Paul,

I think that you are misinterpreting the tone of my post, it's easy to do on here.

Let me rephrase: I think you're proposal to add some "buffer" between hole by hole SSAs and Adjusted Par for Holes and Courses is not necessarily a bad one.

The direct calculations of SSA for holes and courses is rock solid. You get the exact average score for 1000 Rated Golfers for each hole and the course as a whole. This should not be tampered with (and I realize that you are not suggesting that).

Now where we take that calculated SSAs for the holes and course and try to merge it with data, calculations and interpretations Design Par, Judged Par and Adjusted Par is where all of the balancing and compromise takes place (and to review briefly) for the following reasons:

1) Folks discomfort with the use of the concept or reality of "Par 2s".
2) Folks need to have an easy to use tool to project pars for various skill levels in designing a course and SSAs can only be generated for existing courses.
3) Course Pros for obvious reasons want to have final control over their course and to use their judgment in setting par. They don�t want anyone telling them what the par on their course should or should not be.
4) Designers have concepts about appropriate challenge as far as foliage, distance, elevation and other factors that do not align themselves well with setting par according to Scratch Score Average (i.e. a course could hypothetically have an SSA of 64 but not be well suited for 1000 rated golfers, it could actually be better suited for 955 or 915 golfers).
5) SSAs are not static for courses; weather, skill, erosion, changing foliage and obstacles affect it, so how can SSAs be the par?
6) Various throwing distances per skill level and putts on the green formulas do not account for actual scoring averages and tend to homogenize all courses below a certain level.
7) Even if we do settle on standards for par in disc golf, how can we make certain that they remain accurate into the future?

Let�s say we work out all of the details to deal with those concerns (and I think we are well on our way to that), what are our exact and explicit goals (again to review):

Goal 1: Create an Official PDGA Par Standard that accounts for all current, in process and future courses and provides a uniform and meaningful par for each hole and course and between all courses.
Goal 2: Create an Official PDGA Par Standard that includes the "ready-made" tool of PDGA Player and Course Ratings as a standard for designing courses and in assessing effectiveness of that design after installation.
Goal 3: Create tools by which course designers and course pros can easily comply with Official PDGA Par Standards (through design, installation and maintenance).
Goal 4: Create tools that assist course designers and course pros create courses that more effectively target "specified major skill ranges".

I think that pretty much covers where we are.

I detailed a while back the options available as plans (here they are again):

Plan 1 �
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s and Decimal Place Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf.
Plan 2-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s but Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, where Hole by Hole Par takes precedence over Course Par accuracy.
Plan 3-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s but Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, where Course Par takes precedence over Hole by Hole Par accuracy.
Plan 4-
Acknowledge peoples discomfort with both Par 2s and need for Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s, where Hole by Hole Par takes precedence over Course Par accuracy.
Plan 5-
Acknowledge peoples discomfort with both Par 2s and need for Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s, where Course Par takes precedence over Hole by Hole Par accuracy.
Plan 6-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s and Decimal Place Pars and provide SSA based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf for each hole and the course and allow course designers to set Course Par according to a combination of (as yet to be agreed upon) Design Par and Scratch Score Average. And if those standards are met then "Certify" the par as Official PDGA Par.
Plan 7 �
Set no standards, either design or scratch scoring average, and let everyone create their own idea of "Par". (Do nothing in other words.)

Paul, I have been considering your proposal to buffer the True Par to account for SSA fluctuation and I think that it is probably wise now. The question is how, I suspect that it is more complex than just moving the standards up 2 strokes. It probably should relate to Player Ratings Compression factors and the Basic Course Par we end up targeting (54? 58? 62? 66? �). Dan Cordle raised this question earlier and it may well be something we want to consider at this point. Perhaps this can serve to both set an expectation for decent par variety on courses as well as create a desired buffer for fluctuations in SSA.

Do you think that we could finalize that before working out further details of the mathematical buffers? I could create a poll here and at an organizers group I run to see what folks think is the proper mix of pars. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Again, I think that you really misinterpreted or that I really misspoke earlier, I am very please to find others interested enough to engage in some serious discussion (and possible action) on something so very doable. I appreciate all of your thoughts, I just ask that we spend equal amount of time "end gaming" this so we can hopefully finish it up and start rolling it out for folks immediate use.

One key in this will be getting the PDGA Course Design Committee on board with this plan. I am more than willing to compromise on anything short of doing nothing. This is just too dang doable in my opinion to let go another 25 years. Chuck? Your thoughts?

Best Regards,
Nick

Pete,
Excellent post as usual! It's reassuring to see the Course Design Guild using such a sound methodology. It's also gratifying that it's a form of a very similar process I've started using. I've been quite pleased with the results.

Great to see that they're using a process based on length, not on current SSA.

One main difference with what I've developed is that I allow par 2s. I believe that for Gold players (and some Blue and even White) par 2s are just a reality of the existing courses that we have.

Thanks, Pete, for the helpful info.

Hi Pete,

A couple of questions for you:

1) How does your system define "Expert", "Advanced", "Intermediate" and "Novice"? Specifically please?

2) I see that you recommend posting SSAs with the course and hole-by-hole pars; what if any role should SSA have in influencing the par you describe?

3) How does your system create a coherent par system that works across all courses and provides for complete sets of colored tees (in compliance with your standards)? Do any courses, anywhere, currently comply with the standards you have set out, with complete sets of colored tees all meeting the conditions of "Expert", "Advanced", "Intermediate" and "Novice" play?

Thanks in advanced for your answers; I look forward to reading them.

Regards,
Nick

here's what i sent to the website and board monitor contact emails:

Not sure why conrad is ignoring PM's , but there needs to be an apology to hawk for the scurrilous way in which his avatar was deleted without so much as the courtesy of asking him to remove it. It's not like it was even offensive, in fact it was as tame as the article in DGWN featuring playboy bunnies. Being there is no clear policy on avatars, it is patently unfair to remove them without first creating guidelines as to what is allowed and what is not. At the very least a warning or Pm asking him to remove it would have been a better way to handle this. I am a board monitor for another site and a volunteer for the PDGA also, yet this does not make me, or any of us, from making mistakes. the best way to handle a mistake is to apologize and correct the situation so that there is a clear process to follow in the future to avoid such mistakes. Avoiding the issue will NOT make it go away, and the board members will not continue to be ignored. If you like we will go as far as calling for a vote for the board monitor and IT positions, so as to have some accountablility for the actions of the people running the message board.

Rich Myers
PDGA#19614
Patapsco Picnic and Rockburn Challenge TD

ok, lets fire this one up shall we....

The Wilmont course at Tom Bass Park in Houston, TX has a course SSA that usually hangs around 55. Pretty tough course right? However that are at least 2 holes on it that I can think of that for gold and blue level, and maybe even white, would statistically fall into that "par 2" catagory. Does that mean we are going to rate a course as difficult at this as a Red course? That would bump course par up into the 70's!!!

I don't think designers are wrong by throwing a few relatively easy holes into the mix on tough courses like this.

Lets use hole #1 on the Wilmont as an example. It's only 250' slight left fade and the pin sits on top of a ridge. If you go over the ridge (on any shot) you're looking at at least 4 and probably as high as circle 6 (there is water over the ridge) It's an easy putter shot for us RHBH throwers. I'm sure this will statistically fall in around 2.3-2.5 on a hole by hole SSA.

So by everything that has been said on this thread we are going to have this one hole cause the entire course to be rated as a White or even Red course??? This course has MANY holes that gold level will rate 3.4-3.5 on par 3 holes. When pins are in the long spots there are 2 holes over 1000ft. Even in the shorts there is a 900+ and an 850+ hole! There is no way in the world a course like this should ever be listed as a Red course. Those of you who have played it know what I'm talking about.

We have to think smart about some things. Some courses need to be rated Gold courses even if they have 1 or 2 statistical par 2's.

By the way, the Wilmont is listed on signs as a par 59 and SSA is usually within half a point of 55.

Doug,

If a hole is a par 2 for 955, and certainly 915 golfers, then you think it is appropriate for a set of GOLD designated tees?

Whether you accept that Par 2s exist or not, if a hole averages less than 2.5 for any given skill level, then I think it is reasonable to assume that it does not meet the appropriate level of challenge for that skill level. Yes, there are design considerations as well, but even there I'm quite confident that Design Experts would give similar advice about holes that are obviously or statistically too easy.

What this system says is that your course is only as strong as it's weakest hole. If you want it to move up to White, Blue or Gold then you better add some challenge to that weak hole or two.

As far as the Par for a Red course being in the 70s due to two weak holes (SSAs of under 2.5), whatever, under this system, the par ends up within the Red designation, it will still have a direct relation to Scratch Golf just based on 875 golf rather than 1000 or 955.

My suggestion to the the course pro would be to figure out how to increase the challenge of those holes so that their SSA, both projected throw design concepts and actual through calculated SSA, goes up over 2.4. They don't have to completely change the hole, just make it a little longer, move it to one side, or closer to a hazard, perhaps move the tee... there are a million ways to add challenge.

The Standard Par System should not be created to meet existing standards of courses (of which there are none), courses should be updated to meet standards of a coherent and uniform par system. They are free to remain outside the standard, but they then relinquish all of the benefits provided by a Standard Par System. The system already does accommodate them anyway, by covering par 2 holes up via skill range levels, any further accommodation would make the system suspect in my opinion.

Regards,
Nick

> 1) How does your system define "Expert", "Advanced", "Intermediate"
> and "Novice"? Specifically please?

Keep in mind that the par standard is based on an Expert player, which is essentially somewhere near a Scratch player. The aids, or guidelines, for labelling par are based on the consensus opinion and data available for the throwing skills (but primarily distance) of an Expert player. The other labels and guidelines are provided only for convenience for the case that a course manager chooses to label for a secondary par (for a lesser skill level) in addition to the par standard. Those lesser skill levels are again consensus opinions of throwing skills (but primarily distance) for an arbitrary consensus targeted skill range.

>2) I see that you recommend posting SSAs with the course and hole-by-hole
> pars; what if any role should SSA have in influencing the par you describe?

The hole SSA will rarely impact the par of a hole.

In the rare, but increasingly common, case that the hole-by-hole SSA is available, I see it being used as such:

Most often, the hole SSA is used to gauge the relative difficulty of holes with the same par.

Less often, the hole SSA will give the designer/manager an indication that a hole is playing harder or easier than intended. This will allow the designer/manager to implement changes to make the hole more appropriate for the targeted skill level.

Rarely, I suppose there might be some hard-to-label holes (that would fall in the gaps between pars in the guidelines) where a known hole SSA would help the manager decide which way to lean when deciding on a label.

>3) How does your system create a coherent par system that works across
>all courses and provides for complete sets of colored tees (in compliance
>with your standards)?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

The proposal doesn't address tee color, but could easily be extended to do so. It's merely a matter of choosing a standard color for the Expert skill level (likely Gold, Black, or Blue) and adding the appropriate language.

As regards the rest of the question, the proposal is a coherent par system that works across all courses.

>Do any courses, anywhere, currently comply with the standards you have
>set out, with complete sets of colored tees all meeting the conditions
>of "Expert", "Advanced", "Intermediate" and "Novice" play?

Yes, of course. There are many course designers and managers that share the commonly understood and currently defined notion of par. Though as stated above, there is no standard tee color at this point for the par standard.

Always keep in mind that the standard is the definition of par. The additional items in the proposal are merely aids for the application of that definition.

Pete,

Thanks for the answers, of course they lead to more questions:

1) If a Standard Par based solely on Design Considerations (as you describe) can cover all course uniformly with meaningful pars that actually "do" reflect verifiable �Expert Play� can you show me how that Standard Par would set par for the following courses (Design Par is a system you declare can work uniformly across all course, please explain how, in light of folks general discomfort with par 2s, and holes that fall outside the design par formuli?):

Hole
SSA
Drive Distance to green
<table border="1"><tr></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>225</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>450</td><td>6075
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td>195</td><td>195</td><td>195</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>398</td><td>500</td><td>6657
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

2) How would you be able to determine that a course presents an appropriate challenge on every hole for any specified skill range (Expert or Advanced) with the above examples?
3) You say that �Expert Golfer� is �near� a �Scratch Player�, how near are they? How did and do you define your �Expert Golfer�? Or any other skill range level for that matter?
4) If the Design Par System can be �easily extended� to create appropriate skill range Color Designations, then can you please provide this extension?
5) Which system �takes all factors� (distance, foliage, elevation, exposure to weather, exact skill level of player) and all of their exact relationships to other courses into consideration better Design Par or Averaged Scratch Score Average?
6) Isn�t Design Par just a tool to estimate projected pars and not a complete system for determining and setting a standardized par that can be statistically verified and remain consistent across all courses?

Thanks again for your answers, I appreciate your taking time to explain our PDGA Course Design Committees approach to creating a par standard.

Regards,
Nick

Though as stated above, there is no standard tee color at this point for the par standard.




I believe we have a good set of guidelines in current published documents plus one that's soon to be posted. This has been the standard design guidelines with tee color recommendations. The Par section is outdated and will be removed or updated soon.

http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php

This document provides a connection between skill levels and tee colors. It also allows Par 2s whether TDs or designers elect to use them or not.

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

This document helps new course developers determine the minimum amount of space required for courses suited for different skill levels so perhaps a better plan can be made ahead of time to avoid Par 2s.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/acreage%20guide%20web.jpg

I suspect it will take a while before anything beyond these documents will be forthcoming as official PDGA docs on this topic. However, more detailed processes are being used by the members of the DGCD group which is independent of the PDGA. And, I believe this is where it belongs. The process of establishing a course rating in BG (which is equivalent ot our SSA) is not published at large but is available for and used by trained specialists.

What I think might be useful would be for the Course Evaluation process to include an assessment where a course would score lower if they had any Par 2s for the intended player level. Perhaps we will just include that as part of the determination of a hole's Overall Design Quality score for now.

BTW, Pete Burns is not a member of the DGCD and I'm pretty sure he's not a member of the PDGA Course Committee nor a course designer (nor did he claim to be). That doesn't discount the quality of his content but it's not based from those groups.

>1. can you show me how that Standard Par would set par for the
>following courses

Well, I'm not the designer, so I'm not sure. Without seeing the course in person, it's hard to say. Without data for foliage, OB, and elevation, I can't even guess.

>2) How would you be able to determine that a course presents an
>appropriate challenge on every hole for any specified skill range (Expert
>or Advanced) with the above examples?

You can't. You need much more data than you provided to know if a hole is providing an appropriate challenge for a given skill level.

>3) You say that �Expert Golfer� is �near� a �Scratch Player�, how near are
>they? How did and do you define your �Expert Golfer�? Or any other skill
>range level for that matter?

There is no exactness of definition. For the calculation of the labelling aids, a consensus opinion was used for the general skillset of Expert. If I had to say, I'd say the average Expert golfer has well honed skills and drives almost 400 feet on average.

>4) If the Design Par System can be �easily extended� to create appropriate
>skill range Color Designations, then can you please provide this extension?

I don't understand the question. I said it can be easily extended to address tee color. This would simply be a recommendation of what color to use, as a universal standard, for each skill level. I believe the PDGA has some suggestions that they publish on their web site. Those would probably work fine.

Don't confuse this with any attempt made by anyone on this thread to classify entire courses by a single color. The par standard proposal does not do this. It simply provides a number for par, and when available, for SSA. The comparison of the two will give the playing community much information about the course, especially when the individual holes are well designed.

>5) Which system �takes all factors� (distance, foliage, elevation, exposure
>to weather, exact skill level of player) and all of their exact relationships to
>other courses into consideration better Design Par or Averaged Scratch
>Score Average?

These two "systems" are two completely different things. Go back and read my earliest posts on this thread. Par is an indication of design. Average SSA, on the other hand, gives a semi-accurate data about how a hole actually plays.

Let me use an example, though this may be a waste of time, as I think most people already understand this quite clearly.

Par:
If I have a hole with a par of 3, you know that the hole was designed to require 1 shot to get near the target. If I have a hole with a par of 4, you know that for the intended skill level, it will almost always require 2 shots (if played correctly) to get near the target.

SSA:
If I have a hole with an SSA of 3.38, I know that scratch players require an average of 3.38 shots to complete this hole. I know nothing else about it.

Par and SSA:
If I have a hole with a par of 3 and an SSA of 3.38, I know that this hole is intended to be reached in 1 shot, but that scratch players have a hard time with this hole. This indicates there there is probably some pretty serious foliage, or there is thick rough off the fairway, or that there is significant OB. I can also guess that this hole is fairly long relative to the amount of obstacles. I know that it must be pretty difficult to execute my 1 shot to get a birdie 2, so maybe I should consider less aggressive options and settle for a 3.

If I have a hole with a par of 4 and an SSA of 3.38, I know that this hole is intended to be reached in 2 shots, and that scratch players perform pretty well on it. It looks to be a fairly open hole, or fairly short relative to the amount of obstacles. The low SSA relative to par tells me that if I execute my two shots well, I should not have too much trouble getting the birdie 3.

>6) Isn�t Design Par just a tool to estimate projected pars and not a
>complete system for determining and setting a standardized par that
>can be statistically verified and remain consistent across all courses?

No. Design Par is par. It's clear, as it's been from the beginning, that you would like some statistical answer for par. But as has been said over and over, there's no need for one. You can use the exact statistics you crave, without calling them par. And in fact, you need par to make them meaningful, beyond a flat number that is the average number of strokes required to complete a hole.

>I appreciate your taking time to explain our PDGA Course Design Committees approach to creating a par standard.

I don't know of any "PDGA Course Design Committee". My proposal is from the Disc Golf Certified Course Designer Association. Perhaps you are thinking of the PDGA Course Committee, or maybe the non-PDGA Disc Golf Course Design Group?

Chuck,

Can your Disc Golf Course Acreage Guide be reverse calculated to provide SSA ranges for Gold thru Red Tees? Is that what the other chart you created does? It really looks close to the proposal I made, with the exception that you substitute course distance and foliage for Averaged SSAs to draw conclusions about necessary acreage, while I use it to set standards for color designations for tees.

Also, which standard of skill ranges do you subscribe to for tee color designations(1000, 950, 900, 850), (<964, <924, <874, >875) or (1000, 955, 915, 875, 835)?

Lastly, can you think of a method by which a Standard Par could be created that would both meat the standards of the DGCD and PDGA Course Ratings (WCPs)? Do you see any value in such a merging of projection and result? Or do you subscribe to Pete's thinking that Par and SSA are completely separate animals and should not be combined? (Though isn�t SSA really entrenched already in your design calculations?)

Nick

Slowmo,

Your numbers are way off. The Wilmont SSA normally falls within a half point from 51 not 55 (even in the most horrible condition I dont recall SSA being at 55) and the pro tees would likely not even get you over a 54 SSA.

And not to nit-pick your post but there #9 is the only hole that even comes close to 900ft, I assume the 850 you are talking about is #14 which is not even 700 feet long (686 I beleive is the correct distance and is what is on the sign).

The Wilmont is my favorite course but I am not going to pretned that it is a true Gold course because it is not.

The Acreage chart is built from the Scoring average / Par chart posted several weeks ago on this thread.

The midpoint of 50 pt ranges are what we have been using for colors. Gold 1000 or 975+, Blue 950 or 925-974, White 900 or 875-924 and Red 850 or probably more correctly specified as under 875.

The determination of par and SSA initially happen at different times so they start out independent. However, once SSA is known, then I would want the Par value brought in line with SSA if it merited changing. For example, I would be inclined to change the par from 4 to 3 if the SSA came out at 3.2. However, I would be very surprised if that happened. It's more likely a Par 3 might become a 4 if the SSA came out to 3.7 even if it were a 1-shot hole. That would be a tough hole with lots of foliage and likely OB, maybe even too much of either OB or foliage.

A more likely problem would be a hole that is close to SSA 3.5 where it ranges from 3.4 to 3.6 each time it�s checked at different events. In that case, I would likely lean toward the par that made the overall course par a little closer to the overall SSA.

I don�t think the current PDGA guidelines for par are out of sync with the approach designers are using. As I�ve posted before, the tee color guides and related design guides are very new and even veteran designers are just getting familiar with using the tools. It will take some time before enough designers and players become familiar with the terms to have a dialog where more than just a few people can participate such as this thread.

I�m not familiar with the Disc Golf Certified Course Designer Association. Must be new.

It will take some time before enough designers and players become familiar with the terms to have a dialog where more than just a few people can participate such as this thread.




Chuck,

Well then, how about you? Certainly you are familiar enough with the terms to educate us and get us on a track to either create a par standard that works, or give up if it is currently beyond our powers to succeed?

From the sounds of your last post you seem to be agreeing with me that SSA is a very valuable tool in assessing the accuracy and appropriateness of Design Par. The question I have is this:

Is there a way of using a standardized merging of SSA with Design Par to create a single (and precise) chart for the designation of Tee Colors?

Lastly, just out of curiosity, do you envision pars being set per significant skill level breaks (i.e. what is a Par 54 course for a 1000 golfer would be designated a Par 64 course for 900, or the like) as being an option in the future?

Thanks,
Nick

A more likely problem would be a hole that is close to SSA 3.5 where it ranges from 3.4 to 3.6 each time it�s checked at different events. In that case, I would likely lean toward the par that made the overall course par a little closer to the overall SSA.



Chuck, that sounds like the problem I raised where a hole is close to SSA 2.5, but ranges between 2.4 and 2.6 each time it's checked.

First, do you subscribe to the idea that color levels should avoid SSA par-2s?

Second, if you do, what would you do to avoid flipping between color levels when a hole of SSA 2.5 ranges from 2.4 to 2.6?

Would you simply say below SSA 2.6, you have a par-2, so you would have to shift all hole pars to the next color level to avoid that par-2? Only when the hole SSA is 2.6 would you allow the higher color level pars to be assigned?

If you do that, what would you do then when that hole with an of SSA 2.6, but ranges between 2.5 and 2.7 each time it's checked? Would you keep the color level as is until the hole SSA gets below 2.5?

This is the hysteresis threshold I've been talking about, with the high-going threshold set at 2.6 (or 2.5+0.x) and the low-going threshold set at 2.5, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

>2) I see that you recommend posting SSAs with the course and hole-by-hole
> pars; what if any role should SSA have in influencing the par you describe?

The hole SSA will rarely impact the par of a hole.

In the rare, but increasingly common, case that the hole-by-hole SSA is available, I see it being used as such:

Most often, the hole SSA is used to gauge the relative difficulty of holes with the same par.

Less often, the hole SSA will give the designer/manager an indication that a hole is playing harder or easier than intended. This will allow the designer/manager to implement changes to make the hole more appropriate for the targeted skill level.

Rarely, I suppose there might be some hard-to-label holes (that would fall in the gaps between pars in the guidelines) where a known hole SSA would help the manager decide which way to lean when deciding on a label.



This is still my view of the proper use of SSA, as well. My last question about an SSA threshold with hysteresis simply presupposes that I've lost that argument.

>2) I see that you recommend posting SSAs with the course and hole-by-hole
> pars; what if any role should SSA have in influencing the par you describe?

The hole SSA will rarely impact the par of a hole.

In the rare, but increasingly common, case that the hole-by-hole SSA is available, I see it being used as such:

Most often, the hole SSA is used to gauge the relative difficulty of holes with the same par.

Less often, the hole SSA will give the designer/manager an indication that a hole is playing harder or easier than intended. This will allow the designer/manager to implement changes to make the hole more appropriate for the targeted skill level.

Rarely, I suppose there might be some hard-to-label holes (that would fall in the gaps between pars in the guidelines) where a known hole SSA would help the manager decide which way to lean when deciding on a label.



This is still my view of the proper use of SSA, as well. My last question about an SSA threshold with hysteresis simply presupposes that I've lost that argument.



If "True Par" is defined as "The number of throws an Expert Golfer is expected to average on a hole." then how could any par be more accurate than the exact average Expert golfers throw on that hole?

That seems like a pretty straight forward and honest question. How do you answer that Paul and Pete?

I go back to Design Par being a projection of what par is likely to be based on abstract calculations and generalized trends (not to mention PDGA Ratings Data and Concepts); where World Class Par (as defined by the PDGA Ratings System) is an exact indicator of expert play based on actual play of expert players.

Both have their place in defining par, it is not a "One or the Other" question. They both apply, the question now is how do we standardize their relationship so that everyone can come to the same, or at least similar, conclusions about course pars and a PDGA Par Standard?

If "True Par" is defined as "The number of throws an Expert Golfer is expected to average on a hole." then how could any par be more accurate than the exact average Expert golfers throw on that hole?



I have two problems with calling SSA an "exact average" that can be used to assign par: 1) SSA is a dynamic number, not a static number, and 2) SSA has a fractional component.

1) SSA is dynamic, not static:

You're right, Nick, SSA is accurate. It's accurate until the next measurement, that is, when it renders the previous number inaccurate and generates a new, accurate number. And then the measurement after that, the old SSA is rendered inaccurate again, and the new SSA is now considered accurate.

What I'm saying is, because SSA is a dynamic measurement, it's only an accurate reflection of the past and never an exactly accurate predictor for the future.

And that's where always matching hole par assignments with SSA becomes a problem. If SSA were a static number, then with a single measurement, once and for all you can know that hole's exact par. Then I would completely agree with you that the PDGA could present SSA as the ultimate standard for par, even considering my secondary objection below. There would be no doubt what whole number you would round to if you had an SSA of 2.500001. As a static value, you would know the next SSA, if it were ever measured, would also be 2.500001, and you would always round up to par-3.

But SSA is dynamic. Rounding SSA of 2.500001 is now a problem, because we don't really know what the next SSA will be. We just know it won't be 2.500001 again. So we don't have an exactly accurate number in SSA, and we don't know which way to round based on SSA without causing par to flip and flop between whole numbers with each new measurement -- unless we complicate things, that is, with my hysteresis threshold idea.

2) SSA has a fractional result:

SSA has a fractional component that gets lost when you round it to a whole number for par, so by that alone, you lose some of the accuracy that SSA provides when you assign a par matched with SSA. As a result, to truly understand the hole difficulty, you would still have to present SSA side-by-side with par, even if par were always matched with SSA. You would do this anyway if you didn't match SSA with par, so I don't see any real gain matching SSA to par if the end result is more work but still a posting of both numbers.

Summary: I continue to support the idea that design par is set by the designer, while SSA can be used as a measurement providing feedback to the designer on the hole's true difficulty for expert level players.

But if it is desired that SSA, even as a dynamic number, is to be always matched with par, then I think a round-up/round-down threshold with some hysteresis will be required. One example of this hysteresis would be to round-up when SSA rises above .6 and to round-down when SSA falls below .4.

Paul,

You bring up good points and valid though they may be in and of themselves they are not valid concerning the larger picture of creating a superior PDGA Standard Par System and this is why:

1) Nothing is static. Even Design Par changes as new more accurate methods of determine projected expert play on a hole or course are found(not to mention as the course changes). One events SSAs played on the same course as another events are certainly no more likely to change significantly than are one course designers Design Par from another course designers Design Par concerning a single layout; and when you average SSAs from multiple rounds together they are likely to work more towards the median Expert Score, or what I call Scratch Score not to diverge away from it. ***Unless there is a significant, one might say major, design alteration to the hole, in which case both the design AND World Class Par (based on SSAs) is likely to change significantly, and this is not likely to come as a surprise to the Course Designer or Pro.

And in the end nothing will be a better indicator of "Expert Score Average" than "Scratch Score Average" which I call Par.

2) Rounding the Scratch Score Average certainly is no less exact than using some judgment based system on distances, obstacles, elevation and other known and estimated design considerations. In fact nothing brings EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE DESIGN FACTOR INTO AS PRECISE A VERIFIABLE NUMBER as does SSA. Rounding it to create WCP for the course or each hole still affords an accuracy projected Design Par can likely never approach.

One might even rightfully say that most Design Par concepts are based on the data and concepts of PDGA Player Ratings (such as definition of an "Expert Golfer" and "what that expert golfer is likely to average on a course or hole").

Now does work need to be done to bring the two sciences closer together? Yes, and it is far from impossible. And this is where the powerful minds of Chuck Kennedy and Roger Smith need to be brought in on this, DG Matrix. They have nearly bridged the gap extending from the Design half, now we need to take the Ratings half to a point where it joins logically with the Design half.

I believe that I have a clear enough idea of each to know that it is entirely possible, and I would actually agree to pay Chuck and Roger a fee for the use of a tool that provided the projected par for a design and then followed up with a maintenence tool to provide a definitive par once the course was in full use. I'd even pay them a fee to do annual or as needed updates.

Other than the continued high level of effective activity by our PDGA Board of Directors nothing, in my opinion, has amplified the credibility and value of worldwide organized disc golf as has the PDGA Player Ratings System developed by Chuck and Roger.

The first thing I would do if elected to the BOD would be to give them both a part time contract and pay them per player update per member and per course projected and certified with a PDGA Par. But don't worry, I'll never run for elected office, been there done that, those guys are crazy to a man and all way better at it than I am. (Now if Mike Kernan ran unopposed I might have to do it just in spite. LOL!)

Again, getting as precise a disc golf par as possible is not an either or situation, both Design and Scratch Score Average Pars are tools that can and should be applied, and as uniformly as we can humanly manage. This is the discussion I look forward to participating in.

Regards,
Nick

Paul,

You bring up good points and valid though they may be in and of themselves they are not valid concerning the larger picture of creating a superior PDGA Standard Par System and this is why:



That's funny. My points are valid, but they're not valid.


One events SSAs played on the same course as another events are certainly no more likely to change significantly...



Who is saying SSA needs to change significantly to run into the trouble I'm talking about? I'm certainly not. I'm saying SSA, by its very nature, MUST fluctuate, even just a little, from measurement to measurement. And those minor, trivial fluctuations are very troublesome when the SSA fraction averages around .5. And if you insist on using a simple mathematical rule that says above .5, round-up, below .5, round-down, then VERY SMALL changes in SSA around .5 will turn into WHOLE NUMBER changes in par.

That's bad enough in itself. I don't envy those having to change par signs from par-3 to par-4 for those holes wobbling around SSA 3.5. But when you complicate things further in your proposal by saying par-2s are not allowed, then around SSA 2.5, very small changes CAN cause a round-down to par-2, forcing a shift down to the next color level.

Look, you don't have to agree that my point is valid, but at least try to get it right when you disagree with it.


And in the end nothing will be a better indicator of "Expert Score Average" than "Scratch Score Average" which I call Par.



Now you're saying SSA is par? Is par a fractional number to you now? You know, it sounds to me like that's really want you want to do. Eliminate par entirely, and just post SSA on each hole. Sure would avoid all this stupid round-up and round-down crap. Why don't you propose eliminating pars altogether, then, replacing them entirely with SSA, and see if that has more traction, if that's what you want?


2) Rounding the Scratch Score Average certainly is no less exact than using some judgment based system on distances, obstacles, elevation and other known and estimated design considerations. In fact nothing brings EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE DESIGN FACTOR INTO AS PRECISE A VERIFIABLE NUMBER as does SSA.



Again, you're disagreeing with something I'm not saying. My point about rounding SSA to par was that you would still have to post SSA with par to show the true difficulty of the hole. In your scheme, par tells you far less about hole difficulty than SSA does, and when SSA is present, par is redundant. So my question is, what's the point? Why argue for redundant information to be put on a sign when instead you could just post SSA, allow it to tell the story you want to tell, and let designers continue to post par the way they always have before?

I still think the answer still might be that you want to remove par from all the signs and just post SSA at each hole. Is that what you truly want or not?

And heaven knows I don't expect you to agree with me, but I would consider it a major improvement if you'd start disagreeing with the points I'm actually making and not the points you keep assigning to me. (You see, my name's Paul, not Par. Stop assigning the wrong points to me. Get it? Get it?)

Here's something interesting. And it may help out those that think SSA should somehow be used to determine par.

Nick keeps trying to say that par should be the average score of an expert golfer. (He keeps ignoring that the definition says "number of throw plus 2 to hole out", which is not the same thing as average score.)

Chuck has shown that the average number of close-range shots in disc golf is about 1.7 per hole.

So given the basic definition of par (throws+2) and the fact that there are actually 1.7 close-range shots per hole, an average Par 4 should be EXPECTED to average 3.7 shots per hole, not 4.0.

This makes total sense, and really helps bring this "par is rounded SSA" theory a lot closer to the current and common definition and concept of Par (what some call Design Par).

In other words, instead of rounding from 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5; the "par=SSA" lovers should actually be rounding from 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2.

I think most will agree that it is a very rare occurrance that a well-designed par 4 would average less than 3.2 strokes.

But I think it's pretty common that a good par 4 would average under 3.5. As an example, if a par 4 has 60% 3's and 40% 4's for a field of scratch players, you're getting pretty good separation, and the players who played the hole well are rewarded with a stroke. But the average for this hole will be 3.4.

In fact, you could easily have a hole that is 580 feet through scattered foliage that averages 3.4 for Scratch players. Given that, you would have a HUGE disagreement between the "throws+2" camp that says this is obviously a 2-shot (par 4) hole, and the "ssa is par" camp that says this hole averages 3.4, and is therefore a par 3. If, however, you use 3.2 as the line of demarcation/hysteresis/roundpoint, the area of disagreement between the two camps becomes much much smaller.

(By the way, it's also very rare that a well-designed par 4 would average over 4.2. I think with a little thought, most designers would agree that if your 2-shot hole is averaging over 4.2, there's maybe something wrong with it (too much luck, too much OB, too long for the given obstacles) such that it isn't supplying the appropriate challenge for the targeted skill level.)

As a side benefit to this whole thing, the argument for par 2's is also greatly reduced. While it's still possible to average below 2.2 on a hole, it is much more rare than a hole that averages less than 2.5. And again, any hole averaging under 2.2 is likely a very dumb hole (giving up over 80% 2's, thus providing almost no separation), while this is not necessarily the case for a hole that averages under 2.5.

Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

Wow, excellent post, Pete. So by extension then, a course marked with a total par of 54 would be expected to have an SSA around 48.6, right?

Really, that does make a whole lot of sense. Cedar Hills in Raleigh seems to be very appropriately marked as par 54, but it's SSA is around 49. I would be hard-pressed to understand dropping its posted par to 49 just to match SSA when there are no obvious par-2 holes on that course, let alone 5 of them. Now from your post, Pete, I understand that you shouldn't do that, and par 54 is good as it stands.

Well done. Opened my eyes, at least.

Extending the concept further, the 'simple' way to handle this would be to label holes as Par 2.7 (2.2-3.2), par 3.7 (3.2-4.2) and par 4.7 (4.2-5+). Total course par will probably come closer to SSA or the SA of the intended skill level than Nick's 54 adjustment or the hysteria methods. :eek:

Chuck,
As "I" can see the methodology and added benefit to marking par on a course to the nearest tenth, I cannot see the "real" benefit to the avg. player by marking tee signs with 3.4, 2.8 and the like. Although, this information could be used to create a hole by hole difficulty list. i.e. the hardest hole as compared to par and the easiest hole as compared to par.

Dan

Extending the concept further, the 'simple' way to handle this would be to label holes as Par 2.7 (2.2-3.2), par 3.7 (3.2-4.2) and par 4.7 (4.2-5+).


There's something appealing about that, especially if you make Par 2.7 all scores less than 3.2.

Do you think it will catch on? A lot of people hate decimal numbers and manipulating them, but we could always rely on printed scorecards to save us from having to do the math. It might break some golf-scoring programs that people use to track their rounds.

If it doesn't catch on, I still like Pete's general idea that course SSA is 5.4 throws under course par, on average.


Total course par will probably come closer to SSA or the SA of the intended skill level than Nick's 54 adjustment or the hysteria methods. :eek:


LOL. I'm going to start calling it the hysteria method now. Or maybe the hysterical method.

Chuck,
As "I" can see the methodology and added benefit to marking par on a course to the nearest tenth, I cannot see the "real" benefit to the avg. player by marking tee signs with 3.4, 2.8 and the like.


Chuck is not saying put par to the nearest tenth on par signs. He's just subtracting 0.3 generally, so that Par 3 becomes Par 2.7, Par 4 becomes Par 3.7, and Par 5 becomes Par 4.7. If SSA is in the proper range, say 3.2-4.2, then it's a Par 3.7 hole.

I think it's an interesting idea, if people can handle .7 as a suffix on every par assignment. It still suffers from variable drift at the range boundaries, if we're still matching par continually with SSA, but I don't want to get hysterical right now.

So by extension then, a course marked with a total par of 54 would be expected to have an SSA around 48.6, right?




Yep, that's pretty much it.

In general, "harder" courses have SSAs closer to the par. "Easier" courses have SSAs further from the par.

But a bunch of tweener (i.e. dumb) holes could also tend to separate the SSA and the par. Similarly, a bunch of holes that are stupidly tight or overly punative could result in the SSA being closer to the par.

Hopefully, with a greater understanding of par and SSA, one of the side benefits would be a lesson in design, and an avoidance of dumb holes.

Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

At a course with a projected Design SSA according to Chuck's chart of 47.8, a verified SSA of 46.2 should then have the same "True Par" as a course with a projected Design SSA of 58.2 and a verified SSA of 56,7, Paul and Pete?

That is rubbish. It is simply a continuation of the "head in the sand" rulebook par that has made disc golf par a total joke for 25 years.

Please answer this: Is the goal of creating a PDGA Par Standard to create a Par that provides a uniform standard across all courses to gauge expert play?

I suspect by the logic you are promoting that it is not. That this continued abstract nonsense of unquanitfied and unqualified throws to the green by an unquantified and unqualified player, then throw an unquanitified and unqualified number of putts on top and we get this miraculous "ONE SIZE FITS ALL" par.

What you describe is of no more value than saying "everything is par 3".

You are, in my opinion, way over engineering something for which we already have the tools to get the job done.

I don't know what skill you guys play at but as a 970 player I can tell you without hesitation that many courses do in fact, feel and competitive reality have Par 2s, where a 3 is a Bogie (no if, ands or buts). And courses filled with these types of holes need to be differentiated from the ones that do not and in a manner that is standardized and uniformly applicable.

Your solution fails to take this crucial aspect of par into account, and that is why it is predestined to fail (if the goal is as stated above; if it is not then we are shouting in opposite directions).

Please answer this: Is the goal of creating a PDGA Par Standard to create a Par that provides a uniform standard across all courses to gauge expert play?



No.

Go back and read my first post. Par is a design concept.


What you describe is of no more value than saying "everything is par 3".



To you. Sorry you don't understand it enough to see the value.


if the goal is as stated above; if it is not then we are shouting in opposite directions).



More than one person has said that you're going for something completely different. Shouting in opposite directions, as you say. I totally agree, except that I'm not shouting.

The rule book Par is fine. And nearly everyone who cares AND understands it agrees. Sure, it would be nice if the PDGA "standardized" it, if the PDGA pushed it, if the PDGA provided aids, if people understood it, and if people used it. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

At a course with a projected Design SSA according to Chuck's chart of 47.8, a verified SSA of 46.2 should then have the same "True Par" as a course with a projected Design SSA of 58.2 and a verified SSA of 56,7, Paul and Pete?



What? Explain.

By the way, the rest of your post, Nick, is just you arguing against your own moronic straw man. Have fun with that, but when you get back to writing responses to our specific comments, I'll appreciate reading them.

You guys have way too much time on your hands. Can't you guys get to some kind of common ground here?

I vote to keep it simple stupid (kiss). Or no one will use it, and that is what we want and why we are talking about this, right? So people will use what is offered. What good is a tool if you can't figure out how to use it? It just gathers dust and makes a good doorstop, that's what. :)

I'll just keep playing everything as Par 3 until we come up with a REAL standard for par. Atleast playing all 3's helps ease keeping score which is one more thing it does better then more of the same meaningless pars.

( "More of the same" I cannot beleive you guys made me go there :) )

Can't you guys get to some kind of common ground here?



You know, for a moment there, Dan, I thought we were on common ground. Pete wrote a post that produced a suggestion from Chuck that matched up with what Nick wanted: a course par that reflects course SSA. I thought it was interesting. I'm not sure why Nick is so up in arms right now.

The rule book Par is fine. And nearly everyone who cares AND understands it agrees. Sure, it would be nice if the PDGA "standardized" it, if the PDGA pushed it, if the PDGA provided aids, if people understood it, and if people used it. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.



Terrific, and not to be rude, then kindly go back from whence you came and let the rest of us come up with something better than "Everything is Par 3".

...not to be rude, then kindly go back from whence you came and let the rest of us come up with something better than "Everything is Par 3".



But that was rude of you, Nick. Pete just provided a very interesting insight into how course par could be matched with course SSA, prompting Chuck to come up with a throw+1.7 rule for establishing design par. I think the proper response is to congratulate Pete and Chuck on some good thinking, not to insult one of them and tell him to go away. Sheesh!

The problem is that no solutions will be made in this message board. It is just not feasible to fully discuss all the issues through this medium. Solutions to problems of this complexity must be around a table with a chalkboard and a computer. 8-10 hours later, you might have something meaningful to the majority. (K.I.S.S)

Paul, you are continuiously resorting to bashing Nick which has you jumping all over the place. Nick gets a rise out of people, it's just his personality. Keep your eye on the ball ;)

I am on board with an effort to standardize Par. I am not an expert by any means but I do have what i thnk is a very good understanding of both course design and SSA/Ratings (I have been hopelessly addicted to ratings since they officially became a part of DG).

What prompted me to get into this discussion in the first place was that Nick posted a chart that looked almost exactly like what I had been working on for a long time. I have been over this in every which way for a long time and I have not found a better way. Not to say there isnt a better way, but at the moment I have not seen anthing else that is as good or better.

One issue that you had was the constant back and forth nature of SSA. Well, I dont see this as the problem that you make it out to be. Yes the SSA will fluctuate, and if a hole is on the cusp then yes it will dip below and then back above, but that is not a problem. That just shows that par is not always going to be exact. There is no reason to change the sign or the color everytime there is a fluctation. What i would suggest is that it would be considered for change if it keeps fluctating to one side more often over time. Now if that change causes a Par 2 then, imo, that course now has a hole that does not provide the appropriate challenge for that skill level. That hole needs to be tweaked to bring it back up to that level or, since the course obviously is now not COMPLETLY appropriate for that level then it needs to be dropped in color designation. We play in whole numbers, SSA is in decimals, par will NOT match SSA. SSA equals what an experts average is on a hole. Par is what an expert is expected to shoot on a hole. We use SSA/ratings in DG so it only makes sence that we continue that trend and set Pars according to what we as disc golfers use as a measuring stick.

You are right of course Dan. Though some good stuff has come up here.

Paul,

As the mediator perhaps you would be kind enough to review, without bias, what has been covered.

Pete,

Sorry for losing it on you. I appreciate all of your insight and input, even if I have fundamental differences with them. I hope that we can come to a solution that satisfies both of our concerns, and you are entirely right that it is not worth losing sleep over.

Chuck,

Has the Design Group you work with come up with a more complete set of guidelines for Setting Pars yet? If not are you working on it? I plan to press on with providing major courses in our region with hole by hole and course SSAs for their long courses. Hopefully this will be a useful tool for whatever form a PDGA Standard Par might eventually take.

If any of you are interested in continuing this discussion shoot me an email (that has always seemed to be a natural progression after a couple cycles on the ol' bored mess).

Perhaps we could set a time to create a room in the Chat area to see if we can come to concensus on this.

Best Regards,
Nick

Paul, you are continuiously resorting to bashing Nick which has you jumping all over the place. Nick gets a rise out of people, it's just his personality. Keep your eye on the ball ;)



Am I bashing Nick? I'll try to stop doing that. (But it's fun!)

As far as jumping around all over the place, I think when someone reads I find an idea interesting, they think I'm now supporting it. No, I just find it interesting. When something helps me to understand something I didn't understand before, that's interesting to me, and I might want to hear more about it. But don't assume from that that I've just jumped ships and left past comments behind. I'll try to sum up where I think proposals now stand, as Nick is asking me to do in his most recent post.

Nick, here are some of the views that have been expressed:

1) course par matches course SSA
2) no par-2s
3) hole par matches hole SSA
4) hole par can also equal throw+2 rule
5) throw+1.7 would be more accurate for hole par
6) designers may have other ideas on par
7) let's just say everything is par 3
8) I keep bashing Nick

What I wonder is if we're really close to steering ourselves into a solution here.

Is this the par standard: for a given skill level, set your course par about 5-to-6 throws above SSA and hole pars at par-3, par-4, or par-5. A hole difficulty chart and Chuck's SSA predictor tool can be provided to help.

This might do what Chuck and Nick want, which is to make par a function of SSA. Helps with 1), 2) and 3).

This might also do what Pete and many designers want, which is to establish par based on the throw+2 rule. Helps with 4) and 5).

This might even do what I want, which is to keep SSA and par separate so that people don't feel compelled to run out and change par whenever SSA changes if they don't want to. Helps with 6).

7) is accomplished by designers and players going their own way, which we're always free to do.

And 8) is just plain wrong. Mea culpa.

Paul,

Thanks for the review. I think that you are overemphasizing my desire to have True Par match SSA exactly. That is not what I am advocating. More I am saying that where SSA is known, that is should be a tool to verify and adjust Design Par (which I suspect is heavily influenced by PDGA Player Ratings and its standards, SSA, anyway).

The most important thing, in my view, is that we have a standard method, endorsed by the PDGA, the Design Committee, and me ( :D) that shows folks interested in getting their courses par in line with a worldwide standard exactly how to go about it. Step by step and with a support group willing and eager to advise when needed.

Getting to that point, is just the beginning really of this process; certainly discussion and adjustments will continue to be necessary, but we will at least move from this very apparent chaos to something heading in the direction of order. Don't you think?

Regards,
Nick

Did anyone see the scores for the USDGC?

Chris Spraque shot 1022, 1023, 1023, 1014 and this is PAR?

Something seems wrong here! +15 to +16 for the tournament avg. around 1000 per round.

Do you think par of 68 is a little low? More like 72?

Harold was conservative on setting par based on past data and he's also averse to calling holes par 6s.

Holes 12 and 13 were averaging near par 7 this year! Since these holes are intended to play as par fives, I would think that these statistics would give credence to the idea of their design being throttled back next year.

I bet there were a few players wanting to "throttle" something or someone on those holes. :D

By the way, hole 1 at Nockamixon has an SSA of 5.8 making it a Par 6 in some folks books (including mine).

I see no compunction to limit par to 3, 4, and 5 when clearly and factually experts DO NOT average 3, 4 or 5 on these holes. Par 2, 6 and 7 is a standard where disc golf could differentiate itself from ball golf while remaining even truer to the game of �golf� itself than ball golf does.

By the way, hole 1 at Nockamixon has an SSA of 5.8 making it a Par 6 in some folks books (including mine)


Are these hole par statistics available somewhere for others to look at, as well?

Wow. Climo's first round of 56 was 6 shots ahead of the next score? And he only got a 1079 rating for that?

Found par data in USDGC thread. (Par data... Homer-style tongue-loll...)

So that has got to be a Gold course, even if holes 1, 3, 6 and 7 have averages around 2.7, right? (Still well above 2.5.)

Interesting about Nick's point above giving a rationale for not just par-6s and par-7s, but also par-2s.

Also interesting that the concerns people posted with par on that course were that the pars were set too low, not too high.

Wow. Climo's first round of 56 was 6 shots ahead of the next score? And he only got a 1079 rating for that?



Paul,

Go to the ratings pages here and check out the info on "Compression Factors".

Each stroke is worth roughly half of what they are on courses with SSAs around 53, where they are worth 1 stroke per 10 points. So on a course with and SSA of 70 each stroke is worth about 5 ratings points each (or even less possibly). It has to do with the value of each stroke to the total score being less when more strokes are expected on courses with higher SSAs.

Wow. Climo's first round of 56 was 6 shots ahead of the next score? And he only got a 1079 rating for that?



Paul,

Go to the ratings pages here and check out the info on "Compression Factors".

Each stroke is worth roughly half of what they are on courses with SSAs around 53, where they are worth 1 stroke per 10 points. So on a course with and SSA of 70 each stroke is worth about 5 ratings points each (or even less possibly). It has to do with the value of each stroke to the total score being less when more strokes are expected on courses with higher SSAs.



I understand the math, but it doesn't mesh with my sense of the accomplishment. I just think if someone shoots 6 strokes ahead of the rest of the field, and the field is full of people rated higher than 1000, then that's far better than the 1079 rating seems to indicate. (Not to say 1079 is not great, but I've seen 1090 ratings posted before).

I believe 1079 might be the highest rated round ever for courses over SSA 60. Rodney posted that list a while back, perhaps even on this thread or maybe it's the one on Highest Rated Rounds in the Courses topic.

The easiest way to see why throws should worth half what they are at SSA 70 vs SSA 50 is to first subtract 30 throws from each number which is the constant for throws "Around the Green." That leaves 40 vs 20 fairway throws. If each throw better than 20 is worth 10 points for the SSA 50 then they can only be worth 5 points for the SSA 70 course. Or another way to say it is it takes 2 throws on the SSA 70 course to be 5% better but only 1 shot to be 5% better on the SSA 50 course once you take away the 'fixed' number of throws that will occur on both courses.

on hole one, 5 is the most common score for pros, making it a par 5. the 5.8 is data from only one sparsely attended AMMO event. i have no doubt that 5 is the most common score on this hole for the pros that i know and play with. there are definitely more bogeys than birdies.

on hole one, 5 is the most common score for pros, making it a par 5. the 5.8 is data from only one sparsely attended AMMO event. i have no doubt that 5 is the most common score on this hole for the pros that i know and play with. there are definitely more bogeys than birdies.



Wow! This really feeds into the idea that SSA and par are truly separate entities. As shown above, par for a course may be seen differently by people who play the course regularly and don't have their SSAs tabulated from those who only show up for the occasional tournament but do have their scores factored into SSA.

The easiest way to see why throws should worth half what they are at SSA 70 vs SSA 50 is to first subtract 30 throws from each number which is the constant for throws "Around the Green." That leaves 40 vs 20 fairway throws. If each throw better than 20 is worth 10 points for the SSA 50 then they can only be worth 5 points for the SSA 70 course. Or another way to say it is it takes 2 throws on the SSA 70 course to be 5% better but only 1 shot to be 5% better on the SSA 50 course once you take away the 'fixed' number of throws that will occur on both courses.


Right. And all that makes sense if you have an even, statistical spread of scores. Then every shot up or down is a rating adjustment along the same linear slope (every 2 shots is 5% better on an SSA 70 course).

But when someone separates himself from the pack, it's not an even, statistical spread anymore, so the rating shouldn't be calculated along a linear slope. Because statistically, an extra shot away from the pack is not the same linear increase in score. The slope should be going up with every additional shot that the leader makes away from everyone else.

So for an SSA 70 course, the first shot away would be 2.5% higher, but the next shot might be 3.5% higher. And the next? 5% higher? 7% higher after that? 10% higher after that? I'm sure somebody could work out the equation to accurately reflect the statistical effect of shooting 6 shots above the second place score in a single round. (I wish I could open the Excel spreadsheet myself to take a look, but it appears to be password-protected.)

The SSA is not based on who was there it is based on all disc golfers everywhere. The only way it could be inaccurate, even within a single event is if EVERY SINGLE PLAYER INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION SHOT SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE OR BETTER AT THE SAME EVENT IN THE SAME ROUNDS. That is statistically next to impossible.

SSA is not the average of who was there that day. If it were, then the SSA for hole one that day would have been 7.5 or something.

Even using Chucks chart I'd be willing to guess that that hole would have a design par greater than 5.

And that is not a bad thing, unless you are ball golf par centric in your thinking and refuse to accept what expert disc golfers actually average on your holes...

More data can't hurt, but I doubt it will ever bring the SSA of hole 1 below 5.5, unless about 200 trees suddenly fall over and the rocks dig themselves down into the earth leaving smooth unhindered run ups on your first and second fairway tee shots...

As a 970 player I would think that in the 6 or 7 times I've played it I would have at least sniffed a 4 if it was in fact a(Design, Course Pro, or Actual) Par 5. I don't even know if I have ever 5ed it. 6s? Oh yeah, a couple 7s? Oh yeah. A 4? Not even close yet.

What this hole is, in my opinion, is an excellent "Disc Golf" hole with a par of 6. Scoring a 4 on this hole is an Eagle, a 5 is a Birdie, 6 a par and 7 a Single Bogie (a 3 would be a double eagle). Furthermore, I have rarely (if ever) seen a disc golf hole where eagles are even possible (other than over 100 foot putts), so this is quite an accomplishment in my opinion, and not something to turn a blind eye to just because you have "ball golf par of the brain".

Golf is bigger than "ball" or "disc" it is anything where you look at your buddy and say, I bet I can get this pine cone, by kicking it, over to that tree in fewer kicks than you can. We have attached symbols to different concepts, like par, bogie, birdie,etc but none of those outer symbols or concepts can touch what the game of "Golf" is really about. Nor should they try to...

The implication is that a round rating should reflect the probability of that score being shot. That would add mathematical complexity to the process that wouldn't be worth the effort. To follow that line, the probability of any score would have to have an absolute reference to the course rating and also to the rating of the player shooting it. A score of 56 would be rated differently for players with different ratings. That would be a nightmare to calculate and also explain, even more than what has to be done now.

There's little practical benefit because to calculate a player's updated rating from round ratings done probabilistically, we would work backwards and multiply each number by its probability in relation to the player's rating. We 'should' get the same rating as we do now but I would hate to build the tables and process the math to get there, especially since we don't really have enough data on most players to know what the distribution curves look like for the 'typical' player at different times in their disc golf learning/declining curves.

The implication is that a round rating should reflect the probability of that score being shot. That would add mathematical complexity to the process that wouldn't be worth the effort.


We're in agreement there. I'm a big proponent of "good enough."

But it does fly in the face of others using SSA as an absolutely accurate standard. We shouldn't hold SSA up as the ultimate ideal, only to find out later it's not ideal to begin with, but a compromise that simplifies the math.

I think if we keep that in mind, then we can use SSA for what it is, a great feedback tool for designers and players. More than that, we'll push things too far, and to justify our reasoning for using SSA as an ideal, we'll force all that complicated math to happen. Too much work for too little gain, as you say.

Even using Chucks chart I'd be willing to guess that that hole would have a design par greater than 5.


I think dscmn's only point was that he and his buddies see that hole as a true par 5, regardless of what the tournament stats said. I think there ought to be room for that perception to exist in the face of stats that say otherwise. That's why I think his viewpoint bolsters the argument that SSA and par are separate entities.

The implication is that a round rating should reflect the probability of that score being shot. That would add mathematical complexity to the process that wouldn't be worth the effort.


We're in agreement there. I'm a big proponent of "good enough."

But it does fly in the face of others using SSA as an absolutely accurate standard. We shouldn't hold SSA up as the ultimate ideal, only to find out later it's not ideal to begin with, but a compromise that simplifies the math.

I think if we keep that in mind, then we can use SSA for what it is, a great feedback tool for designers and players. More than that, we'll push things too far, and to justify our reasoning for using SSA as an ideal, we'll force all that complicated math to happen. Too much work for too little gain, as you say.



I wish experience substantiated what you just said, unfortunately I have never found a time where a persons score was not put in (sometimes painfully) accurate perspective by Ratings.

The folks that seem to have the most problem with it are the very top players who feel that they are getting shorted, that they should have the same rating as Barry or Ken. A good golfer, and I'm guessing at this :D:(, should never think about their rating or what rating they are shooting while they are playing, nor afterward. It would only really be useful as a long term tool. And this is not to downplay it's accuracy, it's to put it in perspective with what "golf" is really about, not what we try to rationalize "onto" the game of golf.

But it does fly in the face of others using SSA as an absolutely accurate standard. We shouldn't hold SSA up as the ultimate ideal, only to find out later it's not ideal to begin with, but a compromise that simplifies the math.



It's not a compromise that simplifies the math. The SSA would/should be the same even if mathematical complexity were added that included probabilistic values for determining a round rating. All of those probabilistic ratings would have to be reverse processed to get back to the same SSA if it were done properly.

Even using Chucks chart I'd be willing to guess that that hole would have a design par greater than 5.


I think dscmn's only point was that he and his buddies see that hole as a true par 5, regardless of what the tournament stats said. I think there ought to be room for that perception to exist in the face of stats that say otherwise. That's why I think his viewpoint bolsters the argument that SSA and par are separate entities.



What a shock? ;)

The value of a par that does not accurately reflect the average score of the stipulated skill level it is supposed to represent is useless; not only in and of itself, but in its relation to other holes on the course and also holes on course everywhere else.

In other words, we might as well just make everything Par 3s to make math easier... :p

With a properly applied chainsaw, I could get that Gold scoring average below 5.5 on that hole...

With a properly applied chainsaw, I could get that Gold scoring average below 5.5 on that hole...



Not by yourself you couldn't... :D;)

Chuck, you forget, I know you. You are no Paul Bunyan.

The value of a par that does not accurately reflect the average score of the stipulated skill level it is supposed to represent is useless; not only in and of itself, but in its relation to other holes on the course and also holes on course everywhere else.


I think that your perception ought to be factored in, as well. That's why I proposed that the PDGA should recommend that par for a course is about 5-to-6 throws above SSA. Although you have yet to respond to that proposal, that would make par a function of SSA as you wish.

But this separation also allows for the throw+2 rule, which as Pete pointed out is used by others and results essentially in the same par by another method. People can use throw+2, then check against the PDGA-recommended SSA+5.4 to see if they're on track.

The separation of SSA and par values also allows for perceptions such as dscmn just described. If SSA and par are separately posted, then it may take some time before SSA takes into account the scores of local players already familiar with the course. So SSA may only later drift down to 5 or 6 shots under course par. In the meantime, the par assignment is a separate entity, and SSA is posted as it gets updated.

Really, recommending that course par be set around SSA + 5.4 seems like an all-around solution to this whole discussion.


In other words, we might as well just make everything Par 3s to make math easier... :p



I'm absolutely not in favor of that -- you said that just rile me up, didn't you? That's what I hate, when a designer calls something par-4, when even stats agree it's par-4, and then in tournament results, you see par-3s being used. Awful. The worst problem of all when it comes to par, and one that needs fixing first.

With a properly applied chainsaw, I could get that Gold scoring average below 5.5 on that hole...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not by yourself you couldn't...

Chuck, you forget, I know you. You are no Paul Bunyan.




Au contraire

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/chainsawcharlie.jpg

Is that cleavage I see!?! http://www.madisc.org/happy/062802puke_prv.gif

I didn't think you could see the rear view reflection /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

LOL!

ok, the more I think about this I realize there is an easier way to do set hole by hole pars. Why could we not collect hole by hole scores from Open division results at tournaments and use the MODE as the holes par. No calculations, just data collection and counting. We could say that the par will not be set until there are 100 or 200 open player scores on that hole. This gives a real and verifiable whole number (not a rounded decimal) and makes the work much easier.

So par 2s, par 6s and par 7s would be OK then? That's what you would get using the Mode although 6s and 7s would be rare.

A challenge would be that there would be no way of making sure that the test group were of the exact same skill level at each course. The average skill level at the USDGC would make Rock Hill look the same as Thursday tags at Sedgley Woods as far as median par is concerned.

You have to have a constant standard. PDGA Ratings provides such a standard. Without some standard we might as well all just come up with our own individual idea of par...

Kinda like we have right now... :o

Why could we not collect hole by hole scores from Open division results at tournaments and use the MODE as the holes par. No calculations, just data collection and counting. We could say that the par will not be set until there are 100 or 200 open player scores on that hole. This gives a real and verifiable whole number (not a rounded decimal) and makes the work much easier.


Interesting. I bet this will put overall course par in the same ballpark as SSA+5 and throw+2, as well. Would you keep the 100 or 200 open players within a specific skill range, or would you assume with that number you should already have a good indication of the typical level of player that throws on that course?

You have to have a constant standard. PDGA Ratings provides such a standard.


SSA? You think that's a constant, that it never varies?


Without some standard we might as well all just come up with our own individual idea of par...


Don't you mean, without "your" standard? 'Cause you seem to hate everyone else's standard. You disregard other people's ideas, and then ask why doesn't anyone support a standard?

I'll give you an answer. Many of us do support a standard. More of us do than don't, in fact. Some of us just don't support yours. Not fully, at least. We'd like to see some small adjustments, but you don't seem open even to that.

So much of the problem with accepting your standard is with the way you keep making the case. Where there are obvious flaws in your proposal, you don't accept any tweaks to fix them. Where you see flaws in others' proposals, you don't propose any tweaks of your own to fix them, either. It's just wholesale acceptance or rejection with you. If I want to fix a part of your proposal, you see me as against the whole thing. If you don't like a part of my proposal, then you either don't respond to it at all, or you just say "Wrong!" and ask why oh why can't we have a proposal, might as well go back to stone tools, etc.

This a bad flaw you have, Nick, far worse than any proposal you or I have ever made, and one that's destined to drive people away from PDGA if you keep pushing your ideas in this manner. Of course, you can see this criticism as a complete rejection of you, but it's not intended in that manner. You bring a lot of value to these discussions. But you have this flaw, and you desperately need to fix it, because frankly, if you're interested in growing the PDGA, then the first thing you should fix are not the rules or their interpretation, but the obvious weaknesses in your own character.

And now I'm off to take my own advice...

You have to have a constant standard. PDGA Ratings provides such a standard.


SSA? You think that's a constant, that it never varies?

<font color="blue"> No, that is not the standard I am talking about Paul. I am talking about a PDGA Scratch Golfer, a hypothetical player with the exact PDGA Player Rating of 1000, based on the actual PDGA Player Ratings of all real players during that round. That is the constant that can be achieved at every course everywhere PDGA Player Ratings are available. (This is a PDGA topic is it not?)</font>


Without some standard we might as well all just come up with our own individual idea of par...


Don't you mean, without "your" standard? 'Cause you seem to hate everyone else's standard. You disregard other people's ideas, and then ask why doesn't anyone support a standard?

<font color="blue"> I suppose I can understand why you see it that way, me having shot down some of your ideas, but the truth is that I have been involved in �give&take� on this for years and have constantly adjusted my ideas to incorporate the excellent ideas of others. That I did not embrace your ideas only means that they did not meet �my criteria of excellence�. Now would you rather I say they did when they do not?</font>

I'll give you an answer. Many of us do support a standard. More of us do than don't, in fact. Some of us just don't support yours. Not fully, at least. We'd like to see some small adjustments, but you don't seem open even to that.

<font color="blue">That is fine, I don�t ask that everyone agree with me, but if you are going to want me to understand your idea, let alone endorse it, then please allow me the courtesy of judging it for myself on it�s own merits before launching into personal attacks on me that get us nowhere.

Again, I am open to adjustments and have already made many (mainly based on the better ideas of others), but it is not unreasonable to expect that I make adjustments based on my own judgment is it?</font>

So much of the problem with accepting your standard is with the way you keep making the case. Where there are obvious flaws in your proposal, you don't accept any tweaks to fix them. <font color="blue"> Please provide an example. Saying it does not necessarily make it so�</font> Where you see flaws in others' proposals, you don't propose any tweaks of your own to fix them, either. <font color="blue"> Paul, that is simply untrue. The entire concept of �Design Par� was alien to me as a tool for setting par before Chuck and others informed me of its relation to a standard I am confident in, so I now whole-heartedly embrace it. �Judgmental Par�, so long as it is applied by an experienced and knowledgeable course pro made no sense at all to me, until Kevin Labowski was able to demonstrate that it was possible and had a very strong correlation to a standard I am confident in, now I whole-heartedly embrace it. Even �World Class Par� and �Scratch Score Average� were questionable to me prior to Chuck and others showing me that it has significant value in setting the standard by which I now judge all other forms of �Par�. </font>It's just wholesale acceptance or rejection with you. If I want to fix a part of your proposal, you see me as against the whole thing. If you don't like a part of my proposal, then you either don't respond to it at all, or you just say "Wrong!" and ask why oh why can't we have a proposal, might as well go back to stone tools, etc. <font color="blue"> I suspect that you are confusing this with the �Above 2 Meters� thread. I am ready willing and able to work with you and any other interested party on solving this aspect of disc golf standards.</font>

This a bad flaw you have, Nick, far worse than any proposal you or I have ever made, and one that's destined to drive people away from PDGA if you keep pushing your ideas in this manner. Of course, you can see this criticism as a complete rejection of you, but it's not intended in that manner. You bring a lot of value to these discussions. But you have this flaw, and you desperately need to fix it, because frankly, if you're interested in growing the PDGA, then the first thing you should fix are not the rules or their interpretation, but the obvious weaknesses in your own character.

And now I'm off to take my own advice...



Paul, I don�t know what to say to that. I�m not sure what it has to do with the excellence of your ideas as relate to this topic. It is apparent that I have somehow slighted you here on this bored mess, and that you have taken something personally, I did not intend for you to. It is pretty easy to do here. If I did, I completely and unreservedly apologize for it, and will do my very best not to do so again.

I hope that we can continue this important discussion, if not here, then shoot me a PM or email. If it was you who were the one to raise the possible need to have a buffer factor, so to speak, between Scratch Score Standard, Design Par and Course Pro Par, I am intrigued and said so, but I want to see how it increases consistency across holes and even courses. The reason behind any such factor has to be more than preventative, it needs to fit into the process and make sense at every level (including statistical trends of trans-course SSAs).

I am the final judge of what �I� think is a �good� or �excellent� idea, for that I am unapologetic. If you feel strongly enough about your good or excellent ideas then I challenge you to make them clear to the rest of us. I can not, and should not, do it for you.

The issue for me is the topic at hand. I am (obviously) no politician, but I am not unreasonable or intentionally hurtful. If I say something that pssss you off then PM me and let me know, at worst we�ll agree to disagree at best we�ll see eye to eye.

I, on my own, am not likely to have any significant impact on the PDGA or people in general's opinion about the PDGA, even though you or I might like to think so. And what is said and done on this board is of little significance when compared to even the running of the smallest of small town minis out there. I know that. We are just discussing here, so take it easy, enjoy, and by all means make yourself clear.

Let's all have a little mercy on one another too.

A challenge would be that there would be no way of making sure that the test group were of the exact same skill level at each course. The average skill level at the USDGC would make Rock Hill look the same as Thursday tags at Sedgley Woods as far as median par is concerned.

You have to have a constant standard. PDGA Ratings provides such a standard. Without some standard we might as well all just come up with our own individual idea of par...

Kinda like we have right now... :o



OK, so we take those 100 or 200 scores from only people in the open division with a 975+ rating. That's a pretty good level for an average professional disc golfer. I would consider anyone able to cash in a professional sanctioned tournament an "expert disc golfer".

A challenge would be that there would be no way of making sure that the test group were of the exact same skill level at each course. The average skill level at the USDGC would make Rock Hill look the same as Thursday tags at Sedgley Woods as far as median par is concerned.

You have to have a constant standard. PDGA Ratings provides such a standard. Without some standard we might as well all just come up with our own individual idea of par...

Kinda like we have right now... :o



OK, so we take those 100 or 200 scores from only people in the open division with a 975+ rating. That's a pretty good level for an average professional disc golfer. I would consider anyone able to cash in a professional sanctioned tournament an "expert disc golfer".



Your standard is still variable, by how many players you have that are over 975 and to what degree they each are over 975.

Moreover, your standard STILL is dependent on PDGA Player Ratings, so why not use the system already worked out to provide an already statistically validated Scratch Score Average?

Moreover, your standard STILL is dependent on PDGA Player Ratings, so why not use the system already worked out to provide an already statistically validated Scratch Score Average?



Still goes right back to the old kISS philosophy. We are taking actual scores from people considered to be professionals and thus "experts". So what if it's a range of players? Again I say 1000 rated golf is not our scratch, but our elite! There are only 84 people on the face of the planet with 1000 or higher ratings (yes I just went and counted)

Even the PGA tour takes the top 125 money winers, plus anyone who has won atournament in the last 2 years, plus the top 15 money winners from the Nike tour (or whatever they are calling it this year) plus the top 20 from Q school. Their Pros are expected to shoot anywhere up to -8 in a given round, why shouldn't we expect our pros to shoot under a bit?

We ALL consider a 1000 rated round to be a GREAT round! Why should 1000 rated golf only be even par?

We ALL consider a 1000 rated round to be a GREAT round! Why should 1000 rated golf only be even par?




A 1000 is the average, not minimum. There are 471 players with ratings of 975+ and the group's average rating is 989. Par in BG is what their 0 handicap scratch golfers are expected to shoot.

We ALL consider a 1000 rated round to be a GREAT round! Why should 1000 rated golf only be even par?




A 1000 is the average, not minimum. There are 471 players with ratings of 975+ and the group's average rating is 989. Par in BG is what their 0 handicap scratch golfers are expected to shoot.



Exactly my point. The PGA tour guys and even the Buy.com tour guys have negative handicaps.

Our 975+ guys would be equal to scratch golf IMHO

Our 975+ guys would be equal to scratch golf IMHO



And that's why our Gold standard for course design and par is based on 975+ rated players. 1000 rating is our defined scratch reference and SSA basis. The primary problem with only considering the Mode for par is that you'll get even more Par 2 holes that way. Some percentage of holes with SSAs in the 2.5-2.7 range and OB trouble will have a Mode of 2 but should probably be set as par 3s. Hole 17 at USDGC had a scoring average over 3 but more 2s on it than any other score.

those 12's really tend to elevate the averages don't they?

Y'all are making this way too complicated. As Pete wisely pointed out long ago all you really need to determine par is each hole's length, it's elevation differential, and it's foliage factor (1-9). Then you need a chart with the par for each skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red) and the length of par for each of the 9 foliage ratings. After you have the elevation adjusted "effective length" for each skill level you just go to the row with the proper foliage rating and voila, you have par.

Coincidentally I just happen to have that chart, which I posted long ago without explanation. I now also have an Excel spreadsheet which automates the process. You just input the length, elevation differential, and foliage factor for each hole and the par is determined. In my tests so far it seems to work accurately. It only sometimes needs adjustments for effective lengths at the borderline between two pars.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Gold</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>1000 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><325</td><td>325-749</td><td>750-1099</td><td>>1100
</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sparse</td><td><290</td><td>290-649</td><td>650-949</td><td>>950
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating >964</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><260</td><td>260-599</td><td>600-949</td><td>950-1300
</td></tr><tr><td>4. Stands</td><td><250</td><td>250-574</td><td>575-874</td><td>875-1150
</td></tr><tr><td>5. Average</td><td><240</td><td>240-539</td><td>540-849</td><td>850-1120
</td></tr><tr><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><230</td><td>230-509</td><td>510-774</td><td>775-1050
</td></tr><tr><td>7. Corridor</td><td><225</td><td>225-499</td><td>500-724</td><td>725-1000
</td></tr><tr><td>8. Tighter</td><td><210</td><td>210-474</td><td>475-709</td><td>710-950
</td></tr><tr><td>9. Pinball</td><td><200</td><td>200-424</td><td>425-674</td><td>675-925
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>950 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><225</td><td>225-574</td><td>575-949</td><td>950-1300
</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sparse</td><td><200</td><td>200-509</td><td>510-824</td><td>825-1150
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating 924-963</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><190</td><td>190-489</td><td>490-799</td><td>800-1050
</td></tr><tr><td>4. Stands</td><td><175</td><td>175-449</td><td>450-724</td><td>725-980
</td></tr><tr><td>5. Average</td><td><175</td><td>175-439</td><td>440-674</td><td>675-930
</td></tr><tr><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><160</td><td>160-424</td><td>425-649</td><td>650-900
</td></tr><tr><td>7. Corridor</td><td><160</td><td>160-399</td><td>400-624</td><td>625-875
</td></tr><tr><td>8. Tighter</td><td><150</td><td>150-374</td><td>375-599</td><td>600-825
</td></tr><tr><td>9. Pinball</td><td><140</td><td>140-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-800
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>900 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><150</td><td>150-474</td><td>475-774</td><td>775-1080
</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sparse</td><td><140</td><td>140-424</td><td>425-724</td><td>725-980
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating 874-923</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><130</td><td>125-409</td><td>410-699</td><td>700-925
</td></tr><tr><td>4. Stands</td><td><124</td><td>125-374</td><td>375-624</td><td>625-875
</td></tr><tr><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-599</td><td>600-840
</td></tr><tr><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-775
</td></tr><tr><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>125-324</td><td>325-549</td><td>550-750
</td></tr><tr><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>125-309</td><td>310-524</td><td>525-725
</td></tr><tr><td>9. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>125-299</td><td>300-474</td><td>475-710
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>850 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td>none</td><td>125-399</td><td>400-674</td><td>675-975
</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sparse</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-609</td><td>610-900
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating <874</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-579</td><td>580-825
</td></tr><tr><td>4. Stands</td><td>none</td><td>125-324</td><td>325-539</td><td>540-775
</td></tr><tr><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>125-299</td><td>300-524</td><td>525-725
</td></tr><tr><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>125-289</td><td>290-489</td><td>490-700
</td></tr><tr><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>125-259</td><td>260-474</td><td>475-670
</td></tr><tr><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>125-</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>9. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>125-</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This table comes from Chuck's table on the scores expected for various foliages at each skill level. I assume that table was derived from SSA data.

Y'all are making this way too complicated. As Pete wisely pointed out long ago all you really need to determine par is each hole's length, it's elevation differential, and it's foliage factor (1-9). Then you need a chart with the par for each skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red) and the length of par for each of the 9 foliage ratings. After you have the elevation adjusted "effective length" for each skill level you just go to the row with the proper foliage rating and voila, you have par.




I think you may be over simplifying it.

While I beleive that chart is an excellent tool it is still not enough.

What is Average foliage? Sparce? Pinball?

What about OB? Doesn't that factor in on par? And what is Average OB? Below Average OB? Above average OB?

Is throwing 500 feet in Nevada the same as S. Texas?

OB should not come into play in deciding par since par is a measure of error free play.

OBs and hazards can limit what you are able to do distance wise on a hole.

OB should not come into play in deciding par since par is a measure of error free play.



But not 'air' free play (see USDGC #12 & #13) :eek:

OB should not come into play in deciding par since par is a measure of error free play.



If it were, error free, then why does it take 2 putts to hole out. In my book, double putting is not error free, it sucks! ;)

I like SSA because it doesn't deal with hypothetical situations or ideas, it provides a number based on exactly what a quantifiable (1000 Rated Golfer) is expected to shoot.

Projected Pars, to be even close to that accuracy will very much need to include as many variables as possible.

i wanted to clear something up from before with regard to par and the first hole at nockamixon. at approximately 850 feet, the par 5 hole is a relatively easy 5 with 4 210 ft. shots and a 10 foot putt.

the fact that most players pull out drivers rather than mid-range discs or putters shouldn't impact the par of the hole. how many people do you think pulled out a putter for their tee shot during the tournament?

the average is the average and the par is the par.

It doesn't say 2 putts, but 2 close-in shots.

Define close-in. I'd say anything within 200' is close in if foilage is average or open, 120' for heavy, and maybe 80' for pinball.

i wanted to clear something up from before with regard to par and the first hole at nockamixon. at approximately 850 feet, the par 5 hole is a relatively easy 5 with 4 210 ft. shots and a 10 foot putt.

the fact that most players pull out drivers rather than mid-range discs or putters shouldn't impact the par of the hole. how many people do you think pulled out a putter for their tee shot during the tournament?

the average is the average and the par is the par.



And the SSA says an expert player would average 5.8 or more on this hole.

But as I have now said, I think your, as the course pro/designer, opinion has to be factored in and making it a par five does not throw off the design and ratings based pars that much. This would be a piece of Paul's buffer factor perhaps.

So long as you don't say it is a par 4 or 3 or 7 we are should be in the same chapter of the same book.

It doesn't say 2 putts, but 2 close-in shots.

Define close-in. I'd say anything within 200' is close in if foilage is average or open, 120' for heavy, and maybe 80' for pinball.



This is exactly where I do not see the value of Design Par and where Ratings Based Par gives you an exactness unattainable by other forms of par. If design par can even approach ratings par it is probably a pretty decent method. We should do some testing to see which Drive and Close Range distances are most accurate. No matter how well we define other obstacles as factors individual qualitative judgment will unavoidably cloud the result. Still, getting it as good as we can is a valuable tool for course designers and course pros lookng to improve their courses so let's nail these suckers down.

Chuck, did you already do this with your chart and now this fellow created a spreadsheet to do the math, have you seen it.

Regards,
Nick

However, if it's designed as four 210 ft shots you can't assume Gold level accuracy will put the average player 10 feet away. So, then you account for the standard 1.7 shots 'around the green' and voila! you get a scoring average of 5.7 which is just about the 5.8 measured so far. So the design from this standpoint was OK, but for a Par 6 hole.

However, if it's designed as four 210 ft shots you can't assume Gold level accuracy will put the average player 10 feet away. So, then you account for the standard 1.7 shots 'around the green' and voila! you get a scoring average of 5.7 which is just about the 5.8 measured so far. So the design from this standpoint was OK, but for a Par 6 hole.



Chuck, you are a real trouble maker aren't you... ;)

Chuck, did you already do this with your chart and now this fellow created a spreadsheet to do the math, have you seen it.




Lowe's spreadsheet is built working backwards from the scoring chart I posted before that was generated from our designer group's forecaster spreadsheet.

i'm not saying it's designed that way only, it's just A way to get a par. if one wants a birdie 4, he or she must risk some longer shots...apparently people aren't too successful with it thus far. and no, one can't say that a gold level player will be 10 feet away, he or she might be 2 feet or 4 feet away too.

I sent a request to him for a copy but have not recieved it, do you have a copy you could send me? Thanks.

Kevin,

Whether you call it a Par 6, and extremely hard Par 5 or a hole with an SSA of 5.8, the fact remains that thus far we can expect on average for it to take about 6 throws to complete the hole for a 1000 rated golfer.

Calling it a Par 5 is not informative as to what a PDGA defined "expert golfer" (a Ratings Scratch Golfer) is expected to shoot. You are a Course Designer that feels that it is a Par 5, I am a Course Designer that feels that it is a Par 6, Chuck is a Course Designer that feels that it is a Par 6, so how do we standardize a PDGA Par so that regardless of what folks think or what their design or "golf" philosophy is Par in disc golf can have meaning, real meaning, between not only holes on a single course, but on holes everywhere around the world?

Someone is saying that par is flawless play rather than expected average of an expert, that is ridiculous! If it were than not even Barry, Ken or Cam would ever shoot under.

I am willing and open to discussing the lowering of World Class Par standards to 990 or 950 or what ever we can ALL agree upon, but know this:

It will result in many many more par 6s and 7s around the world, either that or (if we refuse to accept the existance of Pars above 5 or below 3) posted hole and course pars being as useless and uninformative as they are right now.

Regards,
Nick

Wait, I didn't say it should be a Par 6. I was just doing the math to show it plays that way. I think it should be developed into a better Par 5 as they intended, by taking selected trees out so it has better defined routes and landing areas. But that's all part of learning from actual play. Several holes at Nockamixon are still works in progress, just as many wooded holes at Tyler have been improved along the way. I have several holes at Highbridge and other newly designed courses where scoring averages, observing play, and getting feedback from players helps improve the holes so they eventually play as intended.

Wait, I didn't say it should be a Par 6.



I didn't say that either. I said that it "is now" a Par 6. What Kevin or Brian do to make it play more like a Par 5 is not known, it is possible that as the tee pad, footing and area around the green improve it will play more like a Par 5, but that "intention" must be differentiated from the "reality". At least I think it should...

It's a Par 5 that currently scores like a Par 6, but it's still a 5 during development if that's their intent. If it's two years down the road and it still has an SSA over 5.5 then you could either call it a poorly labeled Par 5 or change it to a Par 6. I know it sounds like semantic gymnastics but that's the difference between design par and scoring average par.

It's a Par 5 that currently scores like a Par 6, but it's still a 5 during development if that's their intent. If it's two years down the road and it still has an SSA over 5.5 then you could either call it a poorly labeled Par 5 or change it to a Par 6. I know it sounds like semantic gymnastics but that's the difference between design par and scoring average par.



In my opinion, that is where design par fails and where scoring average par succeeds. Knowing that the scoring average is 5.8 and calling it a par 5, makes it a poorly labelled par 5 now too.

Intent (which basically is design par) is only valid when it is tested and verified by reality (which basically is scoring average par).

Intending to make a Par 5 hole does not make it so.

(Again, Chuck or Lowe, could you please send me a copy of the design par spreadsheets? Thanks.)

ok, you say it's playing as a 6 now...you are misusing the term "par" however. it is AVERAGING a 6 is a better more accurate way of wording it. let me reiterate too that getting a 5 on the hole has not been that difficult.

the 5.8 average on the hole tells me that people aren't playing the hole properly too. that average is a great tool you know...to judge your hole and SET your par.

People need to realize the difference between scoring average and par. The scoring average is just the hole average for a group of golfers. When constructing the Warwick course, we used Open and Pro Masters golfers' scores to determine scoring averages. Amateur divisions featured too many uncharacteristic scores (snowmans, triple circles, etc.) that needed to be thrown out. Ultimately, the scoring average should be close to par. After we felt we had sufficient data (usually several years!) and that the data was valid (appropriate player base, standard weather conditions, typical scoring with no wild swings) we actually adjusted hole design by moving tees, poleholes, or even widening the holes.

With regards to hole one at Nockamixon, to my knowledge, the scoring average of 5.8 is based on a limited amount of data (two or three tournaments over just a year) It was also taken from mostly local golfers; very few, if any, scores from players with ratings near or over 1000 were used to determine that scoring average. The hole is also heavily foliated with thick rough to the sides that punishes errant shots and results in high scores. As Kevin indicated, people absolutely play the hole improperly. They get way too agressive and go for distance over accuracy. As the hole naturally opens up through player use and as golfer skill increases, the scoring average should grow closer to par 5, which everyone plays the hole as anyway.

This is in direct contrast to the par 5 holes 12 and 13 at the Winthrop USDGC course. With the exception of a few state coordinators and at-large invitees, the outrageously high scoring averages on these holes are being made by the top disc golfers in the world. The argument can be made that these holes are also being played improperly and too aggressively, but the event has been contested for several years now by many of the same high caliber golfers with no reduction in scoring average. With the scoring averages vastly exceeding the intended pars of the holes, it should be blatantly obvious that design alterations are necessary on these holes.

Kevin,

The SSA of a hole or course is not simply the "Average". It is the exact average of a PDGA Scratch Golfer.

Consider this: If a hole has an SSA of 6.4 and the Course Pro says that hole is a Par 3, what would you as a 950+ golfer expect to shoot on it, what would be par for you? 3? And what possible good would it serve to say that it is a par 3 hole?

Again, in my opinion, Disc Golf Standard Par (which is not yet set), would be best if all 3 disciplines were involved in setting it: Design, Direct Expert Observation and Ratings Based.

The only common thread that can ensure uniformity and universal application of all three is the concept of PDGA Player Ratings "Scratch Golf". Without that common thread, design and observation par have no universal context what so ever. Each designer or course pro will have their own ideas, and even if they manage to herd the cats into agreement on the standard of what is an expert, what are obstacle factors, and are the main targetted skill levels, when each goes out to the course they revert to subjective guesses with no context from designer to designer.

I just noticed that the formatting of the Par/Length/Foliage chart I posted got messed up due to some blank cells. When I get some time I'll post a better version.

New Flash!!

This is from Nick on the USDGC thread:

This is an excellent point. Ron, deep down, on certain holes don't you know, without a doubt, that a 3 is really a bogie?

I'm not sure I agree that Par 2s shouldn't exist, I am sure that I agee that they do.



So Nick does at least admit that there are par 2s on existing courses.

He has always said that.

The real trick is to get a quote like that from say just one of the top 100 players. I know it's tough when it's almost impossible to shoot 'under' on a hole, even though I suspect many of us have heard players call out their score on some holes as, "Bogey three"

Nunbers dont lie.Take out the gimmicks and most holes would par out this is USDGC I am talking about.Ask most players what is the best hole out there they will say #5 it has everything risk and reward great design.It is sad that on the one hole we could see how far these guys can throw they pull out a midrange and take babysteps to the hole.As Jed would say WHEE :D....Par means something in golf all around the world.Golf has other types of golf like executive and put putt and you expect different.We tried to build golf and threw in some putt putt along the way. Everybody has thier vision as to where our sport should go follow the game we are playing GOLF the biggest sport in the world.CO OP will give us alot instead of more of the same.Will any family be able to buy a disc or rent one at Winthrope today?I do still think the course is one of the best park courses out there but it could be better.

NUMBERS :confused: :D:D;)

?

Here's a new and improved version of the table I use to figure out par. As I mentioned, when you know the hole length, elevation differential, and amount of foliage for each hole you can get a good idea of each hole's par. The lengths on the borderline of each number need to interpreted whether to go up or down.

<table border="1"><tr><td><font color="orange"> GOLD</td><td> </font> Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>1000 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><325</td><td>325-749</td><td>750-1099</td><td>>1100</td><td>none
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><290</td><td>290-649</td><td>650-949</td><td>950-1400</td><td>none
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating >964</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><260</td><td>260-599</td><td>600-949</td><td>950-1300</td><td>>1300
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td><250</td><td>250-574</td><td>575-874</td><td>875-1150</td><td>>1150
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td><240</td><td>240-539</td><td>540-849</td><td>850-1120</td><td>>1120
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><230</td><td>230-509</td><td>510-774</td><td>775-1050</td><td>>1050
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td><225</td><td>225-499</td><td>500-724</td><td>725-1000</td><td>>1000
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td><210</td><td>210-474</td><td>475-709</td><td>710-950</td><td>>950
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Pinball</td><td><200</td><td>200-424</td><td>425-674</td><td>675-925</td><td>>925
</td></tr><tr><td> <font color="blue">BLUE</td><td> </font> Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>950 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><225</td><td>225-574</td><td>575-949</td><td>950-1300</td><td>none
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><200</td><td>200-509</td><td>510-824</td><td>825-1150</td><td>>1150
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating 924-963</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><190</td><td>190-489</td><td>490-799</td><td>800-1050</td><td>>1050
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td><175</td><td>175-449</td><td>450-724</td><td>725-980</td><td>>980
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td><175</td><td>175-439</td><td>440-674</td><td>675-930</td><td>>930
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><160</td><td>160-424</td><td>425-649</td><td>650-900</td><td>>900
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td><160</td><td>160-399</td><td>400-624</td><td>625-875</td><td>>875
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td><150</td><td>150-374</td><td>375-599</td><td>600-825</td><td>>825
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Pinball</td><td><140</td><td>140-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-800</td><td>>800
</td></tr><tr><td>WHITE</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>900 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td><150</td><td>150-474</td><td>475-774</td><td>775-1080</td><td>>1080
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><140</td><td>140-424</td><td>425-724</td><td>725-980</td><td>>980
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating 874-923</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><130</td><td>125-409</td><td>410-699</td><td>700-925</td><td>>925
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td><124</td><td>125-374</td><td>375-624</td><td>625-875</td><td>>875
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-599</td><td>600-840</td><td>>840
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-775</td><td>>775
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>125-324</td><td>325-549</td><td>550-750</td><td>>750
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>125-309</td><td>310-524</td><td>525-725</td><td>>725
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>125-299</td><td>300-474</td><td>475-710</td><td>>710
</td></tr><tr><td> <font color="red"> RED</td><td> </font> Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>850 PR</td><td>1. None</td><td>none</td><td>125-399</td><td>400-674</td><td>675-975</td><td>>975
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-609</td><td>610-900</td><td>>900
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating <874</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-579</td><td>580-825</td><td>>825
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td>none</td><td>120-324</td><td>325-539</td><td>540-775</td><td>>775
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>115-299</td><td>300-524</td><td>525-725</td><td>>724
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>110-289</td><td>290-489</td><td>490-700</td><td>>700
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>105-259</td><td>260-474</td><td>475-670</td><td>>670
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>100-249</td><td>250-449</td><td>450-640</td><td>>640
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>95-234</td><td>235-424</td><td>425-590</td><td>>590
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I didnt' formulate any of this data myself. It was interpolated from data on the chart "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length" by the DG Course Design Group

Using your new table I constructed a spreadsheet that calculates par.

Nockamixon which has a calculated SSA of 64 has a par of 61 according to your table. Kevin eyed it up at 66. I think it is between 64 and 66.

If kevin is willing I'd like to send the calculator I created to him and he can fill it out himself and see if he gets any closer.

I think some provision might need to be made for footing, this has a big effect on play at Nockamixon, cutting way down on fairway distance.

Chuck, sorry if this is repeating yourself, but how does this table break down to drives to green and close range throws?

Chuck, sorry if this is repeating yourself, but how does this table break down to drives to green and close range throws?




It's SSA based. So, the shots around the green is set at 1.67 per hole.

A 700' hole (if wide open) is considered a Gold par-3?

One thing missing from the chart is lengths that should be avoided. For example, lengths in the wide open between 650'-825' should be avoided for Gold level players if you don't want to favor just power.

One thing missing from the chart is lengths that should be avoided.



That's a good point for future courses that are being designed. Pete also includes a gray area between par numbers, and that should be kept in mind. I use this chart to evaluate existing courses, so I'm mainly interested in what is the existing reality. As I mentioned before, though, lengths on the border between two par numbers may need to adjusted up or down at the discretion of the person using the chart. Sorry Nick, but there will always be some subjectivity.

One thing missing from the chart is lengths that should be avoided.



Granted.


For example, lengths in the wide open between 650'-825' should be avoided for Gold level players if you don't want to favor just power.



So a 649' hole is considered a good (though difficult) par-3?

750' - 825' should be avoided? To me that seems like a great distance for reasonable par-4. Over 825' isn't really birdieable (as a par-4) unless the players are expected to throw 450' accurately, or they are rolling 500'-600' on the first shot.

825' with no obstacles is just 325+325+175. At 175' most 1000 rated players are going to put it close enough for an easy 4.

You are right, you will need to be throwing over 400' to have a chance for a birdie.

The chart "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length" can be found on the thread "Different Layouts for Different Skills" at post #227436 - 08/24/04 10:19 AM by Chuck Kennedy. If you right click on the chart you can save a copy to your hard disk.

This chart has the "tweener" distances in between pars as lighter colors.

You can go to the thread by clicking here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=213098&amp;page=2&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=93&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1).

Little Lehigh Parkway Design Par (According to Chuck and Lowe's Chart's, elevation differential also included.)

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>FRONT</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>BACK</td><td>TOTAL
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Distance</td><td>335</td><td>480</td><td>305</td><td>425</td><td>315</td><td>636</td><td>280</td><td>340</td><td>460</td><td>3576</td><td>360</td><td>260</td><td>615</td><td>295</td><td>320</td><td>675</td><td>252</td><td>280</td><td>480</td><td>3537</td><td>7113
</td></tr><tr><td>Elevation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Differential</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>0</td><td>-10</td><td>-10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>-8</td><td>-25</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>-10</td><td>-35</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Adj Distance</td><td>359</td><td>525</td><td>305</td><td>395</td><td>285</td><td>636</td><td>280</td><td>340</td><td>460</td><td>3585</td><td>360</td><td>275</td><td>615</td><td>271</td><td>245</td><td>711</td><td>258</td><td>250</td><td>375</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Foliage</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Design Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>53
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

SSA - 51.8 From PA States. (MADC Calc)

825' with no obstacles is just 325+325+175. At 175' most 1000 rated players are going to put it close enough for an easy 4.

You are right, you will need to be throwing over 400' to have a chance for a birdie.



That sounds like a hole I could par, but you're right...a birdie 3 there would be asking a lot from each and every throw.

825' with no obstacles is just 325+325+175. At 175' most 1000 rated players are going to put it close enough for an easy 4.

You are right, you will need to be throwing over 400' to have a chance for a birdie.



That's a three for most people. 450 drive leaves only a 375 approach. If it's in a field, even as an adv golfer, I would expect a three on the hole and would get a four if I played it poorly

I'm glad I don't have to play where a 450' drive is standard, and 375' is considered an approach by most players. OK, I'll give you that a 375' approach in an open field should leave a makable putt, but I'm not sure about the 450' drive for most players.

Remember Gary this is the message board....reduce those numbers by at least 50'. :)

If I three a 825' hole, I'm feeling pretty good. I think even most Pros are happy about that. A 4 won't kill you on that hole.

Longest hole I've ever 3'ed is 780' (# 9 on the Wilmont -- some trees early, then wide open).

That's a three for most people. 450 drive leaves only a 375 approach. If it's in a field, even as an adv golfer, I would expect a three on the hole and would get a four if I played it poorly



You didnt even throw 450 in the distance finals at worlds how do you expect to throw a 450ft drive accurately on a HOLE :o:p

um yeah I can throw 450 consistently.

Hole 18 at Renny in Charlotte from the tips is about 800 and I 3'd it both rounds in a PDGA there this summer.

Field golf is vastly overrated and boring for that reason

Come on man. You dont have to lie to be cool :D

Nice work on a 3 from 800 Feet :D

Neither of you guys throw as far as you say you do...CB I think you can throw 450' tops on flat ground...And MTL maybe 400' on a good day :D

Neither of you guys throw as far as you say you do...CB I think you can throw 450' tops on flat ground...And MTL maybe 400' on a good day :D



Someone sounds like he is trying to make up for deficiencies in other areas of his life.

Perhaps �minihyzer� would be a more appropriate name? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That's a three for most people. 450 drive leaves only a 375 approach. If it's in a field, even as an adv golfer, I would expect a three on the hole and would get a four if I played it poorly



You didnt even throw 450 in the distance finals at worlds how do you expect to throw a 450ft drive accurately on a HOLE :o:p




Here are the second of the three field event scores. EDGE competition will be posted later.

2004 PDGA Disc Golf World Championships
Greater Des Moines, Iowa USA August 9-14, 2004
Field Events Competition - STANDINGS AMATEUR

<table border="1"><tr><td> Division</td><td>Event</td><td>Rank</td><td>Player</td><td>PDGA #</td><td>State</td><td>Qualify</td><td>Final</td><td>Total</td><td>Prize
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</td><td>Distance</td><td>1</td><td>Mike Robinson</td><td>24414</td><td>IA</td><td>519</td><td>537</td><td>537</td><td>$100 + Tr
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</td><td>Distance</td><td>2</td><td>Mark McAlister</td><td>16672</td><td>KY</td><td>501</td><td>534</td><td>534</td><td>$70 + Tr
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</td><td>Distance</td><td>3</td><td>Kevin Harwell</td><td>24684</td><td>OK</td><td>504</td><td>471</td><td>471</td><td>$50 + Tr
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</td><td>Distance</td><td>4</td><td>Robert J. Leonard</td><td>21676</td><td>NC</td><td>504</td><td>435</td><td>435</td><td>$40
</td></tr><tr><td>MA1</table>



I think this pretty much proves Robert can throw that far.

See Robert, I'm not out to get you. If you weren't so against the ratings system we'd have no beef whatsoever! :cool:

Neither of you guys throw as far as you say you do...CB I think you can throw 450' tops on flat ground...And MTL maybe 400' on a good day :D



I watched MTL birdie the 460' hole 3 at the OHO. Only player in the group to do it.

Little Lehigh Parkway Design Par (According to Chuck and Lowe's Chart's, elevation differential also included.)

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>FRONT</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>BACK</td><td>TOTAL
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Distance</td><td>335</td><td>480</td><td>305</td><td>425</td><td>315</td><td>636</td><td>280</td><td>340</td><td>460</td><td>3576</td><td>360</td><td>260</td><td>615</td><td>295</td><td>320</td><td>675</td><td>252</td><td>280</td><td>480</td><td>3537</td><td>7113
</td></tr><tr><td>Elevation</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Differential</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>0</td><td>-10</td><td>-10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>-8</td><td>-25</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>-10</td><td>-35</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Adj Distance</td><td>359</td><td>525</td><td>305</td><td>395</td><td>285</td><td>636</td><td>280</td><td>340</td><td>460</td><td>3585</td><td>360</td><td>275</td><td>615</td><td>271</td><td>245</td><td>711</td><td>258</td><td>250</td><td>375</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Foliage</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Design Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>53
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

SSA - 51.8 From PA States. (MADC Calc)



Are those par 2s I see in there? Very interesting!

Since those tables are derived from "estimated" SSA, the par should could come out pretty close to SSA. That should make Nick happy.

In the courses I've done so far this method seems to match pretty well with reality. However, holes on the cusp (3.5, 4.5...) should usually be examined and sometimes adjusted to use the lower or higher number, so there will always be an element of on site wisdom needed.

What is WCP? Is this World Class Par? How is it determined? :confused:

WCP (World Class Par) is the Scratch Scoring Average (SSA) rounded off to a whole number. The SSA is determined for each tournament round when at least 10 propagators (players with ratings over 799 whose rating is based on at least 8 rounds) participate. The SSA is what score a player with a 1000 rating (scratch player) would be expected to average on that course layout.

Are those par 2s I see in there? Very interesting!



Lowe,

You've seen the chart, even the Design Par Calculator has par twos. Though until we come to concensus on "What Par Is" we should say that 1000 rated golfers average less than 2.5 on them.

Nick

For those who still refuse to accept the reality that there are par 2 holes I present a course for your consideration.

Consider Liberty Park in Cerritos CA, in the Los Angeles area. It's a pretty little 9 hole course in a park with manicured green grass plunked down in the midst of the L.A. area. The course is basically flat and pretty open, with just a few trees that come into play. It's great for Juniors and beginners. It would be wonderful if there was a course like this in every town! A course like this would really help get kids involved. My 11 year old son would love it, and he'd be much more motivated to play disc golf.

But lets imagine that 2 Gold level players with 1000 Player Ratings show up there to play each other. Lets choose Avery Jenkins and Justin Jernigan (JJ). I guarantee you that they would expect to shoot an 18 there if they want to beat the other guy. They might need a 17 to actually win. I'm a White level player (~920 PR) and when I played the course I thought I could get a 2 on any hole. I had four 2s and only thought it was an average round. After running the numbers I saw that was only 1 under par, so that felt about right. Accepting par 2s was the only thing that added any challenge and excitement to playing there. If they were all par 3s that would be really dumb and boring.

This course is a classic example of the reality of par 2 holes on existing courses. For a Gold or Blue level player to call them par 3s is just ludicrous. Even if they were called a par 3 the Gold players would think of it as a par 2 anyway.

Here are the numbers for you:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>Front
</td></tr><tr><td>Length: </td><td>191</td><td>155</td><td>188</td><td>228</td><td>191</td><td>155</td><td>153</td><td>264</td><td>258</td><td>1783
</td></tr><tr><td>Elevation Diff. (ft)</td><td>0</td><td>+3</td><td>-3</td><td>-5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>+5</td><td>-3</td><td>-3
</td></tr><tr><td>Elev. adjustment</td><td>0</td><td>+9</td><td>-9</td><td>-15</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>+15</td><td>-9</td><td>-9
</td></tr><tr><td>Effective Length</td><td>191</td><td>164</td><td>179</td><td>213</td><td>191</td><td>155</td><td>153</td><td>279</td><td>249</td><td>1774
</td></tr><tr><td>Trouble Factor (1-9)</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>---
</td></tr><tr><td>Par: Gold</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Par: Blue</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>22
</td></tr><tr><td>Par: White</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>24
</td></tr><tr><td>Par: Red</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

and a lot more exist now without the 2m rule!

seriously, though, there is nothing inherently wrong with par 2's, expecially for courses designed for the purposes you describe as best for this one.

it still would be wierd to play par 2's at a national/world level event.

Par doesnt really mean anything. Par could be 1000 for a course and you could shoot 956 under or par could be 10 and you could shoot 34 over either way you would have shot a 44. At the end of the day all that matters is how many times you threw the disc. Not if you shot 20 under or 20 over all that matters is if it took you less strokes to finish the course then everyone else. :D

We have par 2 course examples here in Michigan. At the course we call "Squirrel" the DGA tee signs mostly say "Par 2" right on them. It is currently my lefty course because my throwing arm is injured and I really suck lefty. The distances are approximately 120, 75, 90, 60, 60, 150, 200, 100 and 90. I would think the two 60 footers would be your "must ace to win" holes for most pro players. There are some trees but it is very park-like with parallel schule.

I think the Squirrel course is great. Almost no one plays it because it takes at least a 90 I.Q. to figure out that if you string a few holes together to create holes that criss-cross the park, you can make a lot of different fun 300 foot holes. We take the kids there and all shoot for Uncle Jon's record score of 17. It is a great place to practice that long putt that has a chance of going in but does not run too far past.

Par doesnt really mean anything. Par could be 1000 for a course and you could shoot 956 under or par could be 10 and you could shoot 34 over either way you would have shot a 44. At the end of the day all that matters is how many times you threw the disc. Not if you shot 20 under or 20 over all that matters is if it took you less strokes to finish the course then everyone else. :D

<font size=8>TRUE DAT!</font>

Par doesnt really mean anything. Par could be 1000 for a course and you could shoot 956 under or par could be 10 and you could shoot 34 over either way you would have shot a 44. At the end of the day all that matters is how many times you threw the disc. Not if you shot 20 under or 20 over all that matters is if it took you less strokes to finish the course then everyone else. :D

<font size=8>TRUE DAT!</font>


I disagree. We have made par meaningless by calling everything a par-3. A -12 at Oak Grove isn't the same as a -12 at La Mirada. It could mean something, but it doesn't.

We don't have a good example from ball golf either, as a -12 at the U.S. Open generally kicks the crap out of a -12 anywhere else skill-wise.

Par doesnt really mean anything. Par could be 1000 for a course and you could shoot 956 under or par could be 10 and you could shoot 34 over either way you would have shot a 44. At the end of the day all that matters is how many times you threw the disc. Not if you shot 20 under or 20 over all that matters is if it took you less strokes to finish the course then everyone else. :D


I guess the only time you play disc golf is in a tournament.

Par is helpful for those who just play disc golf, outside of tournaments. (Many people never play tournaments.) Par is helpful for spectators watching disc golf. Par is helpful for course designers who are trying to give a course a certain level of difficulty. Par is helpful with regard to keeping track of score -- it's easier to say "one over" than to try to keep track of throw count (again, thinking about casual players here).

In short, par is helpful, it is useful, and it does mean something.

par doent matter you all have to play the same hole....if the shot says par 5 and you shoot a 4 you still take a 4...........in disc golf their is only par 3's if your a serius golfer anyway....i've never played a par 4 hole!!

puff a nugget and chuck some disc!!

in disc golf their is only par 3's if your a serius golfer anyway

are you jokin? because thats the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

I guess "serius" golfers don't play the USDGC. I'll bet "serious" ones do though. I wonder if advocating illegal activities in a public forum makes you "serius".

guess he's not serious enough to argue that. last time i checked buddy, most N.T. events are starting to have par 4's along with a large majority of courses i see going in.

in disc golf their is only par 3's if your a serius golfer anyway

are you jokin? because thats the funniest thing i've read in a long time.



Whoever thinks serious disc golf is only par 3s hasn't played Patapsco, Tyler, Seneca, Renny, or Warwick in their long to longs, all with SSAs above 64 (not to mention Nockamixon with an estimated SSA of 68). Yeah that's right! So even if you think you are the gahshizel you are still, on average, will take "10 Bogies" or "4 Bogies and 3 double Bogies", which is just about enough to make most 1000 rated golfers I know throw themselves on the rocks if they are thinking in terms of "Everything being par 3".

The truth of the matter is, that folks that think every hole is par three do not take disc golf as a sport seriously. That is no surprise to me. The only surprise is that they apparently "think" they do!?!

you guys are right...at the end of the day 50 beats 52. In that sense par "doesn't matter" Even ball golf reports scores as total strokes instead of +/- scoring. +/- scoring is used to help keep spectators apprised of how the field is doing comparatively and to make scoring easier during casual play. I've said it before and I'll say it until I die...if we want to get a 30sec blurb on Sports Center for NT events then par needs to be used more often.

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:

1) To have a number that matches the reality of what expert players at the 4 skill levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red) can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
2) Par is essential for comparing the difficulty of different courses. This comes into play when you play a new course; it affects your mental outlook. If Renny Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough.
3) To be able to compare scores on different courses.
4) People play with a certain par in their head anyway, and on older shorter courses they play as if many holes are par 2 (and they are).
5) To be able to determine handicaps.
6) In tournaments when a player is late to know how many throws to assess. (Although that rule is random and needs to be redone. Why would someone be penalized unnecessarily just for being assigned to start on a par 5 hole?)
7) Over/under scoring is for the gallery and potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
8) In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses to be able to compare players in different pools playing different course.

I agree with everything Lowe said.

The par 3 system our sport has adapted is stupid. I know I love it when I play a course that is not 54 and the scores turned in on the live scoring have my score in par relative to the par of that course...

also, I have found that if a approach a hole I know I'm not going to two without a bombed drive or throwing one in, a four is just like every other 3 that round......a par. Helps the mental game out a lot

If we see a simple 150 foot hole on a course, we automatically see it as a par 3. Say a hole is 500 - the normal player throws a 350 foot drive, and he has a 150 approach......but people would call this a par 3.....what is the differnece in a short par 4 and a short par 3???

This thread is WAY too long.

Par only means something when a person is late in starting a round. Other than that, it is meaningless.

And hasn't the consensus been that the par should be the number of shots an expert would take to reach the hole plus 2? Isnt WCP a misnomer?

Or is this thread permeated with post padders?

If we see a simple 150 foot hole on a course, we automatically see it as a par 3


Personally, I see a wide-open 150' hole as a par-2. In my mind, if I don't get that hole in two strokes, I'm losing one to the field.

That's why it was suggested to go number of throws required to get to within 150' + 2, unless foilage made a 150' parked upshot unlikely.

I would argue that it should be possible to eagle a hole with an exceptional shot(s). A 1000 ft hole could be 3'd with exceptional shooting, and those 1000 ft holes are usually par 5 holes.

A par 2 hole cannot be eagled. I would not like that, assuming of course, that par meant something outside or penalizing someone for arriving late. :D

What do you call a 2 on a Par 5 hole? A double eagle. It's possible to get a double eagle on a par 4 with a 1 which is also called an ace. But geez, looks like you can't get a double eagle on a par 3. Looks like ball and disc golf need to eliminate par 3s because you can't get a double eagle.

I still favor course ratings that prevent par 2s. It would be like asking a few PDGA tour players to come over to your municipal ball golf course, and rate it. It may say it's a par 72, but they aren't going to shoot anywhere close to 72 on it.

Most of our existing courses are the equivalent of municipal ball golf courses, and should be rated at something below what you would expect a touring pro to shoot. Unless you really like par 2 holes.

What do you call a 2 on a Par 5 hole?

Albatross, (http://www.free-golf-tip.com/terminology.htm) actually.

if we want to get a 30sec blurb on Sports Center for NT events then par needs to be used more often.


absolutely. especially pars > 54!

< thread hijack>
if we want more than a jokingreference on any sports show we must not allow the blatant absurdity of a shot stuck 50' up in a tree 8' from the pin to be treated the same as a shot on the ground 8' from the pin.
< /thread hijack>

What do you call a 2 on a Par 5 hole?

Albatross, (http://www.free-golf-tip.com/terminology.htm) actually.



You would only call a double eagle an albatross if you are also going to unload the furniture from the lorrie and bring it up to your apartment on the lift. Otherwise it is still a double eagle.

What do you call a 2 on a Par 5 hole?

Albatross, (http://www.free-golf-tip.com/terminology.htm) actually.



You would only call a double eagle an albatross if you are also going to unload the furniture from the lorrie and bring it up to your apartment on the lift. Otherwise it is still a double eagle.

"Flat," not apartment.

by Pete Burns (post #250208 - 10/14/04 08:41 AM):

Chuck has shown that the average number of close-range shots in disc golf is about 1.7 per hole.

So given the basic definition of par (throws+2) and the fact that there are actually 1.7 close-range shots per hole, an average Par 4 should be EXPECTED to average 3.7 shots per hole, not 4.0.





Would someone please define a "close range" shot for me? For a 1000PR Gold level player what is "close range"? Does this mean approach length such as 100 ft? or is it putting range, such as 40 ft.?

Chuck has demonstrated that for a par 54 course 30 shots will be "close range". This means that each hole will average 1.67 close range shots. In other words 1/3 of the holes (or 6) will be completed in 1 throw, and 2/3 of the holes (or 12) will be completed from "close range" in 2 throws. This sounds to be that the 1.67 range is somewhere within putting range where a 1000 PR player would make 1/3 of these shots (putts?). Is that correct? If it is, then what is the length of this 1/3 range. I suspect it is about 40 ft. for a 1000 PR player.

I'm still dissatisfied with the lack of clarity about par. I no longer use the terms "par, birdie, bogie" because they have so little universal meaning. I'm still seeking better definitions of par so that I can consistently evaluate the difficulty of new holes that I play in relation to par. It's especially tricky trying to decide what is a par 2, 4, 5.

You can call them "close range" shots or we've been using shots "around the green" (ATG) when comparing the ball golf formula with disc golf. The ATG number in BG is 40.9 per 18-hole round versus 30 for DG as noted above. The number of putts on the green in BG at a pro level averages a little less than 2 per hole so some of their ATG shots would include the fringe and even a few somewhat longer. I'm not sure there's a specific distance for ATG shots in either sport that needs to be specified but just recognize that there's a stable fixed number of these ATG shots on average in every round regardless of the overall hole lengths.

You can call them "close range" shots or we've been using shots "around the green" (ATG) when comparing the ball golf formula with disc golf.



Chuck, thanks for the info.

Personally, I don't like using ball golf terms when they don't really correspond. We don't really have "greens" in the ball golf sense; we have "putting areas". In the same way we don't have "pins" and "strokes" but "baskets" and "throws". So I would change ATG to ATB, but that might cause confusion in having to translate in order to compare with big brother BG.

I know this is picky.

I made up the term ATG (around the green) so it's not a ball golf term. But the formula constant doesn't cover just putts so another set of words was needed. And we do have a putting area that may not always be green, but it is marked at 10m.

You can call them "close range" shots or we've been using shots "around the green" (ATG) ... I'm not sure there's a specific distance for ATG shots in either sport that needs to be specified but just recognize that there's a stable fixed number of these ATG shots on average in every round regardless of the overall hole lengths.



The reason I asked this question because is I'm still dissatisfied with the methods for determining par. The two camps are what I call "SSA Par" and "Birdie Par". SSA par means par based on SSA and a par 3 would be a hole that can be parred by a 1000 PR player with 1 drive + 1 approach + 1 putt. The hole can be much longer than he could ever reach with a drive. "Birdie Par" means that you have to be able to birdie the hole. e.g.- For a par 3 you have to be able to drive within putting distance (~30 ft.) Anything longer than that bumps up to the next par level (par 4 in this case).

I've also been trying to figure out how the 30 throws ATG factors in to par determinations.

Let me also reiterate that my goal is to be able to determine par on existing holes, so I'm not so concerned about the design of new holes. Although, I've recently designed 2 object courses and this has helped fuel my thinking on this matter of par. One is a Gold Championship length course of 8740 ft. (the longest in NC!) and the other is a Junior course averaging about 150 ft per hole. They're both at Lake Benson in Garner NC.

Anyway, I've been using a tool based on SSA par to evaluate courses I've played. It works quite accurately to give par values based on the SSA Par method. But now I've begun to wonder if the "Birdie Par" method might have more value than I gave it. So I've been combining the "Birdie Par" concept with the "close range / ATG" factor of 1.67. I've been trying to figure out for flat open field hole with no foliage(foliage factor 1) and no trouble (OB, doglegs, water carries) what is a good length for a 1000 PR (Gold) player? About 380-400 ft. seems in the neighborhood. Then I want to add an ATG length. This would be the length that a 1000 PR person would make 1/3 of their putts. I'm guessing about 40 ft. How does that sound?

If the drive length is 400 ft. and the ATG length is 40 ft. that would make these flat open holes a par 3 up to 440 ft., and a par 4 longer than that. On a real course you would convert hole lengths to "effective length" by taking into account elevation changes, foliage, OB, trouble, etc.

But if there were a course of 18 of these holes a 1000 PR player would be expected to average 48. So should it be par 54 or par 48? Or as Pete suggested much earlier do we just be content that a par 54 will play to 48 by a 1000 PR player? Should a scratch player (1000 PR -- think of Avery Jenkins, Greg Williams, JJ) average 54 on a par 54 course? If so, how do you take into account the 1.67 ATG factor?

ATG has nothing to do with setting par because it's a fixed number of throws per hole AND whatever length those shots are, they are assumed to be from all directions around the basket, adding no net length to any specific hole.

If you refer to this chart, which I've posted before:
http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg
par 3 holes for the Gold level range from 200-650 feet depending on the foliage density. The 'wide open hole' range goes from 325-650. The light blue ranges from 300-350 and 600-700 are better than 400-600 because there's more spread in the scores on these holes. In other words, assuming there are no hazards on these holes, more than 2/3 of players would be expected to score just a three on these 400-600 holes making the hole not very good for spreading scores for Gold level competition. Actually, I need to change the colors for holes with more than Average foliage from darked to lighter colors because usually there's enough scoring spread even if the average for the hole ranges from X.8 to Y.2.

Let me also reiterate that my goal is to be able to determine par on existing holes, so I'm not so concerned about the design of new holes. Although, I've recently designed 2 object courses and this has helped fuel my thinking on this matter of par. One is a Gold Championship length course of 8740 ft. (the longest in NC!) and the other is a Junior course averaging about 150 ft per hole. They're both at Lake Benson in Garner NC.





OOOPS!!!! You forgot about the Best Course in NC!!!!!!!!!!

Renaissance Gold Course= 9407 ft., par 70. (creator: Stan Mcdaniel)

our home course /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Although, I've recently designed 2 object courses and this has helped fuel my thinking on this matter of par. One is a Gold Championship length course of 8740 ft. (the longest in NC!) ...They're both at Lake Benson in Garner NC.





OOOPS!!!! You forgot about the Best Course in NC!!!!!!!!!!

Renaissance Gold Course= 9407 ft., par 70. (creator: Stan Mcdaniel)

our home course /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



You're right! How could I ever forget that dear old Renny Gold is longer? I agree that it's the best course in NC and one of my top 5 all time favorites. But watch your back because Mars Hill College has tremendous potential and is off to a great start. I rate it tied for 2nd best with Cedarock in Burlington.

P.S.- The Lake Benson object course does have the longest hole in NC, though. Hole 18 is 1200 ft!

Renny is in my top 5 also. You guys ought to take a trip up to MADCland if you get a chance and check out our 5 killer courses:

1) Nockamixon - PA
2) Warwick - NY
3) Tyler-PA
4) Seneca-MD
5) Patapsco-MD

And there are a ton of sweet medium and smaller courses all around each of these. You can check out a map along with reviews of the courses at: Madgic Times Course Link (http://www.madisc.org/courses2.php)

Renny is in my top 5 also. You guys ought to take a trip up to MADCland if you get a chance and check out our 5 killer courses:

1) Nockamixon - PA
2) Warwick - NY
3) Tyler-PA
4) Seneca-MD
5) Patapsco-MD

And there are a ton of sweet medium and smaller courses all around each of these. You can check out a map along with reviews of the courses at: Madgic Times Course Link (http://www.madisc.org/courses2.php)



Your right, those courses are a blast...We're from Norwalk, CT.....
But Renny has the angles and the angles mean everything. One day you can shoot a 84 and then a 65. It brings discgolf to a Ballgolf level...My best is a 62!!! <--------Thats sick!!!!!
We'll be up your way for The Skylands and 2005 WORLDS...Can't wait!!!!!!

ohh yeah..................

We expecially love WARWICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! :eek:

I played Renny Gold for the first time on Thursday afternoon (and saw the Frizzak van in the parking lot). It is, by far, the best-designed course I've ever seen. It should be a case study for anyone designing a chamiponship course. There is a great mix of open and wooded holes, lots of risk & reward, incredible greens, and the distances are chosen such that nearly every hole is reachable in two less throws than par (even for a weak arm like me) but still challenging even for the biggest arms. I'll post on the CDGC board, too, but Stan and company did a heck of a job!

What til you get a load of Nockmixon then... (Though still a little rough on the edges, only having been in the ground for a couple months now, the golf required to get around the course well is as good as it gets. Like Renny there are multiple shots required per hole and a full 1/3rd of them require full buttock clench risk/reward. Lots of water, elevation, length and old growth forrest. Once it is finished up (tees and greens mainly, but some fairway work on the open holes) it will be the best course I have ever played.

The jawdropping thing about Stan's masterpiece is considering some of the man-hours it took to build some of those holes. The two greens near the gully, 2 and 18 I think, are incredible! And to think most Course Pros aren't willing to do an 1/40th of the work on a single green to level it or build it up!

There are some great things going on in course design!

That's why he is Mule#1 (http://www.charlottedgc.com/renny_mules_05.htm)

Can anyone suggest the average length that a scratch player (1000 PPR, Gold level) would throw a drive? Assume that the hole is a flat, straight, wide open field with no obstructions or OB trouble.

Can anyone suggest the average length that a scratch player (1000 PPR, Gold level) would throw a drive? Assume that the hole is a flat, straight, wide open field with no obstructions or OB trouble.



http://www.circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm

Regardless what the driving data shows, the SSA reference value in the formula works out to 285 feet per throw. We know that Gold players can throw putters that far but this also includes approach and true multi-shot holes in this average mix. In ball golf, their length factor in the formula for scratch players is 220 yards but we know their actual drive average is certainly over 265 yards.

My guess is that the average drive of a 1000 PPR player (like Avery Jenkins, Greg Williams, JJ) is 400 ft, but I have no objective evidence for this. Does anyone have anything that can be more objectively verified?

IMHO, this length is a key factor in determining par.

Can anyone suggest the average length that a scratch player (1000 PPR, Gold level) would throw a drive? Assume that the hole is a flat, straight, wide open field with no obstructions or OB trouble.



http://www.circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm



Jeff,

I was also looking at that data. There's no explanation, but I assume this was the distance competition in 2002. The average of all Open players was 377 ft., but that is a wide range of player ratings (PPR). That still doesn't tell us what the avg. for a 1000 PPR player is.

I also re-read Theo Pozzy's article on driving distance in DGWN #57, Spring 2001. The average distance they measured was 425 ft., but again that is for all player ratings.

That data is from actual drives on wide open hole #7 on the Tournament Course at the 2002 Pro Worlds, not a distance competition. The average rating of those top 36 MPO players whose drives were measured is currently 1008 ranging from 978 to 1036. I would guess their actual ratings then were probably close enough that the average was still slightly over 1000.

...In ball golf, their length factor in the formula for scratch players is 220 yards but we know their actual drive average is certainly over 265 yards.



The factor in the BG formula may use 220 yds, but their standards assume that a scratch player drives an average of 250 yards, thus a par 3 is up to 250 yards.

See http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_13.html
for some interesting reading.

I was also very interested to read that a scratch player is a highly skilled Amateur!

"a. Scratch Golfer

Man -- The scratch golfer is an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke-play qualifiers competing in the U.S. Amateur Championship. A male scratch golfer can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots.

Woman -- The scratch golfer is an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke-play qualifiers in the U.S. Women�s Amateur Championship. A female scratch golfer can hit tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots."

Whether 250 vs 265, it's still the same idea in both sports. Remember that the 250 was determined in 1970 in the US Amateur and in my discussions with their Slope expert, he admitted the drives have gotten longer (surprise, surprise) since their factors were determined. Their factor ratio is 220/250 or 88% of their drive average. If that matched our ratio, the average drive for our scratch players would be 325 (285/.88), but we know it's closer to 375.

IMO, while the concept of "average drive length" is meaningful in ball golf, it doesn't make alot of sense to apply the concept to disc golf.

In disc golf, the amount of trees and their location relative to the tee, as well as the height of the canopy are factors unique to disc golf, without analogous counterparts in ball golf. These factors may make the average drive length by 1000 rated players 220 on one hole and 400 on another. These factors/scenarios are so common that they render the concept virtually meaningless when applied to disc golf.

The open field drive length is relevant for setting scoring averages for different skill levels. Then, it's adjusted based on foliage density on each hole. We don't necessarily tell you what a player who drives 350' in the open will drive on average on a hole with "average" foliage, nor is it necessary to know what that is. However, we can calculate the changes in overall scoring average on each hole for each skill level based on length and foliage density. The calculations actually work well because our designers can forecast what the scoring average will be on a new hole before it's played in competition with accuracy in the range of +/- 5% for a new course.

I've seen that model and it makes sense. However, the reason it makes sense is that it acknowledges that foilage, slope, etc. are important factors.

If I rememeber my math correctly, the factors in the model might be viewed as independent variables, with average driving length dependent on them. Therefore, to start a discussion of determing par using an average driving distance as an absolute, unchangeable distance (as it can be used in ball golf) seems strange to me. I realize my argument might sound somewhat anal, but if someone's goal is to determine par using absolute "average distances," it seems like a foolish way to proceed.

That makes sense to me. What would be helpful is to have a starting point for par/distance, and then find the partial derivatives (changes in par relative to a change in one of the independent variables - foilage, slope, etc.) and use them to set up an equation, perhaps even a simple linear one, for par as a function of these factors. Yes, I'm a math geek...I'm working on my PhD.

They have a model for determining par and for determining if a hole is poorly designed, I think. Maybe it was just for poor hole design and I am talking out of my ***.

Anyways, it seemed like a pretty good stab at a reality that doesn't lend itself to easy modelling. However, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as an equation, but at its roots, it may be "equationable." Pretty neat thing and serves as a useful tool, but as with most simple models, the human brain is better. Wait, after seeing the work of some course designers, I will modify that statement to "some human brains are better." Apparently, some designers would be better off "painting by numbers."

The math does work pretty well but we're working backwards from scores and ratings to see how they match up with actual physical elements like length and foliage density. If we did a good job then we can enter a hole length and foliage density into a formula and forecast what the expected score would be for different skill levels on a hole. The subjective part comes into play over what skill level par should be set for and whether it's strictly a rounding process from the expected scoring average. Examples would be whether there should be par 2s even if the average is less than 2.5 or par 6s (USDGC) when the average is over 5.5.

There is a lot of subjectivity in choosing foilage density. For example the same density can exist with the main 10 foot gap twenty feet from the tee or two 10 foot gaps at 100 and 180 feet. Choosing that coefficient is subjective. Not being critical because I have no suggestion for improvement, just admitting that the reality is often more complex than the model.

The good thing is that by using the model, the course designer/modifier should start realizing what factors matter, simply by osmosis.

Foliage density is hard to quantify formally. It does become an experience based exercise which our designers get better at the more they use the template. The "none" setting is the most accurate but least exciting from a hole design standpoint. :D(works well in parts of Texas)

It's not earth shattering if the setting is off. If my forecast for a hole scoring average is off by a few tenths, I just go, "Oops, maybe I missed the foliage density by a point or two." and then change it. Two shot holes where the player shoots thru a corridor for the drive then is wide open for the approach (or vice versa) are particularly tricky.

I followed the link to the Circular Productions summary of drive lengths at Worlds 2002. I have a couple of questions about that.
1. What city/course was that held at?
2. What hole was it, how long, and what type of foilage?
3. What were the conditions like?

I know it's alot to ask, but maybe there's a blog to go along with the numbers. It'd be nice to see how a player would compare to the average top pro. If this hole was only 350, maybe the pros let up a little bit, and that would skew the numbers. If I remember correctly, Worlds in 2002 was in Houston, TX. One of the holes that could have been used was the "Wetlands" hole on the Wilmont course. If that's the case, I can relate to the stats. Anyone know?

Anyone know?



Oh I don't know. If I went back maybe 10 posts, about where the link was that you clicked on, maybe you would find this "That data is from actual drives on wide open hole #7 on the Tournament Course at the 2002 Pro Worlds". :D :p :p

Maybe not. :D

Lowe, the mean open pro rating is 955. The average is probably lower. Only 60 out of 1195 are rated 1000. Par is not what a 1000 rated player shoots. More like what a 950 rated player shoots. Distances are not relevant. If you want to know what the par on a particular hole is, throw it. If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three. If not, it's a four or five. For the whole course, a 1000 rated player should be expected to shoot at least -5 on a par 54. This is basing par for a 950 rated (average) Pro, and assuming one stroke per 10 rating points. Chuck?

As a side note: only two ams have ratings over 962. I would consider the two baggers. The definition of top am being fairly close to average Open Pro leads me to believe we can use the same system ball golf does. A top am rates from 950 to 962.

1. What city/course was that held at?
2. What hole was it, how long, and what type of foilage?
3. What were the conditions like?




#1 Houston, Tom Bass Tourney Course

#2 Hole #7 , Length approx. 550, Wide Open

#3 Very hot and during a drout (dont know about wind that day)

As a side note: only two ams have ratings over 962. I would consider the two baggers. The definition of top am being fairly close to average Open Pro leads me to believe we can use the same system ball golf does. A top am rates from 950 to 962.



I was thinking about this last night when discussing my relative DG ability with a ball golfing friend. My rating is very close to the top women in DG.

By your equating DG par to BG par, does that mean that the top women in BG can shoot par from the men�s tees? Annika Sorenstam scored 5 over for 2 rounds in the Colonial in 2003 before missing the cut. Granted, she had a lot of pressure with the whole world watching her.

In general, I agree with what you are suggesting. Just adding an interesting (and sexist) twist to your analogy.

Lowe, the mean open pro rating is 955. The average is probably lower. Only 60 out of 1195 are rated 1000. Par is not what a 1000 rated player shoots. More like what a 950 rated player shoots. Distances are not relevant. If you want to know what the par on a particular hole is, throw it. If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three. If not, it's a four or five. For the whole course, a 1000 rated player should be expected to shoot at least -5 on a par 54. This is basing par for a 950 rated (average) Pro, and assuming one stroke per 10 rating points. Chuck?



Dave,

Thanks. It's always good to hear your input! I'm still trying to figure this all out. My main goal is to try to determine a Course difficulty rating method. I want two things. 1) I want to rate how difficult each hole on an existing course is, and 2) I want to come up with a course difficulty rating that is based on some objective data.

At the moment my approach is to compare par to SHS for holes, and SSA for courses.

My current approach is also to use Ball golf methods as much as possible. They've already put in tons of work over many years, so if we can adapt their approaches we can make progress. A side benefit is that disc golf will also gain appeal with former ball golfers (like me), and they can more easily transiton to DG.

Your point that the average Pro rating is 955 makes a lot of sense and seems much closer to the ball golf standard. A 950 (Blue level) golfer may be closer to the best Ams who win the Worlds. The problem is that the "Powers that be" (whoever that is) have decreed that a 1000 PPR is the standard, so SSA and WCP statistics are based on a 1000 PPR player. That makes it hard to compare SSA and SHS to what a 950 player shoots.

...Par is not what a 1000 rated player shoots. More like what a 950 rated player shoots... For the whole course, a 1000 rated player should be expected to shoot at least -5 on a par 54. This is basing par for a 950 rated (average) Pro, and assuming one stroke per 10 rating points.



This also matches more closely to the reality of experience and resolves a difficulty. As I understand it, on a course designed according to the standard of a 1000 PPR player's throws with par = 54 the 1000 PPR player should average 48 instead of 54 because of the 1.67 ATG factor. (They should have 18 drives and complete 12 holes with 2 more shots and 6 holes with 1 more shot.) But the Blue level (950 PPR) player would average about 53 or 54.

I think it's inappropriate to take the average rating of our self declared pros and use that as a basis for par. Our 1000 rated players are very equivalent to scratch golfers with 0 handicap. Ball golf handicaps go down to a maximum add back of I believe 3.5 for World Class players which would be close to our 1035 rated players (Barry is 1036, Ken at 1033).

However, the problem with using Gold level 1000 as our par standard is that few complete courses were truly designed for that level. Those that were not will undoubtedly have legitimate par 2s for Gold level players. That offends some people and I'm not sure it's good for the sport, but at least I don't deny they exist. I believe a properly designed Gold level course will NOT have any holes that average under 2.5 for 1000 rated players. Harold bends over backwards to study the numbers for Winthrop Gold each year to make sure the scoring average doesn't drop below the dreaded 2.5. If he's worried it might, he'll try to 'bamboo'zle players the following year (#7).

Most long tee designs on public courses are more appropriate for Blue level players up to 975 rating or so. There are only 475 players in the World with ratings over 974 which amounts to fewer than 10 in an average state. So, anyone designing a public course specifically for Gold level players is potentially doing the public a disservice unless there are already other facilities with appropriate designs for the majority of players. Renny Gold is a good example of a Gold course with the alternative Original course simultaneously available along with several other public courses in the city.

So, my recommendation is to either design the holes from a specific set of tees for a specific player skill level (Gold-1000, Blue-950, White-900, Red-850>) or determine what skill level the existing tees are best suited for and designate them that color. Establish the par for that skill/color level and post it as Blue Par or Red Par. I've posted the scoring average/par chart guidelines several times and the members of the course designers group have the spreadsheet to help them do it either while designing or after the fact.

Since most courses weren't specifically designed this way, it's likely that some holes from the long tees may be better for Gold level and some for Blue level on existing courses. In that case, I would support using the term Pro Par for these tees and basing it on a hybrid skill level between Blue and Gold at around 975 which is about the rating where a player starts to have a chance for becoming a competitive pro at our highest levels (A-tier/NT). Likewise, I would set par for shorter tees not specifically designed for Red or White level at a similar hybrid rating of around 875 and call that Rec Par.

That's pretty much it. Those who come to Highbridge will see that we have dual tee set combinations on most courses designed specifically for these four skill levels plus a new Green level for beginners, juniors and oldsters. The tee sets are usually paired by skipping one level in between (i.e. Gold/White, Blue/Red, White/Green). Players at the Mid-Nationals will play courses specific to their color level or one step higher. We'll analyze the scores and see if our design parameters work out and tweak them if they don't. The overall goal is to make designs that better match skill levels for challenge and fun. It will also make it easier in the long run for all players to estimate how they are doing as they test themselves on tougher courses once they become familiar with our color progression that matches tee colors with skill levels.

chuck, where do you get that there are 475 players with ratings over 974? I only count 250 or so in open pro. So, i imagine you are counting masters and grandmasters. If so, then you have to count all the masters and grands in the percentage, which still makes 975 very high for an average. I don't believe it is. I still think 950 to 955 is the average or "Par". Even if we were to use the "top amateur" thing, it would be 960 or so. You don't count "so called Pros". I do. They all pay to play. Why don't they count? You might be right, but I don't get it.

Lowe, I have no objective info on how far the top 60 players in the world drive on average, but I've played with about 35 of the 60 and most of the top half, and have observed them. Very few (5-10) drive over 440 on average, but almost all can drive over 380 on average. Personally, I think this is useless information, but it's my answer to your question.

Lowe,

If you get me some hole by hole results and PDGA Numbers associated with those rounds and also with distance and 0-9 foliage scores I can generate SHS and backwards distance/foliage pars. They are not round numbers though so to convert to par will involve some judgment.

Some don't like to set any hole par below 3 and thereby any course par below 54. This is the ONLY sticking point in creating a par system and standard that can provide meaningful hole and course pars from the easiest pitch and putt to the longest golf-like courses out there.

Put as simply as possible, without par 2 all pars for courses with SSAs below 54, possibly higher, are meaningless when comparing course to course pars.

Perhaps this is a uniquely disc golf problem because our older courses have more or less been made obsolete by drastically better plastic in the last 15 years, or maybe we just didn't do as good a job designing those early courses as we like to think we did. Whatever the cause, meaningful par is impossible without par 2.

We can try jumping to a different skill level to avoid them, but they are still really there, and can even happen for 950 or even 900 golfers if the course is short and easy enough. Anyhoo, no usable standard for par in disc golf will ever be created as long as courses average below 54 for our average best players. That is unless we are all ready to just turn a blind eye to the fact that Calvert short (SSA 44) should have the same par as Brandywine short (SSA 53.5). Not sure how that makes sense, but I suppose we could all pretend, right?

Regard,
Nick

chuck, where do you get that there are 475 players with ratings over 974? I only count 250 or so in open pro. So, i imagine you are counting masters and grandmasters. If so, then you have to count all the masters and grands in the percentage, which still makes 975 very high for an average. I don't believe it is. I still think 950 to 955 is the average or "Par".



I have the database for all player ratings whether current or not and it includes all ages as you suggest. I'm perfectly fine with setting Blue Par (950 rating) for most public course long tee layouts. That's pretty much what I do. It's not the same as par though on the same basis as ball golf. Our Gold Par for 1000 rated players truly matches theirs. But I suggest it only be used as par on the few elite courses that are actually designed for our Gold level.

From a practical standpoint, a player needs to have a rating over 950 to truly compete in the Open division and he will mainly be competitive in B & C tiers at that level until he improves. The average rating of all players with ratings of 950+ that are under 40 is 970. That's why I suggested that Pro Par for courses that haven't been designed specifically for Blue or Gold level (lots of them) be set based on a standard near the 975 level.

The difference between Gold versus Blue level par is less than five throws for most of our current courses and about two throws between Blue versus the proposed Pro Par, so it's not a big difference. We're talking different pars on two holes.

Most long tee designs on public courses are more appropriate for Blue level players up to 975 rating or so. There are only 475 players in the World with ratings over 974 which amounts to fewer than 10 in an average state. So, anyone designing a public course specifically for Gold level players is potentially doing the public a disservice unless there are already other facilities with appropriate designs for the majority of players. Renny Gold is a good example of a Gold course with the alternative Original course simultaneously available along with several other public courses in the city.



There are thousands of players who beg and yearn for public courses designed for 1000-rated players. Many people WANT to play gold level courses and are sick of pitch-n-putts. If anything, designers are doing the public a MAJOR disservice when they design a public course that isn't specifically for Gold level players. For disc golf to keep current as technology changes and as the player base increases (yielding more Gold level golfers) courses MUST evolve.

And if no other facilities are available in the area, you could always add recreational tees to the Gold level course.

Gold versus Blue has little to do with overall course length. Having a Blue level course doesn't mean pitch and putt. It has to do with proper hole lengths for that skill level. Many of the longest MADC courses still have a mix of Blue and Gold level holes, sometimes depending on which pin is used. The long tees on our North course at the new National Center are being set for Blue level. That course will be over 9000 feet in some configurations and challenging for all players, but particularly for those in the 920-980 range.

I believe people will discover that designing permanent Gold tees on public courses is a mistake unless Blue tees are also included, or other Blue courses are nearby as with Renny Gold. Private courses can do what they think the market will support. Only time will tell but at Highbridge, the courses with Blue tees and around 6500-7500 ft length are more popular by a wide margin than the Gold course at 8500 feet for daily play. I think the Gold will be more popular for tournament play or for players to try it maybe once from the Gold tees. It will have cement White tees this year and I suspect those will be used more for daily play with a length around 6500-7500.

I have to agree with Lung on that one. I just dont see the need to hold back. (Ball Golf reference coming , overt your eyes :) ) Ball golf courses are not designed so that within 3 months of picking up a club you can shoot even par and that is from ANY tee. You see that in DG everyday. Why should we not set the bar higher? It's the same thing with tourney payouts, we make it too easy. People WANT a challenge! If land and resources permit, then give it to them. If everything stays easy(easy money, easy courses) then it gets old fast. I think both of these things are a big factor in why DG has issues with keeping players.

I would like to point out in my above post that I am not saying that Gold courses should be the standard. Gold course are for the elite players simliar to Augusta in BG.

IMO, I think blue tees are a better setup for general play.

Gold versus Blue has little to do with overall course length. Having a Blue level course doesn't mean pitch and putt.



In researching the difference between Gold and Blue level holes, for the Course Ratings Program, out on courses over the last year, I have concluded that Gold courses are often less appropriate a challenge for Blue level players than they are for White or Red and here is why:

A Blue level player (950) playing on an average Gold hole has nearly 0% chance of coming within putting range of the hole, but can get to within easy approach range of the pin. So what happens is they throw a 280-360 foot drive an 80-140 foot approach and either score a 3 or 4 depending on if they sink the put. There is statistically 0% chance of a 2 and nearly none of a 4 or 5 really. Result: A "wake me up when it is over hole".

Now take that same hole for a Gold level player, they have an actual chance of reaching the hole for a 2, and knowing that will actually go for it. This increases the risk/reward factor many times over, in that they have a higher likelihood of blowing passed and down the hill into the trees, smacking an early tree and being hundreds of feet away, or pinning the crap out of the hole. Result: A "Great Hole".

Now take that same hole for a White or Red level player, now the drive and likely 1 or 2 approch shots and putt become an adventure and each shot has a very high risk/reward factor. Result: A "very difficult but fun hole".

I agree that it is a good idea to design courses with Gold tees in mind, but it is more important to design courses for the folks that are actually likely to use it regularly, Blue-Red.

Presenting appropriate challenge to new and developing players has got to be a priority. Having excellent Gold Tees and Pins should be, if possible included in the planning, but I'm not sure it should be a priority at this point.

(NOTE: This is coming from a certifiable Blue level player who loves playing Gold level courses that are not the "Blast Across Open Field" style. I love golds at Renny, Nockamixon, Tyler, Seneca, etc.)

A Blue level player (950) playing on an average Gold hole has nearly 0% chance of coming within putting range of the hole, but can get to within easy approach range of the pin. So what happens is they throw a 280-360 foot drive an 80-140 foot approach and either score a 3 or 4 depending on if they sink the put. There is statistically 0% chance of a 2 and nearly none of a 4 or 5 really. Result: A "wake me up when it is over hole".

Now take that same hole for a Gold level player, they have an actual chance of reaching the hole for a 2, and knowing that will actually go for it. This increases the risk/reward factor many times over, in that they have a higher likelihood of blowing passed and down the hill into the trees, smacking an early tree and being hundreds of feet away, or pinning the crap out of the hole. Result: A "Great Hole".



First of all, I think your example is poor - I really don't see that many wide open 420-440 foot Gold level par three holes. Furthermore, your assertion that a Blue level 950 player throws only a 280-360 foot drive and has 0% chance of deucing that hole is absurd. With the exception of a few noodle arms like myself, most 950 Blue level players consistently throw over 400 feet (real distance, not message board distance) and have an excellent chance of deucing that hole.

Though the example hole is poor, let's envision that I'm playing the Blue tee at 340 feet. If that's the only distance I ever play this hole from, how am I supposed to get better? How am I to become a gold player if I never get the opportunity to play the gold tee?

most 950 Blue level players consistently throw over 400 feet (real distance, not message board distance)and have an excellent chance of deucing that hole.



I call BS on that. Most 950 players do not deuce that hole. I 'll bet you that most 1000 rated players do not deuce that hole. Just look at the worlds data upthread. Everyone just seems to either gloss over it, deny it, or ignore it. Why, I don't know.

First, that Blue distance is bogus. The disc golf average throw for Blue is closer to 300-315 feet. Remember that Blue includes men and women of all ages, not just the young guns finding out whether they'll make it to the top or peak out in Blue. Blue is the highest level most players statistically will achieve. Those over 975 rating are 475 out of how many total active players, maybe 1 million? So, having Blue level courses is going to challenge 1999 out of 2000 players. I'm not against Gold tees especially if temporary tee positions are identified. But permanent Blues are more important, especially if there are no other courses nearby.

I call BS on that. Most 950 players do not deuce that hole. I 'll bet you that most 1000 rated players do not deuce that hole. Just look at the worlds data upthread. Everyone just seems to either gloss over it, deny it, or ignore it. Why, I don't know.



Chucks scoring averages show that Gold level players average 2.8 on a wide open 425 foot hole. I didn't say that Blue level 950 players would deuce it all the time. I said that the assertion that a Blue level 950 player throws only a 280-360 foot drive and has 0% chance of deucing that hole is absurd. While Blue includes men and women of all ages, there are many Blue level players who WOULD deuce that hole, and would at least prefer a Gold tee in place and having the opportunity to play it whether it's a boring three for them or not. Maybe they improve thier game and Gold level tees start beoming more and more appropriate for them.

The point is about designing courses with Gold level standards from the start and working down from there. It's much easier to add shorter tees later.

Well, if Chuck's data indicates that gold level players are averaging 2.8, then more than likely, it is a poorly designed hole for them and probably more poorly designed for blue level players. In my experience, 420-480 foot, wide-open holes are generally great equalizers between the 1020 golfer and the 950 golfer. More than likely, everyone gets a three.

Nothing earthshattering, but I think the concept of different lengths for different ratings levels is being taken too far. The lengths of many well-designed holes are appropriate for both skill levels. The nature of the skill required will tend to favor the 1000 player, but the scoring spreads for both levels may work out well. In many cases, distance is of little relevance.

The point is about designing courses with Gold level standards from the start and working down from there. It's much easier to add shorter tees later.



Dead on the money. As someone who aspires to reach the +1000 rated level. It will be really tough, not impossible to reach this level on these pitch and putt courses. While pitch and putt is great for the beginner/recreational player. They are boring for anything higher then a mid level advanced player. Design the championship course, add the recreational later.

Also alot of these "pitch and putt" courses were put in during the days of frisbee golf. So we cannot say much about the old courses. But something new should incorporate all levels of players.

I think that assuming the 1000 rated player throws so much farther than the blue or white or red or whatever player isn't quite accurate. I carry a rating of 871 (granted it's lagging behind a little) but I generally average 370-390 on drives on wide open holes. I throw midranges up to 315-320. I do not think it is added distance that the 1000 rated pro holds over me, but much better accuracy. On a 420 ft hole, I'm hoping to put my drive close enough to have a 40-50ft putt. Here again, the 1000 rated pro expects to hit this put a good amount of the time, where I'm happy if I make one a round.

This business of assuming that the 1000 rated guys throw so much farther is a myth IMHO. They are better because they always hit their lines, not because they throw 50' further.

slowmo,

If you were directly responding to me, I will rebutt, if not this is just a clarification. When I speak of making a championship course over pitch and putt, I am not merely speaking of length alone. There are many factors which go into a tough hole. Effects of elements (are there always strong trade winds, Blowing Green), amount of foilage (Chuck already has quantified this), degree of turns or elevation changes (forces certain shots or routes), designated OB, and the pyschological toughness of the hole.

We have a hole that is only 320ft long and down hill. The fairway at its narrowest is 30ft. However it is common for people to take a 4 on it, because there is a double mando about 80ft off the teebox. We are tempted to make it a triple mando, only because the proper and common route is a low to the ground shot through the current double. With an OB creek 25ft left of the pin running right beside the fairway, there are seldom any two's on the hole.

Another new placement that I designed on our course is a light turnover shot that is about 380ft. The last part of the hole goes through a 20ft tunnel cut out of the shule opening up to the green. In about a week, the long placement will be installed, requiring a hyzer or sidearm shot from the current placement around a well placed bush guarding the pin. In the short position there has been 1 recorded duece, and that was a long wind aided approach that luckily went in. Off the top of my head the average score on the "shorter" current placement has been about 3.8. There has yet to be a tournament held with this position. This years Tax Tourney will be the first to use it.

I wasn't speciffically referring to you Park, that just seems to be the common thought that 1000 rated players drive so much farther than others. Here in TX I see LOTS of guys that can bomb, it's that accuracy thing that gets us!

Oh I know and I totally agree, look at my login name. That is not an exaggeration. My average drive on a long open hole is 400-410ft. However my putting stinks, but I think I just found my groove.

My last tournament, I shot a 902 and 931 rated rounds and missed 15 ten foot putts between the two rounds!

We will see this weekend in Atlanta if it helps me any.

Park, what hole with the small tunnel were you talking about at George Ward? I'd be interested in knowing...

#5 is the perfect example of a hole that separates the gold from the blue

Jeter,

That will be hole #11, which I helped redesign.

Awesome, that hole was so boring before. It was always on the short when I was there. Candy Viper Hyzer for 240 feet. 10 foot putt. Birdie. Yawn.

I was playing the course about 10-11 months ago for 8 weeks while out of town on business. I played 2-3 times a week and the best I ever shot on the regular 18 was 9 under I think, with most holes on their middle to long positions. I was pretty happy with that! I really like that course and hope I get to come through there again.

I think Parkntwoputt and Slomo are right on indicating that the big difference between the 1000+ guys and the rest of us, is not distance necessarily at all. Accuracy and especially putting are way more important, in my opinion. Time and time again, it's the accurate driver with the hot putter that wins, not the long driver. A relatively challenging medium length course will still be won by Barry or some other high rated player. Barry doesn't win because he outdistances anyone in the 960 to 999 ratings, he wins because he is accurate and can putt well. Skill level equated with distance just doesn't seem right to me and that is what I hear when I hear gold tees, white tees, blue tees etc. It would make sense to me if the gold tee was set behind a big tree (or other obstacle) 20 ft in front of the tee to differentiate it from blue, or ob/mandos were added to the "gold" tees.

If it were true that the difference between skill levels was not distance, but putting and accuracy, then we'd certainly have several women rated over 1000 by now wouldn't we? The top woman is currently 948 and Juliana had the highest ever at around 965. At the skill level of our current top 20 women (around 925 or so), I've done hole-by-hole stats that show they are slightly better on shorter technical holes than longer more open holes compared with young fellows of equivalent ratings. The guys do throw farther. Master and GM pros also have slightly better technical skills more similar to the women than the young guys.

The SSA formula is: 30 + (length/285) for average foliage. The 30 is a fixed constant no matter what the length of the course for Gold level players. Let's say we have an SSA 50 course which is a length of 5700 feet. 30 shots are from around the green (ATG) and 20 are drives/long approaches (D/A). So, there's no argument that ATG shots are more important. But 40% are still based on length. For 900 rated players on this course, their formula would total 60 which would be 36 ATG shots and 24 D/A. That's 4 more D/A and 6 more ATG shots for the 900 rated player.

Embedded in both of these numbers is a power element that gets converted into accuracy benefits. A player who can throw farther can use a more rounded edge disc than a person who doesn't throw as far. This converts to accuracy even though both can reach the hole. Likewise, higher rated players are observed to be able to move back farther from the basket before having to change their putting stance to one that will generate more power.

To challenge these longer throwers, Gold holes need to be longer so they have to use more edged discs. (Otherwise, manufacturers wouldn't sell as many different types /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif). All you need to do is look at the driving stats to see that higher rated players average longer distances AND we agree they are also more accurate and/or putt better.

Using the SSA formula and doubling the course length to Winthrop range, the ratio switches from ATG being more important to D/A being more important. For an 11,400 ft course, ATG is still 30 for Gold but is now 40 for D/A totaling a 70 SSA for Gold. For a 900 player, the gap widens between Gold players on D/A but not ATG shot differential which remains 6 apart (30 vs 36). The D/A difference is now 8 shots (48 vs 40) compared with 4 on an SSA 50 course, which comes from both raw distance and accuracy gained by using more rounded edge discs more often.

Ultimately, all of these numerics don't mean anything unless they represent what actually happens. We have driving data that shows higher rated players throw farther so that should be enough. But there's more. If we can design courses based on these numbers and forecast what players will do, then they actually do it, that's a pretty good confirmation that there's something there. That has been done since 2001 several times.

And Highbridge is a real world laboratory along these lines. So far so good. Limited data from a few events last year was right on the money when players of certain ratings played holes designed for their level. We'll have massive data this summer at the Mid-Nationals with the largest number of players in the narrowest ratings ranges ever. We'll see what happens.

... Distances are not relevant. If you want to know what the par on a particular hole is, throw it. If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three. If not, it's a four or five. ...



Dave,
I'm converting to the "Ball golf method" of determining par that you describe above. By definition a scratch player must be able to drive to the basket on a par 3 hole. Therefore, to determine scratch par the maximum length of a par 3 hole is essential.

This is only the first step in determining course difficulty, but it is crucial.

If it were true that the difference between skill levels was not distance, but putting and accuracy, then we'd certainly have several women rated over 1000 by now wouldn't we? The top woman is currently 948 and Juliana had the highest ever at around 965. At the skill level of our current top 20 women (around 925 or so), I've done hole-by-hole stats that show they are slightly better on shorter technical holes than longer more open holes compared with young fellows of equivalent ratings. The guys do throw farther. Master and GM pros also have slightly better technical skills more similar to the women than the young guys.




You cant compare women to the men of any skill level. Obviously you are right about women but I think you are off on skill level distance importance. I know players that average over 350 on long drives not long after they first pick up a disc. The thing is they cant control it , they cant throw accurate upshots and they can't putt either.

A 950 rated male player can throw just as far as a Climo or Schultz. I know plenty of sub-950 golfers who could out drive those guys easy, for that matter I know some sub-900 golfers who could also.

That, I beleive, is the point that Dave is trying to make.

I think it's inappropriate to take the average rating of our self declared pros and use that as a basis for par. Our 1000 rated players are very equivalent to scratch golfers with 0 handicap...

There are only 475 players in the World with ratings over 974 which amounts to fewer than 10 in an average state...



An interesting fact from BG:
"The player of scratch standard represents less than one-half of one percent of amateur golfers." --Dean Knuth, "The pope of slope"
http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html

We can all find exceptions but it's not the norm. It doesn't represent the average or even the average of the top third. The Pro distance data was even measured in Texas.

I'm not sure what your point is on the ball golf scratch stats because that compares well with our 1000 rated player percentage. Remember that the Am/Pro differnces between each sport come into play here, too.

Fundamentally, everyone here who is disputing the information doesn't have any facts, just observations or gut feel. Everything I'm presenting is based on actual data from actual players and several years of testing. Houck is using this data for Texas designs (although sounds like Coda might change his thoughts at least for elite level play). That doesn't mean the data we have shouldn't be updated every so often. Highbridge offers that opportunity.

Does measuring the distance of the pros 3 years ago still hold true?

What about other factors on the hole like wind direction or the ob road all along the left side and trees that protect the basket on the right side?

Was the best shot for pros on that hole to throw as far as they could and try to get a 2?(I personally dont think so on that hole)

How about the heat index that week in Houston during that drout?

How many days had these guys been playing in that heat and was it done during the after noon round after having played a round already?

Is throwing 450 feet in Texas the same as in Wisconsin, Florida, Cali or Utah?

I am not trying to put anyone on the spot, I just think these things require a tremendous amount of data(from all over the world or atleast the country) and evaluation to even be considered close to accurate.

- Yes.
- No one reached the trees by the basket even with rollers.
- We're measuring disc golf driving distance not open field distance
- No problem that day. Light breeze left to right.
- Morning round.
- Yes, unless it's over 5000 feet elevation. Warmer is better.

Houck and I took that data to develop the design parameters and have tested them since that time by adjusting lengths and measuring scoring. That's where the validity comes from, not the original throwing data from Miami and Houston. As Dave pointed out, length is only an integrated part of it. What counts is whether a hole plays well for that skill level. Houck, myself and other designers consider scoring spread to be one of the primary aspects of good design, especially for events.

I'm sure most on here have at least read some of Houck's articles. One of his mantras is avoiding stupid holes, mainly indicated by too many players in a division getting the same score on a hole (over 70%). So, whatever we've done with the 2002 data. It has been proven to work.

So, until someone provides information to the contrary, it currently stands as the only data. This is not a secret society with a hidden agenda. Anyone can provide valid data input. We encourage it. But until I did it on mostly my own nickel in 2002, no one had done it before or since that I'm aware of, or at least published the info if they did (manufacturers?).

Chuck I am just bringing up questions that I would think others are thinking to themself.

I have read everything that I could find by Houck and have read everything I can find on the mess bored that you have written (course design and par wise). I put everything I learned into the redesign of a local course. IMO, and from the response the course has gotten so far,everything is working like a charm(besides the fact that this park holds too much water).

The course is 7790 feet total length, with 4 par 4's and one par 5 for a blue par of 60. None of the holes on the course would average below 2.6 for 1000 rated players. The cool thing is that from day one we have stressed for all players to use the par listed on the signs and that has helped a great deal in lesser skilled players coming out to play it often even though they have an easier option 5 minutes up the road.
Oh and probably the best thing about the new layout is that Jeff Lagrasso(The_LUNG) had very little bad to say about it :D And if you have seen any of his unedited reveiws you know that means something lmao

Chuck, I was comparing distances of 960 to 999 rated players and Barry. The point was that Barry doesn't outdistance the field, he out plays it. As to your assertion that women are somehow better putters than the elite men, or more accurate, and only distance is holding them back. Where do you get that notion? The elite women are not as consistent nor do they putt as well as the elite men, plus they are distance challenged. The elite men putt better than the masters and grands too. There are a few masters that can drive with the elite open, but none that I know that can drive and putt. Putting should be the great equalizer, but it isn't. Still, the point is that within the open pro group, and especially the 960 plus rated players, distance is only one of several determinants. The biggest is putting, next is accuracy, next is consistency, and after playing smart, distance comes in. Distance could be a bigger factor if the course is set up to favor the power shot without consequences for errors.

Oh and probably the best thing about the new layout is that Jeff Lagrasso(The_LUNG) had very little bad to say about it :D And if you have seen any of his unedited reveiws you know that means something lmao



Hey Scott, I resemble that remark! :D

I tell it like it is, and you guys did your homework and it shows. I don't go into a new course looking to write a bad review and I certainly had no reason to do so with the Tyrrell Park course. With a design like that, your course should explode in popularity. I hope it gets the accolades and wider acclaim it surely deserves.

Chuck, I was comparing distances of 960 to 999 rated players and Barry.



These are still mostly Gold level players and I agree their average distance isn't too much less than the 1000+ players. Likewise, Kenny has never been known as one of the super bombers and has done pretty well.


As to your assertion that women are somehow better putters than the elite men, or more accurate, and only distance is holding them back. Where do you get that notion?



What I said was the women were slightly better on putting and accuracy than the young guys near their rating 900-950 and similar to the Master and GM pros from 900-950.

Chuck, I was comparing distances of 960 to 999 rated players and Barry.



These are still mostly Gold level players and I agree their average distance isn't too much less than the 1000+ players. Likewise, Kenny has never been known as one of the super bombers and has done pretty well.


As to your assertion that women are somehow better putters than the elite men, or more accurate, and only distance is holding them back. Where do you get that notion?



What I said was the women were slightly better on putting and accuracy than the young guys near their rating 900-950 and similar to the Master and GM pros from 900-950.



Chuck, why do you keep saying that Women, Masters and GM are more accurate and better putters than Elite Players? ;)

Here's an example of data from the Oakwood course at the 2001 Pro Worlds. I sorted the holes into broad categories: Finesse, Neutral, Power and compared hole scoring averages for a pool of Open players who averaged 950 rating with a group of top Women and GMs who also averaged 950. You can see what appears to be the slight difference in skills among players who have the same Blue level ratings range. I'm looking forward to potentially having a larger data set for each skill level at Mid-Nationals this year.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Division ></td><td>Open</td><td>GM.FPO</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating ></td><td>950</td><td>950</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Field ></td><td>25</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounds ></td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>OAKWOOD</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole</td><td>Avg</td><td>Avg</td><td>Description</td><td>Feet
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.4</td><td>Finesse</td><td>215
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>Finesse</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>Finesse</td><td>240
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.6</td><td>Finesse</td><td>285
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.0</td><td>Finesse</td><td>245
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.5</td><td>Finesse</td><td>350
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>Finesse</td><td>415
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.5</td><td>Finesse</td><td>505
</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-total</td><td>26.3</td><td>25.1</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>235
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>Neutral</td><td>255
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>370
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>385
</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-Total</td><td>12.7</td><td>12.6</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>Power</td><td>390
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>Power</td><td>330
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.7</td><td>Power</td><td>380
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.9</td><td>Power</td><td>590
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.1</td><td>Power</td><td>430
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.5</td><td>Power</td><td>595
</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-Total</td><td>21.4</td><td>22.1</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Chuck, speaking of Mid Nationals; I really like the concept in theory. Especially when I look at the Am divisions and see gender and age superimposed over ratings such that there some pretty fishy divisions in Ams. Ratings based Ams seems much simpler and fairer. Even if the width of the divisions was 35 points as opposed to the 50 that you have, it seems that there would still be less divisions than Advanced open, advanced women, advanced masters, advanced women masters, advanced grandmen, advanced grandwomen, senior grand advanced etc etc etc. Also, why did you start the top at 975 instead of 950 for example?

Also, why did you start the top at 975 instead of 950 for example?




There are a few reasons. First, the PDGA design guidelines (which I'm sure many haven't looked at closely yet www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) ), identify the tee color guides for each skill level that matches the color divisions at the Mid-Nationals with 50-pt ranges (I realize Gold starts at 965 not 975 on the chart). Second, a 50-pt rating difference is about the max a player can realistically overcome in a division to potentially cash sometimes, not necessarily win. That comes from statistical models we ran when developing the ratings system to establish the 50-pt ranges for the current Am divisions. Third, 975 appears to be the minimum rating a player should have to potentially cash at an A-tier, NT or USDGC based on studying those results for the past few years. Players who cashed in these events had to average 1000 ratings for 4 rounds and almost none who did had ratings under 975.

For those who haven't checked, Dave would be a potential favorite in the Blue division if he accepts his invite to the Mid-Nationals. :)

Dave won't even play masters...

But what are your thoughts on doing as he suggests as far as making WWCC amateurs a pure ratings based classification? Seems like a decent way of handling large groups of players and so long as it is just for prizes there shouldn't be that much incentive to sandbag within the divisions.

As you know, I don't think player ratings should be use to force anyone to change classifications, just divisions.

PS: I'm having trouble pulling the trigger on coming to the Mids due to how dange far away it is. Even with a low entry fee it's going to be quite an expense. We'll see...

It will likely be less expensive than going to Am Worlds from your area. Obviously, Pro Worlds is in your backyard. We've already got registrations from as far away as WA. OR, GA and soon Alaska.

It will likely be less expensive than going to Am Worlds from your area. Obviously, Pro Worlds is in your backyard. We've already got registrations from as far away as WA. OR, GA and soon Alaska.



I was looking more for offers of rides and sponsorship than encouragement...

We might be able to squeeze you into our free staff housing if you become one of our volunteers (and still play). We could use someone to run the SkillShot competitions in the evenings for example.

The $35 camping fee is not the main challenge...

And I have learned the valuable lesson of never playing in any event I help run... Can you say "Dead Last"?

:D After staffing/playing a couple of tournaments, I agree.

You guys are looking at it the wrong way. You should consider it a challenge to strive to over-come :D Just think, if you can TD a tourney and cash hard then you can accomplish anything :) Now as far as Nick just helping and still playing like crap, it's gonna take ALOT of work....lol [Bragging on:] Personally I guess I would have to say it helps my game, I v-teered all day at my last tourney and won INT with a score that tied the ADV winner and beat all the pros :D [;Bragging off]

I've found playing, then helping with scoring has boosted my finish position... :D

Leave it to Chuck to fiddle with the numbers :D