Let's see...hole 13 is a par 5 and was eagled once. Hole 5 is a par 5 and was not eagled. So, 12 times for hole 12 is a lot by comparison.

The other eagles were on 4, 8 (twice).

hole 5 could be more exciting and potentially rewarding if the teepad were a bit closer - so those with a good drive were looking at 400 feet or so to get across the water for an eagle attempt

Goooooo SCHWEB!!!! Thatsa heIIa payday. Score one for the East side.

kinda blew LC out of the water didn't ya bs

so in NC you can still be LC but versus the world it more like MC

LCbs vs MCbs
knowing your other activities I like middle cash

I gotta get down to SC some day.

Barry looks to be on track for another 58. Has anyone shot in the 50's all four rounds? Maybe in the earlier years...



Ever since the par has been 68 no one has ever had 4 rounds in the 50s. 2006 is the first time that a player has ever had the first 3 rounds in the 50s.

In the early years par was lower. In 1999, for example, a bunch of players had all 4 rounds in the 50s. Climo even had the only 49 ever recorded at the USDGC.

Congratulations to Eric McCabe. A big finish.

I think the story of the tournament is Manabu. This guy hung strong with Kenny all week, and then threw a couple over the lake after the King Masher contest. this guy can play!

Watching Kenny play after hurting his leg was pretty amazing. Standstill throwing and still knocking down pars and birdies. IN SANE.

Big props to the tech crew, and I apologize if I leave anyone out here... Kevin, Norris, Stick, Henseler, Cameron (the other photographer), and all those who helped tote me around the course. I think I need about a week to recuperate from all the walking, running, laying down, getting up (which was getting hard yesterday), and basically wearing my back and legs out.

gonna just sit here with my heating pad today and hope to regain some mobility by Monday.

this tournament was crazy. Congratulations to Barry, and Schweb, bringing a 2nd place home to nc.

Interesting side note.

Double G Garrett Guthrie can flat out bomb. In the long drive highlight segment where they throw across the lake, he had by far the longest average on his throws. 4 or 5 in a row hitting the same tree near the road. Avery got to the trees about 3 times but had 2 that would have crossed the road if not for the trees knocking them down.

However (controversy alert) Double G was throwing pro Wraiths. This is the disc supplied to all competitors. After the donated discs were gone he threw a couple out of his bag, GW. 1 landing in the water short and the other just making the shore. Before the showdown when he learned he had to throw Innova, Mccoy yelled out "you better not throw the Wraith or you're gonna fall in love with it" :D

The preceding Innova Wraith promo was not endorsed by Innova.

Congrats to home boy Brinster. Third is amazing.

I have wondered this for the last 3 years of watching the USDGC through the website and other people.......Do our friends from Japan throw the 150-class discs that they are used to throwing in Japan, or do they switch to the typical 168g-180g range discs for the USDGC and Worlds, etc. I have always wondered if they switch, especially with the winds that can howl through Rock Hill. Does anyone know the answer to this? If so, do they have problems either sticking with 150-class, or switching to heavier discs?

On friday, MaceMan said that they do not switch.

Let's see...hole 13 is a par 5 and was eagled once. Hole 5 is a par 5 and was not eagled. So, 12 times for hole 12 is a lot by comparison.




By, comparison, perhaps. However, 14 eagles out of 670 times through that hole is not a lot. (about 2.1%) You'll find a comparable percentage on the PGA Tour on the easier par 5s. Hole #16 at the 2005 Players Championship at Sawgrass (first PGA event I could find hole by hole stats for) yielded 11 eagles in about 460 times through the hole for 2.4% eagle rate.

Chap

I have wondered this for the last 3 years of watching the USDGC through the website and other people.......Do our friends from Japan throw the 150-class discs that they are used to throwing in Japan, or do they switch to the typical 168g-180g range discs for the USDGC and Worlds, etc. I have always wondered if they switch, especially with the winds that can howl through Rock Hill. Does anyone know the answer to this? If so, do they have problems either sticking with 150-class, or switching to heavier discs?



The Japanese players I have seen play at Worlds have thrown all 150 class.

Chap

Congrats to home boy Brinster. Third is amazing.



If he shoots 3 strokes better he doubles his paycheck....great payout though.

Congrats Schweb! - Especially for such a great ambassador for the sport. Here's to hoping you can move up just one place next year......And congratulations to all the excellent performances logged by NC players. NC is, without a doubt, the hottest disc golf region per capita in the world. I feel very lucky to be able to play in tournaments here.

I heard a lot of complaints on the net radio by players about hole 17 and how it was sort of a crap shoot. IMHO this could be easily solved by simply extending the tee pad in bounds to approximately 80 feet before the hole. Then players could choose to lay up for a pretty easy 3 or go for it for the 2,4, or more. I bet most would still go for it, but they would know they could have gotten that three if they had chosen to do so.

I had the pleasure of playing four rounds with Yoshi, from Japan, this year. While communicating was difficult as Yoshi had very limited English,(and we knew no Japanese), we asked if he threw 150 class and he said he was using 165 gram plastic at the USDGC. At least that was our interpretation of what he was trying to tell us.

There were 19 eagles all together, and 14 of them were on hole 12.

Time to change the par on hole 12???



Hmmm....14 eagles out of like 670 times through that hole? Hardly a reason to change the par.

Chap

thank you, well desrved if you can throw two great shots to have the opportunity to Eagle.

Goooooo SCHWEB!!!! Thatsa heIIa payday. Score one for the East side.

Thanks Jeb

This has probably been discussed somewhere, but who was the state rep from NC this year, and how was he chosen?

Stan McDaniel.

He was chosen by a committee of people on the NC Disc golf board.

Theres a thread about it in the Raleigh section,

Stan McDaniel.

He was chosen by a committee of people on the NC Disc golf board.




Stan certainly deserved it! I can think of no better choice!!

Scwe-diggity. Good looking out there on the links homie!!! Way to shoot some golf!!! Not bad for a beer schwillin', no touring mulletooski, lol. We miss ya here up in Sconny bro. You and the boyeez need to make it up here for the Worlds next year. You know you always have a place to kick it here. Holla. :cool:

I think the story of the tournament is Manabu. This guy hung strong with Kenny all week, and then threw a couple over the lake after the King Masher contest. this guy can play!



I think these stats confirm this. The far right column here shows how far above their ratings players played (shows all players who played above their rating):

<table border="1"><tr><td>Place</td><td>Name</td><td>PDGA#</td><td>rating</td><td>Rd1</td><td>Rd1</td><td>Rd2</td><td>Rd2</td><td>Rd3</td><td>Rd3</td><td>Rd4</td><td>Rd4</td><td>ToPar</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Joey Schmit</td><td>28351</td><td>958</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>5</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Manabu Kajiyama</td><td>8139</td><td>986</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-13</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Stephen BS Johnson</td><td>21066</td><td>972</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>3</td><td>41.3
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Robbie Bratten</td><td>21541</td><td>973</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>5</td><td>37.0
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Geoff Bennett</td><td>24962</td><td>998</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>58</td><td>1069</td><td>-12</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Joe Mela</td><td>2607</td><td>1008</td><td>59</td><td>1063</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-17</td><td>32.0
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Brian Schweberger</td><td>12989</td><td>1020</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>58</td><td>1073</td><td>66</td><td>1025</td><td>-25</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Steve Brinster</td><td>10628</td><td>1020</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>59</td><td>1067</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-23</td><td>28.0
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Yoshiyasu Kajiyama</td><td>8141</td><td>967</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>17</td><td>27.8
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Barry Schultz</td><td>6840</td><td>1038</td><td>58</td><td>1068</td><td>57</td><td>1078</td><td>58</td><td>1073</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>-36</td><td>27.3
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Jason Land</td><td>20353</td><td>963</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>21</td><td>26.5
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Ray Johnson</td><td>10355</td><td>1003</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-9</td><td>26.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Anders Kallstrom</td><td>13175</td><td>997</td><td>62</td><td>1046</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>-4</td><td>25.5
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Eric McCabe</td><td>11674</td><td>1010</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-14</td><td>25.5
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Jay Burghardt</td><td>17834</td><td>986</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>75</td><td>985</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>6</td><td>23.8
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Doug Adams</td><td>17322</td><td>943</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>82</td><td>937</td><td>38</td><td>23.3
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Dean Pfeifer</td><td>16938</td><td>977</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>75</td><td>976</td><td>13</td><td>22.8
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Kim Scott-Wood</td><td>19777</td><td>1008</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>75</td><td>976</td><td>-10</td><td>22.5
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Zack Rogers</td><td>19818</td><td>978</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>74</td><td>989</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>13</td><td>21.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>David Ludington</td><td>10223</td><td>1002</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-4</td><td>20.8
</td></tr><tr><td>115</td><td>Cory Sharp</td><td>24270</td><td>959</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>28</td><td>20.3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Josh Anthon</td><td>17946</td><td>1027</td><td>57</td><td>1074</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>64</td><td>1036</td><td>-22</td><td>20.3
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Craig Leyva</td><td>5787</td><td>996</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>1</td><td>19.8
</td></tr><tr><td>154</td><td>Jeff Haydel</td><td>22017</td><td>921</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>93</td><td>890</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td></td><td>44</td><td>19.7
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Michael Johansen</td><td>20300</td><td>1011</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-9</td><td>18.8
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Tim Gill</td><td>9293</td><td>1012</td><td>62</td><td>1046</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>-10</td><td>18.5
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Bard Soleng</td><td>19410</td><td>1005</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>-5</td><td>18.5
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Avery Jenkins</td><td>7495</td><td>1029</td><td>60</td><td>1057</td><td>61</td><td>1057</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-22</td><td>17.8
</td></tr><tr><td>158</td><td>Jay Mathes</td><td>6431</td><td>921</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>89</td><td>911</td><td>80</td><td>959</td><td></td><td>45</td><td>17.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Gregg Barsby</td><td>15857</td><td>1004</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>17.3
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Quinton Mayben</td><td>23126</td><td>951</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>85</td><td>932</td><td>87</td><td>923</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>38</td><td>16.8
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Juho Rantalaiho</td><td>27554</td><td>983</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>13</td><td>16.8
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>John Child</td><td>17540</td><td>1007</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>-4</td><td>15.8
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Kai Vesa</td><td>26442</td><td>992</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>72</td><td>1000</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>8</td><td>14.8
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Kevin Babbit</td><td>11110</td><td>1008</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>-4</td><td>14.5
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Stephen Miller</td><td>29922</td><td>975</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>79</td><td>954</td><td>21</td><td>14.3
</td></tr><tr><td>118</td><td>Kristian McKenzie</td><td>20732</td><td>965</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>76</td><td>970</td><td>29</td><td>13.5
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>David Hemmeline</td><td>23664</td><td>987</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>13</td><td>12.8
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Tim Schreder</td><td>13036</td><td>995</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>8</td><td>11.3
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Hans Tegeback</td><td>11234</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>4</td><td>11.0
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Christer Kohler</td><td>4591</td><td>998</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>6</td><td>11.0
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Tanner Duncan</td><td>18693</td><td>999</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>74</td><td>989</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>6</td><td>10.5
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Tom Woods</td><td>14862</td><td>999</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>6</td><td>10.3
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Kyle Crabtree</td><td>25596</td><td>1010</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-2</td><td>10.3
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Rick Chriswell</td><td>26911</td><td>994</td><td>79</td><td>951</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>10</td><td>9.5
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Linus Astrom</td><td>26586</td><td>1007</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>1</td><td>9.3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Dean Tannock</td><td>4028</td><td>1022</td><td>59</td><td>1063</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>61</td><td>1058</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>-10</td><td>8.8
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>Steve Lonhart</td><td>20786</td><td>987</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>83</td><td>932</td><td>16</td><td>8.5
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Phil Arthur</td><td>7289</td><td>1015</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-4</td><td>8.0
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Jussi Meresmaa</td><td>14600</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>66</td><td>1025</td><td>7</td><td>7.5
</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Phillip Brathwaite</td><td>26416</td><td>994</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>76</td><td>980</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>12</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Cale Leiviska</td><td>24341</td><td>1015</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-4</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Kevin McCoy</td><td>9453</td><td>1014</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Brian Strojny</td><td>18617</td><td>998</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>9</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Patrick Pitts</td><td>10409</td><td>1013</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-2</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>152</td><td>Kelly Watson</td><td>14863</td><td>942</td><td>81</td><td>940</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>83</td><td>944</td><td></td><td>39</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Steve Rico</td><td>4666</td><td>1032</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>-16</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Shawn Sinclair</td><td>10819</td><td>1013</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-2</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>161</td><td>Joe Rotan</td><td>13827</td><td>947</td><td>84</td><td>923</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>47</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Rick Voakes</td><td>2632</td><td>1015</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Nathan Sexton</td><td>18824</td><td>1005</td><td>75</td><td>973</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>4</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>148</td><td>Carrie Burl Berlogar</td><td>13815</td><td>954</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>42</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>144</td><td>Fred Smith</td><td>20578</td><td>955</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>86</td><td>928</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>42</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>Josh Connell</td><td>17393</td><td>963</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>83</td><td>942</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>36</td><td>6.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Justin Jernigan</td><td>22284</td><td>1015</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>-3</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Dario Re</td><td>20838</td><td>994</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>74</td><td>990</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>13</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Larry LaBond</td><td>6903</td><td>1000</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>8</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Tim Keith</td><td>17661</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>4</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>146</td><td>Russell Shelton</td><td>12847</td><td>959</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>84</td><td>939</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>40</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Michael Sullivan</td><td>3028</td><td>990</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>17</td><td>4.8
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Jay Reading</td><td>15864</td><td>1011</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>1</td><td>4.8
</td></tr><tr><td>152</td><td>Jeff Davis</td><td>9603</td><td>945</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>86</td><td>927</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td></td><td>39</td><td>4.7
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Mike Broderick</td><td>22695</td><td>962</td><td>77</td><td>962</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>38</td><td>4.3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>JohnE McCray</td><td>9852</td><td>1029</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-12</td><td>4.3
</td></tr><tr><td>103</td><td>Espen Mokkelgjerd</td><td>17666</td><td>981</td><td>74</td><td>979</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>79</td><td>954</td><td>24</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Michael Olse</td><td>19362</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>5</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Clester Hornsby IV</td><td>22889</td><td>986</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>21</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Matt Orum</td><td>18330</td><td>1024</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-8</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Jim Davidson</td><td>16715</td><td>992</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>17</td><td>3.0
</td></tr><tr><td>120</td><td>Bryan Motley</td><td>11571</td><td>974</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>83</td><td>932</td><td>30</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Timo Pursio</td><td>6005</td><td>1018</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-3</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>163</td><td>Kurt Waggoner</td><td>20387</td><td>947</td><td>82</td><td>934</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>50</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Garrett Gurthie</td><td>13864</td><td>1013</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>1</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Michael Raley</td><td>7846</td><td>1000</td><td>74</td><td>979</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>11</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>Tony Gerling</td><td>17737</td><td>986</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>72</td><td>1000</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>22</td><td>1.5
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Myles Harding</td><td>10466</td><td>994</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>17</td><td>0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>109</td><td>David Harless</td><td>21564</td><td>984</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>25</td><td>0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Michael Hofmann</td><td>17402</td><td>1014</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>2</td><td>0.5
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Dan Ginnelly</td><td>3591</td><td>1021</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>-3</td><td>0.3
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>Sjur Soleng</td><td>19656</td><td>997</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>15</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Adam Olsen</td><td>26100</td><td>1001</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>13</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>David Feldberg</td><td>12626</td><td>1036</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-14</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Great job on the spreadsheet...I always like checking the round ratings & the +/- for each round.
Question...How can "over par" rounds be rated over 1000?

Par is somewhat a subjective number assigned to the course by the course designer. It is a value that the designer expects the course to score. SSA is an objective value assigned to the course by how the players actually played it.

Weather conditions....namely wind are what made SSA vary round to round.

I think the story of the tournament is Manabu. This guy hung strong with Kenny all week, and then threw a couple over the lake after the King Masher contest. this guy can play!



I think these stats confirm this. The far right column here shows how far above their ratings players played (shows all players who played above their rating):

<table border="1"><tr><td>Place</td><td>Name</td><td>PDGA#</td><td>rating</td><td>Rd1</td><td>Rd1</td><td>Rd2</td><td>Rd2</td><td>Rd3</td><td>Rd3</td><td>Rd4</td><td>Rd4</td><td>ToPar</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Joey Schmit</td><td>28351</td><td>958</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>5</td><td>52.3
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Manabu Kajiyama</td><td>8139</td><td>986</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-13</td><td>48.8
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Stephen BS Johnson</td><td>21066</td><td>972</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>3</td><td>41.3
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Robbie Bratten</td><td>21541</td><td>973</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>5</td><td>37.0
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Geoff Bennett</td><td>24962</td><td>998</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>58</td><td>1069</td><td>-12</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Joe Mela</td><td>2607</td><td>1008</td><td>59</td><td>1063</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-17</td><td>32.0
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Brian Schweberger</td><td>12989</td><td>1020</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>58</td><td>1073</td><td>66</td><td>1025</td><td>-25</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Steve Brinster</td><td>10628</td><td>1020</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>59</td><td>1067</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-23</td><td>28.0
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Yoshiyasu Kajiyama</td><td>8141</td><td>967</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>17</td><td>27.8
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Barry Schultz</td><td>6840</td><td>1038</td><td>58</td><td>1068</td><td>57</td><td>1078</td><td>58</td><td>1073</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>-36</td><td>27.3
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Jason Land</td><td>20353</td><td>963</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>21</td><td>26.5
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Ray Johnson</td><td>10355</td><td>1003</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-9</td><td>26.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Anders Kallstrom</td><td>13175</td><td>997</td><td>62</td><td>1046</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>-4</td><td>25.5
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Eric McCabe</td><td>11674</td><td>1010</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-14</td><td>25.5
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Jay Burghardt</td><td>17834</td><td>986</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>75</td><td>985</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>6</td><td>23.8
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Doug Adams</td><td>17322</td><td>943</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>82</td><td>937</td><td>38</td><td>23.3
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Dean Pfeifer</td><td>16938</td><td>977</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>75</td><td>976</td><td>13</td><td>22.8
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Kim Scott-Wood</td><td>19777</td><td>1008</td><td>61</td><td>1052</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>75</td><td>976</td><td>-10</td><td>22.5
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Zack Rogers</td><td>19818</td><td>978</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>74</td><td>989</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>13</td><td>21.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>David Ludington</td><td>10223</td><td>1002</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-4</td><td>20.8
</td></tr><tr><td>115</td><td>Cory Sharp</td><td>24270</td><td>959</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>28</td><td>20.3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Josh Anthon</td><td>17946</td><td>1027</td><td>57</td><td>1074</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>64</td><td>1036</td><td>-22</td><td>20.3
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Craig Leyva</td><td>5787</td><td>996</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>1</td><td>19.8
</td></tr><tr><td>154</td><td>Jeff Haydel</td><td>22017</td><td>921</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>93</td><td>890</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>*</td><td>44</td><td>19.7
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Michael Johansen</td><td>20300</td><td>1011</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-9</td><td>18.8
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Tim Gill</td><td>9293</td><td>1012</td><td>62</td><td>1046</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>-10</td><td>18.5
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Bard Soleng</td><td>19410</td><td>1005</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>64</td><td>1041</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>-5</td><td>18.5
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Avery Jenkins</td><td>7495</td><td>1029</td><td>60</td><td>1057</td><td>61</td><td>1057</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-22</td><td>17.8
</td></tr><tr><td>158</td><td>Jay Mathes</td><td>6431</td><td>921</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>89</td><td>911</td><td>80</td><td>959</td><td>*</td><td>45</td><td>17.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Gregg Barsby</td><td>15857</td><td>1004</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>17.3
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Quinton Mayben</td><td>23126</td><td>951</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>85</td><td>932</td><td>87</td><td>923</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>38</td><td>16.8
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Juho Rantalaiho</td><td>27554</td><td>983</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>13</td><td>16.8
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>John Child</td><td>17540</td><td>1007</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>-4</td><td>15.8
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Kai Vesa</td><td>26442</td><td>992</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>72</td><td>1000</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>8</td><td>14.8
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Kevin Babbit</td><td>11110</td><td>1008</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>-4</td><td>14.5
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Stephen Miller</td><td>29922</td><td>975</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>79</td><td>954</td><td>21</td><td>14.3
</td></tr><tr><td>118</td><td>Kristian McKenzie</td><td>20732</td><td>965</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>76</td><td>970</td><td>29</td><td>13.5
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>David Hemmeline</td><td>23664</td><td>987</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>13</td><td>12.8
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Tim Schreder</td><td>13036</td><td>995</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>8</td><td>11.3
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Hans Tegeback</td><td>11234</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>4</td><td>11.0
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Christer Kohler</td><td>4591</td><td>998</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>6</td><td>11.0
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Tanner Duncan</td><td>18693</td><td>999</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>74</td><td>989</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>6</td><td>10.5
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Tom Woods</td><td>14862</td><td>999</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>69</td><td>1009</td><td>6</td><td>10.3
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Kyle Crabtree</td><td>25596</td><td>1010</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-2</td><td>10.3
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Rick Chriswell</td><td>26911</td><td>994</td><td>79</td><td>951</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>10</td><td>9.5
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Linus Astrom</td><td>26586</td><td>1007</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>1</td><td>9.3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Dean Tannock</td><td>4028</td><td>1022</td><td>59</td><td>1063</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>61</td><td>1058</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>-10</td><td>8.8
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>Steve Lonhart</td><td>20786</td><td>987</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>83</td><td>932</td><td>16</td><td>8.5
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Phil Arthur</td><td>7289</td><td>1015</td><td>63</td><td>1040</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>-4</td><td>8.0
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Jussi Meresmaa</td><td>14600</td><td>1001</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>66</td><td>1025</td><td>7</td><td>7.5
</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Phillip Brathwaite</td><td>26416</td><td>994</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>76</td><td>980</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>12</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Cale Leiviska</td><td>24341</td><td>1015</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-4</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Kevin McCoy</td><td>9453</td><td>1014</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>7.3
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Brian Strojny</td><td>18617</td><td>998</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>9</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Patrick Pitts</td><td>10409</td><td>1013</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-2</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>152</td><td>Kelly Watson</td><td>14863</td><td>942</td><td>81</td><td>940</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>83</td><td>944</td><td>*</td><td>39</td><td>7.0
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Steve Rico</td><td>4666</td><td>1032</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>63</td><td>1047</td><td>63</td><td>1042</td><td>-16</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Shawn Sinclair</td><td>10819</td><td>1013</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-2</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>161</td><td>Joe Rotan</td><td>13827</td><td>947</td><td>84</td><td>923</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>47</td><td>6.8
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Rick Voakes</td><td>2632</td><td>1015</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-3</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Nathan Sexton</td><td>18824</td><td>1005</td><td>75</td><td>973</td><td>67</td><td>1026</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>4</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>148</td><td>Carrie Burl Berlogar</td><td>13815</td><td>954</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>42</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>144</td><td>Fred Smith</td><td>20578</td><td>955</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>86</td><td>928</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>42</td><td>6.5
</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>Josh Connell</td><td>17393</td><td>963</td><td>80</td><td>945</td><td>83</td><td>942</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>36</td><td>6.3
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Justin Jernigan</td><td>22284</td><td>1015</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>-3</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Dario Re</td><td>20838</td><td>994</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>74</td><td>990</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>13</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Larry LaBond</td><td>6903</td><td>1000</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>69</td><td>1015</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>8</td><td>6.0
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Tim Keith</td><td>17661</td><td>1007</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>4</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>146</td><td>Russell Shelton</td><td>12847</td><td>959</td><td>73</td><td>984</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>84</td><td>939</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>40</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Michael Sullivan</td><td>3028</td><td>990</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>17</td><td>4.8
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Jay Reading</td><td>15864</td><td>1011</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>1</td><td>4.8
</td></tr><tr><td>152</td><td>Jeff Davis</td><td>9603</td><td>945</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>86</td><td>927</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td>*</td><td>39</td><td>4.7
</td></tr><tr><td>136</td><td>Mike Broderick</td><td>22695</td><td>962</td><td>77</td><td>962</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>77</td><td>965</td><td>38</td><td>4.3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>JohnE McCray</td><td>9852</td><td>1029</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>61</td><td>1053</td><td>-12</td><td>4.3
</td></tr><tr><td>103</td><td>Espen Mokkelgjerd</td><td>17666</td><td>981</td><td>74</td><td>979</td><td>73</td><td>994</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>79</td><td>954</td><td>24</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Michael Olse</td><td>19362</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>71</td><td>1005</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>5</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Clester Hornsby IV</td><td>22889</td><td>986</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>78</td><td>968</td><td>79</td><td>964</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>21</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Matt Orum</td><td>18330</td><td>1024</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>65</td><td>1031</td><td>-8</td><td>3.5
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Jim Davidson</td><td>16715</td><td>992</td><td>67</td><td>1018</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>17</td><td>3.0
</td></tr><tr><td>120</td><td>Bryan Motley</td><td>11571</td><td>974</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>73</td><td>995</td><td>83</td><td>932</td><td>30</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Timo Pursio</td><td>6005</td><td>1018</td><td>71</td><td>996</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>62</td><td>1052</td><td>68</td><td>1014</td><td>-3</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>163</td><td>Kurt Waggoner</td><td>20387</td><td>947</td><td>82</td><td>934</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td>80</td><td>948</td><td>50</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Garrett Gurthie</td><td>13864</td><td>1013</td><td>72</td><td>990</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>64</td><td>1042</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>1</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Michael Raley</td><td>7846</td><td>1000</td><td>74</td><td>979</td><td>70</td><td>1010</td><td>67</td><td>1027</td><td>72</td><td>992</td><td>11</td><td>2.0
</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>Tony Gerling</td><td>17737</td><td>986</td><td>76</td><td>968</td><td>72</td><td>1000</td><td>72</td><td>1001</td><td>74</td><td>981</td><td>22</td><td>1.5
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Myles Harding</td><td>10466</td><td>994</td><td>68</td><td>1012</td><td>77</td><td>974</td><td>71</td><td>1006</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>17</td><td>0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>109</td><td>David Harless</td><td>21564</td><td>984</td><td>66</td><td>1024</td><td>79</td><td>963</td><td>81</td><td>954</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>25</td><td>0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Michael Hofmann</td><td>17402</td><td>1014</td><td>69</td><td>1007</td><td>68</td><td>1021</td><td>66</td><td>1032</td><td>71</td><td>998</td><td>2</td><td>0.5
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Dan Ginnelly</td><td>3591</td><td>1021</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>65</td><td>1036</td><td>70</td><td>1011</td><td>70</td><td>1003</td><td>-3</td><td>0.3
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>Sjur Soleng</td><td>19656</td><td>997</td><td>70</td><td>1001</td><td>75</td><td>984</td><td>69</td><td>1016</td><td>73</td><td>987</td><td>15</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Adam Olsen</td><td>26100</td><td>1001</td><td>64</td><td>1035</td><td>76</td><td>979</td><td>78</td><td>970</td><td>67</td><td>1020</td><td>13</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>David Feldberg</td><td>12626</td><td>1036</td><td>65</td><td>1029</td><td>66</td><td>1031</td><td>65</td><td>1037</td><td>62</td><td>1047</td><td>-14</td><td>0.0
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>



What this shows also is the "Fault" with the ratings...

How is it that more than 1/2 the field shot above or equal to their rating??

Show me ANY tournament that has ratings that even come close to producing numbers this high across the field.. :p

It proves that if the field has "Higher" propagators then the ratings will skyrocket.......It should not change from "weak" to "strong" rated fields..

What this shows also is the "Fault" with the ratings...

How is it that more than 1/2 the field shot above or equal to their rating??

Show me ANY tournament that has ratings that even come close to producing numbers this high across the field..

It proves that if the field has "Higher" propagators then the ratings will skyrocket.......It should not change from "weak" to "strong" rated fields..



I almost wrote the exact same thing a few minutes ago.

What this shows also is the "Fault" with the ratings...



ditto could not agree more.

must be why I'm rated 945

oh what I just S*&#

It proves two things. It's really hard to have a low rated round on a hard course and it's really easy to get a high rated round when the fiel is stacked.

This goes out to Harold Duvall and his entire army of hundreds for everything they do with the USDGC - THANK YOU!!!!!!!! The whole deal just seems to get better and better and better........... The course was in the best condition I have ever seen it and that's saying something. And whoever ordered the weather for Sunday's Spectator Day deserves a raise. An absolutely indellible day yesterday on a most beautiful course. Hopefully Spectator Day is now a staple part of USDGC week. Like the tournie website says, it's as if a hack golfer has been turned loose at Augusta National, and this one loved every minute of it. In fact I never enjoyed having a course kick my butt more. Again, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

What this shows also is the "Fault" with the ratings...

How is it that more than 1/2 the field shot above or equal to their rating??

Show me ANY tournament that has ratings that even come close to producing numbers this high across the field.. :p

It proves that if the field has "Higher" propagators then the ratings will skyrocket.......It should not change from "weak" to "strong" rated fields..



This is not true at all. What you do not see in my list is all the players who shot well below their rating (why embarrass them?). There are a lot of players who shot 25-55 points below their rating that need to be factored in.

I would assume that if you averaged all differentials for any and all tournaments it would average out to zero. That would make statistical sense.

So, I did that for the USCDGC and it averaged out to +0.209. So, on average playing a tough course with highly rated competitors boosts your rating by a whopping 0.1 throws for an entire 4 round tournament.

Moral of the story: You need to check your math before spouting your discontent with the PDGA ratings. :p Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :D

give me a lighter :D

My "math" is fine.....

I dont need it in this case..the numbers are in your face...

Of 174 players...90 shot above or equal to their rating...

As I stated before...Show me ANY event where this happens.. :p

There are NONE.......
With the field so "DEEP" (High rated players on avg.) The ratings are "Higher" across the board......

This is the case with ALL NT's and above, BUT USDGC shows it more because EVERYONE plays in the same division.

EX.- At Memorial, I played no worse or better than I normally play BUT my ratings were nearly 40 pts above my rating :p Sure that helps me BUT something is OFF.

As stated before, I support the ratings OVERALL, BUT there are things that need to be "Fixed, adjusted, etc..." whatever you want to call it.....

Play ONLY "A" and above and your rating will skyrocket...regardless of your skill level....... :p

[QUOTE]
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :D


Good Idea.....at least Im "Legal" :cool:

Play ONLY "A" and above and your rating will skyrocket...regardless of your skill level....... :p





unless your name is keith johnson and you're injured and still play :p

my rating has TANKED as all my sub 900 rounds are now double weighted

and with another one at usdgc they will drop again :(

too bad if your rating goes below 915 as a pro card member you can't play intermediate...
i might be able to hang with those guys :D

I tend to think that, on average, if you add up ALL the ratings from a round, and all the player ratings that are used to factor that round, you will come pretty close to realizing that those numbers are a wash.

Try this round for round. It's probably a more interesting stat. 4 round stats are simply 4 completely different groups of ratings that get lumped together to become an average. The true stats are round based, not tournament based. I would still like to see tournament average rating at the end of the stats though, instead of having to add all your scores up and divide.

Matt

Congratulations to Eric McCabe. A big finish.



Thanks Scott!!

Congratulations to Eric McCabe. A big finish.



Thanks Scott!!


Way to keep on keepin' on!
E-mac is the man, I predict big things for this guy.
If it rained all week ,he would have punked barry again, just like MJCO!

My "math" is fine.....
I dont need it in this case..the numbers are in your face...
Of 174 players...90 shot above or equal to their rating...

As I stated before...Show me ANY event where this happens.. :p

There are NONE.......




OK then....I checked the Charlotte Open that was 1 week ago. There were 62 competitors and there were 34 that shot at or above their rating (54.8%). The USCDGC had 90 of 174 (51.7%).

Then I went to Sneeky Pete one event prior. They had 23 of 44 (52.3%).

I looked at 2 and show you two. I fail to correlate. I fail to see your point and complaint.

It all depends if the majority of players are trending up or down. Here would be an interesting stat, how about for the US Masters? I would think that players at that tournament would naturally be trending down.

I want to restate that... people coming to play a big tournament like the US Masters may naturally be trending up. So even that is not an easy tournament to use for this example.

The average round rating is set to equal the rating of all the propagators plus the boost factor which still boosts unofficial ratings by about 1 point on average. Since all of the USDGC players are likely propagators, the average round ratings SHOULD be slightly higher than the average of the players' ratings which MP3 showed.

Since rarely are all players propagators at regular events, the average of the player's ratings can be higher or lower than the average of all of the round ratings purely on how well the non-propagators played.

The 1-point boost will be gone from the official calculations in the December update so the USDGC ratings you see now will likely be one or two points lower when posted officially.

I tend to think that, on average, if you add up ALL the ratings from a round, and all the player ratings that are used to factor that round, you will come pretty close to realizing that those numbers are a wash.

Try this round for round. It's probably a more interesting stat. 4 round stats are simply 4 completely different groups of ratings that get lumped together to become an average. The true stats are round based, not tournament based. I would still like to see tournament average rating at the end of the stats though, instead of having to add all your scores up and divide.

Matt



Even this isn't completely correct, especially in a tournament like this. Conditions for the guys on card one can be significantly different from the conditions for the guys on the last card due to weather changes throughout the day, hang-overs, less time to warm up, etc. I would even hesitate to compare scores on a given card, wind gusts, one guy has the flu etc.

Scores are scores, and it takes a lot of rounds to give an average that has any real meaning. This is why Chuck tries to include as many rounds as possible in generating ratings. Trying to draw conclusions from a single event is dangerous. That the ratings are relevant is clear, hence the fact that players over 1000 tend to dominate and the very highest rated players are clearly the best.

I want to restate that... people coming to play a big tournament like the US Masters may naturally be trending up. So even that is not an easy tournament to use for this example.



Chuck is probably able to address this more definitively, but the whole problem with ratings lag (both with Am's who are quickly improving and with Masters whose skills are trending downwards) was addressed with the ratings calculations change. Doubling the most recent 8 rounds and not going back in history as far really minimized this effect.

My guess is that Masters players ratings are dropping at a slower rate than noobs ratings are increasing. Masters rating rate of decrease is probably totally negligible now.

My "math" is fine.....
I dont need it in this case..the numbers are in your face...
Of 174 players...90 shot above or equal to their rating...

As I stated before...Show me ANY event where this happens.. :p

There are NONE.......




OK then....I checked the Charlotte Open that was 1 week ago. There were 62 competitors and there were 34 that shot at or above their rating (54.8%). The USCDGC had 90 of 174 (51.7%).

Then I went to Sneeky Pete one event prior. They had 23 of 44 (52.3%).

I looked at 2 and show you two. I fail to correlate. I fail to see your point and complaint.



Both those events had a unusually HIGH number of high rated players which makes the "formula" pump out higher ratings...

Im not complaining..........Heck with my "junk" rating I can only be helped by playing these type events.

As a long time TD/Promoter, I only strive for "perfection"
:D

If no one ever questions the method, How will anything ever be improved.. ;)
:D

Keep up the good work, Chuck! :)

OK then....I checked the Charlotte Open that was 1 week ago. There were 62 competitors and there were 34 that shot at or above their rating (54.8%).



That was only because of the "California" influence /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

3 out of top 4 WHOOPING on the locals.. :o :D :D

That was only because of the "California" influence /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
3 out of top 4 WHOOPING on the locals.. :o :D :D



Yes - those Cali boys came in and had a great showing in miserable non-Cali weather on a tough non-Cali course.

Barry got his butt whooped by Hornet's Nest at the Charlotte Open. And...Schwebby couldn't have been too thrilled with his performance.

I'm still trying to find any correlation between that and their stellar performance at the USCDGC. Obviously their confidence was not shaken one bit.

There's no points payoff any more for playing with higher rated versus lower rated players. The rounds to avoid would be ones where there are more under-rated fast improving players such as a big Advanced/Intermediate event. These players are likely to mostly play above their ratings and contribute fewer points to the points pool. So, these situations can slightly hurt the ratings of players who play consistently. On the other hand, playing in rounds where most players have stable ratings isn't going to provide any boost but at least it won't detract from your chances. That's one of the reasons why it may seem like playing with higher rated players is better for your rating because more of these players' ratings have stabilized or are changing more slowly.

Of course not - these guys had one goal in mind - win USDGC.

Charlotte Open was just bonus money.

Anybody win the bounty at the shootout?

No - winning score was -16. Tic-Tac Owston (1005) & J-Bird Light (1019) from eTN went Birdie, Par, Par, 15 X Birdie.

2 holes away from $1k :(

Thanks MP3.

Tic and Jay Bird missed two of the easier holes...

Top 3 from the shootout (24 teams)

1. Tic Tac and Jay Bird -16
2. Tom Kim and Ed Williams -14
3. MTL and JJ -13

There's no points payoff any more for playing with higher rated versus lower rated players. The rounds to avoid would be ones where there are more under-rated fast improving players such as a big Advanced/Intermediate event. These players are likely to mostly play above their ratings and contribute fewer points to the points pool. So, these situations can slightly hurt the ratings of players who play consistently. On the other hand, playing in rounds where most players have stable ratings isn't going to provide any boost but at least it won't detract from your chances. That's one of the reasons why it may seem like playing with higher rated players is better for your rating because more of these players' ratings have stabilized or are changing more slowly.



You could easily improve the accuracy by accounting for the Standard Deviations of the player ratings. The way round ratings are generated, there is up to a 5-6% gap between how an am's round is rated vs. how a pro's round is rated. 6% doesn't sound like much, but if a 950 player's rating was adjusted by 6%, he'd be shooting 1000-rated golf without being rewarded for it.

A simple statistical tool like shazam or mini-tab could be used to do some more effective statistical and/or regression alalysis. Until this is done, the pro's ratings will continue to inaccurately spiral up as am's continue to spiral down because none of the rating variables are independent and the function is recursive.

I would not say that the Sneeky was stacked

this is our usual turn out here in NC

congrats to Cali at Charlotte but with people sneaking off to get holes in at Winthrop I don't think that Charlotte was the main thing on anyone's mind

Barry and Avery were hanging out on the 17th green yesterday after our Spectator day round so I went over to say hi. As I walked off the green I saw a blue Barry Schultz signature Champ Leopard. I assume it was a prototype or a first run just for him. I didn't ask him about it but it shouldn't be long before we may see some for sale.

They are out.
Go to Zonedriven.

SWEET

No - winning score was -16. Tic-Tac Owston (1005) & J-Bird Light (1019) from eTN went Birdie, Par, Par, 15 X Birdie.


Those 2 guys are great golfers indeed. I know J-Bird couldn't get off work to play the USDGC, I don't know about Tic Tac. J-Bird's brother played in the big show, was paired with Rotan for the last round. NC better have something up their sleeve if they want to win Cross State doubles this next weekend. Tic and J are the defending champs!

It is probably way to soon to ask this question, but does anyone know if they are planning to release an '06 USDGC video? It is bad enough that I couldn't be there and I love every USDGC video I own. Getting to see the action on video is almost as good as being there. Well, maybe not. :)

Ratings do not matter. You only play as well as you shot.

And I also believe the ratings are dead on. I know in Pittsburgh, the guys who have a 980+ usually beat the 950 - 980 guys and the 950's usually beat the 930 players...etc etc etc. I think it is very accurate if you play at least 5 or 6 events a year. But all in all, does it really matter? your trying to play your best golf, and that's all.

I tend to agree for the most part. The exception would be the player who has a skill that is not able to be used on his home courses.

Example: I have a friend here who has a great thumber. He is not as good on the tight wooded courses. If he were to play on some of the TX courses or other areas where there are a lot of tight fairways, but the trees are low/shrubby enough to go over top, he would do awesome against those who do not have a good thumber.

stack?

Here is something funny for you guys; Kevin McCoy was testing out the innove MINI driver at Winthrop and managed to get a 5 on hole 13 which is 888 feet and a PAR 5!

To give you a comparison of how tough of a hole it is the biggest score for the tournament on hole 13 was a 14, keep in mind that is using actual discs. My boy Steve Mills carded a 13 on that hole in round 2.

thats his new nickname...13

The exception would be the player who has a skill that is not able to be used on his home courses. Example: I have a friend here who has a great thumber. He is not as good on the tight wooded courses.



At some point, the players who play enough rounds in a year could get subratings based on how well they play open versus wooded versus level versus hilly courses. Only a short hop from that to parimutuel wagering possibilities...

The way round ratings are generated, there is up to a 5-6% gap between how an am's round is rated vs. how a pro's round is rated.



Do tell?

The way round ratings are generated, there is up to a 5-6% gap between how an am's round is rated vs. how a pro's round is rated.



Do tell?



You are funny! I like you!

thats his new nickname...13




sounds good to me

Luke would probably like to call him 100

I should have taken that bet, I could use an extra $100.

That was a sweet 5 on hole 13, but you should ask him to tell the story about the tin cup on hole 10 with that mini. I will say this he is crushing that mini.

I was just checking some stats, and Schweb just DOUBLED his earnings for the year in PDGA play.

One event paid more than the other 17 combined!

previous tournaments: $5767
USDGC: $6000

kinda cool.

not exactly. His Sneaky Pete and Charlotte Open winnings arent there.

Without looking, I doubt his Yetter money is either.

Either way a great pay day for a NC golfer.

you are right, the Yetter was not in there, but the Charlotte Open WAS.

I would like to say a huge THANK YOU to all the people involved in running this event! The USDGC keeps getting better every year, and I can't wait to go back and face the challenges that this course produces. Every golfer that can find a way to get to this event should make the effort.

Priceless times are had by all who attend!

For those that could not attend, the coverage was awesome!
I hope this is an indication as to where our beloved sport is going. Great Job on the broadcast and microdot technology. I did not get a darn thing done all week!

did not get a darn thing done all week

and that is different than the prior week or this week??? :D

I really enjoyed playing the course on spectator day.

I surprised myself and the crew I went with by shooting an 83. The OB strokes killed me on several holes and I doinked a couple easy birdie and par putts.

I have come to a conclusion on how I play. If I have never seen the course before, then I do pretty well. But the more I play a course, the worse I get at it...and I think it is because I get bored with courses that I play over and over and over again...

I would also like to say thanks to everyone who was involved in making this event happen, from the Monday qualifying crew all the way down to the spotters, I would like to say thanks. Even though I had a slight ligament tear in my arm during the second round, I didnt drop out because of the prestige of this tournament and what it means to have a chance to play in it. I hope to be back again and this time not have to monday qualify. To play in the USDGC is a dream come true. THANKS

To play in the USDGC is a dream come true. THANKS



SECOND

Every person in the staff seemed like they were always doing somthing, it was Great seeing such support for people throwing frisbees.

Thank you to all involved

I hate hole 9....

The staff was awewsome...I didnt realize there was going to be that many of em.

Gregg, you aint the only one to hate hole 9. I didnt birdie it once :confused: and took 5 putts on the hole sat. for a quintuple bogey 9 :mad::( :o:D. first putt went off the pole right back at me, hit the bricks and rolled behind me. Then I airball, then another chainout roll away. My fourth putt was pretty much a layup that landed on top of the bricks. the 5th one was a drop in. gotta love those elevated baskets. I was proud of myself when I didnt lose it. I laughed it off and went for the island on hole 10 (barely missed it).

Thanks to everyone - staff, volunteers and players alike - who made this such a memorable week for my wife and I. Even though she didn't don her caddy smock (afraid she would be asked disc golf-related advice), she walked each and every round with me: a first!

I was most impressed with the logistics and support and, like many other promoters and TDs took extensive notes. I just cannot say enough positive things about this tournament.

I will say there were a few holes I though were over the top. I know these are constantly being tweaked to walk the fine line between just plain devilish and downright impossible.

Though the early morning tee times had to deal with the majority of the wind on Thursday and Friday (I guess we earned it), conditions weren't really that bad. I got thinking about a few of the holes I played this past week when we had torrential rain and winds gusting to 40 mph straight out of the south here in Mobile. I cannot imagine trying to play some of those holes in those type of conditions.

As far as suggested course tweaks, I saw somewhere above that someone thought shortening hole 5 might encourage water crossing on the second shot. Personally, I thought that hole just as it is is one of the finest disc golf holes I have ever played.

I would say that the drive on 13 is just too difficult (and too prone to luck). I would suggest keeping the sidewalk and the field area to the left in play for the first 275 to 300 feet of the hole. I realize this might take some teeth out of the hole, but this could be compensated by moving the pin position. It would also help speed play on one of the slowest holes on the course. I think when I followed the lead group on Friday there were five groups backed up there. While there will always be some holes that play slower than others, I think it must be extremely hard to sit on your thumbs for 45 minutes and then throw one of the hardest drives of the tournament.

I realize that 17 is considered hallowed ground by some, but I thought again it was a bit on the unfair side. My penultimate drive of the tournament hit chains, slid seven feet and the result was a 5. I would consider putting hay bales along the lakeside of this hole as well. This would remove quite a bit of the luck factor from the hole. A short drive would still be bad a long drive would still be bad, but the good drive that touches down softly, slides a few feet and tips over the edge would be a thing of the past.

I think I read earlier, before the tournament, a discussion involving comments from MTL about how the difference between good and bad is not only measured in inches but often in 2-3 strokes. This was driven home for me on Hole 12 of the first round when Joe Mela hit the tree (trunk OB) to the left on his approach and fell back in bounds ... He commented when he got up to it that he didn't even realize the OB pinched in that close there. Another player in our group twanged off one of the upper ropes on an approach headed for the pin and fell OB. The second player ended up carding a 7, I think, and Joe ended up with a birdie 4 on the way to a 9 down that was a pleasure to watch.

In that sense, I can fully understand anyone who says that on this course the penalties for a marginal shot are just too great. I think there are some roped OBs on the course that the course could do just fine without. I thought the roped OB running up the left side of 18 was a bit ridiculous. Going in that schule wasn't going to be any bargain, but the penalize it with an OB stroke was just adding insult to injury.

Personally, I also have an issue with raising the baskets (Holes 9 and 10). I donlike it and think basket height should be uniform. To me it smacks of miniature golf and is just too gimmicky. I realize that others hold equally strong opinions the other way and that this debate will continue. Just weighing in.

Lastly, I thought that the course had such beautiful greens that you might want to consider stealing a chapter from ball golf and moving the pin positions on some of them. Imagine for a second moving 13's basket around on that huge island. How 'bout 17? If you implemented my idea about the lakeside hay bales you could use different positions to create additional hazard on lakeside or landside putts. Admittedly, some of the holes would benefit from a static pin placement, but I think holes 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and maybe 18 have the potential for multiple pin positions.

Again, thanks for everything. It was a true joy to come participate and to see so many of the faces I hadn't seen in years.

Personally, I also have an issue with raising the baskets (Holes 9 and 10). I donlike it and think basket height should be uniform. To me it smacks of miniature golf and is just too gimmicky. I realize that others hold equally strong opinions the other way and that this debate will continue. Just weighing in.




First I want to echo the sentiments of other participants. This year's USDGC was far and away the best one I've attended yet thanks to the many volunteers and staff. And that says a lot because last year's USDGC was above and beyond everything I'd played before. It just keeps getting better.

Chris, you make many fine points and as you said, the debates could go on forever about any of them. I just want to address the one I quoted above about the raised baskets on 9 and 10. Personally, I enjoy them. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have a similarly raised basket here on my home course (and I enjoyed the benefits of the practice by canning a couple 30 footers on hole 9).

To me, the raised basket is no different than one at "regulation" height that is located on the crest of a hill or mound. The only time an elevated basket differs from a hilltop basket is when you get up close to it (say inside 10 feet) and by then, it shouldn't affect your ability to hit the putt anymore. From 30 feet away, it's no different than putting at a basket set uphill from my lie. The same risk/reward exists for running it from further out whether it's a hilltop basket or an elevated one.

I think rather than dismissing many of these designs as "gimmicky", I think we should look at them as attempts at innovation where other "natural" options aren't available.

The argument has been made before about how ball golf is more natural, but much of the "challenges" in ball golf are just as contrived as yellow rope, raised baskets, and "clown's mouthes". They've just got a better budget to make it look good and transparent. Sand traps, undulating greens, even varied heights of the grass in the rough are all "gimmicks" designed to make the game harder, no different raising the height of a couple baskets by five feet.

Speaking of grass height, I just wanted to add another praise to the crew that made the course what it was. Going out and cutting the fairways every morning wasn't just something that helped keep us early tee time guys' shoes dry from the dew, but it was also a very sly course design trick. By Saturday, those fairways and greens were extremely short and extremely fast, especially contrasted to the OB areas which went untouched by the mowers all week. It made skipping out of OB into safe areas tough, and skipping out of the fairway into OB a very likely concern.

No where was this more evident than on holes like 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, etc. For example, I saw a couple shots approaching 9's basket that hit safe and took mean skips into the OB long, while a couple shorter shots on the same type of trajectory did not find the big skip that might have gotten the disc out of OB and safely on to the green. It was a subtle thing, but it certainly affected a great many shots.

Again, kudos to the crew. Can't wait to go back again next year.

--Josh

I fully support artificially elevated baskets when terrain doesn't provide the opportunities for naturally elevated pins on a course. However on 9, I think it was brutal enough without the elevated pin. Rather than compound the challenge on 9, perhaps that elevated pin could have been on a hole like 16 where it could use a little boost to the challenge.

Mike Sullivan also had a sugestion that perhaps the grass should have been mowed close in the rough along the OB/IB boundary on some holes and left longer in the fairways to give discs a fighting chance to end up and/or stay IB.

This tournament was amazing! Im glad i finally got the chance to come down and witness it!! I had a blast just hanging out this year, can't wait to play next year!! Great Work! :D

Especially that Flip Cup game...huh Val :D

can we see some ID?

YEAH......Flip CUp

well done schwe!!

The magic of the USDGC is the passion and effort of the staff. They are a remarkable group of givers.

After each Championship, we try to prepare a document that addresses areas for improvement. The 2006 draft of the event portion of this document includes:

Larger ice cream serving area
Better communication of soccer complex regulations
Nightly trash pick ups
On-course radio coverage to accompany Microdots
Schedule for after-event clean up
More distance yardage markers at US Distance Championship
PA System for US Distance Championship and Clutch Putting finals
Scorecards for Spectator Day so patrons know the Gold Course ground rules

The course portion of this document includes:

Two spotters on hole #4
Create �Island Green� rule for hole #4 for consistency and simplicity
More low areas in ropes (to facilitate crossing for competitors and their carts)
Slight modification of rope on hole #10 to eliminate the need for the drop zone
Change the ground rule on hole #12 so that the back OB does not go to drop zone
Consider the elimination of the mandatory on #1 now that the recently planted maple tree has filled in the gap

Some of the other course suggestions already proferred will be addressed separately for space considerations. Please feel free to let us know of any other potential areas for improvement.

Take care,

Harold

Please feel free to let us know of any other potential areas for improvement.




I would suggest looking at the scoring averages for holes where competitors, many of whom are 1000+ rated and some of the best disc golfers in the world, are taking scores of 10,11,12 and greater, and consider design changes. Something is wrong when golfers of that caliber and talent are taking a double-digit score on a hole.

They have a year to get really good at a sidearm?

A wealth of tools in your bag will give you an advantage on this course.

I think Schwebbie's thumber is a big part of his success year after year. A disc that comes straight down has a lot less chance to get into trouble.

Gregg Barsby did really well at his first USDGC. I saw him throw a lot of sidearms during the event. He has a great long sidearm and is very confident with it. Step up and throw. It's a big relief to have confidence in your throws on this course. Every bit of anxiety wears on you over the course of a round. Especially when you come to the 4,4,4,4,5,5 stretch. The 888 hole is so much easier if you throw up the left route. You can throw as high a hyzer as you want with little risk of skipping OB. Those who throw down the road take a lot of risk. Especially after you've been waiting 30 minutes and watched a lot of good players throw almost good shots.

1000 rated golfer Jim No Spin Myers took a 12 the first round. (Then he came back and ended up cashing.) I asked him about the 12 and he said that he and another 1000 type rated player on his card kept trying to go straight down the fairway in the wind and going OB again and again, shot after shot OB, not sure how many Jim had perhaps 4 OB's in a row. He finally thru a big hyzer and went OB way down the way. He said he learned something the first round and played it smart the next round. He thru the big hyzer first shot went OB way down the way and actually cheered, then took a decent score on the hole.

a little birdie told me if you take a 10 you break the Dots

dont breat the dots, throw better

: ) :

They have a year to get really good at a sidearm?

A wealth of tools in your bag will give you an advantage on this course.

I think Schwebbie's thumber is a big part of his success year after year. A disc that comes straight down has a lot less chance to get into trouble.

Gregg Barsby did really well at his first USDGC. I saw him throw a lot of sidearms during the event. He has a great long sidearm and is very confident with it. Step up and throw. It's a big relief to have confidence in your throws on this course. Every bit of anxiety wears on you over the course of a round. Especially when you come to the 4,4,4,4,5,5 stretch. The 888 hole is so much easier if you throw up the left route. You can throw as high a hyzer as you want with little risk of skipping OB. Those who throw down the road take a lot of risk. Especially after you've been waiting 30 minutes and watched a lot of good players throw almost good shots.



So you'd agree that it's easier for a lefty or sidearm thrower then a RHBH thrower?

I would say it's got holes that challenge you to not throw your regualr backhand shot. Or, like Jim Myers, you play to throw OB. That's my gameplan on 9. I play the big hyzer to get as far down the fairway so I can get an easier shot at a circle 4. Sometimes, playing to stay in bounds just doesn't gain you that much. I throw about 100 feet farther down the fairway of 9 than most anyone else. Not because I have more power, but because they are playing the layup. But they have an equally challenging second shot to get to the green for a 3 or 4, since it's a long way across a lot of OB. So the OB on the drive for me lessens the worry of going OB (with distance and stroke) on the next shot.

Doesn't that seem off, when arguably the preferred strategy and best possible play on a hole is throw your drive out-of-bounds?

I wouldn't say so. Moving up the fairway is key. If you throw a shot aiming to land in bounds, and never make it, then you have punished yourself by as much as 350 feet. It is the same as throwing a high safe hyzer over a lake to make sure you don't flip it and go splash. I simply visualize heavy schule on the right, and I am throwing a big drive that will skip into the schule, then pitch out to the fairway, and throw the next shot.

It's a better strategy than the one I used last year and took 2 OB strokes and took a 6. That is probably my weakest hole on the course. So shooting for par/bogey seems like a good strategy... FOR ME.

By throwing a long first drive, I take the big trees on the left in the OB as much out of play as possible. I also shorten the approach considerably, from about 360 to 280 or so.

I think that's a good strategy. Lose the battle, win the war.

Doesn't that seem off, when arguably the preferred strategy and best possible play on a hole is throw your drive out-of-bounds?



No, because it's not necessarily the preferred or best strategy on the hole, it's just what works best for Matt given his style of play and what he knows his limitations are. That's a factor that ALL golfers should take into account when playing a hole...what is THEIR best way to score well.

Matt is left-handed, which does play a significant role in the choice he makes on that hole versus what Brian Schweberger or Jim Myers or Ken Climo might choose to do. On the hole in question, for a left-handed player, a more aggressive drive from the tee may actually be the lowest risk shot, OB or no OB.

As a fellow lefty, I see the logic in Matt's strategy on that particular hole (and used it to score a birdie in Round 4). Most of the righties I saw play that hole teed off the same way. They threw a gentle hyzer shot about 200-225 feet out onto the fairway (usually a Roc or Aviar type shot). It is a shot that had never has to cross an OB line until it reaches the preferred landing area (maximizing distance off the tee even if it does skip/roll/land OB).

Meanwhile, the lefty's choice on that tee are to throw an anhyzer shot or sidearm shot to emulate the righty hyzer line or throw a straight/hyzer shot across the left side OB and bring it back to the fairway. With the gusty and variable winds that blew all week, the anhyzer shot really was a crapshoot as to whether it would land IB (personally, I was 1/3 attempting it)...it either turns over too much into the OB or hyzers early and lands a good 40-50 feet further away from the pin than the preferred landing area, making the green pretty much impossible to reach with your second shot.

From that landing zone, the green is about 300-320 feet away. The righty will usually just hang a disc out to the right and let it fall left toward the green/pin...very simple shot. Meanwhile, the left side of the green is protected from a lefty-equivalent shot by a large oak, forcing more of a straight/anhyzer line to reach the green over the OB. Certainly a much riskier shot (wind or no wind) for a lefty than a righty.

On the other hand, when executed properly, the stable/hyzer tee shot over the OB can land inbounds, as Matt said, 100 feet further down the "fairway" than where most players are landing their 'safe' drives. The biggest "risk" involved if you throw the right disc is that the shot will skip/fly through the narrow fairway into the OB on the right-hand side. Being that far down the fairway, in or out, also has the added benefit of giving not only a shorter shot to the green, but a more lefty-friendly approach by taking the oak out of the equation.

Remember, the goal is to shoot the lowest score you can on a given hole which doesn't automatically equate to avoiding OB strokes at all costs. What Matt choose to do (drive + OB stroke + short approach + putt = par) is no different than what someone lacking the confidence/ability to carry 300 feet of OB will score (250 foot drive to landing zone, ~200 foot shot along fairway, ~200 foot approach to green, putt). And Matt's strategy affords him a chance a birdie if his drive lands IB, which happened more often than not from the lefties I witnessed (Mela, Leyva, myself, etc).

As to the whole discussion of 1000+ rated players scoring double-digits on a given hole, there is a very simple explanation...take it from someone who watched an awful lot of players of all kinds doing it...they weren't playing smart. In fact, I saw more than one player just get plain stupid, "tin cupping" a hole or two or even three in a single round. I think it might simply be a case of the old, par-3 mentality hanging around. Either in the mental approach that a four is a failure (bogey) and everything must be threed even when a three is next to impossible to score. Or it is the way that after a mistake (bogey) hole, a player tries to "correct" it by getting over-aggressive on the next hole (i.e. after scoring a four at a pitch-n-putt, one goes all out to park the next hole and get the stroke back instantly). Regardless, it appeared to me that some of these players were just stubborn that they could "make the shot" even when it was clear that it wasn't happening that day.

But that's the beautiful part of the game, IMO...the mental strength it takes to suck up some pride, admit you can't make a particular shot, and lay up. The mental strength to play the safest shot for yourself, even if the rest of the guys are taking the "macho" risky route and making it.

Eventually, the number of players who aren't susceptible to that type of "tin cup" meltdown (and I count myself among the susceptible) will increase and the frequency with which it happens at the USDGC will go down. But I don't think softening the course because a bunch of players decided to tin-cup a few holes is necessarily the step the sport needs to take. JMHO.

Is Barry Shultz the president of Napoleon Dynamites Happy Hands Club on the front page of the PDGA website?? or is that the new Wisconsin gang sign?

I thought he was doing a bird shadow puppet myself.

Is Barry Shultz the president of Napoleon Dynamites Happy Hands Club on the front page of the PDGA website?? or is that the new Wisconsin gang sign?



That's actually the old school, sheboygan gang sign. Barry's a banger for sure. :D

Jeff brings up a good issue. While the term "tin cup" originated with golf, the USDGC clearly produces more double-digit scores than you would typically see at a PGA event. Defective hole design could certainly cause a 1000+ rated players to shoot double digit scores. But after considering this, it is my opinion that the mental test we've designed� both emotionally and intellectually - is the true cause.

Take care,
Harold

I thought it was amercan sign langage for "I AM THE MAN"

Foolish professional ball golfers rarely take even 8s however, even at majors...

Matt, I think hole 9 is probably the only hole out there that is RHBH friendly. The biggest thing I see is the lack of balance on the holes, in regards to LH vs. RH throwers. Let me preface by saying, I love the challenge, the course and the event. However, on the toughest holes out there, 5, 8, 11, 13, and 17, it seems the lefty gets a hyzer and the righty is force to finesse shots, travel over ob for a great distance, or deal with a sloping green from right to left.

Double digit scores at the USDGC are almost always the result of multiple bad shots and or resignation on the part of the disc golfer. In my opinion, top disc golfers are less disciplined than top golfers. PGA pros seem to make plenty of bad shots, but they don�t tend to follow up with more bad shots. Jean Van de Velde�s meltdown at the 1999 British Open was so memorable in part because it was so unusual to see a golfer repeatedly hit bad shots. While Barry is a skilled driver and putter, I believe that it is his course managment skill and mental discipline that makes him a 3-time champion.

Take care,
Harold

That's because the caddies take the drivers away.

That's also because ball golfers play courses that give them the opportunity to do several times a month. They generally learn to avoid that trap before they get their tour cards, or at least before they get any real camera time.

Foolish professional ball golfers rarely take even 8s however, even at majors...



And that is kind of my point. I look to ball golf - when a pro golfer has a bad hole, he usually takes a 7 or an 8. With the exception of maybe John Daly, you don't see pro ball golfers taking 10s, 11s, 12s, etc. in tournaments. It just seems absolutely ludicrous to me when a 1020-rated player is playing the USDGC and is 6 under par through 2/3 of the course, and then takes a 12. Even though foolish / aggressive play is the direct cause, the "tin cup" nature of many holes at the USDGC encourages big scores, and the penalty is just too great, imo.

I fully agree that the aggressiveness / greed of disc golfers is what results in the high scores. Trust me, I definitely understand the sentiment that most disc golfers, especially elite ones, subscribe to: I should be able to throw it as far as I can off every tee. I argue with golfers all the time about course design, especially at heavily wooded courses, when they complain because they fly 400' down the fairway and then tail off into heavy rough, when they could just as easily throw a Roc 300 feet and land right in the center. I am consistently amazed that world class golfers don't realize when fairway placement is the course designer's intent. I am befuddled when "laying up" is not even part of their thought process. You should see *me* out at the course - no one plays more conservatively than I do. I throw Rocs and spike hyzers for placement all day long.

But it will never stop to make me wonder when I see world class players and/or former world champions such as Carlton Howard, Gregg Hosfeld, Jim Myers, Jim Oates, Matthew Orum, etc. taking scores of 13, 12, 12, 11, and 11, respectively in the premier disc golf tournament in the nation.

Jeff brings up a good issue. While the term "tin cup" originated with golf, the USDGC clearly produces more double-digit scores than you would typically see at a PGA event. Defective hole design could certainly cause a 1000+ rated players to shoot double digit scores. But after considering this, it is my opinion that the mental test we've designed� both emotionally and intellectually - is the true cause.

Take care,
Harold



I agree with Harold. The high scores are more a result of players succumbing to the mental and intellectual challenges of the course rather than the design being overly punitive.

And comparisons to the top ball golfers doesn't really hold IMO because the quality of the players, top to bottom, at a given PGA event is much higher than the USDGC field in disc golf (arguably the highest quality field of players gathered at any disc golf event anywhere). Even the guys at the bottom of the standings at a PGA event are generally zero handicaps or better, meanwhile not even half the field at USDGC is better than our equivalent of zero handicap...1000 rating. And I'd hazard a guess that some of our 1000+ rated players were weened on very low-risk, par-3 disc golf courses where they never have to consider "playing safe" or "laying up" in order to succeed. The mental game of disc golf hasn't really developed as quickly as the physical game for many, both in terms of course design and the players themselves, IMO.

When played smartly and correctly, a ~950 rated player can shoot "par" on the Gold course without doing anything overly spectacular. I would presume that the same couldn't be said about your average PGA tournament course and, say, a 6-handicap golfer. High scores generally come on the Gold course when players get over-aggressive and make mistakes...far more of a mental battle than a question of course design, IMO.

--Josh

As much as I don't like courses with much OB due to the factor of being OB by an inch or so, I will have to say this about Winthrop.

The only 3 people who have won it are top 4 in the world. If it wasn't fair, this would not be the case.

Of course the same could be said about Paw Paw, and I wouldn't want to put the courses at the same level, but perhaps they are in their own way.

17 was too tight this year...........pressure or no pressure, every pro has to throw a near perfect shot to stay in.....

Fishsticks are skeert !!

Good discussion to be had here.

17 WAS tough. But it required a game plan. Probably should have been practiced by players a lot more than it was. Just because you throw one good shot, doesn't mean that the conditions may change that do not allow you to throw that shot each round. Let alone the problem where your favorite disc went in he drink, what do you do now?

So I think the key to this course is: Have a game plan. Have a backup plan. Have an emergency escape. If you do not follow your plan, you simply may not score at your best.

I learned that trying new things during rounds is usually a bad thing on this course. Much more so than any other course. With OB on both sides of many fairways, and disc eating water early in the round, playing reserved golf around the water can affect what happens when you get to the "nasty 6" that string of par 4-5s that can really beat you down if you aren't in game day mode or are lost without your favorite driver that went sploosh.

Hole 13 is no different. If you throw your "ideal" disc to less than satisfactory results, you better have a backup plan. If you keep trying to "pure the road gap" you can get into some serious trouble quick. The curb has a lot to do with trouble on this hole too. It's easier for a lefty to skip in than a righty, that curb takes out a lot of discs. This should be part of the equation on this hole. If you are throwing low to get distance, you better not land in the street or you are in real trouble. Whereas playing the high hyzer will get you forward progression, just not always a chance at an eagle... like anyone but Linus Astrom will be going for that... I watched him throw this crazy impossibly high hyzer over the parking lot. It was probably 60 feet high at it's peak, and covered a good 480 feet. Insane.

Play safe, don't get upset by forward progress OB, and you'll do well at the USDGC.

While a shot can be OB by a couple of inches, it is invariably off target by dozens of feet or yards.

Take care,
Harold

No disagreement here!

However I feel that, as stated on the other thread, that OB does not give the opportunity for a golfer to recover after a bad shot. Yes, this game is a game of inches, but at least when you miss in the woods you are at least given the chance to recover and save yourself. With OB, this is not the case.

Whereas playing the high hyzer will get you forward progression, just not always a chance at an eagle... like anyone but Linus Astrom will be going for that... I watched him throw this crazy impossibly high hyzer over the parking lot. It was probably 60 feet high at it's peak, and covered a good 480 feet. Insane.



I watched two eagles on that hole, one by Linus and one by Robbie Bratten.. Trust me, Robbie crushed him. :D

On hole 9 I took a circle 4. My drive hit the light pole next to the fence and the disc fell straight down. From where it went out, I was around 320 ft from the pin and I threw another beast shot that landed 20 feet from the basket. That hole is probably the least fair to lefty players.

IMO, I think the 900+ ft hole had a little too much OB. You could probably keep the sidewalk and grass to the right IB and still keep the hole just as challenging. Or if you are going to keep part of that OB, let the sidewalk be IB.

On the 888 hole, I would keep the same OB except making the little grass islands along the right side of the fairway(about 2/3rds) down IB.

17 was my least favorite hole. That hole had too much of a luck factor. You could throw a great shot and it could slide into the water, or the wind could pick it up and throw it OB or push it down and keep it from making the hay bales.

Then again, you probably won't listen to me since I am only a 870ish rated golfer.

I have a photo sequence of Linus' drive. He didn't hyzer the disc, he hyzered his body! His whole torso was almost horizontal on disc release. The angles he displays are not human!

I just want to make sure that folks recognize that when someone goes OB by an inch it means that they missed the whole fairway first and then missed by an extra inch.

Take care,
Harold

I just want to make sure that folks recognize that when someone goes OB by an inch it means that they missed the whole fairway first and then missed by an extra inch.

Take care,
Harold



Very good point Harold. A good shot doesn't miss OB by an inch or go OB or by an inch!

Not listening to folks would dishonor the lessons of my parents as well as invalidate my modeling to my young'ns.

Hole 17 generated quite a few comments. And thanks to the spreadsheet developed by Brian Graham of Epicenter Disc Sports, we can nicely present the scores on hole 17 as follows:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Winthrop Gold Hole 17 Review</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score Types</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>Percentages</td><td>Percentages
</td></tr><tr><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>50</td><td>67</td><td>39</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>67</td><td>29</td><td>36</td><td>173</td><td>223</td><td>43%</td><td>33%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>19</td><td>29</td><td>26</td><td>35</td><td>22</td><td>32</td><td>29</td><td>40</td><td>96</td><td>136</td><td>24%</td><td>20%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>15</td><td>27</td><td>15</td><td>25</td><td>12</td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>27</td><td>59</td><td>101</td><td>15%</td><td>15%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>7</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>18</td><td>29</td><td>62</td><td>7%</td><td>9%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>9</td><td>35</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>8</td><td>37</td><td>12</td><td>28</td><td>42</td><td>141</td><td>11%</td><td>21%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>0%</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I made a mistake on hole 17. The ground rule was too penal. The data supports the suggestion made to me by Scott Pappa, Jim Oates, and several others: Players should have gone to the drop zone after their first misses. Too many double and triple bogeys were carded because I mistakenly decided to require two misses before proceeding to drop spot.

I won�t make the same mistake next year. The ground rule for 2007 will direct the player to the drop zone after the first miss. If most of the doubles and triples were simple bogeys, the scoring distribution would have been just fine.

Some have advocated the need for a safe par route, but I can not recall safe par in any of the of the course design literature that I�ve read. Augusta #12 or Sawgrass #17 can be safely played for bogey, but not for par.

Hole 17 revealed some weakness in the games of some otherwise great disc golfers:

1. Many very good disc golfers have very poor sidearms. A righty sidearm had a greater margin of error than a righty backhand.

2. Many very good disc golfers played to an obvious sucker pin location. I saw numerous shots thrown right at the pin even though the green was shollowest there.

The next to the last hole for our national championship needs to generate some pucker factor in a fair way. It should provide for a multiple-stroke swing and to reward good course management ability and diverse throwing skills. Other than the ground rule error, hole 17 fit the bill in my opinion.

Take care,
Harold

Well said Harold.

It was an amazing feeling in just the first Round stepping up to the Tee on 17 and have my heart POUNDING b4 i had to throw, what a Rush.......fortunately I made the 2 the first 3 rounds. Pucker Factor was definitely very high every round on that hole.

The next to the last hole for our national championship needs to generate some pucker factor in a fair way. It should provide for a multiple-stroke swing and to reward good course management ability and diverse throwing skills. Other than the ground rule error, hole 17 fit the bill in my opinion.

Take care,
Harold



Couldn't agree more, Harold, especially on the reference to hole#17 at Sawgrass. When competitors find water off the tee on that hole, they go to a drop zone for a shorter shot. Laying two, they hope to get up and down for four, and make five at worst. A double bogey five is penalty enough on a short par three hole - there's no need for triple bogeys or worse.

With 43% of the top 100 getting birdies, the "good" throw for a birdie is still a little too easy. I think the goal for number of birdies on a redesign should be in the 20-30% range. The tee shot to the pin needs to be trickier since it might be hard to make it much longer. Perhaps some barriers/trees in the middle of the fairway are needed? Then, make the right side area bigger and the drop zone farther away. I think you would get closer to a distribution where 3s outnumber either 2s or 4+s.

I feel the best way to handle 17 was the way it was last year when players went to a drop zone about 100 - 150 feet from the pin. That way, they still had to make the island, however, the shot was much easier.

I agree with the pucker factor. I missed 17 only once. I had to practice it for over an hour on tuesday until I found the shot. I agree stepping up to that hole with a good round going really makes the heart pump. And when you nail the shot, then the putt, it's ecstasy! However, the 4 stroke swing potential was a little large. Keep up the good work Harold!

Tanner and Robert - The drop zone will likely be the drop zone from 2005. Still plenty of pucker factor, but less chance for a complete disaster.

Take care,
Harold

Chuck - Some holes have the appearance of being harder than they are. This creates a different mental challenge than holes where the actual challenge matches the perceived challenge. Both are good.

But this aside, if we ignore the wind potential or the rest of the field, I agree with some potential tweaking if we were trying to increase the percentage of pars for the 1000+ rated players. Since the view and the freedom of shot selection are also important elements to 17, barriers or trees in the fairway is probably not the way to go. A slight tweaking of the grean to a more pear-like shape is likely the direction we would take.

Take care,
Harold

Jeff - I agree that there is no need for triple bogeys. Great players sometimes do things they don't need to do. This is true for both disc golf and golf. There were a number of scores of triple bogey or greater at Sawgrass 17 last year, and Bob Tway shot a 12 on the hole a year before.

Take care,
Harold

Harold,

The wind was a factor on 17 for a short time during the 3rd round (I think it was the 3rd). I watched 2 groups in a row (mine and the one behind us) not get any drives (that is 16 shots) inside the pine straw bales. The wind was the problem at the time.

Kirk

In ball golf, the percentage of pars is higher than either birdies or bogeys on a hole. If we're trying to find creative hole designs and still end up with this type of distribution, then more work needs to be done to figure out how to make these type of island holes work, not just at Winthrop but everywhere designers are trying to do this.

If we break from ball golf and say that it's OK to have the donut hole scoring distribution where "par" scores have a lower percentage than birdies and/or bogeys, then that could be fine, too, if that's the only way these type of holes can work. But I'm not convinced that we can't make these holes emulate a more "normal" score distribution and still have the challenge of island green par 3s.

No penalty strokes. Miss the island, you are shooting two from the box. Miss it again, you are shooting three. No donut distribution.

This should be an option available to the TD to use on certain holes, imo. I think it opens up some space for the designer to have tougher OBs, knowing that the punishment is more commensurate with the deed.

James, I didn't plan to mention it yet but that's what we've been talking about behind the scenes as a potential option for these types of hole designs in the future. If a TD forces a player to retee if they land OB, even if the player's disc flies over IB during the shot, then the player would get no penalty other than the throw they made. In ball golf, TDs can't restrict a player's option off the tee to reteeing, just to immediately go to a drop zone.

I feel, as Harold made reference too, that most disc golfers are not smart in thier decision making.

So many times, golfers hit the ball to the green rather than the pin. Hole 17 at USDGC is a prime example of a disc golfer needed to do this as are holes where you can just throw a simply hyzer or straight shot and have a 30 footer instead of trying to get cute and park the hole.

Joe Mela made I know at least 2 3's on 17 using this philosphy. Hy just got on the island and gave him a chance to make the putt. If he didn't oh well, easy 3.

Where statistics do not come into the equation is with the "intent" of the golfer. These are the world's top pros. Most can probably hit the larger right side of 17 more times than not, lay up, and take their 3, with the occasional 2. But I am pretty sure that most of them did not try for par. Thus, they scored either a 2 or worse. That is why I think this hole is good. It's also why I lost in the playoff. I was going for the safe par, with the chance at a 2. When you are in 10-90th place, I would rather score the safe 3 than risk a 5 to get a 2.

That's why the 3 is the low number on that hole. It's not because players were simply "going for broke". The hole plays with your confidence. You think you can get a disc inside the bails for a putt, but the grass is short, the bails are high, and the water is cold, murky and unforgiving.

In ball golf, since putting is tougher, they can have the Sawgrass holes with 3s still being the most common score because even if you go for the pin, you need to be within 5 feet for a 50/50 chance to make the putt. So even with the drop zone, the scoring average on the hole is less than 3.5 for PGA pros but the birdies are also less than 20%.

Since our putting is easier, we need to either make the shot to reach the green by the pin tougher or make the putting tougher to create a nice scoring distribution that reflects decreasing quality of skill/choices on island holes. The other alternative is the no penalty rethrow option which I think may have the most merit and will provide a wider array of green and pin designs in the long run.

James and Chuck have a great idea there. A no-penalty rethrow could be exactly the way to go.

I went 10,5,5,5 on 888
and 6,2,6,2 on hole 17

James and Chuck have a great idea there. A no-penalty rethrow could be exactly the way to go.



Doesn't that seem kinda hokey?

I'm in favor of putting the bales at a reasonable distance from the pin. If the bales were 18-20 short of the pin, it would be a little more reasonable. Again, I didn't really have a problem during my rounds.

No penalty strokes. Miss the island, you are shooting two from the box. Miss it again, you are shooting three. No donut distribution.

This should be an option available to the TD to use on certain holes, imo. I think it opens up some space for the designer to have tougher OBs, knowing that the punishment is more commensurate with the deed.



What happens if/when the wind is really blowing and you empty your entire bag trying to land one IB? Would there still be a limit on how many times you can retee?

Yes. The limit would probably be three or four throws before heading to a drop zone on the green for a theoretical max of a 5 or 6. It is a more precise way to differentiate skill because you would have a nice distribution of 2s thru 6s. I don't think pucker factor would be reduced because each throw missed pulls you away from the player who snags a 2.

The hokey thing we have right now is the fact that the Rules Committee gave TDs the privilege to force players to retee (unlike ball golf) even though their shot may pass over IB and normally have the option to be marked where it went out. If TDs have that right, then players should only receive the equivalent of a 1-shot penalty like a "normal" hazard rule rather than rack up the 2-shot penalties that result from forcing retees. As MTL points out, we should try to have these "artificially" constructed challenges match the equivalent of yanking a throw into the schule which usually may cost you one throw but rarely two.

Along with many other holes, hole 17 killed me...

6,6,6,6...every round!

Here are the scores for hole 9 and hole 16. Thanks again to the worksheets provided by Epicenter Disc Golf Services.



<table border="1"><tr><td> Winthrop Gold Hole 9 Review</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Score </td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>%</td><td>%
</td></tr><tr><td>types</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>43</td><td>61</td><td>41</td><td>49</td><td>29</td><td>35</td><td>39</td><td>46</td><td>152</td><td>191</td><td>38%</td><td>29%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>34</td><td>52</td><td>33</td><td>55</td><td>29</td><td>44</td><td>136</td><td>211</td><td>34%</td><td>31%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>12</td><td>36</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>21</td><td>34</td><td>26</td><td>41</td><td>73</td><td>140</td><td>18%</td><td>21%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>25</td><td>69</td><td>6%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>30</td><td>2%</td><td>4%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>29</td><td>2%</td><td>4%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

<table border="1"><tr><td>Winthrop Gold Hole 16 Review</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Score Types</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>%</td><td>%
</td></tr><tr><td>Score Types</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>25</td><td>28</td><td>28</td><td>31</td><td>21</td><td>25</td><td>33</td><td>39</td><td>107</td><td>123</td><td>27%</td><td>18%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>62</td><td>114</td><td>58</td><td>98</td><td>65</td><td>123</td><td>46</td><td>79</td><td>231</td><td>414</td><td>58%</td><td>62%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>12</td><td>27</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>13</td><td>23</td><td>17</td><td>28</td><td>55</td><td>119</td><td>14%</td><td>18%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>2%</td><td>2%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Has anyone considered the option of a second island 120'-150' to the left of the current island and about the same distance from the tee ?

It would be arranged so that you will have a deeper landing area as seen from the tee and a view of a deeper landing area on the green. This opens the potential of really playing for par (and still being able to mess it up) and going for a birdie putt.

I think the hole 16 distribution is close to ideal for a par 3 and you can live with hole 9 based on the full field scores. The holes I think where distributions were troublesome were 10-14 and 17.

Harold, you need to add a character to the cell leading into the Top 100/Fiull Field row. The headings are 1 column off.

Here are the scores for hole 9 and hole 16. Thanks again to the worksheets provided by Epicenter Disc Golf Services.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Winthrop Gold Hole 9 Review</td></tr><tr><td>Score Types</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>%</td><td>%
</td></tr><tr><td>-0-</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>43</td><td>61</td><td>41</td><td>49</td><td>29</td><td>35</td><td>39</td><td>46</td><td>152</td><td>191</td><td>38%</td><td>29%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>34</td><td>52</td><td>33</td><td>55</td><td>29</td><td>44</td><td>136</td><td>211</td><td>34%</td><td>31%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>12</td><td>36</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>21</td><td>34</td><td>26</td><td>41</td><td>73</td><td>140</td><td>18%</td><td>21%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>25</td><td>69</td><td>6%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>30</td><td>2%</td><td>4%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>29</td><td>2%</td><td>4%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

<table border="1"><tr><td> Winthrop Gold Hole 16 Review</td></tr><tr><td>Score Types</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>%</td><td>%
</td></tr><tr><td>-0-</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>25</td><td>28</td><td>28</td><td>31</td><td>21</td><td>25</td><td>33</td><td>39</td><td>107</td><td>123</td><td>27%</td><td>18%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>62</td><td>114</td><td>58</td><td>98</td><td>65</td><td>123</td><td>46</td><td>79</td><td>231</td><td>414</td><td>58%</td><td>62%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>12</td><td>27</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>13</td><td>23</td><td>17</td><td>28</td><td>55</td><td>119</td><td>14%</td><td>18%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>2%</td><td>2%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Thanks Gary.

Just addressing the mistaken idea that the elevated green should be moved from 9 to 16.

Hole 9 could use more pars and 16 more bogeys so I think moving the elevated basket is valid. Hole 9 already has enough trouble as it is without the elevation and I'm guessing some of the 2s, circle 3s and 3s might not occur with an elevated basket on 16.

Part of what makes hole 9 a challenge is the raised basket, adding the fact that not only do you have to get accross the hazard (OB) but you also have the added pressure of nuzzling it up close to the raised green. Especially on a course like Winthrop where wind is a factor, this is one of the challenging greens that simply does what a tricky ball golf green can do. Make good players struggle. If you miss a 35 foot putt into the wind, there's a goo chance you'll be left with another 25-30 footer. The putting greens on 9 and 10 are challenges that give you choices. Lay up or go for it. Many choose to lay up inside their normal range on this hole, some don't. I think the mental decision is what affects the strokes on this and 10 on the green. It can get ugly real quick.

Hole 9 is a really well designed par 4. You aren't just driving for distance, you are driving for position. What the OB creates is a hole that challenges you to make several wise decisions, first shot, second shot, and even putt. That's rare on disc golf courses these days. Hole 18 Original at Renaissance seems to play in this way for me. decent length fairway, but the drive to the green is over a nasty shule area. The green itself is sloped and on a cliff, so putting outside of about 25 really makes you think.

I was kind of hoping 16 could move away from hole 8. It's really the only tight spot on the course with the green being so close to a teeing area.

Harold, were you happy with 15?

Personally I didn't think the hole really "fit" the course, and the "green" was frustrating with it's 4 ft. gap where you could actually get a putt.

James, I didn't plan to mention it yet but that's what we've been talking about behind the scenes as a potential option for these types of hole designs in the future.



Is there a mouse in your pocket?

Removing the elevated green on 9 would not likely increase the number of pars; more likely it would convert more pars to birdies than bogeys to pars. However, it would make the hole a good bit less interesting. The elevated green is the lure that tempts folks on the drive and tightens them up on the approach.

Moving the elevated green to 16 would also have a numbing effect but in a different way. Hole 16 is already quite risky. Elevating the green would simply lead to a slew of safe pars as the chance of birdie would be too remote.

Take care,
Harold

Harold, have you ever thought about an elevated green on #12?

I'd personally like to see an elevated green on 17. Not just around the basket, but create a stone wall about the height of the bales, then fill it in with dirt and seed. Multiple pin placements for different days. This would make the concept of the bales a little more fair because when you clear "the bales" you hit the green. You don't continue moving forward until you hit the green at ground level. This will allow good shots a better chance to stick. It'd also tie the green in with the stone walls around the tee area.

Could be cool. But would have to be a permanent fixture.

I'm not particularly lobbying for an elevated green on hole 16 since it plays OK as it is. However, if the choice is between having an elevated green on either 9 or 16, 16 would be better (or even 7 or 17). Holes 8 thru 12 all have green treachery so I believe the repetition with 9 &amp; 10 being elevated back-to-back is unnecessary.

Fundamentally, hole 9 is really a 2-shot hard par 3 disguised as a par 4 primarily due to the OB treachery that boosts the scoring average, with minor contribution from the elevated pin. There are still more birdies than pars among gold level players that indicate it's really more a hard par 3 with punishment for poor execution. I'm not saying that's wrong for disc golf because we can't easily duplicate ball golf's putting challenge. But hole 9 is unlike any challenge and score distribution in ball golf and the elevated green wouldn't necessarily be needed to achieve essentially the same scoring effect.

My question is what is the point of the bales other than stop a skip shot?

This is the only place on the course where just normal rope is not used.

Harold, have you ever thought about an elevated green on #12?



Hole 12 basically already has an elevated green I know I personally laid up from inside 40 ft for eagle 2 times from the left side of the basket because of the wind and the hill to the right. I did get a chance to run at it for eagle in the 1st rd but i was about 60 long and right almost OB nice uphill putt hit the basket high left and was lucky it stayed close and did not role back toward me.. a saw many top golfers such as S. Rico and P.Arthur lay up from inside the circle mostly due to wind but if the hill was not there they would have ran at the eagle. I feel the green is already very risk reward. As you can see there where not many eagles I don't think that is was because people were not in range but because they would rather take a sure 4 than take a risk for 3 and end up with a 5. I believe elevating the green would just magnify that even more.

Designers should be mindful of par and score distribution. But both of these are subordinate to how a hole plays. Hole 9 distributed scores well, but more importantly, it played great. In many ways, it was magic when you consider one tree, a 35-50 foot wide fairway and a 50-foot deep green.

The speed-senitive, diagonally-positioned nature of the drive and approach were important. But it was the elevated pin that magically made the hole greater than the sum of the parts.


Take care,
Harold

I have not really considered an elevated pin on #12. Hole 12 is designed to be an eagleable par-5. The green on hole 12 is challenging enough, especially on the high side where most of the approaches land.

Take care,
Harold

Tanner -

Here are the scores for hole 15. (Thanks as always to Epicenter Disc Golf Services.)
<table border="1"><tr><td> 2006 USDGC Winthrop Gold Hole 15 Review</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score </td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 1</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 2</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 3</td><td>Round 4</td><td>Round 4</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>All Rounds</td><td>%</td><td>%
</td></tr><tr><td>Types</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field</td><td>Top 100</td><td>Full Field
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole-in-one</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>14</td><td>21</td><td>13</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>60</td><td>80</td><td>15%</td><td>12%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>67</td><td>107</td><td>58</td><td>85</td><td>65</td><td>100</td><td>54</td><td>70</td><td>244</td><td>362</td><td>61%</td><td>54%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>17</td><td>38</td><td>24</td><td>44</td><td>20</td><td>43</td><td>24</td><td>48</td><td>85</td><td>173</td><td>21%</td><td>26%
</td></tr><tr><td>Double Bogey</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>45</td><td>2%</td><td>7%
</td></tr><tr><td>Triple Bogey</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>1%</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Hole 15 performed well for the most part. There were some aspects I liked, and some aspects I did not care for.

I liked:

* The tunnel nature of hole 15. While this is atypical for Winthrop, it is representative of many holes in disc golf.

* 15 was also pleasing to the eye.

* 15 also provide a multitude of shots (Long straight righty backhands, short set-up anhyzers, righty sidearm rollers, lefty backhand rollers)

* 15 also helped to offset some of "lefty" bias

* 15 also allowed us to use the unique stand of holly bushes. These bushes gave us a chance to mimic the contours of a golf green which is one of the reasons the score distribution on 15 is similar to a golf par 4. These bushes also provided a strategy element. The pin was much more accessible from the left than straight on, but the left side flirted with OB.

I did not care for:

* The fact that 15 was spotter intensive

* The long transition to 16

* That we spent hours trimming trying to make sure that there was a reasonable staddle opportunity within 10 yards of the pin except for the "jail" clump short and right of the pin only to discover that we missed a few spots..

* The construction site

Overall, I was pleased. For 2007, if we continue with 15 as is, the transition will be improved with the completion of the construction. We will make sure that the limbs are trimmed completely or move the pin left and use the holly bushes en masse as a bunker instead of the green.

Of course there will could possibly be another option, but we will have to wait to see the final form of the construction.

Let me know what you like or did not like about the hole.

Take care,
Harold

Hole 15 lacked a good visual reference from the tee for where to specifically land on the drive. If you landed in an appropriate landing area, there wasn't always a suitable route to the pin area. I thought the green area was OK if the landing area was a little less crowded. Or the tee shot landing area was fine, with its variety of potential shots, if the green area was much less crowded. It just seemed like either the tee shot landing area or green needed to have a little more liberal acceptable landing area.

THanks for taking the time here Harold. I really enjoy the course design chat.

Hole 15 - I really like the drive, and the options for play off the tee. I preferred the straight skip shot. However, once I made it through the gap, I only found about a 30ft. diameter space that was a desireable landing area. Luckily I found the 5 foot gap through the mature trees to approach through. However, the first couple rounds I was 20 ft. short left of the pin, with nothing but fingerlike holly bushes to putt at. I guess I could have tried to go long and hope I found a line to the basket, but that didn't seem like a solid plan. The 4 ft. gap in front of the basket was really the only spot I could find with a legitimate putt.

I really liked the tee shot, but the approach and the green I didn't like at all. I'm a fan of having some kind of putt (straddle, sidearm, lefty, I'm not too picky) when I'm within 20ft. of the basket.

The left side of the green offered the best putting opportunities, but it was a tough place to get to for sure. One of the best second shots on that hole is a scooby that hits the ground and skips forward on it's back, as it'll bounce off the trees better, and even if it's short in the grass may continue into the gap. It's like having 2 clowns mouths, the drive and the approach.

i always believed there should be a standard putting area/size. At least in 80% of the green should have a legitimate putt...One tree or two maybe...but what deviation from the mother sport is this..Seemed a little more like minigolf.

The left side of the green offered the best putting opportunities, but it was a tough place to get to for sure.



Not sure we are talking about the same left side of the basket. As far as I could tell, there were 2, 3-4ft. wide gaps, one in front, and one 90 from there to the left of the basket. Short of that you have fingers blocking a putt. This kind of green definately seems like miniature golf.

The basket should be 100% accessible via some flight path within the 10m circle but the type of flight path isn't guaranteed. There can be trees and bushes within the 10m but you might have to straddle, stretch wide and flick, get on your knees and putt up, throw a turbo or even upside down shot over the top. But the brush should never be so obstructive to not have a clean air path to the basket even if it takes much skill to execute the shot. That includes turning the disc almost vertical to split two tree trunks.

Dear Tanner -

For me, the landing zone started about 10 yards past the big oaks tree and extended to the grouping of three trees. The short side of this landing zone was easiest to hit for me, but it left me with my sidearm roller for the approach. Over the next 20 yards, the approach became progressively easier for my backhand or sidearm air shots which, depending on the wind, were my preferred approach choices. Long left was the best. If you get here, the approach was a simple Aviar. Aiming here, though, risked the most with both the OB line left and the thicker bushes.

As for the green, the left side was the preferred side. We tried to make the green such that you could straddle or kneel putt from within 10 meters around any of the holly bushes except the bunker holly on the right. (The bunker holly was designed to be jail.) We spent a long time trimming, but we obviously we missed some. Vertical putt was never intended to be a requirement. While vertical putts are possible, I don't think vertical putts are a reasonable requirement since the target is not really designed for this type of shot.

Thanks for the feedback.

Take care,
Harold

Having spent a lot of the week on 15, the shot I most enjoyed was made by J. P. on his approach. He was in the trees on the left side of the fairway near the unused pad in the tree line. He saw the 8' wide gap between a couple of bushes in the middle of the OB and threw a backhand roller through the gap, across the walking path, around the back side of the green before curling back in bounds behind the basket. He made his putt for a three.

There's not a spot on 15's green without a window to the target.

OB is OB.

Less than 15% of the population is left handed. Balance your course accordingly.

Golf has 200 + professional atheletes. Disc Golf has never had more than 5 at 1 time.

Our sport is only as good and professional as us.

Re 15:
Having a putt within 10m is fine on a 380 foot par 3. This is a short par 4, where the approach is anywhere from 180-260 ft. The green is extremely tight. If there is a single placement approach on the entire course, this is it. Top pros should be able to get within 20 ft of this target if they get off a good drive. Within 20ft, I would say that a good player should be able to stretch to a putt. Maybe not their putt of choice, but a 20 ft lob putt of some sort is a good skill to have. Nowhere else on the course do you have to putt around obstacles. If you don't like to putt around obstacles put it straight down the gap!

Creative players should be able to make a putt from 20 ft in any direction. Remember, you've got up to 7 feet of reach to the side of your lie. those bushes well trimmed at the base.

I'll have a chicken sandwich with cheese.

The approach shot on 15 is extremely tight, and does not offer any good gaps for a clean second shot.

This hole does need some help on the spotters, one player in my group on Saturday threw over the top on his second shot, and the spotter told us that his shot went O.B. behind the basket. Once we got all the way up to look for his shot, we were told that it had never crossed in bounds to the second part of the fairway.

We had to go back and try to determine where he went out of bounds, and almost screwed up the group behind us that was getting ready to make thier second shot. If people are allowed to "go over the top" on thier second shot, this hole would almost require 3 spotters and that seems pretty intensive to me.

If anything, I feel that hole 17 should go back to its original tee, it was hard enough that way!

I have to agree that 15 is very spotter intensive. But this is because of the height and scattering of the trees. There was no single spot that allowed a spotter to see the incoming shot types. Thumbers and leftie Hyzers could be seen from one spot out in the OB, while rightie hyzers and pancakes could be seen from the other side of the fairway, but their last point IB was hard to determine from there. Neither spot gave a good view of the last IB spot on rollers around the corner. Plus there needs to be a traffic spotter facing the tee at all times.

Hey Craig -

The highlight of the USDGC for my boy Andrew was watching his favorite leftty launch across the lake. Thanks for stepping up on short notice.

Hole 17 will probably not return to the old position. We may look at chaning the gound rule, though. The 1-stroke idea proposed by Chuck is a good one. It's not quite right for hole 3, but it may be just the ticket for hole 17.

Dave came up with a good idea too. It combines the 1-stroke rule, a nice prize, and a disc net to generate more excitement on 17. Folks coud play agressively for a nice prize without fear of losing their disc.

Thanks again creating a good memory for my boy.

Take care,
Harold

It's not quite right for hole 3, but it may be just the ticket for hole 17.




Consider a drop zone across the road for hole 3 more like Sawgrass. If a player still doesn't land IB after throwing from the drop zone, they play from where it went OB which will be much easier to see from the drop zone position.

We considered that option. The hole played pretty well.

Take care,
Harold

Of all the choices made that were new this year, I feel this was least beneficial.

Here are the stats for Round 1 on hole 3 from this year and 2004:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole 3</td><td>2006</td><td>2004
</td></tr><tr><td>Bidies</td><td>32%</td><td>38%
</td></tr><tr><td>Pars</td><td>40%</td><td>45%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogeys</td><td>14%</td><td>17%
</td></tr><tr><td>Dbl Bogey</td><td>8%</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td>Trip Bogey</td><td>3%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.8
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The 2004 version, which I believe was similar in 2005, was perfectly fine in all respects from a design and scoring distribution standpoint. The drop zone scenario proposed above would have still done a fine job reducing the birdies and pars to the numbers shown and nicely boosted mostly the bogeys with just a smattering of dubs and maybe 1 or 2 trips with a scoring average about dead on 3.0.

Attention Winthrop Fans:

Yesterday, the target for hole #2 was stolen. Sam Covington sent the following report to me:

"I talked with one of the local fellows last night. He had played three rounds at Winthrop Lakefront yesterday. He said the target was there for his first round but not there for the second round (I think he said after lunch). He also said that a car with a Pennsylvania tag had been in the parking lot that morning. When he first noticed the target missing, he noticed glass in the road straight up from where the target should have been and thought to himself that if someone had taken the target that they broke their window out taking it."

We will offer $1000 for the recovery, arrest, and conviction of the thief. If the target is returned, no questions will be asked.

Sincerely,

Harold Duvall

I neither understand your objection to hole #3 from a playing point of view, or from a stats point of view. Scoring seemed to be much better for 2006. Nice spread. Anyone could do nothing and get a 3. Only the gamblers who threw poorly could do worse.

We've had a lot of targets stolen or vandalized in Pennsylvania. It's a little implausible, but I wouldn't rule out thieves from PA traveling to SC to steal a basket.

Nothing wrong with having risk/reward options, just the size of the penalty. There's no need for adding compounding penalties that amount to two throws for going OB, which for DG is usually comparable to a ball golf hazard. TDs in ball golf aren't allowed to make holes that punitive using hazards. They would have to use a drop zone like Sawgrass and not force a retee (although player can still choose that option).

But I believe when the RC revised the rules to allow TDS to force retees, the consequences of this decision couldn't have been known at the time until island greens using this rule started proliferating, sometimes in a too punitive way. Hopefully, alternatives like the usual drop zone option or the more interesting option of the "no penalty" retee might take hold as better ways to still spread scores based on skill but in a less punitive way.

Nothing wrong with having risk/reward options, just the size of the penalty. There's no need for adding compounding penalties that amount to two throws for going OB, which for DG is usually comparable to a ball golf hazard. TDs in ball golf aren't allowed to make holes that punitive using hazards. They would have to use a drop zone like Sawgrass and not force a retee (although player can still choose that option).

But I believe when the RC revised the rules to allow TDS to force retees, the consequences of this decision couldn't have been known at the time until island greens using this rule started proliferating, sometimes in a too punitive way. Hopefully, alternatives like the usual drop zone option or the more interesting option of the "no penalty" retee might take hold as better ways to still spread scores based on skill but in a less punitive way.



Hole #3 is the only hole requiring retee for which your arguement makes no sense. Unlike the island green holes that require some skill to get into fair territory, hole #3 requires almost nothing to get a par. Only poor course management or a really poor shot can get you in trouble with the OB, and the consequent S & D. You can always choose short or shule. I agree with you on the other re tee holes. The penalty for a minor mishap is harsh. Case in point: I threw a pretty nice drive on Hole #12 which barely cleared the OB, hit the grass pretty far down the fairway and would have been excellent position had it stopped. Instead it, skipped, skipped, skipped, rolled long OB. Although not a retee, I had to go back almost 300 ft to the drop zone with a penalty. That's harsh for a tiny mistake on my part. Going OB on #3 is a huge mistake.

It's just a matter of balancing comparable challenges between woods and our DG hazards (which we call OB relative to BG meanings). If you miss your line by an inch on a wooded corridor, it will possibly cost you anywhere from 0 to 1 shots and rarely 2. If it costs you 2, it was a result of your additional 2 throws that were less than ideal or you didn't take a smart unplayable, but it's all player choice/skill.

Missing IB by an inch on hole 3 immediately costs you 2 shots. There's no middle ground based on proportional skill trying to overcome the initial bad throw as in the wooded example. There's no equivalent in ball golf where designers have this power using hazards to immediately inflict a 2-shot penalty on players with the exception of a carry over a pond whose bank is right in front of the tee. Even then, I believe the player could move to a shorter tee as a drop zone. If players end up with a 2-shot equivalent penalty, it's because players chose that option not because the designer forced it.

I agree that the safe play on hole 3 is more than liberal with no excuse for landing OB by players of the caliber the hole is intended for. My argument is that having a 2-shot hazard penalty in DG is unprecedented with BG rules as a reference, and unbalanced in relation to our other hazard structures for similar offline throws. Using either a drop zone or the innovative no penalty rethrow concept on hole 3 or other similar hole designs I believe would be superior in terms of fairness for the level of infraction and retain the risk/reward measuring of skill that designers want to achieve.

For all of you that bought USDGC players parter packs you can pick up Spectator Rocs @ zonedriven for $25. Just look under fundraising items.

Going OB on #3 is a huge mistake.



Was there OB in the trees to the right of the fairway/pin? The two years i attended there was no OB over there. If a retee was required back then i think i would have just aimed for the trees and taken the easy three.

If a retee was required back then i think i would have just aimed for the trees and taken the easy three.




If it really was that simple I think more would have tried it but throwing at the trees was no automatic 3 and easily could be a 4, especially if you ended up on the back side of them.

it is not really a difficult shot you can just throw a slow hyzer at trees edge if youre scared... I pretty much threw straight at it and got 3 birdies and a par

If a retee was required back then i think i would have just aimed for the trees and taken the easy three.




If it really was that simple I think more would have tried it but throwing at the trees was no automatic 3 and easily could be a 4, especially if you ended up on the back side of them.





It's a better than a retee no matter how you look at it. I'll admit to being a little scared of the OB left, so i threw mids that went straight or right.....ended up in the trees 3 of the 8 times....all of which resulted in a 3. The only time i bogeyed the hole was from an early release which resulted in a 4 with an OB twist.