You Win Some & You Lose Some

Doubles is really a frustrating thing. When you're on, it doesn't matter. Well, unless you're absolutely on to a sick level.... but it doesn't matter, usually, if you've got a weak partner. Some locals consider it taboo to call certain veterans of the community "weak" partners. Today I drew Paul Hawk, and he's one of my favorite draws. I have more fun playing with Hawk on my card than anybody else. But he is also a sub-850 player. He can have his days on the green, putting the disc reliably from inside of 20 feet, which makes him a definite step up from inconsistent beginners from the same rating level. If I say he's a weak partner I'd probably get chastised for it, because winning is possible with him, as it is with any partner, if he's having one of his very best days and I'm on as well. But its true.

And it really is a good example of how doubles really is a crap shoot when you do it random draw. I'm growing a little bit tired of it. I get a great feeling and love it when I get paired up with another high rated player and get to play on one of the "power" teams for an easy win, but at the same time it sucks for other people that don't get the same luck. Look at the past two days for me...

Round 1:
Chris Hoyle (975) & Myself (947): -15
Dave O'Shea (965) & Wendy Poskarbiewicz (820): -8
Nick Poskarbiewicz (914) & Scott Eversman (906): -6

Round 2:
Nick Poskarbiewicz & Myself: -13
Dave O'Shea & Wendy Poskarbiewicz: -10
Chris Hoyle & Carl Rice (903): -9
Scott Eversman & Mike Bourquin (849): -9

Round 3:
Chris Hoyle & Justin Gill (932): -13
Marty Peters (990) & Scott Eversman: -11
Paul Hawk (849) & Myself: -10
Ron Gravelle (955) & Rick Smith (839): -9

Can you pick up on the obvious? Probably. The winning team every time was comprised of players that averaged around/over 950. Going by rating, top with bottom, 2nd best with 2nd worst, etc. is something we really need to do locally. Look at the way the first round could have changed... Instead of 975/947 - 965/820 - 914/906.... we would have 975/820 - 965/906 - 947/914. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would have been better than me and Hoyle smashing the field by seven strokes.


Okay so another thing that came to mind as I typed this. I looked at the rating of Mike Bourquin. He's an odd player. His rating shows it, as well... He's gone from being a 910 rated player slowly down as low as 845, and now at 849. Mike is a 6' tall kid that probably has a wingspan of 6'4-5, by the looks of it. Mike can throw 450'+. Mike has a wicked forehand putt/mid shot that seems to catch at least basket every time. And every time he throws, upshot or drive, he uses the same form. And that form is as smooth as anybody I've seen throw, with a full follow through and no wasted motion.

I'm starting to think that the problem lies in his foot work. I really wish I played more rounds with the kid (I say kid just because I say that a lot, really he's only a year younger than me) so I could really see where he's off. He has a ridiculous amount of potential, more so than you'd think you'd see in a guy that has played for over two years and still has a mid 800s rating at 21 years old.


Anyway, this went on longer than I'd anticipated, and kind of rambled... So yeah. Done. Night disc world. Lets hope the chat is back tomorrow.


-Chris.

[Justin Gill]

[waiting for hoyle to defend hawk the putting legend]

[Chris Wojciechowski]

I've never seen one of these days when he's a better putter than a local advanced player on a good day. Every once in a while he has a day when he's red hot and hits a lot of putts, but all of us have those days once in a rare while.

Hawk being one of the best putters some of us locals have ever seen is a myth, in my opinion. I love the guy, and I know that if he were sober he'd be at/over 900, but he's not one of the best putters I've ever seen. He's reliable when he's on from inside of 30 feet.

[Justin Gill]

woj you know that paul hawk is one of the best putters you have ever seen when he is:
-closer to sober than drunk
-"on"

i know this only happens once in every 10 times or so... but c'mon... give hawk his due... that guy hits putts from 60' in like nothing when he's on...

[Chris Wojciechowski]

Yeah, doing a Pro/Adv - Int/Rec split was what I was getting at. I distracted myself with the tangent about my friend Mike, haha... definitely good suggestions.

Also, concerning worst shot: I'm not a fan of it. However I do enjoy the occasional round of bad shot. I just hate the whole part where both guys have to chain out to count the putt, I've aced while playing worst shot and that *sucked* haha...

[doot]

I agree with Rizbee..our club does the A/B pool too..The only problem ever have is when we have 970+ rated A players, as well as some 900-930 player "tweeners" who have to step up and play as A's as well (due to a wealth of B players.) Regardless, it still seems fairer then completely random draw.

Depending on the confidence and experience of the lower players, you could also alter the format going with Alternate shot or Worst shot. Worst shot obviously kills much more time and can hurt the B-player's ego, as his/her flaws become much more noticeable during the round.

Regardless what you decide, all players having fun should always be the #1 priority in casual weekly doubles.

[Rizbee]

Hey Chris! One thing we do for our local doubles matches is to split into A and B pools before we flip to make the random assignments. We use the A/B method because many of our players don't have player ratings. There's usually a bit of hemming ad hawwing about who's and A and who's a B (mostly with guys like me who are borderline A/B) but it helps even out the teams a bit.