"This thread is going nowhere. But where is nowhere. Is nowhere somewhere? And if it is, are we going there or not? You be the judge."

Dan Cordle 2005

BTW, my opinion is 980 golf should be considered "par".

I just checked, approx. 311 PDGA members average 980 rounds. Does this number correlate with PGA? Seems high.

I think what this thread is trying to get at is what player rating is the equivalent of "scratch" in golf. A scratch golfer isn't always expected to shoot "par". On an easy publinx course they may be expected to shoot 3 or 4 under and on a U.S. Open course they may be expected to shoot 5 or 6 over.

Although the interpretation of "scratch" from my previous post would indicate a much lower number, I would equate "scratch" with a 1000 rated player. The top players in our game would then rate around -3 handicap, which corresponds closely to golf. To use a similar point of comparison to the ball golf definition from my earlier post I would look at the winning score from Am-Nationals and the cash cut line from Pro-Worlds as being 1000 or "scratch" reference points.

The object of golf handicapping is for two players of different calibers who've played on different courses to be able to come together for a round and have a proscribed method of competing on a "level playing field".

A chart could be composed for each "rated" course that could convert player ratings to course handicaps for players to use for casual play or handicapped events.

A serious impediment, however, to the usefullness of any such scheme is that the "flavor" of our courses varies much more than golf courses. A 930 rated player that can throw very far, putt reasonably well, but can't hit a gap to save his life, and has no idea what course management means might shoot 980 rounds on a long, open course and then shoot 900 rounds on a short, tight course.

In order for a portable disc golf handicapping scheme to be very effective, each player would have to have, at the minimum, two handicapping variables to take to a new course. On a practical level, anything beyond two variables would be difficult to implement as a posted chart.

A model where each player had a distance rating and an accuracy rating may be useful. A chart could be created for each course with each of the two factors weighted according to the particular challenges of the course. A player would be able to find their distance rating on the x axis and their accuracy rating on the y axis and coordinate them to find their course "handicap".

There would have to be separate charts created for each set of tee pads. Then the issue of pin positions comes to the front. As previous posters have mentioned some courses have a variety of positions that are implemented, resulting in many, many different course configurations of varying difficulties. This brings us to the golf idea that was mentioned in another thread where each pin position is rated 1-5 and pins can be arranged in any manner that results in a total pin difficulty for 18 holes of 45. i.e. The course changes on a regular basis, but retains approximately the same overall level of difficulty. There could also be a "gold" configuration that is only used for tournaments with a fixed setup. This configuration could allow for course records to be kept. (IMO, course records should only be kept for tournament rounds anyway)

The Disc Golf United service already does these calculations for you. You can play any course in any configuration and the proper handicaps will be calculated. The correct course length and Challenge Factor are all that's required. The Challenge Factor comes primarily from foliage density but these factors either have or will be entered for many courses in their database.

The cash cut line in Pro Worlds is where the original 1000 rating reference was initiated from 1998 Cincy Worlds and it's held up ever since then.

looks like good stuff. without going online to check your handicap from their website for a particular course, are they formulating resources that can be posted at courses?

It would be up to course pros to post that info but it's available.

Thank you Denny Ritner. The first paragraph of that post [#440608 - 09/12/05 07:32 PM] was very useful.

(from #406846 - 07/13/05 07:33 PM)
It's not really SSA values that are needed to adjust your hole pars. It's just gathering hole-by-hole scoring distributions from any league or event from players with known ratings. Then, adjust those averages to a specific player skill level that the tees are intended for and see if any tweaks are needed.


Chuck,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you suggest here seems to be easier said than done. Here are the difficulties that I see with this suggestion:
1) Since you need hole-by-hole scores then you need the score cards, the player rating of all players, and the time to enter all of the data into a spreadsheet.
2) The bigger problem comes from implementing this idea: "Then, adjust those averages to a specific player skill level". Doesn't that require a spreadsheet with the formulas to make that conversion? In my understanding that spreadsheet and those formulas are not available to the general public and they would be very hard to produce. Is that a correct understanding?

Also, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that what you are advocating is determining the par for different skill levels.

On a personal level I am most interested in having the term "par" mean something at the touring pro level. It'd be nice to know looking at NT scores that even par was a good round, -3 solid, and -7 outstanding and that scores from one event were close to that of the next event, assuming no weird weather.

I do think that the mid-nationals model of creating different sets of tees for different player ratings is crucial for the evolution of the game. Golf courses have at least two sets of tees and usually 3-5 different sets. I look at 2 sets of tees as minimum for a disc golf course with 3, or even 4 better.

Personally, I think that every hole should play the same par for each skill level. Designing The Red Hawk in Crystal River with Mike Barnett, we made the red tees for those that can drive up to 250 ft., the white tees have most shots in the 275-325 ft. range and the blue tees have most shots in the 325-425 ft. range. The par 4 holes are intended to be played with two drives for each level of player. A personal pet peeve of mine is on a golf course where the hole is 450/420/400 yards from blue/white/red and "par" is 4/4/5 respectively. If 400 is too long for a red par 4, then just make it 370.

Chuck,

1) Since you need hole-by-hole scores then you need the score cards, the player rating of all players, and the time to enter all of the data into a spreadsheet.
2) The bigger problem comes from implementing this idea: "Then, adjust those averages to a specific player skill level". Doesn't that require a spreadsheet with the formulas to make that conversion? In my understanding that spreadsheet and those formulas are not available to the general public and they would be very hard to produce. Is that a correct understanding?




No scores or spreadsheet is required ahead of time. The PDGA Guidelines and the Par Chart that's been posted here are suitable starting points for non-designers. Experienced designers will have or use additional tools to confirm their designs and tweak them if necessary as it pertains to par. I expect that chart will be published to the PDGA website within the next year.

Frankly, I'd rather have experienced designers doing or tweaking course designs to improve the quality of courses out there and then using their experience and tools to properly set the pars based on the intended skill level for a set of tees. I'm hopeful that the new Course Evaluation process will expose some weaker courses and spur action to improve the designs via lobbying from players and sharing the results with Park Directors to encourage their support for the improvements.

Frankly, I'd rather have experienced designers doing or tweaking course designs to improve the quality of courses out there and then using their experience and tools to properly set the par...



As I waited for your reply I came to the same conclusion. (I wish I would have realized it in the first place.) Experienced designers need to set par, and hopefully they will have access to some tools to help them do it correctly. I guess that the only glitch comes in with Course Pros or inexperienced designers who don't have enough experience with the issues involved.

Close Range (CR) Par

The main idea is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.

This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.

The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).

Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.

Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.

Advantages of CR Par:
� It adheres to the PDGA definition of par with two �close range� throws (even though �close range� is defined differently than current usage) and it follows the precedent of golf.
� It explicitly takes into account the 1.67 ATG factor and adds a factor of 0.33 to account for 2 close range shots.
� It is based on a standard of errorless play by an expert player.
� Since the standard is built on a fixed number, effective length, there is more consistency than using actual scoring averages that change. Also the standards are more accessible to every player than Scoring Averages are. This method can be also used on courses that do not even have an SSA established.
� Actual expert scores will be closer to par than with the Ball Golf Par method.

Disadvantages of CR Par
� Since par 2s are only holes that are 120 ft or shorter some holes with an SSA of 2.5 will probably not be labeled as par 2 as they would be with the SA Par method. Thus par alone is not as useful to show par 2 holes that need to be fixed. (SSA shows this, however, so this issue can still be addressed by scoring averages, not by par.)
� With holes at the maximum length eagles are extremely rare except by the very longest throwers. Birdies are possible but rare. (Very few holes are maximum length, though.)
� For maximum length holes, since birdies are less common, scores will mostly be only par or bogey, so there is little chance of gaining ground relative to par. On these holes the best a player can do is to par and not bogey. (Again, very few holes are maximum length, though.)
� Actual expert score averages will not be quite as close to par as they would be with the SA Par method, although the numbers for both methods are quite similar.

Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>120</td><td>480 (360 + 120)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Ah, it seems our Scoring Averages thread about par in Course Evaluation has already been discussed.

Is history repeating itself? This thread is years old!

The first page suggests good content, but much the same as what we've been discussing under Course Evaluation. Has anyone read all of this? Where is the good stuff?

The first page suggests good content,... Has anyone read all of this? Where is the good stuff?



I've read it all. To find the good stuff just look for the posts submitted under the name "Lowe" :)

At the most basic level there needs to first be a decision made about what par is and should do. There are 2 options:
1) Par is determined by scoring averages of expert players. Foliage density, and OB are key factors because they affect the scoring averages. The purpose is to have par be as close as possible to the scoring average of a hole. This would use SSA (or it's derivative for different skill levels).

2) Par is determined by the errorless play of expert players. Foliage density and OB don't matter at all because an errorless throw would not hit any of these. Scoring averages don't matter either. It is based on effective length for an expert player.

What you decide about this fundamental issue will determine what par method you decide to use. Those who adhere to 1) will use SA Par. Those who adhere to 2) will use CR Par or BG Par.

Currently, even among top designers, there is a great rift between these two camps and neither side seems to want to change.

For me personally, I was in the SA Par camp for quite a while but then I converted to the CR Par viewpoint.

For me personally, I was in the SA Par camp for quite a while but then I converted to the CR Par viewpoint.



I guess I agree with this CR par viewpoint given your definition of CR as 120'.

I can live with idea that "there are no par-2s" (over 120' in length), as long as we all realize that there are a whole bunch of "too easy, poorly designed, par-3s". But I'm still going to be upset with my game when I don't get a "birdie" on that wide open 240' hole.

And it's just as dumb (aka poor course design) to have a bunch of 480' unreachable par-3s as it is to have a bunch of too-easy 220' par-3s. Mix it up, the scoring average of your par-3s should approach 3, or else your course WCP will be far below your hole-by-hole par. This is what ball golfers call Slope. It's a ratio of coruse par to course rating.

CR Par is a beautiful thing! not only does it make complete sense and is more consistent with other forms of golf, it also eliminates the concept of par-2 for all practical purposes.

Currently, even among top designers, there is a great rift between these two camps and neither side seems to want to change.

For me personally, I was in the SA Par camp for quite a while but then I converted to the CR Par viewpoint.

If you can step back from disc golf and look at this with a neutral, detached perspective, this stuff is hilarious.

i'm curious as to why you find it funny. because its taken so seriously? because we cant even define par at all? just wondering...

ps - if you want some more hilariousness, try the OB Line thread :D

ps - if you want some more hilariousness, try the OB Line thread :D


I think the thread on fixing twisted chains is better.

If you'd like to read a Word doc about the 3 methods of determining par or one just about CR Par then you can get them by joining my MSN Group "Disc Golf Resources" http://groups.msn.com/DiscGolfResources
Look under Documents/Courses/Course Design and Evaluation

Today I read these words in Disc Golf World (#78, Summer 06, p. 50) about DeLaveaga: "Climo... carded 38 birdies and only 4 bogies..." With the current state of affairs those words are meaningless to me. Right away I ask several unanswerable questions such as-
-Is that based on the worthless standard of "everything is par 3"?
-Even if there are par 4s and 5s what standard did they use to decide par? Would others call some of the 4s a 3, for example.
-Par is determined "according to the director". Who is he? How much does he know about the issues of determining par? How accurate is the "par"? (Most importantly does he even know about "Gold Close Range (CR) Par"? j/k)

Without answers to these questions using the words par and birdie is a joke.

Has anyone read all of this? Where is the good stuff?



The good stuff is in the post (#500412) on CR Par immedidiately above the post that this is quoted from. :D

http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

i guess thats what you go off of <shrug?>

i'm curious as to why you find it funny. because its taken so seriously? because we cant even define par at all? just wondering...

Humor is never funny when you explain it, but first, the use of the metaphor "great rift" is funny because disc golf is so small that if there was a great rift in disc golf, we'd all fall in it. Those of us who survived the fall would probably design an object course and play a few rounds waiting for the rescue helicopters to arrive. So thinking about the mataphor is the funniest part.

Second, there is no real point to arguing at length about the definitions of words. Par has a definition in most dictionaries, and the Keepers of Golf, the USGA, have a definition too. Since we call our game golf, we could just use the USGA definition that considers the average score shot by the top half of the field that is permitted to play in the premiere invitational amateur event. We don't really have to get those guys to get off the Tobbogan to go play other courses because our ratings system will help us out there. All we really have to consider is whether we let in a proportionately much larger percentage of our amateurs into our premier qualification amateur tournament, thus watering down what par should be.

So long as we have a G in PDGA, we really don't need to cover ground well plowed for us by the USGA. So getting hot over definitions is just intrinsically silly.

There is no trophy for the person who successfully seizes the flag in the game of Define the Word Par. It is our essential nature as competitive game players that fuels this thread, and that is amusing from a psychological perspective.

The only time I care what par is, is when I'm explaining the game to someone who uses English in the ordinary sense. If they see that Kenny had 38 birdies and 16 pars in a 3-round tournament they want to know if he is some kind of godlike being and then I explain that disc golfers don't really use the word "par" in any dictionary sense of the word, or in any consistent sense whatsoever. Kenny won by one or two throws over four or five other guys. Someone decided that they did not like to see Par 2 on a scorecard because it reminded them of putt-putt, so they marked all the par 2s up to 3. And if there were any par 4s, well they marked those down to 3 for consistency. We use par as a meaningless space filler in almost any sentence we utter with the word par in it except this sentence right here, and that too is funny.

I think if anyone is going to define par for everyone else, the USGA has a little more standing than the PDGA, objectively, historically, numerically, pretty much in every way. Suppose the Tahitian Coconut Golf Association, [they throw coconuts at at designated trees on the edge of the beach] all eight of their members, were arguing at length over the definition of par. We'd laugh and say, "Get a dictionary!" So our hubris in arguing the concept is funny too.

I think if anyone is going to define par for everyone else, the USGA has a little more standing than the PDGA, objectively, historically, numerically, pretty much in every way.



Perhaps on a couple of those points but not numerically. The USGA handicapping committee has been striving for years to duplicate parts of what we've been doing with ratings but are handcuffed with historical processes the same way that the Dvorak keyboard layout is historically stymied by the QWERTY keyboard layout.

Without answers to these questions using the words par and birdie is a joke.



While I too long for a consistent definition, I wouldn't go that far.

In the last five years or so, I've pretty much settled on par in disc golf as a function of two definitions:

Scoring average

Shots to the green

Both have their limitations which is why sometimes one is more appropriate than the other. With the former, one can encounter a hole that can be deuced with a drive and short putt (not fairway ace), but heavy rough or penal OB can often result in a scoring average above 3.5. In that case, a pro par four label is not appropriate.

With the latter, the definition of the green size is open for debate, and shots to the green can vary widely depending on skill level. An elite player may be able to reach the green in two shots while it may take 95% of everyone else three shots to reach the green, and labeling the score of 3 an "eagle" may just not seem appropriate.

I don't get so hung up on the semantics, though. Just about everyone I play with knows a pro par four hole or pro par five hole when they see it.

has no one else accepted Close Range (CR) Par as the most meaningful? it function exactly the same as "reaching the green" does in ball golf...par is equal to reching the green (or getting to about 120 feet in disc golf) plus 2.

imo, there's no reason to use any other method of par calcs, at least in the design stage when empirical data is lacking.

That's because intuitively only a few can suspend reality and consider a 120 ft shot a "putt." CRP is just an attempt to compensate for the fact true putting is easier in DG and try to force BG parameters on DG.

has no one else accepted Close Range (CR) Par as the most meaningful? it function exactly the same as "reaching the green" does in ball golf...par is equal to reching the green (or getting to about 120 feet in disc golf) plus 2.

imo, there's no reason to use any other method of par calcs, at least in the design stage when empirical data is lacking.



Sandalman,

I accept CR Par as the most meaningful! :cool:

I appreciate your support and vote of confidence.

We use par as a meaningless space filler in almost any sentence we utter with the word par in it



I totally agree! But I'd like to see the word "par" have meaning. That's my only reason to keep bringing this up! In fact I think it's ludicrous that a game with "golf" in it's name does not have a useable meaning for par.

Suppose the Tahitian Coconut Golf Association, all eight of their members, ...



Suppose the Tahitian Coconut Golf Association all ate their members...

That's because intuitively only a few can suspend reality and consider a 120 ft shot a "putt." CRP is just an attempt to compensate for the fact true putting is easier in DG and try to force BG parameters on DG.



Chuck,

The first sentence is misleading. CR Par doesn't call a 120 ft. shot a "putt" but a "close range" shot (or an approach shot if you prefer).

You are correct that CR Par definitely tries to compensate for the fact that putting is easier in DG.

The root issue separating SA Par and CR Par is a philosophical one. CR Par is based on the number of "errorless" throws in regulation while SA Par is based on the score averages taking into account the effects of OB, and trouble factors.

That's because intuitively only a few can suspend reality and consider a 120 ft shot a "putt." CRP is just an attempt to compensate for the fact true putting is easier in DG and try to force BG parameters on DG.



It's not a the same as a short putt, it's the same as being barely on the green away from the pin.

its simple.

CR Par is real par

SA Par is what a subset of actual players actually shot.

both numbers are useful and have merit. but i am putting CRP on my tee signs.

btw, the CR part of CRP is analogous to reaching the green in ball golf. DG uses 120 cuz it is expected a pleyer can hole out in 2 from 120'. same as expecting a player can hole out in 2 after reaching the green.

If anything SA Par is an attempt to compensate for the fact that many people have some strange belief that disc golf and ball golf are completely unrelated.

CR Par rules the world of roc and rollers! Where do I vote?

If anything SA Par is an attempt to compensate for the fact that many people have some strange belief that disc golf and ball golf are completely unrelated.




Make smaller, tougher baskets and you can have your analogy with two shots needed from much closer than 120 feet so they could both truly be "putts." Until then, the connection between BG and DG is tenuous in this area.

problem: "putting is much easier in disc golf than in ball golf"

solution: design holes where a great approach shot leaves a 50 ft. putt, a good approach shot leaves a putt of 100 ft. and a poor approach shot leaves a 150 ft. upshot and do it in such a way that the difference between shots a,b,c is due mostly to risk and accuracy and only somewhat due to pure distance.

when players are forced to make putts of 50+ feet for birdies while taking some chance of going down a hill, into water, or into a buncr and bringing the three putt into possibility then "putting" will be more golf-like.

just more thoughts from the cr side of the great disc golf chasm.

problem: "putting is much easier in disc golf than in ball golf"

solution: design holes where a great approach shot leaves a 50 ft. putt, a good approach shot leaves a putt of 100 ft. and a poor approach shot leaves a 150 ft. upshot and do it in such a way that the difference between shots a,b,c is due mostly to risk and accuracy and only somewhat due to pure distance.

when players are forced to make putts of 50+ feet for birdies while taking some chance of going down a hill, into water, or into a buncr and bringing the three putt into possibility then "putting" will be more golf-like.

just more thoughts from the cr side of the great disc golf chasm.



This is the basic theory we used on the new course that was built in my area. A perfect drive on most holes is likely to leave you around 20 feet. From the long tees, I've only ever gotten 1 2. The course isn't 'Hard', it's just not easy. Every time you step to a tee, you are asking yourself if throwing a driver is worth the potential risks, or do you just throw your buzzz/roc and play the hole for a 3/4 rather than a 2/7.

whats the scoring range of those holes? if you've only gotten a 2 once, and it doesnt sound like there are a lot of 4's, then how is your score distribution?

Well, playing smart, I can average around 3.5 across the course (best round). Playing agressive, it's around 4.5 for me. On a lot of the holes, the scoring average is around 3.5 - 3.7, with a spread from 2 - 6 on a lot of them. They all reward a good shot, penalize a bad shot, and try not to penalize a well thrown safe, short shot. The holes, for the most part, have 2 options off the tee, either a long risky drive and a shorter safe drive, or a right hand and a left hand line. It's not that a lot of the holes aren't reachable with an ideal drive, it's just that I've been working on my smart game, and that course will definately teach it to you. I've found that, since switching to the smart game, my scoring has become much more consistant. Wind seems to be more of a factor when playing smart.

has anyone figured out what par is yet? or is this thread a challenger to the MRV thread? :)

has anyone figured out what par is yet?



Sure, I've figured out what par is-- Gold Close Range Par!! Now I just need for everyone else to see the light! :D

Not gonna happen.

Does anyone know what standards were used to determine par at the courses in Augusta for Pro Worlds 06? I recently played the Hippodrome course, and after reading the pdf course info I'm curious to know what method of par they used.

What it looked, felt and played like for Gold players with no par 2s (even if some are).

You can get a rating comparison of your course against other courses by entering your scores a discgolfstats.com . This site will then allow you to see average scores. Of course anyone (not just scratch players) can enter scores so keep that in mind when analyzing a course average.

Cool !!!

http://www.discgolfstats.com/

So what are the SSAs at this years worlds courses?

It was posted on the Pro Worlds thread a few days ago.

Hippo SSA 63 Best estimate although this exact layout doesn't have data yet
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=3147 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=3147)

Pendleton SSA 48+ Values have been around 48 but new hole may have boosted it a little
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=155 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=155)

Lake Olmstead SSA 53 The extended hole 11 will likely put the number here
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=2707 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=2707)

Riverview SSA 51 No special hole changes/extensions for Worlds
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID= (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=)


:D:D:D

Hippo SSA 63
Best estimate although this exact layout doesn't have data yet



Hippo--
DGCD Hole Forecaster: SSA of 57.2

Hippo--
DGCD Hole Forecaster: SSA of 56.2



That was done with the Course Level set as Gold.
From my analysis, Hippodrome is a Blue Level course.
With the Course Level set as Blue on the Hole Forecaster the Blue Scoring Average (BSA not SSA) is 61.6

So what are the SSAs at this years worlds courses?



From this morning's rounds, it looks like:

Lake Olmstead: 53.5

Hippodrome: 62.2

Pendleton King: 49.3

Riverview: 49.9

What it looked, felt and played like for Gold players with no par 2s (even if some are).



This is a perfect example of how the relativity of par in the PDGA is unsatisfactory. Can you imagine the USGA and the PGA operating like this? They would be the laughing stock of the sport's world. What if par at the U.S. Open was not determined by consistent objective standards but by what the TD thought and felt?

For example, since Hippodrome is a Blue level course it should have a blue level par of 63. After playing there at the end of July and analyzing the course here's what I got for Blue CR par on the non-par 3 holes and compare it to this 06 Worlds par:
1. 4 (same)
2. 4 (not 3)
3. 4 (not 5)
4. 3 (not 4)
8. 3 (not 4. I can't see how they could call this 390 ft downhill shot a par 4, even though is does have OB all on the left side! It's effective length is only 318 ft!)
9. 4 (not 5)
Front 9 total = 31 (not 34)

Back nine are all the same as Worlds except for 18.
18. 6 (not 5)
Back 9 total = 32 (not 31)
Total = 63 (not 65)

Lake Olmstead. Probably a Blue level course, so Blue Par should be used.
Hole 2. 3 (not 4). It's flat, 400 ft. with OB
8. 3 (not 4) It's only 390 ft.
Front 9 = 27
back 9 = 29
Total Blue CR Par = 56 (not 58)

Oh why didn't the PDGA call me first to get my advice?

Honestly, Lowe, that the concept of par in disc golf continues to "drive you crazy" is starting to drive me crazy. :D

In disc golf par cannot be a function of effective distance alone. The swings in throwing distance are too wide, with top golfers throwing 500+ feet versus 300 feet for the status quo. There is also the effect of the nature of our putting, in that top players make 30-50 foot putts with consistentcy and regularity.

Scoring averages and throws to the green MUST be considered when establishing par - there are too many outliers and occurences of holes where effective distances are not applicable. A hole with an effective distance of 390 feet, but with a very narrow fairway and a dogleg, may average close to 5.0 for blue-level players. A higher par for this hole MUST be considered even though effective distance dictates that it would only be a par three.

By the way, just by its appearance alone, to a lot of people ball golf IS already the laughing stock of the sport's world. :D

In disc golf par cannot be a function of effective distance alone. The swings in throwing distance are too wide, with top golfers throwing 500+ feet versus 300 feet for the status quo. There is also the effect of the nature of our putting, in that top players make 30-50 foot putts with consistentcy and regularity.

Scoring averages and throws to the green MUST be considered when establishing par - there are too many outliers and occurences of holes where effective distances are not applicable. A hole with an effective distance of 390 feet, but with a very narrow fairway and a dogleg, may average close to 5.0 for blue-level players. A higher par for this hole MUST be considered even though effective distance dictates that it would only be a par three.




Jeff,

Here's a question for you: should the concept of par fundamentally be based on "errorless" play? (OK, "errorless" might not be the best possible word, but it's the best for now.) If par is errorless play then OBs, fairway widths, and scoring averages are irrelevant. None of those will affect an errorless shot. I'll loosely define an errorless throw as "a shot that follows the intended fairway and ends up in the intended landing zone".

If you're interested I'll give an example that can clarify this.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf
whats wrong with using this as par?
i know people hate the ball golf comparisons (i kinda do) but there is one thing they do pretty well, determine par. ssa/ratings should be different from par. each course should have a level (i.e. gold/white/blue/blah blah blah) and the use the above for determining what par is. yes i think it needs some adjusting but its not to far off.
and y not say everything is par 3, it simplifys things. any body who actually gives a **** what par is in dg can probably determine by looking at a hole if its a tru par 3 or not. i think of my home course and there is 2 holes that should be a 4, thats it. compared to something like highbridge where there is very few par 3's.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

For example, since Hippodrome is a Blue level course it should have a blue level par of 63. After playing there at the end of July and analyzing the course here's what I got for Blue CR par on the non-par 3 holes and compare it to this 06 Worlds par:



I have one very big question: if we're talking about the PRO WORLDS, why are we talking about BLUE par? For our sport's pro world championships the courses should all be GOLD level (at least for the open men and men's masters). Now, having said that, I haven't played the Hippo and it could be a gold course, even though most of the feedback I've heard about it says blue.

I'm sure that KC's -15 there was unfreaking believable, especially in comparison to the numbers that were put up by the rest of the field, but just to put things in perspective, here are the three single best rounds ever shot in the U.S. Open golf tournament:

Lowest score 18 Holes
• 63 (8 under) - Johnny Miller, final round, Oakmont (Pa.) C.C., 1973
• 63 (7 under) - Jack Nicklaus, first round, Baltusrol G.C., Springfield, N.J., 1980
• 63 (7 under) - Tom Weiskopf, first round, Baltusrol G.C., Springfield, N.J., 1980

Our boys have outgrown the backyard jungle jim. It's time to give them helmets, pads, and the keys to a righteous bike and let them fly!!!

http://www.iwt.co.nz/images/photos/motocross.jpg

Honestly, Lowe, that the concept of par in disc golf continues to "drive you crazy" is starting to drive me crazy. :D

In disc golf par cannot be a function of effective distance alone. The swings in throwing distance are too wide, with top golfers throwing 500+ feet versus 300 feet for the status quo. There is also the effect of the nature of our putting, in that top players make 30-50 foot putts with consistentcy and regularity.

Scoring averages and throws to the green MUST be considered when establishing par - there are too many outliers and occurences of holes where effective distances are not applicable. A hole with an effective distance of 390 feet, but with a very narrow fairway and a dogleg, may average close to 5.0 for blue-level players. A higher par for this hole MUST be considered even though effective distance dictates that it would only be a par three.

By the way, just by its appearance alone, to a lot of people ball golf IS already the laughing stock of the sport's world. :D



I agree with this absolutely.

Errorless play is completely undefined. You could make 50 different statements about errorless to help define it and everyone would still have a different idea of what it means. Using a method to define par that revolved around an undefinable concept is bad from the get-go. Gotta go with SSA. It is accurate without all the short-comings of other methods.

The worlds courses do not have the right par on a lot of holes.You have pro players shooting eagles on par 4s and 5s 8 players shooting 4 have eagles.How do we call this a pro course with a gackle of par 3 s at under 300 ft...Worlds biggest putting competion...Measure twice cut once...Fly 18 does know what par is and follows golfs rules....The #s dont lie......I am glad I stayed home I cant putt.....I have over 300 baskets in the ground and all par out according to golf standards.....Follow success and success will follow...... ;)

Continue to belittle your player base and they may not.

They may not what?//The topic is about par that is what my comments were about....I seems like Jack L does have a handle on it..The scores at worlds, look like a formula 1 race car ,on a highschool track....

Hole #2 @ hippodrome is an in between hole. I don't understand how you can call this a par four yet #4 is a par three. This hole is 25' feet shorter and no 90 degree dog leg. I saw several 2's on this hole and none on #4. This hole is way closer to a par three than a four.

Hole #4 has the wrong distance on the tee sign. (345') I measured it myself and it is right at 450'. Plus the drive is up hill! The only way to get a 2 on this hole would be to throw it in from the start of the dog leg which is almost 200'. There is absolutely no way to call this a par 3! It is a two shot hole.

Hole # 8 is another one were the tee sign is wrong. In fact they corrected it mid tournament to 520'. So the effective distance is no were near 318'. I watched two pools play this hole and saw one 2 and that was from a lefty. Again this is a tweener not a 3, yet not a 4?

Hole #9 doesn't need a par it needs a chainsaw!

Hole #18 is probably a little to long with the tight ob lines to be a true par 5.

Hole #2 @ hippodrome is an in between hole. I don't understand how you can call this a par four yet #4 is a par three. This hole is 25' feet shorter and no 90 degree dog leg. I saw several 2's on this hole and none on #4. This hole is way closer to a par three than a four.

Hole #4 has the wrong distance on the tee sign. (345') I measured it myself and it is right at 450'. Plus the drive is up hill! The only way to get a 2 on this hole would be to throw it in from the start of the dog leg which is almost 200'. There is absolutely no way to call this a par 3! It is a two shot hole.

Hole # 8 is another one were the tee sign is wrong. In fact they corrected it mid tournament to 520'. So the effective distance is no were near 318'. I watched two pools play this hole and saw one 2 and that was from a lefty. Again this is a tweener not a 3, yet not a 4?

Hole #9 doesn't need a par it needs a chainsaw!

Hole #18 is probably a little to long with the tight ob lines to be a true par 5.



My comments on Par out there

2 was def. a par three. I parked it in practice, but the OB made me play for three

I don't understand why 3 was a par 5 - I played the hole poorly (although I got down the chute both times) and took two 4's. I saw Chris Lee lip out for a 2.

Kenny missed having a 60 foot putt for 2 on 4 after going over the top JJ said. He had to throw an approach b/c he was in the woods - 5 feet closer to the fairway, he was jump putting. Still, a par 4.

I thought the 65 number for the course was correct, but I felt 3 was a par 4 and 18 was a par 6.

About the Hippo.

Hole 2 is a 3. I have had drives that would reach or pass the basket every round I've played it, I just didn't make the gap but once. I did birdie it going through the shule on the left and once through the gap. Way threeable.

Hole 3 is a 4. If you get to the opening, you should be able to reach the basket in another shot. As a gold hole, it's a par 4, at blue level, I guess it's a 5, but i just can't see anyone throwing a shot to the bottom as a plan. It's only 340 feet across the gap from the first shot. Not too hard, just tough if you don't make it to the dogleg, as with most par 4s.

Hole 4 is a par 4 too. I agree, but more like 380 or so. I think the first shot is about 240 uphill, and the next shot is 140 downhill. I 3ed it both rounds. Once over the top to the corner, and another time up the gap to the corner. First and only time I've driven up the gap and hit it right. Sweet.

Hole 8 is a tweener for sure. I can almost get there, I am always about 30 short of a realistic putt. I seem to have solid drives, I mean, as a lefty, I think I am getting about all I can get out of it with minimal risk of OB. I think a righty can deuce it, but the throw is scary: basically throw about 20 degrees left of straight, with a flippy driver, something like a Leopard. It's a big high flip drive that does a long slow turn before it start gliding into the gap. Either that or a slightly beat roc turnover.

Hole 9 is a tough par 5. It's a wooded hole that requires some strategic positioning OR creative shots. It rewards a well placed drive or a well executed shot. I actually had the perfect 2 drives to set up for a 3 in round 6. Everyone in the group played the safe shot, I went big throwing a Star TL straight ahead, clearing all trees and barely hyzering out. When I got to my disc, I had a perfect line to the basket. Only issue was a young tree, no taller than 10 feet, with branches stick out about every 8 inches, just to the left of my line. The perfect line had to go between the branches, and straight up the gap. I went for it, missing the branches, puring the gap, and keeping my Champion Leopard straight the whole way. As it got close to the basket, it settled over the last rise. I thought I was parked, but I had hit the short pin, leaving me a 35 footer. I hit just above the rim, but nubbed out. Drop in 4. Cut that one little tree, and you have a great go for it line for the player looking to risk it all for fame and glory. That would have been a sweet 3.

Hole 18 is much like the 1000 footer at the USDGC, except you really have to put up 2 booming drives to allow a safe approach with a look at the basket. Most players do not put out 450 foot drives without regard for the OB. So it is basically a par 6. I took a circle 6 and a circle 5. I was able to get my second shot around the corner after throwing my first drive OB about 30 feet from the inside corner before the downslope. Put a TeeRex out over the OB and skipped it into the center of the fairway about 10 feet past the corner. I'd love to see the scoring average on this hole and how many actual throws were thrown by players. The story is told not just by the score, but also by the OBs taken. A player can get a 7 playing safe, or a 7 with 2 OBs going for the gusto. Much like hole 11 at the USDGC from 2004 and before.

"errorless play" is a valid concept. i calculate it be taking thebest scores ever on each hole, regardless of player. as number of rounds increase, the score tends towards the theoretical best possible score- aka errorless play. i would not count aces.

assuming proper physical design theories and standards are followed for hole architecture, setting par then becomes a question of how severely the designer wishes to punish an error. in other words, valid pars for a course where 1000 rated players average 72 might be defensible in the range from 68 to 76.

so "par" does not change the course, only the numbers that are used to report players performance on it. in a dream world, par calculations are comparable from course to course. but they are not. since the ball golf, with its hundreds of years of history, is in exactly the same position, there is no real cause for alarm.

i personally favor combining the DGCDG guidelines for shot length, skill level, and shot type with the general hole length guidelines published by the same group, but with the CRP concept taking over from the close range line (shots plus 2). this allows the designer to include "foliage" (fairway width, size of landing zone, and other factors can be substituted/added to foliage as independant variables). if you operate at the edges of the DGCDG you can create a surpriingly wide swing in pars values purely from the guidelines... giving the designer the final say. the deisgner can establish par anywhere in the range where shot by shot and hole by hole the numbers are defensible and conform to both DGCDG and CRP guidelines. combining the two has proven an especially effective means for creating effective designs and establishing par on links style courses

...It seems like Jack L does have a handle on it..



I think you mean Lowe Bibby not Jack Lowe.

Hole #2 @ hippodrome is an in between hole. I don't understand how you can call this a par four yet #4 is a par three. This hole is 25' feet shorter and no 90 degree dog leg. I saw several 2's on this hole and none on #4. This hole is way closer to a par three than a four.




Hippo Hole 2- OK, it's a definite tweener. The effective length is 412 ft. For Blue CR Par the max length of a par 3 is 410 ft., so the spreadsheet calculated it at par 4. I'm willing to concede that for Pro Worlds it could be a par 3, so I manually changed it.

Hole #4 has the wrong distance on the tee sign. (345') I measured it myself and it is right at 450'. Plus the drive is up hill!



Shawn,

I'm curious to know how you measured hole 4. Did you pace it or use a measuring device?

Lowe Bibby

Hole #4 has the wrong distance on the tee sign. (345') I measured it myself and it is right at 450'. Plus the drive is up hill! The only way to get a 2 on this hole would be to throw it in from the start of the dog leg which is almost 200'. There is absolutely no way to call this a par 3! It is a two shot hole.



If we compromise and call Hippo hole 4 at 400 ft then being uphill it has an effective length of ~430 which makes it Blue CR Par 4. Change made.

Hole # 8 is another one were the tee sign is wrong. In fact they corrected it mid tournament to 520'. So the effective distance is no were near 318'. I watched two pools play this hole and saw one 2 and that was from a lefty. Again this is a tweener not a 3, yet not a 4?



Hippo Hole 8--Change made to 520 ft. Effectvie length = 448 ft. Blue CR Par = 4. Thanks.

One important point is that the Hippodrome is a Blue level course, so par should be for Blue level players.

Adusted Blue CR par: Front = 32, Back = 32, Total Blue CR Par = 64.
(On the front the par 4s are holes 1, 3, 4, 8, 9; all other are par 3.)

Hole 9 is a solid Par 5.

on the back, I count 3, 3, 3.5, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 5... so I get 31.5 for the back.

Hole 12 is sorta in between. It's got a big risk of OB for a righty to go for the green hyzer, and the risk of OB and trouble early makes a lot of players club down, including myself. I want to get out of there with a 3. I saw a long putt for a 2, and I saw Coral park it with a sidearm. It' definitely reachable by a lot of players, but the blind green and the trouble early and late make this a risky birdie opp if it's a par 3. There are far more 4s than 2s.

Par is irrelevant ..... Low score wins every time!

The hole pars listed on some holes at the Hippodrome and Lake Olmstead were very liberal and are not as accurate for Gold level players as they are for Blue level players. This was done on purpose! What makes you more mad? A hole par listed too low that you can never birdie, or a hole par listed a bit high that you can eagle if you make a really good shot? ;)

Some of the longer, tougher par 3's were listed as 4's. The worlds best ball golfers can eagle a short par 4, why can't the worlds best disc golfers eagle a short par 4?

Regardless of what anyone feels the par is, the Hippodrome is the kind of course that will eat your lunch if you are not on your game and will give up a good score if you are.

Call hole 2 at Olmstead a par 4, its a great 2. Call it a par 3, it's a great 2.

Call hole 4at Hippo a par 5, its a great 3. Call it a par 4, it's a great 3.

The hole does not change based on it's par, however the strategy might. I layed up on Olmstead 2 and took a 3 and a 4, which I was more satisified with cuz in my head I was thinking par 4 than I might have been thinking par bogey instead.

You should be able to drive that hole MTL. I drove it and hit the trees hard into a headwind. Don't be afraid of the OB, aim at the gap and throw. Trying to hyzer to the green is what got a lot of people in trouble on that hole. I was trying to hit the left gap and kept drilling the left side glade. I decided I would use that as my target and if I kick through, it was meant to be, if not, I get a 3. If I go left, I am still safe, if I go right, I hit the gap.

These comments are not meant to disrespect anyone that has poured hours and hours of their personal time into putting on a great disc golf happening. These are only my opinions.


Par is irrelevant ..... Low score wins every time!



If that's true then why is it listed on the worlds tournament scores page? Maybe it's so that it's easier for someone to compare their -20 score to the champ's -70 than doing the math of 393-(372-23). Same as the old, par's 3 on every hole so that the math is easier, mentality.


What makes you more mad? A hole par listed too low that you can never birdie, or a hole par listed a bit high that you can eagle if you make a really good shot?



It's not that the hole par is "listed" too high or too low, the hole's design is wrong. Having our professional world championships played on blue level courses needs to become a thing of the past. How can anyone look a potential national sponsor in the eye and answer the question, "why is it that the winning score is 70 under par?" with "that's because we are using courses that are appropriate for advanced amateurs. We'd like to someday have our professional world championship played on professional level courses, but that might scare away some of the amateur players that subsidize the purse, we've never done that before and don't want to mess with tradition, and that might involve redesigning some courses and creating some temporary layouts."

There's a widely held belief that holes in the 3.1-3.3 or 4.1-4.3 range have inherently poor design. There is nothing wrong a hole that yields 15% birdies, 60% pars, and 25% bogeys as long as 95% of the variance isn't due purely to distance.

After an event look at the distribution of scores on every hole for the appropriate sample group. This group may be the top 1/3 or 1/2 or those with player ratings within a certain range, but it shouldn't be everyone that competed in a certain division. When the distributions aren't within reasonable limits, don't change the par # on the scorecard, FIX THE HOLE! It might mean making the hole shorter or longer, moving the basket, or tweaking the tee angle to make the hole easier or harder.

Gregg Hosfeld mentioned in his DGWN article about The Players Cup that "several holes had questionable pars". I immediately knew that he was referring to hole 13, the 470 ft. par 3 that nobody birdied during the tournament. (It was reported that 3 people missed putts inside 50 ft.) In retrospect that hole was about 50 ft. too long. (For this year that hole has been stretched to a 900 ft. par 5 that I expect will average about 4.65 for cashing players and will probably be the easiest hole on the course, relative to par).

I was hard pressed to figure out which were the other holes with "questionable" pars. Gregg said that the one other he had in mind was hole 15. That hole yielded 9% birdies, 58% pars, and 33% bogeys, for an average of 3.2. Generally, I like to see that birdie number in the 15-20% range, but by no means was the par wrong. That's an example of a situation where the tee could be moved up 20-30 ft. to make the distribution more symetric. In this case, however, we've opted to leave the hole alone to balance some of the easier holes like the mentioned #13 and the other par 5, #16.

Looking forward to seeing how the scores shake out at the Red Hawk Am for those playing the white and red tees. I apologize in advance to the advanced men that are used to shooting under par /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Oh yea, one more thing, for all I just griped about gold players playing blue courses I have to admit that we're guilty of the reverse: we're having advanced amateurs play a tournament from the "blue" tees that are really a gold course :eek:

"errorless play" is a valid concept. i calculate it be taking thebest scores ever on each hole, regardless of player. as number of rounds increase, the score tends towards the theoretical best possible score- aka errorless play. i would not count aces.


If you wouldn't count aces, then you shouldn't count deuces on holes that should almost never be deuced.

Errorless play is play without mistakes. For a hole that can be aced, but only very, very rarely, it is not a mistake not to ace it. For a hole that can be deuced, but only very, very rarely, it is not a mistake not to deuce it.

That's why I think you can't use the best-score-ever model to determine errorless play. Otherwise, you would have to count aces, and you would have to count deuces on harder holes that are as good as aces on easier holes, etc.

What I would use to set par on a hole is a "landing zone" model. For a certain skill level, a player should be able to throw to a particular landing zone. From that landing zone, a player should be able to throw to the next landing zone, and so forth, ending with the final putt. The number of landing zones plus the final putt establishes the par for that hole.

I'm all for statistics and distance charts as a sanity check, but I think the hole must be seen and known by a designer, to determine these landing zones, so he or she could then properly set the hole's par. My two cents.

How can anyone look a potential national sponsor in the eye and answer the question, "why is it that the winning score is 70 under par?"



I can, and it�s easy: �Mr. Sponsor, DG has a legacy of being a sport accessible to almost anyone. The equipment is affordable and for the most part it is free to play since most of the courses are in public parks. Due to incredible advances in disc technology, courses that were designed just 10 years ago are now obsolete for championship play, as you point out. Many holes that where 3 was a good score ten years ago are now an easy 2 for the top players. Same thing with the higher par holes. That is why you see the very low scores when compared to par.

�Unlike golf, where they have huge budgets to lengthen courses as their technology has advanced, disc golf does not have the same economic structure. That is why it is critical that we find people like you who can become financial partners with us to help our sport reach a level for the viewing public that will mirror the excitement and fun that it offers its participants. As prize purses and budgets grow, our sport will absolutely evolve into something self-sustaining. And you have the opportunity to be on the ground floor in this!

Why don�t you come out with me to the Winthrop Gold Course, the mecca of championship disc golf, for a round so you can see for yourself the fun and excitement the game can be. And you will see a venue that has great potential for televised events. Don�t worry about the expense � I�ll cover the greens fees! And to top it off, one of the highest rated players from Mousetown will be joining us!�

Dave has a point...

As time goes along and with the new discs that are being pumped out, par will change. A hole that is a par 4 for Gold players this year, may become a par 3 the next year if there is a disc that will somehow give a person the little extra D, right curvature to the hole, etc...

I doubt ball golf is going back and changing their pars just because tiger or daly can smack the living **** out of the ball thus giving them more eagle opportunities or easy birdie chances when a few years ago, a birdie or eagle was rarely heard of on certain holes was unheard of.

this is more true if holes are based on distance. a links style hole design might not change at all due to new technology, because it is the accuracy of the golfer that counts. thats why some ball golf courses play as tougher relative to all other courses as they did when they were built nearly a century ago.

You should be able to drive that hole MTL. I drove it and hit the trees hard into a headwind. Don't be afraid of the OB, aim at the gap and throw. Trying to hyzer to the green is what got a lot of people in trouble on that hole. I was trying to hit the left gap and kept drilling the left side glade. I decided I would use that as my target and if I kick through, it was meant to be, if not, I get a 3. If I go left, I am still safe, if I go right, I hit the gap.



You saw me park it in practice. However, I chose to play it for three. It was also my first hole of the tournament and I'm playing with the champ, I was little nervous and just said let's not start off bad and just take an easy three

this is more true if holes are based on distance. a links style hole design might not change at all due to new technology, because it is the accuracy of the golfer that counts. thats why some ball golf courses play as tougher relative to all other courses as they did when they were built nearly a century ago.



You can not compare BG to DG in this way. BG can let the grass grow for a week in the fringe and the rough and dramatically increase the premium on accuracy. They can dig holes in the ground and put some sand in it in strategic landing areas and force players to pick their poison in where they choose to land their balls.

DG's has trees and distance to mess with. When a tree comes down from wind or disease or old age, how do you then increase difficulty??? Length and tucking baskets in funky new positions. Effective length is decreased by trees coming down, so the only way to increase effective length is to add actual length.

well, if a landing zone is at 290', what heppens to the trees around it may or may not alter the hole. i gree that tree problems around the basket can be more of an issue

better forstry practices are a necessary part of the solution. until we all learn that DG on public parks is not environmentally as sustainable as we first thought, we will have continued degradation of our public courses. establishing new tress, especially with indigenous species, does not have to be super expensive.

Unlike golf, where they have huge budgets to lengthen courses as their technology has advanced, disc golf does not have the same economic structure.


It does not take a huge budget to upgrade a course for championship play.


Why don’t you come out with me to the Winthrop Gold Course, the mecca of championship disc golf, for a round so you can see for yourself the fun and excitement the game can be. And you will see a venue that has great potential for televised events.


Point proven.


I doubt ball golf is going back and changing their pars just because tiger or daly can smack the living **** out of the ball


Golf pars have been adjusted. Most recently the 515 yard ninth hole, former par 5 was played as a par 4 for this year’s U.S. Open. It played tough, averaging 4.4, although it did yield one awesome eagle 2! Golf hole distances and pars are being adjusted all the time and not for one or two players. All the players are hitting longer. Currently 15 players on tour average more than 300 yards per drive. Tiger and Daly both give up about 15 yards to Bubba Watson who's at 319.3 yards per drive.

Having designed 6 temporary and 1 permanent par 60+ disc golf courses that have been tested in tournament play and reading about how our group consensus on how par is defined is just coming together, I have one recommendation for anyone designing a gold layout: use flypads. I say that not only because I’m a fan of Reese’s vision and perseverance, but because of four important factors:
1) Hole variety
2) Environmental impact variety
3) The cost of cement has doubled in the last year
4) The “oops” factor of design


This is more true if holes are based on distance. a links style hole design might not change at all due to new technology, because it is the accuracy of the golfer that counts.


Excellent point. Take note of how Tiger won the British Open this year and only hit his driver once in 72 holes. It’s frequently mentioned how much disparity there is in disc golf driving distance. There are quite a few very fine disc golfers with tough mental games, amazing variety of shots, ability to hit tight gaps, and great putting that can “only” throw 350-380ft. I think it’s important to design courses that give these players a chance to win in the open division. Having said that, I believe that every course should give the 500 ft. + throwers some opportunities to take advantage of their greater power, but not without taking some additional risk. For example, take a dog-leg par 4 where the longer you throw, attempting to get around the dogleg with the drive, the greater the chance of getting blocked out for the second shot.


Better forestry practices are a necessary part of the solution. Until we all learn that DG on public parks is not environmentally as sustainable as we first thought, we will have continued degradation of our public courses. Establishing new tress, especially with indigenous species, does not have to be super-expensive.


Another excellent point. We cannot continue to mislead parks departments into thinking that they can plant some baskets and not budget for course maintenance. Erosion and vandalism happens, cement breaks, trash needs picked up, grass needs cut, and trees fall. A model of $2-5 pay per play with a disc pro shop, with the parks department getting � the money and � staying for course maintenance and upgrades is a vision that will create a partnership with the parks department that will help grow the sport and create courses that have 4 sets of tees, benches, trash cans, superb course maintenance refreshments for sale, par 4’s and 5’s, a huge local following, great tournaments, etc. Think a cross of Morley Field, Hudson Mills, and Idlewild.


Final note: I’m still waiting for someone to give one valid reason for why the PDGA does not require that it’s open men’s world championship be decided on all gold courses.
Disc golf world champion: -70
Last five U.S. Open golf champions: +5, -1, -4, -8, -3, -4

a valid reason for the current condition, or a valid reason for continuiing it?

gimmee watchugot

reasons the current condition exist... we have not done these three things

a) require a real qualification even if it means you wont have 400 players (ie, make it real)
b) require SSA or pars of at least 65 or 66 (ie,make it real golf)
c) move towards a few rounds on one course rather than the "lots of courses lots of rounds" approach. a solid gold course will test anything, probably more than, a half dozen typical p54's will test.

reasons for not reaching the objective: none.

now, when ya think about it, the overall scene is actually moving in that direction, albeit slowly, isnt it?

does anyone have any reason this hole was listed as a par 5

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

the only thing I can think of is that it has 3 distinct parts. the tunnel, the downhill and the uphill. Of course, it's only 340 to get across that area and there are no obstacles, so yeah, it's pretty hard to justify a 5. Maybe if the basket were in the chute on the left of Hole 4's tee. That'd make for a tricky par 5.

But yeah, a 3 is a birdie, not an eagle.

Hole#4 at the Hippodrome Hilltop course was listed as a par 4 here on the PDGA 06 Worlds homepage here: http://www.pdga06worlds.com/pdga06worlds_002.htm

Where was it listed as par 5?

Tentative plan for PW2007 at Highbridge for Open Men. Two Gold courses and a tough Blue course with 6 Gold tees will each be played twice before semis. The percentage of holes that are significantly impacted by trees, elevation and OB is also shown:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Name</td><td>Length</td><td>Par</td><td>SSA</td><td>Trees</td><td>Elev</td><td>OB
</td></tr><tr><td>Highbridge Gold</td><td>9530 </td><td>66</td><td>62.1</td><td>30%</td><td>50%</td><td>30%
</td></tr><tr><td>The Bear</td><td>8070 </td><td>64</td><td>61.0</td><td>90%</td><td>70%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td>Granite Ridge</td><td>8395 </td><td>62</td><td>56.5</td><td>15%</td><td>70%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Hole#4 at the Hippodrome Hilltop course was listed as a par 4 here on the PDGA 06 Worlds homepage here: http://www.pdga06worlds.com/pdga06worlds_002.htm

Where was it listed as par 5?



On the tee sign.

Also, par was pased on 65

435433345333344335 = 65

Tentative plan for PW2007 at Highbridge for Open Men. Two Gold courses and a tough Blue course with 6 Gold tees will each be played twice before semis. The percentage of holes that are significantly impacted by trees, elevation and OB is also shown:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Name</td><td>Length</td><td>Par</td><td>SSA</td><td>Trees</td><td>Elev</td><td>OB
</td></tr><tr><td>Highbridge Gold</td><td>9530 </td><td>66</td><td>62.1</td><td>30%</td><td>50%</td><td>30%
</td></tr><tr><td>The Bear</td><td>8070 </td><td>64</td><td>61.0</td><td>90%</td><td>70%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td>Granite Ridge</td><td>8395 </td><td>62</td><td>56.5</td><td>15%</td><td>70%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



Nice! With two courses greater than SSA 60, this event will surge past Pro Worlds 2005 as the toughest ever contested in a Pro Worlds. We'll have world class courses to challenge the best disc golfers in the world. :cool:

The courses sound great.

However, I think they may be too hard.

I really think for a successfull worlds, you need courses that have SSA's of:

1 with 62 +
2 with 52 - 58
1 with 46 - 49

I think that with that range of courses, truly the best disc golfer would win.

that looks pretty good Chuck. how much el;evation change do you need for you to consider elevation to be a significant factor?

Time per round is an issue on longer courses but the schedule will be 2-1-2-1 or 1-2-1-2 for the four days before semis. They don't play the ball golf US Open from the short tees just for short course variety. But it will be the first time for this tough of a set of courses and we'll find out if it's too much. None of the other divisions will play all three of these courses. Blueberry Blue tees is SSA 53.5 and Woodland White is 46 plus Blueberry Red layout is 48 and Granite Red is 50. Some divisions will be playing these layouts and they all will have cement tees even from the shorter Red tees.

how much el;evation change do you need for you to consider elevation to be a significant factor?



Mathematically it's maybe around 10-15 feet on a hole but it's also just a thing where you look at a hole and say elevation plays a relevant part of the design. The word "significant" is maybe misleading because it's more that elevation plays "some" factor in the hole.

cool.

i spose any hole with trees could be considered an OB risk then too. oh wait, you are not using the 2MR anymore :D

I really think for a successfull worlds, you need courses that have SSA's of:

1 with 62 +
2 with 52 - 58
1 with 46 - 49




I gotta disagree. IMO, all courses for Open (if not other divisions) should include true par 4s and 5s. Playing birdie fests at a B-tier is tiresome, playing them at a World Championship is completely unacceptable. Four courses like the Hippo are needed for a true test of golfing ability.

Hole 10 on the Gold course with the field of 15-20 ft pines does have the 2m rule. Hole 11 has the 'no penalty' drop zone at 30ft if your shot sticks in the hemlock tree with branches right over the basket.

I really think for a successfull worlds, you need courses that have SSA's of:

1 with 62 +
2 with 52 - 58
1 with 46 - 49




I gotta disagree. IMO, all courses for Open (if not other divisions) should include true par 4s and 5s. Playing birdie fests at a B-tier is tiresome, playing them at a World Championship is completely unacceptable. Four courses like the Hippo are needed for a true test of golfing ability.



I understand where you are coming from for sure. My thing about "birdie fests" are they are a part of the game. If you have a course with 18 par 4's all between 500 - 650 feet, then what is really the difference between than an a course with holes that are between 200 - 350 feet other than the tee shot.

On 200 - 350 foot holes, you gotta put your drive in putting range to score. On 500 - 650 holes, you gotta put you 2nd shot (usually around 200 - 350 feet) in putting range to score.

Just b/c a course is easy or not long doesn't mean it's not a great course. IMO, the worst course at this years worlds was Hippo (and I still liked it). I heard many of the top players (including 3 of the top 5 in Open) complaing about how easy the courses were, yet the 4 best players in the world all finished in the top 5. If these courses were so easy, then how come someone like me didn't win?

so you push them back to 10m and make the hit the putt? BRAVO!!!

so you push them back to 10m and make the hit the putt?



Yep. Although I haven't heard of anyone sticking in that tree yet to try and make that putt :)

james is rigfht on this. birdie fest blowouts are silly. even when they happen on the PGA tour more and more people are starting to raise their eyebrows. when that one big tourney ened up at like -3 winning the whole world noticed, and tended to like it. for world championships, par should be in the hunt. par 2 should be banned, and a minimum realistic of par in the 62-64 range would be nice. then we would have a real competition that txed more than the 285' "drive" and a 20' putt.

There are many differences between par 4s and 5s and par 3s. Predictability and risk/reward decisionmaking are the two most important differences IMO. Par 3s are usually very predictable. The line(s) off the tee are known and are practiced extensively. As a player, I know exactly what I am supposed to do. As a spectator, I know exactly what the players will do. 18 of these make for a very uninteresting round.

Par 4s and 5s are better tests of both physical and mental skills. These holes will almost always present the golfer with unanticipated shots. Shots they had not planed on, and skills they might not have anticipated using. Not only that, they will make many more decisions. One can play smart golf, or dumb golf on par 4s and 5s. One only plays mindless golf on par 3s.

I'll agree that par 3 courses may be great, or they may suck if poorly designed, just like longer courses. However, higher par courses put less of a premium on putting, and more of a premium on other golfing skills. The top guys finish well on both because they usually have better putting, shotmaking and mental skills than their competitors.

The comments I got from the players at Mid-Nationals both years at Highbridge was that they were more exhausted from the pressure of having to constantly make decisions on par 4s & 5s all thru the course than the physical aspect of walking a 7000-9000 ft course.

Well put, James. If this thread was my only source of info on the state of Texas, I'd say it was a very progressive state. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


If these courses were so easy, then how come someone like me didn't win


If a course is “easy”, then it’s easy for all players and the best player will still win. The times that ams beat pros are usually on short, tight courses where there’s a lot of pinball action that greatly increases the luck factor, i.e. Coldbrook in K-Zoo.

A course’s length, par, and SSA do not necessarily convey how good or difficult it is. “Difficulty” being the difference between par and SSA. A par 70 course with an SSA of 61 is EASY, while a par 54 course with an SSA of 60 is difficult. (That assumes that the pars are more or less correct) A course can be “difficult”, but not good, i.e. a 12,000+ ft. par 70 wide-open course may have an SSA around 70, but the top 5 guys that can throw 450 ft. consistently always shoot 60-64’s. Score variance on a good course needs to come from a balanced variety of factors: course management, shot variety, distance variety, power, ability to hit tight lines, and putting. I hear a lot of talk about the importance of balancing hyzer/anhyzer/straight on courses. I think that factors such as balancing crush/accuracy, roller/air-shot, over-the-top/low-ceiling, go-for/layup basket locations, and incorporating many more “S” shot fairways are paramount.

I think that the work done for ’07 at Highbridge is definitely taking us in the right direction. (My only wish would be that the gap between SSA and par for Granite ridge could be shrunk a bit.) I applaud the work that Chuck’s put into creating par standards for defined skill levels that can be incorporated in courses around the globe. While our methodology for defining par may differ, I think that in 95% of the cases we would agree on whether the par for certain holes was right, wrong, or the hole should be tweaked.

My only wish would be that the gap between SSA and par for Granite ridge could be shrunk a bit.



Since those 6 Gold tees haven't been installed and tested yet, it's possible that the par may drop to 60 or 61 and the SSA may actually be in the 57-58 range.

We're planning to borrow the Charlotte Points Bonanza concept and run a Highbridge Points Bonanza next year on June 30-July 3 to test all of the Worlds layouts and make sure pin placements are the best choices and study the flow and round timing. So, if players can't make it to Worlds, want to practice the courses in advance or they are Ams, they can check things out at the Bonanza.

Sweet!!

The Points Bonzanzas are awesome.

Are you TDing pro worlds?

And congrats on getting inducted to HOF. You def. deserve it.

Are you TDing pro worlds?



Do I hafta now that I got in the HOF :D

Yes, I'm TD for PW2007 and we'll try to build on the good things from the past few Worlds and add a few more.

Already looking forward to it.

Maybe I can stay in Canada eh

It would be an awful long commute across Lake Superior (but still worth it.) Look at the map and see where Ashland, WI is on Lake Superior. We're 20 miles south of that. You'll only be 40 minutes from UP Michigan, 15 minutes if you stay at our host hotel, Whitecap Lodge.

Sounds great about the 6 gold tees and the "test" event!

The comments I got from the players at Mid-Nationals both years at Highbridge was that they were more exhausted from the pressure of having to constantly make decisions on par 4s & 5s all thru the course than the physical aspect of walking a 7000-9000 ft course.



They were all Blue or below level players, right? I can see how a Gold course might be tedious to Blue level players or below. Just as Red and White level can be boring for Gold level players.

Personally I'd like for the courses to tend towards the more challenging side, rather than the wake me up when it's over side. Somewhere a little above my skill level. My pet peeve for a number of years is when an event throws in a round on their shorts for the heck of it.

Perhaps the time is coming when we can target specific skill ranges at our events. I don't know about a World's being that type of event, but certainly there is room for such events in our system.

Congrats on the HOF Chuck!

Perhaps the time is coming when we can target specific skill ranges at our events.


Yes, it starts this weekend! The Red Hawk Amateur Championships will feature the advanced men getting their butts kicked on the 9985 ft., par 65 blue (really gold) layout. The advanced masters and intermediates will play the 7895 ft., par 65 white layout. Advanced women, recs, jr.'s, etc. will play the 6255 ft., par 65 red layout.

Allowing for two putts on every hole, the average shot distances required for each set of tees are:
Blue: 344ft.
White: 272ft.
Red: 216ft.

Here's another argument for how disc golf is better than ball golf: It really is possible to design sets of tees for different skill levels and have those players make pars, birdies, and bogeys. An "intermediate" type ball golfer is about a 30 handicapper that will usually make one or two pars per round and one or two birdies per month playing from the white tees.

Can't wait to see how the scores from the white and red tees break down!

For the advanced players on the blue tees, I'll stand with my prediction of -7 winning for 63 holes. For the combined overall breakdown of scores for that division I predict:
15% birdies or better
40% pars
30% bogeys
15% doubles or worse
for an average of all advanced 18 hole rounds of 73.1

Let's see how well the dennyometer works!

you sure you just dont wanna admit that the p65 is really truly a Gold course, the white is actually a blue, and the red truly a white? :cool:

from your stated average distance off teebox, it seems you are consistantly over the "recommended" distance for the divisions, as the courses are labelled now. but i can tell for sure without a course map.... ya got one anywhere?

i like the score distribution... if your prediction holds, it will be sweet to get that much of a spread.

Of course the actual distributions will need to be adjusted based on ratings since typically the players in those divisions have ratings that go lower than the intended design level of the layout.

Yeah, it looks like the white is a bit outside the recommended range (150-270), but the course is fairly wide open and does offer quite a few opportunities for loooooong rollers. The red is towards the top end of the range (130-230).

I'll adjust the samples for the ananysis to include only the appropriate ratings for each tee level: white 875-924, and red<875.

Just use the analysis tool in the Hole Forecaster and you don't need to hand pick those in the ratings range although it may be better if you have enough round scores in the correct range (>50).

Normally my SOP would be to refuse a suggestion and attempt to reinvent the wheel, but I'm finding in my medium-age that I'm learning to do things the easier, softer way on occasion, thus I'll give the hole forecaster a whirl - thanx!

Looks like we'll have plenty of players from the white tees to get a good review there, but the red players are looking pretty slim:(

quickie update from the red hawk am champs:

rd. 1 the advanced scores came in about 1-2 strokes higher than i predicted. the average was 73.7 (i guessed 73) and the two hot players tied with even par 65's. (i had predicted that the winner would be -7 for 63 holes)

the advanced masters ended up persuading the easily excitable mike barnett into playing from the blue tees as well. the hot round in that division was a one over, 66, with the divisional average of 73, so it looks like the guys that are much older than me validated themselves against the young guns in the first round.

i haven't had time to plug all the individual holes in yet, but on it's face the intermediate players shot the kind of scores i had hoped for from the white tees. the hot scores were 58 and 60 followed by a bunch in the 63-68 range, with an average for the division of 68.3.

rd. 2 got a bit wacky due to an extended lightning delay. with a time crunch on, the advanced/advanced masters played the whites, and the intermediates played the reds. it turned a 4 hour round into a 3 hour round and the last card came in just before dusk. good call by the td!!!

Thanks to all that made it out to Crystal River! We had a blast watching everyone play. The pros will be grateful come November that we had a chance to use the advanced players as guinea pigs on the course changes. We saw that we've got some opportunities for further trimming and marking, but don’t plan any additional changes before The Players Cup. After this weekend, I'm hoping that the hot round in November will be a -8, 57.

On the dennyometer front, I predicted that the average advanced score from the blues would be 73.1 and boo-yah, I nailed that one right on the head! I predicted the scores would be distributed with 15% birdies, 40% pars, 30% bogeys, and 15% doubles or worse. It turned out to be 9% birdies, 51% pars, 29% bogeys, and 11% doubles or worse. The hot rounds on blue were even par 65 by Corey Wisenberg and Mike Phillips in round one.

The intermediate rounds on the white tees spread nicely with 14% birdies, 55% pars, 23% bogeys, and 7% doubles or worse for an average of 69.1. The hot round was Lenny Gomez with a 58. Looks like that young man has got some skills and will be soon be kicking my butt in the advanced division!

Complete score distributions and a link to some awesome photos here. (http://www.etherbinge.com/rha.htm)

The scores will be posted to pdga tour as soon as the td enters the data in the spreadsheet, emails the pdga, and someone on the pdga end posts the results to their server, i.e. don’t ask me ;)

I’ve been mulling this one over for a while now, and will take this opportunity to announce the revised etherbinge.com $500 Red Hawk bounty. Last year, the tournament bounty was offered for the first player to birdie 13,14, and 15 in succession. As there were no birdies on 13 the bounty failed to get claimed. Only one player in the field made back to back birdies on 14 and 15. I’ll leave you to guess on that one, but will give one hint: he’s from Florida, but has not yet won a World Championship.

Back to the bounty: the inspiration for this year’s bounty came from an excited phone call I got from my favorite disc golfer from SoCal, the originator of “Big and Real”, and a notoriously loud snorer, none other than flyboy himself. He said that the new hole 13 was way too short at 900 ft. and the pros were going to get threes on it all day long. I tried to persuade him that the tee shot was tight enough to make getting within 450 ft. very difficult and there is a lot of OB to negotiate and that it’s unlikely anyone will get within about 60 ft. in two, but he wouldn’t trust the dendog. Soooo I am offering $100 cash to each of the first five players to eagle the 900 ft., par 5 13th during tournament play for this year’s Players Cup.

The scores will be posted to pdga tour as soon as the td enters the data in the spreadsheet, emails the pdga, and someone on the pdga end posts the results to their server, i.e. don�t ask me



That means players won't see unofficial ratings. They only get those if the TD uploads the scores. Once the PDGA gets them, the scores are posted as official with no ratings until the update, which fortunately is coming up fairly soon.

I predicted the scores would be distributed with 15% birdies, 40% pars, 30% bogeys, and 15% doubles or worse. It turned out to be 9% birdies, 51% pars, 29% bogeys, and 11% doubles or worse.



I'm not sure this overall course distribution provides anyone with useful information whereas the scoring distributions on specific holes which you also produced can be very useful, especially once they are normalized to a specific skill level.

That was just a summary to bait data-heads into clicking on the link and digging into the spreadsheet ;)

denny, i like the spreadsheet. i would add not to be too woirried about some of those red cells. if you are getting a reasonable spread across four (or more) scores on a hole, there's nothing wrong with a low "birdie" count.

there are some holes you can win on, and some holes you can lose on. skewing the spread upwards might easily means it is just a tougher "par", not a poor hole design, imo.

i look at it this way: any percentage over 50% deserves a look. but from 50-70% i dont stress too much - IF there are a fair percentage above and below. for example, a hole that plays 14%, 57%, 29% (bird,par,bogey) is not a bad distribution at all. even a 71%,14%,14% is not bad - assuming the hole was designed to severly punish a mistake.

i count how many percentages are:
below 50%
between 50%-75%
greater than 75%

holes with a 75% or greater are of great concern, especially if more than a couple exist.

holes with one score between 50-75% does not have to be too much of a problem, again assuming there is a good spread in the other scores.

besides, tough, sequential holes are a great test of the mental side of the game.

The numbers do need to be normalized to the course layout skill level to get appropriate percentages. If the skill level of players is too wide, you can get a scoring spread that looks good and disguises a less than desireable spread for the intended skill level.

I hear you on that, Chuck. The problem with the intermediate data was that some of the players were not current and many were new and do not have player ratings yet. I believe that the sample rating may skew slightly below the 900 average rating for white. As some of the holes had fewer birdies than I'd hoped, a sample that is adjusted to the 900 # may reveal more "ideal" #'s there. Thinking about this sample, I'm betting that td's everywhere would have similar issues with the lack of player ratings for everyone. While my sample may be difficult to normalize, I do feel that it's representative of players in the intermediate division that attend FFT events and is useful in planning holes for that group.

Pat, thanks for the feedback. I do agree on the
" 14%, 57%, 29% (bird,par,bogey) is not a bad distribution" and would say that it's an example of a beautiful distribution,
but would disagree with "even a 71%,14%,14% is not bad"

I do feel that it's representative of players in the intermediate division that attend FFT events and is useful in planning holes for that group.




I agree mostly that you want to set a course for the actual group of competitors. Although when doing that, you still want to only include maybe the top 2/3 of the division as legitimate contenders. For example, at Pro Worlds, you don't design to make sure the 925 Open player has holes to his skill level but that the course is set for roughly 1000 rated level. Then, we have the super secret Super Gold guidelines for handling players over 1025 in Final 9s. :eek:

You do want the narrower distribution of players near a specific skill level for actual course design analysis.

I definitely agree with that concept, that's why we're only looking at the cashing players for Players Cup analysis. A hole can have a nice looking distribution for the field as a whole, but not put much separation between the top players: i.e. last year's hole 5 on the Red Hawk.

Any suggestions on getting a truly representative, normalized sample? Although it would usually work to throw out those players that do not yet have ratings, assuming their rating would be too low to be useful, in some cases you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Any suggestions on getting a truly representative, normalized sample?



The Hole Forecaster will automatically adjust the distribution for your group of players to the proper rating level. However, only the scores of players with ratings should be entered.

chuck, i agree they need to be normalized. hopefully i didnt give the impression i disagreed.

denny, i understand the 71-14-14 discomfort.... but the full quote was " even a 71%,14%,14% is not bad - assuming the hole was designed to severly punish a mistake. ". now, i wouldnt want a course of nothing but 71-14-14's, but a single "do or die" hole is not necessarily a showstopper.

this early ke'ohana distribution (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/keohana/course_master.xls) spreadsheet has some interesting numbers, but are based on such a small number of rounds-to-date that they can only be used a very general prediction at this point. fun to look at though.... look at the score distribution tab, and the green "Adjusted Score Distribution" section on the right of that sheet.

chuck, i agree they need to be normalized. hopefully i didnt give the impression i disagreed.




What you said was fine. I was just emphasizing the point.

Hole Forecaster for ke'Ohana (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/keohana/keohnana_HoleForecasterv3.1.xls)

very interesting. chuck's spreadsheet is a much snazzier presentation than my basic one, and includes some guidance on possible design corrections. it also interesting to see how the Forecaster can differ from the standard design guidelines on occassion, but thats to be expected with the slightly different methods.

I was just saying that throwing out all data from unrated players is wasting some useful data. There's also the case of a player who hasn't played in a long time or has been injured and is playing at a level significantly below their player rating.

We might be able to devise a method to take all round scores that fall within a certain range of round ratings, regardless of the player rating or lack thereof of the player that shot the round. i.e. if the the 900 rated round turns out to be 68, then all the rounds that are, say within 10% of that score (59-75) would be included in the analysis. This would include some that would have been thrown out for not having a rating and exclude some who played that round well below the appropriate level. Could that be done with the existing hole forecaster tool, but by substituting the round rating for the player rating?

I think you could include anyone with a round score that falls in the range of the rated players you plan to include and enter a rating estimate from the PDGA unofficial ratings for that player for that round.

Cool,
after the round ratings hit the website, I'll redo the #'s with that method and see if anything comes out significantly different, just for S&G's.

I just read your article for course changes at the Players Cup. Sounds like a really fun pro level course is getting even better. Thanks to people like you and Chuck who have vision with where this sport should be going, disc golf has a bright looking future!

Par - Ball golf (http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/usopen07/columns/story?columnist=sobel_jason&amp;id=2900804&amp;lpos=spotli ght&amp;lid=tab1pos2)

This is my favorite part of that article:


It wasn't supposed to happen this way. We are in professional golf's Reform Age, a time when athletic, chiseled players wield 460cc megablaster drivers to smash tightly wound yet soft-covered golf balls distances that once were considered nearly impossible. The old-time purists will contend that today's game has been rendered too easy by technology, as young whippersnappers are able to take dead aim at targets with little thought of any repercussions. Pars are treated with as much disdain as bogeys; birdies are carded with as much regularity as pars; and eagles are becoming an ever-popular method for climbing leaderboards.



Sound at all familiar?

This is my favorite part of that article:


It wasn't supposed to happen this way. We are in professional golf's Reform Age, a time when athletic, chiseled players wield 460cc megablaster drivers to smash tightly wound yet soft-covered golf balls distances that once were considered nearly impossible. The old-time purists will contend that today's game has been rendered too easy by technology, as young whippersnappers are able to take dead aim at targets with little thought of any repercussions. Pars are treated with as much disdain as bogeys; birdies are carded with as much regularity as pars; and eagles are becoming an ever-popular method for climbing leaderboards.



Sound at all familiar?



Not so in Pittsburgh.... :D

Not so in Pittsburgh.... :D



Seriously - both in ball golf AND in disc golf.

Just watch the U.S. Open at Oakmont this weekend where the likely winning score will be several strokes above par.

Or come play the world class disc golf courses at Moraine State Park, Knob Hill, and Deer Lakes and see how many eagles and / or birdies you score, and no one shoots 'par 54' from the longest tees.

Here's what's happened at Worlds since 2001. We set the par on the holes to match the SSAs on the courses which all happened to be within 0.2 of 54. To do that, we had to include the dreaded par 2s in the mix. I reviewed the ratings of the Open winners for a few years prior to 2001 and it looked like you had to average 1035-1040 to win. So I predicted that the winner would shoot a -32 to win. Cam shot -36 and Rico shot -30 for second.

We used par 2s at Houston in 2002 following the same approach to keep the total value below par for the event not looking as ridiculous as the -85 or something that Russell shot to win 1999 Pro Worlds. Using par 2s fell out of favor and designers gradually tried to get the scoring averages high enough on Worlds holes so that par 2s wouldn't be needed anyway. So, the Open winners have been shooting farther "under par" than before since it's difficult to set a Gold par at the SSA without using par 2s, especially on courses with SSAs under about 58. Par is usually 3-4 shots higher than the SSA on most courses regardless what method you use for setting par. So for a Worlds with 6 rounds plus semi and Final 9, one would expect the Open winner to shoot at least -52 for the event, even if the pars are set well on courses with true par 4s &amp; 5s.

it's difficult to set a Gold par at the SSA without using par 2s, especially on courses with SSAs under about 58. Par is usually 3-4 shots higher than the SSA on most courses regardless what method you use for setting par.



But not impossible:
The Red Hawk, Par 65, SSA 66, no par 2's

That's not a course with an SSA under 58 like I said...

Just for entertainment's sake, you said:

it's difficult to set a Gold par at the SSA without using par 2s, especially on courses with SSAs under about 58.


This means that it's difficult to set a Gold par at the SSA without using par 2's on all courses. As a secondary statement: it's especially difficult to do so on courses with SSA's under about 58.

In either case (SSA above or below 58) it's not difficult to create a Gold course SSA above par, if that's the only goal. It is difficult (given our current shortage of good putting areas) to do so without placing too much emphasis on distance, creating gaps that are inappropriately tight for the shot lengths, or ending up with scoring distributions with a smaller percentage of birdies than is desirable.

We used par 2s at Houston in 2002 following the same approach to keep the total value below par for the event not looking as ridiculous as the -85 or something that Russell shot to win 1999 Pro Worlds.



What were the scoring averages on those par 2s?

Less than 2.5 for 1000 rated players.

The comments I got from the players at Mid-Nationals both years at Highbridge was that they were more exhausted from the pressure of having to constantly make decisions on par 4s &amp; 5s all thru the course than the physical aspect of walking a 7000-9000 ft course.



A ball golf pro friend of mine said that ball golf is more mentally challenging than physically. You've got to stay focused and give yourself the best score chance.

I personally like a mix. Perhaps 10 par 3, 6 par 4s and 2 par 5s. Par 64 seems about right for disc golf.

And that par 64 is in relation to the skill level of the players that layout is designed for. Our blue level course pars at Highbridge vary from 57-64 on Blueberry and 60-68 on Granite depending on pin combination. The Gold course varies from 63-68 and the Woodland course with white level tees is fixed at 58. The new Bear course with gold tees will vary from 59-67 when completed. I agree that courses with much more than the par 66-68 range get too long and less fun for most players. Maybe that will change over the years. But I believe the proper balance in our sport is a few more par 3s than ball golf because the shot variety inherent in our game.

...But I believe the proper balance in our sport is a few more par 3s than ball golf because the shot variety inherent in our game.

I think that is an excellent point. Par 3's in ball golf are nowhere near as varied as the Par 3's in disc golf. Ball golf Par 3's can vary in terms of length, elevation and greenside hazards. Disc golf par 3's can have all of those dimensions PLUS the possiblility of left curves, right curves, mid-fairway obstacles, forced rollers, etc. Our game doesn't need the longer holes *as much* to keep us interested.

Also, I found that par 4s and 5s in Ball Golf are more likely Birdie opportunities for a less skilled player than a par 3 is. I believe this is due to the finesse required to land a ball on the green in ball golf, which is easier to do from 80-90 yards than 150-200 yards

In disc golf, on the other hand, a par 4 or a par 5 generally requires 2-3 good shots to get a putt, while you can likely get a putt from the tee on a par 3, requiring only 1 good shot.

All of that is talking from the short tees. I play Long Tees with frisbees, and the shortest tee available with a crooked stick. Yes, even the women's tees.

I think they are referred to as short tees :mad:. I never play the short tees and i am a women (except for at AM worlds as I have been instructed to do so.)

Let's face it folks, we have fallen in love with birdies in our game and our sense of par is amiss. Any round over par for a top player at a major is dismal in our sport. Take a look at the recent PGA championship scores. The greatest players in the world struggle to stay under par for four rounds while our champions shoot close to double digits under each round.

The courses at Highbridge this year were wonderful, however the listed pars were not a measure of solid golf by a top pro at a major. I dropped the notion of par for individual holes (since I hate the idea of par 2 which smacks of putt-putt) and only thought of par for the course. Considering this to be a major, I aimed at Woodsy~50, GR~55 and HG~62 (needless to say I was significantly over par). No numbers or stats to back them up, only what I was thinking would be a solid round for a top player.

Forget about par, we need to embrace the notion of bogey (and worse!) in course design. Par should be good, not bad.

It's easy putting that makes our top player scores so far under par. Top players expect to have a birdie chance everytime they reach the green on all 18 holes. If they are putting even at their normal skill level, they will shoot 9 out of 10 birds on holes they reach the green. In ball golf, they make roughly 1/3 of the first putts where they reach the green.

So either we need to reduce the par values on our holes by 5-8 shots to get "under par" scores in line with BG. Or, we need to make significant changes to the putting challenge to come closer to the stats in ball golf. That is if we are concerned that shooting 70 under at Worlds makes the sport look easy or that we don't know what we're doing for setting par. Look at the whining that the pars were too low on several holes at Worlds and yet the scores show you they weren't set low enough.

I completely agree Chuck. As far as the whining...that is what I was referring to at the start of my post. HG1 was a tough 3, but so what? "Not all holes are meant to be birdied." I thought HG3 was a superb hole...one bad shot and you were working hard to save par or bogey (or worse!). That is golf!

As I told you, I loved the courses, I just think that par for the course was less than the sum of the individual pars (this is true for every DG course I have played).

I do not believe the public will take our sport seriously with the current scores that top players shoot. I frankly liked the old school idea of putting baskets in locations that were tough to shoot at (yep, like 17 at Woodsy!). A generation of players who think that laying up is horrible will be tough to convert. Protected baskets with fast greens (rollaways) or nearby OB that require extremely accurate approach shots are the way to go.

So is Snapper now inspired to get a basket up in some trees at Morley? :D

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.ph...amp;#Post615149 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=SoCal%20Disc%20Golf&amp;Number=6179 18&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=435561&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post61791 8)

He needs to plant some trees in the second tier of that pyramid so he can have something like Woodsy 17 in the future.

Considering how fun our game is compared with ball golf, I'm amazed at the lack of fun some players seem to have with innovations like the triple tree basket. The key is whether players can execute the challenge with skill rather than luck. No one indicated they couldn't learn to play that triple tree basket with better planned upshots and sometimes using a different putting style as needed. That's all skill with little luck involved (as long as the bees aren't there).

Dave,

I can think of several reasons why the top pros shoot so much under par. Here's one:
The top players are Super Gold level players, but not all of the courses were Gold level. There just aren't that many Gold level course layouts out there. It was great to have Highbridge Gold, though. For those new to this concept, the course levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) are analogous to the different tee colors in traditional golf (TG). A point that many people seem to miss, though, is that often our DG courses only have one set of tees at a specific level. So, for example, if the course is Red level, then it's like having a TG course with only red tees.

Now, imagine the PGA pros playing their championships from the White tees. If they did that they would also shoot double digits under par for each round.

Since it's not really feasible, or even desirable, at this time to have tons of Gold level course layouts, we may have to live with the reality of the Super Gold players shooting way under par.

I personally think this concept of gold/blue/whatever needs to be revisited, especially at Pro Worlds. At a conceptual level, it is hard to argue with concept of "course design for skill level," but I think it creates needless logistical problems at a World's venue. I maintain that all World's courses should not only be designed as gold, but designed for the upper gold players. The courses will obviously play tougher for the less-skilled divisions, but they should still be fair. Other than distance across OB, I cannot think of any design changes made with the top guys in mind that would cause problems with most other divisions.

That's what we try to do when working with the Worlds hosts. Am Worlds is much easier since most of the public courses being considered already have Blue level tees suitable for the top half of Am players. To get Gold level courses, it's going to mean changing many holes on existing courses and that may not be possible on wooded courses like say Riverview in Augusta or Woodland Greens at Highbridge.

We could have boosted the length on several more holes on Granite and quite few on Blueberry. But then players would have been moving between cement and grass or rubber mat pads during the round. It's unreasonable to expect hosts to pour temp cement tees although we did a few at Highbridge and/or moved some abandoned ones.

The other option which has been used is setting up temporary courses like the Hippodrome or Little Lehigh. Lehigh was a challenge to mark the OB properly and Hippodrome had rubber mats and lots of trouble if you got in the schule because most temp courses haven't been worked in along the fairways to reduce schule in the typical landing areas in time for Worlds.

Here's a second reason why the top players shoot so far under par:
the way that par is calculated could be improved.

If par was calculated by getting to "close range" in regulation then the scores would increase relative to par because the holes would be longer. This "close range" is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in TG. Given that putting is easier in DG than in TG then players should stop thinking of the "green" as only 33 ft. For Gold level players if "close range" is ~130 ft. (on a flat hole of average foliage) then they would have 2 shots from there, and they would hole out in 2 about 98% of the time.

If the average drive for a Gold level player is ~390 ft. and close range (the "edge of the green") is 130 ft. then the maximum length (using "effective length", of course) would be 520 ft on a hole of average foliage. If par 3s were up to 520 ft long then the scoring averages would rise, even for the Super Gold players in the Pro World Championships, and their wouldn�t be so far under par.

hey chuck, you may be happy to hear that the "temp" course, little lehigh, will now be in the ground year round with new concrete tee pads and signs. the "lights in the parkway" will be moved to accomodate the disc golf course. :eek:

Hey Check it sure has been fun playing that temp course at Little Lehigh for the last 2 years. :D

I'm glad to hear Lehigh has became permanent. It still doesn't change the fact that for Worlds it was a "temp" course that had lots of work involved marking the OBs all along the creek and rubber mats were needed for tees. In fact, was there even a cement pad at PW2005 other than the sidewalk at Jordan?

No concrete on any of the courses here, but my right hip is still throbbing from playing multiple rounds on concrete at High Bridge. ;)

If there were a way to maintain grass pads everywhere and never be raining in competition, that might be ideal.

chuck, don't be so kind. the old-timers get like that.

Ouch :)

You can download a document that explains "Close Range (CR) Par" at my discgolfer (http://groups.google.com/group/discgolfer) google group.

I've made some modifications to how CR Par is used.

I welcome your feedback.

Lowe

As I read the USDGC scores they keep giving them in relation to par, especially with the partially completed rounds. Is par valuable after all?

If you took Wyngaard's OB free round #1, and removed his one bogey. It's probably a much better mark for par.
3 3 2 4 5 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 60

If you took Wyngaard's OB free round #1, and removed his one bogey. It's probably a much better mark for par.
3 3 2 4 5 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 60



I'm not sure that Harold would buy a &gt;1050 rated round as being used to set the standard for par at WG. He probably wouldn't be too crazy abt having two par 2 holes either.

I think setting par at 1000 rated golf is pretty audacious as it is. But it is a tournament for 1000+ rated players so maybe for USDGC it is appropriate.

For the first time ever we'll be playing sanctioned singles at Byron so maybe we can see what par is there. The par on the scorecard is 72. When I was rated in the 920s I was shooting around +8.

I could concede the 2's. Par 62 makes a lot more sense. Then you are only looking at -4 for a top score for a round, not the inflated (by stick golf standards) -10 that was thrown as the hot round the last two days.

I could concede the 2's. Par 62 makes a lot more sense. Then you are only looking at -4 for a top score for a round, not the inflated (by stick golf standards) -10 that was thrown as the hot round the last two days.



You are right... that is so inflated compared to the -9 hot round that Jesper Parnevik shot today in the first round of the Texas Open...

Do we really have to go through this yet again?

Gawain Stern did some sweet analysis of the round 1 scores: http://home.comcast.net/~accuspeed/USDGC2007analysisRound1.htm

What is wrong with par being based on the scoring averages of 990-1000 rated players? Other than hole#17 being off significantly because of the unique character of that hole, scoring average is a pretty darned good indicator for par in disc golf.

Jeff- [humorous tone on] No, you don't have to go through this yet again. You can just ignore this thread. :) Or you could just concede that CR Par would be a better way to determine the par!! :) :cool::o[/humorous tone off]

Winthrop Gold is a Gold level course so Gold level standards should be used to set par there. That means the play of 1000 rated players.

BTW, now I expect Jeff to provide a detailed description of why CR Par doesn't work on lots of holes at the USDGC and SA Par works much better. :)