i understand the concept of tweaking holelength and other factors to create risk/reward challenges and "super shot" payoffs that result in wider score distributions. i'm pretty tired of TDs who think they are doing an event/course a favor by when they push a tee box back and change a fairly difficult 2 into a pedestrian 3.

but my question is: how many holes on a course "should" be on the cusp? is it OK to have a couple basic threes (or 4s,whatever)?

i know the easy answer is to make every course have as wide a range as possible, but practical considerations usually dont permit that. so what is the minimum goal for a good, solid design.

(i'm also assuming the design is for a specific play level)

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue for any hole that had a narrow score distribution with more than 75% of a specific skill level getting 3s. Hopefully, an alternate pin position can resolve this for that level. Of course, many courses don't have the luxury of multiple tees to address designs for different skill levels. So, a hole that has a narrow distribution for some level might be fine for other levels. But if you can avoid narrow distributions during design, I think you try to do it unless other factors in the hole's design, typically dramatic aesthetics, makes it a compelling hole like a downhill cliff shot, water hazard, etc.

When you guys say pedestrian holes, or holes with no distribution are you talking about holes that are, for example, wickedly hard to get a two for most people, but are fairly easy for everyone to get threes?

When you guys say pedestrian holes, or holes with no distribution are you talking about holes that are, for example, wickedly hard to get a two for most people, but are fairly easy for everyone to get threes?

Yes

When you guys say pedestrian holes, or holes with no distribution are you talking about holes that are, for example, wickedly hard to get a two for most people, but are fairly easy for everyone to get threes?

Yes



And those would be called BORING.

I think I am stealing these numbers from Chuck, but shouldn't the score distribution be....

15% birdie
60% par
25% bogey or worse?

Or is that too close to a pedestrian hole?

The reason I ask is that these are some of my favorite holes! I guess what I am thinking of are holes with great risk reward situations that are hard for twos, but possible, and are easy threes. They give interesting mental scenarios

I think that a hole with a distribution like that would be in the ideal range, but the numbers don't tell the whole story. Is most of the variance attributable to shot selection and execution or luck? Also, who is represented in the sample?

The numbers I put together comparing score distributions from this year's Masters, PGA, and my best guess as to what CASHING players will shoot at The Players Cup can be downloaded at:
http://www.etherbinge.com/sva.xls

WHY the need for distribution anyways [the theory]. Is it the 'boredom' factor? Is it to appease lazy TDs whomdon't want a lot of tiebreakers? Why are these 'level playing field' holes considered poor design? :confused:

Changing the hole length, or more properly, "effective length" which takes elevation into account, is the easiest tool to use to force scoring distribution changes when there's a problem with too many (over 75%) 2s or 3s or 4s on a hole. I wouldn't say there's some ideal distribution, but wider is better. No score should occur more than 75% of the time but really less than 65% is better.

Wide distribution that occurs due to luck elements or poor OB placement is not good. It's not good if OB is 10 feet behind a basket on a short hole and it results in a nice spread of 60% 2s and 40% circle 3s for example. A pinball fairway nicely spreads scores but wouldn't be called good design.

* Why are these 'level playing field' holes considered poor design?

Consider the 'worst' case where there were 18 holes that were easy 3s. Would it be good if all 12 players in the division shot 54? OK, maybe someone blew a putt and got 55. If a hole doesn't have a chance for a scoring swing where a player who throws better shots get a better reward, then it's as if the hole doesn't exist. Just cross it off the scorecard because everyone took a 3. Why take the effort to score it. Mark 3s and go on.

exactly. holes should provide the opportunity to differentiate oneself from the field. if everyone shoots a 54 but its from a crazy combination of birdies bogeys and pars, thats ok.. but as chuck points out, everyone shooting 18 3's is just plain worthless.

Birdie Par Bogey is relative to the player skill level and the designed par of the hole for that said skill level.

For example, a hole may be designed so that it is a Professional "Gold" par 4. However the Blue or White Am/Advanced players would play as a par 5.

But most often, I play things as a Pro/Gold Par standard, even if I am a Blue/White player. It gives me a better standard to strive for instead of scoring according to my ability. But that is a personal reason because I strive to reach that top level of play.

I would much rather see the score distribution be off the tee box and on the up shots rather then on the putting green. Granted, you must putt well to win, but I also think you should be able to throw well. I would like to see pitch and putt courses never used in tournaments, except for charity fundraisers.

I think well designed holes offer opportunities for birdies, but the shots needed to get a birdie bring bogies into play. Having a hole where playing it safe down the middle to the landing zone(s) and then the basket then putt, versus a risky shortcut that can easily add an additional stroke it you don't hit it properly.

I think well designed holes offer opportunities for birdies, but the shots needed to get a birdie bring bogies into play.



Agreed, but I would add that the "easy" lay-up shot should still require good execution on additional shots to make "par". An example from ball golf would be a 460 yard dogleg par 4. A well hit driver that cuts the dogleg and avoids going into the rough on the other side of the fairway would leave a pitching wedge in to the green. A "safe" 235 yard 2-iron off the tee would still leave a long iron into the green, by no means a "gimmee par".

* Why are these 'level playing field' holes considered poor design?

Consider the 'worst' case where there were 18 holes that were easy 3s. Would it be good if all 12 players in the division shot 54? OK, maybe someone blew a putt and got 55. If a hole doesn't have a chance for a scoring swing where a player who throws better shots get a better reward, then it's as if the hole doesn't exist. Just cross it off the scorecard because everyone took a 3. Why take the effort to score it. Mark 3s and go on.


I see the point in this example; it seems extreme. Like tossing a coin 100 times and getting 50 consecutive heads, then 50 consecutive tails.

the challenge: choose the "best" layout for Veteran's Park in Arlington

the data: real results (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/vet_hole_eval.html) these real hole by hole results are from our Sunday minis over the last 25 weeks. they include a number of players whose ratings range from about 900 to 990.

i'm interested in hearing your hole selections for the "best" layout, along with your reasoning. i believe a handful are rather obvious, but there are few that could make for some interesting justifications.

if we're lucky, maybe we can talk the VPO td into using the consensus for at least one of the rounds during the upcoming VPOs.

thanks everybody!

the challenge: choose the "best" layout for Veteran's Park in Arlington



Disclaimers: Choices are always highly dependent on targeted skill level. I guess I'm assuming a targeted skill level of 900-990, since that's where the data is from. Also, I've played this course, but made my selections based on the data alone.

Your assignment in return: Please PM me the distances and elevation change for each hole. Thanks!

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>Choice</td><td>Comment
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>L - questionable</td><td>Birdie % on S is starting to creep too low for me, so given the choice I\'ll take L.
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>L - questionable</td><td>Both spreads are fine so take the harder one.
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>S - without question</td><td>Stats for L are terrible -- a few lucky birdies. Use S and let skill prevail.
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>L - most likely</td><td>Too many pars in S.
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>L - looks like either</td><td>Flip a coin, take the harder.
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>L - questionable</td><td>L is probably better for higher talent pools, S for lower talent pools.
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>L - either</td><td>Both are okay, L looks better.
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>L - without question</td><td>S is terrible for this talent range.
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>S - without question</td><td>Stats for L are not good. Too few birdies, too many pars.
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>L - I guess</td><td>The low # of birdies is not a good sign, but using the S just eliminates bogies without helping the overall profile.
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>L - doesn\'t much matter</td><td>Either is good, go for the harder.
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>S - probably</td><td>I like the 23/58/17 spread better than 13/61/21. Assume bogies come from bad shots and bad putting, so take the 23/58 spread over the 13/61.
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>S - eww</td><td>Both are pretty gross. Birdie % is a little low even in S. I don\'t like either. (But it\'s a fun shot!)
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>S - for sure</td><td>4/66 is a bad sign for the L. Might be okay for a higher talent pool, but not this one.
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Oh yeah, another disclaimer, I never said I know anything about this. I'm just a meager participant in your game.

I think the "best" hole config on some of these depends on whether all of the players in these stats are in one big division or separated into Open and Advanced?

thanks G! you made some interesting choices, mostly the same as i did. but i did have some difference, mostly cuz i wanted to challenge with an annie instead of a gentle hyzer, stuff like that...

here's my assignment results:


Longs:

1,560,-10
2,308,-
3,418,+ 8
4,247,- 6
5,335,- 22
6,296,+ 16
7,338,+ 26
8,401,+ 13
9,245,- 8
10,308 ,+23
11,299,+ 6
12,556,- 6
13,381,+7
14,480,-8
15,227,+ 5
16,176,- 12
17,455,-12
18,343,+ 10


Shorts:

1,560,- 10
2,266,0
3,418 3 + 8
4,145, +7
5,239 3 - 22
6,250,+ 10
7,303 ,+ 8
8,279,+ 3
9,221,- 6
10,264,+ 23
11,239,+6
12,434,+ 5
13,253,+6
14,424,- 6
15,179,+5
16 ,169,- 9
17,389,-12
18,214,+ 38

please note that the elevation changes are guesses informed by known-to-be-inaccurate "data" (ie before i got my GPS with the barometric altimeter)

chuck, thats ok... maybe you could note when this is the case, and make a recommendation for seperate open and advanced division.

regarding hte data, i would be willing to bet if we excluded the bottom 2-3 players from the data set we would completely eliminate most if ot all of the double bogeys, and some - but certainly not all - of the bogeys. My_Hero makes sure we have some 4's in the data on hole #4 - both L and S pins :)

If you're saying this analysis is for players contending in one division, a case could be made that you'll get better turnout by NOT having holes with scoring spread. In theory, if lower rated players feel they have a chance to hang in there, you might choose different hole configs that give them a chance by having a narrow distribution.

A ratings spread of 90 points is not a "fair" division to start with. Other than fast tracker players whose rating is lagging as they speed upward, a player more than 70 points below the top will have little chance of cashing. So, if you want to suck the lower rated players into entering, better to have lots of holes where the top guys can't separate themselves from the field, especially if it's just a one round league.

ok, i understand what you are saying there.

how about we (for the purposes of this exercise) pretend that the data came from a much more narrow spread and is intended for a single division? what is the "best" layout by the numbers?

i'm actually trying to use your concepts of score distribution here, and for now anyway these are the closest thing i have to real data. the actual ratings in the data are:
988
920
924
931
975
898
932
912
908
928
893

for an stdev of 28.11

Thanks for the distances Pat.

I hope you get more people to answer. It wasn't hard to play along at all.

What you're doing is very applicable to the real world. Your sample set of players closely mimics what might commonly be found at a B-tier or C-tier tournament in the Open and Advanced divisions. Or a local mini for that matter. Even beyond tournaments, attempting to design for a range of players from around 880-990 will address the vast majority of semi-serious players at any given course.

thanks rodney!

just for the record, ithe ones i picked differently were

2S - this one is straight down a 40' wide pipeline. thick trouble on both sides, but 100% clean down the fairway. the L pin is a few feet inside the left edge of the fairway. the S pin is tucked inside a fairly well guarded position about 4 meters into the woods on the right. so the S position requires either a two finger or a sweet annie, or a feisty putt through a tight window. as opposed to a rather straightfoward line drive that tails off just a bit at the end.

8S - L is probably more 3's the better the pool gets. 2's are rare, but in high quality pools so are 4's its straight ahead aslo. the S pin is tucked WAYaround to the left. you can take a stable roller or HUGE flat bomb over the 80' trees that are 120 feet in front of the tee and let the bomb fade to the pin. i chose it for its interesting lines.

11S - you're right these are very similar, but i chose S to balance out the 9-10 pair that is very favorable to righties. 11S is a gentle annie for righties.

16L - again on this one i'm pretty sure that the 4's will disappear quickly as the pool quality rises. it still is not gonna give up more than 25% (30% max) birdies, but it couldbe a real seperator because it is down over a crest then a sharp right turn to the pin. the S pin is straight ahead, down over the crest and pretty much a putter shot/ace run. high rated pools could prolly approach 70% 2's.

other than that - and i would not argue any of your choices at all - we match up.

doing this exercise really revealed some interesting things - like holes 6, 13, and 18.

i am trying to get more people to understand the "longer does not necessarily equal better" concept... and some are starting to catch on. the numbers really help. on all three of those holes the feeling you have on the tee pad when going for the S pins is "yikes, i really need to knock down a birdie here" as opposed to the L's which is "ok, take my 3 and move on". all the players feel it... and the numbers show them why. the numbers really point out that their feelings are right on, and explain why a competitive event benefits from playing these in the S positions.

The additional benefit from the analysis would be to see if there are any alternate positions for those L pins you identified that might be better.

absolutely. 6 would be very difficult to fix, but 13 could benefit from another 120-150 feet i think. its in a wide open field, so the only thing we have to work with is length. its also on one end of the course, so we cant drastically change the tee location. 8 has a chance also to be moved back into the middle of a mesquite grove... not sure what the Parks people would think about that.

i am trying to get more people to understand the "longer does not necessarily equal better" concept...



But here's the problem:

Golfer1: Whoa, I heard Timmy got a deuce on 18 in the long!!!
Golfer2: Wow, rad man, that's amazing!
Sandalman: Yeah, whatever, great. It's a stupid hole.
Golfer1: [I'm a potty-mouth!], spreadsheet-head!
Golfer2: Hey Sandy-man, why don't you quit whining and work on your game!!!

:D

and here's the solution:

Golfer1: Whoa, I heard Timmy got a deuce on 18 in the long!!!
Golfer2: Wow, rad man, that's amazing!
Sandalman: One duece out of 18 players in the division. what's that prove?
Golfer1: Huh?
Sandalman: well, the purpose of the tournament is to seperate the best from the better from the not-so-good. 1 of 18 doesnt domuch for that goal. 8 of 18 or 10 of 18 does a better job, especially if you have most of the holes set up that way.
Golfer1: the lightbulb that just went off has blinded me. good thing this was the last hole!!!
Golfer2: Hey Sandy-man, i think you're on to something. Let's move this pin back into the Short position!!!