Here are some guidelines to consider for course design by keeping thirds in mind:

Hole length: If more than 1/3 of players at the skill level a hole is designed for can�t reach a par 3 or the intended landing areas on a par 4 or 5 hole, then it is too long for that level.

Fairway width: On holes with trees, if more than 1/3 of throws do not make it thru, the fairway is too tight for the player skill level the hole is designed for. On open holes, if more than 1/3 of throws do not land in the fairway, the fairway is not wide enough for the player skill level the hole is designed for.

Landing area: If more than 1/3 of throws miss the desired landing area, it�s too small for the player skill level the hole is designed for. If more than 1/3 of approach shots won�t remain within the putting circle upon landing, the slope and/or surface of the putting area is unfair for the player skill level the hole is designed for.

OB hazards: If more than 1/3 of tee shots go OB, the OB is unfairly positioned for the player skill level the hole is designed for. If more than 1/3 of approach shots go OB near the basket on par 4s or 5s, the OB is too close/unfair for the player skill level the hole is designed for.

Putting circle: No more than 1/3 of the putting circle should include heavy brush, bushes and/or low fir branches.

Scoring distribution: No score on a hole should occur more than 2/3s of the time for the skill level a hole is designed for. Or said the other way, non-par scores should occur at least 1/3 of the time. For example, a par 3 hole should have at least 1/3 twos & fours in the scoring distribution for the player skill level the hole is designed for.

It would be hard to end up with a bad hole if these basic guidelines are followed.

Alright Chuck, how will you differentiate for players playing in divisions above their skill level?

Ok, ratings. But there is a small percentage of improving players who are playing at a level more than 20 points over their rating. There are also players who are playing well below their rating due to skewed stats, being they only played their home course (or even only one round).

There are some pros in our area who I consistently beat. Why? Am I sandbagging, no. There is a dominate mentality in the surrounding area to move up once you play well once. These "pros" should really be Advanced players.


For example, I am holding a tournament on my home course in April. We are roping off the fairways, creating strategicly difficult mandatories, and lengthing the course by almost 30%. This course is designed for Open players. There will be a lot of amateur players playing in the open division to win a certain ancilliary prize. So the "open" players will not adequately reflect the true skill level as a whole.

When I do my score analysis after the tournament, I will be able to differentiate between the real open players and the players who just played open that weekend.

But how do you account for this where the appropriately played divisions is unclear?

BTW, I printed out your 1/3 suggestions to keep with my file on course analysis. Thanks. Glad to see you are doing ok.

The percentage of players improving so quickly as to skew scoring results is relatively small in the ratings ranges used for course design. If you want to limit your analysis to only include scores of players who have been in the same 50-pt range (Gold, Blue, White or Red) for a year, that's certainly a little better data but requires more work than is probably needed.

For simplicity of maintaining an average result, would you throw out rounds that were above or below a threshold from the players rating?

I.E. Take out all rounds thrown above 985 by a player who was rated 935, and throw out rounds that were below 930 from a 980 rated player? This could be done easily by a comparison of round ratings vs player rating of the people in the sample pool.

But what I was talking about, is having a group of people, rated below 950, throwing sub 950 rated rounds, on a gold level course in the open division.

We have a problem down here of people playing in a division higher then their skilled. So in a sample pool of "pros" down here, it would be difficult to fully assess the effectiveness of the design for pros considering a significant percentage of the players are really not pros.

If you have at least 30-40 players within the target ratings range, that's enough for a decent analysis. If they are playing more than one round on the same layout, you can combine hole scores for multiple rounds assuming the weather is similar. You don't throw out rounds by players that are in the target ratings range. However, I cap hole scores more than 3 shots worse than the hole average. If the current average is 4.2, then any scores over 7 are entered as 7s for the purpose of analysis. A similar method is used in ball golf for adjusting scores entered for handicaps.

As we were building the Warwick course, we would at times adjust pin and tee locations based on scoring averages from tournaments. We looked at scoring averages from only the Open and Masters divisions, and threw out certain hole scores from players who were playing in divisions "above their ability." A good rule of thumb was to throw out scores more than 3 shots worse than the hole average. In the grand scheme of things, however, including a few outliers didn't affect scoring averages when the pool of data came from 40-50 scores. This is very similar to what Chuck indicated.

That makes sense, to throw out individual scores per hole that are way off the average.

Now, would you throw out aces? Mainly because they are very few in frequency on well designed holes.

Don't throw out aces unless it's on a par 5. But then how do you ace a par 5, or said another way, how can it be a par 5?

Don't throw out aces unless it's on a par 5. But then how do you ace a par 5, or said another way, how can it be a par 5?



1200ft roller through woods, with a skip/jump off a root near the basket.

I would even go as far to argue that 4 four holes cannot be reached in one shot except for less than 1% of the time. (just threw out a random %). But shouldn't an eagle be completed only a very small percentage of the time.

At our course, there will be a par 4 hole that is "possible" to reach in one throw.

Total length is 415ft. It would have to be a left handed hyzer flip shot, that flies straight through a 10ft wide tunnel at 360 for about 20ft before breaking downhill and to the right through a sparce wall of trees. I have seen a right handed player duece the hole once, but that was hitting a 60ft sidearm putt from the entrance of the tunnel.

Out of the hundreds of rounds played on the hole, there has been only 2 reported dueces on the hole, and one is doubtful. The hole can be a strategically well played birdie three, but most often, the slightest error off the tee box or approach shot easily turns the hole into a par 4.

I am very curious about the scoring distribution on this hole for our "gold" tournament. We are adding additional OB to boarders of the landing zone to create risk for stray teeshots.

From your description, it will be an easy par 4 at most and likely just a hard 3. So an ace would be less than 3 different from the Gold scoring average. The Scoring chart shows a level 415' Gold hole with slightly more than average foliage will have a scoring average about 3.15.

For regular play, and normal tournaments, the hole is played as a par 3.

This is because there is an easy hyzer shot to the main landing zone, then a tight upshot pulling to the right will get you to the green.

However, for the gold design, we are eliminating the hyzer route by a mandatory about 60ft from the teebox. At 290ft there is a circle of old growth trees guarding the landing zone. The entire right side of the trees is OB. There is a natural OB boundary on the left side. For the landing area that is between the distances of 290-370ft, and is ultimately 60ft wide, the left and back sides are covered with thick shule, and we are about to add a wall of Bamboo to replace some foilage that creates the tunnel.

The approach tunnel would be an unfair width if any considerable speed or distance needed be thrown through it. It is literally only 10ft wide and 12ft tall.

There is a circle of small trees and mimosa plants guarding the pin in a 20ft radius circle, the average distance between these plants and trees is about 5-6ft.

I have witnessed that in regular tournaments, the pros play this hole as a rather difficult 3 and an easy 4. Advanced players play the hole as a really hard 3, and an expected 4. Intermediate players, it is a par 4, and some 5's can be had with out major mistakes from that division.

I felt we should make the hole a par 4 in the pro division due to the added OB, and a mandatory to limit opitions.

I would agree that the SSA on the hole is probably 3.15 for regular professional play. I am thinking it will bump up to 3.6 for this particular event. Just barely justifying the par 4 status.

This is my first real experience in course design/adaptation. I helped Tom design this hole, when we first put it in for regular play. But the Gold set up is all my own. Lets see how much I learned.

It will be hard to boost the scoring average from 3.15 to 3.6 without being unfair (potentially more than 1/3 penalties), but you have a chance. Even if you just get it to 3.3, it sounds like a better hole than before.

I am going to break down the results by Am's and Pro's. I think the adjustments will be highly punitive for the Am division where the long/ideal turnover tee shot through low ceiling tree wall (avg gap between the trees at the 290ft mark is about 30ft wide x 10ft tall). Most amateur players would take the hyzer shot to the landing zone, but that will not be allowed in the gold setup.

I imagine scores for the intermediate level players will average above 4. But the pros, who can effectively execute a 300-360ft turnover shot through demanding gaps, will find the hole as a good 3 like you said. But it will still be a perfectly executed 3 with little to zero mistakes. One mistake on either the tee shot, approach or putt, can make this hole a struggling 4 for even pros.

It is a shame that we cannot forceably keep this setup for this particular hole. If it was up to me, I would plant thick cedars blocking the hyzer route and right side of the landing zone, to prevent the bail out hyzer shots.

However we in Birmingham are limited in our course design. We have well over 400 recreational level, hyzer's only, 1 disc charlies who complain when they cannot get a 2 on a hole, this is pales in comparison to our 10-12 tournament players who enjoy the challenges of high risk/reward shots and desire multi-shot holes.

On a side note, our new course that is being installed this month will offer dual challenges. Properly placed amateur pads will offer challenges while accomdating limited skill sets. In contrast to the pro pads, which in my opinion range among the strong side of blue level tees, allow for the higher skilled players to execute pin point accuracy that we so desperatley need in Birmingham. Par from the Pro tees is figuring to be around 58 for the Trussville course.

With no am tees at George ward, we are forced to use pin placements which puts either skill set at disadvantages and dissapointments.