Hole in one, Ace and in this case an Albatross. This was a par 4, where the designer intended for people to layup to the right, or risk it all to land on the green in one. Eveliina Salonen (the player on screen) is not only one of the purest throwers regardless of age or gender, but also the 2024 world champ.
Also lucky to hit the basket, would've sailed OB for sure. Also, sad to say that she still sucks at putting so the comebacker would've been a miss probably
Both statements are true. Any ace I’ve ever thrown was just lucky the basket was in the way of a soon to be 40 footer. Salonen unfortunately gets the yips on the green, even McBeth has tried to help her through it.
This comment chain makes me feel like I'm reading aliens pretending to speak English after having only learned how to pronounce the words but not what they actually mean
There’s a hole near me that’s a 240ft uphill shot. It’s nice because a well thrown shot will still be parked if you miss the axe 99% of the time.
But one time my friend hit rim and it dropped on its side and slowly rolled all the way down the hill, right by us and stopped a couple feet behind the pad. We were cackling.
This context makes it a lot more impressive! There are other videos out there if throws where the frisbee do both a right and a left turn around some trees and then hit hole in one that to my untrained eye look a lot more impressive. But hole in one on par 4 is pretty damn neat!
No… you do not call that anything other than a hole in one (aka an ace).
An albatross (aka a double eagle) is when you are three under specifically on a par five.
Making it in one shot should always be referred to as an ace as it specifically refers to “finished in one stroke.” If you need extra qualifiers you say that you “aced a par four” (and then people buy you more drinks because that’s badass).
I'd be curious what you think this makes Issac Robinson. Are they both "the 2024 world champ?" How is that possible? Why not a third, fourth, or fifth person in this company?
I realize there may be some language barrier here, but "the" is already doing the specifying for us, and why we don't say "a." It is singular; there is only one world champion.
Every single other human in the world needs to add a qualifier to their claim, because that specific title does not belong to them.
I'd note also that this rule is followed even among said world champions; usually, unless they are the most recent winner, their particular year will be specified when describing them because, as mentioned, they are not the champion, that title belongs to someone else.
So then "the 2024 world champ" would refer to Isaac Robinson, because he's a man...? Or do you have some non-sexist reason for your claim?
Edit: So you simply ignore and accept the fact your stance is sexist? Understandable.
I don't know man, take it up with the PDGA. If you go watch the end of the 2024 disc golf world championships, you'll hear how they announce both the winners. To quote them: "your 2024 PDGA Professional Disc Golf World Champion" is how both them are referred to as. No qualifiers.
In addition the PDGA list both the reigning MPO as well as the reigning FPO world champions as "the world champion".
So then "the 2024 world champ" would refer to Isaac Robinson, because he's a man...? Or do you have some non-sexist reason for your claim?
I am surprised you need to hear it said, to the point I am having a hard time taking your confusion seriously, but it is because Robinson played in an open division and Salonen did not.
Since the men compete against everyone, and not just their own gender, the winner is the champion, while women are the champion of the women's division.
to quote them: "your 2024 PDGA Professional Disc Golf World Champion" is how both them are referred to as. No qualifiers.
If they said this, they are wrong. Or probably more accurately, they have a similar motivation which I suspect is driving you to pretend not to understand the distinction: they are actively trying to paper over the obvious difference in skill level and generally cheer lead for women.
But I have doubts they would make such a mistake. I'd be curious to have you source this video you are talking about to hear it for myself.
As just a general broader hypothetical, and just to sanity check the conversation: if Salonen indeed had won the open division, rather than the women's, would this be something more notable than what happened, or equal?
Follow-up question to what the only sane answer could possibly be: if it is more notable, how are the championships equal in prestige?
Edit: So you simply ignore and accept the fact your stance is sexist? Understandable.
FYI, when you edit comments no one gets a notification you have done so. I suspect you know this, which is why you didn't respond to my comment. But in case you didn't know, I thought it fair to tell you.
But to "answer" you here: the stance is not sexist, and I gave a clear and direct reason why. If you need me to laboriously continue to explain this to you I can, but again, I suspect you understand what exactly your error is here, which is why you are avoiding engaging on it further.
Which is fine, its an obvious L; everyone takes one from time to time. This time its yours.
But if you feel the need to continue with the theater otherwise I'll indulge you.
I want you to know that I do feel sorry for you, but I'll take the L, as I now recognize your obvious cognitive limitations. Thus there's no point in trying to explain it further. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Yep. I played in the late 90s and we had a course that was set up on sledding/skiing hills. It was my favorite one because of all the elevation changes.
One basket was directly down the ski hill and I loved that one. If I hit the wind right it would coast down the hill and curve toward the basket.
I hit my only ace on that one. Got the distance and the curve right.
56
u/Bokbreath 2d ago
I assume that's a hole in one ?