I don't think Par for a hole should ever be adjusted, if the scoring averages for the hole are not in line with the desired par, the hole should be redesigned.


This is madness. I have to keep restating this again and again: Par designation has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether a hole is good. Noone should ever look at what par is designated when contemplating whether a hole needs a redesign.

I really don't get this confusion. The concept of par is not a tool to make a crappy hole good, for any level of play. That is what design is for.

There is absolutely no good reason for Chuck's concept of par, whether it can be justified by ball golf, or not. It is unnecessary and confusing, and adds nothing. If your goal is to have proper design for different skill levels, you already know how to do that. It has been done for years, without using the notion of par.

Another thing that is getting at me is this apparent assumption that SSA somehow describes what skill level should play the course. That is bunk. One could conceivably have an SSA of 50 course, that is fair and creates a generous spread amongst 1000 rated golfers. In other words, it might well be challenging and a good course for 1000 rated golfers, even though the holes are all designated as par 3s.

You act as if this hasn't been decided. The PDGA Course Committee has been posting design and par guidelines for four skill levels. This has been developing for a while. Designers are learning how to design for the different levels and the dialog I get in emails from interested parties asks for help in doing that. There's little controversy over doing this at the design level. I see this thread discussion as explaining how and why the system works for those who wish to learn. It's not about deciding what to do.

As far as setting par, the only concern for a while has been the old Steady Ed par guidelines. Those have been updated also. I see designers attempting to set par the best way they can. No matter what way they do it, I don't know one who assigns any par 2s. Even if they use the inflated ball golf method, they're not going to be inflated from other methods on more than 3 or 4 holes so any difference is in the "feel good" direction from a player standpoint. I just don't see people struggling with assigning par and it's no big deal if they are off from what Houck or I might do.

The primary education issue now has to do with reassigning some old school courses from Blue down to White or Red level along the lines of Scott's chart. The Course Eval process is helping (thread topic) focus attention on the differences among these courses and how to categorize them for the evaluation. The par aspect is a side show to this primary determination. And, as several have pointed out, most courses have holes with mixed skill levels. So, to truly get things sorted out, some holes may need to be adjusted to bring them in line with a specific level.

Nick, I have been in this Par discussion with you guys for somehwere around 2-3 years. In that time we seemed to have worked through all the issues that came along with using SSA to define our Par. We have seen many people, for and against, come and go in these conversations. Many poeple have their own ideas of how to come up with Par and many of those have been worked into the SSA method. I think the bottomline here is that no one before and no one now has been able to show anything better then SSA that solves all the issues that come up with existing courses to make them comparable to future courses with better design standards and more Par 4 and 5 holes.

SSA may not be completly flawless but we have in these discussions worked through almost all issues that arised and may arise in the future. Couple that with the fact that player ratings are the way we compare players and courses already. Many compromises have been made already and most of peopels concerns have been answered with SSA. For me it is just a question of: When do we start to make a major push to get the SSA Pars and color levels on our courses? Or do we just let it gradually catch on as people start to see the light?

In other words, it might well be challenging and a good course for 1000 rated golfers, even though the holes are all designated as par 3s.




While all 18 holes might be "good" for Gold, the course itself will be poor by today's standards in terms of balance. But I agree that SSA within a range does not itself indicate which level of player a course is designed for. We've indicated that the SSA shouldn't be under 49 for the Open division in NTs and Majors. At the other end, a course for Red level players would be rather brutal if the SSA was more than 60 or so.

I agree that I would prefer to play a "more balanced" course with par 4s and 5s, IF it is well designed. I am just attempting to help this discussion along by trying to expose misguided notions that keep resurfacing.

All in all, the concept of par is next to useless to most players. They only care how many shots they threw as compared to their competitors. They want a challenge and a fair spread, which are solely the domain of design, not par.

I do agree that the notion of par should be addressed, solely for the new people starting to play. I also wholeheartedly agree that tees and/or courses should be designed/modified for different skill levels, I just don't need a notion of par to embark on that process.

I agree with you Scott. I guess I'm just trying to accommodate James', Gary's and Lowe's objections. Objections long ago answered and resolved in a productive and useful manner.

I know those guys are all very sharp, so it bothers me that we can't come to an agreement, or that we seem to be talking past each other.

Oh well, it will work out in the end I suppose.

(On topic) A good fundamental understanding of PDGA Standards of Par (Public Par Sheet) and of Skill Levels is necessary for doing PDGA Course Evaluations. The Evaluator must put themselves in the shoes of the skill level for which the course was designed. If they find that a course is labelled GOLD but really is far better suited for BLUE or WHITE, then they should indicate that on the evaluation and approach the course's design elements from that perspective.

The design elements of Course Evaluations are set at different skill levels. i.e. The Basic and Amenity elements are determined according to universal standards, but the Design elements must be considered in light of their target skill level. In that regard, skill level based throwing distances should be considered as well as an SSA data that may be available (very limited currently). Chuck can explain all of this stuff concerning Design element scoring far better than I.

I agree that I would prefer to play a "more balanced" course with par 4s and 5s, IF it is well designed. I am just attempting to help this discussion along by trying to expose misguided notions that keep resurfacing.

All in all, the concept of par is next to useless to most players. They only care how many shots they threw as compared to their competitors. They want a challenge and a fair spread, which are solely the domain of design, not par.


James, could this be primarily true because most courses have �had� SSAs at or below 54? Do you think par would play a larger roll if more courses had greater variety and more par 4s and 5s? At least a little more interest?

I play courses like Nockamixon, Tyler and my home course Kennett Square in the longs as often as I can and I know a realistic known par for each hole is a tremendous aid in having an idea of how you are shooting during and after the round. Without it you�d likely go nuts thinking your game had gone to pot.


I do agree that the notion of par should be addressed, solely for the new people starting to play. I also wholeheartedly agree that tees and/or courses should be designed/modified for different skill levels, I just don't need a notion of par to embark on that process.


Well, then ignore the fact that it already has, and the fact that it serves a valuable purpose in design and evaluation purposes, not to mention possible use in handicap leagues and for the rules. If these things don�t float your boat, then pay them no never mind, right? Isn�t enough that they are useful to others involved in designing or evaluation a course? Or even for those choosing to use them in play?

For the record, I only care about playing well-designed courses. If given the choice between two well designed courses, I would certainly prefer a par 72 over a par 54. If given the choice between a cheesy par 72 and a well-designed par 54, I will choose the par 54.



Well, then ignore the fact that it already has, and the fact that it serves a valuable purpose in design and evaluation purposes, not to mention possible use in handicap leagues and for the rules. If these things don�t float your boat, then pay them no never mind, right? Isn�t enough that they are useful to others involved in designing or evaluation a course? Or even for those choosing to use them in play?


Put it this way, if you are using par designations to evaluate a course, you are doing a #$*&$!-poor job of evaluating. If you are assuming a certain skill-level and evaluating fairness and spread, based on that skill level, then you are doing a great service for golfers of that skill level. However, a designation of par is never used in that evaluation.

I judge my play against the SSA or WCP number, not par. To me, par is just a scoring convention that has been adopted as a convenience. It is in no way indicative, in it's current use, of the true difficulty of the hole or a course.

I judge my play against the SSA or WCP number, not par.



What does the "P" stand for :p

my point exactly. According to my handy dictionary:

Par
2 : common level : EQUALITY -- usually used with on <judged the recording to be on a par with previous ones>
3 a : an amount taken as an average or norm b : an accepted standard; specifically : a usual standard of physical condition or health
4 : the score standard for each hole of a golf course; also : a score equal to par
- par adjective
- par for the course : not unusual : NORMAL

I'm not interested in a totally subjective "every hole is par 3"

I want local par to be compared with what top pros average on a course, or hole. This should represent a quantitative level of skill, (which is why a player's rating has meaning) But only a course's SSA or WCP actually tells you anything interesting about the course. and even then it doesn't tell you if it is well designed.

so after each tournament the local pros should recalculate each hole's, and then the entire course's, SSA or WCP and post it for all to see, segregated by wind direction, wind speed, foliage amount, ground cover, humidity, rainfall during play, temperature and left and right handedness of the players.

Put it this way, if you are using par designations to evaluate a course, you are doing a #$*&$!-poor job of evaluating. If you are assuming a certain skill-level and evaluating fairness and spread, based on that skill level, then you are doing a great service for golfers of that skill level. However, a designation of par is never used in that evaluation.



It is if it is WCP or Skill Adjusted WCP. If a hole has an SSA of 3.1 to 3.4 and you verify by eye that it is more or less going to be either a 3 or a 4 for that skill level 95% of the time, then it is not a great hole design, because there will be no score spread.

Lowe, this is a light bulb issue when you'll all of a sudden go "Aha!" BG par definition and the Mens course rating formula guidelines are only linked for the tees that experts play where the par is close to the CR formula calculation...



Chuck,

Sorry but the light bulb still hasn't gone on. Maybe I'm just a dim bulb. Thanks for your endless patience.

I'm still skeptical about the sentences quoted above. In practical terms what are you referring to by this sentence, "the tees that experts play where the par is close to the CR formula calculation"? The white tees must be the most common and most played tees, so which tees are these "tees that experts play"?

If your statements are correct then why are they not clearly documented by the USGA? If they are, then can you point me to where I can read it?

Chuck, I'm curious, what is the average SSA for all courses under PDGA evaluation (all courses covered by your stats)?

The last paragraph of USGA Handicap System Section 13e - "Note: Yardage Rating and Course Rating are not to be confused with par. Par is not an accurate measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. It is possible for two golf courses to have the same par, but have very different Course Ratings and Yardage Ratings."

The USGA Course Rating (CR) is calculated by a formula based on the skills of expert men/scratch amateurs. Let's stick with men only for this exercise. For simplicity, let's call the formula CR=42+(length/220yds) for the course or HR=2.33+(length/220yds) per hole. Let's assume we have a completely level and average property so the formula is exact. That would mean a hole averaging 4.0 for experts would be 1.67x220=367yds. A hole that averages 2 shots to "around the green" would be 2x220=440yds and its scoring average would be 4.33, a tough 4.

Par is a word definition that distills to "shots to the green plus two" (for expert players), men in this case. Those words are in parentheses because it depends on the skill level which I'll show later.

Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint. We'll assume that the 2 putts on the green is a constant for the purposes of this exercise, but that the number of shots to the green for a par 4 could possibly vary from 1.5 to 2.5 and still meet the spirit of the definition. However, if the formula produces a scoring average over 4.5 or under 3.5 then that wouldn't be good. So, our shortest acceptable par 4 hole would be 1.5x220=330yds. Even though the scoring average is 3.83, we can't go shorter following our rule of at least 1.5 shots rounded to 2. Our longest par 4 would be 2.17x220yds=477yds. We can't go longer because the scoring average would exceed 4.5.

The USGA chart shows Par 4s starting at 251 up to 470. However, any ball golfers would know that you rarely see any holes with adjusted lengths in the 235-320 range from the blues unless it's a funky hole with a sharp bend or weird water structure.

So, our course designer creates a par 4 hole from the blues (expert tee) that's 365. There are three more tees in front of this one at 345, 320 and 295. This is listed as a par 4 from each tee. The HR values for all four tees in descending order are: 3.99, 3.90, 3.78, 3.67. Looks OK so far from the scoring averages. However, the number of shots to the green are: 1.66, 1.57, 1.45 and 1.34. The two shortest tees don't meet the word definition of par for expert players.

But that's OK because those pars are not for expert players but for players of the skill level who would play those shorter tees. When they play those two shorter tees, they will average more than 1.5 shots to the green which brings the Par definition of "shots to the green plus two" back in harmony with the hole rating. Mathematically, the scoring average for experts still falls closer to 4 than 3. But that HR value is just an indictor for the difficulty of the hole in reference to the CR value for each of those tee sets, just like SSA is calculated for all of our tee sets whether for Red, White, Blue or Gold.

The HR values for each hole from each tee are calculated using the same reference formula so that relative comparisons can be made among holes and courses in the same way SSA is not a "par" but course rating tool that provides a common basis for comparing hole scoring values. The cool thing is that their par word definition is consistent for each skill level such that a par 4 means the same thing for people of the appropriate skill playing those shorter tees, i.e. how many shots should it take me (not an expert) to get to the green. Unfortunately, except for women, they haven't adequately defined what those other skill levels are.

The average tournament SSA is around 49 last we looked. Of course, that includes shorter tee rounds. I'm going to work on some yearend stats and check that out.

Thanks, Chuck. That'll be interesting to learn.

I threw in some new ideas on this topic that I didn't see any response to. Absolute hole difficulty, SSA difficulty tiers, posting SSA's and the lengths and foliage factors they consist of, listing only correct skill level hole pars, and how to determine skill level were some of these topics.

Chuck did mention that Red SSA shouldn't be above 60. If you are considering which players are red players mostly, I suppose this makes sense. For other skill levels though, I don't see for example what makes a gold SSA of 54 better than a white SSA of 64? I'm sure there are other determinations. I'd like to know how they are defined.

What else? What is the next step?




Denny Ritner: I enjoyed reading and agree with your philosophies on course design. I still think that SSA is less subjective and more standardized than using several variables that do vary with CR Par methods. You are right though, if the courses are designed ideally, (with the concept of greens, on the green %'s, and tee and landing zone locations) there would be much less discrepancy between the different methods used for establishing par.

Chuck: Seems that course design continues to be something that intrigues the minds of those who follow the thread here. I see many people are already with the designers group. Do you think it would be publicly appropriate to give a description of what the group does and what one would expect in joining? Seems to me that there is a lot of new ideas experts are experimenting with in course design. Would members be a lot more exposed to this than here on this forum?


Neon:

I'd really like to see this get resolved one way or the other so a meaningful and useful par can start to be set by a single standard worldwide. Do we all agree on that, at least?

Yes. The solution should be simple, but structurally solid.


Skill Level Pars: Don't do them. They were mainly thought up to get rid of Par 2s anyway. So if we've already dumped par 2s then one of the main reasons for skill level pars has already been eliminated, right? One standard and if you have a course with some CBS Par3s then you'd be advised against any handicap competitions. Now hold on! Chuck, you can still design holes and layouts for divisions other than upper BLUE an d GOLD, you just can't say that this is a BLUE par 68 and GOLD par 62, or a RED Par 80. Would that be so much to give up in order to get us to the next step in this process?




What I'm hearing that you are saying is that we should design courses with tee settings with 4 different skill levels, but that on each tee setting, hole par should only be determined for that specific skill level.

This might be reasonable, but only if SSA is posted for all of the four different skill levels (for each tee setting).

Let's face it, on nice courses, sometimes several different tee locations are fun to play for pros and ams alike. Even in "A" tier events, you will have ams playing from pro tees and vice versa. A great many courses haven't even made the distinction yet. A lot of courses have tees that play from completely different angles and though offering a much different challenge, the hole scoring averages are quite similar.

It would be very informative if you post the scoring averages for every skill level for each set of tees, say on a bullitin, or on the hole 1 tee sign. This would give each division an idea of what they should from each set of tees. This would also show how similar or different the course par is from the SSA.

Now were saying that only the hole par for the specific tee skill would be posted. If you have a blue tee, and the par is 3, we could post "PAR 3" in blue print. We would not include RED PAR 4, WHITE PAR 3, GOLD PAR 2. That seems reasonable, but here's an idea..... Include an absolute hole difficulty rating, such as 2.4. This number would be the (gold or 1000 rated) hole scratch scoring average. If you know this information, you can take your player rating and add .28 for every 50 points of difference between your rating and 1000. This gives you a precise idea of what YOUR PAR is for the hole.

In short, my ideal course would have all the tee settings listed (and their associated skill level) on the bullitin board or first tee with scoring averages for 4 different defined skill levels listed for each of these tee settings. I would also include course lengths and possibly even a challenge factor to give players an idea of how much foliage and OB on the course effect the difficulty as well. Now, on the tee sign for each hole, all that would be needed would be the hole length, schematic or picture of different tees and pins, the tee skill level, and the tee's par, which would be based on the skill level. Use of skill level color in the print would be of benefit. Of additional benefit would be including the true hole difficulty (can't think of a better wording that wouldn't promote confusion) or Gold Hole Scoring Average, in tenths, such as 2.7. Even if the course is designed for a gold player with a listed par of 3, that player would enjoy the benefit of knowing how bad a 4 is on this hole and how much a 2 is not out of the question.

Having a universal hole difficutly number would solve the problems of some people wanting several pars and some wanting only one par standard. You could have them both.


My most important statement is that SSA's should be gathered and posted, not just course par, even if they are the same.

My most important question is.... What will determine the skill level of a given set of tees? Who is to say that a Blue par 52 course wouldn't be a better RED par 62 course? On any given course, sometimes one certain tee plays better for everyone. Sometimes the longer tees play better for ams and the shorter ones better for pros. I know that these are design issues. I'd like to know more these calculations and how the general public is being made to understand them. This needs more critical thought.

Also a big difference between DG and BG is course par. 70-72 is much different from 48-72. I think it would be a great idea to include a "difficulty tier" with the skill level of a given set of tees. 48-52 could be tier 1, 52-56 tier 2, or whatever works best. Color and tier would give a really good idea about how a course plays without getting into any numbers. Right now, "blue course" tells you nothing about it's par. The SSA easily does this, but approach with a categorizing method would give players a better grasp.

Another thing Neon said about blue and gold courses being standard while red and white are substandard.... I think this defeats the point of having different skill level tees to begin with. It's ok to think about disc golf as having one true par that is 1000 rated golf. It wouldn't be good to have 2 real pars and 2 fake pars. As mentioned previously, a blue course and a white course could be identicle, with the difference being only the designer's preference. Calling one standard and the other substandard would be wrong. On the other hand, a white course could have a par of 70, while the blue course has a par of 50. Which of these courses is better?

I do agree, by the way, that 1000 rated golf is a good standard. If you look at par in ball golf, only 0.5% or less of golfers can achieve this standard. If we applied the same numbers to disc golf, we'd get more than 1000 as the par standard, not less. Seing that only 0.5% achieve true par is a good reason to promote and define other par levels. For ball golf, these levels are substantially closer together than for disc golf, but that too, I think is good.

Chuck did mention that Red SSA shouldn't be above 60.



It's a (Gold) SSA of 60 on a Red course, not a Red scoring average of 60. That would be close to 80 on this course. I said it would be brutal, not that some private property owner shouldn't do it. But it's probably ill-advised.

Hehe, looks like I confused skill level par for SSA. Basically, I was saying that for a course that averages 50 for blue players and 60 for red players (or gold vs. white), what should be the declared skill level for the course? I know this isn't nearly enough info to make that decision. It just seems to me that we aren't getting away from par 2 and towards par 4 until we start getting the scoring averages up there. By declaring all these courses being evaluated as "blue", there are going to be many blue scoring averages in the high forties and low fiftees. This is too low. These courses should be white or red.

Yup, I must have confused SSA with skill level scoring average. We could call them red SA, white SA, and blue SA.

What I was getting at was the scenario of a course with a blue SA of 50 and a red SA of 60 (or gold vs. white). It seems like most would choose to label the course as blue. This would take us back toward par 2 holes and away from par 4 holes. Calling all the current courses blue for evaluations sake is going to create many courses with a par (blue scoring average) of below 50. These courses would obviously be better suited as white or red courses.

I want to hear more about what determines a skill level for a given course. This seems a critical part of the rest of this par puzzle we are working on. We can't just call every course a blue course, can we?

The PDGA Design Guidelines provide clues for proper hole lengths and also total course length ranges for each color level. www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf)

The default of using the Blue guidelines for course evaluations doesn't mean it should be followed blindly. If no guidance is given for what level the longest layout was designed for, the total length is a good starting point. Any course over 4800 is a potential Blue candidate but over 5400 is probably one for sure. Under 4500 is likely Red. White is the least common and should probably remain that way for new courses but many older courses between 4200-5400 may now be best suited for a White evaluation.

If we are evaluating courses with 18+ holes (say 21 holes) should we take the average hole length (total length/21) then multiply by 18...to see where the length fits within the 18-hole guidelines?

Yes. Those are 18-hole guidelines.

We could call them red SA, white SA, and blue SA.




I like that. How about GSA, RSA, WSA, BSA and SSA?

World Class Par is the method of rounding/averaging and manipulating to equal the rounded full round average, hole by hole, with a little leeway for Course Designer influence them.

This can be done for each Skill Level Score Average fairly easily.

Chuck do you have existing standards for this process? The only one I have are for SSA or GSA.

SSA and GSA are the same thing. We've already been using BSA, WSA and RSA in the course design info. World Class Par should just fade away because it's really Gold Par now.

Rodney's table is somewhere in the bowels of this discussion board that shows what rating every round score is worth for each SSA. All you need to do is look at the scores where 950, 900 and 850 round ratings show up for an SSA to get the BSA, WSA and RSA.

Rodney's table is somewhere in the bowels of this discussion board that shows what rating every round score is worth for each SSA. All you need to do is look at the scores where 950, 900 and 850 round ratings show up for an SSA to get the BSA, WSA and RSA.



Is this right thread for the table? Rodney's SSA & Score table (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=63562&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=)

Any course over 4800 is a potential Blue candidate but over 5400 is probably one for sure. Under 4500 is likely Red. White is the least common and should probably remain that way for new courses but many older courses between 4200-5400 may now be best suited for a White evaluation.




I still don�t get it. Y�all are apparently once again planning on categorizing courses based on SSA, or a surrogate of length. For the umpteenth time, tell me how SSA, BSA, par, it�s bastardized cousins, or length tells you a **** thing about who a course was designed for or what skill level would enjoy playing the course. I�m sure that this just seems like anal whining to y�all, but y�all apparently do not understand how to evaluate design, and consequently, your rating system will be highly questionable to say the least.

Someone can easily design a par 54 course that is 5,000 feet, which has an SSA of 49. From this data, you do not know jack squat whether this course is a well-designed course for gold level. Of course, y�all will presume it is not, and label it as some other color course, and this will be entirely misleading and a disservice to people wishing to know if they would enjoy this course, based on their skill level.

He just listed probabilities.

Based strictly on length, red does top out around 4500' (250' average)
Blue courses can be as short as 4800', but are usually a little longer. Anything over 5400' (300' average) is probably a Blue course.
White courses are generally between 4200' and 5400'.

I would stretch the Whites out to 6000' (333' average) for mainly open courses. and Reds up to 4800' for simplicity.

So that would give you the probability of Red for courses less than 4200'.
Either Red or White from 4200' to 4800'
Either White or Blue from 4800' to 6000'
Over 6000' probably Blue.

This is based entirely upon how far players in those skill ranges throw on average, in average to thin foliage. As the foliage increases, the lengths drop dramatically.

I agree that SSA, or total length will not tell you everything about what skill level a course is best suited for. That's why there is a large overlap in the designations. Length gives you an idea, but you have to see the layout, and possibly the scores from a few competitive rounds to make a proper determination.

These are just generalizations, and they seem pretty accurate. Especially with the

Is this right thread for the table? Rodney's SSA & Score table



Yes.

James, I agree. You can't tell what level a course is designed for by knowing either the SSA or its length. However, courses in the "wrong" length range for that skill level will likely be too easy or too brutal. A 4200 ft course designed for Gold would be poor and a 7500 ft course designed for Red would be brutal.

Generally, those course design standards are pretty accurate and well written. What I'm saying is that if courses have scoring averages closer to 70 than 50, these lengths are going to be thrown off considerably. A white course might usually play around 4800', but if is a par 70 white course, 7500' wouldn't be out of the question. Some courses with SSA's around 50-55 that happen to have marginal scoring spread with the pro's might make better courses for red or white in the par 60-70 range. I think we should take advantage of being able to set par for other skill levels and use this to promote higher par golf. Of course gold SA of 70 would be what I really want to see.

Some courses with SSA's around 50-55 that happen to have marginal scoring spread with the pro's might make better courses for red or white in the par 60-70 range.



Maybe. But you have to consider the intention for the course. If it already has a short set of tees, changing the long ones to White or Red probably doesn't make sense. Better to fix the holes for the intended skill level. And that's probably the best approach even if there aren't shorter tees, especially for courses with SSAs over 54.

James, I agree. You can't tell what level a course is designed for by knowing either the SSA or its length.



Once again this is a reason why it would be so useful to have consistent standards for par. I've been determining course levels by comparing the scoring average to par. I think this addresses the issues of using both length and SSA to determine score average. The SSA of a hole doesn't matter as much as what the SSA is in relation to par.

I've used some of the following principles for my personal evaluation of about 50 of the most recent courses that I've played.

SSA is the most important factor because of it's universal applicability. I also think that Gold CR Par or Gold SA Par should be the standard for par. However, I also compare BSA to Blue CR Par, WSA to White CR Par, RSA to Red CR Par, and sometimes GrSA to Green CR par. I look for several things:

1. What is the SSA? Is it below 50? Is it below or above 54? SSAs above 54 are good candidates for Gold or Blue level courses.

2. If the SSA is below 54 then which level has a scoring average closest to 54? This has to take any par 4s for that level into account.

3. What is the spread of par 4s for each level? Which level scoring average is closest to level par?

Since there is some overlap between the levels that are next to each other (Red/WHite, White/Blue...) there is an element of subjectivity to this process.

I don't think I've even been able to really describe the process I use very well, but I have developed a spreadsheet with all of the data for each level. When I analyze it the Course level usually becomes apparent. I'm sure that whatever flaws there are in what I've just written will be quickly pointed out. I welcome reading your comments because it helps me to clarify my methods and to change anything that is flawed.

Hey Nick,

I've been thinking about a form that would present interesting data from tournament score cards. It looks like you have just that right here. You have SSA and HSA listed.

Is there any way you could add some things to this? Next to SSA, include course length and challenge factor. Also, how about instead of number of 2's, 3's, 4's, etc. figure the percentages. This brings up the question "for what division?". You could do a seperate analysis on this for each of the four skill levels (measured by rating). What about one for 875-950 and one for 950 and up? It would be interesting to see espescially pro data on pro gold and advanced data on blue tees, etc., but this wouldn't happen too often and the rest of the data is still good to see.

Other things might include hole lengths and tee / pin selection for each. Standard deviation for scores would be way cool, but would take some ability to incorporate into a spreadsheet.

Just trying to think of the ultimately interesting course data sheet. I'd like to use this form in a few tournaments coming up. What ideas do you have that players would interested in seeing after a tournament?


I have a WCP Calculator that will provide Course and Hole by Hole SSA and WCPs as well as other calculations. If you send me your full results first name, last name, pdga number, and hole by hole scores for the same layout of an event I will plug them in for you and send back a copy.

It will look something like this: http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/TylerSPHBHWCP.htm

Enjoy!

The last paragraph of USGA Handicap System Section 13e - "Note: Yardage Rating and Course Rating are not to be confused with par. Par is not an accurate measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. It is possible for two golf courses to have the same par, but have very different Course Ratings and Yardage Ratings."


Chuck,

On this point, at least, I completely agree with you!

But am I the only one who sees a tremendous disconnect between those statements and what followed? You then proceeded to base par to the Course Rating when clearly "Course Rating is not to be confused with par".

Especially note this sentence: "Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint."


The USGA Course Rating (CR) is calculated by a formula based on the skills of expert men/scratch amateurs. Let's stick with men only for this exercise. For simplicity, let's call the formula CR=42+(length/220yds) for the course or HR=2.33+(length/220yds) per hole. Let's assume we have a completely level and average property so the formula is exact. That would mean a hole averaging 4.0 for experts would be 1.67x220=367yds. A hole that averages 2 shots to "around the green" would be 2x220=440yds and its scoring average would be 4.33, a tough 4.

Par is a word definition that distills to "shots to the green plus two" (for expert players), men in this case. Those words are in parentheses because it depends on the skill level which I'll show later.

Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint. We'll assume that the 2 putts on the green is a constant for the purposes of this exercise, but that the number of shots to the green for a par 4 could possibly vary from 1.5 to 2.5 and still meet the spirit of the definition. However, if the formula produces a scoring average over 4.5 or under 3.5 then that wouldn't be good. So, our shortest acceptable par 4 hole would be 1.5x220=330yds. Even though the scoring average is 3.83, we can't go shorter following our rule of at least 1.5 shots rounded to 2. Our longest par 4 would be 2.17x220yds=477yds. We can't go longer because the scoring average would exceed 4.5.

The USGA chart shows Par 4s starting at 251 up to 470. However, any ball golfers would know that you rarely see any holes with adjusted lengths in the 235-320 range from the blues unless it's a funky hole with a sharp bend or weird water structure.

So, our course designer creates a par 4 hole from the blues (expert tee) that's 365. There are three more tees in front of this one at 345, 320 and 295. This is listed as a par 4 from each tee. The HR values for all four tees in descending order are: 3.99, 3.90, 3.78, 3.67. Looks OK so far from the scoring averages. However, the number of shots to the green are: 1.66, 1.57, 1.45 and 1.34. The two shortest tees don't meet the word definition of par for expert players.

But that's OK because those pars are not for expert players but for players of the skill level who would play those shorter tees. When they play those two shorter tees, they will average more than 1.5 shots to the green which brings the Par definition of "shots to the green plus two" back in harmony with the hole rating. Mathematically, the scoring average for experts still falls closer to 4 than 3. But that HR value is just an indictor for the difficulty of the hole in reference to the CR value for each of those tee sets, just like SSA is calculated for all of our tee sets whether for Red, White, Blue or Gold.

The HR values for each hole from each tee are calculated using the same reference formula so that relative comparisons can be made among holes and courses in the same way SSA is not a "par" but course rating tool that provides a common basis for comparing hole scoring values. The cool thing is that their par word definition is consistent for each skill level such that a par 4 means the same thing for people of the appropriate skill playing those shorter tees, i.e. how many shots should it take me (not an expert) to get to the green. Unfortunately, except for women, they haven't adequately defined what those other skill levels are.

Chuck,

I highly respect you, and I weigh your opinions very carefully. You�ve earned to right to careful consideration, and I appreciate the endless amounts of time and patience that you invest in posting here. However, I still have to disagree with your assessment of how the USGA determines par. I think you�ve got this one wrong.

First you said, (2/16, at 9:20)



In golf par is determined from a simple chart using effective length alone. There is only standard to determine par.



That is not correct. The chart shows what the par will be for a course from the expert tees based on the Expert Mens course rating standard. The BG definition for par is not a formula, it is the words "shots to the green plus two." It is only true for the expert player when the set of tees is designed for expert players, even if it has a course rating and slope attached to it from the Mens Course Rating formula. You and others are confusing the two elements.



After re-reading this 2/16 post numerous times I still have no idea at all why you said that I was confusing par with the Men�s Course Rating formula. I never even mentioned it in relation to par.

+++++
Also in relation to the other post about par and ratings (which is the one that I hit reply to here) I've also studied it very carefully as well. I've re-read is many times and worked through all of the calculations, and it still seems to me that you are the one who keeps combining par and Course Ratings.

I find it ironic that we are accusing each other of the same thing.

Chuck,

I think that one main point of confusion is that it seems like you are mixing together two different parts of this discussion into one. We've recently been discussing 2 points:
1) How the USGA determines par.
2) Whether or not DG should have different standards for each course playing level.

Although there is overlap these are separate issues, and it would be much clearer to deal with them separately.

It seems that your post below was more of an attempt to answer point 2). Was that your main intent? Was I just reading it wrong to think that you were also trying to answer point 1) or was that also your intention?

If you were trying to answer issue 1) then your argument was not at all persuasive.


The last paragraph of USGA Handicap System Section 13e - "Note: Yardage Rating and Course Rating are not to be confused with par. Par is not an accurate measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. It is possible for two golf courses to have the same par, but have very different Course Ratings and Yardage Ratings."

The USGA Course Rating (CR) is calculated by a formula based on the skills of expert men/scratch amateurs. Let's stick with men only for this exercise. For simplicity, let's call the formula CR=42+(length/220yds) for the course or HR=2.33+(length/220yds) per hole. Let's assume we have a completely level and average property so the formula is exact. That would mean a hole averaging 4.0 for experts would be 1.67x220=367yds. A hole that averages 2 shots to "around the green" would be 2x220=440yds and its scoring average would be 4.33, a tough 4.

Par is a word definition that distills to "shots to the green plus two" (for expert players), men in this case. Those words are in parentheses because it depends on the skill level which I'll show later.

Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint. We'll assume that the 2 putts on the green is a constant for the purposes of this exercise, but that the number of shots to the green for a par 4 could possibly vary from 1.5 to 2.5 and still meet the spirit of the definition. However, if the formula produces a scoring average over 4.5 or under 3.5 then that wouldn't be good. So, our shortest acceptable par 4 hole would be 1.5x220=330yds. Even though the scoring average is 3.83, we can't go shorter following our rule of at least 1.5 shots rounded to 2. Our longest par 4 would be 2.17x220yds=477yds. We can't go longer because the scoring average would exceed 4.5.

The USGA chart shows Par 4s starting at 251 up to 470. However, any ball golfers would know that you rarely see any holes with adjusted lengths in the 235-320 range from the blues unless it's a funky hole with a sharp bend or weird water structure.

So, our course designer creates a par 4 hole from the blues (expert tee) that's 365. There are three more tees in front of this one at 345, 320 and 295. This is listed as a par 4 from each tee. The HR values for all four tees in descending order are: 3.99, 3.90, 3.78, 3.67. Looks OK so far from the scoring averages. However, the number of shots to the green are: 1.66, 1.57, 1.45 and 1.34. The two shortest tees don't meet the word definition of par for expert players.

But that's OK because those pars are not for expert players but for players of the skill level who would play those shorter tees. When they play those two shorter tees, they will average more than 1.5 shots to the green which brings the Par definition of "shots to the green plus two" back in harmony with the hole rating. Mathematically, the scoring average for experts still falls closer to 4 than 3. But that HR value is just an indictor for the difficulty of the hole in reference to the CR value for each of those tee sets, just like SSA is calculated for all of our tee sets whether for Red, White, Blue or Gold.

The HR values for each hole from each tee are calculated using the same reference formula so that relative comparisons can be made among holes and courses in the same way SSA is not a "par" but course rating tool that provides a common basis for comparing hole scoring values. The cool thing is that their par word definition is consistent for each skill level such that a par 4 means the same thing for people of the appropriate skill playing those shorter tees, i.e. how many shots should it take me (not an expert) to get to the green. Unfortunately, except for women, they haven't adequately defined what those other skill levels are.

Especially note this sentence: "Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint."




One is a hole rating (HR) formula. The other is a par definition with words. These are independent elements/variables that only intersect on holes with lengths where both are true for men experts. The HR formula doesn't tell you by itself what the par is except on holes designed from/for the mens expert tees.

And even then, certain lengths are not appropriate lengths (and aren't used) for men expert tees even though the table shows a par for all lengths. These inappropriate lengths also happen to be ones that are inconsistent with the text par definition. That's why it may appear that the HR formula is synonymous with the par definition, but they're actually independent variables that conveniently overlap in certain length ranges as indicated in my previous post.

It's also why the mens HR formula is not calculated for many of the shortest tee sets on courses because it's absolutely not in the ball park for that skill level. It only appears to act as a par surrogate for some skill levels below (and above) mens expert because there is a wide range of lengths that all qualify as par 3s, or all par 4s or all par 5s for DIFFERENT skill levels. It's just like the overlap you see in our SSA hole rating par table for four skill levels. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear than I have. As I mentioned before, it's a light bulb issue.

Let's try another angle.
- The USGA course rating formula is specific to male expert capabilities although it's used to rate courses from some but not sets of tees. There's an equivalent formula for women experts that is used to rate courses from some other sets of tees
- The BG text par definition is appropriate for men experts when applied to tees designed for men experts but not for other tee sets. The BG par defintition is appropriate for women experts from the set of tees designed for them but not other tee sets.
- The BG text par definition is appropriate for all skill levels as long as the word "expert" in the definition is replaced by a word or words that identify the skill level the par is being set for from the tees designed for that skill level.

The best proof that these statements are true is a situation that most who have watched ball golf in the last few years should be aware of. The young guys and even older ones like Daly basically defeat the design parameters of many traditional par 5 holes by regularly reaching them in two shots. To combat this, either holes that can't be lengthened have been tweaked to become good par 4s for the tour. Or, the holes have been lengthened to make them legit par 5s where the scoring average for tour players is at least 4.5.

The USGA par table values are not valid for setting par for PGA pros (super experts) because they're at a different skill level. A hole over 471 yards (which starts the par 5 range for experts) probably doesn't become a bona fide par 5 for PGA pros until 535 or so depending on how hazardous the route is designed.

The point is that the USGA table that shows pars referenced to their course rating formula is not a universal par standard for all skills in ball golf, but only one that's appropriate for men experts, with a separate formula and par table for women experts. Their par definition is universal for all of ball golf only when the word "expert" is substituted with a word or words (weekend warrior, senior, etc) that represent each different skill level. It then becomes the appropriate basis for par from tees designed for them. With the word "expert" left in there, it's only valid for the expert level.

I'm not sure I can make it any more clear than I have. As I mentioned before, it's a light bulb issue.



The light bulb is on now. (Or as some here in NC might say, "The 'Hot Now' light is lit" [just a little Krispy Kreme reference.]) I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with all of your methods, assumptions, or conclusions.

It seems to me that you may be so wrapped up in SSA and ratings that you may not be able to step back and see what I'm trying to say. I'm just guessing here, of course. I've been contemplating a detailed response to your earlier post with the par and rating data, but I really don't think it would do any good, so it's not worth the time to do.

To make sure I haven't missed it, you're saying that the USGA course rating formula is also how par is determined in ball golf for all tees and their par definition is a blanket rule for setting par for everyone. If that's the case, I've explained why that's an illusion including the USGA's own statements.

To make sure I haven't missed it, you're saying that the USGA course rating formula is also how par is determined in ball golf for all tees



Ahh...another light bulb may have just gone on! Perhaps a lot of this misunderstanding has been caused by the unfortunate use of the word "formula". I believe that I did use that word, but it probably meant something different to you than I intended. When I used the word "formula" it was in reference to how the chart for Men's par lengths could be converted into a "formula". [That hypothetical formula for Men would be (using effective length):
Length < 250 = Par 3
Length of 251 to 470 = Par 4
Length > 471 = Par 5 ]
When I used the word "formula" <font color="blue">I was NOT referring to the USGA Course Rating formula!</font>

I have never said that the USGA Course Rating formula is used to determine par. Maybe that's where the supposed idea that I've linked par and course ratings arose.

Let me state it plainly: I believe that the way the USGA sets par and the Course Rating formula are separate. Par and Course ratings are different things.

To make sure I haven't missed it, you're saying that the USGA course rating formula is also how par is determined in ball golf for all tees and their par definition is a blanket rule for setting par for everyone. If that's the case, I've explained why that's an illusion including the USGA's own statements.



No, I'm not saying what you stated above. I'm saying that the USGA sets Par by a very simple process. After they've calculated the effective length (which is not simple) then par is set in this way:
Blue and White tees use the Men's length chart. (<250, 251-470, >471)
Red tees use the Women's length chart.
(Yellow tees-- I don't know which chart they use.)

For setting par I've seen no evidence from the USGA of any of the complicated mathematical gymnastics that you performed. All of thosse mathematical calculations would be used to evaluate hole design and hole difficulty, though, which is what the Course Rating numbers are intended for.

Lowe, the USGA par table is directly generated from the "per hole" version of their Mens expert Course Rating formula (do the math which I did earlier for par 4s). Perhaps that's what you've missed. The Women's par table is from the Women Course rating. That's why the par values are only 100% valid for the Mens expert tees and Womens expert tees respectively, and no other tees.

Lowe, the USGA par table is directly generated from the "per hole" version of their Mens expert Course Rating formula (do the math which I did earlier for par 4s). Perhaps that's what you've missed. The Women's par table is from the Women Course rating. That's why the par values are only 100% valid for the Mens expert tees and Womens expert tees respectively, and no other tees.



Chuck,

I'm really not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to get at the truth. I know that "the truth is out there". I really don't think that your statement above is correct. There were par tables for many years before the Course Ratings were developed, so the numbers can't be derived from the ratings math. Course Ratings are a relatively new innovation. It seems like Knuth rolled them out in 1983.

The only possible correlation might be if there were par tables previously in use, but the current numbers were adjusted to those derived from the Course Ratings formula as you suggest.

It seems like Knuth rolled them out in 1983.



I'm pretty sure the data for the Course Rating formula comes from the 1970 U.S. Amateur and Womens Amateur events. That's what the USGA handicap committee rep told me when we met for 90 minutes at the USGA HQ in Far Hills maybe 4 years ago. Knuth's contribution was the Slope system which determined scores for bogey golfers and handicapping. That might be the 1983 reference.

Chuck,

When you run the numbers with the actual formula they don't quite match up.

CR = 40.9 + (L/220)
so HR = 2.27 + (L/220)

if HR = 3.5 then 3.5 = 2.27 + (L/220), and L = 271
If HR = 4.5 then L = 491

That would make a par 4 from 271-491 yds.

The USGA par table is
Par 3: <250 yds
Par 4: 251-470 yds
Par 5: >471

The numbers are pretty close but not equal as they would be if the table was derived from the formula. I submit that the table was developed first using a drive length of 250 yards and an approach length of 220 yards.

You need to use CR=42+(L/220) for the idealized par of 72 which is 2.33+(L/220). My guess is that they rounded to 250 and 470 break points. The point is that the par definition that uses the word "expert" only matches for the expert CR formula/table. For any other tees, it's only accidental due to significant overlap among skill ranges.

<font color="blue"> One last salvo. My thoughts are interspersed in blue below... </font>


The last paragraph of USGA Handicap System Section 13e - "Note: Yardage Rating and Course Rating are not to be confused with par. Par is not an accurate measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. It is possible for two golf courses to have the same par, but have very different Course Ratings and Yardage Ratings."

<font color="blue"> YES! If par and Course Ratings are different! This principle should be kept in mind for the following discussion.</font>

The USGA Course Rating (CR) is calculated by a formula based on the skills of expert men/scratch amateurs. Let's stick with men only for this exercise. For simplicity, let's call the formula CR=42+(length/220yds) for the course or HR=2.33+(length/220yds) per hole. <font color="blue">I'm not sure where you get the number 42. The USGA formula is CR= 40.9 +(L/220) </font>
Let's assume we have a completely level and average property so the formula is exact. <font color="blue">(i.e.- Actual length = Effective length.) </font>That would mean a hole averaging 4.0 for experts would be 1.67x220=367yds. A hole that averages 2 shots to "around the green" would be 2x220=440yds and its scoring average would be 4.33, a tough 4.

Par is a word definition that distills to "shots to the green plus two" (for expert players), men in this case. Those words are in parentheses because it depends on the skill level which I'll show later.

Only holes that meet both the HR formula and the par definition would theoretically be valid from a BG design standpoint. <font color="blue">Design and par are also separate. A hole not meeting the right criteria for HR may be poorly designed, but par is still determined by one chart. </font>
We'll assume that the 2 putts on the green is a constant for the purposes of this exercise, but that the number of shots to the green for a par 4 could possibly vary from 1.5 to 2.5 and still meet the spirit of the definition. However, if the formula produces a scoring average over 4.5 or under 3.5 then that wouldn't be good. So, our shortest acceptable par 4 hole would be 1.5x220=330yds. Even though the scoring average is 3.83, we can't go shorter following our rule of at least 1.5 shots rounded to 2. Our longest par 4 would be 2.17x220yds=477yds. We can't go longer because the scoring average would exceed 4.5.

The USGA chart shows Par 4s starting at 251 up to 470. However, any ball golfers would know that you rarely see any holes with adjusted lengths in the 235-320 range from the blues unless it's a funky hole with a sharp bend or weird water structure.

So, our course designer creates a par 4 hole from the blues (expert tee) that's 365. There are three more tees in front of this one at 345, 320 and 295. This is listed as a par 4 from each tee. The HR values for all four tees in descending order are: 3.99, 3.90, 3.78, 3.67. Looks OK so far from the scoring averages. However, the number of shots to the green are: 1.66, 1.57, 1.45 and 1.34. The two shortest tees don't meet the word definition of par for expert players.
<font color="blue"> (Even though these numbers are a little off because you used 42 in the CR formula instead of 40.9 we can go with them.) First, the 295 hole would be the Red tee, and therefore they probably use the Women's par chart. But even if they don't lets look at the 2 lengths in contention-- the two shortest that take 1.45 and 1.34 shots. In the real world, out on the course, it's still going to take a player 2 shots to get to the green. A player cannot make 1.34 shots on a hole; their actual shots are always a whole number. A hole that takes 1.45 or 1.34 would be considered too easy for an expert player, but the expert player is still the standard used to determine par. </font>

But that's OK because those pars are not for expert players but for players of the skill level who would play those shorter tees. When they play those two shorter tees, they will average more than 1.5 shots to the green which brings the Par definition of "shots to the green plus two" back in harmony with the hole rating. Mathematically, the scoring average for experts still falls closer to 4 than 3. But that HR value is just an indictor for the difficulty of the hole in reference to the CR value for each of those tee sets, just like SSA is calculated for all of our tee sets whether for Red, White, Blue or Gold.

The HR values for each hole from each tee are calculated using the same reference formula so that relative comparisons can be made among holes and courses in the same way SSA is not a "par" but course rating tool that provides a common basis for comparing hole scoring values. <font color="blue">I agree! SSA and par are separate just as Course Rating and par are separate in BG. </font> The cool thing is that their par word definition is consistent for each skill level such that a par 4 means the same thing for people of the appropriate skill playing those shorter tees, i.e. how many shots should it take me (not an expert) to get to the green. Unfortunately, except for women, they haven't adequately defined what those other skill levels are.

The whole purpose of this excursion is disabusing people of the notion that ball golf has only one standard for determining par. The USGA has one table for each set of tees specific for mens and womens experts. The PGA Pro table is obviously a third. The LPGA and Champions tours may be two more but they may each use one of the existing tables (not published). And any other tee not not designed for either gender of experts are additional ones, especially those inbetween where both the mens and womens course ratings are specified (for example is a 430 yd hole a par 4 men table or a par 5 women table) or the tees even shorter than women experts.

The ball golf course rating formula also includes an obstacle factor which boosts the 40.9 by 1.1 to 42. That's why I used the rounded formula of 42+(L/220) which is a common basis for course rating.

The DG system with four skill levels is easier and more integrated since the foundation is just one course rating standard, SSA, which players of both genders and all skill levels (above 799) can generate on the fly. Having pars specific to each skill set is not some radical concept but is borrowed from BG.

Chuck, I'm curious, what is the average SSA for all courses under PDGA evaluation (all courses covered by your stats)?


The average tournament SSA is around 49 last we looked. Of course, that includes shorter tee rounds. I'm going to work on some yearend stats and check that out.


Chuck, have you had a chance yet to find out the average SSA of all courses under PDGA evaluation? (How many courses is that?)

Just a small point, the USGA does not rate the courses, each state is responsible for determining the slope and rating with a group that goes around to each course when requested to rate or re rate a course. They use scratch & bogey golfers to come to happy medium. Of course you have to provide them with lunch, so that could be a factor also. :cool:

I just did the gross average of all SSAs generated in 2004 on an 18-hole basis and it was 49. The values in 2005 are a little higher because we did some adjustments in the formula as the year progressed. So data for that year was done inconsistently. 2004 and 2006 years the numbers will be more stable. I'm working on a frequency chart for 2004.

As Matt said, there are regional course rating groups that get hired to provide the rating and slope for courses. This seems like a real ripoff for the clubs who have to pay for this (I'm not sure what the fees are though). The rating formula is: Course rating = 40.9 + (?) + (effective course length/220yds). The (?) factor is what the rating groups are hired to assess. Typically, (?) is just 0.7-1.5 for the whole course! The group assesses 10 factors on each hole for tiny score tweaking to come up with a number that impacts less than 2% of the score on the course. And the value is never confirmed by actual scores in ball golf. It's black magic I tells ya.

Here we go with 2004 stats. Average 49 SSA on an 18-hole basis with a standard deviation of 4.0 for 1753 course layouts rated. As you can see from the table, 90% of our courses played in PDGA competitions have SSAs of 54 or less. Considering that our better courses are usually played in competition, those without SSAs, other than some private courses, are likely under 54 also. Based on my knowledge of these courses, the USDGC, Renny and MADC region would account for most of the rounds over 59 SSA.

<table border="1"><tr><td>SSA</td><td>Count</td><td>Pct.</td><td>Accum%
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>2</td><td>0.1%</td><td>0.1%
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>14</td><td>0.8%</td><td>0.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>35</td><td>2.0%</td><td>2.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>68</td><td>3.9%</td><td>6.8%
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>122</td><td>7.0%</td><td>13.7%
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>153</td><td>8.7%</td><td>22.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>205</td><td>11.7%</td><td>34.2%
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>210</td><td>12.0%</td><td>46.1%
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>219</td><td>12.5%</td><td>58.6%
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>190</td><td>10.8%</td><td>69.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>150</td><td>8.6%</td><td>78.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>82</td><td>4.7%</td><td>82.7%
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>81</td><td>4.6%</td><td>87.3%
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>53</td><td>3.0%</td><td>90.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>35</td><td>2.0%</td><td>92.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>35</td><td>2.0%</td><td>94.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>27</td><td>1.5%</td><td>95.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>12</td><td>0.7%</td><td>96.6%
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>5</td><td>0.3%</td><td>96.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>11</td><td>0.6%</td><td>97.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>10</td><td>0.6%</td><td>98.1%
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>12</td><td>0.7%</td><td>98.7%
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>9</td><td>0.5%</td><td>99.3%
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>2</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>1</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>2</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>3</td><td>0.2%</td><td>99.7%
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>2</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.8%
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>0</td><td>0.0%</td><td>99.8%
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>1</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>1</td><td>0.1%</td><td>99.9%
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Yay MADC! :D

Don't expect that trend to slow, we know what we like and we like bonecrunching courses. Look for even more courses to hit well into the 60s as far as SSA.

Here we go with 2004 stats. Average 49 SSA on an 18-hole basis with a standard deviation of 4.0 for 1753 course layouts rated. As you can see from the table, 90% of our courses played in PDGA competitions have SSAs of 54 or less. Considering that our better courses are usually played in competition, those without SSAs, other than some private courses, are likely under 54 also. Based on my knowledge of these courses, the USDGC, Renny and MADC region would account for most of the rounds over 59 SSA.



Interesting that we choose to make an arbitrary dividing line of courses with SSAs of around 54. In my experience, these can be some of the best courses out there. These are courses with typically a half dozen pro par four or par five holes, and a limited number of par twos. They offer the experience and challenge of multi-shot holes, placement shots, and increased length without inflicting a "brutal slog" feeling that higher SSA courses can be notorious for.

The "arbitrary" dividing line at 54 just happened to be where 10% of the courses are higher. All of the Minnesota courses at PW2001 were right at 54 with several par 4s and 5s on each. Of course, we also had par 2s, too. At the time, they were the toughest set of courses at a Pro Worlds, with only the 2005 courses topping them since then (on SSA average). With 90% of courses with SSAs less than 55, my point was that, at least for Gold level, there are lots of potential par 2s out there if par is based on Gold level players.

Par 2's, be gone from us!!

Almost no courses at all with SSA's above 63. That's sad. I'm gonna figure WCP for Ted's Dread in KC. I bet it is at least 65.

Yay MADC! :D

Don't expect that trend to slow, we know what we like and we like bonecrunching courses. Look for even more courses to hit well into the 60s as far as SSA.



I like the sound of that! Mid-Atlantic disc golf rocks...

Par 2 is the stupidest #$*&$! I have ever heard. The PDGA wants us to mimic the PGA with collared shirts and such. You show me one ball golf course in the world that has a par 2 and I'll tell you its the only one.

The thought of par 2 golf is rediculous. All your doing is making DG more of a joke to the rest of society and decelerating the progression of my sport.

PAR 72 golf is the future, not par 36 golf

I'm not sure anyone wants par 2s, but they are currently there, at least for Gold level players. There's lots of work to do to either lengthen holes or reclassify courses as appropriate for lower level players. Par 2s then disappear.

Tank,

The fact that 90% of disc golf courses are under SSA 54 shows that there are more par 2 holes out there than par 4. A par 4 hole is ten times better than a par 2. I wouldn't blame Chuck for bringing the scoring averages out into the light. Blame the people who insist on installing courses that don't challenge professional players, yet use these courses for PDGA professional play.

We really need to make a suggestion for tees of any skill level to play par 60 plus. This would require a lot of change in thinking, but would make for better courses uncontested. A lot of SSA 50 courses would make better white par 60's. SSA 55 could be blue par 60's. Of course the design might need tweaked a bit. Point being that gold courses need more than a bunch of par 3's (as do the other skill levels).

1753 courses!

That... is a lot of typing. Hope you don't have carpal tunnel, Chuck.

So how is this data being applied? Something like the following?

SSA 41-45: Red (13.7% of courses)
SSA 46-49: White (44.9% of courses)
SSA 50-53: Blue (28.7% of courses)
SSA 54-71: Gold (12.7% of courses)

1753 course layouts and rounds. Some courses have 25-30 values for different rounds, events and tee/pin combinations.

The SSA isn't directly correlated with skill level. There's a fair amount of overlap among skill levels. But Gold won't be less than 49 SSA and Red is unlikely more than 55 or so.

I was only applying the skill level adjustments, assuming the same people who want SSA to help assign par are also against par-2s.

If you're against par-2s, then SSA tells you what number of throws you need to add to get above 54 to avoid them. (Of course, if any of the holes on the course are par-4s or 5s, then you have to get even higher than 54 to avoid par-2s.)

Isn't the number of throws above SSA that you need to add to reach an adjusted (non-par-2) course par an indicator of what skill level will score that adjusted course par?

For example, if you have to add 15 throws to SSA to reach a course par without par 2s, isn't 15 throws approximately the skill separation between Gold and Red level players? Does that result in a Red par assignment for the course?

Just trying to understand what people are proposing we should do if we wish to use SSA to help assign par.

When the SSA is around 50 then the Red level shoots about 15 shots worse. Lower SSAs, the scores get closer. Higher SSAs the scores get farther apart.

Because quite a few more holes average slighty less than rather than slightly more than a whole number, it's not uncommon for a course with an SSA of 49 to still not have any holes that average less than 2.5 (par 2s) for gold level players. If all holes average 2.75, you end up with an SSA of 49.5 for example with all par 3s and even maybe one or two Gold par 4s.

Courses that average all 2.75 shots per hole are the problem. All holes are par 3's and pars are given, not earned. Bogey is a remote concept. There is not much strategy on this type of course. If we continue to promote 54 as a base par, we'll never escape this huge limitation to the game.

More good discussion on par...

http://www.kansasdiscgolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

The whole purpose of this excursion is disabusing people of the notion that ball golf has only one standard for determining par. The USGA has one table for each set of tees specific for mens and womens experts. ...



I just wanted to add that Chuck's arguments on this point still have not convinced me. But Chuck has earned a lot of respect because of all of the time and energy that he has contributed to disc golf, so his opinion should be weighed carefully.

Here's another discussion about par-- What is par? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=)

Pre-911. What a hoot! And me arguing against the idea of par 2s! LOL!

Yeah, I never change my mind on anything... ;)