Here's an interesting discussion about the 288 yard 8th hole to be played in the U.S. Open starting today.

http://www.usopen.com/news/eighth_hole.html

Mickelson had this to say:
"I think it's a great hole," said Phil Mickelson after a practice round on Tuesday. "As I slowly have started to get into architecture, I find that the longest par 3 that I ever see is 240 or 250, and the shortest par 4 I ever see is about 330. There's 80 or 90 yards of room in there for some great holes, but because we don't know what to call it relative to par, those holes aren't built.

"And I think this is an example of a hole that is built in that yardage area. It's probably a par 3 �, so the USGA is going to round up or down � well, we know what way that is going to go. Just because we don't know what to say par-wise, doesn't mean we shouldn't have holes like that."

It will be interesting to see what type of scoring distribution they get on the hole. I think they'll end up with few birdies and mostly pars and bogies which will be a worse scoring spread than their standard holes typically have. That should be reason enough to continue not designing holes in the ball golf grey zone between 240-330 that Mickelson mentioned.

We have the same problem to a greater extent than ball golf because our putting is much easier and narrows our scoring spreads unless care is taken to design our holes in the proper length range for the skills of players they are designed for.

Sounds like a bad hole.

All par 3.5's in disc golf, in my opinion, are bad holes.

It will be interesting to see in ball golf how they score b/c like you said, putting is much tougher.

At least in disc golf, the chances of a throw in from 100 feetish is possible.

I think there will be more bogey strokes on the hole in relation to a disc golf par 3.5

One of the early holes on Augusta National like maybe 4 is a par 3 at 240. The scoring average wasn't very good at the Masters with maybe a handful of 2s all week.

In the early days of golf, wasn't "1/2" pars common in course design?

It was a fairly short phase in the early 1900s. However, this article mentioned that 250 yard par 3s were not uncommon in that era. Very few par 3s for weekend golfers are now more than 210 from their tees. Here's a background piece on half pars:

http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/par4.html

putting is only easier in disc golf because everyone is hung up on the 10m thing. putting in disc golf actually begins out at about 125' or so. our holes might be shorter but our greens are much bigger than in bg.

putting is only easier in disc golf because everyone is hung up on the 10m thing. putting in disc golf actually begins out at about 125' or so. our holes might be shorter but our greens are much bigger than in bg.



I concur. I would still consider 125' a "chip shot" in dg, but I would expect our 1000-rated players to hole out in two from 125'. Disc golf "putting" greens are much larger than the 10m radius.

Whether you call them putts or shots around the green, the constant for determining the scoring averages in ball golf and disc golf are 42 and 30 respectively on an 18-hole round. So, getting down around the green is 12 shots easier in our sport. This could be boosted if putting were made tougher.

isthat a surprise considering you are comparing par54 to par72 designs? those numbers just prove its not putting's fault. design for par 72 and the constants will equalize.

That constant of 30 is for courses with SSA from 42 to 80 in our sport. It stays the same at 42 for ball golf cpourses from par 54 to par 72. That's why they are called constants.

maybe i need to understand the calculation better. how do you determine this constant?

Here's the graph for disc golf and there's not one for ball golf that I've seen. I've updated this scattergram a few times now since 1998 and the constant has held in terms of best fit line. The reason the data points fall above and below the line is the foliage or challenge factor for the course. Since I'm relying on TD reports with course lengths indicated, some values that look like outliers may not be valid lengths or could have been extremely bad weather rounds. Woods on a course raises the SSA for the length and open courses have lower SSA for a given length. The center line shown has the formula of SSA = 30 + (course length(ft)/285) for an 18-hole course with "average" foliage.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/ssa%20graph.jpg

The ball golf Course Rating formula is in their USGA handicap book. It's 40.9 plus some small miscellaneous tweak elements that apparently bring the value to between 41.7 and 42.3, plus (course length(yds)/220).

Whether you call them putts or shots around the green, the constant for determining the scoring averages in ball golf and disc golf are 42 and 30 respectively on an 18-hole round. So, getting down around the green is 12 shots easier in our sport. This could be boosted if putting were made tougher.

and that, IMO, is our biggest design challenge.

Do we:
1) Change the shape/size of the target?
2) Raise the height of the cage?
3) Add more OB's near baskets?
4) Add bunCR's near baskets?
5) Construct real greens by moving some dirt to create greater topographical challenges?
6) In conjunction with combinations of the above: design holes such that a great shot will leave a player with a 30 footer, a good shot will leave a 60-80 footer, a mediocre shot will leave 120-150 ft., a bad shot will leave 175-225 ft. and a god-awful shot will leave 250-300ft. As it is on most of our holes: A great shot leaves a tap-in, a good shot leaves a 20-40 footer, a so-so shot leaves 40-50 ft., a bad shot leaves 50-70 ft. and a god-awful shot leaves 120-150 ft.

A guy I design with who's played a lot of courses, designed several, and is a world-class player will cry bloody murder if he can't throw a pretty good shot and have the disc within 15 ft. of the basket on every hole. This mentality is what makes our putting so "easy".

There is a course I played in Kenosha WI that had one basket on top of some rocks that were sitting on an elevated mound of dirt. The hole itself was fairly open ~300 ft with some woods 30 yards behind the hole. I guess the basket was about 10 ft above the 'fairway' Shows that your option 2 is already being done in some places.

http://www.sewisconsindiscgolf.org/courses/parkside/images/uwp08mound.jpg

The thing that made this hole interesting was the second shot. I was sitting about 30 ft out, but I had to think. If I missed, my disc sails past the elevated hole leaving me another difficult shot. I chose to lay up and put my disc on the mound beside the rocks, for a relatively easy putt for par.

It was strange and different. But it gave a unique challenge.

denny, a lot of those techinques are on the right track.

chuck, your graph reflects the current situation, but we need to remember that the status quo is what created the graph, not the other way around.

it is straightforward to design courses that yield a constant of 40. design some teeth into your shot sequence, and think on a larger scale. when you calc probabilities of shot outcome, use lower probs. instead of designing a shot for 75% success, design for 60 or 65%. then string two of those in row and watch the toughness increase, scoring spreads materialize, and the golf experience becomes more like golf and less like putt-putt.

Even the latest designs still match the graph perfectly. I suspect I can forecast what the scoring averages will be on most holes of any course within a few tenths, even with devious new designs around the green. That's assuming they are "fair" challenges. The ones that are hard to forecast are usually ones with punitive OB not necessarily near the hole but such that forecasting the percentage of people who go OB is difficult.

The percentage of putts made is the primary factor for the constant in DG and BG. That has to do with the basket size/design for us and the hole size for ball golf. A much less significant factor is chipping in ball golf and our equivalent of chips/upshots.

do you need to see the course to forecast the scoring averages?

why is the percentage of putts made the primary factor? seems like fairway accuracy would/could be just as important.

i suspect the reason the "latest designs" match the graph is that the same general design techniques are used today as in the past.

sorry for all the questions... not picking, just asking

I can take a stab at it but I really need to see the holes since the foliage factor is relevant as are any dogleg or water carry adjustments. Our DGCD members can always give it a try and several already do that I've worked with on forecasting.

Fairway accuracy is already taken into account by the foliage factor.

Considering that there's a wide array of green speeds and how they are designed in ball golf, you would think their factor might vary but it doesn't seem to. Granted I don't know how much analysis they have done along these lines compared to what we're doing here. Unless we make putting almost blind or thru pole stands on every hole, I don't think our factor can be changed materially to the extent it could if the basket were smaller. Even uphill putts only add a small amount to the overall scoring percentage and it's just one hole. Even the two or three elevated baskets at USDGC can get tedious if done on most holes.

yes, i agree one would need to see the course to make a good forecast.

i disagree that fairway accuracy is taken into account in this manner. foliage factors get us in the right direction, but are not completely sufficient. if you can increase the fairway accuracy required you can increase SSA (and constants) without worrying too much about putting areas.

I don't want to imply that the constant can't be budged using design methods. The data and analytical methods we have can't precisely pin down everything that's happening from a scoring standpoint hole by hole. I suspect that the parameters on some holes vary from the "average" of a 1.67 constant around the green per hole. However, those effects get lost in the overall stats for a course.

The thing is, doing a variety of tricky things around the green can produce the effect of boosting the foliage/challenge factor. So if that value is boosted in the formula, it can easily account for the scoring difference between forecast and actual, such that the constant remains the same and the forecaster still works. That's another reason why it will take some major basket change to disrupt the game's statistical dynamics from what it is now.

are you saying the constant only has to do with the green and the 285 pertains to the fairway foliage/challenge factor?

Yes. That's what it appears to be. The length of the hole and how wooded the fairway is are the primary factors in that part of the formula. Then, shots around the green, not just putts comprise the rest as a constant of 1.67 per hole or 30 per round. I had no preconceived notions about what we would find nor some agenda to have smaller baskets. This just seems to be what we've got and it parallels the ball golf model. It just appears that smaller baskets are needed if we wish to more closely emulate the ball golf model.

The question is whether their model is better in terms of the ratio of putts versus fairway shots. Since their constant is 42, roughly 60% of their game is around the green and 40% from tee to green area. Ironically, our typical courses in the SSA 51-52 neighborhood have a similar balance as ball golf in putting vs throwing. So, making higher SSA courses in our sport is actually deviating from the ball golf balance and putting more emphasis on throwing vs putting with courses like Winthrop being the extreme example that is least like ball golf in that ratio but the most like ball golf in the mix of par 3s, 4s & 5s. So, increasig our putting challenge would retain the balance as we go toward longer courses with more par 4s & 5s.

that assumes keeping the balance the same in both versions of golf is desirable.

hey, thats some good info in that post, i need to digest it. one more question though... "shots around the green" and 1.67... could you please define "shots around the green" especially in terms of distance-to-pin, and also where the 1.67 comes from.

Here is the scoring for today at Oakmont so far. That par 3 hole 8 is only the 3rd hardest hole! Only one hole has a scoring average under par for the day and that's a par 5 that is barely under 5. I couldn't find the stats on birdies, pars and bogeys on holes yet:

http://www.usopen.com/scoring/uni/csum.htm

The shots around the green is fuzzy in terms of a word definition but it includes putts. This can be pinned down depending on what you want to call a putt versus other shots near the green. The 1.67 is the 30 constant divided by 18 which results from the close fit line on the graph. If you looked at the 30 shots closest to the green that a 1000 rated player makes in a round, it would give an idea. Of course, if he shoots a 44 with all twos and threes that means his tee shot was in essence a "shot around the green" on four holes.

I'm not saying we should necessarily emulate the ball golf balance, just what the ramifications are for our courses that range widely from SSA 42 at Horizons Park last weekend to 70 SSAs at Idlewild and beyond.

There is a course I played in Kenosha WI that had one basket on top of some rocks that were sitting on an elevated mound of dirt. The hole itself was fairly open ~300 ft with some woods 30 yards behind the hole. I guess the basket was about 10 ft above the 'fairway' Shows that your option 2 is already being done in some places.

http://www.sewisconsindiscgolf.org/courses/parkside/images/uwp08mound.jpg



Thanks for that post! That's a great example of what can be done to make putting more interesting, given a motivated designer/club.

While I think that's one terrific example of a "green", I don't want anyone to think that I'm advocating all greens look like that. That's just one of about 1,000 green concepts that will look cool and provide good score separation. One concept that I really like is the strategic use of backstops. An example would be a green with two main landing areas. Landing area A allows the player to get within 40 ft. of the basket, but leaves a putt with a drop-off behind the basket. Landing area B allows the player to end up in the 40-60 ft. range with a backstop 25. behind the basket that allows them to run the putt hard.

Thanks to Chuck, John Houck, Harold and others for awakening many designers and players to the importance of good score distributions on holes. My challenge to designers is to now create CRA's (close range areas) that we look at as par 2's, distribution-wise.

As a design exercise:
1) Create a gold (or blue/white/red, etc.) CRA and mark with flags. Within the CRA, players of the appropriate skill level would expect to take 2 shots, with some taking 1 and some taking 3.

2) Now divide the CRA into three areas and mark with different colored flags:
LAG) the outer-most area, where smart players would be happy to take 2 shots and wouldn't take a very aggressive approach to the basket and may even leave the disc 20-30 feet away from the basket as the best strategy to get up and down.
TWEANER) The area that has the most potential to separate scores and generate gallery excitement. This is the zone where the player will have to think most and will have a good chance of three putting if they're aggressive and miss. Historically, Kenny would lay up in this area most of the time, but in the future players that want to win will need to gamble a bit more in this zone to distance themselves from the field.
GOFOR) The zone that pros historically have putted from about 90% of the time.

3) Now design backwards to locate a landing area or tee. Find a location from which a good shot will end up in the LAG area, a very good shot will end up in the TWEANER area and an awesome shot will end up in the GOFOR area. Anything less than a good shot will not be in the CRA and will require at least one very good shot to recover and save par. Please note that a good shot will not give a player a GOFOR putt and a mediocre drive followed by a mediocre recovery shot will not leave a tap-in for par.

and finally:

4) Within the CRA, mark 2-3 distinct basket locations. For each basket location, the concept of the 3 CRA subdivisions will still apply, although their boundaries may differ slightly.

A huge step into threadrift, I admit, I promise to rectify that soon.

On topic:

At first glance a 288 yard par 3 sounds ridiculous, because it's so much longer than we're accustomed. With the downhill factor, landing area short of the green, extra distance of today's player resulting in many hitting 5 woods into the green it doesn't sound that bad, though.

The U.S. Open traditionally has been about driving in the fairway and grinding it out around the green to save par to have a chance to win. The hole in question will definitely give lots of players the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in scrambling around the green. As with many/most U.S. Open holes, they're won't be a lot of birdies.

The thing I don't like about the concept of the hole in question is the luck involved when landing a tee shot short of the green and bouncing up. A number of players will hit shots equally well and some will end up in LAG zone, some in TWEANER zone, and some in GOFOR zone.

The shot in question is similar to that of a second shot on a long par 5. The differences are, however, that the player on the long par 5 has already hit a great drive and must hit their tough second shot off the fairway from a variety of lies versus off a peg. The player that gambles for the green on their second on a long par 5 sees their reward being a virtually guaranteed birdie with the possibility of eagle given fortunate bounces, but they have taken the risk of going into the water, deep rough, over the back of the green, etc.

The variation of 3 wood/5wood/3 iron shots off the tee will be due less to skill and more to luck than that of the long second shot on a par 5.

While I wouldn't want to see par 4's in the 240-290 range, I do think they're are a lot of great par 4's in the 290-330 range. The best of these holes give players the opportunity to drive a par 4, but are balanced with significant risk. They also have pin positions that are difficult to get close to with a 100 yard sand wedge shot following a lay-up off the tee.

the key differences here are these:

ball golf has primarily horizontal obstacles and a primarily linear ball travel. Disc golf uses a mix of vertical and horizontal obstacles, with a focus on the vertical. Disc travel is rarely linear.

every ball golf shot has a far more rigid distance calculation mechanism. adjustments are made more regularly at the equipment level than at the power level. Disc golf is the opposite.

green construction in ball golf is its primary difficulty factor. obstacles like rough, sand, water, and trees don't play into the shots around the green nearly as much as disc golf's obstacles do for its shots around the green.

basically, the two games have too many differences to try and draw parallels at this level. determining "par" for a DG hole can't follow the same type of formula as ball golf. Rather than try to modify our game to match their par mechanism, I think time is better spent working on a realistic par calculation for the game we already have. that calculation, once perfected, should lead to better course design.

obstacles like rough, sand, water, and trees don't play into the shots around the green nearly as much as disc golf's obstacles do for its shots around the green.




I would say it's the opposite. And thus the problems we have matching their par structure, because our shots around the green are relatively easier than ball golf and the stats support that.

when you factor in the actual size of the "green" in disc golf and consider the scale of difficulty as it relates to distance in the two sports, I think you might change your mind.

for example:
on a completely open hole, a top-rated pro golfer should be able to reliably hit a drive of about 330 yards with a high degree of accuracy. A top-rated pro disc golfer should be able to throw a drive of about 135 yards with a high degree of accuracy. For driving, the scale is about 1.8:1 ball:disc. The same two competitors will face the inverse when it comes to putting The ball golfer should hit an average 15-foot putt with ease, while the disc golfer should hit the average 35-foot putt with ease. The ratio is reversed. somewhere in between the driving and putting, things get gray. The putting scale is exponential... even at 2:1, the 80-foot disc golf putt is substantially less difficult than the 40-foot ball golf putt. At the other end... when you add in obstacles, the driving ratio skyrockets in favor of the ball golfer. Putting bunkers on a fairway just makes the ball golfer lay up a little bit short or hit a little bit to one side. a little variation in a shot is no big deal... but a little variation on a tunnel shot can not only cut the drive down very, very short but can make the next lie much more difficult.

another point to consider: ball golf shots played by various top pros won't vary nearly as much as they will with disc golf shots. you approach hole #18 at pebble beach, and your target drive is the same no matter who you are. Hit the ball as far as you can, keeping it in bounds. After that, you adjust the club to make up for any distance you may have lost or gained from the drive, but 99% of all pro drives are going to have a similar second shot. Disc golf rarely works this way.

My point (this time) is that planning your shots on a ball golf hole is much different than doing the same on a disc golf hole. Ball golf is usually a step-by-step approach: each shot has a goal that is similar for most pros. shot1: hit the fairway. shot 2: hit the green shot 3: make the putt. Disc golfers will play a hole differently based on what skills they are strongest in. lefties play the hole different from righties. Some will opt for a turnover drive, some for a sidearm shot, some for an overhand shot. It is much harder to pinpoint the target landing area for a disc golf hole than it is for a ball golf hole.

if you really want to draw some similarities, look at it with a shot-by-shot comparison rather than focusing on the putting. judge the difficulty of each shot instead of the entire hole and you can get somewhat close. you just have to consider all the options for a given placement. To get as accurate as possible, you'd need to consider every reasonable path to the basket for every reasonable style of disc golfer and calculate a difficulty for each. Then average those out to get your par. That's much different from calculating par on a ball golf hole that basically forces each shot. The argument could be made that the only courses that can really be factored for par are those like Winthrop Gold where each shot is forced more like a ball golf hole... but then we're again trying to force our sport into the mold of another.

What if the disc to basket diameter ratio was changed to be closer to the golf ball to cup ratio? This would promote laying up, and missed long putts would emphasize the idea of risk/reward. Also, the disc golf basket hasn't ever really been toyed with since it's conception. I'm not saying I'd be advocating any actual change but i'm curious how the scores would look if normal baskets for a course were replaced with new baskets and then consistent players played several rounds on both.

It would work. This would be the easiest way mathematically to boost our putting average closer to ball golf for those who think that's appropriate. However, the cost for basket conversions across the world would be prohibitive. If it was ever tried, it might be a non-sanctioned big event where enough cash was on the line such that players would still enter even knowing they would be playing on the smaller baskets.

wouldnt it be simpler to refine the concept of "close to the basket" out to the range that yields the same number. then build fairways backwards from there. the reason you have a 30 is that the courses are built that way, not because of anything fundamental. the reason the putting value is 1.67 is because thats where you start counting.

I don't think you understand the concept of the 1.67 constant. It has no bearing on where you "start counting putts." It's a mathematical representation of the whole area pertaining to holing out. It's derived purely from the stats. You can't even determine when a shot is in the constant zone or is still in the length zone other than if the average shots to hole out from there ultimately works out to 1.67 for a 1000 rated player. Depending on foliage, OB and elevation, that distance will vary.

Adjusting how well the basket catches is the primary element that can be changed. The only way to afffect the non-putting aspect of this factor might be if you literally had a virtually impassable wall of trees surrounding the basket such that luck not skill impacted how well you could get to the basket. But if players have some sort of fair flightway to the pin, this constant holds.

I don't know if you chose to ignore my last point or if you simply don't care... but again, I reiterate: I think you're missing the boat entirely. The way to make this work isn't to change the way the basket catches, but rather to change the way holes are designed. If holes are built with a specific par in mind and the method for par is as consistent as possible for all types of players, we'll build better courses. disc golf holes are 90% "constant zone" and 10% "length zone" rather than the other way around like ball golf. Also, until the amount of money invested in an average disc golf course surpasses that of an average ball golf *hole*... we'll never be able to manufacture difficulty like they do. Why are we pushing so hard towards their standards when we've got so many factors setting us apart? If Disc Golf weren't different... I don't think we'd all love it so much. I think it's time to embrace those differences and come up with course design methodology that takes them into consideration.

Is it really so much harder to modify a calculation process than to modify the rules and potentially the catching device? I think you're focused in an entirely improper direction.

I'm not focused on any agenda regarding the numbers. They are what they are. All we try to do is interpret what they mean and how we can use them to make holes better for a particular skill level in terms of scoring average and spread. If we are able to forecast what types of scores will be shot on a hole by a group of players in a particular skill level, then we have modeled the real world effectively. And we have done that. Our designers can predict in advance what the scores on a hole will be within a few tenths. And they use that to set the par for that skill level, and don't use the fixed ball golf formula most of the time.

Your assertion that disc golf holes are 90% constant and 10% length is not supported by the evidence. Scoring varies in direct proportion to the length of a hole plus a constant for the upshot/putting area. Holes 50-60 feet long or so would have the 1.67 constant accounting for 90% of the scoring and the length accounting for 10%. Any holes longer than that and the length becomes an increasing percentage of the score. Are variables work similarly to ball golf but thier constant is higher than disc golf around the green which allows them to use the simplified par mechanism of shots to the green plus 2 which doesn't work as well for us.

my assertion was referring to the zones as they apply to ball golf... in a disc golf context. It may have been a bad comparison, but I was basically saying that the "easy" part of ball golf is the length of the hole. the tough part is putting - when you need to be the most accurate. Disc golf isn't like that at all. sure, putting matters, but accuracy is far more important off the tee and in the fairway than it is in ball golf. The difference between a scratch golfer and a 10 handicap in ball golf generally is on the green. With disc golf, that's not usually the case.

There are a number of golf misconceptions in the lengthy post. I'll address this one in particular:

another point to consider: ball golf shots played by various top pros won't vary nearly as much as they will with disc golf shots. you approach hole #18 at pebble beach, and your target drive is the same no matter who you are. Hit the ball as far as you can, keeping it in bounds. After that, you adjust the club to make up for any distance you may have lost or gained from the drive, but 99% of all pro drives are going to have a similar second shot.



Hole 18 on Pebble Beach is one of the classic risk/reward holes in all of golf. As a 543 par 5 with a fairly small green it's tough to hit in two, but the thought will enter the mind of all but the shortest of PGA pros that stand on the tee. Every player that stands pondering how much they want to gamble on the final hole of the course, while being mesmerized by the view and sound of the ocean will come to a unique conclusion as to exactly which line of attach they'll take. That's after they've decided which club to hit off the tee. The line that each individual player picks will also vary from round to round. Maybe our TV announcers have failed in their duty to convey the real subleties in what goes into the pre-shot routine of a PGA professional, but no-one, John Daly included, stands up on the 18th tee at Pebble Beach and simply aims down the middle and grips it and rips it. (well, maybe Bill "Cinderella Story" Murray does.)

I never said it was down the middle. you just have to place your shot like every other hole. Getting on the green in 2 is eagle territory, and is the only time there's any real risk or reward to that hole. That holds true for almost all of ball golf. The real risk/reward holes are all par 5s and they are all pretty easy birdies. Par 4s are rather uneventful unless they are shorter... and then it's again risk/reward for eagle.

every ball golf par 5 can be birdied by every pro because the hole was designed as a par 5. Well-defined landing areas for shots 1 and 2 that are reachable by all pros and a green that is reachable from shot 2's landing area. This is why most golf pros (especially the ones giving you lessons) preach studying the architecture of the course. The key to planning your shots on a golf hole is understanding what the designer had in mind. Hole 18 at Pebble Beach is designed for risk/reward, but only if you want to be under par.

This discussion has become about proper hole design and achieving your par goal. My contention is that ball golf holes force specific shots for par or birdie with little room for variation. When you start talking about eagles, the shot options are even fewer. This is how ball golf holes work. This is not true for disc golf holes. The difference between par and birdie might be whether or not you can thread your disc between two trees 300' down the fairway, or if you can get just the right skip up a hill. It depends on if you're a lefty or righty, sidearm, or backhand thrower. If you favor the overhand or the low skip hyzer. For a given hole, there's usually not one correct way to play it for all players.

Sure, you see some ball golf holes designed with options in mind, but they are rare. I think Riviera has a hole with a split fairway. Landing zone to the right for shorter hitters, one to the left for longer hitters. Both have a path to the green for shot #2 but the shorter hitters (in the right fairway) are forced to approach with a 5 or 6 iron whereas longer hitters (on the left) can approach with a wedge. Either way, shot #2 is a green approach shot for all golfers... even on this split fairway.

Keep in mind that I played ball golf long before I discovered disc golf. I love the sport, I just don't like the money that I have to spend to play. I was never a scratch golfer, though I did break 80 a couple times on a par 70 course. I have taken lessons and I have had lots and lots of ball golf design conversation on the 19th holes of lots of courses. I've attended many professional events as a spectator. TV announcers are not my only view into the world of professional golf. Course design has always fascinated me, although I honestly believe disc golf faces a far tougher challenge in that arena. Ball golf holes are sculpted. Sometimes nature is allowed to play a role, but usually that nature is brought in specifically to serve a purpose. Disc golf holes are the opposite. We make the best we can out of what nature has done with our piece of land. We simply can't afford to craft holes like ball golf course designers can. Because of this, I view ball golf designers more like architects and disc golf designers more like artists.

I'm sure you think I have many misconceptions about many things... and I'd like to hear what they are. Pebble Beach #18 is definitely not one of them.

I agree with the difference in ball golf design versus disc golf design. Ball golf designers have the luxury to pretty much do what they want in terms of moving things around, changing terrain and planting where needed. Flight routes are not much of a consideration in the air, just what the player might face for challenges on the ground.

Disc golf designers either live with the terrain and trees they have if they are spaced well enough. Or removing trees to shape flight paths where needed. So, sculptors would be the closest subcategory of artists for those of us who design courses where trees sometimes get removed.

I've talked with DG designers about how we would be clueless if we were given a treeless, flat piece of property, given an unlimited budget and told to build our dream course by bulldozing and adding trees. BG designers do that all the time. For DG designers, our process is more about seeing what Mother Nature has provided and imagining how it can best be utilized as it is (or with clearing) for what we know about how discs fly and roll. I think ball golf designers would find our process a complete mental flip flop from how they normally work.

First off, I looked back at my initial comment:

There are a number of golf misconceptions in the lengthy post. I'll address this one in particular:



I don't think I used the best tact in crafting that statement. I apologize for the tone. I'd like to rephrase as "while I agree with many of the points you've made in the golf/disc golf comparison vein, there are some that I have a different opinion on . . ."

I'll now address some points from the most recent points on which my opinion varies.


I never said it was down the middle. you just have to place your shot like every other hole. Getting on the green in 2 is eagle territory, and is the only time there's any real risk or reward to that hole. That holds true for almost all of ball golf. The real risk/reward holes are all par 5s and they are all pretty easy birdies. Par 4s are rather uneventful unless they are shorter... and then it's again risk/reward for eagle.



OK, you didn't use the words "down the middle", but you did say "your target drive is the same no matter who you are." That is false. Getting on the green in two is not the only risk/reward on the hole. The tee shot is a prime example of great use of water on a hole that provides an infinite variety of "shades of grey". Too many disc golfers (I'm not saying you do or do not fall into this category) view risk/reward as only black and white. i.e. the player's faced with a yes/no choice and they decide to "go for it" or "lay up". Great risk/reward scenarios exist when players must decide for themselves how much risk to take.

To say that the "real" risk/reward holes are all par 5's or par 3's totally misses the nuances of the game of golf at the highest level. While most "goat tracks" (I've played my share) are best played by the amateur player as hit driver down the middle, hit second shot towards green, demonstrate lack of short game prowess, the courses that tour dogs face have degrees of risk/reward on almost every shot. You don't have to have a split fairway or a gofor/layup decision to have risk/reward. Many of the most critical decisions for pros come on the tee on the long par 4. For example take a slight right to left dogleg with a series of deep bunkers guarding the left side of the fairway as the hole makes it's turn. Now take a player that primarily drives left to right. The player faces a minimum of three options.
1) In order for this player to pound a full fade without going through the fairway on the right side and getting blocked out by trees, they find that they need to hug the trees on the left and carry the 2nd to last of the fairway bunkers, which means a carry of 305 yards. If they pull this shot off they'll leave themselves 150 yards to the green.
2) They could rip a sweeping draw down the right side that could run out to leave them only 135 yards to the green. They're confident that they rarely hit a dead push that'd put them behind the trees on the right side, but the back of the mind fear is to snap one into the deep bunkers left leaving 190 yards and a very tough shot to the green and then there's the really ugly snap that gets into the trees on the left and leaves no shot to the green.
and
3) They could hit the smooth 3 wood at the bunkers on the left that cuts the first two, fades into the middle of the fairway, and leaves them 185 yards to the green.

Now that's a lot to think about on a "rather uneventful" par 4. The player must consider those options, the wind, the lie, how well they've been striking the ball, how they stand in the event, and where the pin is on the green before making their decision. Is the pin cut where you can fire at it or in a sucker location? Is it on the left or right of the green? Front or back?

Most of the time players go through these thoughts fairly quickly with their caddies and it may appear that there's not much to think about.


every ball golf par 5 can be birdied by every pro because the hole was designed as a par 5.


Let's rephrase that to "every ball golf hole can be birdied by every pro because the hole was designed as a golf hole."


. Hole 18 at Pebble Beach is designed for risk/reward, but only if you want to be under par.


No. If I played that hole (I'm an 8 handicap at best, currently about 18) my goal would be to be on the green in 3. I would take the ocean completely out of play on the tee shot. The object of my concern off the tee would be the trees in the middle of the fairway. I could hit 3-iron well short of the trees to insure a clean line past them, but that'd mean I might have to hit 3 wood on the second shot that'd bring the ocean into play to set up a 7 iron or less for my third shot to a small target. Or I could hit 3 wood off the tee to leave 5-iron, wedge into the green, but I'd be taking the chance that I get blocked out by the trees for my second shot.

This is getting long-winded, to bring it together a bit, my point is that there's much more sublety and risk/reward of the "shades of grey" variety in the game of golf on the best courses than many (I'm not saying that you do or do not fall into this category) realize. The game of disc golf needs more sublety in design. There are notable exceptions, but for the most part our shot strategy is to see the basket, pick the route that suits our eye, and fire away trying to put the disc under the basket. IMO, a well designed hole on a great course should only be "parked" by an outstanding shot. I've played many courses where I made 7 "birdies" and 2 "bogeys" and of those 7, 4 were gimmee putts of less than 15 feet, and I'm a 950ish player. That's fine if all we want is frisbee in the park (I like frisbee in the park, it's fun), but if we want more we have to expect more and demand more from our future course designs.

I do agree with that disc golf affords a much greater variety of shot styles and shapes. That's one of the big reasons that I love it. One of the strongest parts of my game is the ability to scramble out of the woods, because I can see every gap and create effective shots on the fly that I've never thrown before. (This is a weakness of Winthrop Gold that I've stated before, being that there is very little "rough". It's mostly fairway or OB.)


Ball golf holes are sculpted. Sometimes nature is allowed to play a role, but usually that nature is brought in specifically to serve a purpose. Disc golf holes are the opposite. We make the best we can out of what nature has done with our piece of land. We simply can't afford to craft holes like ball golf course designers can. Because of this, I view ball golf designers more like architects and disc golf designers more like artists.



Many of the newer ball golf courses are overly bulldozed instead of being crafted from the natural terrain. That's another reason, besides, price why I often prefer many old city muni courses. (being at least one step up from the above-mentioned "goat tracks")

I recently had the pleasure/backbreaking hell of carving 9 holes out of dense woods via brush-hog, chainsaw, axe, machete, and a variety of other implements. We're hoping that the park will buy the second 9 and we can complete the track in December. It's my hope that designers collectively continue to gently prod and push to increase our budgets over time.

Our roots are in the parks, but we need to push the vision forward. The free park course is the equivalent of the goat track. The $2-3 entry fee park course is the equivalent of the city muni. The $5 pay course is the equivalent of the $40-$50 course, and the $10-15-20 courses of the future are the equivalent of the $100 courses.

to avoid overdiscussion of semantics, I'd like to point out that I was trying to look at both situations from the perspective of a top pro. I am certainly not a top pro in either sport, far from it. I am assuming a greater control of stick and disc than I can muster myself. That said, I think I'm not too far off on my statements. I think par 5s are designed as easy birdie, spectacular eagle for the elite of the game. I think hole 18 at PB is a great example of that. For eagle, most pros I think are going to take a driver off the tee and try to leave a short iron shot to the green. For birdie, it's probably a 3 wood, long iron, chip/pitch situation. When I said "no matter who you are" I wasn't specific enough. I meant to say "no matter what type of player the hypothetical elite player I'm talking about is" :). lefty, righty, etc... it's all the same. True, the Tigers and Dalys of the sport will have an advantage, being able to drive 350+ with accuracy... but the hole was still designed with that in mind. Nobody is going to drive the green. Everyone has to drive the fairway and approach... some will just use a different club for approach.

anyway, I think there are some differences of opinion in this thread but I think there are also a lot of common ideas. It goes without saying that DG holes in the foreseeable future aren't going to get the budget of even the lowliest ball golf holes. Since that is the case and there's not much we can do about it, we have to adjust to the fact that we can't really build in the difficulty that ball golf holes can. Also, since a lot of ours are through the trees, foot traffic will wear them in much differently than on a BG course. plain and simple, DG holes are nearly impossible to calculate an accurate par for (using a formula) because of the variances in player and the limited resources in construction.

Maybe it would be helpful to start down this path:

1.) what makes a par 4 BG hole? a par 5?

2.) what makes a par 4 DG hole? a par 5?

I don't think you understand the concept of the 1.67 constant. It has no bearing on where you "start counting putts." It's a mathematical representation of the whole area pertaining to holing out. It's derived purely from the stats. You can't even determine when a shot is in the constant zone or is still in the length zone other than if the average shots to hole out from there ultimately works out to 1.67 for a 1000 rated player.

thats exactly why i'm asking these questions - cuz i do not understand the 1.67 number :) i freely admit it.

the thing i am having trouble understanding is why 1.67? it seems the overall logic requires the number to be 1.67, and once you use the 1.67 number and design with 1.67 then it will always be 1.67... so given my admittedly foggy understanding it feels like it all becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

If you look at the scattergram I posted upthread that shows the course lengths and the SSAs produced from actual scores, the "best fit" line shown in red crosses the Y-axis at 30. That works out to 1.67 per hole, on average, since those data points are 18-hole rounds. For some reason, I'm not able to post the updated charts to my website right now.

If you check the DGCD FILES section, look in the Courses & Holes Analysis folder and pull up the SSA Formula Update image. It has many more data points and shows the cone shaped scatter pattern that produces the constant of 30. The deviation from "average" has to do with changing foliage from none to thick woods which have different slopes greater or less than the average line of 285 slope. But all lines still cross the Y-axis at essentially 30. If you can post it here, we can talk further.

DG holes are nearly impossible to calculate an accurate par for (using a formula) because of the variances in player and the limited resources in construction.



Many times a formula would work, but many times it won't. I suppose if your algorithm were sophisticated enough, you could get it most of the time. However, in my experience, the best determiner of par for the courses Harold Duval or I design is pragmatism. Many times you have to decide what you want the par to be for various reasons. If you are designing a National Tour or Gold level course as we do, then you tend to list easy par fours as par threes, and easy par fives, as fours. This decision isn't made seat of the pants. It is made after playing the hole many times, with many different players, to see how it works in reality, as opposed to how it should work on paper. Harold uses statistics, as Chuck does, to see how the hole scores in tournament conditions. Chuck, I believe tends to use the stats to assign par, Harold uses the stats to assess the hole's worthiness or need for redesign, I don't use the stats at all unless I note a distinct abberation. This happened in the past at USDGC on the mile long hole. 1160 ft. No trees, relatively flat from start to finish. We assigned a par of 5, because the length told us we could get there in three and putt twice for a par, especially if we rolled it. Statistics told a different story. Stats said it was an easy par 7. Even if we threw out the scores of the invited sponsors, as opposed to the players that earned their spot through play, it would still be a significantly higher par than 5.5. I don't think a formula could have come up with an adequate par number on this hole.
The fairway was relatively wide, no trees, relatively little elevation change. The real problems were short grass that resulted in fast fairways with long skips and roll aways, psychological barriers of OB on both sides of the relatively wide fairway, and probably as import as the other two, fickle winds that tended to swirl and were very difficult to read at distance.

I think this hole would be difficult to plug into a formula. The usual length, fairway width, obstacle, elevation change numbers would have predicted a Par of 5. Stats said it was a Par 7. Seat of the pants said it was a really tough Par 5.

Par 6, which is a valid option in ball golf that most don't realize because there are only about 50 in the world. You'll play one at Worlds this summer at 1335 feet. Interestingly, the USGA guidelines indicate par 6 holes are those over 700 yards. At Oakmont this weekend, their 667 yard hole is playing over 5.5 average, indicating the USGA guideline is still on track even for elite players.

It's more accurate to say that I use the forecaster to verify the par on holes I've designed before they are installed. In other words, I would like the hole to play as par 4 at certain point in the flow. I measure it if possible, and check the forecast for where the scoring average will likely fall for the player level the hole is designed for. Then, once it's installed and played, check the actual stats to see if it's playing as expected.

The actual scoring average is rarely enough different to change the par. However, I might tweak the design if the scoring spread isn't very good or the average falls in a tweener zone like 3.5 and I wanted it to be a true easy par 4 with a scoring average in the 3.6-3.8 range, let's say. I won't always change a hole with 3.5 so it's closer to a 3 or 4 scoring average. I'm OK calling that hole either a par 3 or 4 depending on whether I think a tough 3 or an easy 4 is better in the flow at that point. However, it's not like I was waiting to see what the stats were to decide the par. I had the intention to design a par 3 or 4 at that point anyway with the expectation that it would fall near 3.5 anyway +/- 0.2.

The stats only help the designer to make the holes better from a scoring standpoint but should never lead the design, which is how some think I do it. Design should still be visual and artistic at first to create the aesthetic of the holes and produce a good course flow. Then forecasting and stats help make that vision work even better in practice.

With regard to holes at Winthrop with several OB opportunities, the scoring average can be misleading for setting par. Since par is based on "good play" of a hole, most would not include OB penalties in the scoring when determining par, especially when rethrows are required. So, even if the scoring average comes out to say 6.6, if that was produced under windier than normal conditions and OB penalties are deducted, it's quite possible that the scoring average under "good play" might be 5.5-5.8 making it a legit par 6.

I totally agree with this methodology:

It's more accurate to say that I use the forecaster to verify the par on holes I've designed before they are installed. In other words, I would like the hole to play as par 4 at certain point in the flow. I measure it if possible, and check the forecast for where the scoring average will likely fall for the player level the hole is designed for. Then, once it's installed and played, check the actual stats to see if it's playing as expected.



It's very easy to retro-actively "calculate" par: for a particular tee, i.e. gold: take the appropriate sample group (player rating averages to 1000) under normal conditions and find the mode score. Given a sufficient sample size, that will always be par. This doesn't tell you anything, however, about the quality of the hole.

that's where I was trying to go. As Chuck said, holes should be designed with a specific par in mind. Necessary adjustments can be made after the hole has seen some play if it is playing easier or harder than expected. The real problem, and the point I've been struggling to make, is that Ball golf holes can be far more easily planned for a specific par than disc golf holes. When planning a ball golf hole, if you want a par 5, you make it x yards to the first turn, y yards to the green from there, and slope the green at an average angle of z. Throw in some bunkers and trees to force players into your plan... and you've got a good par 5. I'm over-simplifying, but I think you all understand my point.

Using my earlier analogy, ball golf designers are more like architects. They can take tried-and-true numbers and techniques to construct a hole to within the specs required. Disc golf designers are more like artists. They approach a given piece of land and visualize the course. Holes are cut into existing obstacles, generally without the ability to manufacture the difficulty needed to achieve a specific par.

I'm going to attempt to pick up where others have left off in regards to introducing disc golf to my local municipality. There is a park that was supposed to become a course... but nothing has happened with it. If I'm successful in reviving this project, it will be my first course design. I intend to develop a method (hopefully with the help of those involved in this thread) for planning DG par and make this park a par 65+ course... we'll see. First I have to get them to approve the use of the land :) :(

After spending all day Sunday at Oakmont watching the OPEN, I must say, that par 3 was one of the most exciting holes out there. I saw an ace on it on Tuesday!!! And after watching all of this golf up close, I realized how very very very different disc golf and ball golf is!

Also, after designing Moraine State Peks par 66 course. It was as simple as playing the holes a bunch of times, and figuring out what the real par should be. No mathmatical equations. And after determining what we thought would be 950 rated tees and 1000 rated tees, we had some tournaments. Low and behold, our tees played at 950 and 1000 as we had hoped. It's all about designing a good course. It's really not that hard and you don't need any of these statistics. Seems like a major waste of time.

And Chuck.........hole 15 at Moraine played at a 4.1 average from the gold tees with 34 1000+ rated rounds. So I guess it's not a easy 3 :)

And after determining what we thought would be 950 rated tees and 1000 rated tees, we had some tournaments. Low and behold, our tees played at 950 and 1000 as we had hoped. It's all about designing a good course. It's really not that hard and you don't need any of these statistics. Seems like a major waste of time.




Without J. Gary understanding appropriate lengths, challenges and the stats, you wouldn't have known how to design the holes in the first place. The stats also confirmed or indicated you needed to tweak the designs. Don't tell me the holes haven't changed to make them "better" for those player skill levels as a result of playing them, which is the less precise version of doing the stats.

I'm glad that 15 turned out that way with actual scoring. It would have been difficult to change the design to make it more of a par 4 if it didn't end up that way after seeing how it played.

Also, after designing Moraine State Peks par 66 course. It was as simple as playing the holes a bunch of times, and figuring out what the real par should be. No mathmatical equations. And after determining what we thought would be 950 rated tees and 1000 rated tees, we had some tournaments. Low and behold, our tees played at 950 and 1000 as we had hoped. It's all about designing a good course. It's really not that hard and you don't need any of these statistics. Seems like a major waste of time.



How about "the major of waste of time" that was playing the holes "a bunch of times" and figuring out what the real par should be?

Chuck and the disc golf designers group have used average driving distances, average foliage density, player ratings, and years of course data and experience to come up with appropriate hole lengths for many different skill levels. Sight unseen, they can design a disc golf course from scratch and come up with a course with several sets of tee that is almost perfect from the get-go for the intended skill levels.

As someone who personally watched the Warwick course evolve over the years only after repeated tweaking and adjustments after analyzing the tournament data from every PDGA-sanctioned event, I can tell you it's an incredibly painstaking process. Nockamixon evolved similarly like this - only through repeated trial and error and adjustment over many years. This process is totally unnecessary now that we have PDGA disc golf course design guidelines to do the work for you.
Why not use the guidelines as a starting point and go from there? You'll soon find out that the amount of tweaking required is far less as compared to before.

The course was designed almost entirely without J Gary's help. 95% of the course was designed by players under 920 ratings. J Gary just came in at the end of the design and helped us tweak a few things.

And it was apparent that it needed some tweaking help after my early tour with J. Gary. The potential has always been there and it sounds like it's come a long way since I visited prior to PW2005. I look forward to seeing the latest version and the other new course in the next year or so. You guys are doing a fine job with par 4 & 5 courses.

First, Moraine looks awesome and I can't wait to have the chance to play it. It is my hope going forward that courses like Moraine and Idlewyld will be a typical disc golf course and only players that have been around for a while will know just how truly special they were when they went in the ground.


Also, after designing Moraine State Peks par 66 course. It was as simple as playing the holes a bunch of times, and figuring out what the real par should be


While this strategy may have worked and the pars may all be "right", I think it's backwards.

Holes should be designed with par in mind first. Tee and basket placements can best be made with that critical piece of information in mind. i.e. given a stretch of property for a hole that could either be a long par 3 (say gold 400) or a short par 4 (say gold 500). i would look for a much tougher, tighter, more technical tee shot for the par 4 versus the par 3. i would also look for a tighter final 150-200 ft. to the basket area for the par 4.

Utilize the guidelines to verify that your shot lengths are within the appropriate ranges for the intended skill level before opening the course and finally verify your hole score distributions by using tournament data. Tweak as needed.

another way is to identify the physical feature(s) that will define the hole, and figure out whether they are pin, landing zone, or tee features. for pin and landing zone features, then you can use the distance standards to quickly identify rough tee locations that will work for the skill(s) you are designing for.

one could "design" from afar using just numbers, but i suspect that approach might result in course that work on paper but dont quite get it in reality. as useful as having the numbers can be, relying on them too much ends up making all courses fundamentally identical.

In practice, it is rare to completely design from afar as you describe in your second paragraph. In reality, the design standards are typically best for quickly identifying rough tee locations that will work for the skill(s) you are designing for, as you described in your first paragraph.

I've worked firsthand with Chuck and Pro Worlds Courses Director Jim Davis on this when they set the tee locations for the Little Lehigh Parkway and Jordan Creek courses for Pro Worlds 2005 for various skill levels, especially for older divisions and women's divisions, and for distances to the corner of doglegs and forced water carries. These tee locations were set for two entire courses in one day using these guidelines, and were later validated by PDGA-sanctioned events held in the months prior to Pro Worlds. Only one or two minor tweaks were needed in the days before competition began.

The method of "hey, let's just set a tee wherever it feels best and then get a bunch of guys to throw it and then adjust as we go" is completely backwards and is a major waste of time. It's also disappointing to see that people don't understand how helpful these guidelines can be and instead push back against it.

The numbers here are guidelines, to establish proper lengths for various hole features. What I found especially useful was numbers for different skill levels. I can attest that the predictions made using this method have been vindicated by actual rounds from players with ratings near the intended course level. That is, when playing our white tees, white players are scoring the way I hoped.

In my opinion, this is a great step towards introducing standards to design. When you build a house you don't throw up boards, step back and see if the wall's straight. You measure and plan. What's wrong with doing the same with course design? Nothing says you can't have artistry and pleasant aesthetic AND a good technical layout. That's where a clever designer comes in.

yeah, i know. i love the guidelines, they are a huge help. my point is the same as yours, thats why i said using strictly the numbers would end up bland.

jeff,

nockamixon did not evolve similarly. your implication that "trial and error" and "adjustments" can be limited or eliminated by the magical sweep of the course guidelines wand is wrong.

for your information the course guidelines were utilized throughout the process as a tool to build nockamixon. in no way could i ever imagine them replacing the tweaking process required when building a disc golf course.

as helpful as the guidelines may be, other factors such as utilizing naturally occuring challenge, flow and aesthetics will often (and in my opinion, should) override the guideline numbers.

kevin

Kevin, like it or not, at least the old front nine of the Nockamixon course evolved over the years only after repeated tweaking and adjustments after analyzing tournament and casual round data. To wit, old hole#1 (the par five at the bathroom with the dogleg left) was extended. The tee on old hole#4 (the par four at the top of the hill) was extended after too many threes were recorded and Brinster was making runs at deuce at one Ammo series event. The polehole on old hole#6 was extended to the top of the hill. The tee on old hole#8 (down to the pond) was extended. The polehole on old hole#9 (around the pond) was extended after too many threes were recorded and after you once put your approach shot in for deuce.

Utilizing PDGA hole forecasting and PDGA guidelines for setting tee distances could have helped you set those tee locations in almost the proper spot right from the start and eliminated much of the painstaking process of continual tweaking through years of casual rounds and tournament data. It's not a magic wand, but it's the best place to start from. I agree that naturally occuring challenge, flow and aesthetics will sometimes override the guideline numbers.

That's also why they are called "guidelines" not "requirements."

i think you make my point perfectly. after utilizing the guidelines, repeated adjustments and tweaks were still necessary to build the disc golf course. this process was hardly "unnecessary" as you say and could not be avoided by utilizing the guidelines as you stated.

The Nockamixon course was installed a long time ago. Which guidelines are you referring to? Many of the currently used tools weren't available yet back then, such as the Hole Forecaster Excel spreadsheet. The driving distance data wasn't accumulated until Pro Worlds 2002. The PDGA Course Design Guidelines for each Player Skill Level has a date of March 2004 on it.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

Things have changed a lot in the last five years. Tools are available now that can help to eliminate years of tinkering and tweaking. The DGCD, Disc Golf Course Designers group has all these tools available.

nockamixon isn't that old. 18 holes weren't finished until 2005. most of these tools were available then. don't take my word on it however, i wasn't the least bit involved in the design process for nockamixon.