Ask Chuck Kennedy

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The song goes "I don't care" whoever I is...

So if Chuck doesn't sing the song, it is logically possible that he cares.

[DSproAVIAR]

Chuck, what's the typical minimum acreage needed for a 9 hole course? How about 18?

[jmonny]

I'm not Chuck, but I've always heard that an acre per hole is a standard minimum. This gives room for a fairway, rough, and transitions.

[DSproAVIAR]

Dude sweet. Someone has 37 available and they want a course.

[cgkdisc]

It's right in the Course Development section on this website:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/course...-acreage-guide
Good luck on the project.

[mannyd_928]

Hey Chuck,
I'm running a tournament next month with a 3 round format in one day. (short course) First round will be back-to-back, 36 holes, then lunch, then another round of 18. Do I have to have an "official" break in between the first 18 holes and the next 18 holes to score them as 2 seperate rounds, for a total of 3 seperate rounds? I couldn't find anything about this situation in the rules or comp. manual.

[cgkdisc]

No problem. You can submit scores any appropriate way on the TD report even if it doesn't match how the players saw it. For example, you could have a 12-hole layout that was played twice in the morning, then lunch break, then 12 more for 36 total. You can break out the total scores from holes 1-6 from 7-12 during one round and add each of those sub-totals to the other 12s. You then report two 18-hole rounds played on separate layouts for ratings purposes since 12s alone can't be rated.

[mannyd_928]

Thanks Chuck! Just trying to do something different!

[kevinsimpson]

Do you have any sway with Gentry? I've been trying for a while to get him to have someone (anyone, but I've volunteered) edit the posts to the website, but have gotten nowhere. I might be the only one, but I'm irked when there are blatant and easily correctable errors on our website that is somewhat the face of the sport on the internet.

Spelling and grammar aside, the Worlds Preview post mentioned the "insurgency" of young golfers and how all the players being together at the same Worlds complex allows them to "commiserate" - those words definitely don't mean what they're intended to mean. And it's not the first time.

I know this isn't your area, but... help!

[cgkdisc]

I've noticed the issue and have occasionally made some corrections late at night. For tournament stories, many times they are created on mobile devices and it's hard to see typos. But as far as having someone review the stories as a regular task, I'll mention it to the staff.

[kevinsimpson]

I totally understand the mistakes happening at first writing (mobile devices or not) - it's part of writing, everyone makes mistakes. Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it!

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck et al.,

As was evidenced by several posts on the World's thread, there are lots of folks who think averaging -10 per round (on 18 holes) is ridiculous, even for the best players in the world.

I do not follow ball golf, but when I see that Tiger shot -6 somewhere, I think "easy course" while if he or the leader shoot -1, I think tough course. The US Open was just such an example. Pebble Beach laid out a really tough course, where the best in the world were expected to shoot about par.

Regarding the perception of the public, which I believe is tightly linked to the success of the sport of disc golf, tougher is better. Even if they play the exact same course and shoot the same exact score, reporting a 54 on a par 54 (even) is better (perception-wise) than a 54 on a par 62 (-8)--and these are the exact same scores, just changing par 4 and 5s back into 3s. No difference in course whatsoever. But the former looks like a test of skill, whereas the latter is a birdie-fest, walk in the park.

So, having said that, is there guidance from the PDGA about what constitutes a par 4 or par 5 hole?

For example: with Worlds coming to Santa Cruz, Pinto Lake has a 1200 ft monster hole. It is currently a par 5. But, while improbable, it is physically *possible* for someone to get it in three. And I would guess most top pros will be attempting birdie putts and not par saves when they play it. The first time I played it I made it in 5, and I am not very good compared to the guys playing in Worlds, nor do I throw very far.

When I see the 2010 finalists scoring birdies on 7 of 9 holes, I think the course is "easy." The public will also think this sport is easy and lacking any challenge, and therefore may relegate the fledgling sport to a kid's game, like playing hacky sack or lawn darts. And that is not good for growth.

So if there is some guidance on what is a par 3 vs. par 4, I'd love to hear it.
Thanks in advance,
Steve

[cgkdisc]

The basic par guidelines are located here: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

Because our sport has adopted similar terminology as ball golf and putting is much easier, we will continue to have high under par scores in events on well designed courses regardless whether they are pitch and putt or par 68 courses like Winthrop. A tournament course needs to have more holes where the scoring spread generates either more birdies or equal to the percentage of bogeys (and higher) to allow those who are playing well to score. Too many holes where the percentage of bogeys is higher than birdies only separates the bottom 1/3 of the field from everyone else. Those holes do not allow the top players who are playing well to separate themselves. Thus, courses with well designed holes that produce higher scores under true par, whether 54, 58, 62 or 66 should be sought out as the best for tournament competition.

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the pdf link--I'll look it over.

In terms of course design, I understand what you are saying. The difficulty level of the holes should separate the wheat from the chaff, and bunching (either too many birdies or too many bogies) makes it difficult to separate talent in a representative way.

Since par is, in my opinion, just a scoring construct, then I think it should err on the side of being conservative. If someone designs a course with all perfect holes (regarding the spread of twos vs. fours to hole out), they could still "inflate" par by saying some are par 4, leading to rounds shot well under par.

Since par doesn't really matter (the number of strokes is really what matters), why not use a conservative number and make that par 4 a par 3, and the par 5 a par 4. And, heaven forbid, the par 3 a par 2?

Instead of the PDGA promoting the development of courses at par 60 or higher, just make them long par 54s.

Would it be weird to change par at Winthrop and make it par 54? Keep the same layout, just turn the 5s into 4s, some 4s into threes, and a couple of 3s into 2s (like 7, I think, with the fence)? Would people freak out at that? Why? Same course.

Thanks for your insight.
Steve

[kevinsimpson]

That would make many holes un-birdiable (disregarding an ace or similar). You can't do that. Par can't be defined as the best score anyone could reasonably get.

[lonhart]

Hi Kevin,

Are you referring to Winthrop specifically? In 2009 the top 10% of players shot an average of 62 over four rounds. So if par was changed to 62, then Nikko won at -10. Big whoop, right? If par is 66, then it's -26.

My main point is about perception by non-disc golfers. Winning the biggest event of the sport at -10 is a lot different than -26. Having only 10% of the players shoot under par is more significant than a third of them doing that.

And I agree with you that holes need to be birdie-able. And no, par should not be the lowest possible score, but it should be a lot lower than is has been at the last couple of World events.

Cheers,
Steve

[kevinsimpson]

I suppose I was mainly speaking against the idea of a par two. I'd agree with you that a par of 62 wouldn't be too drastic at Winthrop.

Mostly, I think the problem goes back to what Chuck mentioned. We've carried over the ideas of ball golf. Par is considered the number of shots reasonably required to reach the putting area, and then a two-putt is assumed. Obviously, at the upper levels of our sport, it's not reasonable to expect a two-putt within 30 feet.

[the_kid]

What happens to someone if they do not take the Rules exam before an NT?

I have tried 4 times to take it and everytime it sends me back to #2 after finishing question 10-11.


BTW the exam is horrible (or one question) when it asks about joe schmoe walking up to his disc which is 6'7 up in a tree which proceeds to fall out and thus you must make a ruling.........IT IS NEVER MENTIONED IF THE 2M RULE IS IN EFFECT!!!!!!!!

Also as no 2M is the new default I almost wanted to answer no penalty because is was never mentioned and therefore no penalty would be given either way.

This is also why I still haven't taken a CO test..........it is a JOKE!

[cgkdisc]

If you adjust the par on Winthrop, or any other course using our current par settings over 60, down 4 to 6 shots lower, which holes are changed? Usually, the pars on each hole average closer to the PDGA par setting such as 3.7 for a par 4 or 4.6 for a par 4. Arbitrarily setting those pars down to 3 and 4 respectively doesn't make much sense and turns par into an even harder concept than what we have now.

Recognize that our par settings for top level NTs and Majors is based on gold level players who have ratings from 975 to 1025. The SSA on each hole helps set par (with 2 not be included). Let's say you have a good par 4 wooded hole for gold level with a 4.0 average. The Super Gold players who have ratings over 1025 are typically the winners who shoot -8 to -10 per round. They are the ones most likely to get birdies on those holes. We try to design good holes for Final 9s to test the Super Gold players. But there would be a lot of frustrated regular gold rated players if the courses they played in tournaments were always set for Super Gold let alone having those settings on the courses on a day-to-day basis when perhaps only one Super Gold player lives within 200 miles of a course.

[cgkdisc]

What happens to someone if they do not take the Rules exam before an NT?

Marshals carry several printed versions of the exam to administer to players who have not passed the exam, usually during player check-in.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Marshals carry several printed versions of the exam to administer to players who have not passed the exam, usually during player check-in.

Can we take that one unlimited times too? I still think giving unlimited attempts is pretty funny.

Anyway I will probably just do it then instead of wasting my time with the online version.

Thanks

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck,

Par is irrelevant to determining the winner. If we eliminated the concept of par at Winthrop, yet kept the same exact layout, what would that impact? The guy with the lowest stroke count wins.

Par is relevant only as a way to gauge how "hard" the hole is. It in no way alters how a hole is played. Everyone tries to get into the basket with the least throws possible.

So changing par at Winthrop would be no big deal in terms of how it alters play. Same exact course, but now you only report stroke counts.

So why change it? To improve the perception of non-disc golfers that this is a serious sport.

Cheers,
Steve

[cgkdisc]

First, very few if any outside the sport in powerful media positions are even watching to possibly make the judgment that our sport is "too easy" based on par. Is Cricket too easy because teams win by 99 runs? http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricke...ch/435444.html

Par is necessary to tell how well players are doing who have played a different number of holes during live scoring and when players are in different pools and have played a different combination of courses so far. Note that the PDGA does not display Over/Under par in Official results, only Unofficial results during and just after events. So there's no permanent Over/Under par record to look at for historical results.

[sammyshaheen]

Lonhart has a valid point here. Perception is
part of life. How people outside our sport
perceive it effects our growth.

Come on Matt you should channel your energies
into something a bit more positive. Just sayin'

[lonhart]

Hi Chuck,

I disagree with your assertion that par is necessary. The PDGA does not even keep a record of it. It's the number of throws that matters.

You are correct that no one in big media is paying attention. But there are lots of regular folks--people like my in-laws--who see a slow but steady increase in the visibility of this sport. Their current perception is that it's a "hippy sport" and isn't really a test of skill. Given that the area I live in likely has more golf course acreage per capita than anywhere else in North America, everyone knows ball golf, even if they don't play. The US Open at Pebble has never been played by 99% of the public (or even seen!), but they talked about the 2010 course as a true challenge, a test of skill, and appreciate that the best in the world struggled to get par this year.

Conversely, when Tiger waltzed through the 2000 US Open, shooting something like 24 under and winning by 15 strokes, locals said the course was "easy" and not a true test (and that Tiger was awesome in crushing the field by 15 strokes). The folks at the US Open adjusted the course dramatically in 2010.

Unfortunately for disc golf courses, it is more difficult to adjust courses, since tee pads and sleeves are poured in cement. So to improve the public's perception (not big media), why not alter "par" but keep the course the same. Doesn't change how you play. Doesn't affect ratings (or does it?). But it does make the general public think of disc golf as a challenge. And perhaps respect it instead of ridicule it.

And that change in attitude will lead to increased interest, participation, and eventually catch the attention of big media...

I think our current use of par in the biggest events of the year is doing disc golf a disservice. Some have written that ball golf par and disc golf par are different concepts. Sorry, but par--as a word--has it's roots in ball golf and all the associated baggage with it. We cannot try to redefine par for disc golf--it has too much inertia already. Instead, we should be using the concept of par and our premier events to reinforce the idea that disc golf is a true athletic test of skill and endurance.

Thanks again for discussing this!
Steve

[cgkdisc]

Par would be based on what then? You can't just arbitrarily make up some reduced par to satisfy this perceived problem. Why reduce par just 4-6 shots per course? Wouldn't we get even more respect and credibility if we lowered current par by one on each hole so that our winners finished at +25 or more? I don't think so. Par 2s may be more damaging than the perceived -60 winning score and would definitely tick off our player base.

At least par as currently determined has a basis in reality and is officially meaningful for late penalties. In fact, the case could be made that our top players are just that much better than our "scratch par" players compared with top pros in ball golf versus their "scratch par" golfers. That's a marketing advantage should we ever get the chance.

[bazkitcase5]

I agree with Chuck on this issue

even on a true gold level course, where gold level players (1000 rated; our version of scratch golfers) are happy to shoot par, the top golfers (those rated above 1030) will still shoot way under par

consider at winthrop gold where par is 68 and with the SSA being close to that for most rounds, that makes the spread about 6 points per stroke - so even though the average gold level pro will be happy to shoot par, a 1030 rated player would be expected to 'average' 5 down - and this does not consider what this player will shoot on a good round

well when you consider that at a large tournament like the USDGC where you have pretty much every top player in attendance, then at least one of them is bound to be shooting a lot better than their average for 4 rounds, meaning each of their rounds will be much better than 5 down, which leads to them being way under par at the end of the tournament

par is still a really good score, even for some of the sports better players (borderline 1000 rated players aren't the best in the world, but are typically still some of the sports better players)

the only way to change this is to artificially adjust par just to make people feel better about our game's 'perception' or make putting harder (which even then, putting will never be as difficult in disc golf as it is in ball golf)

say a hole averaged 4.00 exactly on a par 4 gold level hole and had a good spread of 20-30% birdies, 40-50% pars, and the rest bogeys and above (enough to get the average to be exact) - that would be a pretty good hole by most definitions - but gather a group of top players together and the ones that are playing well that day will be the ones getting the birdies - so even if you have a course full of holes with great scoring spread and where your typical pro is able to get birdie, but is still happy with getting a par, the winning score from a group of pros will still be way under par

if you change the par in this example because they are shooting too good for your perception, then it only makes the scoring spread and the average look bad - players will then complain that such a hole can not be a par 3 because nobody will birdie it (without a throw in or something equally amazing) - if you make putting tougher, then at least the hole will still play just as well, except now the players have to make a good putt in addition to not messing up the rest of the hole

[krupicka]

On one hand, larger par values are good for lower divisions where a player might decide to just be late for a whole rather than play it, but at the upper levels, lower par values are probably more appropriate. If the most of the pro field considers a hole as a must Birdie to contend, then the par value is off. This comes into play when looking at the live scoring. As an observer I want to be able to tell who is falling off and who is gaining. When I look at the scores for the USDGC and see someone with a -2 after twelve holes, and another player at -2 after 6 holes. I should be able to assume that there are roughly even. But with inflated par, if someone throws even par after 18 holes, they have most likely given a huge number of holes away that are required to win.

[bruce_brakel]

I think Chuck is correct that our top pros simply shoot more under par than top golf pros, but PGA golf has also been more willing to jigger the concept of par for marketing purposes.

The USGA advocates setting par at the playing level of the average amateur in the top half of the field at the premiere amateur invitational. The par values used at Pro Worlds closely tracked that definition of par if you look at scores and ratings from USADGC.

The par values at a top PGA course are just jiggered down so that golfers will say, "Oh, that course is really hard!" Dummies. It is a par 80 course from the pro tees and the top pros are shooting it nine down, but they are calling the easy par 5s "par 4" and the par 6s "par 5", and calling the whole thing par 72.

Sometimes you just have to engage in stupid jedi mind tricks like that to fool the masses. Can you imagine if someone passed a law requiring everyone to get up and start work an hour earlier in the summer? Oh, they have; they call it Daylight Savings Time. PDGA members also get a $10 discount. Yippee. Whatever.

[lonhart]

"These aren't the pars you're looking for" [wave of hand]

Thanks for the smile!
Steve