Re: Ask Chuck
Chuck, after reading through some old threads about SSA's, I'm still having a hard time understanding why we don't establish course SSA's, and derive the ratings from those numbers.
After reading your arguments about the course constantly changing, dew, wind, broken branches,.. "The problem is that you can't have the same conditions ever in an outdoor environment. If you could have a course indoors in a controlled environment with artificial trees, you could get close." That was your quote from 8/8/07.
I would argue this: Traditional golf rates their courses. They deal with every environmental factor that we do. In fact, I would say even more. Aside from the aforementioned dew (affects ball spin, more of a problem in ball golf than disc golf), wind, broken branches, they have divots, tire marks from carts, trampled down grass from spectators and other golfers, debris on the fairways, uneven rake marks in bunkers, uneven grains of sand (yes I know I am being nit-picky, but you were doing the same). Now, step on the green, where scoring is more sensitive to changes than on any other part of the course. Spike marks, pitch marks, sand blast remnants from a bunker shot, and the most influential of all, the "lumpy donut" phenomenon. Dave Pelz found that an average foursome leaves about 500 footprints on each green, most of which are around the hole itself, causing tremendous irregularities on the putting surface.
Imagine you and your buddies teeing off at 3:00 pm on a Saturday at a golf course. Aside from everything else that has changed since 8:00 AM (presumed first tee time), on every green, TENS OF THOUSANDS of irregularities have occurred close to the hole, causing unpredictable skips, bounces, and speed changes on every putt and pitch, chip, flop, punch, and approach shot. With every foursome that plays through, even the shortest of putts to save par have changed.
Traditional golf rates their courses.