Seems like events these days go out of their way to play every available layout they have at their course? Short to short, long to short, short to long, long to long and so on. I'm wondering what players really feel about this and whether they prefer it to a course just being set in it's best possible layout for all rounds of the event (including warmup).

gosh, by an overwhelming margin of 2:1, the players have spoken in favor of mixing up the layouts from round to round!

whew, glad thats decided so emphatically. none of this 50-50 stuff.

now, let the bullying begin!

gosh, by an overwhelming margin of 2:1, the players have spoken in favor of mixing up the layouts from round to round!

whew, glad thats decided so emphatically. none of this 50-50 stuff.

now, let the bullying begin!



We all, well perhaps with the exception of one other, hope that you actually have something more contructive to do with the rest of your time Pat.

It is amusing to see you or Jeff tottling along behind me from thread to thread whining about everything I post. Hopefully your fixation is a healthy one.

It is amusing to see you or Jeff tottling along behind me from thread to thread whining about everything I post. Hopefully your fixation is a healthy one.



Since you're in denial about your behavior and since no other system of checks and balances seems to exist or is working, it's more that Pat and I are the most vocal in censuring you, and of course that appears as a fixation to you. I'm glad it's amusing to you now, but when will you finally "get it?"

Separate from the specific event just completed at Warwick, it's been a point of contention for traveling players that some higher tier events have too many courses/layouts that "unfairly" favor hometown players. In my early years in the sport, I thought it was cool to show off the course with a different layout for each round. I've come around to the traveler point of view and feel two layouts should be the max for a high tier event with three or four rounds.

For the most part, there are few places in the country, even those with more than one course available, where the designer has designed layouts for specific player skill levels. There's a good chance that all of the multiple layouts/courses being used have not been designed for the player skill levels playing them (Silver/Silver at Warwick as Dan mentioned, for example). As I was describing the Silver-Blue holes during the live scoring, I correctly called several of the push holes that were not going to spread scores for this player skill level.

Not all holes are necessarily going to be perfect from the standpoint of spreading scores for the player skill levels competing, especially since the range of skills is wider in conventional divisions than in ratings divisions. However, I think TDs could get better at honing in on this concept by analyzing scoring spreads from previous events and setting courses better for future events. If this approach is taken, I believe you would see fewer layouts used and that were actually better challenges for those competing.

I tend to agree with Chuck on this. Perhaps that comes from watching too much ball golf.

I like playing one course and each round I play on it is a very different round. I don't need a different configuration to make the rounds feel different.

Also, if a configuration is laid out that is obviously easier than the hardest configuration I feel like I am being let down.


I don't need a bunch of birdy opportunities (not that I could hit one anyway) to make a round feel good to me.

I think I might agree with Chuck a bit on here too. I think four different layouts in a four round event, might be a little too much. However, if you played the same event and there were multiple courses bordering each other (I am thinking of the PDGA center in Augusta when it is finished) would you mind playing the different courses in each round?

If one course or layout is obviously set up for beginners it probably should not be included in Open rounds. On the flip side, tough layouts should not be included in Recreational, or Junior rounds.

I think the idea of playing multiple pins or courses is appealing. I might not find it so appealing if I were a touring pro, but hey, I am not so there you go.

There's a good chance that all of the multiple layouts/courses being used have not been designed for the player skill levels playing them (Silver/Silver at Warwick as Dan mentioned, for example). As I was describing the Silver-Blue holes during the live scoring, I correctly called several of the push holes that were not going to spread scores for this player skill level.




Chuck, I agree with your point and think that many courses have too many push holes that are inappropriate for certain skill levels.

However, with specific regard to the Warwick Silver-Blue layout and after looking at the scorecard of the top Open card, only holes 6,11,14, and 17 had everyone take the same score. On holes 11,14, and 17 it was a score of three, which was a birdie and the best possible score. (assuming no fairway aces) And on hole 6 it was also a score of three - no one got a two on a hole that is deuced quite regularly.

With only 4 holes out of 18, I'd say the score spreading was absolutely appropriate for the skill level playing it.

I think the key point here is a layout restriction for higher tier events like A, NT and Majors. There are many places like Warwick where it's a tradition to play all combinations or courses in annual, more local oriented events and local/regional players look forward to that.

Holes 1, 9, 12 and 13 are also suspect on scoring spread in Silver-Blue for Gold level players. Hole 6 was a fluke that it ended up as all 3s since you wouldn't look at that one and say it was likely a push hole for any skill level. Even Dan didn't award it (Blue-Blue) a good quality score on the Course Evaluation.

Thats a good point Chuck.

I like to have a second chance at some holes. Give me 2 rounds a day on the same layout, I'm happy. (heck, I'm happy just to be golfing)

But at a C tier, play the 'easier' layout, and at a A or NT, play the hardest, or sumtin' like dat.

I like playing every layout a course has to offer, but in a tourny it may be too much to prepare for. Its nice to have the opportunity to practice the course a day or so beforehand. Hard to do if you have to play 4 layouts.

Holes 1, 9, 12 and 13 are also suspect on scoring spread in Silver-Blue for Gold level players.



During the 4th round of the Skylands Classic (Silver-Blue layout):

Climo and Boobs deuced hole 1; Brinster, Reading and Bard took three.

Climo deuced hole 9, Boobs took a four and everyone else had a three.

Boobs took a three on hole 12, while everyone else deuced.

Boobs deuced hole 13, while everyone else took a three.

Once again, it seems like there is an observable scoring spread for these Gold level players - the top Open players at a National Tour event.

I knew none of those holes had the same score in the top group. What I said was those holes would be suspect from a design standpoint for Gold level. Analyze the hole scores for the top finishers down to where the group of players averages 1000 rating and see whether a particular score occurs more than 70% on a hole. Any hole where 75% shot the same score is too narrow a spread for that player level.

You ready for some bullying yet? :p

I'm not sure about all of the scientific statistical considerations, I'm sure they are useful on some level, but I'd like to hear about the "feelings" of players that play in events often and whether they prefer 4 layouts in a 2 day event or 1 or 2 layouts in a 2 day event? Do you tend to "like" tougher more challenging courses or do you "like" easier ones, or do you like a nice mix?

My opinion is public record: Give me your absolute "best" layout and let me have at it for 2, 3 or 4 rounds. By "best" I don't mean hardest, prettiest or for one skill level or another, but that includes all of the "concensus" best holes regardless of hole color or pin color. Nothing is more frustrating that getting to a course once a year and having only one chance at each hole. Many of my favorite events (Seneca, Knob Hill, Warwick, Patapsco, Tyler, Brandywine, etc.) have moved to this format and I'm just wondering:

A) Why do the organizers feel it necessary?
B) Do other players really like it that way?

Not that we need to copy bg but they don't do this at their major, or even minor, events do they?

Analyze the hole scores for the top finishers down to where the group of players averages 1000 rating and see whether a particular score occurs more than 70% on a hole. Any hole where 75% shot the same score is too narrow a spread for that player level.



Ok, now I get ya. Your definition of unacceptable scoring spread is when 70-75% or more shoot the same score. I don't have access to all the scorecards to be able to tell you that.

On a side note, as a course designer, isn't it difficult to design holes with good scoring spreads for Gold level players?

Not that we need to copy bg but they don't do this at their major, or even minor, events do they?



Every multi-round/multi-day ball golf tournament I've ever seen moved the flag on each green to a new flag position each day (or for each round)

They don't just leave the flag in the "best" spot and let competitors play it over and over again.

Your definition of unacceptable scoring spread is when 70-75% or more shoot the same score.

- It's not just mine. Houck has written about it and our Course Designers group uses that as a guideline.

On a side note, as a course designer, isn't it difficult to design holes with good scoring spreads for Gold level players?

- Not any more difficult than any other skill level. However, usually courses aren't (and public ones usually shouldn't be) designed for Gold level players, at least for the day-to-day configurations. Some designers try to look for Gold level tee and pin postions that can be set up temporarily for events so that level can be accommodated. As you observed for Pro Worlds, we tried to challenge the Gold level players where possible by tweaking existing layouts or choosing the pin position that was best for them in terms of scoring spread even if not the longest available.

Not that we need to copy bg but they don't do this at their major, or even minor, events do they?

BG does change pin placements but those changes don't require altering most of the shots made on the hole except on Par 3s. To keep the course at the same rating level, they have certain pin combinations that are used together, some harder and some easier in each combo. When the course is designed, four pin positions are identified on each green and ranked from 1 to 4. Any combination of pin settings can be selected as long as the total points from these rankings equals 45 for the 18 holes.

I'm not a big fan of changing layouts. Just give me the best layout and leave it. However, if the TD is not sharp enough to realize what the best layout is, then I'm all for changing layouts. ;)

IMO, Chucks basic point about TDs actually reflecting on the scoring data to verify adequate distribution should be mandatory for A of NT level sanctioning. I suspect that there is a disconnect between what people think is a good hole and what the statistics might reveal. However, I think that an acceptable distibution should be calculated from the whole field scores, not just the 1000+ players.

Changing the layout 'can' give an advantage to locals...
I recently played a tourney at a very 'raw' course in Omaha...while I really enjoyed the challenge, by changing the layout at lunch I was unable to 'get revenge' in the afternoon. Tis my fault for playing the tourney/courses 'blind'; I still want revenge!

It's another "Have you stopped beating your wife" poll.

Not enough options.

I prefer to play 2 different courses/layouts in 4 round events. As long as the challenge is comparable between the layouts. I never want to play the short-short layout in competition.

In the case of three round events on the same course, I prefer to go from the hardest layout to the simplest layout with changes between each round.

It really does depend on the course in some cases. Tyler Texas is a good example of a course that has different lines from the blues and whites, but no real local advantage. The holes are open enough that local routes aren't an issue. You can see what needs to be done from the tee. On a course like this I would prefer to play all four layouts over the weekend. If the shorts are just shorter versions of the longs, leave me on the longs.

James,

They do already check all of the NT and Major courses for this sort of compliance, that is part of the PDGA Course Committees responsibilities. Right Chuck?

The challenge in relying only on statistics is that sometimes holes considered great by those that play them get changed just to meet some statistical criterion. There needs to be a balance between a bunch of considerations: Statistical, Skill Level and Experience.

Chuck, as far as you know, what was the thinking behind keeping the layouts the same for all rounds (per division) at the Worlds?

However, I think that an acceptable distibution should be calculated from the whole field scores, not just the 1000+ players.

- Gold level is not only the 1000+ players, it's the player pool that averages 1000. Usually at A-tiers and NTs, most of the Open pool and a good chunk of the Masters might average 1000 which can include players down to around 965 or so.

So far, only Worlds courses have been reviewed for design aspects related to player skill. It hasn't been a process for the NTs yet except by accident if a course happened to be used in a Worlds. Local compliance to the recommendations had been pretty good with some exceptions and not only due to local resistance. Sometimes making the appropriate changes wasn't allowed by the park entities or not enough time/money was available to make the changes.

As far as Worlds, whether Pro or Am, the goal from a PDGA standpoint has been to not make pin/tee changes on a course within the event for the same division so players usually get at least two shots at the layout.

Pro Worlds next year will likely be three courses each played twice before the semifinal cut to reduce the length of the event and number of layouts that need to be practiced. Both of these changes will hopefully boost attendance among those who can't afford to take the time and expense for attending what has been an increasingly long and expensive adventure.

I agree with having a maximum desired percentage of "par" scores on any given hole, among pro players. I'd argue for 55%-65%, though.


BG does change pin placements but those changes don't require altering most of the shots made on the hole except on Par 3s.


I disagree. Touring pro golfers are very much aware of where they want to place their drives in the fairway to set up the best angle into varying pin placements. They do not try to hit every drive "down the middle of the fairway".

To keep the course at the same rating level, they have certain pin combinations that are used together, some harder and some easier in each combo. When the course is designed, four pin positions are identified on each green and ranked from 1 to 4. Any combination of pin settings can be selected as long as the total points from these rankings equals 45 for the 18 holes.


I strongly agree with the use of this concept. A certain course I've played a lot has three sets of basket locations. The A's are all easiest and the C's are all most difficult. For casual play it would be much more fun to see the setups have greater variety, with each version playing about the same overall level of difficulty.

As to tournament play, I believe there is room for some variety between rounds, without changing every single basket location. Players should have access to pin sheets prior to the event in order to preview all the shots required.

With courses that have multiple basket placement, I think the most confusing thing that can be done for casual players is putting some baskets on A placement, some on B, some on C....Just a little mini rant in the middle there. However, during tournaments, I think this could ensure a mild amount of course variety, and provide good score distribution.

* I'd argue for 55%-65%, though. *

While it's certainly better with more score spread, it's not as easy to achieve in DG as it is in BG partly because putting is easier. Without artificial OB, many sites don't have the terrain variety which naturally spreads scores and have to rely primarily on length to get a decent 2-score spread like 45% 2s and 55% 3s. For relatively open holes, 2-score spreads are common. The trick is to get the length right for the skill level of player the design is intended for so one score isn't more than 70% of the mix.

As part of our tourney wrap-up, we will discuss the issue of which layouts to use if we end up hosting an NT event in 2006.

What layouts should we use?

If it was up to me, we'd play 1 round Blue-Silver, 1 round from Silver-Blue, and 2 rounds Blue-Blue.

Assume we do away with Silver-Silver. I could see arguments in favor of and opposed to any other combination of the other 3 layouts. If we played 2 each from the 2 hardest layouts (Silver-Blue and Blue-Blue), it means no rounds shooting to the Silver pins. If we only play Blue-Blue for 4 rounds, that totally ignores the various layouts that help give Warwick its extra appeal. All 3 of these layouts have something to offer.

I wouldn't choose the option of mixed layouts either because it makes the notion of a course record obsolete, which i think is important.

Thoughts??

And then to add a little more confusion to the mix, what happens once we finish Wolfe Woods and have 18 more holes? And what about making it a 3-day and having 1 day at Campgaw?

Ouch. My head hurts.

dd

Dan, at least consider analyzing the score distribution on each of the tee/hole combos using the Forecaster as one piece of your puzzle. I already did it for you for Campgaw positions. I suspect that not a single traditional tee/pin combination (i.e. S-S, S-B, B-B) is best for any specific division but that the "best" course for any one of them might actually be a some mixture, similar to your Par 61 league thing Jason did with the eight layouts that roughly had the same difficulty.

Without artificial OB, many sites don't have the terrain variety which naturally spreads scores and have to rely primarily on length to get a decent 2-score spread like 45% 2s and 55% 3s. For relatively open holes, 2-score spreads are common.



One other design "feature" that spreads scores is lady luck. I have not seen this on courses that host big tournaments, but there are plenty of wooded courses in these parts used in B & C Tier events where luck is too much of a factor IMO.

For instance - small gaps in trees 250' down a 320' fairway is one complaint. How does the random nature of making it through the gap contribute to spreading scores based on skill? Same goes for tricky gaps that are blind (around a corner in the fairway and out of site).

Or, lots of trees close to the basket where gunning at the trees and hoping to get stopped is a better strategy than trying to finesse it close to the pin.

Or random routes to OB that have no good comeback path to the basket or fairway (double penatly for going OB).

In several courses I have seen where upgrades were added either the new pads or new baskets bring these sort of situations into play more often than not. This makes the course SSA higher, but does it really result in a good measure of who has the best DG skilz??

Some might argue that statistically luck will find a way over the course of 4 rounds to even out with all players getting bitten by the same amount bad luck (and also getting the same amounts of lucky bounces). Some argue this is a test of the mental game (and I have fallen prey to frustration at times).

I argue that skill should be the primary factor in spreading scores. There is enough luck in DG (roll aways, spit throughs, 2MR :o, bad kicks, etc.) where there is no need to design more luck in to the equation.

I posted something similar in the Course Design topic and also added poorly placed OBs as a way to spread scores that isn't desireable.

having traveled for about 10 tourneys this summer (playing Am-2.5), in the case where we shot the same course 2 times, my second round was better than my first in EVERY event. Because AMs were on Saturday, I couldn't get into town in time to actually see the course before hand.

It was often:
5:00 PM Get off Work
6:00 PM Leave for course
[3-4 hours driving]
9:00-10:00 PM check into hotel
6:00 AM Wake up, shower
7:00 AM Leave for course
[1:30 being lost trying to follow directions to get there]
8:30 AM get there
9:00 Tee Time

I was consistantly beaten by locals, but that was fine because....

Now the tables are turned. DMDGS finals are on my home courses that I get 2-3 rounds a week in on. All the 'locals' get to come shoot on my turf this weekend for the finals. Now I support the idea of using multiple courses/layouts because, as same layout or not, I was rarely in the chase for a win, at least I got to see some beautiful courses.

With courses that have multiple basket placement, I think the most confusing thing that can be done for casual players is putting some baskets on A placement, some on B, some on C....


I think the most confusing thing for a casual player is to come to a park with no sign for the first hole, no course board with a map, no map on a website, spend 4 hours hacking around trying to find "The Course" and quit in disgust after having played 14.5 holes.

A good reason to use some alternate basket locations for tournaments instead of multiple courses is that players can preview the course on Friday with their tournament pin sheets in hand and conclude their prep in one round instead of two.

An opinion on alternate basket locations: the length of the hole shouldn't vary by more than 100-125 ft. i.e. A 275 ft. par 3 shouldn't have a 585 ft. par 4 long position. The hole's par shouldn't change depending on the basket location. I understand that both holes may be sweet, but make a decision. There's an old golf course design maxim, "There are 118 holes out here. To design a course simply eliminate 100 of them."

There's no valid reason to have a design restraint for holes to remain the same par with alternate pins. Better to have two pin locations that are strong and different pars than to have additional pin locations on a hole that are weaker but the same par. Token Creek near Madison, WI "forced" two additional pin positions on most holes that are relatively close to each other. In several cases, it's not enough different to make the effort worthwhile. I applaud their effort to emulate the ball golf style. But I think the concept would work better on a site with more varied terrain so the pin differences were more dramatic.

In ball golf, alternate greens are expensive and they can get enough variety with alternate pin positions on a single green. In DG, alternate pins are cheap. I'm just saying that alternate pins should be good from a design standpoint regardless whether the par is the same for the extra one or two. If you can locate alternate pins that are both strong and near each other, it's usually easier to execute. But you shouldn't be handcuffed to that restriction.

Not that we need to copy bg but they don't do this at their major, or even minor, events do they?

BG does change pin placements but those changes don't require altering most of the shots made on the hole except on Par 3s. To keep the course at the same rating level, they have certain pin combinations that are used together, some harder and some easier in each combo. When the course is designed, four pin positions are identified on each green and ranked from 1 to 4. Any combination of pin settings can be selected as long as the total points from these rankings equals 45 for the 18 holes.


This is one of the posts I read this forum for. Never knew this about ball golf.

There's no valid reason to have a design restraint for holes to remain the same par with alternate pins.


Every once in a while you'll get this out of me: you're right. It's still a personal preference thing which can be overcome with adequate signage.

Another thing I like about alternate basket locations is to have a variety of green, yellow, and red locations. Green baskets are ones that everyone will attempt to "park", yellow baskets will make people think about how close they will attempt to get on their drive or approach shot, and red baskets are ones where only a sucker will attempt to get within 40-50 ft.

I hadn't heard the concept of Red, Yellow, and Green pin positions but I like its simplicity for design education.

Not that we need to copy bg but they don't do this at their major, or even minor, events do they?

BG does change pin placements but those changes don't require altering most of the shots made on the hole except on Par 3s. To keep the course at the same rating level, they have certain pin combinations that are used together, some harder and some easier in each combo. When the course is designed, four pin positions are identified on each green and ranked from 1 to 4. Any combination of pin settings can be selected as long as the total points from these rankings equals 45 for the 18 holes.


This is one of the posts I read this forum for. Never knew this about ball golf.



Actually, the 45 point method is used for setting "hole locations" on golf greens for tournaments. There is an infinite number of hole locations on a green with some constraints (15 feet from the edge, and at least 45 feet from the previous day's location are a couple of them, I think). I guess the USGA guys cringe at the term "pin placements" since they don't play to pins, but to holes.

The book "Open" by John Feinstein, about the US Open at Bethpage Black, gives a lot of tips about course design and set up, since this was the first instance of the USGA using a public course for the Open. From a complete rehab through the course set up to the red-tape involved in dealing with the park entity, it's a good read for anyone involved in disc golf course development or event management. The chapter about the hole location selection was pretty eye-opening, since there were a few different parties that had to be satisfied, including the players, the USGA, the TV people and the spectators.

Dan, at least consider analyzing the score distribution on each of the tee/hole combos using the Forecaster as one piece of your puzzle. I already did it for you for Campgaw positions. I suspect that not a single traditional tee/pin combination (i.e. S-S, S-B, B-B) is best for any specific division but that the "best" course for any one of them might actually be a some mixture, similar to your Par 61 league thing Jason did with the eight layouts that roughly had the same difficulty.



I agree with Chuck, but would add these points:

1) Having one set up would allow you to get the hole just the way you want it for the event. Sponsor signs, banners, bleachers( :) ?).
2) Choose your favorite holes not only based on 950 - 1000 scoring spreads but also according to your and the players personal "likes". Example: Hole 14 Blue to Blue might not have as great a scoring spread as Hole 14 Blue to Silver, but the hole in all Blues is just awesome and you can probably guess that some folks are coming to the event specifically to play that hole (like 18 Blue to Blue). But a hole like B to B 1 is clearly less fun, scenic, or in my opinion challenging as B to S or even S to B.

My preference, as you know probably, is for you, Dan Doyle, Steve Winchester, Joe Mela, Craig Gangloff, Rich Myers, to pick your absolute favorite single layout and let us play it as many times as we possibly can in a single weekend. They don't all have to be in the longs or shorts, just put it in the absolute best possible layout and let players see what they can do on it, round after round.

I know, that the night prior to an event, I like to go through a course in my mind. Hole by hole, throw by throw, and see the round I am going to have. That is nearly impossible when you never get to play the same layout twice.

And then to add a little more confusion to the mix, what happens once we finish Wolfe Woods and have 18 more holes? And what about making it a 3-day and having 1 day at Campgaw?



I wouldn't be in favor of this. I get to, if lucky, get up to your neck of the woods once a year. Warwick being, by far, my favorite course in that area, I'd wouldn't want to have to run around exploring 2 completely new and unfamiliar courses.

I am definitely looking forward to exploring and playing those two other courses, but not in the middle of a NT or Supertour event.

I'd recommend such an event for a mini or pro-am. Perhaps a fall doubles event.

Besides, getting the original course ready is already a ton of work, to get those other two ready, particularly WW would be a huge task.

ASSUMING different hole layouts have roughly equally valid distributions and make roughly equal contributions to "aethetics" or the other relevant variables, changing hole configurations is extremely desirable.

it is totally lame to travel to an event only to play the same layouts over and over. it is more challenging to deal with the changes... all other things being equal, more challenge = better golf experience.

ASSUMING different hole layouts have roughly equally valid distributions and make roughly equal contributions to "aethetics" or the other relevant variables, changing hole configurations is extremely desirable.

it is totally lame to travel to an event only to play the same layouts over and over. it is more challenging to deal with the changes... all other things being equal, more challenge = better golf experience.



No, Pat isn't just being reactionary here... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

responding to a post on a message board is reactionary now?

nick i know you have a serious sandlaman fetish, but PUHLEASE!

i offered a reasonable statement in my post. because it is not rigidly aligned with your own opinion does not warrant a snide remark.

responding to a post on a message board is reactionary now?

nick i know you have a serious sandlaman fetish, but PUHLEASE!

i offered a reasonable statement in my post. because it is not rigidly aligned with your own opinion does not warrant a snide remark.



LOL! Nice one.

You're learning...

thank you for validating my fragile ego. i am certain now that i can make it through the day.

I like the practice at patapsco of changing the layout to show the different personalities of the course. I would not want to lose the long to long round yet playing 4 rounds of that would be undoable. Rich I believe the norm at patap is to play round 1 long to long, round 2 short to long, day 2, round 1 long to mixed A and B, final round short to mixed A and B. it works quite well! (Also on a sidenote I believe each round has a shorter layout than the previous one.)

thank you for validating my fragile ego. i am certain now that i can make it through the day.



That is yet to be determined...

I like the practice at patapsco of changing the layout to show the different personalities of the course. I would not want to lose the long to long round yet playing 4 rounds of that would be undoable. Rich I believe the norm at patap is to play round 1 long to long, round 2 short to long, day 2, round 1 long to mixed A and B, final round short to mixed A and B. it works quite well! (Also on a sidenote I believe each round has a shorter layout than the previous one.)



I'm perfectly cool with folks having other opinions. Mine is to set the course in its best (not longest necessarily) layout and let me have a couple tries at shooting my best on it. Here are my reasons:

1) It is fairer to traveling players. This includes folks even just traveling 2 hours once a year for your event. Which most tournament directors are interested in getting to their events. Particularly Pro Only events.
2) It is easier on the course maintenance crew in that they can focus on one specific layout to get ready.
3) It is easier on the tournament director in that they don't need a "Players Meeting" every round to discuss the changed holes special rules and specifics. This also saves room in the event program.
4) As a player, if you play poorly on a specific hole, you will have a chance to play better on it the next time. This also works as far as the fairness, of giving players another chance to shoot poorly on a terrifically challenging hole, when they might have slipped by quietly in a previous round while everyone else got pummeled.
5) Less not playing the stipulated course violations.
6) Maximum opportunity to play the best hole and course layout, rather than �oh well, maybe I�ll get it next year��.
7) Easier for calculating course World Class Par and Event Player Ratings, giving more accurate and understandable hole by hole and course pars and affording players a more well defined idea of just how well or poorly they played.
8) Provides a better framed and understandable memory of the course and event as regards course challenge. Makes strategic thinking and discussion more precise.
9) Makes feedback easier to comprehend and put into immediate use.
10) Gives the event a �special aura� as concerns, this is your only chance all year to compete round after round on the course in it�s �best�, �most challenging� and �most skill-level targeted� layout. Players at the Animalfest saying, �Man I can�t wait for the Skylands Classic so I get to play the Classic Layout. Two years ago I shot a 2 under all 4 rounds! I know I can top that this year!�

On one hand I enjoy playing the 4 different layouts at Warwick.

On the other hand I'd love to play the Blue to Blue layout twice, it is by far the most challenging & fun layout at Warwick.

My favorite layout is the Silver to Blue, chances at birdie 2's and par 4's.

Whatever happened to using the Par 61 layouts that Scott Wolfe created years ago. I still have the excel file if anyone is interested. We used 2 of those layouts for NY States in 2000 :cool:

ASSUMING different hole layouts have roughly equally valid distributions and make roughly equal contributions to "aethetics" or the other relevant variables, changing hole configurations is extremely desirable . . . it is more challenging to deal with the changes... all other things being equal, more challenge = better golf experience.



Well said! On the other hand, Nick does have valid concerns. I'd say on of the biggest is communicating layout changes to players so that they are able to preview the course and consider all shots and will have no difficulty following each course layout during the round.

PGA golfers have the luxury of having their caddies pre-walk a course and make notes before they even play their first practice round. While on the course they don't hit drive after drive after drive trying to "groove" every shot before moving on to the next. (they do that on the driving range) They spend a lot of time around the greens chipping and pitching from the spots where they might miss the green. The beauty of disc golf preparation is that it doesn't take 30 minutes to figure out a green. Often, a course can be previewed well by walking, making good notes, and observing the mistakes that other players make and how severely they are penalized.

I agree with Nick's sentiment that the "best" layout should be used. What constitutes "best" is open to interpretation and well-designed courses have alternate pins that are equally fun and challenging. In a multi-round tournament, I believe that "best" includes some variation in pin locations. I definitely do not think that an inferior pin position should be used simply for the sake of variety. I also do not think that pins should be selected for strictly statistical reasons to match an "ideal" score distribution. I enjoy fun with numbers, but there are times when the hole with the "wrong" distribution is still the "right" hole.

As to logistical challenges for TD's: poor excuse. If the "best" thing to do for the tournament is to have alternate pins, then the staff will make it happen.

The long to long at patap is a cherished challenge but not doable for four straight rounds.

The baskets only get moved once after play has completed on day 1, not too difficult.........

Any locals advantage is a good thing, dang ding touring pros we love 'em but they seem to do pretty good on their own without any coddling /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Here are the only long to longs at Patapsco that I can think of that would be on the "Best" layout:
Hole #3, #8 and #12

So there would be no problem getting in 3 or 4 rounds on Patapsco's Best Layout.

Oh this is easy, much too easy on the front alone I will give you hole 2 as one where the C pin placement is no big deal. All the others play much harder and more fun in deep. Let me just do the front nine I could dissect the back nine too.

Hole 1 - Deep position behind the backstop and near the OB parking lot, a real test of skill, any schmo can get a three to a or b but a three to the c pin, exceptional.

Hole 4 -
deep pin across the street makes a 3 not even possible for the likes of me, makes it much more challenging for all, + the big arms must contend with the road on their drive.

Hole 5 the deep pin tucked back and to the left near the road in a protected alcove, sweet, A and B not near so challenging.

Hole 6 Come on go down the narrow path in the woods all the way to C!

Hole 7 Unreal pin position, touring pros think it is so unfair, whine whine whine, love that true par 4.5 :D

Hole 9 Have you seen the position up in the woods?

Long to Longs vs ... @ Patapsco:

1) long to short have a much better scoring spread of 2s, 3s and 4s and even 5s.
2) The short to short again has a much better scoring spread. Long is either a 3 or 4.
3) Simply has to be played long to long! It is one of the best holes in the whole state. Why play it only once? Seriously.
4) I'm fine with either short to short or short to long, long to long is not better than either.
5) Decent long to long, but essentially works out to 3s and 4s, and infringes on the 2 holes near it's green. Shorts puts this hole in a much more precarious spot with more 2s and roll ob 4s and 5s.
6) Long to long is a total luck shot and almost always involves a shot that goes up near the tee of the next hole. The short to short or long to short is a better hole.
7) Long to long, though notorious is not a good golf hole. It is what is know as a chuck and hope hole as you have to get through an incomprehensible mess of trees to have any chance at a 4. It could be great with a fairway in the middle to aim at, but the short to short is a better hole.
8) Long to long is the best hole layout.
9) Short to medium (parking lot) is the best.

Already done prior to my first post...

Heh heh, I guess I will have to go with the agree to disagree on most of that. You must love the woodshed :DBTW you playing patap this year?

I would think you would be able to get your hands on scorecards to verify whether any of your claims are valid for Patapsco pins?

Not this year. Hope to return for 2006 though.

Chuck, how would you go about providing data that you could determine which hole layout is most appropriate for a certain skill level?

I thought this was about all events, but I guess it is only about one single event....

Personally, I like two shots at a layout. Especially if travelling to a new course. If it's a 4 round tourney, 2 rounds on one layout Saturday and then 2 rounds on another layout on Sunday is the best IMHO. If we use two different courses, the the baskets don't have to move at all.

You know, like how Keith Johnson does it. That's the right way. :)

It's pretty straightforward. Enter the scores on each hole from a pool of players in a division or narrow it even more to pools of players between a ratings range like White 875-925 to ananlyze a course's White tees for example. Then, look at the scoring distribution on each hole and see if you have any holes where a particular score occurs more than 70%. Those tee/pin combos might not be as good as another combo on that hole if options are available.

IMO, the PDGA should require this type of analysis by a TD as part of the requirement of running an A tier or higher. I realize it seems a bit bureaucratic, but think about how much good it would accomplish. Over time, players who enter A or higher tiers would come to expect a well-designed course where scoring movement/spread is likely. I will say that the last two worlds I have attended have been greatly enhanced by the fact that most holes were well designed.

Additionally, it would plant a much needed seed in people's head about what constitutes an acceptable course setup for competitive play. It might become a TD mindset and improve the course setups for B and lower tiers also.

thats an excellent idea but i'm afraid it might eliminate some events

IMO, the PDGA should require this type of analysis by a TD as part of the requirement of running an A tier or higher. I realize it seems a bit bureaucratic, but think about how much good it would accomplish. Over time, players who enter A or higher tiers would come to expect a well-designed course where scoring movement/spread is likely. I will say that the last two worlds I have attended have been greatly enhanced by the fact that most holes were well designed.

Additionally, it would plant a much needed seed in people's head about what constitutes an acceptable course setup for competitive play. It might become a TD mindset and improve the course setups for B and lower tiers also.



Can't argue with that?

If someone can get me the hole by hole scores of Warwick, I have a calculator that will figure out Event SSAs for the layouts, SSA's per hole, and display scoring distributions. I can even limited to players with ratings of certian skill levels.

I will be providing this at the Brandywine Windjammer in September if possible.

Nick....

As part of my post-event analysis I have as a goal to enter everyone's scores for all 4 rounds. I'll try and get that done within the next 2 weeks.

It's something I have done before and enjoy doing, probably as a result of having too many discussions with jason haas and chuck kennedy....

i'll forward that data to you once i get it into a spreadsheet.

i'm always interested in statistically reviewing results to see if i can learn anything that i can use to improve the course or tourney formats....

dd

Dumb question here: If you find out that your setups this year were not optimal, are you inferring that the best players did not win? Or is all of this because we have too many ties?

I know the theory of properly designed holes to achieve a proper scoring spread, but what I am missing is how this will make a better event for the competitors.

A broader distribution of scores that is not attributable to random chance would show that more risk/reward scenarios are present and that course management factors into determining the winner. A course that tests driving, approaching, escape shots. putting, and strategy presents the opportunity for competitors to play GOLF.

A broader distribution of scores that is not attributable to random chance...


That's an interesting point. It would seem that more randomness would always be required to broaden the distribution of scores. That's the essence of a broad statistical distribution, isn't it?

Another way to get that distribution would be to have a broader (more random) range of players at the tournament. If everyone is rated nearly the same, then conceivably, they throw similar scores, no matter the course.

Makes you wonder if the goal of broadening the distribution, all by itself, is enough of a consideration for evaluating a hole. I think you have to state something like the following: for a given range of player ratings, you'd like to see a certain range of scores on a hole before you can call it a good hole.

I wonder what rating ranges are being used to evaluate Warwick's hole-by-hole scores.

Let's take an example where players have no advantage among each other in game such as simply rolling well balanced dice. Ante a quarter, each person rolls and the highest roll wins the kitty. Most would agree that there's no skill element involved so there's no incentive or reason to learn some skill to do better in the game.

Now, let's take throwing darts with the winner being first to 150 points. It's pretty much pure skill to determine the winner. Next game, each round we'll place a different board in front of the players with the point score pattern different each time. I'm pretty sure the player who has better skills will still win. If all players have the same skill level, the player who is throwing better that particular game will win.

Now, we're going to play this next game with the standard dart board but no score is earned for landing in the bullseye rings and the board will be spinning before each throw. This makes the score on each throw random, assuming the player can hit the board and the dart sticks. All of a sudden, we've taken skill almost completely out of the equation and are almost back to playing dice where any skills are pretty much useless.

Hopefully, our posters can project this analogy into disc golf and why introducing luck elements into a hole design to generate scoring spread is not a good way to do it. And likewise, why having skill elements with a fair challenge is a good way to spread scores, even among players who are the same skill level. It's like the example where the dart throwers have a different board pattern to throw at each round. Those who are playing better have a chance to demonstrate their skills because they can see where they need to throw to score on each pattern.

Paul, you're right about looking at a sub-set of scores in order to examine the distribution on particular holes. There will be holes that are great for pros where some make birdies, many make pars, and some make bogeys or worse. The same hole may be too long or difficult for intermediate players with no birdies and 50/50 pars/bogeys. (that assumes that the ideal score distributution for pros and intermediates should be the same)

I think we're moving in the right direction by using empirical evidence to test course design theories and create layouts that are appropriate for each level of player.

The randomness that I'd like to minimize is the kind where one "decent" shot ends up under the basket and another one that flies 6 inches left of the first hits a tree and shoots deep into heavy shule and ends up causing a double bogey. This particular dilemma begs the question, "how wide should the fairway be?" Fairways that are too tight introduce too much randomness and fairways that are too wide will not penalize poor shots and decrease the score variance on the hole. It is up to course designers to find the "best" width.

One of the fairway types that is a problem from a risk/reward standpoint can be seen at Swope Park which has rows of nice mature trees far enough apart to make nice wide fairways. Scott Stokely pointed out how you didn't have proportional penalty for a proportionately worse throw. If your drive was slightly off line, you would hit a tree at some point down the fairway. If you really yank your drive, you might end up with a nice long drive down the "wrong" fairway next to yours. There's not an easy solution for this issue but it just shows the type of things designers are faced with to design holes that spread scores fairly versus more luckily or unfairly.

good example. i know i've thrown way too many bad drives in disc golf that ended up earning me "pars" or even "birdies". i love a course where i've got to play well to have a chance to break par. in ball golf i'm happy to break 85, psyched to break 80, and my best score on a championship course is 74. on most disc golf courses i'm upset if i don't break "par", and i think my skill level is about the same for both games.

While interesting, I think you guys are reaching. The dynamics of play, course structure, player style and play conditions are in all likelyhood too complex to get a meaningful data on course structure from the kinds of analysis you are talking about.

Furthermore, score distribution has many factors most of which are probably not being addressed here You might find that on one day you get a great distribution and the next a rotten one. The case that really comes to mind was posted a month or so ago where someone pointed out that the Advanced class at a tournament scored significantly better than the Pros on the same course. The problem was that they played on different days and at different times of the day. Those two very simple things made for a huge difference in scores and most likely in the spread of scores.

As another example take Mr. Stokely and Swope. How many players end up taking the route down the parallel fairway on accident? How many end up with a real benefit? What is the caliber of player that is going to end up on the ajoining fairway and how does that player compare to the Pro player? When you start thinking about these things you realize that Mr. Stokley's concern is minimal at best and probably non-existent in reality.

My bet is that some plain old horse sense in course design and some very simle analysis (think about the analysis that the TD for the USDGC does concerning SSAs and you will understand what I mean) is going to be more beneficial than the types of analysis that you are talking about here.

You are way off the mark here, Lyle. Those who have played Swope will recognize this specific issue there and will likely know other places where this can happen, as Denny pointed out.

As far as doing analysis, most players don't realize the work being done in this area by members of the course design group such as Dan Doyle, Lowe Bibby, John Houck, Jon Lyksett, Mike Snelson and Don Ticknor among others. We are now able to accurately forecast scoring averages by different skill levels on holes before they are ever played. We can also tell whether a hole is likely to have a good distribution or not.

These design tools are getting better and are being put into practice on several newer courses around the country including the new National Center in Augusta and all of the courses at Highbridge which is developing as a workshop for designers. I'm about halfway thru entering scores from the Mid-Nationals where we've had the largest pools of players within a narrow ratings range playing layouts designed for them. Scores for the rounds have been forecast within a half shot and scoring averages on holes have been accurate in some cases to 2-decimal places. Jeff Ash hit the ace on #10 which made the actual scoring average 2.53 which was the forecast.

So, yes it takes some effort. But as James points out, it might be nice to take what we've been doing to set Worlds and Mid-Nationals courses down to the NT and A levels.

The fact remains that these analysis tools are just tools. Tools that can be used well or poorly.

Course Designers will still rely mainly on their knowledge of what certain skill levels are looking for in a fair challenge. Scoring spreads and SSAs only paint part of the picture; it is the work of the Designer to fill in all the, and there are many more, details as well as keep a clear view of the bigger picture.

There will always be room for a designer to just look up at a hole they have designed and say, "I like that!"

Dan,

I'll be glad to get those from you. I'll give you the full analysis. Perhaps we can start a MADC database to store this stuff. I have a similar analysis of Nockamixon a couple of months prior to the Worlds.

I wonder if I could get the results of the Masters and Open divisions from the worlds for Tinicum, Jordan and Nocky. (Little Lehigh from my understanding has already been drastically changed.). Who would I contact about such a thing? Brian?

the best players tend to win even on courses with almost no hole by hole score distribution. i'm not saying thats a reason to abandon attempts to improves courses and score distribution. as courses "improve" one could expect winning margins to increase a little... and the scoring range of the field to increase dramatically.

WarwickDan, Nick, Chuck, Denny, it is encouraging to see people actually analyze this data. While I suspect the forecaster, the knowledge and experience of smart people and common sense goes a long way into creating a challenging course, the statistical evaluation is always a nice reality check. By the way, Chuck and all the people who work on this stuff. Kudos. The next challenge is making it the fabric of every tourney.

Lyle, Powell and Wilmont are excellent examples of a course with too many holes where bad shots are rarely penalized. I think the designers of Powell and the old Wilmont did excellent jobs on getting the distances correct, but the nature of the open terrain with essentially no real OB makes it impossible to adequately punish errant shots (without rope). I can miss my line by 30 degrees and will be left with a moderately harder shot, rather than the real penalty I deserve.

There's additional enjoyment and satisfaction when playing holes and courses that have good score distribution for your skill level. If you don't have that experience on your local courses, then you don't know what you're missing until you play them. So many are relatively happy with their local courses because they don't know any better. It's similar to the difference between having courses with mostly par 3 holes and then getting the mind expanding experience to play courses with true par 4s and par 5s.

Players from all over the U.S. really enjoyed the courses at Highbridge for the Mid-Nationals. Separate from good scoring distribution, several holes and the site in general are spectacular strictly on aesthetic merit. You could almost throw tees and pins anywhere, mow the grass and players would enjoy the experience. However, the fact that many holes are par 4s and 5s for their specific skill level and the scoring distributions are good, are additional factors that enhance the playing experience even though players might not be able to articulate those reasons.

Lyle, I had the pleasure of playing Swope during the KCWO in '02. The course included rope OB's on several of the holes Chuck referred to. While rope OB's have limitations, they did serve the purpose there.

Many of us have seen the '03 USDGC video. Before the famous extended playoff, K.C. yanked his drive OB right on hole 15, which ended up being a two shot swing to tie it up. On many courses (especially like the ones at Tom Bass, James) shots like that go unpunished.

I need to add, with no disrespect intended, (and so folks know I am not just a total kiss a to Chuck) that there have been instances of (at the Worlds) your charts more or less ruining two excellent and widely praised holes.

Yes, I understand that the scoring spread may have been less, prior to the change, but the fact remained that they went from excellent golf holes to far lesser holes in nearly every way other than scoring spread.

Scoring spread should not be mistaken as the soul goal of good design. It is an aspect. A consideration. If it is the whole ball of wax, then you can sometimes miss a great hole design staring you straight in the face...

Those holes would be hole 2 and 9 at Little Lehigh in case you were wondering and it is not just my opinion on those. Certainly the rest of the course was terrific, and even those two would still score average to above average as changed, but 2 would have been just about the highest possible score in its original layout, and 9 was just a very decent hard par 3 (as were many of the holes at Little Lehigh...)

If your concern was with hole 2s tee position, that was Rocco and Duesler's choice to use the one tucked back in there, not mine. I preferred the forward tee that had been used during test rounds. It would have worked better with the relocated pin also. The hole turned back into a relatively easy 4 by using that back tee.

The hole 9 change was made not only because the scoring spread was poor for Open, but because the addition of revised hole 7 created an unbroken string of par 4s from holes 7-11 if 9 (or another hole) was not changed to a par 3. So in the context of the course, the revised hole 9 not only had better scoring spread but balanced the overall layout better. I think you might agree that hole 7 turned out to be one of the best in the event? So, the decision wasn't driven by scoring spread but overall course balance and the better spread was an added bonus.

If your concern was with hole 2s tee position, that was Rocco and Duesler's choice to use the one tucked back in there, not mine. I preferred the forward tee that had been used during test rounds. It would have worked better with the relocated pin also. The hole turned back into a relatively easy 4 by using that back tee.

The hole 9 change was made not only because the scoring spread was poor for Open, but because the addition of revised hole 7 created an unbroken string of par 4s from holes 7-11 if 9 (or another hole) was not changed to a par 3. So in the context of the course, the revised hole 9 not only had better scoring spread but balanced the overall layout better. I think you might agree that hole 7 turned out to be one of the best in the event? So, the decision wasn't driven by scoring spread but overall course balance and the better spread was an added bonus.



Ditto on all Chuck's comments. Moving hole#9 short broke up the string of very long pro par four holes and also added another lefty hyzer to the course, something needed for better overall course balance. Now that hole#8 has been broken up into two shorter holes for recreational play, the polehole on hole #9 has been moved long again.

I believe that moving the polehole from the right between the small trees to over on the left near the woods on hole#2 gave it the inappropriate scoring spread, not the tee location. The final position was certainly unfair to southpaws, and so well protected that right-handers "going for it" would possibly bring the treeline on the left into play. In the end, the smart play every time was just to lay up and take an easy four.

Nick, as mentioned by many posters here, scoring distribution based on skill, not luck is what totally makes a hole. I personally can't imagine a great hole where everyone basically gets the same score. Just skip them and save everyone's time and energy.

I have no idea where the original pad for 2 was, but I liked the hole, even though it probably could have been better, IMO. The OB was setup in such a way that the world class guys had little risk-reward. In other words, as the shot got longer and more rewarding, the risk decreased. If the OB had got tighter as the length increased, it would have made more sense. However, for someone of my limited ability, the hole basically boiled down to "are you stupid enough to think you can get a three and risk getting a five, or just take your four." I think I took a six. :p

The pin relocation was based on using the forward tee that I saw, not the back one used. The back tee with either the original or actual pin position were both going to end up as easy 4s. If I knew the back tee was going to be used, I would have suggested moving the pin another 60-80 feet shorter. Having a reasonable chance at a 3 with a good drive and upshot, would have made the tee shot more intriguing with players trying to bite off just a little more than they might be able to on the drive.

So Chuck, you are saying that scoring spreads had little to do with the changes to those holes right?


If your concern was with hole 2s tee position, that was Rocco and Duesler's choice to use the one tucked back in there, not mine. I preferred the forward tee that had been used during test rounds. It would have worked better with the relocated pin also. The hole turned back into a relatively easy 4 by using that back tee.



I agree that the short tee pad was way better than the long on this hole. Basically providing a �the farther you try to get the more risk you face� challenge that was near perfect. In the long it is just a blast as far as you can to get across the OB or a flick layup around the outside of the tree right in front of the tee. I disagree with the moving of the pin in either case. The original pin brought the OB into play and required a more risky long straight to slight turnover approach shot. The new pin was just a blast it as hard as you can hyzer around the corner to a (usually) blind pin.

But as you said, those changes were not based on your charts.


The hole 9 change was made not only because the scoring spread was poor for Open, but because the addition of revised hole 7 created an unbroken string of par 4s from holes 7-11 if 9 (or another hole) was not changed to a par 3. So in the context of the course, the revised hole 9 not only had better scoring spread but balanced the overall layout better. I think you might agree that hole 7 turned out to be one of the best in the event? So, the decision wasn't driven by scoring spread but overall course balance and the better spread was an added bonus.



Yes, I agree that holes 8 and 9 would have been 2 relatively hard par 3s in a row, but what I would have preferred is to add another 300 feet and a turn to hole 8 to make it an extremely hard par 4 or even near par 5 hole and left hole 9 the way it was, which was a perfect fit for that area, unlike the strange little hole that replaced it. Hole six was enough of a quirky little par 2 hole for the entire front in my opinion.

But I am glad to know that it was not your chart that changed a very decent hole into a tweener hole.

And James, if you had had a chance to play the old hole number 9 I think you would have preferred it to the new one without question and regardless of score spread based on a C Tier.

The change to 10 was a stroke of genius though, was that you or Rocco? That is just an awesome hole, same goes for most of them there.

The change to 10 was a stroke of genius though, was that you or Rocco? That is just an awesome hole, same goes for most of them there.



Rocco gets the credit. Actually, I thought 10 was a little too long to the bend even for Open players but there wasn't a good spot to move the tee forward without going too far like it was before. The fact that the bend was way wide to the left to give room to manuever if your drive didn't reach it is why I think it was still good.

I was a little frustrated trying to get 2 good holes for 11 & 12. That was the most disappointing area of the course for me. We were hamstrung with the positions of the memorial trees that prevented some very cool options there and a better transition that wouldn't require walking in front of the 13 tee. Those holes ended up OK but I know Houck was incredulous when he saw what we ended up with compared to what he thought we could do (until he heard about the memorial trees). The original hole 12 was very cool but the street was just too blind to risk having it in play for a whole week.

11and 12, yes, very nice areas. I thought they were very decent holes, but agree that the possibilities were for extremely good holes up there. I didn't know about the memorial tree challenge.

Personally, I like two shots at a layout. Especially if travelling to a new course. If it's a 4 round tourney, 2 rounds on one layout Saturday and then 2 rounds on another layout on Sunday is the best IMHO. If we use two different courses, the the baskets don't have to move at all.

You know, like how Keith Johnson does it. That's the right way. :)




finally....someone recognizes the only way to run an event...
the keith johnson way :D

i do it that way because as a travelling player myself....nothing is mor aggravating than going someplace and playing 2 different courses 4 ways or worse 1 course 4 ways... there is nothing wrong with 1 day one layout and the second day another layout....BUT and this is from a travellers perspective....if you are having a major,nt or a-tier it SHOULD be no more than 2 different configs(worlds at least 2 shots at each course)

just my opinion as a player and td,and unlike the other greats on this thread....a unknown world class course designer :eek:

You are way off the mark here, Lyle. Those who have played Swope will recognize this specific issue there and will likely know other places where this can happen, as Denny pointed out.

As far as doing analysis, most players don't realize the work being done in this area by members of the course design group such as Dan Doyle, Lowe Bibby, John Houck, Jon Lyksett, Mike Snelson and Don Ticknor among others. We are now able to accurately forecast scoring averages by different skill levels on holes before they are ever played. We can also tell whether a hole is likely to have a good distribution or not.

These design tools are getting better and are being put into practice on several newer courses around the country including the new National Center in Augusta and all of the courses at Highbridge which is developing as a workshop for designers. I'm about halfway thru entering scores from the Mid-Nationals where we've had the largest pools of players within a narrow ratings range playing layouts designed for them. Scores for the rounds have been forecast within a half shot and scoring averages on holes have been accurate in some cases to 2-decimal places. Jeff Ash hit the ace on #10 which made the actual scoring average 2.53 which was the forecast.

So, yes it takes some effort. But as James points out, it might be nice to take what we've been doing to set Worlds and Mid-Nationals courses down to the NT and A levels.



Chuck and James, just for fun here are some things to think about...

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post but in terms of the Swope and also the Wilmont issue (mentioned by James), I tend to view this a little differently than you do. How much does someone have to be punished by a bad shot, or for that matter by several bad shots? What is the end goal of the game?

I play the Wilmont once to twice a week and I think that I have a pretty good perspective on it. There is one hole that I can think of where the scenario that you are describing might come into play, 16 off the hill. Even there the correct throw places me with the best angle to ensure my par. Yes, bad shots don't always result in an extra stroke... should they? That's a pretty harsh game. I prefer that bad shots result in situations where you usually end up being denied a birdy, but can be overcome with careful and thoughtful play.

Going back to the Wilmont, hole #9 is a classic for a bad throw not punishing as defined here. The best throw is a slight anhyzer that brings you onto a direct line towards the basket. If you hyzer out there is no direct punishment, and in fact you get a direct line down the ditch to the basket, however, you've added 50 to 75 feet to your second drive (a 300 foot shot from the correct position for me. While it may not seem like I have been punished, indeed a 50 to 75 foot addition is a punishment.

The same goes for Swope. Playing down the incorrect fairway and still getting a good long drive seems like a boon, but you've moved your disc 50 to 100 feet further out from the basket than you would have, had you made the correct drive.

Again, the question is, what's our goal? Is it to highly reward the perfect player and severely punish the player who makes a mistake? If so, then you are correct, courses like Swope and Bass are inadequate. The beauty of such a set up is that the perfect player will crush the slightly less perfect competition. Your tournaments will have clearer winners. The Swope and Wilmont courses allow for closer more exciting play by limiting the punishment of imperfect play.


As for Chuck's assertion that the design tools are allowing for accurate assessment of courses before a hole is being played. First, I have to admit that I don't have that good of a feel for the tools. Second, I would be willing to wager a gentleman, even two, that John Houck at least, could walk out to an area, make the same analysis by eye, and get much the same result. There are only a few critical issues that one has to consider in making a course and once you have a good feel for those issues you don't need a concrete analysis with numbers to get a good result.

Indeed, I suspect that your number crunching may give you something that you haven't considered. Uniformity. If you have X number of feet, if you add in this element and this element you get this par. Soon, you'll be designing courses where you have a set goal for par and to make it you will have to distribute those elements. It won't be long until someone will be able to say, "this is obviously a Chuck course."

As for setting course structures at Worlds and Mids, and hitting your target, if I understand correctly, you modeled the course based on the distribution of plants, terrain, wind, rain, humidity and all other environmental factors and hit your SSAs within two decimal points? Impressive. Or did you pick a few factors that based on your experience seem important and derive a model?

While I am not a statistician, I took three years of stats and was a geneticist for 12 years before I quit. If for no other reason I am suspect, simply because of the limited data you are examining. The numbers you have are good but they are limited. I've seen many scientists woof their careers based on good measurements that missed important environmental factors. This experience makes me skeptical of your data and results and until you have a controlled experiment with more data I will continue to hold that position.

Now, if you've read carefully, you will notice that I've argued both sides of the fence, stating that with limited data, John can get a good result, while saying that I am suspicious of your data because it is limited. I will concede the point that your model may be accurate enough to ensure a good result despite the limitations I have already described. On the other hand, that simply confirms my position, that a course designer with less than perfect data, i.e experience and intuition, can get the same result.

It's not how much punishment that's the issue but proportional punishment. On a wide open hole, a player who shanks their drive has farther to throw on their next shot the more they shank it. It might not even cost them a throw, but their next throw will be that much farther the more they shank it. With a row of trees, a slight shank that whacks a tree will likely result in a longer and more challenging upshot than a wider shank that sneaks thru the tree line and goes its full distance. That "worse" throw likely gets a better result.

Now, it's difficult to completely avoid these situations because there are many scenarios where worse throws might end up with better results. That's part of the luck in the game. However, designers who are aware of the issue can reduce these chances with better positioning.

Second, I would be willing to wager a gentleman, even two, that John Houck at least, could walk out to an area, make the same analysis by eye, and get much the same result. There are only a few critical issues that one has to consider in making a course and once you have a good feel for those issues you don't need a concrete analysis with numbers to get a good result.



John isn't the only designer who could do that. Contrary to what some might think, John is a strong proponent of using numbers to influence his designs. He is one of the developers of the numerical design tools in question. An experienced designer has integrated these numerics in their design process so it looks like they're not using them. Even old school designers use simple numerics like counting to make sure there is a good balance between left, right and straight shots on the course. Perhaps you'd be surprised how even this basic element of design escapes inexperienced and less knowledgeable designers.

Another basic element influenced by numbers that's also overlooked by neophyte designers is hole length variety. It's human nature to design holes that you can see. There are "weak" courses with holes in a relatively narrow length range from say 250-400 because they are mostly one to one and half shot holes that are visible (Sunset in Vegas is one unless it's been changed since the late 90s). Designers paying attention to the numbers would take the same property and design a course that might end up the same total length but the holes would range from 175-650 which adds a richer variety to the layout.

The typical player may not notice the difference between a weak course and one that's been enhanced by numerics in recreational play. However, I think the difference is brought out in competition when you know you can't get away with a sloppy tee shot or it's likely going to cost you. I think we all know holes where we can "take a break" from the pressure because we know we can get a three almost in our sleep. But then again, so can everyone else in our group.

Once you've played a course that has truly been designed for your skill level on every hole, you can see the difference where the quality of most shots is relevant to your outcome. The psychological pressure is where that will be noticed. Ask players who have played Winthrop Gold in the USDGC if that course isn't just as draining mentally as physically. I think that's where the numerics have raised the bar for course design- it's providing better mental challenges.

Indeed, I suspect that your number crunching may give you something that you haven't considered. Uniformity. If you have X number of feet, if you add in this element and this element you get this par. Soon, you'll be designing courses where you have a set goal for par and to make it you will have to distribute those elements. It won't be long until someone will be able to say, "this is obviously a Chuck course."




If that's the case, I would hope it would be due to expectations of good design quality and challenge and little to do with uniformity. I believe you're using the term "uniformity" to imply boring or cookie cutter designs. The reality is the opposite. As mentioned in the previous post, it's more likely those who ignore or don't understand design numerics will end up with uninspired layouts, lack of diversity and holes weak on spreading scores for their intended player skill level, if they even know how to address that.

One example would be my goal to design a hole variety sequence so players are likely to use a different disc off the tee on the next hole. I'll bend over backwards to avoid three righty hyzer holes in the 275-350 range in a row. A pox on uniformity.

I'll try to create a few legit par 4s in a layout for the skill level being addressed even if the course can't be very long. I have seen several courses where every hole is reachable (or not full 2-shot holes) by the players the tees are designed for. Which approach has more uniformity?

Those who don't use design numerics are more likely to fall into a trap of uniformity and repetition than those who use them because part of that process is to avoid it and create diversity of designs and variety within the layout. I would hope that in the long run, no one would be able to tell my designs from John's or other experienced designers using all of the tools available. I would expect the expression for courses we didn't do to be along the lines of "That's certainly not a Chuck (John, Tom, Harold, etc) design."

The randomness that I'd like to minimize is the kind where one "decent" shot ends up under the basket and another one that flies 6 inches left of the first hits a tree and shoots deep into heavy shule and ends up causing a double bogey.


I think that would bad, too. But if statistics are the final arbiter, wouldn't statistics actually call such a hole design a good one, because there would be a random spread of scores?

because there would be a random spread of scores?




No. You don't want a random spread of scores. You want them spread based on skillful elements, not lucky elements (like several Paw Paw holes, couldn't resist)

The randomness that I'd like to minimize is the kind where one "decent" shot ends up under the basket and another one that flies 6 inches left of the first hits a tree and shoots deep into heavy shule and ends up causing a double bogey.


I think that would bad, too. But if statistics are the final arbiter, wouldn't statistics actually call such a hole design a good one, because there would be a random spread of scores?


No. You don't want a random spread of scores. You want them spread based on skillful elements, not lucky elements (like several Paw Paw holes, couldn't resist)


You mean, yes, you're right, then. Because that's my point. How does a statistical measurement discriminate between a hole that has a random spread of scores and one that has a spread based on skillful elements?

paul, you're right that score distributions on a particular hole are a representation of reality, but do not present the entire picture. a statistical analysis of a hole could be taken to another level by having spotters record things such as bad deflections off trees, good deflections off trees and how "bad" or "good" these deflections were. Even these recordings, however would be open to human interpretation. A model could be made to estimate the number of shots a 1000 rated player would take from every single spot on the hole past the tee. You could then quantify the extent that luck enters into the final scoring distribution, compared to a wide open hole with no luck.

by no means do i advocate that we take things that far. i do think, however, that analyzing score distributions can yield insight that will aid future course design. this will help create courses where "golf" is part of the game and not simply shot execution.

One example would be my goal to design a hole variety sequence so players are likely to use a different disc off the tee on the next hole. I'll bend over backwards to avoid three righty hyzer holes in the 275-350 range in a row. A pox on uniformity.



While there are several quotes like this one in your last three posts, we will use this one as an example. Did this observation come from your numbers or from your intuition and learing i.e experience?

Another question, why do you think most bolf courses are designed by guys like Arnold Palmer? Could it be experience makes a better designer?

The bad courses that you discuss, who designed them? It seems that you are comparing apples to oranges in an attempt to support your argument. Yes, courses are better now, but how much of that is the numbers game and how much of that is simple experience. How many of the bad courses out there are simply due to the learning curve that has come about as we've moved from Whammo discs into Dave's world?

If you can convice me that the average bum who decides to take your route to building a course in his neck of the woods will come out with a better course, then I say you've got something. My guess is that the better courses will still come out of guys that have played and designed over years and know what makes a good hole, a pox on numbers.

p.s. Arguing against you is hard work... :D I'm pretty sure I'm losing this one...

Lyle, hang in there, you're doing fine. Chuck has a gift of stating things using few enough words to make you think you understand, but enough words to completely obscure the lines of rebuttal. :D

A good designer COULD design the world's best course without numbers. Just like the value of Pi IS in fact intuitive. But certain tools make both endeavours a bit easier.

Yes, courses are better now, but how much of that is the numbers game and how much of that is simple experience.


My experience is that there are lots of people who don't know crap about designing disc golf courses, and my experience is that these people are often the ones doing the design. It is also my experience that these "designers" are experienced golfers. Some people get it. Many don't. If these designs can be prevented by using a cookbook, or fixed by using statistical analysis, I am greatly indebted to those leading the way.

Based on the good designers I know, playing golf is necessary, but being a top notch golfer is of little value. By the way, I know little of ball golf design, but I question your premise that most designs are by people like Arnold Palmer.

Yes, courses are better now, but how much of that is the numbers game and how much of that is simple experience.


My experience is that there are lots of people who don't know crap about designing disc golf courses, and my experience is that these people are often the ones doing the design. It is also my experience that these "designers" are experienced golfers. Some people get it. Many don't. If these designs can be prevented by using a cookbook, or fixed by using statistical analysis, I am greatly indebted to those leading the way.

<font color="red">Excellent point but irrelevant. The fact that experience isn't sufficient doesn't mean that numbers make the difference. Would those bad designers suddenly be good designers if they had the number tools? I doubt it. Also, are these number tools going to stop those bad designers from putting in bad courses? Again, I doubt it.</font>

Based on the good designers I know, playing golf is necessary, but being a top notch golfer is of little value.

<font color="red">I agree whole heartedly. I relate this to baseball and the fact that some average players have made great managers. But... I might suggest that no designer steps into the role without a learning curve and that playing experience, that is, see what works during play, has a huge influence. </font>

By the way, I know little of ball golf design, but I question your premise that most designs are by people like Arnold Palmer.



<font color="red"> You may be right. All I know is what I see on T.V. and hear on the radio. I constantly hear about a select group of designers, many who are/were well known players who design the most popular courses. I admit that is a limited sample and I also concede the point that they may be poor courses helped along by the reputaion of the player/designer. Nonetheless... </font>

The fact is that experience matters period. The number tools are simply that, a tool that an experienced player/designer uses. My guess is that they have less value than some might believe. On the other hand, if their use makes a good designer think more carefully through their design process - all to the good!

Also, are these number tools going to stop those bad designers from putting in bad courses? Again, I doubt it.



I'm not sure if you are including statistical analysis of score in your statement. If so, the analysis will not prevent the installation of a bad course, but it will certainly identify a bad course/hole.

Whether the designer can "fix" the bad hole using a numbers cookbook is another story. IMO, "great design" is like any artistic gift: I suspect it is mostly inate and takes years of study and hard work to fully blossom. I also suspect that "servicable design" can be taught by a cookbook to a lot of people with an open mind, who embrace/understand the distinctions between good and bad holes, and who have a little experience playing the sport.

My biggest gripe is not the lack of great or servicable designers because that will come with time; my gripe is the lack of people who even understand the difference between good and crappy courses. These people have usually never thought of applying statistical analysis for feedback, and would probably not change the design based on the results of the analysis anyway. In their mind, the hole is good/great and no statistic is going to change that. By the way, this mindset seems to be as prevalent in players as in "designers."

Also, are these number tools going to stop those bad designers from putting in bad courses? Again, I doubt it.



I'm not sure if you are including statistical analysis of score in your statement. If so, the analysis will not prevent the installation of a bad course, but it will certainly identify a bad course/hole.

<font color="red">We need statistical analysis to determine if a hole is bad? While some holes are so bad it is obvious, there are some (and Chuck has defined them) that although they look good and are difficult to par, give a very narrow range of scores. Therein lies part of Chucks argument (if I remember correctly). Chuck would say that only stastical analysis will identify such holes (correct me if I am wrong Chuck). What I'm saying is that with some experience, these holes are also obvious. The reason there are bad courses isn't because people don't do the numbers, it's because people don't do anything or even more likely because they have to work with what they have so they look for tricky shots or quirks. Again, numbers will not fix these courses. </font>

Whether the designer can "fix" the bad hole using a numbers cookbook is another story. IMO, "great design" is like any artistic gift: I suspect it is mostly inate and takes years of study and hard work to fully blossom. I also suspect that "servicable design" can be taught by a cookbook to a lot of people with an open mind, who embrace/understand the distinctions between good and bad holes, and who have a little experience playing the sport.

<font color="red"> In this we agree! </font>

My biggest gripe is not the lack of great or servicable designers because that will come with time; my gripe is the lack of people who even understand the difference between good and crappy courses. These people have usually never thought of applying statistical analysis for feedback, and would probably not change the design based on the results of the analysis anyway. In their mind, the hole is good/great and no statistic is going to change that. By the way, this mindset seems to be as prevalent in players as in "designers."



<font color="red"> I like the way you state this. Perhaps I should change my view or even admit that I have misinterpreted. If Chuck's argument is that stats are a good way to to test a hole to ensure it is giving you what you think it is... That is a hard thing to argue against. Hmmmm, maybe I should just shut my mouth while I'm not too far behind.

On the other hand, the use of predefined parameters in initial course design still leaves me cold. :D </font>

Not having used the "Cookbook" formulae yet I am interested to see what they will say after we come up with our suggested plans for Brandywine. Steve Winchester is going to be in discussions with Joe Mela, Jim Myers, Bill Yerd and myself to see if we can't modernize the course.

Don't be too afraid or excited, they're just suggestions, there is a chance nothing will come of it.

Knowing what you like is the only thing most folks need worry about. I know already that the cookbook says one hole I know is great, when it is clear as day to me that that hole is mediocre at best. (#12 at Jordan Creek, I really like most of the other holes there, but this one looks like it was thrown in there to get from the pin of 11 to the tee of 13.)

I also know that the cookbook says holes like 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, and 18 at Tinicum are horrible holes, while standing on the tee of these holes and just considering your shot and the enormity of the scenery are breathtaking.

In my opinion, some level of personal preference has made it's way into the cookbook; I'll know more after we compare it's results to those of gut feeling results.

Why did the cuddly wraith fling the frozen feather boa?






Because it was stapled to the pencil sharpener!

On a two day event, I actually prefer two different layouts/courses. This gives the best of both worlds, you can try to fix past mistakes in the prior round, and you get a change up that makes the tournament more fair, ie not all short tight and not all long and wide open.

But for one day events, I prefer to keep it all one course. Perhaps a pin placement change on a few holes would be acceptable.

I also know that the cookbook says holes like 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, and 18 at Tinicum are horrible holes, while standing on the tee of these holes and just considering your shot and the enormity of the scenery are breathtaking.




Why would the cookbook consider these "horrible"? Did anyone analyse the scoring distribution from worlds? I'd be pretty curious to the results.

Interesting topic Nick. I think by my events, it is obvious which camp I am in.

I think the development of courses w/multiple pins and tees is a natural way to best use the limited land resources which become available to us as designers. I also find it natural (especially when only offering one opportunity a year to play a big event on a course) to want to show off the variety and various "personalities" that a course may have to offer.

And while I no longer jump in the car and drive 8-10 hours to a tournament - I have and continue to to travel to events. My criteria for doing so has changed over the years - and I would say that I am more inclined to want to travel to courses that DO offer variety of pins and tees. So for me personally - the argument that we should limit the # of layouts to cater to traveling players is a lot of hooey. Did I see mentioned "local advantage"? So the guys making a living (or trying to) at DG need MORE advantage when they come to town?

At Seneca we offer 1 big pro and 1 big am event a year. This is our effort to keep the tournament schedule less cluttered. While it is a different topic - it is not altogether separate. The fact that so many courses are allowed multiple sanctioned events a year results in an impact on the layouts that can be offered. At least it does when people choose to limit the # of events.

So while an interesting topic, I would suggest that before we limit the number of layouts on a course for a major event. Perhaps we should consider stricter guidelines on which courses are eligible for major events based on their difficulty. Having courses where the top 1/2 of the open division is shooting 47 or better - and being rewarded with excellent ratings #'s for those scores - is more of a detriment than being forced to cope with all a challenging course has to offer.

A little over dramatic. The only "horrible" holes (and I wouldn't personally use that term) are those with a safety issue such as crossing fairways or blind shots with a pedestrian path behind the basket for example. Here are the hole quality scores given by Rex Hay, Nick, John Houck and myself for the holes in question (with 5 being average):

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>rh</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>nk</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>jh</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>ck</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

John and I basically feel that a mowed open field, even if the mowing is really good, does not make a very good hole relative to others the same length with more trees, elevation or hazards, presuming of course that they are well designed. Only John thought that hole 5 was weaker than average but then he didn't play it in competition to recognize how the OB road to the right affects your approach throw challenge. None of these scores were based on some cookbook because we had no scoring data to influence our assessments.

Hah, is this how the course evaluation is going to work? I have my own opinion of those holes of course, and would be quite happy with certain people rating courses, but given the wide range of opinions on those holes, don't we need a more objective measure?

Related to that course. IMO, that course was screaming for some rope, or something to bring the element of danger into some shots. You know, something that made you sweat out a shot. For example, hole 18, why not call the high stuff OB? It would have been far more challenging, you would have gotten a much better scoring spread, and it all would have been perfectly fair.

Craig,

Nice to see you back posting.

Believe it or not I have no alterior motive for my stated position on this. I just really would prefer that the course be set in it's best layout (not all one length or another necessarily) and have a chance to play it more than one time a year.

I really don't need to play Seneca Short to Shorts, I have Sedgley Woods 20 minutes away. I want to play hole 11 Long to Longs 4 times. I want to play I want to play hole 5 Short to Shorts 4 times.

There are holes at Seneca, Patapsco, Warwick, Knob Hill, etc that are clearly better than other holes (whether you want to use Chuck's system or just eye it up). I want to have more than one chance at them a year.

Remembering traveling players include folks that only get to a course 1 time a year too, even living only 2 hours away.

I just really dislike traveling, paying travel costs, sometimes taking a day off and then having to essentially suffer through any variety of a courses worse or worst layouts.

And before you head down the "payout" route, unlike you I do not cash at every event I go to, so I can state clearly that this is based purely on personal preference and not some trick to cash more often.

I'd like to see it become a "Major/NT" standard (actually I think it already is) that the course be put in it's tournament layout 1 week prior to the event starting and remain that way throughout the event. It is in the interest of fairness, but it is also in the interest of a consistant presentation of challenge.

This is not an issue that has only one answer. Few ones do. Still, a couple best practice recommendations might be of use long term.

don't we need a more objective measure?



What would you propose? In full detail of course...

The course evaluation has many more elements than just the hole quality score although it comprises the highest percentage of the Design score. It's also the most subjective element and it takes some interactive discussion to get evaluators working from the same framework. One point here or there isn't an issue but you can see significant differences on a few of these holes. We do have hole example pictures at different scoring values to use as a reference. If I could have taken charge of the mower, it would have been cool to shape those fairways in a way that didn't require yellow rope and have the high grass as OB on some holes.

Having courses where the top 1/2 of the open division is shooting 47 or better - and being rewarded with excellent ratings #'s for those scores - is more of a detriment than being forced to cope with all a challenging course has to offer.




The guideline is there if TDs will follow it. http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

I'm not into details. :p But basically, the bulk of the design component of course evaluation is essentitally the answer to the following question. Does the course fairly provide an acceptable scoring spread for a given range of competitors?

Most of the answer will be an objective measure provided by stats.

The subjective part is interpretation of the word "fairly." While the human evaluators are testing the bathrooms, water, tee box and tee signs, they would have to make this assessment. To facilitate standardization, they could be trained in judging fairness. Personally, I don't think it is a difficult judgement to make.

Additionally, beyond answering the question above, I would tweak the results by rewarding courses with par 4s and 5s and/or courses that require more challenging shots. Once again, I don't think this is much of a hurdle to overcome.

All in all, this is not that important to me, but given Chuck's table, I have concerns about how objective the results will be.

Alternatively, just separate out everyone's rating and let people make their own decisions. Sort of like movies or music. I could go to courses rated highly by my favorite critics and avoid those which they rate low.

Having courses where the top 1/2 of the open division is shooting 47 or better - and being rewarded with excellent ratings #'s for those scores - is more of a detriment than being forced to cope with all a challenging course has to offer.




The guideline is there if TDs will follow it. http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf



Perhaps I am missing your point, it has happened in the past, but I don't give a dang about player ratings as concerns this issue.

I want the best possible course for my skill level, and I want it every round, not just one.

I know Craig has a beef about players theoretically being able to pad their rating on low SSA courses. I'm not addressing that here, just pointing out that the PDGA guideline suggests that courses for Gold level competition be at least 49. That would exclude Silver-Silver at Warwick which I pointed out and Dan has concerns about using in the future for Open in an NT.

<a href="" onMouseover="alert('Nick do you realize how cool the board is when you are not around? Beat it!!!')">
My Chicano hairnet looks like a bluetit.!</a>

Perhaps I am missing your point, it has happened in the past, but I don't give a dang about player ratings as concerns this issue.[QUOTE]


The point is plain if you read the whole paragraph. The suggestion is being made to impose restrictions on an event structure as regards course layout (or the number of them). I think there are way to many sanctioned events (at all levels), on courses that are to easy (the tangent to that statement is related to ratings - an inevitable result of tournament play). Yes it's great to have everyone with a course able to offer competition. Having major events on some of our more antiquated courses would seem to me to be more of a concern than telling quality courses thay can't use all their layouts if they so choose.

This does not negate some of the very good points people make about their preferences and reasons for having them.

[QUOTE]
I want the best possible course for my skill level, and I want it every round, not just one.



Therein lies the rub Nick. What you believe to be the best layout will invariably differ from someone else traveling just as far, or from the event organizers. There really is no way to make everybody happy in this regard. Either you play the event because you like the course or you don't - pretty simple.

what the heck is that pop up box about nick beating it

Crazy Quidam /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Here are the hole quality scores given by Rex Hay, Nick, John Houck and myself for the holes in question (with 5 being average):

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>rh</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>nk</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>7
</td></tr><tr><td>jh</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>ck</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

John and I basically feel that a mowed open field, even if the mowing is really good, does not make a very good hole relative to others the same length with more trees, elevation or hazards, presuming of course that they are well designed. Only John thought that hole 5 was weaker than average but then he didn't play it in competition to recognize how the OB road to the right affects your approach throw challenge. None of these scores were based on some cookbook because we had no scoring data to influence our assessments.



Are those the hole quality scores for Tinicum?

I don't agree at all with the low marks given from the latter two assessors. Holes 5, 15 and 18 are three of the best holes at that course and in the state, and I don't think the assessors fully realize and appreciate the typical topography and nature of disc golf courses in Pennsylvania. When most of your courses feature primarily tight wooded shots, these holes are quite notable. Hole 15 demands an accurate low ceiling drive or roller to set you up for the approach, and holes 5 and 18 require long drives followed by a second drive that must be accurate enough to reach the protected pins in order to earn the birdie three. OB lies just behind the polehole on both. Maybe these types of (generally) open holes are run-of-the-mill in Texas or other areas of the country, but I think they're some of the best holes in PA.

Holes 5, 15 and 18 are three of the best holes at that course and in the state, and I don't think the assessors fully realize and appreciate the typical topography and nature of disc golf courses in Pennsylvania.



Therein lies the problem. Holes need to be individually evaluated, at least for this part of the evaluation, not in relation to other holes within the course or the state. How well balanced they are with each other to create the course is a separate assessment. Hole 18 would be weak in any state, even North Carolina where holes like it are scarce. It's not even close in quality to say #18 at Renny or even the double tiered hole in western PA at Moraine (#15?). Parts of Texas and Oklahoma would probably prefer fewer holes like 18 if they could find some more trees.

Hole 5 was rated a little better than average and I think John docked it for the quirky transition issue on 4-5-6 there.

Hole 15 just sets up "wrong" with a way too long and open upshot, and it has some interference issues with 14 and 16. It would be much better if a way could be found to reverse it so you would have to crush a drive to an optimum landing area from where your 250-300 ft upshot would originate.

Or state my preference and hope enough others agree that some TDs listen and run events with one layout the whole event (USDGC ring a bell).

I'm just letting them know. An event targetting skill levels from 850 to 1050 I can do everyday at tags or random doubles, when I travel to a super tour or major I want a course made out for my skill level 950 to 1050. Isn't that who those events are targetted towards?

More to the point, there are a host of disc golf courses now in our region that have been designed to better approximate "GOLF" with real pars above 66. I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I know that when given the choice between playing a course with an SSA of 45 and one with an SSA of 65, I will opt for the higher one every time.

It is simply more challenging.

It tests every aspect of your game not just driving and putting.

I really feel kind of cheated when I go to Seneca, Patapsco, Knob Hill, Warwick or Tyler and have to play pitch and putt for an entire morning or afternoon. I accept that others feel differently. I am not saying they are wrong, only how I feel about it.

Cool?

<a href="" onMouseover="alert('Sorry you feel that way Annie. Related to your cowardice perhaps?')">
Our dody boy runs blacktap#.</a>

The only person that has played Tinicum more than a few times is Nick. What are the concerns with holes 3 & 12? How many times have you played Tinicum Chuck? BTW the park crew should have left the rough at 4-5 ft high like it is now.

Please leave my underappreciated home course out of your conversations, I'm surprised it's still in the ground with all the problems there are with it. BTW it was designed by a lefty. :cool:

There are no "problems" with those holes and it's nothing personal Matt but holes 3 and 12 are essentially nicely mowed driving ranges with little elevation, trees or hazards along the flight path. Yes, there's the canal behind #12 and nice backdrop of big furry trees behind #3. That's why they got scores boosted to 3 rather than 1. Just for comparison, here are some average ratings from other holes similar in length and style on the other courses. I think they all seem reasonable relative to each other with 5 being average:

<table border="1"><tr><td> T3</td><td>T12</td><td>L1</td><td>L13</td><td>L17</td><td>N7</td><td>J10</td><td>J18
</td></tr><tr><td>3.8</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>6.3</td><td>6.7</td><td>7.0</td><td>6.3</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I don't know how to fit it into the overall comparison, but I feel that a course without a "driving range" hole is incomplete. Just for the sake of player development, there should be a hole where distance without much danger on the drive is the point. The upshot should require some precision and show a preference to a certain line off the tee, but the drive should be free from major distractions.

I think those types of holes should be looked at from that point of view. Maybe have several scales used for specific hole types. It is very hard to compare a tough par 4 to a great par 2/3.

Of course I could be wrong.

I would say the one 'driving range' hole should be at least a 2-shot hole unless more of this type are unavoidable due to lack of foliage or hazards on the property. I have holes on many of my courses with ratings as low as 3 because I needed to use certain space and there was little going on there. I have done one 'course' almost completely open where I'm not sure any hole deserves more than a 5. Its only saving grace overall is that the 9-hole course is laid out in a star pattern so you get to test the wind from 8 different directions.

We have to use the property we're given and perhaps little can be done to make it better if it's a public site. Just because we have an emotional attachment and remember how tough those holes were when the wind kicked up still shouldn't change the relative value of adding elevation, obstacles (trees) and hazards to inarguably improve the challenge for players to control their shots from a little bit to quite a bit.

Sorry, I thought the 2 shot part was understood.

Without that, the pure distance aspect is lost. The hole should be at least 600' feet long with some challenge on the approach to prevent 2 open unchallenged shots. The benefit of the distance is taking out a mid instead of a driver for the approach. The benefit of control is being lined up with a clearer shot at the basket.

I'm thinking hole 7(?) on the Tournament course in Houston is a good example, where I took the long drive measurements at 2002 Pro Worlds. Hardly any trouble on the drive out to 425-450. But if you throw too far to the right, your upshot might be trickier. I still think that hole would rate only about 5 for quality.