what messages, if any, should we take from this guy's writings? what parts are relevant, what parts arent. where is the PDGA similar/dissimilar to the USGA>

USGA's Failure To Protect The Game (http://www.progolftalk.com/usga.htm)

One could have pretty much inserted PDGA for USGA and the article would have made sense.

One theme I find interesting is that inaction on the USGA's part, whether due to lack of conviction or an effort to appease, has done little for the sport. Market forces don't make a sport a better sport, leaders with foresight do.

Pat,

Interesting question (by you) / article (by him).

Just a few thoughts�


I.
PDGA vs. USGA
Comparing the USGA to the PDGA is probably more �correct� than the PDGA with the PGA because the PGA, which is totally independent from the USGA � although they �collaborate� on lots of stuff � is for a VERY small percentage of the ball golfing population, while the USGA / PDGA similarities (general governing body, rule setter, etc.) is more closer.

II.
The whole �equipment issue�
As a ball golfer for 32 years, I agree with his thoughts (that the equipment is rendering courses �obsolete�, the history of the game �virtually moot�, records are now stupid, etc.). What the USGA doesn�t want to do � my belief, because they derive too much from lobbyists, etc. � is the one thing that could solve ALL the equipment issues in one felled swoop. This is the same thing that table tennis had to do to �control� their issues and even before that, the one thing that track & field had to do to �control� their (one) issue. This is control the flight implement. For TT, they went to a 40mm ball (from 38mm); stopped the maximum 3 hit rallies (serve, return, smash down your throat). T&F had to �detune� the javelin in 1986; Uwe Hohn WR nearly left the stadium�s playing surface. The USGA would � indirectly lose LOTS of money � if they stipulated that we all must play with a �less ball�. I don�t care what equipment you use. Go ahead, invent ANY equipment. Just let me have total control of the flight implement (in ball golf) and I�ll make sure NO ONE could reach a par-5 in 2. Of course this fits VERY well in with OUR (dg) sport. We may have to limit (�more so than we do now�!??) the flight implement so that our �older courses� are still OK, etc. I�m not sure what we SHOULD do, but I�m VERY sure that �if you DO want to control things, the flight implement is the key thing.�

III.
Sanctity of amateur play
Since it�s my belief that we have NO amateurs nor VERY few, if any pros (just a bunch of people playing for each others cash or merchandise), the comparison of bg�s such and ours isn�t really doable. We should abolish all monikers of Am / Pro and just have the TDs list what divisions (and how each division will be �rewarded�) are going to be offered. This would also take care of the P in PDGA. Get rid of it. Call us the WDGA or USDGA or something that encompassing ALL people playing dg�IF the organization�s goals are wished to be similar to the USGA / R&A.

IV.
Slow play
Interesting. I say, most anything that will speed up play is good. DG is ~ 1/3 the length of bg yet we don�t even come close (in tournaments) in taking 1/3rd the time. Proportionally, we may even be slower than bg. And 5-somes stink!


Karl

Great Article,

Thanks Pat.

I'm not sure you can equate the equipment issues. The simple fact is that I've not seen the kinds of changes in our equipment that equate to the differences in distance, the primary problem in Bolf. As much as the manufactures ignore the issue (that is they pretend there are big differences without really measuring), and their proponents proclaim it, I see no real distance differences between discs made this week, and those made 10 years ago. That is, my Eagle flies as long as my Avenger (the two over stable discs in my bag) My SOLS isn't significantly longer than my Valk (if at all). We aren't antiquating our courses through equipment development, at least not yet.

On the other hand, our courses are outdated. The simple fact is that Dave Dunipace antiquated our courses years ago and as an organization we haven't adjusted to that change. Honestly, we couldn't since most course development isn't guided or controlled by us. If Bobby-Joe wants to put in a pitch or putt course, we can't really stop him. However, we did nothing to push courses that fit the equipment that Dave ushered into the sport and that has left us with this feeling that the equipment is running away from course development.

Even for Bolf, and the changes that are occurring there, there's a simple solution. New courses. I guarantee, if you narrow down fairways, add dog-legs, and add in other features that limit wide open play, you'll keep it relevant even with the new technologies. If I can slug the ball 300 yards, but only 240 accurately, I'm going to take some heat off on a narrow fairway. The problem is, that's expensive. It's a whole lot easier to force limitations on the equipment than to build better courses. That should sound familiar. We have the same problem only 100 X worse.

This isn't novel or insightful, but a good course should require multiple skill sets. Big guns, an accurate short game, an ability to play in the woods, putting skills, and an ability to play out of the rough. All the parameters of a course can be adjusted to make sure that each of these is relevant... at a cost. Obviously, any cost is too much for this sport at this time.

There is one thing the PDGA can do now, and very cheaply. Define those courses that fit the technology. There are a handful of courses that are top level and mid-level. Give those that are top level PDGA approval. On the site there would be a links page with a description and why that course deserves PDGA sanctioning. That sets a standard that we know is worth achieving. I know politically that can be tough. I gaurantee, getting the players involved would make for a fun selection process with much debating and competition. After that, if you want a granting program. There's your courses who deserve our attention.

AMS vs. PROS

The more I hear about this, the more I think its all horse dooky. There is one simple solution. Cap Am payout to $40 or some such (i.e. trophy only). Then let people play where they want to.

"Define those courses that fit the technology"

that idea might have some good merit to it. get courses "sanctioned" (or authorized/approved/whatever) for a certain level of competition... ie, Some Park is a sanctioned Blue course... therefore it is okay for certain events but perhaps not all.

something like this could really get course locals looking very honestly at their courses and events. who knows... maybe it could also solve our 50 under over four rounds problem.

{ minor drift off }

another way of looking at the article is to remember that those big paydays are made possible by LOTS of local players playing golf in the first place - a demand that is encouraged by the new technology. so even tho the author feels the USGA failed to protect tech standards, one could effectively argue that without the runaway tech improvements the sport never would have achieved its current success.

we need to be careful what we wish for - disc golf could become irretreivably stuck as "your fathers game" if advances in disc technology are outlawed to a significant degree.

An idea I've been throwing about for a while is to have courses rated for different classes of discs to re-establish the challenge that's been removed by the advances in disc technology.
For instance - on courses w/SSA's in the low to mid 40's - sanctioning would be limited to either vintage class, 150 class, some combination of the 2, or a restriction on disc sharpness (i.e. nothing sharper than a roc). The idea being that you really shouldn't need to throw a destroyer on a 210' long hole.

I think the problems the USGA is having with golf technology vs course design are overstated and simple to overcome. Because golf courses are operated mostly by private entrepreneurs, if golfers want the game to be harder, golf course owners will plant more trees, narrow the fairways, dig more sand traps and basically tiger-proof more courses.

I think it is harder for disc golf to overcome those issues because we have less control over our courses. Therefore, I think the PDGA should hold the line on disc design parameters. Dave Dunnipace thinks disc design is basically at its limit unless the rules are changed. We should leave it at that.

The whole thing about blurring the distinctions between ams and pros is a cultural thing, and nothing we need to fight. College football players can play pro baseball nowadays. Pro athletes can compete in the Olympics. This is all because our culture no longer looks down on pro athletes as being one step above professional gambling. Our society no longer looks down on professional gambling for that matter.

There was a time when we needed pro-am distinctions to create for fun, fair divisional play. We don't anymore. I'm fine with ams playing pro taking prizes instead of cash and staying am. I'm fine with pros under the ratings cap playing am and taking prizes too.

I'd be fine if the PDGA went the next step, to allow a TD to pay cash in any division, and ams could take cash in the lower divisions and stay am. You'd have to use the pros-playing-am caps on the top am divisions for ams-taking-cash-and-staying-am caps.

And at that time we could just throw out the pro-am terminology and talk instead about open and capped divisions. Open Masters and Capped Masters. Open women and Capped Women.

An idea I've been throwing about for a while is to have courses rated for different classes of discs to re-establish the challenge that's been removed by the advances in disc technology.
For instance - on courses w/SSA's in the low to mid 40's - sanctioning would be limited to either vintage class, 150 class, some combination of the 2, or a restriction on disc sharpness (i.e. nothing sharper than a roc). The idea being that you really shouldn't need to throw a destroyer on a 210' long hole.



I get what you're going after, but consider that there are many golfers who can't throw 210' without a high-tech sharp-edged disc. These are typically male novice, female, or older divisions, so your idea would be best suited for pro divisions or high level amateur divisions where the majority of golfers can easily throw vintage and blunt-edged discs that far.

Good Question Pat. I can only give you a loose reply. I'd say a course that has a decent SSA. That could be defined by the membership, or by those who think about course development, you know, Chuck and Lowe... :)

Defining the course by what challenges the length discs can fly i.e. technology, per say would probably be a mistake. As I pointed out, even with the technology that Bolf has, you can limit what players do by utilizing good course development. BTW - I think this is similar to the 2M rule argument. Good course development makes the 2M rule superfluous.

An idea I've been throwing about for a while is to have courses rated for different classes of discs to re-establish the challenge that's been removed by the advances in disc technology.
For instance - on courses w/SSA's in the low to mid 40's - sanctioning would be limited to either vintage class, 150 class, some combination of the 2, or a restriction on disc sharpness (i.e. nothing sharper than a roc). The idea being that you really shouldn't need to throw a destroyer on a 210' long hole.



Good idea except that I'm inherently against trying to step back in this way. I do see some value here. The problem is that these courses are the equivalent to a pitch and putt course. You're working on a subset of your skills. However, having the PDGA rank them as such seems like a good idea.

An idea I've been throwing about for a while is to have courses rated for different classes of discs to re-establish the challenge that's been removed by the advances in disc technology.
For instance - on courses w/SSA's in the low to mid 40's - sanctioning would be limited to either vintage class, 150 class, some combination of the 2, or a restriction on disc sharpness (i.e. nothing sharper than a roc). The idea being that you really shouldn't need to throw a destroyer on a 210' long hole.



I get what you're going after, but consider that there are many golfers who can't throw 210' without a high-tech sharp-edged disc. These are typically male novice, female, or older divisions, so your idea would be best suited for pro divisions or high level amateur divisions where the majority of golfers can easily throw vintage and blunt-edged discs that far.



I've been hearing the newbie argument for seven years now. I'm not sure I buy it. Most of the newbies I meet want to play the toughest courses. They are convinced that they want to learn the sport and playing putt-putt disc golf won't get them there.

When I first started playing in Houston, they upgraded the Powell to a "real" course and there was much complaining. It all came from a few old time players who felt we needed those short courses to induce new players and they hated the big course mentality. Since that occurred, I've seen more new players on the Powell than before it was modified. They've all told me, this is how you learn the game...

we need to be careful what we wish for - disc golf could become irretreivably stuck as "your fathers game" if advances in disc technology are outlawed to a significant degree.



Pat, this is ridiculous on so many levels. My father has never played disc golf, mainly in protest of the epic. Besides, the whole idea that dumbing down the sport is necessary to succeed is just supposition on your part. Even if your supposition were true, it would debatable whether success was even worth the dumbing down.

james, i think we agree. i know we do on this point "the whole idea that dumbing down the sport is necessary to succeed is just supposition on your part. Even if your supposition were true, it would debatable whether success was even worth the dumbing down."

lyle, the funny thing is that when i was prepping for am worlds i went to the local 9 hole pitch n putt for 18 holes at lunchtime. did that three times a week for 4-5 months... it helped my up game tremendously. short rec courses are great to have, imo, and offer something of value to lots of skill levels. i hope we continue to build beginner courses as part of the overall mix.

james, i think we agree. i know we do on this point "the whole idea that dumbing down the sport is necessary to succeed is just supposition on your part. Even if your supposition were true, it would debatable whether success was even worth the dumbing down."

lyle, the funny thing is that when i was prepping for am worlds i went to the local 9 hole pitch n putt for 18 holes at lunchtime. did that three times a week for 4-5 months... it helped my up game tremendously. short rec courses are great to have, imo, and offer something of value to lots of skill levels. i hope we continue to build beginner courses as part of the overall mix.



Absolutely Pat! I do the same thing and get some of my best practice under those conditions. I still think that is different than what should be recognized as a top level course. Those courses teach one element of the game; a real course should exercise every element.

I didn't get to read through all of this, but I have NO PROBLEM with the PDGA or any organization "Capping" disc golf technology NOW.
I don't have a problem with them "capping" our disc technology 2 years ago.
in the last 2 years we went from speed 10 discs to speed 12 discs. Obviously this technology wasn't really expected as the flight charts are kindof screwed up for these discs.
Besides the Teerex, I don't even throw any discs above 9 Speed(and only a firebird at that speed.. next fastest is a 7). I could do without the Teerex as well.

For me personally, I don't even like drives, especially "Ultra mega super powerful crazy huge" DISTANCE drivers. In fact, I've seen drivers become the problem for so many new players I wish I could steal all of their drivers and tell them to use a putter. I'm not a great player. Anyone can check my PDGA stats and see that I'm only a 890 rated player(that's pretty bad). Even though I don't have a high rating I can shoot the same score, or possibly even better with just a Putter and Midrange. I'm pretty good at using the older tech discs to accomplish the same tasks. I don't need new technology to compete and NO SPORT should ever be about that.

I LIKE the idea for changing the format for "PRO" events. Like making a standard of discs that can be thrown. I like this because most pros seem to throw the same distance on real GOLF shots. It's rare that you would see any top pro throw a driver on any hole under about 330 unless the shot called for a spike hyzer, tomahawk, etc.
I don't agree with this idea for ALL PLAY. Non Pros Vary on their abilities so greatly that you couldn't really control the discs like that because it just wouldn't be necessary. non pros prove themselves to be NON-pros no matter what disc tech you give them.

in conclusion- I don't want to see Disc Golf courses become obsolete because of disc changes.
I don't want to see players HAVING to hop onto the newest disc just to stay competitive. This is Sport... not Consumerism.
I do want to see the game expand into Less Pitch and Putt and more par 4, but I don't think wee need longer discs.

-Scott Lewis
p.s. My longest drive is still with a Candy 11x Teebird (475ft) and I haven't recorded any above 450 yet with any highspeed driver.

i hope we continue to build beginner courses as part of the overall mix.



This is VERY important....I totally agree.

[quote



I've been hearing the newbie argument for seven years now. I'm not sure I buy it. Most of the newbies I meet want to play the toughest courses. They are convinced that they want to learn the sport and playing putt-putt disc golf won't get them there.

When I first started playing in Houston, they upgraded the Powell to a "real" course and there was much complaining. It all came from a few old time players who felt we needed those short courses to induce new players and they hated the big course mentality. Since that occurred, I've seen more new players on the Powell than before it was modified. They've all told me, this is how you learn the game...


I like the article and yes there are some related issues.
This guy reminds me of someone who cannot afford new equipment or his wife wont let him buy anymore. he knows he needs a new driver to keep up with his buddies and hes blaming the usga. Maybe he lacks the skill or ability to keep up with evolving game of golf and it's more athletic and competitive players of today!!!!
Regardless of what golfers or disc golfers think, its harder to keep a longer drive in the fairway than a shorter one, therefore requiring just as much if not more skill as before the new technologies. This probably applies to DG more than BG as the 460 cubic CM heads have such a huge sweet spot. Either way, restricting the advancements in technology isnt going to help with anything other than those who are complaining in both sports.
The need for more distance is a macho-male ego thing and is good for both sports and keeping excitement in them.
I like the adding more bunkers and tighter fairways ideas for BG, and we can learn from this as we start developing longer DG course for the future!


Lyle's statement is so very true and accurate! I'm glad to see someone put it in writing besides me.
I have often stated that the only ones complaining about longer harder courses are old school players and those with less distance that cant just rely on their seasoned Putting game to score and win anymore.
Most new players never play short tees on the courses where we have them and dont mind at all if the pins are placed in the long. Even our par 3 courses here can get pretty tough in the longer layouts and newer players never complain or at least I rarely hear about it there either.
We have seen this exact same scenario take place on one of our oldest courses here in St Louis.
Creve coeur from the tee signs was once a deuce or die course where -9 or better could be had by any decent am, wasn't getting too much play.
We redesigned it and streched it out to a 10,000 foot par 68 and even though -9 is still easy to obtain, the course gets about 4 times the play as before.
Its more like ball golf and the newer players who are athletes enjoy this type of golf and can relate to it better. This kind of course gets way more respect from my ball golfer frineds as its just makes more sense to them.
Players get to use their long range drivers on longer courses and see their discs fly and that is exciting for them.
As far as technological advancements in disc's, I can guarantee there is still more work that can be done to add control to the distance game, regardless of what anyone says.
If you cant see the fascination of watching your disc fly farther and farther each season you play, chance are you're one of the guys complaining about courses getting longer and probably dont win as much as you use to!
Most of this complaining is self serving and has nothing to do with the game or the integrity of the game.

Give us about 20 years for this sport to fully evolve into par 4 course being the standard and all along the way we will find more and more athletes getting into the game.

If we really want this sport taken seriously and turn into a professional sport its inevitable that par 4 style disc golf will be where it end's up.

Par 3 disc golf courses in parks will always be popular among the rec players just like par 3 ball golf courses and will be our breeding ground and stepping stone for developing future pros.

I dont really think we have a problem with our long range drivers out dating current courses, because most current course can and should be played with mid-range and putters on more than 80% of the holes in the ground today.

The real problem lies in the fact the courses are just now evolving to catchup with disc technology.
The evolution of course design is getting resistance from the very same players Lyle speaks of who opposed the new layout at Tom Bass.
Theres no doubt in my mind that the bigger disc golf events will all eventually be played on longer par 4 style courses.
so until that day comes I really don't see the need to start limiting the flight of our discs.

Even if we all stopped making any new discs today, it would take 20 years for disc golf course to catch up to the point where we can actually use all of the new long flying discs.
Today there are a handful of courses where these long flying discs can be used and each week there seems to be another longer par 4 style course going in.
Soon there will be a swing in technology towards developing long flying discs that are more accurate.
putting too many limits on the discs could keep this from happening and that surely wont be good for the game.

What we need to do is teach more new players how valuable it is too have a mid-range game. ( which starts with actually having mid-range discs in their bags)
Most newer plays who have a golf bag full of discs usually have about 20 drivers, 2 putters and if they do have mid-range they either dont use them of dont know how to use them when they do.
When I ask a new player what he does with his bag full of drivers on mid-range length holes, the typical response is " I just throw it lower" yeah thats going to work!!

"Chicks dig the long ball" (as well as every other spectator I've ever seen)! Let the disc technology grow and enjoy the flight. Course design will/should determine technologies impact.

Dave rose is in the house,
What up?
Do you still live in ST Louis?
I haven't heard from you in a while and never see you on the courses.
Have you heard about the 2 course we are putting at 44 and 270?

True winter golf was new to me last year coming here from DFW, the land of the one month winter! So it was interesting play, but this year it's just a beating! lol I'll get it going soon...

What are these new courses like? Par 4's and 5's? By the way, I agree with your coments about Creve Coure... Land-wise, it is less than interesting being completely flat. But I like it alot because even though it's very long, (10,000?) it isn't just a wide open "huck-fest." Perfect example is hole 4. No matter how far a disc CAN be thrown, it isn't going to help you get through a tree-line that is 330ft. down the fairway on a 550-600ft hole.

More to my point earlier, I just think that course design is more important to competative integrity than design restrictions. Tiger-proofing a course makes for some awesome golf IMO. Of course you don't want people sling'n razor-blade edges around, so I guess there is a fine line between "safety" and "design potential" that I just don't know much about to speak of. ...I'll see ya out there sooner or later.

pretty much the same goes for holes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18

I have designed many killer courses and when I tell people CC is some of my best work I dont think they understand why I would say so.
While its not the BEST course Ive designed it required the most skill in order to keep it from being just a boomer course. Forcing players to throw tee shots through the big trees and tucking the pins in the tighter areas didnt just happen overnight.
I think the biggest mistake in par 4 style course design comes in the time taken in the design and layout of the course.
For several years every time I played the old CC course, I was designing the current layout in my head.
What appears to be a fairly wide open course is actually a pretty technical course in my opinion.
There are so many different angles of release required on your drives and a big range of height trajectories on drives as well as lay ups.
(One thing that separates ams from pros is, pros know how to throw their discs at different heights.
The majority of the newer players who are learning the game on their own seem to throw most of their shots at a or about 6-12 feet off the ground, while a pro will often throw their discs as high as 40 feet with either a stall of spike hyzer).
*.
With 12 par 4's at CC, the range in distance for your 2nd shot into the greens at CC can go from 120 feet to 320 feet. The beauty in these pars 4's is you never play 2 rounds that play the same. This is because your approaches to the greens are almost always from a different spot.
Ive never got bored playing a round at CC and I always get to use MOST of the discs in my bag.
Quite often a 250 foot approach from the right position in the fairway is an easier shot that say 150 when some of the big mature trees are in your line.
Creve Coeurs greens are not that tough and theres only rough or OB on a few holes, which means bogeys dont come too often. When you take this same course design philosophy to a course like Ozark Mountain, Festus or Centralia, where the rough is much rougher, the demand for accuracy on all your shots goes way up.
Inaccurate drives and approaches on these 3 course will get you bogeys and doubles-bogeys that a hot putter cannot help avoid..
I'll admit a wide scoring spread at CC is not there on most holes because theres really no big trouble to get into,
just harder approaches than others, because of poor course management.
This is why I would still label Creve Coeur a beginner style par 4 course, even though it's around 10,000 foot.
Designing the Proper par 4 style course takes and awful lot time to do properly. Having the experience and insight to know where players drives will land and where to tuck a pin placement makes a or breaks a par 4 style design. A properly tucked pin placement can sometimes add a whole stroke to a hole without even increasing the distance.

The par 4 style courses I have designed or helped design include, Ozark Mountain (par 70), Sioux Passage ( 65), Centralia (72) Festus (70) Creve coeur at (68) and our latest design we are working on in the middle of Kentucky, which should play to about a par 64-66 when all is said and done.
These courses are course that will be very hard to make obsolete or outdated because of disc technology. Even though they are longer par 4 style courses, the demand for accuracy in both drives and lay ups is very important.
The biggest difference on this style of course over a par 3 style course is that instead of 2/3rds of the game being putting its only 2/5ths to 1/2.

If you have 20 drivers and 2 putters in your bag should'nt you have to use the drivers more than the putters?

Where in KY are you building a new course? Alot of us here in BG like to travel when a new course is built so we would def. love to check it out.

The par 4 style course is going in Mclean county, its kind of in the middle of no where but less than 3 hours from bigger cities like ST Louis, Indy, Louisville and Nashville. Similar to BG, it has the potential for drawing players from close to 50 courses within a few hundred miles.
The cool thing about the place is that tent and RV camping is in the master plan.
The course will need a lot of clean up work after the initial installation and before it will be playable, as 11 of the 18 holes are entirely in the woods.
The front 9 has a lot of elevation changes, a few longer par 4's, a lake and some woods, but is mostly open with the exception of 1 and 9 (in the current design).
The back 9 will be much more difficult with several par 4 style tunnel shots in the woods, where mid-range and putters should be used from the tee to keep it in the fairway. How many trees are removed from the sides of the fairway will determine how easy or difficult the course will eventually play.
It will take quite a while for this course to get into tip top shape, but once all the work is completed it will be a very nice tournament course. We have plans for 2-3 pin placements per hole making the course versatile and state of the art. It will be a very technical course because of all the wooded holes and when in the long pins, quite challenging for more experienced players.
The design is about 90% complete as 2 holes are going in near a lake and we are not sure how big the lake is going to be yet, We are waiting for approval on the layout in order to move forward. Once the design is approved, construction will begin.

We may be looking for some help at some point once we get going on the construction.
We hope to involve any players and clubs from the region that are interested in helping make this course something special. Lining fairways in the woods with down trees and mulching will be important as making the back nine of the course more aesthetically appealing will require some creativity!
Any ideas or suggestions for doing so, will be welcomed.