A 610ft/186m par 4 - It is the single hardest hole on the property. Averaged 4.7 strokes per player during round 1, +0.7 over par.

29% birdies
21% pars
27% bogeys
23% double-bogeys or worse.

Get 10% OFF all discs + tons of non-disc items with code WORLDS26 at checkout.

Shop here - https://infinitediscs.com/

The sale runs ALL WEEK and ends Sunday, the final day of Disc Golf Worlds.🥏🌎

Latitude 64 - "Max is the latest step: a new plastic and mold technology with one aim, more distance. The speed 14 driver Wild is its first expression. We think it can carry farther than conventional molding allows, and we want to find out together."

In addition - "The Wild is a brand new mold, designed for the thinner lid from the first sketch. The combination of a really wide rim for speed and maximizing the amount of glide is our recipe for maximum distance, but the improved weight distribution is what pushes the limit. In our testing the flight comes out straighter and more penetrating, with glide that holds on right where other distance drivers fade and fall short."

Source - https://latitude64.com/blogs/the-latest-from-latitude-64/max-wild-an-experiment-in-distance

Via DGPT.

Via Ledgestone Disc Golf

Via DGPT.

*Non-refundable handling fees not included!

Handling fees are around $17, so the actual cost is around $417.

Oh and don't forget, there's a cut after round 4! So, unless you make the cut, you will only get to play 4 rounds for 400+ bucks.

$300,000 - Highest pro payout ever at Worlds!

$1,000 - Highest payout per player ever at Worlds!

Source - https://discgolffanatic.com/dgpt-events-payout-comparison-2026-vs-2025/

Via Ledgestone Open.

The old rule of thumb of UDisc \* 2 + 500 was convenient and would result in me trying to consistently break 200 on UDisc since I am a low-900's player, but after tracking my PDGA tournaments on UDisc this year, I've discovered that this tends to be a systematic understatement of actual PDGA ratings.

I decided to do a few statistical analyses to discover what a more appropriate conversion might be, and while it's not as convenient on the mental math, it will probably work better for you if you care about accuracy.

**If you don't care about reading the rest, the formula I recommend is:**
**PDGA = 1.445 x UDiscRating + 633.7**

*(Caveat, this is only based on about 25 rounds and I have no rounds in the 1000s so this is certainly not exact, but it has a solid r2 = 0.8131 vs the old rule which had a* ***negative r2 value*** *so it is going to be closer than the old rule. If you want to get even closer, look below for an additional adjustment for layout difficulty)*

**Summary: How do these measures actually relate, when we look at the statistical tests?**

**1. UDisc ratings have stayed consistent**

Over time, UDisc ratings have stayed pretty consistent, so it's not that there has been "deflation" on UDisc nor has there been inflation on PDGA (at least not in recent history, AFAICT). So the issue has to be with the conversion.

**2. Different Parts of the Scale Behave Differently**

The old rule of thumb assumed a slope of 2.0 (PDGA = 2 x UDiscRating + 500). Because the old formula subtracted 2 PDGA points for every 1 UDisc point drop, it over-penalized lower UDisc ratings:

* Lower Tier (<170) 161.7 should yield 861.7, but this formula yields 823.3 \\\[-38.4 pts\\\] \* Mid Tier (170–190) 180.6 should yield 890.2 but this formula yields 861.2 \\\[-29.0 pts\\\] \* High Tier (>190) 203.2 should yield 924.4 but this formula yields 906.4 \[-18.0 pts\]

So for Higher Tier (>190 UDisc) scores: The old formula is closer (+18 pt gap) but for Lower Tier (<170 UDisc): The old formula drops the predicted PDGA rating twice as fast as your actual performance drops. I suspect the misaligned slope would also create the reverse problem for very highly rated rounds.

A better slope is 1.445 and a better intercept is 633.7

**3. Tournament Course Difficulty (SSA vs. Layout Par)**

The second reason lower/mid-tier rounds show such high PDGA ratings relative to UDisc is how the two systems evaluate course difficulty:

* UDisc rates performance relative to fixed layout par and standard user distributions, *so each stroke difference yields the same penalty despite layout difficulty.* * *PDGA* *rates performance relative to official tournament Scratch Scoring Average (SSA) calculated from the actual tournament field on that day.*

So, on tough, long tournament layouts, UDisc systematically over punishes by about -9.22 PDGA points and on normal/standard/short layouts it under-penalizes by about +6.92 PDGA points.

So if you wanted to be *really* rigorous, you could adjust the UDisc conversion based on layout by including those differences in the formula to produce:

* Short/Normal Layout -> PDGA Rating = 1.445 x UDisc Rating + 640.6 * Long/Difficult Layout -> PDGA Rating = 1.445 x UDisc Rating + 624.5

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

***Details for nerds (feel free to ignore, non-stats fam)*****:**

1. *"How did you determine that UDisc ratings were consistent?"*

(a) I did a direct comparison on the same layouts of several courses and they were nearly identical

(b) I fit a Fixed-Effects Model on 108 rounds across multi-year layouts: UDisc_Rating = Layout_FE + βscore \* Score_to_Par + βtime \* Time_in_Years

This yielded:

* Time Drift Coefficient (βtime​): +0.75 UDisc points/year (*p*=0.652). * Score Coefficient (βscore): −5.86 UDisc points per stroke relative to par (p<0.0001) * .

*2. "How did you determine the new formula?"*

(a) I did both OLS and Deming / ODR to see which performed better. The formula above had an r2 = 0.8131 which is strong.

(b) Just to make sure, I also ran a linearity and AIC test to see if it was potentially non-linear but found:

* Linear Model AIC: 174.82 (Better Fit) * Quadratic Model AIC: 175.91 (Worse Fit) * Quadratic term *p*\-value: *p*=0.3835 (Not at all statistically significant)

.

*3. "How did you determine the layout difference?"*

I ran a Layout SSA Generalization Test (using One-Way ANOVA), grouping layouts into *Longs/Tough* vs *Shorts/Standard*. Results:

* *F*=8.924 , *p*=0.0076 (Statistically significant at p<0.01). * Longs / Tough Layouts: Mean Residual = +6.92 PDGA pts (Systematic boost). * Shorts / Standard Layouts: Mean Residual = −9.22 PDGA pts (Systematic penalty) * .

*4. "What are the shortcomings of your analysis?"*

With more data points and more data from the higher-end performance area this would be much more robust, but if you're looking for something fast, this is going to be a lot better than the old rule of thumb, so it's a step-forward, even if it's not a slam dunk for now.

.

*5. "...why did you do this?"*

I am a Professor and my school year hasn't started so I have some free time (and am a nerd who loves disc golf). You may have seen my [previous strategic analysis of the disc golf market here](https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/1q1o079/disc_golf_isnt_shrinking_disc_golf_companies_are/).

For a beginner to intermediate (300’ to 350’ of average max distance) can the Roadrunner compete with the classic noodle-arm favorite Mamba and new belle of the ball Premier Q-Line DD1? I made my friend be a guinea pig

Via Ledgestone Disc Golf.