I wanted to get opinions on minimum course length for a good competitive tournament. We are in the process of designing a new course, and it looks like the average hole length could end up at about 280 feet. While I agree this would be short, several of the holes have water, and/or difficult trees to avoid.

The main point I have is, if a course is short, but would still only play about 8 under for a Pro, do you think there would be much complaint (primarily worried about Open division) about having an A-Tier tournament on a shorter/technical course?

Theres only so short you can get before the technicality to create the difficulty creates ridiculous holes.
You can always go the route of designing the course so that you can squeeze in temporary long tee pad placements on the majority of the holes. The temps just need to be dry and even. The longs don't even need to be much longer just so that your not left with luck shots. Most Pros HATE luck shots.

If the money is there, the pros won't care.

Minimum of 49 SSA is the guideline for courses Open play in A-tiers. www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf)

If you check, most of them have met that. Cold Brook SSA was a little over 50 at Worlds and that was pretty short. However, a course with average foliage that averages 285 feet per hole will come out with an estimated SSA of 48 barring no special challenges like tricky OB. So your course is borderline. I'm thinking that Open will forgive 1 shot in SSA for every additional $2K-$3K added over the baseline amount for an A-tier, agreeing with Bruce's assessment.

An SSA of 49? Can't one just add a hole or two to a SSA 46 course? Anyways, SSA is a poor measure of "course difficulty" and thus a poor suggestion for tier requirements.

Added money will cure some distaste for a joke of a course (not saying anything about the course in question), but I think you shortchange the value of a challenging course. If there are choices, and there often are in this day of many tourneys, players will avoid lame courses and play the more challenging ones instead.

An SSA of 49? Can't one just add a hole or two to a SSA 46 course? Anyways, SSA is a poor measure of "course difficulty" and thus a poor suggestion for tier requirements.


SSA guideline is based on 18 holes so adding a hole doesn't cut it. What would you use to indicate course difficulty if not SSA? Basket quality minimums are also indicated by tier (page 4): www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf)
I'd like to add more standards for courses based on tier/division but that hasn't been approved yet except for Worlds.

Well, to the numerically inclined...spread. To those that go beyond metrics, simple first-hand analysis of challenge, fairness, etc. Not all SSA 49 courses are the same, in fact they probably span the spectrum from lousy to **** nice. In short, it is a meaningless metric for course quality.

Aahh, you changed from referencing course difficulty to referencing course quality upon which I agree. But we don't have those metrics yet. And when we do, the SSA value will still be relevant as one factor.

Course quality is synonomous with course difficulty, and SSA is a poor metric for course difficulty as well. The number of throws does not describe whether those throws were difficult or challenging.

I can go out to an open pasture, put in 13 500 foot holes, and 5 200 foot holes, and get close to a SSA 49. None of these drives would be considered difficult. Alternatively, I could get that SSA through challenging par 3s. Those courses are completely different, yet have equivalent SSAs. It does not measure course difficulty.

It still measures the number of throws taken. The course length in relation to SSA is truly a better reference for difficulty of a particular course SSA. Of course that guideline is also given right before the SSA guideline in the same document I referenced before:

"Courses are usually over 5700 feet for 18 holes."

If the course is 6800 feet and has an SSA of 49, it would essentially be a football field with no trees.

That makes more sense. I obviously didn't read the document.

An SSA of 49? Can't one just add a hole or two to a SSA 46 course? Anyways, SSA is a poor measure of "course difficulty" and thus a poor suggestion for tier requirements.


SSA guideline is based on 18 holes so adding a hole doesn't cut it. What would you use to indicate course difficulty if not SSA? Basket quality minimums are also indicated by tier (page 4): www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08TourStandards.pdf)
I'd like to add more standards for courses based on tier/division but that hasn't been approved yet except for Worlds.




Chuck, can you show me where these standards are for Worlds courses?

There are no published standards for Worlds yet. But the document link I posted a few posts higher shows the general guidelines including those for higher level events. If you look at my By The Numbers article in issue 3 of FDM, the names and SSAs for Pro Worlds courses over the past 10 years are shown.

Ok, I see.
This is what the document says about Tee Pads:
Tee Pads
Ideally the tee pads should all be the same type (i.e. all natural grass/dirt or all hard surface). If permanent, make them at least 5�x12� with some pads longer on long holes. Consider making tee pads even wider at the back.

I feel the guidelines should be a little more specific for Worlds or A-tier events. Should we not specify that tee pads if natural or Fly (type) pads be free of potholes and debris underneath, also that tee pads should be cleaned before each round. And furthermore should a PDGA rep not inspect each course and tee pad before the event to make sure it is safe for play?

I realize its extra work for a PDGA staffer but is safety not one of our top goals?

And furthermore should a PDGA rep not inspect each course and tee pad before the event to make sure it is safe for play?


We have been doing Worlds course reviews and recommendations in advance for several years now making more than one visit usually. However, the execution is still in the hands of the Worlds team.

I feel it is BMP (best management practices) to do exactly what you are saying, but also BMP to ensure it is fixed or changed before the event is started.

I personally did not go to worlds this year, but a very close friend of mine did, he rolled his ankle on one of the Fly (type) pads that had a huge pothole right in the middle of the pad. I feel this is substandard for an event of this scale. I would be outraged if I spent money on a flight, hotel, car rental, and entry fee just to get hurt on the one spot on a course that is SUPPOSED to be flat and level.

I realize it's tough to get people to commit to running a Worlds event or one of equal scale, but those that do choose and are given the opportunity to run one should be given a little more guidance and a little more accountability.

Just my $0.02

I feel it is BMP (best management practices) to do exactly what you are saying, but also BMP to ensure it is fixed or changed before the event is started.


180 tee pads to check and recheck during the week over a 4000 square mile area along with doing other desirable checks is beyond the PDGA manpower available. We are a self officiated sport which puts most of the responsibility on the local Staff and ultimately the player to make sure their footing is safe. I agree that a pothole under a pad is a nasty situation but I'm not sure it could have been avoided with the PDGA recon we have available. I happened to play the courses with temp pads on the days before Worlds except Timber. I wasn't specifically looking but would certainly have reported it if found.

"Course quality is synonomous with course difficulty"


Are you serious? A course does not have to be hard for it to be spectacular. And just because a course is hard does not make it a great course.

SSA does exactly what it was supposed to do, and is a great system Chuck.

But I'm sorry, I have played many great courses that are not considered hard. Forked Run State Park, Ashtabula, Knob Hill. Many many more. And I think you will see from reviews at dgcoursereview.com that these are all considered great courses.

Sometimes people try to hard to make courses tough, and leave out the fun factor in designing such a course.

I understand your position Chuck, but I feel it is not that hard to at least walk the courses a day or two before the event begins and give each hole a good look before giving the go-ahead.

For the magnitude of a Wolrds, I don't think its that much to ask. If the PDGA would like to pay for my trip, I would be happy to volunteer my time to take on this role for every Worlds. And do it with a hug smile on my face!

PDGA staff, you know where to find me.....

"Course quality is synonomous with course difficulty"
Are you serious? A course does not have to be hard for it to be spectacular. And just because a course is hard does not make it a great course.



I didn't say that and never would. They are not directly related in any way. However, if you believe having courses with at least some if not many holes legitimately over par 3, then those will be courses with SSAs higher than 49 and more like 54 minimum. Whether they are good or not is an independnet assessment. The difficulty of the course has much to do with the relationship between SSA and a properly set par. There are some wooded courses where it's possible to get the legit par and SSA almost the same and many would consider that difficult. However, the more open the course is, unless it's got lots of Winthrop OB rope, most of the holes will likely average under par for gold level and be considered relatively easy.

If the PDGA would like to pay for my trip, I would be happy to volunteer my time to take on this role for every Worlds.


If it were in the budget, it would already be done.

Course quality is synonomous with course difficulty



Chuck didn't say that, McCaine did. And I agree that it is not true. I have seen difficult courses with very poor tee pads and signs, thus making them low quality.

tee pads and signs are amenities extraneous to what i'd call "design quality." making a difficult course is easy- making a well-designed difficult course less so.

I had overall quality in mind when I said that. Design quality is only one element of overall quality.

It still measures the number of throws taken.

around these here parts, we use the score for that. :D

imo a well-designed course with no amenities is still better than a poorly designed one with every amenity in the world.

imo a well-designed course with no amenities is still better than a poorly designed one with every amenity in the world.


While I also agree with this, the actual participation and popularity figures would argue more the opposite is the case for more players. There are many courses on nice terrain that people rave about that have fundamental design flaws.

imo a well-designed course with no amenities is still better than a poorly designed one with every amenity in the world.


While I also agree with this, the actual participation and popularity figures would argue more the opposite is the case for more players. There are many courses on nice terrain that people rave about that have fundamental design flaws.



I too agree with these concepts. However, I do not equate popularity with quality. There is a lot of popular junk out there in both music and disc golf. And while the three of us may be able to sit down and agree that such & such is a design flaw, that's not something that is universally held due to the subjectivity of the process. And since flawless courses do not exist, this is something that will always be debated.

Course quality is synonomous with course difficulty



Chuck didn't say that, McCaine did. And I agree that it is not true. I have seen difficult courses with very poor tee pads and signs, thus making them low quality.



We all interpret terms differently. I was talking about courses of the highest quality being synonymous with courses which are the most challenging. By definition almost. Certainly, a course with lousy or dangerous tee boxes would be off the list from the start. Signs mean little, to me at least

While there are some lame, easy courses that draw a big crowd, it is mostly with old timers and the less skilled. I think a real trend has emerged, where better players want the best tourneys to be held on the most difficult courses. It's just natural progression, similar to why ball golf majors are held on very difficult courses. Competitive sports will always gravitate that way.