Captain is camping out at the park Friday night so i think he will be o.k. :D

I dont think he is going to make it on time.

alot o folks takin' bout playin blind....see me please.....i can fix that.

king of the castle

And to think we were under the impression that you were a Queen!!!

228 will win it this weekend with someone firing a 53.

duBBs

Is that the over/under? I'll take the over, but not by much. I will put it at 232. I do see a 53 in the future. Maybe not this year if the wind is up though. 56 will get beat this year... Rory shot a 54 yesterday.

If anyone can do 4 54's its that kid. It helps to have the castle in your backyard. Look for Beetle to win Adv. Nobody plays more than that crazy basssstad.

Ok.....228 might be a little overzealous. We'll go with Bond's 232.

I'm just hoping to stay in the mid 240 range....

I'm just hoping to finish alive. I've only played the Castle once casually and I dont remember much of the course. Should be fun!

4 54's! Is Kenny coming to play? My pick for advanced is Jeremy Bond. Something about that name, I don't know what it is but I like it.
Good luck Pro G with the blindness. I will be doing the same thing next week.

Perhaps I'll get lucky and get in your group 1st round. I hear you're not so bad at the Castle. Missed ya at poker. See everyone tomorrow!

Hate having to miss this one. Rip it up! Dave George and Boz will have flyers for The King's Cup on hand and on-line registration is up and ready for those brave enough to make a run for the cup.

Good luck to everyone tomorrow the payne will be in full effect. the course is looking so good. thanks Joe for the flags they are going to be a huge help.

Any time DG shoot em' up brotha! Good luck to all at the Castle this weekend, as Hippie Dave sometimes says " it will be brutal"........feel the Payne!

3-31-2006<font color="red">TTHUMBER ACE #13 </font> Guess who?









Nice shot mulleTT!

scores are up and WCP is still crappy, but better than usual! (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5671&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open)

looks like the locals are holding it down, com on meat puppets! Nate and Rory the one two punch, son.

wish i was there.

those ratings are unbelievabley retarded

Chuck......something has to be done about the ratings for this course. a round in the 40's will probably never happen in singles on this course. Doubles course record is 49......my personal best and current unofficial course record is 53. The ratings that have been logged for this tourney this year are Absolutely Ridiculous.
Please try to remedy this. Alot of people shot Outstanding golf this weekend, and they are not getting properly rewarded.

Thanks in advance for your efforts.

well said

Chuck......something has to be done about the ratings for this course. a round in the 40's will probably never happen in singles on this course. Doubles course record is 49......my personal best and current unofficial course record is 53. The ratings that have been logged for this tourney this year are Absolutely Ridiculous.
Please try to remedy this. Alot of people shot Outstanding golf this weekend, and they are not getting properly rewarded.

Thanks in advance for your efforts.



No doubt - my 62 the last round felt a lot better than 976....closer to 1000 I would say

Thanks to the Port City crew for the castle looking the best I've ever seen it! I love playing this course - which is why I guess I threw so many times!

Thanks to Big Wave Dave and his girl Micky for hosting me and double J. I went out to my yard and grabbed some rocks for our sink thanks to yall.

See everyone at the other monster in NC next weekend

and oh yeah - congrats to Bard for finally getting one, to Jeb "I throw thumbers on holes where even Billy Crump is like this isn't a thumber" Bryant, to Crump and the countless other players who beat me this weekend

Congrats Bard! Way to take her down from start to finish. Can't wait to play you boys next week in the Queen City. On a side note:

Are u serious? A 56 is rated 1033 & 1025! Try more like 1050-1060 minimum. Ratings are retarded for this course. Boo.

The list of people to thank is endless but here is a start.

Boz did a great job in running the tournament without a hitch and his tireless efforts for the betterment of disc golf (especially in New Hanover County) is something to be applauded. Thanks to the New Hanover Disc Club as these guys are the core of why and how the course continues to improve year after year (Claystone, DP, Monny, Fig, DG, Steve, Russ, Boz, Goomis, Rudy-this is not an exhaustive list but the ones that come to mind initially). NH County Parks and Recreation. All of the players who continue to come back and support us year in and year out and to the first timers whom we hope will come back.

MTL for his interest and willingness in doing the on-line scoring and Tripp (& Janie, McRee, Billy) for counting cards and setting the board.

Zeke, the Chef Master and my wife Carla, as Monny so eloquently put it (in the past) for making it a picnic. Allyson for spotting on Hole 4.

........Jeff Morris for donating 10 cases of drinks for the lunches and the Days Inn for the rates and the "road warrior" gift of a 2 night stay for free for next years event.

CJ for his monetary donation and his dad for the bread for the lunches.

I knew I forgot some.

thank you Deac

thanks to all for the tourney

thanks to cutt for the hospitality

thanks to the Payne for my back and shoulder

see you next year

Chuck......something has to be done about the ratings for this course. a round in the 40's will probably never happen in singles on this course.



Look, you guys have played enough courses to recognize that this course seems to have weird ratings values. It's not the ratings calcs that are the problem but something about the hole designs themselves that's causing it. I'd like to find out what it is and am willing to do the work if someone would send me a deck of scorecards from the event.

Apparently this course has an abnormal distribution of a certain hole type in terms of scoring distribution that leads to this. If we can figure out what it is then it will help other designers to not go overboard on this type of hole. It doesn't mean the individual hole designs themselves are a problem but somehow the lengths and scoring distributions are somehow similar. It's like building a course that has the 18 best hyzer holes in the world. The individual holes are great but the course is weak because it lacks balance. Let's find out what it is for this course. I have enough data on scoring distributions from holes on a wide variety of courses that I should be able to spot something.

Chuck,

Consider it done, I just PM'ed you. Thank you for your interest and willingness to look into this.

this might be part of the problem... hole #4 - 367 ft, 4th round 5th through 10th place pro open score distribution: 2, 4, 4, 6, 6. then again, maybe not.

ive shot a 1015 round before, the 57 was no 1015

Hi Chuck, I do have all the scorecards and will send copies to you this week. I look forward to discussing the possibilities with you. Thanks for your tireless efforts to improve our sport.

Boz (Azalea TD)

That's a good observation, Jeff. I would also like to point out that a wide distribution can be a sign of a well designed "Risk-Reward" hole. Incidentally, those scores could easily be seen on a short hole with water in play. Perhaps, it also is a reflection of the late charge (more risk taking) that the top pros know they need to get into the cash...

It's really simple.


A tough course (except for Withrop Gold b/c of the level of competition when the course is played) has terrible ratings for good rounds and good ratings for bad rounds.

Before even seeing the cards, here's my suspicion and that is that the course has an abnormal number of holes with scoring averages just over 3 or just over 4 rather than under 3 and under 4 like most courses. On most courses, holes mostly end up with scoring averages from 2.5 to 2.8 or 3.5 to 3.9. This makes the SSA 4-6 shots below par. When most of the holes average at or above 3 or 4, the SSA comes out at or even above par. This is a much less common course and may be what's happening here. When the SSA is 4-6 shots closer to par, you can't shoot as much below par with a hot round as you can on the typical course most of us are used to.

btw, thanks boz and everyone else who had anything to do with making this tourney happen. i finally broke 60

yeah i have to agree that there are some holes with a debatable par
but my 57 was easily the best 1015 rated round I've ever shot

Dear Golfers,
Thankyou for a very memorable experience. Everyone had a great time and really enjoyed the tournament. Despite the "Payne", I've never seen so many willing to get up and go back out, round after round, determined to improve their score! Thanks to Scott Crouch (and family) for his wisdom and support...and for listing all who volunteered to make everything run so smoothly. Thanks to Zeb, Harold, Neal, Boomer and all at Innova for making every year better than the one before. It's now time to look at the numbers and see how the Castle held up. I look forward to seeing all of you next year!
Sincerely,
Mike Bozik (TD)
3/28/06:
Predictions...hmmmmmmmm.
I think the course record will be broken, but only with a 55. Only 4 players will shoot 3 or more rounds in the 50's.
One player will shoot all 4 rounds in the 50's.
The winning score will be 231 (4 strokes better than last year.)
____________________

Much to my suprise (and secret delight) the course record was not broken this year. However, it was tied 4 times by the top 3. (Bard, McRee and Schweb who did it in rounds 3 and 4!)

3 players shot 3 rounds in the 50 bracket (Bard, Olsen and J.J.), while no one shot all 4 down there.

Finally, the Bard put up a 233 for the win and Schweb put up a 234 for 2nd. (Last year 235 won it)

Imagine if you had two dice. One is the usual 6-sided type with numbers from 1 thru 6. Over 18 throws you would expect the total to be around 63 with an average about 3.5. Now we get a 4-sided die with numbers from 2 thru 5. Roll it 18 times and you get a total around 63 with an average of 3.5. Every so often, you might roll the 6-sided die 18 times and get a total around 45. That could also happen with the 4-sided die but it's much less likely. Of course, the 6-sided die could theoretically produce a total less than 36 which is impossible for the 4-sided die. Something about those holes is statistically more like the 4-sided versus 6-sided die.

whoa

Also another observation....


Usually when a course record is shot, the round is at worst 1050. Think about some hot rounds as of late that set records. Johnny Mac in Gainsville this weekend (1090), Brian Skinner at the VA Open (1101), Barry in Arizona (1090)

And then lets look at the Castle. A 56 is the record and is only in the 1030s at best.

Using the theory that a 1090 round is possible (like we have seen) that means that someone could shoot a round of 49 (like Chuck said in this same argument last year).

The course has 10 par 3's 6 par 4's and 2 par 5's.

Of the 10 par 3's, 2 of which are holes I would call a bonus duece (3 and 14) and 5, 13, and 18 are very tough deuces.

If you get the remaining 5 dueces (3 are realtively simple and the other 2 require really good tee shots) and get 2 of the 5 reaming dueces, that puts you at -7. One of the par 5's won't be three'd normally, so thats at best -6. The other par 5 takes 2 of the best shots you will throw for a 3, so thats probably a 4, putting you at -5.

Now you would still have to play the remaining par 4's at even to shoot the 49.

Basically my point is - That ain't happening.

Another random point..

I shot a 46 at Valley Springs. It was rated the same as a 59 at the Castle. That's humerous.

What I noticed, being the first time I really played the course, there are a lot of holes where no matter your playing level, you're going to score about the same. Holes 3, 6, 7, and 14 are dueceable with a good shot but most everyone is getting a 3. The pros will rarely get over a 4 on 10 and 17. On holes like number 8 and 12, whether you're a top pro or a run-of-the-mill advanced player, you are going to get a 4, 5 or 6. With everyone scoring basically the same on over half the holes the scoring distribution is not very far apart. Holes 1, 2, 5, 9, 16, &amp; 18 are the holes that separate the 56s from the 61's. Any score outside of that you most likely blew up on 8, 12 and/or 15. Sure there are some outlier scores but for the most part I feel this is correct.

My 2 cents...

If I can find stats on other courses with SSAs around 59, it will be interesting to compare. Considering there were only three players with ratings over 1000, that would mean only about 12 rounds should be over 1000 for the event. I count 20 rounds over 1000. That's because the 2005 boost factor hasn't been taken out from the online unofficial calcs. Those numbers will come out about 4-5 points lower than you see there when done officially.

Great shooting Bard, you continue to be an inspiration :) Look forward to playing you again sometime this year when I fly back east.

EOG - I agree with your assessment for the most part.

To kind of "cariciature" what you are saying, think of an L shaped hole with nice wide fairways, but nasty rough (that would mean no one would attempt tee-to-basket shots). Leg 1 is 150 feet long and Leg 2 is 150 feet long. Every one would 3 the hole (with an occasional 80-90' duece and an occasional missed putt.

If a whole course were made up with holes like this, an intermediate could play very close to the same level as a 1030 rated player.

I am not saying Castle Payne is like this, but I think this same effect comes into play on too many holes (like EOG points out)

If I can find stats on other courses with SSAs around 59, it will be interesting to compare. Considering there were only three players with ratings over 1000, that would mean only about 12 rounds should be over 1000 for the event. I count 20 rounds over 1000. That's because the 2005 boost factor hasn't been taken out from the online unofficial calcs. Those numbers will come out about 4-5 points lower than you see there when done officially.



So simply b/c I'm 971 I should never shoot a 1000 rated round? If you check my stats you will find some. I guess those ratings were all wrong for those rounds. They should have been 971.

Great tourney...Wish i could have played pain-free, but alas, Im a ....
Anyway...Its easy enough to see and read that the ratings for this course are way off. Wonder how the Renny rounds will turn out.

I think Eddie is the right direction, however I disagree with some of what he said.

Hole 3 is def. a tough hole to deuce, but is a pretty simple 3. But that's why its such a good hole. Most of the 4's and 5's from this hole come when people want to get the two. If you play the hole from the start with the mindset of playing for 3, its tough to get a 4. If you play for 2, it's really easy too get a four. The same can be said for hole 14.


I will kinda disagree with your assesement of hole 8 though. I've seen some really big numbers put up on this hole from all types of players and even a 5 requires you to stay out of trouble for the entire hole. The OB on the right is what makes this a good hole and adds to the score seperation.

I think what seperates the 56's form the 61's and the 61's from the 68's isnt the easy holes, its the tough holes. Almost every round I played the tougher holes very poorly and my score reflected upon that. The key to that course is when you get to the tough stretch not putting up the 6's and the 7's.

When you shoot 1005, someone at a 1005 shoots 971 (in theory). That's the way it works. It's not possible for everyone to shot 1000+ rated rounds at the same time (even if they do). What would happen is the SSA would be 5 shots lower than normal. We know this doesn't happen though.

Right now, the average round ratings of the propagators will be about 8 points higher than their current ratings until we get the online boost factor adjusted downward. Prior to 2005, the average round ratings for each round were exactly equal to the average of the propagator ratings. In 2006, the round rating average will be maybe 2-3 points higher than the propagator average so we're still pumping a few points into the system.

It's not possible for everyone to shot 1000+ rated rounds at the same time (even if they do).



which is my biggest grief with the ratings system. I think that is just rediculous that you can be penalized for a good round simply because other people had good or better rounds.

which is my biggest grief with the ratings system.



Perhaps it takes more than a few hundred thousand rounds to persuade you but if what you say was happening we would see very unstable SSA values under the same conditions and we don't. People in a large enough group are very predictable statistical entities and we have events where the same SSA within one throw has been generated for five years on the same course. When Skinner did his thing for 1100+, it was obvious. You've now seen the same thing happen with ratings again at Castle. That's pretty consistent results. If the ratings process was unstable you would have seen something different this year but didn't.

just because something is consistent doesn't mean its accurate.

and skinners round was improperally calculated.

just because something is consistent doesn't mean its accurate.




While that's true, you don't have a reference to prove it right or wrong on an absolute basis. What's cool is we can all possibly be consistently wrong together but accurate relative to each other on the same basis. Newtonian physics was later proven inaccurate by quantum mechanics but it still works well as you go about your daily living.

you don't have a reference to prove it right or wrong on an absolute basis.



I don't got any numbers, I'm not going to talk about some dice being rolled, and I don't know anything about physics.

what I do know is disc golf. What I got is over 13 years experience playing.

From my understanding, ratings were based off of not was coniserded world class par, but what the cash line at worlds would be. In theory, If you shoot 1000 golf at worlds, you should get last cash.

But what is the point of the ratings? I mean why should it matter if what should and shouldn;t cash, the only thing that should matters is what does cash and what doesn't cash.

The true point and relavance of the ratings is to be able to compare course to course. In ball golf, you tell somoene you shot a 72, people who have never seen played or heard anything about a course can pretty much understand what that means. In doesn't work like that in disc golf. A 54 at the Castle would be incrediable, a 54 at some courses is horriable. In theory, the ratings allow us to give some kind of statistical comparison from course to course.

But when you play a course like Valley Springs in Durham ad shoot a 46 (6 off the course record) and its rated a 1012 and then you shoot a 57 at the castle (one of the course record) and its rated 1015, I see a problem.

I'm gonna do some research and post my findings in a few minutes....

Meanwhile, you never really addressed my course record theory. Most course records aren't in the 1025 -1030 range like they are at the castle....

BTW Chuck I hope you know that I love the fact that you have this kind of commitment to something you believe in and are open to listeing to criticism. Thanks for that.

Ok, I just calculated the average rating for the winners of the pro division in 2005 in all NC events....

Just as I have argued for years on here....courses with an SSA of around 58ish or around 44 have the lowest ratings for the winners, courses with an SSA around 49ish and stacked fields have the highest


averages above 1030
1046 - Charlotte Open - Hornests Nest
1041 - NC FDC's - Cedar Hills
1038 - Hickory Classic - Glen Hilton
1038 - Pro Crosstown - Cedar Hills / Zebulon
1036 - Sneeky Pete- Cedarrock long / Wellspring long
1035 - Alamance County - Cedarrockshort / Wellspring short and long
1035 - Oak Hollow Open - Johhson Street Blue / Temp Course
1033 - Buckhorn Open - Buckhorn

Ratings Under 1010
1002 - points Bonanza 4 - Sugaw Creek
1002 - Azelea festival - Castle Hayne
1004 - Horizons Park Classic - Horizons
1009 - Bull City Showdown - Valley Original / Valley Alt

1023 was the average for all the events


How can someone win in NC with 1002? Play the Azeala Festival

How can someone win in NC with 1002?



Duplicate the Castle design on your private course.

Did you calculate the average rating of the propagators in those events? You have to do that to compare those numbers. Unfortunately, our programmers haven't gotten around to displaying a player's rating at the time of the event to make it easier to do that.

Ball golf has courses that are very close in their course ratings. What you're saying is that courses need to be close in SSA to have similar results. We agree and ratings records will be grouped by SSA range for fairness.

so kenny or barry in theory should average a 56 out there at the castle. aint gonna happen. i guarantee they wont have but maybe 2 rounds better than a 57

Imagine if you had two dice. One is the usual 6-sided type with numbers from 1 thru 6. Over 18 throws you would expect the total to be around 63 with an average about 3.5. Now we get a 4-sided die with numbers from 2 thru 5. Roll it 18 times and you get a total around 63 with an average of 3.5. Every so often, you might roll the 6-sided die 18 times and get a total around 45. That could also happen with the 4-sided die but it's much less likely. Of course, the 6-sided die could theoretically produce a total less than 36 which is impossible for the 4-sided die. Something about those holes is statistically more like the 4-sided versus 6-sided die.



Hehe, that reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8247373439001187069&q=dungeons+and+dragons&pl=true)

"I am Galstaff, sorcerer of Light!"

so kenny or barry in theory should average a 56 out there at the castle.



whatever JJ - people average course records over 4 rounds like every weekend - I bet people even do it and lose!

Big thanks to boz and crew.. Great weather for a great tourney on a challenging course.....Had a lot of fun with everyone I played with and partyed with..Thanks to JIMMY for the hospitality....
See yall on the friZZaks turf next weekend..


"06 King of the Castle" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Congrats to Bard for a great win this past weekend, just so you guys know there was no frizzacks rep. @ FDR fools fest, and it was disappointing. Sorry I cant be down for the frizzack open, maybe see you guys this summer @ some NT's or worlds or something, MSDGC definitely.

Well now that I have gotten through all the biTTin, I would like to say thanks to Boz, Scott the Cook and all the others who stepped up to make this another huge success, and by the way I consider this my second home and will always return to feel the payne. Also would like to says thanks to all the pro players that I had the opportunity to play with this weekend in my first event as a Pro, I really enjoyed every card I got to play on. Also as for these rating problems, who cares about them they really dont mean much it is really how each and every player feels that day it could be anybodys day. 971 or 1060 the rating does not matter it is the player behind that rating that is the most important factor in the game.

Yeah, I tend to agree. I think there is a fair way to do it though. Have all ratings over 1000 go by increments of 10. Even if the average range of scoring is 7 or 8 (like on a very tough course), when you hit the magical 1000 line, each stroke should in reality be worth 10 points. Because when you are a pro, that's what it's worth. I mean, if you shoot a 52 and that's 1000 rated for a particular course, then another pro shoots a 51, that should be a 10 point spread. It's pretty logical. Top pros do not think of a stroke worth 8 points or 7 or 9, each one is 10 points.

EOG - I agree with your assessment for the most part.

To kind of "cariciature" what you are saying, think of an L shaped hole with nice wide fairways, but nasty rough (that would mean no one would attempt tee-to-basket shots). Leg 1 is 150 feet long and Leg 2 is 150 feet long. Every one would 3 the hole (with an occasional 80-90' duece and an occasional missed putt.

If a whole course were made up with holes like this, an intermediate could play very close to the same level as a 1030 rated player.

I am not saying Castle Payne is like this, but I think this same effect comes into play on too many holes (like EOG points out)



Good points Eddie, mp3. To defend the course, we have 5 Hyzer Tee shots, 5 Straight Shots and 8 Anhyzers (for RH/BH). That doesn't seem unbalanced or unfair, to me. (It may be an abnormal routing, in terms of most NC courses.) These shapes do take our correct par numbers into account. Meaning...a par four with an anhyzer approach may still be considered a straight tee-shot. Many players are mistaking this design element for an overabundance of "lefty holes." It is not. Of all the par 3's we have, all can be and were deuced this weekend. The tee-shots required to do so are not in any way atypical of any disc golf hole in NC.

We have reachable par 4's and unreachable par 4's. We have short par 3's and long par 3's. We have a par 5 that can be eagled...and one that only 3 people to my knowlege ever have. The point is, you can score well if you use the proper strategy (designer's intent). Top pros may choose to force their game on the course and circumnavigate the designer's intent, shooting unbelievable scores on certain holes. When they try it too often, they get punished.

On the point that good players and bad players seem to score the same on certain holes...We'll have to look at the scorecards to sort that out. Besides, why can't a bad player use good strategy to make his par while a good player is tempted to go for 2 and has to save par from the rough? Similar scores don't mean similar shot strategies- and thus a bad hole. A well designed hole "levels the playing field" by letting shorter players "think" their way to good scores, and tempting good players to cheat around the doglegs. It's just a bad idea to cheat too much at the Castle.

In my experience, most disc golf courses seem to be out of balance with too many righty-hyzers and straight shots. I think our ratings system might be unintentionally biased by this. Just a thought...

Boz

The lefty/straight/righty balance has nothing to do with ratings but is certainly important for balance. There's a way to do wooded holes that will cause this scoring issue. It will be interesting to see what the numbers show.

so basicly, if you don't like your rating. u suck

sshhhh....renny is listening....

The lefty/straight/righty balance has nothing to do with ratings but is certainly important for balance. There's a way to do wooded holes that will cause this scoring issue. It will be interesting to see what the numbers show.



What if a course had nothing but righty holes. Wouldnt that throw the ratings asuming that a right handed player like me (971) beat a Scott Martin or a Craig Leyva?

If you ask most lefties, there are already way more righty holes anyway and they learn how to play them. Or as the Frizzaks know Dr. Doug's mantra, "They're all lefty holes." Even if the course had mostly lefty holes, the SSA would maybe be one throw on average higher than an exact mirror image course for righties. But that would show up in the scores so there wouldn't be a problem.

Chuck,
I have a few questions, so please forgive my ignorance on the subject. I am interested in understanding CR and PR better.

The SSA is defined as "an estimate of the average score a scratch disc golfer (1000 rating) would shoot on that course configuration. The SSA will be roughly 4-6 strokes higher that the course record." Where did you get the "4-6" strokes figure?

Below are the score averages of the top 5 for 4 rounds at the Castle. Course record is 56.

Soleng - 58.25
Schweby - 58.5
McRee - 59.5
Olsen - 59.5
Jernigan - 59.75

This implies our SSA/WCP is around 60/61, where Lowe said it should be. To be honest, if I felt we had to "correct" the par number at Castle Hayne, I personally would have to raise it to 67 (there are 3 long par 3's). If we set a 1000 round at 64 strokes for the Castle, then would a 56 represent 1080? A par 67 would make a 56 round out to be a 1100?


When calculating PR's for each round, you use the SSA. Is the SSA re-calculated for every round, and thus not fixed for the whole tournament?

Thanks again, Chuck

Boz, thanks for the good times! If I could choose, I would throw backhand righty out of 9 tees, lefty out of 5 and the others are straight. 1000 golf was around 61 in my mind, and the Castle punished players on an uneven level...without hitting a tree- duece, good kick 3-4, bad kick 5-7, granted 6 of em' can't be dueced with clean drives. Hassle Pain sure presented 4 challenging rounds.

You can see what the SSA is by looking at what score was rated closest to 1000. Looks like both last year and this year the SSA was in a tight range from 59 to 60 so let's say 59.5. On "normal" courses, the course record runs about 4-6 shots below the SSA but it can and does range much more than that and depends on how often the course has been played in competition and by what level of player.

If you ask most lefties, there are already way more righty holes anyway and they learn how to play them. Or as the Frizzaks know Dr. Doug's mantra, "They're all lefty holes." Even if the course had mostly lefty holes, the SSA would maybe be one throw on average higher than an exact mirror image course for righties. But that would show up in the scores so there wouldn't be a problem.



Conversely, we have a slight preponderance of L-to-R tee shots, and approaches. They are definitely much harder for righties than lefties on the Castle...it seems like the reverse situation.

Maybe Lefties learn the turnover shot like no-one's business, they have no choice. But, it's the toughest type of shot to throw and a weak point for most Righties. I believe this is partly due to a historical lack of balanced course design and thus exposure to those shots. IMHO, this inherently makes Castle more a difficult course than the SSA predicts.

my 2-cent
boz

It's irrelevant. The SSA is generated by the players actually playing the course so it's automatically accounted for in the calculation. All the L>R holes do is make the course a little tougher than one for an equivalent length course that's a mirror image.

Thank you, Chuck

Before even seeing the cards, here's my suspicion and that is that the course has an abnormal number of holes with scoring averages just over 3 or just over 4 rather than under 3 and under 4 like most courses. On most courses, holes mostly end up with scoring averages from 2.5 to 2.8 or 3.5 to 3.9. This makes the SSA 4-6 shots below par. When most of the holes average at or above 3 or 4, the SSA comes out at or even above par. This is a much less common course and may be what's happening here. When the SSA is 4-6 shots closer to par, you can't shoot as much below par with a hot round as you can on the typical course most of us are used to.



I'll bet you are right about this. By my guestimation of 950+ players only 2 holes average slightly under par 3 or 4 (holes 6 & 16). I have no clue on 3 holes (8, 12 and 15). My estimation is that the other 13 holes average 0.1-0.4 above 3 or 4.

I'm curious to see what your number-crunching comes up with.

What ratings ranges of players do you use for your course analysis? Of course, that would (should?) make a big difference in scoring averages.

I've tested it and it doesn't make too much difference whether I use a wide range of rated players or a narrow range close to the skill level the course was designed for. In this case, I'll probably use the top 30 players and enter scores from rounds 1&2, then compare it with scores from rounds 3&4 for the same group. My program can shift the average and the actual score distribution to accurately forecast what a pool of players rated 1000 would shoot. That will hopefully provide some guidance.

Are you implying that when talking about typical hole-by-hole scoring averages, a course should ideally be designed so that this average is in the x.65-x.85 range (rather than in the x.15-x.35 range)?

Of course, there is also the scoring spread that holes generate that is more important in good design, but that is another discussion, I think.

I'm not saying it should be that way, just that it mostly is that way and there are good reasons for it. This may be a case where Castle unintentionally ended up on the opposite side of the ledger. But we should see what the numbers point to before jumping to conclusions. Once we get the info, I'll explain further about those good reasons mentioned above.

BTW, my interest in this is in no way knocking the Castle. As I have told the TD's and Designer it is hands down my favorite flat course I have ever played. It is in the top 10 of the 100+ courses I have played. As a lefty with an average arm, the course suits me perfectly and is therefore a lot of fun for me. I wish I lived closer or had business in that direction that would give me an excuse to be there.

I agree. This is a learning exercise. In a way, we lucked out discovering odd results compared to what we usually see. Here's an opportunity to see what's going on. I hope we really learn or confirm some things as a result.

I will kinda disagree with your assesement of hole 8 though. I've seen some really big numbers put up on this hole from all types of players and even a 5 requires you to stay out of trouble for the entire hole. The OB on the right is what makes this a good hole and adds to the score seperation.



I'm willing to bet 90% of the top 30 players scored a 4, 5 or 6 on this hole almost every time.

i heard of two 9s and three 7's on that hole this weekend from the top ten pros

Birdie all the 4's and 5's. Par all the 3's. That's an easy way to a 56. We are a "second-shot" course.

I took a 7 the last round. On that hole.

This implies our SSA/WCP is around 60/61, where Lowe said it should be.



THIS is correct.
And like Lowe said, this could be solved with a couple of modifications to the half par holes.


To be honest, if I felt we had to "correct" the par number at Castle Hayne, I personally would have to raise it to 67 (there are 3 long par 3's).



a 67!?!

Ratings are for Nerds it doesn't change that Bard won.
Thanks Cutt for the spot to rest my head. Still one of my favorite tourneys and will be back. First time under 60 also. Can't wait for Renny. The REAL Real BS

i heard of two 9s and three 7's on that hole this weekend from the top ten pros



So thats 5 scores out of 40 times playing the hole which is about 12%. If we take into account the other top 20 players, it will probably even out to about 10%... i.e. 90% making a 4, 5, or 6 every time. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Also tanks to the cooks and grounds crew. First year I could see and walk the fairways without 6 inches of water.
And to Dome for witnessing the sweet music in the Cleanest Bathroom.

Ratings are for Nerds



nerds are people too :D


Can't wait for Renny.



nerds like Renny too.... :p :)

I guess I did see your name on the list
All I know is that my 58 didn't feel that special. Now 61 felt better because of the 7. #12 is a par 4. One to corner, 1 tp basket. How many people try to layup that second shot, it's only 230. Too many 3.5s but still an awesome course. Like Inlands too. Eventhough I was hustled for 2 pints.
See ya'll Nerds Saturday hope Renny doesn't hurt your ratings

12 is another example of a classic hole at the castle.

If you throw a good teeshot, it's decision time. You can pretty much garuntee a 4 and at worst a 5 by laying up. It's when you go for 3 you bring the big numbers in (after a good teeshot that is). That's why this course is such a great course. If you go for stuff, you can kill it, but it can kill you.


And BTW, just because you can 2 hole 12 doesn't make it a par 4! You can't say that a birdie or a par on a hole should be this number just because someone got that score on a holea few times. Just because you ace a hole doesn't make it a par 2.

And I do think that 67 is too high of a par for the course.

I could see 65 argued (14 a par 4), but I saw Bueno park it and I even had a 40 footer with a roc. I used to think that it was a par 4, but after this weekend, I def. think its just a tough par 3.

yeah, 14 is just a tough par 3.

Hole 8 is definately a par 5. I got unlucky in the first round and took a double circle 10 on that hole. That was after starting on hole 7 and taking a 2 with a 125 foot upshot that went in.

I really like this course. I just wish that this weekend was the first time I saw the course.

just because something is consistent doesn't mean its accurate.

and skinners round was improperally calculated.


How do you figure it was improperly calculated? I watched him shoot it, and afterwords we all said we just witnessed the greatest round shot yet. Why do you say it's improperly calculated? I shot -3 that round for about a 1010 rating or so, he beat me by 10, thus 1101. Where's the error?

don't feed the trolls
especially the topical trolls
:eek: :eek: :eek: :D

just because something is consistent doesn't mean its accurate.

and skinners round was improperally calculated.


How do you figure it was improperly calculated? I watched him shoot it, and afterwords we all said we just witnessed the greatest round shot yet. Why do you say it's improperly calculated? I shot -3 that round for about a 1010 rating or so, he beat me by 10, thus 1101. Where's the error?



There is an error in the rating Mitch. I started a thread on it here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=475524&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1), but I guess nobody cares about correcting the rating of the greatest round ever shot.

Was it 100% Pros on one course and 100% Ams on the other at the Virginia Open? Or were the Advanced with the Pros? I've asked Roger to see about correcting it. Unless we get the corrected TD reports we aren't in position to change anything. The TDs should be contacted for corrections and/or Gentry to correct the report. We just process what we get from the PDGA HQ since it matches what they enter as official results.

An interesting tidbit for the nerds among us: Set your alarms for 1am tomorrow to witness the only second in your life when it will be

01:02:03 04/05/06

For the real nerds, factor in Daylight Savings, and Greenwich Mean Time.

I'm not sure who played when and where, but I do know that everyone didn't play the same course at the same time, which was how the report was turned in.

Was it 100% Pros on one course and 100% Ams on the other at the Virginia Open?



YES. It's pretty obvious when looking at the scores.

Right now the pro ratings are 'right' and the am ratings are wrong. My whole thread was started to see if the pro ratings would be messed up by the am ratings being wrong. I never got a clear answer.

If you click on the Course Statistics link on the Virginia Open results page, you'll only see four SSA values, one for each round at the Grange. From what you've said, there should be eight SSA values with four somewhat higher than those there for the Darkside and four somewhat lower for the easier Sunnyside course. This will change everyone's ratings somewhat if Roger can fix it. However, if everyone played the same four layouts but just in a different order, no one's average rating for the event will change, just individual round ratings which is what we want to see for Skinner's record.

<table border="1"><tr></tr><tr><td> .</td><td>R1</td><td>R2</td><td>R3</td><td>R4
</td></tr><tr><td>Pros</td><td>sunny</td><td>dark</td><td>dark</td><td>sunny
</td></tr><tr><td>Ams</td><td>dark</td><td>sunny</td><td>sunny</td><td>dark
</td></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>


no one's average rating for the event will change, just individual round ratings which is what we want to see for Skinner's record.




Exactly.

This implies our SSA/WCP is around 60/61, where Lowe said it should be.



THIS is correct.
And like Lowe said, this could be solved with a couple of modifications to the half par holes.


To be honest, if I felt we had to "correct" the par number at Castle Hayne, I personally would have to raise it to 67 (there are 3 long par 3's).



a 67!?!



wutup CuTT,

I am just speaking from a more traditional point of view. It is a wooded course and very penal. I'm talking about the course par, not the statistical number. SSA/WCP is always going to be different from the actual par number. Simply put, we have some par 3's that are so hard, they could also be viewed as easy Par 4's.

Theoretically speaking, if the WCP = the course par, then we would have a "perfectly designed course".

boz

thanks boz had a blast.
thanks cuTT your house rocks tourney week-end son.
thanks to all who help keep this course in pristine shape
Monty Big Wave Dave and others

I have aout 30 rounds at TThe CasTTle and I have only 3'd 12 4 times, 3 is an EAGLE.

3 is a righty eagle, a leftee birdie. You think?

I have aout 30 rounds at TThe CasTTle and I have only 3'd 12 4 times, 3 is an EAGLE.



I got me one this weekend. To get the chance at three your first shot must be perfect for your type of throw. I flicked a firebird just to the corner, resting on the extreme edge of the fairway(Railroad track side). Flicked a orc low and had a 15 ft EAGLE putt.

The greatest thing about this hole is if I land My 1st shot 5ft shorter the I do not have the chance for three. Thats what makes the Castle what it is.

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>R1</td><td>R2</td><td>R3</td><td>R4
</td></tr><tr><td>Pros</td><td>sunny</td><td>dark</td><td>dark</td><td>sunny
</td></tr><tr><td>Ams</td><td>dark</td><td>sunny</td><td>sunny</td><td>dark
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>


no one's average rating for the event will change, just individual round ratings which is what we want to see for Skinner's record.




Exactly.



eddie is correct, i submitted this correction months ago. (not that i sent the results in in the first place- then they would've been correct from the get-go :cool:)

John, you're tha man.

I have aout 30 rounds at TThe CasTTle and I have only 3'd 12 4 times, 3 is an EAGLE.



Thanks, Schweb... for your opinion.

Has anyone heard Hootie defending Agusta...It's a riot, and Hootie don't take no crap...

Hootie talking to the media is hilarious, with his accent and his point blank answers

[/QUOTE]
I got me one this weekend. To get the chance at three your first shot must be perfect for your type of throw. I flicked a firebird just to the corner, resting on the extreme edge of the fairway(Railroad track side). Flicked a orc low and had a 15 ft EAGLE putt.

The greatest thing about this hole is if I land My 1st shot 5ft shorter the I do not have the chance for three. Thats what makes the Castle what it is.

[/QUOTE]

Word, Travis. I love how people come off the course, feeling like they should have shot about 7 strokes better. The Castle will always test you. And the feeling is pretty good when you conquer iTT.

"All I have to say about that is, our members are very comfortable about what we are doing."

Cool as a Cucumber...(half Forest Gump, half Sling Blade)

i 3'd hole 7 all four rounds :D

[QUOTE]
I have aout 30 rounds at TThe CasTTle and I have only 3'd 12 4 times, 3 is an EAGLE.



Dear Chuck and Golfers,
I've posted the scorecards for all the male pros (MPO and MPM) on our website. The NEW address is http://newhanoverdiscgolf.com (http://www.newhanoverdiscgolf.com) . They are in no particular order. The rest are coming soon. I'll be very interested in hearing your opinions. And I can't wait until we get some bearing on the ratings anomoly.

Enjoy,
Boz

This implies our SSA/WCP is around 60/61, where Lowe said it should be.



THIS is correct.
And like Lowe said, this could be solved with a couple of modifications to the half par holes.


To be honest, if I felt we had to "correct" the par number at Castle Hayne, I personally would have to raise it to 67 (there are 3 long par 3's).



a 67!?!



wutup CuTT,

I am just speaking from a more traditional point of view. It is a wooded course and very penal. I'm talking about the course par, not the statistical number. SSA/WCP is always going to be different from the actual par number. Simply put, we have some par 3's that are so hard, they could also be viewed as easy Par 4's.

Theoretically speaking, if the WCP = the course par, then we would have a "perfectly designed course".

boz



What is Par? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=)

Hi Lowe,

Official Par is 64. Thanks for looking at the data.

Boz

...I am just speaking from a more traditional point of view. It is a wooded course and very penal. I'm talking about the course par, not the statistical number. SSA/WCP is always going to be different from the actual par number. Simply put, we have some par 3's that are so hard, they could also be viewed as easy Par 4's.

Theoretically speaking, if the WCP = the course par, then we would have a "perfectly designed course".

boz



Boz,

For whatever it's worth, I've refined some of my techniques and assumptions, and that has resulted in some changes to my CH numbers.

I have CH with an estimated SSA of 58.1
Gold Close Range Par = 59.
Since the Gold Score Avg (SSA) is closest to the Gold CR Par I now believe that CH is a Gold level course. Congratulations!
Therefore I would also call CH Gold CR Par = 59.
That breaks down to NO par 5s and par 4s on holes 8, 11, 12, 15, 17.
Interestingly Gold SA Par comes out at 60, even with hole 9 as a par 2. (Because of par 2s allowed by SA par it usually comes out much lower than CR Par, but on longer wooded courses SA par sometimes comes out higher than CR Par.)

that was one awesome course......it was kept up in great shape and i had a blast for the first time ever playing this course.....blind is hard and starting off with a 72 really hurt......my goal was to get better each round and i accomplished my only goal for this tourney.....thanks to the locals for some pointers that led my score card from a 72 to a 69 then a 64 and finishing with a smokin 59......thanks to deacon for the lunch grub and everyone else for running an amazing tourney.....see yall next year

Thanks Lowe,

That confirms my personal feelings that we are indeed a Gold Course. IMHO, Castle plays like a "US Open" course, in scoring and course strategy. I still don't know about "no par fives..."

Boz

26 (-5) on the front nine, that's pretty Hot!- Bard, Adam, Jack and Brian S.

Here we go. Here's the scoring analysis from the first two rounds of Open scores from rated players (44 rounds). What you see is the projected scoring average for a 1000 rated Gold player and distribution. For comparison, I've included the statistics from the Mid-Nationals on the Highbridge Gold course which amazingly has the same Gold scoring average.

I organized the holes on each course from lowest to highest scoring average and grouped them in half-shot ranges to make it easy to see the problem. Castle has way above the normal number of holes in the 3.0-3.49 range compared to the 2.5-2.99 and 3.5-3.99 range like Highbridge (which is typical). If you round off the scoring averages on Castle, you end up with 61 which matches its Gold scoring average. Most courses, the rounded values will be several shots higher than the scoring average with Highbridge at 64 or 66 depending on whether you count the first two holes as par 2s (which are being fixed).

On one hand, the case could be made that Castle is better balanced and most courses have distributions more like Highbridge and should aspire to Castle's ratios. However, what you get with Castle is too many holes with little chance at birdie which prevents the potential for players to demonstrate their skills and really shoot low. If some of the holes in the 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18 group could be lengthened or shortened by 100-150 feet, it would improve the scoring on the course and allow for more exceptional rounds.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole ></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>18</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>15</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>12</td><td></td><td>8</td><td></td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Avg. ></td><td></td><td>2.42</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>2.51</td><td>2.67</td><td>2.76</td><td>2.91</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>3.09</td><td>3.20</td><td>3.20</td><td>3.24</td><td>3.24</td><td>3.48</td><td></td><td>3.57</td><td>3.64</td><td>3.64</td><td>3.84</td><td>3.90</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>4.61</td><td></td><td>5.14</td><td></td><td>61.0
</td></tr><tr><td>1&2</td><td></td><td>56%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>49%</td><td>41%</td><td>35%</td><td>27%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>19%</td><td>17%</td><td>17%</td><td>20%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>1&2
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>42%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>43%</td><td>47%</td><td>53%</td><td>53%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>55%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>42%</td><td>66%</td><td>51%</td><td></td><td>45%</td><td>44%</td><td>43%</td><td>33%</td><td>36%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td>2%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>7%</td><td>12%</td><td>12%</td><td>18%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>25%</td><td>30%</td><td>30%</td><td>31%</td><td>32%</td><td>44%</td><td></td><td>49%</td><td>39%</td><td>45%</td><td>47%</td><td>35%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>44%</td><td></td><td>28%</td><td></td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>2%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>7%</td><td>3%</td><td>5%</td><td></td><td>6%</td><td>15%</td><td>12%</td><td>18%</td><td>22%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>44%</td><td></td><td>36%</td><td></td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td><td>2%</td><td>6%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>11%</td><td></td><td>27%</td><td></td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>.</td><td></td><td>1%</td><td></td><td>10%</td><td></td><td>7+
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole ></td><td></td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>18</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>17</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td></td><td>4</td><td></td><td>7</td><td></td><td>5</td><td></td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Avg. ></td><td></td><td>2.28</td><td>2.41</td><td></td><td>2.55</td><td>2.57</td><td>2.63</td><td>2.63</td><td>2.65</td><td></td><td>3.29</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>3.50</td><td>3.52</td><td>3.56</td><td>3.66</td><td>3.94</td><td>3.95</td><td>3.98</td><td></td><td>4.04</td><td></td><td>4.68</td><td></td><td>5.23</td><td></td><td>61.1
</td></tr><tr><td>1&2</td><td></td><td>63%</td><td>56%</td><td></td><td>47%</td><td>46%</td><td>45%</td><td>40%</td><td>40%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>17%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>1&2
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>33%</td><td>41%</td><td></td><td>47%</td><td>46%</td><td>33%</td><td>55%</td><td>52%</td><td></td><td>62%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>50%</td><td>49%</td><td>31%</td><td>42%</td><td>27%</td><td>29%</td><td>26%</td><td></td><td>26%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td></td><td>6%</td><td>8%</td><td>17%</td><td>5%</td><td>8%</td><td></td><td>34%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>46%</td><td>45%</td><td>33%</td><td>43%</td><td>52%</td><td>46%</td><td>50%</td><td></td><td>46%</td><td></td><td>41%</td><td></td><td>25%</td><td></td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>3%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>4%</td><td>7%</td><td>16%</td><td>14%</td><td>20%</td><td>22%</td><td>22%</td><td></td><td>25%</td><td></td><td>45%</td><td></td><td>35%</td><td></td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>3%</td><td>2%</td><td></td><td>4%</td><td></td><td>14%</td><td></td><td>28%</td><td></td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>0%</td><td></td><td>1%</td><td></td><td>12%</td><td></td><td>7+
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Before even seeing the cards, here's my suspicion and that is that the course has an abnormal number of holes with scoring averages just over 3 or just over 4 rather than under 3 and under 4 like most courses. On most courses, holes mostly end up with scoring averages from 2.5 to 2.8 or 3.5 to 3.9. This makes the SSA 4-6 shots below par. When most of the holes average at or above 3 or 4, the SSA comes out at or even above par. This is a much less common course and may be what's happening here. When the SSA is 4-6 shots closer to par, you can't shoot as much below par with a hot round as you can on the typical course most of us are used to.



Here are some of the numbers I've got:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>Front</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Back</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>estimated SSA</td><td>2.59</td><td>2.61</td><td>3.26</td><td>3.55</td><td>2.76</td><td>2.98</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.57</td><td>2.5</td><td>28.1</td><td>3.46</td><td>3.67</td><td>3.97</td><td>2.84</td><td>2.86</td><td>3.76</td><td>2.82</td><td>3.66</td><td>2.96</td><td>30.0</td><td>58.1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Or the fuller version:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>Front</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Back</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Length</td><td>252</td><td>207</td><td>374</td><td>367</td><td>283</td><td>341</td><td>419</td><td>700</td><td>210</td><td>3153</td><td>439</td><td>472</td><td>455</td><td>267</td><td>330</td><td>498</td><td>255</td><td>480</td><td>388</td><td>3584</td><td>6737
</td></tr><tr><td>Elevation Diff. (ft)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>-5</td><td>+5</td><td>0</td><td>-7</td><td>+10</td><td>-5</td><td>32</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>+3</td><td>-2</td><td>0</td><td>+1</td><td>+33
</td></tr><tr><td>Forced Lay up- Gold</td><td> .</td><td> .</td><td> .</td><td>70</td><td></td><td>. </td><td> .</td><td>20</td><td></td><td>90</td><td>.. </td><td>10</td><td>70</td><td> .</td><td>10</td><td> ..</td><td> .</td><td> .</td><td>.</td><td>90</td><td>180
</td></tr><tr><td>Effective Length</td><td>252</td><td>207</td><td>374</td><td>422</td><td>298</td><td>341</td><td>398</td><td>750</td><td>195</td><td>3237</td><td>439</td><td>482</td><td>525</td><td>267</td><td>340</td><td>498</td><td>264</td><td>474</td><td>388</td><td>3677</td><td>6914
</td></tr><tr><td>Foliage Factor (1-9)</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>7.0</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.9 Avg
</td></tr><tr><td>Trouble- Gold (0-20)</td><td> .</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td> .</td><td> .</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.7</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>. </td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td> .</td><td>18</td><td>1.8 Avg
</td></tr><tr><td>estimated SSA</td><td>2.59</td><td>2.61</td><td>3.26</td><td>3.55</td><td>2.76</td><td>2.98</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.57</td><td>2.5</td><td>28.1</td><td>3.46</td><td>3.67</td><td>3.97</td><td>2.84</td><td>2.86</td><td>3.76</td><td>2.82</td><td>3.66</td><td>2.96</td><td>30.0</td><td>58.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Benchmark Score</td><td>2.55</td><td>2.40</td><td>2.98</td><td>2.96</td><td>2.66</td><td>2.87</td><td>3.14</td><td>4.13</td><td>2.41</td><td>26.1</td><td>3.21</td><td>3.33</td><td>3.27</td><td>2.61</td><td>2.83</td><td>3.42</td><td>2.56</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.03</td><td>27.6</td><td>53.7
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA - Benchmark</td><td>+.04</td><td>+.22</td><td>+.28</td><td>+.6</td><td>+.1</td><td>+.11</td><td>+.16</td><td>+.45</td><td>+.09</td><td>+2.04</td><td>+.24</td><td>+.34</td><td>+.7</td><td>+.24</td><td>+.03</td><td>+.34</td><td>+.26</td><td>+.31</td><td>-.07</td><td>+2.39</td><td>4.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold CR Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>28</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>30</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold SA Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>31</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold BG Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>33</td><td>65
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA - CR Par</td><td>-.41</td><td>-.39</td><td>+.26</td><td>+.55</td><td>-.24</td><td>-.02</td><td>+.3</td><td>+.57</td><td>-.5</td><td>+.13</td><td>+.46</td><td>-.33</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.16</td><td>-.14</td><td>-.24</td><td>-.18</td><td>+.66</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.</td><td>+.13
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Score Avg (BSA)</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>31.2</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.4</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.1</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.3</td><td>33.3</td><td>64.5
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Absorbing the numbers...I see that we also have quite a few holes around x.5. I do see your point about increasing/decreasing distances to fit better into the bell curve.

On the other hand...Awkward distances and shot shapes are what separates this course from so many others. x.5 seems to be characteristic of the course.

The Castle will always be a challenge and only make you a better player. Maybe fitting into the mold isn't always a good thing. Nevertheless, our club will look into your suggestions. I personally would like to increase the par number (read lengthen) of our layout - and so would many club members.

Note: it is possible to shoot a 46, if you just Birdie every hole (par 64).

Boz

i couldn't find the scoring on the website----where is it?

Click on the link about 10 messages up.

In ball golf, you tell somoene you shot a 72, people who have never seen played or heard anything about a course can pretty much understand what that means. In doesn't work like that in disc golf. A 54 at the Castle would be incrediable, a 54 at some courses is horriable. In theory, the ratings allow us to give some kind of statistical comparison from course to course.




This is called "portablility error" and it's certainly a problem in disc golf.

Portability error refers to the problem of comparing scores from one course to another. It arises from two sources: 1) Two courses may have the same par but be very different in their difficulty. The score achieved at one course would be very different on a course of the same par that is much easier or much harder. In BG most courses are par 72 and they have portability error from variance of course difficulty with the same par. 2) In DG there is not a consistent course par. Par 54 is the most prevalent but there are courses with par up to 70. There are also courses whose real par should be 50-53. The portability error comes in with comparing the course difficulty between a SSA 49 course and SSA 68 course. e.g- Compare Avalon Peaks in Apex at par 53 with Renaissance Gold-C in Charlotte at par 70.

Maybe fitting into the mold isn't always a good thing.

Boz



I think that's a good point. This whole discussion is deja vu from last year. The tremendous variety in courses is one of the best parts of DG that keeps it intriguing. Why can't we just accept that CH doesn't fit the usual expectations as far as ratings?

As Chuck pointed out, though, it does present an intriguing problem to assess. I wonder if any of the following factors contribute to the situation:
-It is a Gold level course, so it is harder to score really low. Par is a more realistic estimate of what Gold player will shoot than it usually is on Blue, White, or Red courses.
-Not that many of the players in the Azalea have PRs of over 1000.
-Par 64 is too high, so that players have the mental expectation that their lower scores should have higher ratings. What would players expectations be if par were lower, like 59?
-There are forced layups on 5 holes (4, 8, 11, 12, 14).
-There is pretty thick foliage density; 6.9 avg. for the course. There is also thick rough and some OB if you go off the fairway.

I just checked the Azalea 06 round ratings and the scores closest to a 1000 rating were: 60, 59, 59, 59. I want to add that I think that par should be a consistent standard based on the play of a 1000 PR golfer. Gold CR Par came out at 59 which matches the above data almost perfectly.

More data on 1000 rated rounds at the Azalea Tourneys:

2005: 59, 59, 59, 59/60
2004: 58, 57, 58/59, NA
2003: NA, NA, ~59, 59

59 sounds like a good number for GOld CR par to me.

I just checked the Azalea 06 round ratings and the scores closest to a 1000 rating were: 60, 59, 59, 59. I want to add that I think that par should be a consistent standard based on the play of a 1000 PR golfer. Gold CR Par came out at 59 which matches the above data almost perfectly.



Hi Lowe,

Just a few questions, and observations...

Is the goal here to make a 1000 rated DG'er the ball golf equivalent of a scratch player? It's as if every course has a mathematical adjustment to squeeze out 4-6 birdies. Then all the less challenging courses can look like more of a test...

Most of the Pros were <1000, so why is the SSA so low? It seems like a good score (-4 to -6) gets reset as the "new par", and thus the ratings reward is lower that expected. Could these data result in a new/modified adjustment factor?

Too me the crux of this, is, "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?" In other words, "where do you and Chuck feel that a good round and a great round should fall, in terms of par?"
Thanks for your time and patience, Lowe.

Boz

For holes in the tweener zone (3.33-3.67), par should be a designer choice, not a math choice. The designer should decide whether they prefer an easy 4 or a hard 3 as it relates to the psychology of playing the hole and how it fits in on the course. On especially difficult courses, I believe the bias should be toward inflating the par (rounding up) more often than not.

Without actually seeing the potential problem holes (3, 6, 7, 13, 14 & 18), hole 3 is the weakest statistically. Most holes that average between 3.0-3.4 are holes where the drive is too tough/far for consistently getting a birdie with good play, and the upshot is below standard (too short/easy) to make it a legit 2-shot hole. The best holes that fall in this scoring range are usually ones where the tee shot is average difficulty with possible trouble to get to the landing area but the hole isn't driveable (doglegish). Then the upshot from the landing area is shorter than standard but is very challenging with potential to blow it or end up with a tough putt and take a 4.

My suspicion is that maybe one or two of those holes might play better skill and challenge wise (fairness) if they were shorter because the upshot is typically a longer putt versus a decent challenge. Then, maybe one or two would be better if extended (presuming there's room) so the second shot was more challenging and raise the scoring average to a legit par 4.

Hole 2 is barely into the par 2 zone for Gold level. So, maybe there's a way to lengthen it (20-30ft), or tweak to boost the challenge just a bit.

Is the goal here to make a 1000 rated DG'er the ball golf equivalent of a scratch player?



Yes, in my opinion. But as with all aspects of par many people have other ideas as well. There is no consensus in DG about any aspect of determining par.


It's as if every course has a mathematical adjustment to squeeze out 4-6 birdies. Then all the less challenging courses can look like more of a test...



I don't understand what you mean here. Would you please explain a little more?


why is the SSA so low?



Why do you think it is low? It seems right to me, and consistent with previous yers.


(-4 to -6)



Currently in DG the words "par, bogey, birdie, over, under..." have no real meaning, so I no longer use them. Without knowing how you set par I really don't even know what you mean by -4 and -6. It's better to just use actual score numbers. I think that DG needs a consistent and universal standard for par!


In other words, "where do you and Chuck feel that a good round and a great round should fall, in terms of par?"



Firat of all, Chuck and I disagree on many aspects of par, so our answers will probably differ.
My answer is that this will always vary for each course. That's because par and difficulty are different just as they are in BG. One key way that I measure course difficulty is "SSA minus Gold Close Range (CR) Par". For most courses this yields a negative number. The greater the negative number the easier the course is. Some easy courses have come in at -12 to -13. A positive number (which is infrequent) indicates a very hard course. A number closer to 0 indicates a more difficult course. At CH SSA-Gold CR Par = 58.1-59 = -0.9 which confirms our experience that CH is a tough course. So, to reiterate, you can only determine great rounds relative to each course and SSA. It also depends on the player rating of each player. At CH, for a Gold player, I would call 60 a good round, 58-59 very good, 56-57 Great. (For me, if I shot 60 it would be the greatest round of my life!)

Hope this helps.

Good information...Chuck. The more specific we get, the clearer I see potential adjustments.

Lowe, I had some problems unzipping the NC Course Evaluation on the MSN Discussions site. Is there another place to view it?

Boz

Lowe, thanks for addressing each of my questions. I have re-read the info on course evaluation and understand better, now. I may have asked a few questions without knowing how to ask them...

Thanks, Boz

Lowe, thanks for addressing each of my questions. I have re-read the info on course evaluation and understand better, now. I may have asked a few questions without knowing how to ask them...

Thanks, Boz



Boz,

You're welcome.

Lowe, I had some problems unzipping the NC Course Evaluation on the MSN Discussions site. Is there another place to view it?

Boz



Boz,

I just emailed you a couple of files. Please let me know if that's what you wanted.

Lowe

Hi Lowe,

The file is a .dat file and I can only open it in notepad. Could you try the original .doc file and use my new email address <[email protected]>. The Hotmail screws with attatchments sometimes...

Thanks,
Boz

To me the crux of this, is, "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?" In other words, "where do you and Chuck feel that a good round and a great round should fall, in terms of par?"



Boz,

Do you mean -12 per round?

Let me turn the question you asked back to you. How would you answer it? "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?"

According to the par that you set the winner of the Azalea was -23. Are you satisfied with that?

If CH is a Gold Course then shouldn't a 1000 PR player be considered an expert/scratch player? And shouldn't a scratch round be close to SSA, which would be round of 59? Then how close do you want par to be to a scratch round?

P.S.- Please send me your email address.

Too me the crux of this, is, "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?"

Boz



I don't.

Boz,

Here's another question: for the Azalea how many under par do you want the winner to be? This year the winner was -23. Are you happy and satisfied with that?

Here's a thought- why not emulate the the U.S. Open in BG where only the top few players are even under par at the end of the tournament?

Lets look at the 06 Masters whcih just concluded. After 4 rounds the winner was -7, 2nd at -5, 3rd (and a bunch) at -4. From the whole field of the very best in the world there were only 13 players under par!

I suggseted that as a Gold course CH could have a Gold CR par of 59. If CH par was 59 then only 2 players were under par and you had to shoot under for the whole tournament to win. If CH is a Gold course then players with less than a 1000 PR should expect it to be tough and to score high.

As a hypothetical question I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this question: "If par at CH was 59 how would that affect the Azalea players' expectations and mental game?"

Many say that par doesn't matter, only the score in a tournament. In one sense that's obviously true, but I suspect that deep down most players really do think that par matters. It gives them a gauge of what they can expect to shoot on a hole and a measure of how they're doing. What do you think?

Cordially,
Lowe

In ball golf, Par and the Course Ratings are relatively independent variables. Par 72 courses range widely in difficulty and can have a CR from 66 to 76 or so. Par doesn't need to match the Course Rating (SSA).

To me the crux of this, is, "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?" In other words, "where do you and Chuck feel that a good round and a great round should fall, in terms of par?"
Boz,

Do you mean -12 per round?

Let me turn the question you asked back to you. How would you answer it? "Do we want Disc Golfers shooting -12 in tournaments all the time?"




Hi Lowe,
I meant -12 per round. To answer the question, "No, I don't want players posting -12 per round." The merits of having a course that protects par means that, as in the Masters, the win was up for grabs, even into the Final 9. To me, that is a much more exciting tournament, for players and spectators. Too often the top card "runs away and hides". I think the Castle prevented some of that.


According to the par that you set the winner of the Azalea was -23. Are you satisfied with that?.



To be honest, I'm not totally satisfied. I would prefer the winning score at the Castle to be closer to -16(4 rounds, par 64), than -23. I am optimistic about being able to make the appropriate modifications. Given our space limitations (land-locked) it may be challenging to accomplish and still keep the holes fair.


If CH is a Gold Course then shouldn't a 1000 PR player be considered an expert/scratch player?


Yes.


And shouldn't a scratch round be close to SSA, which would be round of 59?


Yes.


Then how close do you want par to be to a scratch round?


For our layout, I think within 5 strokes of each other. It's fine to have a course that consistently plays a few strokes under par.

I think the SSA will always be less than the "course par". It's ok for there to be a deviance and most golf courses play that way. Scratch golfers usually don't shoot "scratch rounds", they shoot above and below it and the golf handicap system generates a scratch average (from their 10 best rounds). Of our 89 MPO rounds, 2/3 of the field shot under par. I'm very satisfied with the flat scoring spread, only about 2 or 3 strokes separating places. We're moving in the right direction.

Also, we don't have much water or OB, that is a BIG factor in creating a course where the Par matches the SSA.

[email protected]

Trying to Keep up and Learn,
Boz

I suggseted that as a Gold course CH could have a Gold CR par of 59. If CH par was 59 then only 2 players were under par and you had to shoot under for the whole tournament to win. If CH is a Gold course then players with less than a 1000 PR should expect it to be tough and to score high.

As a hypothetical question I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this question: "If par at CH was 59 how would that affect the Azalea players' expectations and mental game?"



I think many of them would question the longer holes' lower par numbers. They may be disatisfied with a hole they can't birdie. I belive that no hole should be un-biridiable.


Many say that par doesn't matter, only the score in a tournament. In one sense that's obviously true, but I suspect that deep down most players really do think that par matters. It gives them a gauge of what they can expect to shoot on a hole and a measure of how they're doing. What do you think?



I recall your comment on birdies, pars and bogeys not meaning anything in disc golf. I agree with you. I also think it's a shame. Those terms are part of the story of the hole and the mind of the designer. A great course is a true work of art, and I have to respect the process. If no one ever thought about par, I can't say that we'd have the great designs of the 20th century. I don't separate Course Design, or Par, from the Game of golf.

The present culture in DG is to disregard Par, partly because it is so unreliable. We should try to change this, or at least make people more aware of it. To many Par-3 DG courses have distracted us from thinking about it. Unfortunately, we have a large contingent (maybe a majority) that think par is superfluous. (Oddly enough, many of these golfers fancy themselves as expert course design critics...) Par is a rock, a reference point, and often where a good designer starts. It cannot be denied.

This is getting interesting,
Boz

dont matter what par is, just try gettin the disc in the basket as few times as possible :D

You still hangin' out here, J.J.? Good to see. Any thoughts about any holes?......
Boz

Well, seeing all the posts by Lowe and Chuck, I pose a question. If we had Kenny and Barry, two best players in the game, come out the the Castle and play a four round tournament. Would that have any effect on what SSA could be? I honestly think the SSA is above 60 maybe even a 62, and so do 90% of the people that play it, that even care about ratings. If you play smart golf out there you will shoot around a 57 to 60. If you dont you can shoot as high as 70. The thing is that you can only shoot a 54 to 56 if you play slightly aggressive and come out on the good side. Thats why you do not see lower than a 56 out at the castle because most people trying to play agressive do not succeed because there is much room for error, lots of woods and trouble. If you are off of the fairway on some of the two shot holes, you will be lucky if you can 4 or 5 it. Just my two cents.

Looking at Chuck's and Lowe's spreadsheets, I see that roughly a third of the holes have a median scoring average of x.2, a third at x.5, and a third at x.7.

Could that be considered a balanced design?

Boz

oh by the way did i ever tell you boz how much i love castle hayne?

Kenny and Barry have shocked a lot of locals with their scores when they come to town. I think the score Barry shot at White this past weekend was beyond player's expectations. So, I don't know what they might do at Castle. I do know that if any course is "rigged" against shooting low, it's Castle, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

I'm not sure the designers specifically tried to rig it. I think they tried to make a tough course. I do think they accidentally got too many holes in the 3.0-3.49 range. These holes can hopefully be shifted up or down and still retain their challenge. That will allow better players to "score" when they shoot well.

Narrow scoring range should not be a design goal for competition. If a course ends up with a narrow scoring range for similar skilled players, the winner is determined more by luck than skill. Think about this, two equally rated players are competing and one is playing better but the holes don't allow the one player to score in a way that shows he's better that round. We know there's still a fair amount of luck in the game. If the player who's playing better can't separate themself from the other player, a bad kick can be the one shot that makes the difference. If the course allows separation for playing better, it reduces the impact of luck.

Thanks, J.J.

I agree with that analysis. There is enough trouble out there to prevent super low scores. The course really becomes more a test of patience than raw ability. I think this is a good thing.

We don't have the luxury that ball golf has, with greens/putting that can defend course par by themselves. Therefore, the penalty for missing a DG shot has evolved to be more severe to make up for this.

Having said this, I absolutely believe that our course is fair but tough. Any Big Numbers you see are most likely from a golfer who went on tilt.

Boz

oh by the way did i ever tell you boz how much i love castle hayne?



You showed up, didn't you. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif That's all I need to know.

Narrow scoring range should not be a design goal for competition. If a course ends up with a narrow scoring range for similar skilled players, the winner is determined more by luck than skill. Think about this, two equally rated players are competing and one is playing better but the holes don't allow the one player to score in a way that shows he's better that round. We know there's still a fair amount of luck in the game. If the player who's playing better can't separate themself from the other player, a bad kick can be the one shot that makes the difference. If the course allows separation for playing better, it reduces the impact of luck.



But isn't that a defining characteristic of the Links at St. Andrews? And Augusta's greens were modeled from the links style. From many books I've read, the Scotts have a unique perspective about "Luck" and Golf. It's called "The rub of the green, Laddie." They believe that when it's your time to win, it's your time. Bobby Jones came to believe this, too. The game of Golf was born in part from this fundamental observation. Time has made us forget. ;)

I see that roughly a third of the holes have a median scoring average of x.2, a third at x.5, and a third at x.7.



Balance does not necessarily mean good for these stats. Even in ball golf which has wider scoring distribution on average, there are more holes in the x.5-x.99 than x.0-x.49 range. Holes in that X+ area really jump out such as hole 11 at Augusta National this weekend. It was a well designed scary hole but no player would want to face 8 of those where no birdie is likely, nor would it be good design even if it balanced the majority of X- holes.

It's not just the scoring average you need to look at but whether the actual shots being made are challenging. Most holes in the 3.0-3.49 range are accidental rather than designed for that skill level because this type of analysis is relatively new for our sport. For example, if we say the course is designed fro Blue level instead of Gold those 3.0-3.49 holes become 3.33-3.82 which is an improvement in terms of scoring. But we're looking at Castle from the Gold level as it relates to this rating problem.

If the tee shot is more likely to just give a player a short upshot or long/tough putt (outside 40 feet) then you'll get your 3.1-3.3 scoring average hole with few birdies. It's a tough hole and it might even have a good spread (some 5s in there). However, even when the hole is played well, not great, the player can't score but has an easy layup for a dropin 3. You need to look at those 3+ holes and decide if that's the case or something like it and see if there's a way to fix it so a player can score when they play it well.

As I mentioned before, the best holes in this range and I don't see many, have a moderately challenging drive with some possible trouble and a mostly impossible route to reach the basket off the tee like a dogleg. Then, the upshot might be very challanging to a protected green where the upshot is worthy of the challenge and the putt might end up being tough like an elevated basket or OB in the area.

According to the par that you set the winner of the Azalea was -23. Are you satisfied with that?.



To be honest, I'm not totally satisfied. I would prefer the winning score at the Castle to be closer to -16(4 rounds, par 64), than -23. I am optimistic about being able to make the appropriate modifications. Given our space limitations (land-locked) it may be challenging to accomplish and still keep the holes fair.




Boz,

Why not just lower your par from 64 then? That's much simpler than making changes to the course. That't the point that I was getting at with my question.

Lowe

I think the SSA will always be less than the "course par". It's ok for there to be a deviance and most golf courses play that way.



But SSA doesn't have to be lower than par. As I said before the closer the SSA is to par (if that par is consistently determined) then the more difficult the course is. With the estimated SSA of 58.1 and Gold CR Par of 59 they are very close at CH.


Of our 89 MPO rounds, 2/3 of the field shot under par.



But that's why the winning score was -23. I think that with your par too many people are shooting under par esp. when very few had PRs near 1000. I think that if CH is a Gold course it's not unreasonale for a player to have to shoot 59 to shoot even par.

I think many of them would question the longer holes' lower par numbers. They may be disatisfied with a hole they can't birdie. I belive that no hole should be un-biridiable.




But as Chuck so ably pointed out, with his numbers you have 6 holes with scoring avgs from x.01-x.49. (e.g.- I have #3 at 3.26, #10 at 3.46 with both of these being Gold CR Par 3.) That means that on these holes there will be lots of 4s, more 3s, some 5s and above, and a very rare 2. By their nature "birdies" will be very rare.

But I don't think that is bad. These holes are what makes CH difficult. In my book that's OK and even a good thing because they offset the many holes that avg. x.5-x.99 to bring CR Par closer to SSA. Without them there is a wider difference btwn par and SSA.

My point is that with these scoring spreads there may be holes that will only rarely be birdied. If CH hole 10 is one of these, and it is a par 3, it would be a good example of this.

I recall your comment on birdies, pars and bogeys not meaning anything in disc golf. I agree with you. I also think it's a shame. Those terms are part of the story of the hole and the mind of the designer. A great course is a true work of art, and I have to respect the process. If no one ever thought about par, I can't say that we'd have the great designs of the 20th century. I don't separate Course Design, or Par, from the Game of golf.

The present culture in DG is to disregard Par, partly because it is so unreliable. We should try to change this, or at least make people more aware of it. To many Par-3 DG courses have distracted us from thinking about it. Unfortunately, we have a large contingent (maybe a majority) that think par is superfluous. (Oddly enough, many of these golfers fancy themselves as expert course design critics...) Par is a rock, a reference point, and often where a good designer starts. It cannot be denied.

This is getting interesting,
Boz



Boz,

Well said!! If only the PDGA "Powers That Be" would listen!

The present culture in DG is to disregard Par, partly because it is so unreliable.



The PDGA provides several documents that address par. www.pdga.com/cd_start.php (http://www.pdga.com/cd_start.php) But course designers and TDs need to get on the bandwagon to help shift the culture. Apparently there's a discussion on the Southern Nationals Discussion Board with some resisting anything but par 3s on their courses.

so my last question is that are the ratings for this years Azeala tournament gonna go up, go down or stay the same?

Most likely down 4-5 points.

I'm not sure the designers specifically tried to rig it. I think they tried to make a tough course. I do think they accidentally got too many holes in the 3.0-3.49 range.



I think I know these types of holes. They are usually in the 450-550 foot range, and deuces on these holes are extremely rare. A good drive typically leaves a very pedestrian up-and-down for the strongest players. Blue level players might blow the upshot and/or the putt and take a four, but for most gold level players, it's an academic three. With no realistic chance at two, the best they can do is a three, and with the occasional four from other players, you end up with a scoring average in the 3.0-3.49 range.

I think I know these types of holes. They are usually in the 450-550 foot range, and deuces on these holes are extremely rare. A good drive typically leaves a very pedestrian up-and-down for the strongest players. Blue level players might blow the upshot and/or the putt and take a four, but for most gold level players, it's an academic three. With no realistic chance at two, the best they can do is a three, and with the occasional four from other players, you end up with a scoring average in the 3.0-3.49 range.



Too bad that these are not these kinds of holes. None of the shots at the Castle are "academic". Upshots are just as tough as drives in many places even with an excellent drive. The ratings for this course are just plain wrong. Maybe there needs to be a different CR...the Castle Rating.

The ratings are correct but overall the holes are rigged against scoring. Hopefully, players will continue to play events at Castle even though they may not be able to match or improve their rating there. That more than anything would be a reason for tweaking the design.

So far, no other course appears to have this ratings issue to this level or it hasn't been discovered. So, it has to be the course. The Highbridge Gold course with the same SSA I showed the data for has had rounds under 54 thrown on it in practice by two 1000+ rated players, Pete Middlecamp and Jon Drummond.

The holes Lagrassa is talking about are the typical problem holes from 3.0-3.49 that are relatively wide open on courses everywhere . However, Castle has a different type. I can't give specific advice without seeing them. Even if every one of those Castle 3.0-3.49 holes is fair to above average, there are too many of them for proper scoring balance. It looks like players will take a hit on ratings on the high side. However, it averages out because you also don't have low rated rounds either. The scoring and rating range is just tighter. The average round rating of all propagators is currently about 3 points higher than their average rating going in. So on average players are earning more rating points than they started with.

If people are afraid to play this event because of their ratings then they should play the game (sorry bapster my next thoughts would've gotten you kicked off the board) The 58 I shot out at the Castle was alot better than the 67 at Renny. This is why I think ratings are for Nerds. My 58 there probably brought the ratings down. (I'm so sorry for shooting well because my rating is 967 because I don't take ever round of disc golf serious) Play to Win 0r fun not a rating. b$

Fighting off bogeys SEEMS tougher than striving to get birdies but they are two sides of the same coin (statistically).

sorry that should be shouldn't play the game

you know during this whole discussion i have read several comments by Mr. Kennedy about the design flaws of the castle. if i am not mistaken didn't harold duval design this course from the get go. hasn't harold designed 100's of courses? doesn't he know what he is doing? isn't he the jack nicholos and pete dye of disc golf design?? someone correct me if i am wrong please. just my 2 cents from a guy who has only been playing for a year so take it for what it is worth

yes bWd you are correct and Mr Duval also said this was the short course.

No one is afraid to play this event cause we've filled almost every year, even as a C-tier. The Castle is my home course and we can all thank Mr. Duvall for its design and members of the NHDC for making it what it is today. No tweaking necessary. All of these odd scoring holes being criticized are actually some of the best designed risk/reward holes in the state. They are not out of reach, they are right there, they just require very well executed shots on tunneled fairways. Its a course you have to learn and think your way to good scores. If you want to score really low at the Castle, throw your drivers and take your chances. If you want to cash at the Azalea Tournament (in any division), throw Rocs and be happy about it.

and also there have been changes to the course that Mr. Duval had nothing to do with..

and also there have been changes to the course that Mr. Duval had nothing to do with..



which is why I strongly feel that every course shoule contact the designer before they make a change

and also there have been changes to the course that Mr. Duval had nothing to do with..



which is why I strongly feel that every course shoule contact the designer before they make a change



THANK YOU!!!

15, 16, and 17 have all been thinned out to make the holes play easier.
I don't believe this was the intent when the holes were originally designed.

Not sure but Harold has done maybe half as many courses as either Houck or myself but probably isn't yet familiar with the detailed stats on this course. More designers are using stats to improve their designs and balance after they see the results. I'm guessing he's too busy to check it out but would understand the same issues we're discussing.

I said the holes might all be fine from a design standpoint. There are just too many of one type. Even Harold would agree that the 18 greatest hyzer holes would make for a poorly balanced course.

I would say this course is balanced...

I throw a different disc off the tee on 12 of the 18 holes. Some of the discs I repeat I throw totally different.

There is only 2 or 3 similar tee shots on the course.

I said the holes might all be fine from a design standpoint.



Most of the holes were until trees started coming up missing..

I can think of 18 par 4 holes where lots of different discs are thrown off the tee but it still wouldn't be balanced as course.

Another thread discussed whether a birdie should be a reasonably probable expectation on a hole (not necessarily a 2 but a birdie for the par of the hole). Most were in agreement that if the expectation was less than 15% (1 in 7), it probably wasn't good to have more than one or two of those holes on a course. Hole 11 was the brutal example at the Masters this past weekend with one birdie all weekend out of about 72 attempts. Possibly their new #4 also had low birdie count but that was it.

I would say this course is balanced...

I throw a different disc off the tee on 12 of the 18 holes. Some of the discs I repeat I throw totally different.

There is only 2 or 3 similar tee shots on the course.



Yeah but some people can play it with only 2 disc and a putter. NO rocs

the thing about this course is its a roller coaster

if you went out there and were on your game and went for everything, yeah I could see someone shooting a 54 or maybe even like a 51 or 52.

But 9 times out of 10, that person is gonna shoot a 64 or higher if he goes for everything.

That is why it is such a great course!

MTL, please call me, I have a question about the TD report. boz

Fighting off bogeys SEEMS tougher than striving to get birdies but they are two sides of the same coin (statistically).



That statement rings very true to me. I must admit, that I like the sound of it. And it does explain the "tough" reputation we currently have. Shades of Augusta, perhaps... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
____________________________________________

"Use the System. Make one, two or three practice strokes, concentrating on the line, washing bad thoughts out of your mind. Then imitate your last practice stroke."
-- Harvey Penick

Castle Payne is a very tough. There are a lot of holes that if you are off of the fairway it will cost you at least one stroke. This is a placement course for the majority of the par 4/5 holes.

Chuck, you mentioned earlier that hole 2 was close to a par 2? Well if you come down here and play it, you will see that it will be a very lucky shot if there is an ace. This hole is a little harder for lefties.

Hole 3 is one of those easy par 3s for pros. The only way they should get in trouble is if they are actually going for 2 because of the OB swamp or if they miss the putt there is an opportunity for the putter to slide all the way down the hill.

Hole 7 is a par 4 according to the site. Well it is an easy par 4. I took a 2 and a 3 in the two rounds I played down there on this hole. The easiest way to get a three(for a righty) is to land closer on the left side of the fairway and throw to the basket from there. To get my 2, I was on the right side of the fairway and hit a 100 foot approach shot through the woods.

Hole 8 is a par 5. In the first round I went OB twice because i had two bad kicks. One was on my drive. From where I was OB at I could only throw a roller to get to the fairway. From there I cut the corner too close, hit a tree and kicked OB again. In the second round I had what I thought was a perfect drive but I was in the junk on the right(after the turn). I could only throw a 50 foot shot out to the fairway from there. I took a 6 that round(would have been a 5 but i pushed a 10 foot putt).

Anyway, There isn't much more these guys can do to change the holes to make them "tougher" There are only 2 or 3 holes that are easily deucable. This is definately the second hardest course I have played(renny gold being the toughest).

That statement rings very true to me. I must admit, that I like the sound of it. And it does explain the "tough" reputation we currently have. Shades of Augusta, perhaps... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



No that would take making the course harder not easier.

According to the par that you set the winner of the Azalea was -23. Are you satisfied with that?.



To be honest, I'm not totally satisfied. I would prefer the winning score at the Castle to be closer to -16(4 rounds, par 64), than -23. I am optimistic about being able to make the appropriate modifications. Given our space limitations (land-locked) it may be challenging to accomplish and still keep the holes fair.




Boz,

Why not just lower your par from 64 then? That's much simpler than making changes to the course. That't the point that I was getting at with my question.

Lowe



It just feels uncomfortable, I guess. It is very clear in my mind why we are a par 64. The numbers are helping me see how we can be a better par 64. Ultimately, I see the stats as a tool, not a goal. Perhaps Harold will look at these numbers in the future and design another course that is similar-- just because he was hired and paid to do so... ;)

. Ultimately, I see the stats as a tool, not a goal. Perhaps Harold will look at these numbers in the future and design another course that is similar-- just because he was hired and paid to do so... ;)



Can you please explain this statement?

. Ultimately, I see the stats as a tool, not a goal. Perhaps Harold will look at these numbers in the future and design another course that is similar-- just because he was hired and paid to do so... ;)



Can you please explain this statement?



That statement means that I hired Harold Duvall to design a "world class" course. He took the parameters (requirements, land, trees...) and did just that. Walking through those woods with him for a week, I would have never guessed that his layout would achieve exactly what I was looking for. With his knowlege and experience, he was able to design a course that played and scored like a "Gold Course."

Boz

. Ultimately, I see the stats as a tool, not a goal. Perhaps Harold will look at these numbers in the future and design another course that is similar-- just because he was hired and paid to do so... ;)



Can you please explain this statement?



That statement means that I hired Harold Duvall to design a "world class" course. He took the parameters (requirements, land, trees...) and did just that. Walking through those woods with him for a week, I would have never guessed that his layout would achieve exactly what I was looking for. With his knowlege and experience, he was able to design a course that played and scored like a "Gold Course."

Boz



And didn't YOU modify several of the holes to make them play easier?

You will have to be specific about which modifications. Harold and I have talked and emailed over the years about the course, and possible changes. Anything we have done, has been with his consultaion, as well as the vote of the club. Some of the trees that were removed were taken down by the county because of saftey or Pine Beetle issues...Is that what you are referring too?

boz

ALL the trees on #16, the 1st tree on #17, the couple of little trees around #5 basket, the 1st corner of #12 and the right and left corners of #15?

ALL the trees on #16, the 1st tree on #17, the couple of little trees around #5 basket, the 1st corner of #12 and the right and left corners of #15?




16 - The horrible vines and garbage that filled in the right rough and made right kicks unfairly brutal was cleared out - it was aestetically unattractive. ONLY ONE TREE was cut on that hole, on the right side, and it was leaning into the already narrow fairway. It was voted on by the club.

17 - I suggested we cut that tree to improve the hole. We voted on it and it went down. The hole is without a doubt better. And we have another tree coming down on the left side that will finally open up the left fairway, as Harold and I originally envisioned. Currently, no one uses the left fairway, but that will change soon.

5 - We voted to make that green a little less penalizing by thinning the wall of trees at the green. We now believe the green is better and more fair.

12 - YOU suggested we open the first inside corner (off tee) at 12 and YOU cut the trees down to do so...Remember? In fact, we have just planted 3 trees at the far corner, fronting the right side of the green, to stop the leaks and shortcuts.

15 - The right and left corners of 15 were not just opened... the entire fairway was widened 3-5 ft, as per Harold's suggestion. Once again, we voted on it and the hole is better for it.

The bottom line is this, 18 Tee shots without options is a bad idea. The key trees and widening was done to provide fairness and options. In our opinion, the changes we made were well thought out and carefully executed, erring on the conservative side. Any other smallish trees that are missing are due to the constant vandalism that seems to plague our course - just ask any of the guys.

I didn't exactly see anyone slaughter the course this year because of any changes we have made.

Respectfully,
Boz

ALL the trees on #16, the 1st tree on #17, the couple of little trees around #5 basket, the 1st corner of #12 and the right and left corners of #15?




16 - The horrible vines and garbage that filled in the right rough and made right kicks unfairly brutal was cleared out - it was aestetically unattractive. ONLY ONE TREE was cut on that hole, on the right side, and it was leaning into the already narrow fairway. It was voted on by the club.

17 - I suggested we cut that tree to improve the hole. We voted on it and it went down. The hole is without a doubt better. And we have another tree coming down on the left side that will finally open up the left fairway, as Harold and I originally envisioned. Currently, no one uses the left fairway, but that will change soon.

5 - We voted to make that green a little less penalizing by thinning the wall of trees at the green. We now believe the green is better and more fair.

12 - YOU suggested we open the first inside corner (off tee) at 12 and YOU cut the trees down to do so...Remember? In fact, we have just planted 3 trees at the far corner, fronting the right side of the green, to stop the leaks and shortcuts.

15 - The right and left corners of 15 were not just opened... the entire fairway was widened 3-5 ft, as per Harold's suggestion. Once again, we voted on it and the hole is better for it.

The bottom line is this, 18 Tee shots without options is a bad idea. The key trees and widening was done to provide fairness and options. In our opinion, the changes we made were well thought out and carefully executed, erring on the conservative side. Any other smallish trees that are missing are due to the constant vandalism that seems to plague our course - just ask any of the guys.

I didn't exactly see anyone slaughter the course this year because of any changes we have made.

Respectfully,
Boz





#16 only ONE tree? ARE you kidding. I believe it was more like 5--6? didn't you try and make it a hyzer?

#15 why would you cut the right side short? "FAIR"?
And
on the left side near the pin 30-40 'off the fairway you cut a hole all the way up from the shule to the basket. Pls explain?


#17 tree was not dead, didn't have bugs and was a good distance from the Tee but it still need to go to make it "FAIR"?


"In our opinion, the changes we made were well thought out and carefully executed, erring on the conservative side."

but now you're wondering why your course is not playing up to par?