarily agree the TD should have this option and I appreciate Connell providing good examples that oppose my preference.

Jennifer,

As being one of those weird players that throws an overhand or two, I understand that my viewpoint on this subject may be just a little biased ;) but your...

"As a deterrent to people circumventing the course, I don't think the 2 meter rule is very effective. Most discs don't get stuck in trees, as others have pointed out. It's one penalty stroke every 100 overheads. That's not much of a deterrent."

...has me thinking I've gotten my share of "bad luck" then (when playing in CA tournaments) because I SURELY get more than 1%. I've said to my out-east peeps that when I do go to CA, I can pretty much guarantee one 2m penalty per round and I've had as many as 3 in a past CSUMB'er.


As as for your...

I've seen TDs string mandos and require players to throw under them. That's a real deterrent to circumventing the course with an overhead."

...how about we set up a course which forces via a string mando that the players have to throw OVER the string (or suffer a penalty). Most people would have the world's largest hissy fit, throw tantrums and threaten to boycott the tournament!

Karl

I actually think the rule as it is currently is as good as it gets (it could be written a bit cleaner, but the spirit is right).


:D Oh, no...we can't go by the "spirit of the rule" rule...that's not written, and it can't POSSIBLY be logical. [/sarcasm]

Backers of the 2 meter penalty like to use the case of landing more than 2 meters above the basket as their pivotal rationale for using it everywhere. Here's an example of fluky good luck with a player landing above the pin with no 2m penalty and replace it with random fluky bad luck everywhere. A way to deal with that "good luck" a player might rarely get landing above the pin with no 2m penalty is to simply require the player to mark at the closest point on the 10m circle to where their disc would be marked on the ground below where it sits in the tree. No penalty but they have to make a 10m putt. I believe TDs would be able to establish this rule on specific holes where it might occur without needing a waiver by invoking the Special Conditions rule. Essentially, it's identifying the space above the 10m circle for casual relief with drop zone along the 10m circle.

If this means what I think it does, yes. That could seem to be a logical compromise. But, then, the decision of where the disc actually is resting, in the tree/bush/shrub/herb, must be made. One may see it as just barely inside the circle, another just barely outside the circle. And, if circles aren't marked.... There's just not enough validation possible for this to be practical. But I like it in spirit, Chuck.
Now, to get all courses to cut back all trees so no branches extend past 10m ever. And, clear all the trees beyond 10m, so there is a clear definition. That will make this a working solution. Until the trees grow back.:eek:

Then, there are holes like 15 at Quail Ridge, outside of St Louis. A path through has finally been opened up, but until not too long ago, the only real route was an overhead. A 2M penalty there would be silly, since the design dictated that the OH was the best route available. I'm not knocking the hole, just applying a 2M penalty there.

eupher61 - One may see it as just barely inside the circle, another just barely outside the circle. And, if circles aren't marked.... There's just not enough validation possible for this to be practical. But I like it in spirit, Chuck.
Doesn't matter does it? If it's really inside the circle, it gets marked on the circle anyway and no penalty in either case.

Of course, the real reason that it is optional is because the PDGA wants TDs to sanction their tournaments, and making it mandatory would reduce the flexibility whereby the PDGA fits itself to the preferences of TDs. Some TDs might choose not to sanction their tournaments if the PDGA has a mandatory stance on the 2m rule either way. As noted, people in some geographic regions feel strongly one way about it, and people in other regions feel strongly the other way about it. Until there is much greater consensus, don't expect the PDGA to take a stance that would alienate such a large portion of its members.

At some point in the future the Worlds will be in Europe, and there will not a two-meter rule in effect.

The old historical arguments go like this:

Pro 2 Meter Rule: with our sparse foliage and "lollipop trees" that provide no real hindrance to your next shot when you mark below your suspended disc, the courses were designed with the 2MR in mind and taking it away degrades the challenge and makes the game too easy.

Anti 2MR: with our crazy cedar trees it's a double penalty because not only do you get penalized for the stuck disc, you also end up with a subsequent lie where you're in jail in the center of the low hanging branches after you mark below your disc.


That's the crux of it. People start bringing the luck argument into it for no good reason. :) Pro 2MR says there is no luck with a good shot because good shots don't hit trees and 100% of those don't stick. Anti 2MR says almost every shot except mine bounces out and doesn't stick so it's a random unfair double penalty.

Of course, the real reason that it is optional is because the PDGA wants TDs to sanction their tournaments, and making it mandatory would reduce the flexibility whereby the PDGA fits itself to the preferences of TDs. Some TDs might choose not to sanction their tournaments if the PDGA has a mandatory stance on the 2m rule either way. As noted, people in some geographic regions feel strongly one way about it, and people in other regions feel strongly the other way about it. Until there is much greater consensus, don't expect the PDGA to take a stance that would alienate such a large portion of its members.



Of course, that's not the "real reason" at all.

I remember the debates before and during the stepped change in the rule, and it had nothing to do with what TDs wanted. Rules committee people were kicking around the fairness of the 2-meter rule, or lack thereof.

The notion that this plays into a TD's decision to sanction is pretty farfetched. Heck, when it became optional I was at a number of events where the TD put it up for a voice vote at the players' meeting; the TDs could care less. There are dozens of other rules TDs might disagree with much more strongly than a mandatory 2-meter rule.

Without first-hand knowledge of why it was instituted to begin with, but from talking with some who were playing and TDing at the time, part of the reason for the rule was environmental, also---the whole "don't harm the flora, fauna, and treea" thing. While commendable, it's probably not a realistic concern for most trees that would be involved. Speed of play was also a consideration. This according to my sources, who may not be reliable. They are disc golfers, after all. :eek:

And Chuck, I can just hear the arguments and crabbing about whether it was inside or outside. Yes, going to the circle would help. But the number of gripes would increase manifold, I'm afraid.

steve

I'm not saying that this statement isn't correct...

"...because good shots don't hit trees..."

But a tree is a tree is a tree (read: ANY part of a tree is a tree)...so why penalize only the player whose disc stops in a tree 2 (or more) meters up? Why not penalize a player whose disc ticks off a branch (if that's the case)? It wasn't a good shot, right? Or carooms off a tree trunk and stops 4 feet up in a bush? Where do you draw the line regarding "not 'good' enough" (as in the statement "good shots don't hit trees")?

Karl

I'm not saying that this statement isn't correct...

"...because good shots don't hit trees..."

But a tree is a tree is a tree (read: ANY part of a tree is a tree)...so why penalize only the player whose disc stops in a tree 2 (or more) meters up? Why not penalize a player whose disc ticks off a branch (if that's the case)? It wasn't a good shot, right? Or carooms off a tree trunk and stops 4 feet up in a bush? Where do you draw the line regarding "not 'good' enough" (as in the statement "good shots don't hit trees")?

Karl

Because, again, we're not talking about where a disc hits an object on the fairway. We're talking about where a disc comes to rest above the playing surface. It's not about good shot vs. bad shot, but being able to play your disc where it lies. If you're stuck in the middle of a large, rather nasty sticker bush and can't get your foot behind the disc, why is that a penalty for an unplayable lie but if it's stuck 40ft. up in a tree it's not considered an unplayable lie?

"But a tree is a tree is a tree (read: ANY part of a tree is a tree)...so why penalize only the player whose disc stops in a tree 2 (or more) meters up?"

--Because they are the only player who has an UNPLAYABLE lie, ie. stuck in a tree.

That's a valid thought, but why 2 meters? If a disc is stuck 6' high, you can't play that lie either, but no penalty. Nor can you play it if it's 1' off the ground in a bush. For that matter, a disc resting on tall grass may be more than 1' off the playing surface.

Why penalize for sticking in a tree 7' high, but not 6'?

There are other places you can land a disc that are unplayable, but not penalized---certain solid objects and casual hazards. Why just the tree?

If we'd never had the 2-meter rule, would anyone be proposing it now?

geo - If you're stuck in the middle of a large, rather nasty sticker bush and can't get your foot behind the disc, why is that a penalty for an unplayable lie but if it's stuck 40ft. up in a tree it's not considered an unplayable lie?
This is the argument for penalizing any disc that does not land flat on the playing surface. This would be more fair than selecting an arbitrary height of 2 meters. If you don't believe it would be fair or appropriate to penalize any disc that does not end up touching the playing surface then choosing the arbitrary 2 meters is even less appropriate.

@ Davidsauls--That's a good point. I think when they came up with the rule they were trying to find a fair height where an average (don't hate me ladies) male player could reach up and grab the disc but anything higher would be a penalty. Honestly, I don't know why 5' isn't a penalty compared to 6'6".

"There are other places you can land a disc that are unplayable, but not penalized---certain solid objects and casual hazards. Why just the tree?"

You can still take a stance directly behind your lie on the examples you gave with relief as they are on the "playing surface", not directly under them as in most discs stuck in trees.

If we never had a 2 meter rule it probably would not be an issue or people wouldn't be calling for it to be a rule. To me, the fact of the matter is it's been an integral rule/part of the game for almost as long as the game has been around and should remain so. I'm not saying the game shouldn't evolve, look at all the changes over the years and disc evolution. This rule the PDGA instituted goes to the fundamentals of how the game is played. People who play this way during tourneys probably play this way all the time, not just in tourneys. In that sense, the PDGA is changing how the game was designed to be played from the early days.

When the 2-meter rule was changed, I was not in favor of the change, either. I'd played under it for 10 years and was used to it. So I understand that sentiment.

For myself, the arguments against it---except, perhaps, in certain locations--changed my mind. Since they didn't abolish it, but made it optional for places where it might be appropriate, I'm fine with the status quo.

Of course, getting caught by the basket was a significant change in how the game was played otherwise just hitting the chains would be considered holed out.

This is the argument for penalizing any disc that does not land flat on the playing surface. This would be more fair than selecting an arbitrary height of 2 meters. If you don't believe it would be fair or appropriate to penalize any disc that does not end up touching the playing surface then choosing the arbitrary 2 meters is even less appropriate.


It is ridiculous to say a disc needs to land flat on the playing surface. It's even more ridiculous to say if a disc isn't touching the playing surface it's equal to it being stuck 50 ft. up in a tree. If a bush is so nasty you can't get a stance behind the disc, it equals a penalty. Why is that a penalty but a disc above you that can't be reached isn't a penalty?

How do you know the 2 meters is or was arbitrary Chuck? I'm sure there was a logical reason for the 2 meters being selected. Just because you feel it's not an "appropriate" rule doesn't mean you should discount the intentions and the reasons for the rule being created.

Every disc that doesn't land flat on the playing surface is "unplayable" by definition until a mini marks its location projected down (or up) to the playing surface. We don't allow a player to take a stance where their plant foot is actually in a bush (making it of course a "plant" foot) where the disc landed. If we did allow that THEN it might make sense to set some height above the ground where above that height the average player could not likely be able to place their foot or hand. That was the thinking behind the 2 meter height from what I understand - it was a height that most adults could reach.

However, the flaw in the thinking was that they didn't require a stance to be taken at the height the disc landed under 2 meters. They allowed it to be brought to the playing surface like our current rule. In which case, the 2 meters became arbitrary as a height where if you stick above this height, you mark on the ground but get a penalty. If you stick above the ground but below this height, you don't get a penalty. That's where their possible logic in support of 2 meters broke down once they decided players were allowed to mark on the ground rather than be required to stick their plant foot in a plant if the disc landed below 2 meters.

good shots dont land in trees
good shots hit trees a lot
the difference is the result of the shot
the difference is the definition of good or bad

possible reason for penalty is the strong players were circumventing the courses by throwing over instead of through the designated fairway trees.



thus a risk /reward opportunity

It's optional now
2 meters above the ground
2 years and still gripes

...Most discs don't get stuck in trees, as others have pointed out...

Here in Santa Cruz, the trees are excellent disc catchers. Our trees probably have a better thrown-to/catch ratio than our former 49ers receiver Jerry Rice. That's how good they catch!

And yes, there are hundreds of disc golf holes in this region where grabby trees hang directly over the basket. Without the 2 meter rule, they would definitely be used as catching devices. This would cause them to become damaged as the vegetation recedes from numerous disc impacts (these trees tend to be sensitive). There is no question that this would then change the intended layout of the hole, and the dynamics of the approach to the basket. You see, it would be an unstable relationship to drop the 2 meter rule, as the trees would simply get worn out and possibly destroyed where ever you move the basket. This is unsustainable in the long term if you like the idea of having trees on a course anywhere within 50' of a basket (I do!).

Another important thing in these parts is the idea of uncompromising challenge. You won't find short-tee options, the courses can be brutally punishing, and throw every kind of challenge at you. Whoever comes up in disc golf out here will perceive all the rest of the World's disc golf courses as pitch-and-putts. A regular player here will get beat down so badly at times by the regional courses, that courses in every other region feel like a pleasant walk in the park for a battle-hardened veteran of disc golf war. Many of the World's top players know this, and either live here, were born here, or spend a great deal of time here. The 2-meter rule is ingrained in this ethic, it is inseparable from it.

Thus, there is absolutely no question that if somebody tried to lobby the PDGA to ban the 2-meter rule, that they would risk losing participation from players and clubs in this region. And probably in all of California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.

On the other hand, some people live in strange places where the trees are terrible disc catchers, I think I heard numbers like ~99% of discs don't stay up. I'm sorry for you, I think you're missing out on one of the great aspects of our sport: the notion that the fairway is in the sky, and the sky has hazards in it that will cause pain to your round score if you encounter them. And yes, for you it doesn't really make sense to have a 2-meter rule. I agree that it would be crazy to inadvertently punish a 1% probability error like that.

So we have the best possible system right now: TD discretion! TDs will always best reflect the local ethic in how the course is meant to be played.

Another important thing in these parts is the idea of uncompromising challenge. You won't find short-tee options, the courses can be brutally punishing, and throw every kind of challenge at you. Whoever comes up in disc golf out here will perceive all the rest of the World's disc golf courses as pitch-and-putts. A regular player here will get beat down so badly at times by the regional courses, that courses in every other region feel like a pleasant walk in the park for a battle-hardened veteran of disc golf war. Many of the World's top players know this, and either live here, were born here, or spend a great deal of time here.


Seriously? Your comments sound prideful in the fact that the local courses do not offer shorter/easier tees for the beginning/intermediate players. Interesting mindset.... :confused:

Seriously? Your comments sound prideful in the fact that the local courses do not offer shorter/easier tees for the beginning/intermediate players. Interesting mindset.... :confused:

Yes, you have the correct impression. If you put in shorter/easier tee options, most players will never step up and try the long tees, they'll just stay with the short tees and their development will suffer as a result. That's not how you breed World champions.

Newer players don't even realize that there is no short tee, because its their first experience with the sport and these courses define their frame of reference. If you ask the ladies from these parts if they would rather have short tees, you're not going to get a friendly response (probably risking a punch in the face).

Perhaps one might fear that this would drive people away. It doesn't. Our courses get tons of traffic. We have new players coming out of our high school teams (our kids can play disc golf as a full-fledged sport in HS) and college and university teams all the time. Plus, all kinds of people move to Santa Cruz just for the disc golf.

I realize that this is a more of a western mentality, and may seem strange to easterners. Our disc golf is like our beer. All I can say is, try it out sometime! Forget short tees. A course shouldn't be designed to flatter the player. The better option is uncompromising challenge.

I wonder how many newbies tried disc golf in your neck of the woods and gave it up almost immediately due to difficulty? Short tees typically see the most action because there are far more recreational players than league/tournament players combined. Most players start out short and work their way up to the longer, more difficult tees as their skill set improves. I've played disc golf for over twenty years and this is one constant that does not change.

You couldn't be more wrong on this particular subject (imo).

He could be right. I can't help but think of that poor guy down on St. Petersburg. Had the athletic ability but with access to shorter tees and old school courses, never fulfilled his potential. If only he'd started on big courses. Climo, I think they called him.

if your in an area where disc golf is called disc golf, and not frisbee golf, or frolf then you can get away with that kind of mentality.

Most courses in CA don't have atlernate tees. I'm guessing the reason for this is money, not some machismo that JH suggests.

Highland Springs in Lakeport, CA, however, has 5 tees per hole and at least 3 pin placements. Steady Ed created this work of art and he called it "his" Mona Lisa.

I wonder how many newbies tried disc golf in your neck of the woods and gave it up almost immediately due to difficulty? Short tees typically see the most action because there are far more recreational players than league/tournament players combined.

Like I said, they don't know what they're missing because there aren't short tees. They don't ever say "gee, I wish they had short tee options at this course" because they don't even know that such a thing exists. Here, the rec players play the same tees as the pros, and their games improve very quickly. I'll put my money on our regular rec players up against rec players from a sissy tee course, any day.

Most players start out short and work their way up to the longer, more difficult tees as their skill set improves. I've played disc golf for over twenty years and this is one constant that does not change.

That's not how players develop here. They start with triple and quadruple bogeys and work their way to par over time. Obtaining par requires a 1000-rated round.

You couldn't be more wrong on this particular subject (imo).

Probably its good to have both philosophies in different regions. Some regions can choose to breed the best players in the world, and others can choose to coddle new players. There is nothing worse for a student's long-term development than to set low expectations and standards.

If you want to study Physics, you choose a place like Caltech, because its hard, and you'll come much closer to realizing your potential than if you attended Grade Inflation State University (GISU). If you want to play disc golf, you want to play in Santa Cruz, because its hard, and you'll come much closer to realizing your potential than if you came up at Low Expectations Disc Golf Course (LEDGC).

He could be right. I can't help but think of that poor guy down on St. Petersburg. Had the athletic ability but with access to shorter tees and old school courses, never fulfilled his potential. If only he'd started on big courses. Climo, I think they called him.

Let Kenny speak for himself. He spends time here every chance he gets, and is close to being a local.

Anyways, the track record speak volumes. We have more resident World Champions than any other place on Earth (even if I don't include people who moved here after already being World Champions..). Do you think that's just a coincidence?

Most courses in CA don't have atlernate tees. I'm guessing the reason for this is money, not some machismo that JH suggests.

We have plenty of resources. If you didn't notice, we just put on a Pro Worlds that required an astounding amount of resources to accomplish. Do you really think that we're capable of putting on this huge event (and numerous huge events, going all the way back to 1984 World Disc Championships), but not capable of pouring short tees? Seriously?

Highland Springs in Lakeport, CA, however, has 5 tees per hole and at least 3 pin placements. Steady Ed created this work of art and he called it "his" Mona Lisa.

The idea behind this design was not to coddle new players. Multiple tees were put in so that you could play all of the tees in consecutive rounds and experience an essentially different course each time. This rationale is totally different than trying to create 2 distinctly different classes of players.

Let Kenny speak for himself. He spends time here every chance he gets, and is close to being a local.

Anyways, the track record speak volumes. We have more resident World Champions than any other place on Earth (even if I don't include people who moved here after already being World Champions..). Do you think that's just a coincidence?



My apologies. I THOUGHT you were claiming that the presence of courses with short tees kept players from improving their game, or developing into world champions. Happy to let you clear your name on that.

My apologies. I THOUGHT you were claiming that the presence of courses with short tees kept players from improving their game, or developing into world champions. Happy to let you clear your name on that.

I'm sure you'll agree that guys like Climo would be phenomenal athletes no matter where they come from, and would excel in any sport they chose to pursue.

@ John,
Who are the World Champions that reside by you that you speak of?

@ John, Who are the World Champions that reside by you that you speak of?

I'm surprised you would even ask that question. World Champs who are long-term residents include Tom Schot, Nate Doss, J Michael Barry, Jon Baldwin, Carrie Berlogar, Anni Kreml, Jim Oates .... Those who moved here include Ed Headrick, Sharon Jenkins, Valarie Jenkins, Avery Jenkins, Eric McCabe, ... I can't walk down a fairway without tripping over a world champ.

Wow,

This thread has taken a very strange turn from talking about the two meter rule. :eek:

John Hernlund: I think you should be immensely proud of the highly successful 2011 PDGA Disc Golf World Championships you and your team just pulled off, the quality of your courses and design philosophy behind them, the high caliber of golfers who come from your region, and the enormous positive influence California has made on the sport of disc golf over the decades.

However, at the same time, I wish you could take a step back and look at your last few posts from a different set of eyes. To be frank, I really can't recall anything more conceited on this message board over the last few years. Honestly, I think you are currently headed down a road which is going to put yourself in a very bad light. I beg you to take a step back and look at where you are headed with this and think as well about who you may possibly misrepresent in the process.

One of the great things about our sport is its diversity. Play disc golf in different areas of the country and you'll see everything under the sun in all facets of our game. But I personally think it's a bad idea to start essentially implying that "the California way" is the only correct way.

That's just like, my opinion man.

Jeff,

Good post (and at a good time).


John,

Being proud of being "right", "ethical", and "moral" makes sense (is worth something). Being proud of a region, philosophy, etc. makes less sense - as it's really just "an opinion" (something that isn't right or wrong).


Let's get back to the thread topic....

Karl

1. I agree with John H. on the philosophy of building higher level courses to raise the level of the sport, instead of catering to the lower level am's. Lets elevate the lower level players towards the top, instead of bringing everyone else down. We want players to be inspired by long and difficult courses so they want to improve their game and see the sport in a professional manner.

2. I do not agree with John H. regarding the 2 meter rule. I think the rule is stupid and should be banned. What this sport needs is less punishment and less OB, not double punishment and more unnecessary OB.

Here's a novel idea:

Build world-class, championship disc golf courses which offer multiple tees designed for various skill levels. Let the player decide which tees they would like to play.

How about both/and?

There's no question that the Santa Cruz model has a lot going for it, and the results speak for themselves. Santa Cruz is a destination for golfers, as is Portland, Charlotte and a few other places where there is a high concentration of top-notch courses. People have chosen to relocate to the three aforementioned cities because of the world class golf available. And people who play those courses - from World Champs to beginners - will get better for playing such. Period.

People won't be relocating to my town anytime soon because of the one, pitch n' putt, 9-hole course we have within the city limits. But is what we were able to do with the land available and it has been where hundreds of people (maybe more by now) have played for the first time, which has given rise to more regular players (casual and tourney), more demand for more courses nearby, an increase in local tourneys of all kinds, etc. Familes can wander in and play easily. Locals can grab a quick round after work. Serious players can work on their mid-range game.

If it were all we had in our region we'd be quite limited. But it is one piece of the overall program of simply getting to play more and more disc golf in more and more diverse settings, some of which are quite excellent and challenging courses. The fact that more people are playing excites me, because I believe some (few) of them will get the bug and create more opportunities/courses/tourneys/friendships. And we will keep moving forward.

Side note: My kids, who are the reigning Junior champs in SoCal, got to play McIver for the first time this summer and were happily blown away. What a course! That kind of challenge is absolutely a blast for them now. When they started seven years ago at ages five and seven it would have been a waste of time. If we want to have more kids playing there will be a need for shorter courses, preferably ones that are unique, quality short courses demanding multiple shots.

Second side note in keeping with the thread title: Yes, I'm an old Cali player but I remain convinced that any shot which cannot be reasonably picked up/plucked and subsequently thrown from a legal stance is OB. The two meter rule enforces that principle, rightly to my way of thinking.

However, at the same time, I wish you could take a step back and look at your last few posts from a different set of eyes. To be frank, I really can't recall anything more conceited on this message board over the last few years. Honestly, I think you are currently headed down a road which is going to put yourself in a very bad light. I beg you to take a step back and look at where you are headed with this and think as well about who you may possibly misrepresent in the process.

Jeff, thanks for pointing this out. I did read back a few posts, and I agree with your assessment. My attempts at light-hearted banter do not translate well through the keyboard. In fact, it's a totally embarrassing attempt. Sorry about that. I don't mean to offend or misrepresent anybody. If you met me in person, you'd know that I vigorously defend my arguments, but you'd also have the context of a goofy grin (e.g., see my avatar), a beer in hand, and lots of laughter to emphasize that I'm not taking any of this too seriously. Too bad I can't translate that better into written form...I'll have to be more careful. In looking back a few posts, I also notice that the perception of conceitful statements probably arises from my responses when people question the truthfulness of my experience. I have to avoid being baited into responding like that.

I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to live in this part of the world and be a disc golfer. The crew that built disc golf in this area are absolutely amazing, and they left a rich legacy for the next generation to carry forward. The ideas behind these courses are not my own, and only after experiencing it myself did I realize the benefits of following a more challenging philosophy/approach to disc golf. Yes, I will continue to trumpet their accomplishments, and tell disc golfers everywhere about their successes and the ethic that led to those successes. It is not conceit, since it is not my own effort that led to the great successes (and I'm no World Champ, either!). I'm a relative newcomer in comparison. I only want other people to be able to experience something like my own experience, to share it for the benefit of disc golfers everywhere. I want to share ideas that I think are successful, and that work. I think everyone enjoys the game more as their game improves, and increasing challenge (by eliminating the option of least challenge) is one way to do that.

I think everyone enjoys the game more as their game improves, and increasing challenge (by eliminating the option of least challenge) is one way to do that.
"Challenge" is relative to the individual. Why do most golf (bolf) courses offer multiple tees?

http://golf.about.com/od/beginners/f/bfaq_whichtees.htm

My attempts at light-hearted banter do not translate well through the keyboard. In fact, it's a totally embarrassing attempt.

My attempts at satire have similar results. I've tried to give up the habit, but sometimes backslide, often with disastrous results.

The correlation between not having short courses, or short tees on long courses, producing world champions is a bit tenuous. The players who've moved there after their game reached high levels don't support it; if they developed in places where short courses/short tees were present, they discount it. (Their moving to Santa Cruz perhaps says something about other wonderful aspects of the disc golf scene there).

My experience is that, where great challenging courses exist in the same area as easier courses (tees), the athletically and competitively inclined won't be held back by the easy courses, but will gravitate to the challenging ones. Many more modest players will do so as well. Others will be more suited to the easier options, and will enjoy those. But they're not the potential world champions, anyway.

(P.S. - My credentials are as owner of a pretty "challenging" private course, with no short tees and a "casual players may wish to go elsewhere" attitude, so I undertand your affection for that kind of course).

"Challenge" is relative to the individual. Why do most golf (bolf) courses offer multiple tees?

http://golf.about.com/od/beginners/f/bfaq_whichtees.htm
Bingo. If every golfer's only option was to play from the tips at every course, there'd be far far far fewer golfers in the world. The majority of the world's golfers play from forward tees.

While long and challenging courses can aid in developing the skills of players already committed to playing and improving their game, they are no where close to ideal in terms of hooking brand new players in general.

98% of folks who try the game will never become tournament players. Sure, a lot of them will get into the game and play often and get fairly proficient. But they're not in it to become world champion or even to conquer the world's toughest holes/courses. They're out for the enjoyment and the fun of throwing the discs and trying to beat their friends. Those players need a place to start and grow their game too, and a world-class professional course isn't really the ideal place for them to do that.

My attempts at light-hearted banter do not translate well through the keyboard. In fact, it's a totally embarrassing attempt. Sorry about that. I don't mean to offend or misrepresent anybody.

John, thanks for looking at this in another light. Lord knows I get myself into hot water all the time in a similar fashion because of the limitations of written word. I knew you meant no true malice behind the remarks. Again, I think you should be immensely proud of everything you previously stated, although I presonally don't feel it should be used essentially as the basis of an argument that it's the only method which works. I think it's best to agree to disagree there.

"Challenge" is relative to the individual. Why do most golf (bolf) courses offer multiple tees?

http://golf.about.com/od/beginners/f/bfaq_whichtees.htm

Bingo.

PGA and USGA step to new sets of tees in 'Tee It Forward' initiative (http://www.pga.com/pga-america/pga-feature/pga-and-usga-step-new-sets-tees-in-nationwide-tee-it-forward-initiative)

"Those players need a place to start and grow their game too, and a world-class professional course isn't really the ideal place for them to do that."

While I think many agree with the above sentiment, I do not. I used to play disc golf with a Whamo frisbee, hitting light posts and mail boxes, each person taking turns calling out the next shot.

When I came to Santa Cruz in 1993 and, by chance, stumbled upon DeLa, I was shocked that there really was disc golf. The next day I bought a shark, cobra, and scorpion, and I was hooked.

So, my first course was DeLa, at the time arguably the best course in the world. I used to keep track of par by playing every hole as par 5. It made the math easier. When I won my first monthly (intermediate) at something like 42 over (normal par), and Marty Hapner rewarded my with a brand new Marauder, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Not only was disc golf fun to play casually, but the competitive aspect was fun too!

DeLa forced me to get better. Maybe my personality responds well to a challenge, but I would not have it any other way. Learning on a 'hard', world-class course is the way to go for people like me.

Having said all that, clearly having a diversity of courses is the best of all worlds. And as others have pointed out, each city is limited by land, so not all kinds of courses can be put in the ground. However, I would argue that if there was a 'choice' by the local club to put in a world-class vs. recreational course (all else being absolutely equal), I would advocate for the world-class course every time.

And I love the idea of trees being bunkers in the sky. Not playing with the 2 m rule enforced is odd to me, a native Californian. It's like saying "You cannot use a putter." It's just part of the game. At least for us, and that's why it is great that the TD has the option of using it or not.

Cheers,
Steve

However, I would argue that if there was a 'choice' by the local club to put in a world-class vs. recreational course (all else being absolutely equal), I would advocate for the world-class course every time.

Why not both though? Why, if "world-class" is an option (by that I mean there's the space available), can't there also be a short set of tees or a second set of pin locations to offer the best of both worlds?

I don't think anyone would ever argue against a world-class course. My point is that offering only world-class courses is not the ideal way to grow the sport and draw new players. Your personal story is nice and all, but I think we have to remember that not everyone is wired in such a way that they want to strive to be the very best and take on the best of challenges. Scoring the 90s or 100s at DeLa isn't going to bring them back as often or as frequently as having a course where 70 or 65 is well within reach in a short amount of time.

Hi Jconnell,

I agree that if you can have options, build a long course and install shorter tees. If it all possible, be all inclusive, meeting the needs of top Pros and first-timers. I see no problem with that (other than Pros complaining about all the newbies, but too bad, suck it up--newbies and rec players are what keep this sport alive).

In the scenario I laid out, I was making the point that if you could NOT be inclusive, and were limited in what you could do (18 pads, 18 baskets, no extras), then I would vote for long and tough rather than short and easy. In that hypothetical (and not very realistic) scenario, I'm sure 20-40% of disc golfers would agree with me. The rest would say either short and easy OR mix short, long, easy and hard. Not surprising. I went to the extreme to make the point.

Cheers,
Steve

OK, I agree to disagree. I do agree that diversity is good, and I didn't mean to give the impression that all courses should follow a single philosophy, and that nothing else works. Not every course can be ultra-challenging. But it is still good to have some ultra-challenging courses, where we can play and improve our skills more rapidly. And others who seek out the most challenging disc golf will tend to congregate there, which is great for all of us. It builds a community of disc golfers who all love challenge, and embrace it. You can then understand why such a crew is unlikely to ever consider putting in short tees at their marquee course.

John,

Pebble Beach has four or five sets of tees and this is arguably one of the most recognized world-class golf courses on the planet. I would classify Pebble Beach as a marquee course.

The disc golfers who "seek out the most challenging golf" will naturally congregate to the longer, more difficult courses. Beginning amateur players who are consistently getting "beat down so badly" due to the fact there are no short tees is not a good thing.

I've seen it again and again over my two decades of playing disc golf. The shorter courses and/or the shorter tees see the most action. These are the recreational players who tell a friend...and they tell a friend...and so on. This is the pool from where we grow our sport. Many of those players will continue as one-disc chuckers and never take the sport seriously. But there are the others who get bitten by the bug and want to improve their game, desiring to play courses which will improve their game and challenge their skills. They almost always start at the short tees and one day they actually shoot under par! They eventually sign up for local leagues and work their way up the ladder of the amateur ranks. The next thing you know, they're experimenting with the advanced/pro tees (often getting "beat down badly" in the beginning) and experiencing a totally new aspect to the game and/or their local course.

Choice is a good thing. As a long tee player, I personally appreciate championship courses which offer shorter tees for the amateurs. If those players had to regularly hack their way from the long tees while slowing play for everyone else behind them, I'd probably start looking for somewhere else to play. Speed of play is a big deal when it comes to golf.

It doesn't take much to create a short tee. Two wood blocks on the ground and BAM! .... you have a short tee.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/Moraine%20State%20Park/DSC_3895.jpg
Jim Myers on the gold tee of hole 1 at Moraine State Park, Portersville, PA
(Image taken before the installation of fifty-four Fly Pads)