Disc golf has changed significantly over the past five years. The sport has become more professional, more international, and more commercialized, raising the performance standards across every area of the game. Players train more, throw farther, utilize technology, and build their careers with an increasingly professional approach.
As the sport evolves, our understanding of elite performance requirements must evolve as well. This requires coaches, course designers, tournament directors, and governing bodies to understand where the world’s best players currently stand and where the sport is heading.
The key question is this:
Are elite-level competitions and course designs based on actual knowledge of the world’s best players’ performance capabilities, or are they still based largely on assumptions and experience?
For several years, I have been involved in developing Finnish elite disc golf. One part of that work has included testing camps and performance assessments designed to build as accurate a picture as possible of how Finnish elite players compare to the international level and what areas need further development. You can watch a video from our first national team testing camp here.
Comparable systematic performance profiling and performance-standard analysis is still relatively uncommon internationally. In many sports, the requirements of world-class performance are well understood and carefully documented. In disc golf, however, much of our knowledge still relies heavily on experience rather than objective measurement.
For this reason, identifying and documenting international performance standards is essential for the future development of the sport.
A useful comparison can be found in golf. The average driving distance of the 20 longest hitters on the PGA Tour was approximately 278 yards in 1995. By 2015, that figure had increased to 307 yards, and by 2025 it had reached nearly 320 yards. Over a thirty-year period, the average driving distance of the longest hitters increased by more than 41 yards, or approximately 38 meters.
High-Performance Sport Requires Continuous Learning
Elite sport cannot be built on outdated information or assumptions. Reaching and maintaining an international standard requires continuous learning, updated knowledge, and a willingness to critically evaluate existing practices.
The same philosophy should apply to disc golf course design.
Course and hole design should move away from opinion-based decision-making and toward evidence-based decision-making. We should evaluate courses based on what skills they actually measure and how effectively they separate players of different skill levels.
A high-quality disc golf course does not test only one attribute, such as distance. Its purpose is to evaluate a player’s complete skill set.
A course should challenge players in areas such as:
- Throwing speed and power production
- Disc selection and shot-shaping ability
- Accuracy
- Variety of shot types
- Decision-making and strategic thinking
The goal of an international-level course should not be to reward a single strength but to identify the players who can demonstrate excellence across the full range of skills required by the sport.
What Should Be Done in the Future?
The continued development of elite disc golf requires a more accurate understanding of the characteristics and abilities of the world’s best players.
One possible direction would be for the Disc Golf Pro Tour (DGPT) to collect annual throwing-performance data from the top 40 MPO players and the top 20 FPO players. Technologies such as TechDisc could be used to measure release speed and other key performance variables.
This data could then be used to define international performance standards and provide more objective foundations for course design.
The goal would not be to build courses exclusively for the longest throwers. Rather, it would be to create layouts that comprehensively measure the skills required of elite players.
One possible framework could be:
- 6 holes whose requirements exceed the average throwing distance of elite players.
- 6 holes whose length falls below the average throwing distance of elite players, emphasizing accuracy and shot-shaping.
- 6 holes designed around the average performance capabilities of elite players, emphasizing decision-making, risk management, strategy, and course management.
This is only one possible model, but the core idea is that a course should measure all key aspects of throwing performance in a balanced manner.
The purpose of an elite competition course is not to test the same attribute 18 times. Its purpose is to challenge players comprehensively.
Of course, not every course can be designed according to the same template. Land use, terrain, environmental constraints, and available resources must also be considered.
FPO vs MPO
Many people have probably seen my comments on Instagram regarding FPO layouts. The discussion has generated strong reactions, and I would like to explain where my perspective comes from.
This is not about a single hole, a specific tournament, or any individual course designer. I have tremendous respect for the work required to organize events and build courses.
This discussion is about a much larger question:
Are elite-level FPO layouts designed around the actual performance capabilities of the world’s best female players, or around assumptions about what female players can do?
In my experience, women’s course design is moving in a different direction than men’s course design. While there are naturally differences between men and women in areas such as throwing power and physical characteristics, that does not mean female athletes should be challenged less.
Quite the opposite.
Elite players should be challenged according to the demands of the sport at their level.
Currently, the trend often seems to be shortening holes for FPO players and creating layouts around increasingly standardized distance expectations. In MPO, the trend is generally the opposite: courses are being lengthened and the level of challenge is being increased.
The question is:
Does this approach truly separate the world’s best players from one another?
Over the past several years, I have conducted numerous performance assessments on female disc golfers. These assessments have examined factors such as throwing speed and physical performance characteristics.
The data clearly shows that elite female players have improved significantly.
I have witnessed this development firsthand through both testing and coaching. In the early 2020s, reaching a throwing speed of 100 km/h was a rare achievement in elite women’s disc golf. Today, multiple players are capable of reaching or exceeding that level consistently.
Distance Is Not the Same Thing as Challenge
A great hole does not need to be long.
It can be short, technical, and highly strategic.
What matters is whether the hole forces players to make decisions, manage risk, and utilize their skills in ways that separate the best players from the rest of the field.
If holes are designed around assumptions rather than actual elite-level performance, there is a risk that they no longer measure the skills that the world’s best players possess.
Are We Underestimating FPO Players?
In my opinion, the greatest sign of respect for elite female athletes is not making the challenge easier.
When we have access to performance data, smart-disc technology, and a growing understanding of what the world’s best female players are truly capable of, we should use that information in course design.
Elite competitions should challenge the world’s best players at the level of the world’s best players.
The final question is simple:
Are today’s courses measuring the skills and performance characteristics that the world’s best FPO players actually possess?
Joonas Merelä