What would be considered an hard course.

Idlewild on the northern Kentucky side of Cincinnati is a hard (and beautiful) course:
Idlewild course statistics (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=1745)

here is hole 18:

http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18.jpg http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18a.jpg http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18b.jpg

I consider every course hard. If a course has 18 birdie opportunites, the challenge is too birdie all 18. That's hard!

Like MTL says, striving for perfection makes all courses "hard". But IMO, a truly hard course is one that punishes errant shots by making the recovery add at least a stroke more than a good shot and adding at least 2 strokes more than a perfect shot (or perfect shots on multi-shot holes).

Hard courses that are bad IMO are ones that involve too many holes were random luck and random bounces come into play. Really narrow fairways are used too often on some courses and tightly placed trees 30-60' in front of the pin is another pet peeve of mine. I think a few (2-4) holes per course that have a lot of randomness is cool since that tests your recovery skills - creative escape shots.

Hard courses that are good are ones that tempt you to go big, but punish you severely for screwing up the high risk "go big" shots. OB, thick rough, and dog legs characterize most holes on hard courses that are good. These are the sort of courses that should keep the 2 meter rule in effect since they are well thought-out courses and "velcro trees" (trees such as cedars) are strategically placed to increase risk/reward.

The closer the assigned par value is to the course SSA, the harder it is. Courses can have an SSA that's up to 12 shots lower than the par 54 assigned to it (deuce or die). A harder course will have an SSA that's almost the same as the properly assigned par. A good example is Winthrop Gold where the assigned par was 68 and the SSA rose to as high as 70 on windy days. The course doesn't have to have a high SSA for this to be the case. I have seen wooded courses where the par and SSA are both in the high 50s.

that looks like an great course to play i love to play courses that have trees and narrow fairways through them that way i can learn control when throwing and it helps improve my aiming.i love hard shots to make it makes me more confident in my over all game and i learn what to do and not to do.

A ski hill course is usually pretty tough. Lots of trees and LOTS of elevation! Sipapu, New Mexico is all of that! 20 hole course (all PAR 3), and it took almost 6 years of tournaments before someone turned in a round with NO BOGEYS. None of the holes are extremely difficult by themself, but the constant demand for attention on every shot makes it hard to string together good holes.

Ski slope courses are a type I have yet to play. Of course the terrain makes things hard just for the throws, but the aerobic challenge adds a real area of difficulty not found in many other places.....especially since I am not in the kind of shape I used to be in. :)

i love those courses we have a few in utah.The main one is at solitude mtn resort its an great course with 27 holes.every Sept we hold a PDGA tournement called the Utah Challenge and we get some top Pros here.

The closer the assigned par value is to the course SSA, the harder it is.



I partially agree with Chuck, but this standard implies that there is a consistent and uniform way to determine par. Since this is not the case then this standard cannot yet be uniformly applied. For 3-4 years I've been working on ways to objectively measure course difficulty, so that has driven my quest for a consistent standard for par. (What is Par? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=) )

I call the factor Chuck mentioned the "Gold Difficulty" rating, but I use par for the appropriate level for the course. Of course, I use Close Range (CR) Par as the standard.

For example, on a White level course the Gold Difficulty Rating = SSA - White CR Par.

Actually, I prefer to use a different standard to measure difficulty that does better at accounting for the appropriate course level. This factor is (Level Score Avg minus Level CR Par). e.g.- Using a White level course you would use WSA - White CR Par. What matters most is how will a player of the same level that the course is designed for do on the course. A positive number indicates a hard course. The lower the negative number the easier the course.

Using the Gold Difficulty factor also has some merit since Gold players are the scratch players that form a standard for comparison, but I still think it's better to use the performance of the appropriate player level.

This is most apparent at Green level courses. The lowest Gold Difficulty Rating I've seen is at the Green level Cross Mill course in Marion NC. The number is -16.1 showing that a Gold level player should get a 2 on almost every hole. By contrast the GrSA - Gr CR Par = -0.9 This seems to be a more understandable number.

Oh, I almost forgot that course are also ranked in order according their level from Gold as the most difficult then Blue - WHite - Red - Green. So Blue is always harder than WHite, Red harder than Green, etc. This is giving a nod to how a Gold player would do on these courses.

I partially agree with Chuck, but this standard implies that there is a consistent and uniform way to determine par. Since this is not the case then this standard cannot yet be uniformly applied.



Lowe seems to be the only one in denial on this and continues to promote this erroneous information. PDGA guidelines for establishing par have been in place for several years now. Details are located here:

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

Heres our problem with par.

I can tell you I shot a 54 at this course. If I have told you nothing about the course, you know nothing about the course or anything like that, you have NO WAY of knowing how good / bad / average of a round that is.

If I tell you I shot a 72 at a golf course that you knowthing about about or I have told you nothing about, you understand that I'm a pretty good golfer b/c of the universal par of golf and how close par is on every course you play. Even if the par happened to be 70 at this course, you still get a general idea that I'm a pretty good golfer.

That was always a great way to make people think I was a great golfer when I would shoot 72 on a par 3 golf course... :D

The closest parallel for DG and BG would be for someone to say I shot my rating (DG) or I shot my handicap (BG). They would both be average rounds for that player.

Heres our problem with par.

I can tell you I shot a 54 at this course. If I have told you nothing about the course, you know nothing about the course or anything like that, you have NO WAY of knowing how good / bad / average of a round that is.

If I tell you I shot a 72 at a golf course that you knowthing about about or I have told you nothing about, you understand that I'm a pretty good golfer b/c of the universal par of golf and how close par is on every course you play. Even if the par happened to be 70 at this course, you still get a general idea that I'm a pretty good golfer.




MTL,

This is called "portability error" in traditional golf and it relates to the difficulty of comparing different courses. Your post is another reason why par is important.

If you say you shot a 54 on a par 64 course you've played well, but if you shot 54 on a par 54 course you weren't stellar. Giving your score plus a meaningful par number gives a lot more helpful information.

Giving your score plus a meaningful par number gives a lot more helpful information.



Giving your score plus SSA/WCP gives the most helpful information possible. WCP gets rid of said portability error.

Stafford Lake in Novato, CA.
Mostly open with HUGE elevation in play on nearly EVERY hole.

Most 1000 rated PROS CAN NOT shoot the SSA.. :o
:D

<font color="blue"> Side veiw from above </font> (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5410/1478/1600/StaffordDGSateliteperspectivewithparking.jpg)

AND

<font color="green"> Stafford Lake Homepage </font> (http://stafforddiscgolf.blogspot.com/2006/09/home-page.html)
Hole by Hole's have some OLD pics (as noted by some OLD baskets)
All pins have been Mach III's for 7 years now......

A MUST play when in the SF Area.. ;)

Just ask Schwebby.. :D

Lowe seems to be the only one in denial on this and continues to promote this erroneous information. PDGA guidelines for establishing par have been in place for several years now. Details are located here:

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



The first sentence in the PDGA definition of par is still "As determined by the director... " so that leaves tons of room for many different standards. The
"everything is par 3" crowd is still the most dominant. In theory, a new person could stage a coup and take over the USDGC then say that as TD he declares that Winthrop Gold is par 54 since "everything is a par 3".

Or from another angle, in the real world Harold Duvall uses his own standards and assumptions for par anyway.

Those PDGA documents are guidelines, but they are very broad, and thus subject to a wide range of interpretations.

The point though is that a PDGA par guideline and standard does exist which includes different skill levels. Many courses and TDs may not have adjusted their pars yet. 'What is par' is not up for dispute. Just whether the guidelines have been properly applied at a course yet. Harold's par values for Winthrop Gold are exactly in line with scoring averages for the Gold level players even if he came up with them some other way.

PDGA guidelines for establishing par have been in place for several years now. Details are located here:

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



Chuck,

This public par document is based on the "Score Average Par" method that you espouse. Would you be able to give a brief history lesson about how this became the PDGA standard?

Would you also please comment on why the course designers in the DG Course Design Group have a wide variety of opinions about how to determine par?

For those new to this discussion there are actually 3 main philosophies of par: 1. Ball Golf (BG) Par, 2. Score Average (SA) Par, and 3. Close Range (CR) Par.

Here are a few of the proponents of each:
1. BG Par- John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, Rodney Gardner
2. SA Par- : Chuck Kennedy, Andi Lehmann and many other course designers in the DGCD
3. CR Par: Lowe Bibby, (I'm going out on a limb a little here, but here's what I deduce from comments posted here and written elsewhere) Current BOD members- Pat Brenner (with some modifications), Steve Dodge.

So although Chuck has every right to use his stature and contributions to the PDGA to have a major voice in how to determine par the reality is nowhere near as monolithic as he makes it sound.

P.S.- Pat and Steve- if I have spoken mistakenly please correct me and I will change what I wrote.

In a poll done a few years ago here's how many of the DG Course Design Group (DGCD) answered about the par philosophy that they use. (Note- some people may have changed their mind since this poll was taken):


<table border="1"><tr><td> Name</td><td>Par Method
</td></tr><tr><td>Beron, Tim</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Dropcho, J. Gary</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Dunipace, Dave</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Duvall, Harold</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Greenwell, David</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Houck, John</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>McDaniel, Stan</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Winn, Shannon</td><td>BG
</td></tr><tr><td>Bibby, Lowe</td><td>CR
</td></tr><tr><td>Ticknor, Don</td><td>Other
</td></tr><tr><td>Chisholm, Andrew</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Conte, John</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Govang, Pat</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Jackson, Anita</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Kennedy, Chuck</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Lehmann, Andi</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td>Snelson, Mike</td><td>SA
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

how does par come up when i ask what makes a course hard.like trees and other factors.

If someone uses the Public Par guidelines, they will not be "wrong" in their par assignments if they follow it. Although the chart has sharp delineations where par changes from 3 to 4 or 4 to 5, no hole plays at the same adjusted scoring average every round. So, a choice of 3 or 4 will not be wrong even if you have measurements or even data from one round that is somewhat on one side or the other of the sharp line on the chart. The CR and BG versions of par are not wrong even if their number comes up one different from the Public Chart. Because where they differ are places where a person could go either way using the Public Par chart. It's not worth confusing the issue to have alternative methods because the guidelines allow enough leeway on the fringes where the other methods prefer one number over the other.

The issue with Par 2 in any par assignement system is that there are holes where the gold or blue scoring average is less than 2.5. Rather than upset players with assigned par 2s, either the course itself needs to be adjusted to a white or red level course if this low scoring average problem is common on the whole course. Or, the hole should just be assigned a par 3 and considered a poorly designed hole for that skill level with the hope that the design can be changed.

how does par come up when i ask what makes a course hard.like trees and other factors.



Foliage density, elevation changes, and OB trouble all affect the difficulty of a course. A course with lots of these factors will play much harder than a similar course of the same effective length that had few of these elements. As Chuck has demonstrated, though, the effective length is the single greatest factor in determining how difficult a hole is.

Par is essential because you have to answer the question, "How difficult is it to do what?" I believe that the answer is "How difficult is it for a player of the same level that the course is designed for to shoot par?" Many courses have holes that are fairly easy par 4s, meaning that their effective length makes them par 4, but the level SA is well below 4 (~3.6). But if they were (mistakenly) played as par 3s then they'd be very tough to get a 3.

Winthrop Gold is the most difficult course that I've evaluated. It's a Gold level course, so it's in the top tier of difficulty, and the Gold SA (=SSA) is usually greater than the par 68. Gold SA - Gold Par = ~+2. Just having a positive value for this factor on a Gold course is rare. Most of the Gold courses I've evaluated have a number less than 0 for this factor.

You have 2 choices to answer the original question:
1. Simple: The higher the SSA of the course, the harder it is.
2. Trickier: The higher the scoring average is relative to a properly assigned par for that skill level, the harder the course is.

You have 2 choices to answer the original question:
1. Simple: The higher the SSA of the course, the harder it is.




This must be "Disagree with Chuck" day for me. (Some may be shaking their heads saying, "The audacity of that peon to argue with a HOF'er who has done so much for DG!"... and they'd be right.) [Let me say, too, that Chuck is a good guy, so that gives me courage to keep disagreeing with him.]

Back to the subject... SSA alone is not sufficient to tell you how difficult a course is. Let's look again at the classic "course on a dry lake bed" example. Let's use the "Public Par" chart that Chuck referenced earlier as a tool in this discussion. For simplicity, lets say that this dry lake bed, is flat but has Average foliage, and is a Gold level course. Let's also agree from the chart for a Gold course of light foliage that the dividing line btwn par 3 and par 4 is 600 ft. and btwn par 4 and par 5 is 900 ft.

OK, Course 1 has 18 holes of 910 ft each that's a length of 16,380 ft. Each should be an easy par 5.
Course 2 has 18 holes of 590 ft each that's a length of 10,620 ft. Each should be a very tough par 3.

Using the SSA predictor formula (at Average foliage) = (Course length/285)+30

Course 1: SSA = 87.5
Course 2: SSA = 67.3

So, since course 1 has a higher SSA it should be the harder course. Right? Wrong!

You must compare SSA to Par to get any meaningful idea of difficulty. Using the Public Par chart:
Course 1: Every hole is par 5, so Par = 90. SSA � Par = -2.5
Course 2: Every hole is par 3, so Par = 54. SSA � Par = +13.3

Comparing the SSA to Par shows that course 2 is WAY more difficult than Course 1. On Course 1 a 1000 PR Gold player would occasionally shoot under par, but on Course 2 he almost never would shoot under par. He would average 13 throws over par. Thus Course 2 is much harder, even though the SSA is 20 points lower.

The higher the scoring average is relative to a properly assigned par for that skill level, the harder the course is.



I assume that by "scoring average" you mean the Level SA for the appropriate level (Gold, Blue, White, Red). That would give you (Level SA - Level Par).

E+ =mc ?=fly..;18 :D

You have 2 choices to answer the original question:
1. Simple: The higher the SSA of the course, the harder it is.
This must be "Disagree with Chuck" day for me.



I don't agree with the higher SSA statement. However, some consider this to be the definition of a harder course. I only agree with the second option I provided where SA is relative to appropriate par.

how about ssa divided by length as a measure of difficulty?

lowe- i am more or less with you on cr par.

If "harder per foot" is considered a measure of "hardness" then SSA divided by length would be valid (although we might want to call it something else that sounds more like a disc golf term :o)

If "harder per foot" is considered a measure of "hardness" then SSA divided by length would be valid (although we might want to call it something else that sounds more like a disc golf term :o)



I've been experimenting with a "Difficulty Factor" using
DF= [(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 10000
I've collected data on >50 courses, but I haven't had time to analyze the results yet.

lowe- i am more or less with you on cr par.



Thanks John. Sometimes I feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness.

Most 1000 rated PROS CAN NOT shoot the SSA.. :o
:D



Am I the only one who found something wrong with this statement???

You could say that about most courses though since the SSA is rarely a round number you can shoot like 53 or 54. It's hard to shoot a 51.3. :D

Here's the data I've got on Difficulty Factors. It's hard to evaluate this, though, without comparison to another benchmark.

<table border="1"><tr><td>CourseName</td><td>Layout</td><td>State</td><td>City</td><td>Level</td><td>SSA</td><td>Gold CR Par</td><td>Difficulty Factor
</td></tr><tr><td>Lucky 8</td><td>Long</td><td>WV</td><td>Lavalette</td><td>Blue</td><td>54.9</td><td>58</td><td>43.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td> Long/ Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Gold</td><td>53.1</td><td>54</td><td>43
</td></tr><tr><td>Castle Hayne</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>Gold</td><td>58.6</td><td>59</td><td>42.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>White</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>White</td><td>49.1</td><td>54</td><td>42
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>Red</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>Red</td><td>41.8</td><td>54</td><td>41.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Reedy Creek</td><td>Stout-Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.9</td><td>57</td><td>41.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td>White</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Blue</td><td>48</td><td>54</td><td>40.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.4</td><td>57</td><td>40.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Green Pines (9)</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Knightdale</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.4</td><td>56</td><td>40.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Farm Life</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Williamston</td><td>White</td><td>46.6</td><td>51</td><td>40.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td>Short/ Red</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Red</td><td>43.4</td><td>52</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>Woodward</td><td>Long/ Blue</td><td>SC</td><td>Camden</td><td>White</td><td>49.5</td><td>55</td><td>39.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Winthrop Gold</td><td>USDGC</td><td>SC</td><td>Rock Hill</td><td>Gold</td><td>69.97</td><td>68</td><td>39.57
</td></tr><tr><td>Nockamixon</td><td>39220</td><td>PA</td><td>Quakertown</td><td>Gold</td><td>64.3</td><td>66</td><td>39.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Sugaw Creek</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.6</td><td>54</td><td>39.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Barnett</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Kinston</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.2</td><td>55</td><td>38.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Barnett</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Kinston</td><td>White</td><td>46.3</td><td>53</td><td>38.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Blue</td><td>50.5</td><td>56</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Gold</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.2</td><td>56</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Grange: Darkside</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>Blue</td><td>50.7</td><td>54</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Sequoyah</td><td>B</td><td>GA</td><td>Cherokee County</td><td>White</td><td>47</td><td>54</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>White</td><td>48.7</td><td>54</td><td>38.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Hippodrome</td><td>Pro Worlds 06</td><td>SC</td><td>North Augusta</td><td>Blue</td><td>60.2</td><td>62</td><td>38
</td></tr><tr><td>Pohick Bay</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Lorton</td><td>Red</td><td>42.4</td><td>54</td><td>37.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Scottish Hills (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Cary</td><td>Red</td><td>40.9</td><td>50</td><td>37.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Bull Run</td><td>Long</td><td>VA</td><td>Centreville</td><td>White</td><td>43.9</td><td>54</td><td>36.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Farmington</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Rocky Mount</td><td>White</td><td>48.7</td><td>50</td><td>36.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Sloan</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Sanford</td><td>White</td><td>45.6</td><td>54</td><td>36.3
</td></tr><tr><td>UNC</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Chapel Hill</td><td>White</td><td>48.6</td><td>55</td><td>36.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Ridgecrest (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Black Mountain</td><td>Green</td><td>37.1</td><td>44</td><td>35.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Kentwood</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Red</td><td>44.5</td><td>54</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Pratt</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Fredericksburg</td><td>White</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Songer Whitewater</td><td>Standard</td><td>WV</td><td>Hico</td><td>Red</td><td>44.1</td><td>54</td><td>35.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Zebulon</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Zebulon</td><td>Blue</td><td>52.2</td><td>57</td><td>35.2
</td></tr><tr><td>McLean Central (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>McLean</td><td>Red</td><td>42.8</td><td>54</td><td>35.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Morely Field</td><td>Mixed</td><td>CA</td><td>San Diego</td><td>White</td><td>47.7</td><td>53</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>Country Course</td><td>39100</td><td>NC</td><td>Louisburg</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>54</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Elk Mountain</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Plumtree</td><td>Blue</td><td>49.3</td><td>54</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Englewood</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Rocky Mount</td><td>White</td><td>44.9</td><td>51</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Sedgley Woods</td><td>Red/ Long</td><td>PA</td><td>Philadelphia</td><td>White</td><td>46.3</td><td>54</td><td>34.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Tar River</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Franklinton</td><td>White</td><td>48</td><td>55</td><td>34.5
</td></tr><tr><td>TNT Ranch (12)</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Farmville</td><td>White</td><td>43.8</td><td>54</td><td>34.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Mountwood Monster</td><td>Standard</td><td>WV</td><td>Parkersburg</td><td>White</td><td>51</td><td>56</td><td>34.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Black Mountain (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Black Mountain</td><td>Red</td><td>41.8</td><td>52</td><td>34.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>White</td><td>43.5</td><td>54</td><td>33.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Avalon Peaks</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Apex</td><td>White</td><td>43.9</td><td>47</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Red</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>Red</td><td>43.2</td><td>54</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Oak Meadow</td><td>Mixed</td><td>TX</td><td>Houston</td><td>Blue</td><td>55.9</td><td>59</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Cross Mill</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Marion</td><td>Green</td><td>37.9</td><td>44</td><td>33.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Inland Greens</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>White</td><td>52.3</td><td>58</td><td>33.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Nixon</td><td>Gold - Mixed</td><td>PA</td><td>Kennett Square</td><td>White</td><td>49.6</td><td>57</td><td>33.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Water Works</td><td>Mixed</td><td>MO</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>Blue</td><td>47.5</td><td>54</td><td>33.2
</td></tr><tr><td>W. Meadowbrook</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Greenville</td><td>Blue</td><td>47.9</td><td>55</td><td>33.1
</td></tr><tr><td>La Mirada</td><td>19-27</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: La Mirada</td><td>Blue</td><td>56.1</td><td>58</td><td>32.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Doral Cavalier Apartments</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Green</td><td>40</td><td>54</td><td>32.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Black/ Original</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>White</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>32.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Cameron Yards (9)</td><td>Short & Lo</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>White</td><td>46.4</td><td>55</td><td>32.5
</td></tr><tr><td>La Mirada</td><td>1-18 Mixed</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: La Mirada</td><td>Blue</td><td>49.1</td><td>54</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Twila Reid (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>CA</td><td>LA (Anaheim)</td><td>White</td><td>45.8</td><td>54</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>W. Meadowbrook</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Greenville</td><td>White</td><td>43.5</td><td>54</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Cunniff (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Highland Park</td><td>White</td><td>44.8</td><td>54</td><td>32.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Edora</td><td>Mixed</td><td>CO</td><td>Fort Collins</td><td>White</td><td>47.7</td><td>55</td><td>32.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast Creek</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Jacksonville</td><td>White</td><td>48.8</td><td>57</td><td>32
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedarock</td><td>Am-Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>White</td><td>47.6</td><td>54</td><td>31.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Flat Rocks</td><td>Short</td><td>OH</td><td>Lancaster</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>54</td><td>31.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Country Course</td><td>Extra- BIRDIES</td><td>NC</td><td>Louisburg</td><td>White</td><td>43.3</td><td>54</td><td>31.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedarock</td><td>Am-Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>White</td><td>43.7</td><td>54</td><td>31.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Hawk Hollow</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>Blue</td><td>55.5</td><td>60</td><td>31.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Rosedale</td><td>Mixed</td><td>KS</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>White</td><td>47</td><td>54</td><td>31.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Brevard College (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Brevard</td><td>White</td><td>49.1</td><td>54</td><td>31.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Griggs Reservoir</td><td>Standard</td><td>OH</td><td>Columbus</td><td>White</td><td>45.9</td><td>55</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Lake Benson</td><td>To Portabl</td><td>NC</td><td>Garner</td><td>Gold</td><td>57.1</td><td>62</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Wyandotte County (WyCo)</td><td>Mixed</td><td>KS</td><td>KC: Bonner Springs</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.2</td><td>58</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Mars Bluff (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Florence</td><td>Green</td><td>39.1</td><td>46</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Odell Weeks (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Aiken</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>54</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Swope</td><td>Mixed</td><td>MO</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>White</td><td>50.9</td><td>54</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Balgriffen (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>OH</td><td>Columbus (Dublin)</td><td>Red</td><td>40.9</td><td>54</td><td>30.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Tupelo Bay (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Myrtle Beach</td><td>White</td><td>43.7</td><td>54</td><td>30.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Clark (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Elk Grove Village</td><td>White</td><td>43.8</td><td>54</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Fink (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Highland Park</td><td>White</td><td>45.8</td><td>54</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Keller (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Deerfield</td><td>Red</td><td>45.9</td><td>54</td><td>30.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Tolley (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Elon</td><td>Green</td><td>37.5</td><td>48</td><td>29.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Steed</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Richlands</td><td>White</td><td>44.3</td><td>54</td><td>29.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Liberty (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: Cerritos</td><td>Red</td><td>40.3</td><td>54</td><td>29
</td></tr><tr><td>Willow Stream (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Buffalo Grove</td><td>Red</td><td>44.5</td><td>54</td><td>29
</td></tr><tr><td>Sunrise</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Bartlett</td><td>White</td><td>47.6</td><td>56</td><td>28.3
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

DF = [(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 10000 (The 10,000 is only put in to make the decimal come out as a more useful number.)

The DF for Hawk Hollow is a good case to look at. It's in the bottom 25%. It's 68th out of 86. That seems too low.

You could say that about most courses though since the SSA is rarely a round number you can shoot like 53 or 54. It's hard to shoot a 51.3. :D



Of course I implied a rounded SSA, but I see Mr. Obvious had to put in his two cents.

The DF for Hawk Hollow is a good case to look at. It's in the bottom 25%. It's 68th out of 86. That seems too low.



that's because the ssa you are using is incorrect- ssa has been between 59 and 61 for every event we have held there.

some of those pars are wrong

some of those pars are wrong



Keep in mind that those are Gold CR Par. They are wrong in that the par should be (Level) CR Par where Level= Gold, Blue, White, Red. You're right that the column should be the par for the appropriate course level.

The DFs need to be grouped by Course Level, so here's the data grouped by Level in the order of difficulty for a scratch (1000 PR Gold) player: Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green.

<table border="1"><tr><td>CourseName</td><td>Layout</td><td>State</td><td>City</td><td>Level</td><td>SSA</td><td>Difficulty Factor
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td> Long/ Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Gold</td><td>53.1</td><td>43
</td></tr><tr><td>Castle Hayne</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>Gold</td><td>58.6</td><td>42.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Winthrop Gold</td><td>USDGC</td><td>SC</td><td>Rock Hill</td><td>Gold</td><td>69.97</td><td>39.57
</td></tr><tr><td>Nockamixon</td><td>39220</td><td>PA</td><td>Quakertown</td><td>Gold</td><td>64.3</td><td>39.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Lake Benson</td><td>To Portabl</td><td>NC</td><td>Garner</td><td>Gold</td><td>57.1</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Lucky 8</td><td>Long</td><td>WV</td><td>Lavalette</td><td>Blue</td><td>54.9</td><td>43.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Reedy Creek</td><td>Stout-Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.9</td><td>41.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td>White</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Blue</td><td>48</td><td>40.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.4</td><td>40.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Green Pines (9)</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Knightdale</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.4</td><td>40.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Sugaw Creek</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.6</td><td>39.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Barnett</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Kinston</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.2</td><td>38.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Blue</td><td>50.5</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Gold</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Blue</td><td>51.2</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Grange: Darkside</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>Blue</td><td>50.7</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Hippodrome</td><td>Pro Worlds 06</td><td>SC</td><td>North Augusta</td><td>Blue</td><td>60.2</td><td>38
</td></tr><tr><td>Zebulon</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Zebulon</td><td>Blue</td><td>52.2</td><td>35.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Elk Mountain</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Plumtree</td><td>Blue</td><td>49.3</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Oak Meadow</td><td>Mixed</td><td>TX</td><td>Houston</td><td>Blue</td><td>55.9</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Water Works</td><td>Mixed</td><td>MO</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>Blue</td><td>47.5</td><td>33.2
</td></tr><tr><td>W. Meadowbrook</td><td>Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Greenville</td><td>Blue</td><td>47.9</td><td>33.1
</td></tr><tr><td>La Mirada</td><td>19-27</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: La Mirada</td><td>Blue</td><td>56.1</td><td>32.9
</td></tr><tr><td>La Mirada</td><td>1-18 Mixed</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: La Mirada</td><td>Blue</td><td>49.1</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Hawk Hollow</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Spotsylvania</td><td>Blue</td><td>55.5</td><td>31.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Wyandotte County (WyCo)</td><td>Mixed</td><td>KS</td><td>KC: Bonner Springs</td><td>Blue</td><td>53.2</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>White</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>White</td><td>49.1</td><td>42
</td></tr><tr><td>Farm Life</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Williamston</td><td>White</td><td>46.6</td><td>40.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Woodward</td><td>Long/ Blue</td><td>SC</td><td>Camden</td><td>White</td><td>49.5</td><td>39.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Barnett</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Kinston</td><td>White</td><td>46.3</td><td>38.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Sequoyah</td><td>B</td><td>GA</td><td>Cherokee County</td><td>White</td><td>47</td><td>38.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hills</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>White</td><td>48.7</td><td>38.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Bull Run</td><td>Long</td><td>VA</td><td>Centreville</td><td>White</td><td>43.9</td><td>36.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Farmington</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Rocky Mount</td><td>White</td><td>48.7</td><td>36.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Sloan</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Sanford</td><td>White</td><td>45.6</td><td>36.3
</td></tr><tr><td>UNC</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Chapel Hill</td><td>White</td><td>48.6</td><td>36.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Pratt</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Fredericksburg</td><td>White</td><td>49</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Morely Field</td><td>Mixed</td><td>CA</td><td>San Diego</td><td>White</td><td>47.7</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>Country Course</td><td>39100</td><td>NC</td><td>Louisburg</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Englewood</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Rocky Mount</td><td>White</td><td>44.9</td><td>34.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Sedgley Woods</td><td>Red/ Long</td><td>PA</td><td>Philadelphia</td><td>White</td><td>46.3</td><td>34.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Tar River</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Franklinton</td><td>White</td><td>48</td><td>34.5
</td></tr><tr><td>TNT Ranch (12)</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Farmville</td><td>White</td><td>43.8</td><td>34.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Mountwood Monster</td><td>Standard</td><td>WV</td><td>Parkersburg</td><td>White</td><td>51</td><td>34.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Blue</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>White</td><td>43.5</td><td>33.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Avalon Peaks</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Apex</td><td>White</td><td>43.9</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Inland Greens</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Wilmington</td><td>White</td><td>52.3</td><td>33.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Nixon</td><td>Gold - Mixed</td><td>PA</td><td>Kennett Square</td><td>White</td><td>49.6</td><td>33.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Black/ Original</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>White</td><td>44</td><td>32.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Cameron Yards (9)</td><td>Short & Lo</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>White</td><td>46.4</td><td>32.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Twila Reid (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>CA</td><td>LA (Anaheim)</td><td>White</td><td>45.8</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>W. Meadowbrook</td><td>Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Greenville</td><td>White</td><td>43.5</td><td>32.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Cunniff (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Highland Park</td><td>White</td><td>44.8</td><td>32.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Edora</td><td>Mixed</td><td>CO</td><td>Fort Collins</td><td>White</td><td>47.7</td><td>32.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast Creek</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Jacksonville</td><td>White</td><td>48.8</td><td>32
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedarock</td><td>Am-Long</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>White</td><td>47.6</td><td>31.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Flat Rocks</td><td>Short</td><td>OH</td><td>Lancaster</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>31.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Country Course</td><td>Extra- BIRDIES</td><td>NC</td><td>Louisburg</td><td>White</td><td>43.3</td><td>31.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedarock</td><td>Am-Short</td><td>NC</td><td>Burlington</td><td>White</td><td>43.7</td><td>31.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Rosedale</td><td>Mixed</td><td>KS</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>White</td><td>47</td><td>31.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Brevard College (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Brevard</td><td>White</td><td>49.1</td><td>31.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Griggs Reservoir</td><td>Standard</td><td>OH</td><td>Columbus</td><td>White</td><td>45.9</td><td>31
</td></tr><tr><td>Odell Weeks (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Aiken</td><td>White</td><td>45.7</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Swope</td><td>Mixed</td><td>MO</td><td>Kansas City</td><td>White</td><td>50.9</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Tupelo Bay (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Myrtle Beach</td><td>White</td><td>43.7</td><td>30.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Clark (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Elk Grove Village</td><td>White</td><td>43.8</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Fink (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Highland Park</td><td>White</td><td>45.8</td><td>30.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Steed</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Richlands</td><td>White</td><td>44.3</td><td>29.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Sunrise</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Bartlett</td><td>White</td><td>47.6</td><td>28.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Buckhorn</td><td>Red</td><td>NC</td><td>New Hill</td><td>Red</td><td>41.8</td><td>41.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Valley Springs</td><td>Short/ Red</td><td>NC</td><td>Durham</td><td>Red</td><td>43.4</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>Pohick Bay</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>Lorton</td><td>Red</td><td>42.4</td><td>37.3
</td></tr><tr><td>Scottish Hills (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>NC</td><td>Cary</td><td>Red</td><td>40.9</td><td>37.2
</td></tr><tr><td>Kentwood</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Raleigh</td><td>Red</td><td>44.5</td><td>35.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Songer Whitewater</td><td>Standard</td><td>WV</td><td>Hico</td><td>Red</td><td>44.1</td><td>35.3
</td></tr><tr><td>McLean Central (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>VA</td><td>McLean</td><td>Red</td><td>42.8</td><td>35.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Black Mountain (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Black Mountain</td><td>Red</td><td>41.8</td><td>34.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Higher Ground</td><td>Red</td><td>NC</td><td>Fuquay-Varina</td><td>Red</td><td>43.2</td><td>33.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Balgriffen (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>OH</td><td>Columbus (Dublin)</td><td>Red</td><td>40.9</td><td>30.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Keller (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Deerfield</td><td>Red</td><td>45.9</td><td>30.1
</td></tr><tr><td>Liberty (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>CA</td><td>LA: Cerritos</td><td>Red</td><td>40.3</td><td>29
</td></tr><tr><td>Willow Stream (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>IL</td><td>Chicagoland: Buffalo Grove</td><td>Red</td><td>44.5</td><td>29
</td></tr><tr><td>Ridgecrest (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Black Mountain</td><td>Green</td><td>37.1</td><td>35.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Cross Mill</td><td>Reg</td><td>NC</td><td>Marion</td><td>Green</td><td>37.9</td><td>33.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Doral Cavalier Apartments</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Green</td><td>40</td><td>32.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Mars Bluff (9)</td><td>Standard</td><td>SC</td><td>Florence</td><td>Green</td><td>39.1</td><td>30.7
</td></tr><tr><td>Tolley (9)</td><td>Regular</td><td>NC</td><td>Elon</td><td>Green</td><td>37.5</td><td>29.9
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

DF = [(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 10000 (The 10,000 is only put in to make the decimal come out as a more useful number.)



The DF gives the combined effect of the foliage density, elevation changes, and OB trouble compared to a course of average foliage, no elevation changes, and no OB. Foliage avg above 5, positive elev change (more uphill shots), and OBs will increase the DF. The opposite of each factor will decrease the DF.

Not 1 fly course mentoined?How is that, no emerald isles, riverside,st andrews ,lutz ,edgebrook ,indian springs,roadrunner dunes,Wt mt.I do have a new course going in spring south chicago par 72 13,234ft pro layout.How did liberty park ,and twila reid ,make the list, these are true rec courses 250 ft holes... ;)

Not sure Lowe has played a Fly 18 course to evaluate it? Fly 18 courses in general are going to be "easy" relative to their length because they are more open than the wooded courses typical of many on Lowe's chart.

I agree, I would not solely base the difficulty of a course by it's length. Sure, short arms may take more throws to complete the hole then big arms, but was it any harder?

However, I would argue that there are numerous courses i.e. Blue Valley in KC Missouri, UAH South (2005) in Huntsville AL that are designed for big arms. These courses are made where someone who cannot consistently throw 400' drives will never see the risk/reward designed into the hole setups. All they will merely see is a long hole with a oddly placed tree/creek/parking lot/lake, if they can not evaluate a course beyond their own skill levels.

How did liberty park ,and twila reid ,make the list, these are true rec courses 250 ft holes... ;)



You're right. The list I posted is NOT solely a list of difficult courses. It IS a list of all of the DF data that I've collected over the last several years. It, therefore, includes some easier courses as well. The tough courses are the ones for each skill level with the highest DF.

Tom TripleTT Park in Savannah has become a great course from the Longs, very demanding. I am thinking it is a Par 61, very similar to CasTTle Hayne in difficulty. Tough to stay in the 50's

Fly 18 courses in general are going to be "easy" relative to their length because they are more open than the wooded courses typical of many on Lowe's chart.



I totally agree with Chuck!

DF = [(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 10000 (The 10,000 is only put in to make the decimal come out as a more useful number.)



The DF gives the combined effect of the foliage density, elevation changes, and OB trouble compared to a course of average foliage, no elevation changes, and no OB. Foliage avg above 5, positive elev change (more uphill shots), and OBs will increase the DF. The opposite of each factor will decrease the DF.



Disclaimer: This factor is still in the experimental stage. I haven't had time to adequately analyze the results to be able to judge it's effectiveness. After courses are grouped by playing level, though, it does seem to give a pretty good measure of the difficulty added by foliage, elevation, and OB.

The best measure of difficulty still seems to be "Level Score Avg minus Level CR Par", and hole length is the primary factor here. Again, as I posted earlier, the important lengths are those at the upper boundary of each par level that result in a score avg of 3.49, 4.49, etc. So just having a long hole, say on a traditional golf course, does not necessarily make it a hard hole. It's obviously hard to score a 3, but not necessarily hard.

It's probably true that the most difficult holes have a length at the upper end of the par range, have thick foliage (factor 7-9), have uphill elevation, and lots of OB trouble.

Fly 18 courses in general are going to be "easy" relative to their length because they are more open than the wooded courses typical of many on Lowe's chart.



I totally agree with Chuck!



Agreed as well, especially if you are a big-armed thrower. Cannon-armed throwers who can reach the longer holes in two throws are going to find them a lot easier than noodle-armed guys.

EI , dunedin, indian springs and lutz are all courses that require acuracy and lots of ob.Chuck, it is time you played a real round of golf.You should make comments, on something you have experienced.Not hearsay.

Not hearsay, but SSA. Length and SSA tells the tale without ever seeing a course (but it's not as fun :))

For Emerald Isle, length of 6863 and SSA of 53.8 indicates an average foliage equivalent for a ball golf layout which is probably higher than most. I'm glad to see some ball golf layouts getting up to average difficulty.

Emerald Isle, length of 6863 and SSA of 53.8



so EI Difficulty Factor = 34.7

Par is 3 - every hole, everywhere, regardless of anything else.

Really, why not? It's all relative. Say you played a 1400' hole. If every single player shot a 5, it would make no difference at all what 'par' happened to be labelled for the hole. In a tournament score is only relative to other players.

If each hole were simply a par 3, everything would become uniform. Pros and ams alike could judge how difficult a course was by seeing how people they knew threw on it. You'd know instantly if the course was hard, and if the player was good.

You could look back at your SSA for different events to see how much external factors (like wind, cold, heat) influence the scores. But it shouldn't matter at all what established 'par' is on a hole. If you have a tournament full of players 900-1000 rated you can get a good score distribution and course rating. In an event, you play the course, but compete against the player. If you are tied with Barry Schultz on the last hole, it doesn't matter if it's labelled a par 4 when he dueces it, overall score is completely irrelevant of labeled par, only course difficulty and player skill level.

I think the debate over par, standards, etc, just brings down the game. If people throw 70 on an 18 hole course, I know it's tough. If people throw 40 on an 18 hole course, I know it's gravy. Plain and simple, no complex math involved.

I love stats and standards and all the good stuff matehmatical models can bring, but I don't think it's worth it, or that it even matters as far as "par" goes. But I do submit that it is useful when first playing a course to know what "par" may be in an effort to see what amount of difficulty I should expect, but if I saw a 18 hole course labelled par 100, I'd still play, labeled par is not a factor in determining whether or not to play (as is in ball golf for me - I won't hack my way through a true par 72 course). And when I tell people I threw 100, they'd know the course was tough.

Using similar logic, we shouldn't waste time measuring hole lengths because we all have to play them. Keep the hole lengths a mystery for more of a challenge. Just throw until you get to the basket and putt out when you get there.

lowe, its too early for enough numbers, but as of now ke'Ohana is:

SSA 78.7, length 11,200... for a DF of 43.5.

Using similar logic, we shouldn't waste time measuring hole lengths because we all have to play them. Keep the hole lengths a mystery for more of a challenge. Just throw until you get to the basket and putt out when you get there.



Nope, not similar at all.

Players look at hole leangth to determine which disc to use, how hard to throw, etc etc. Players DO NOT look at what par the hole is to determine what disc to throw or how to throw it! Par is only relative - still.

sigh...

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:
1. In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
2. For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
3. So that players can judge their progress by comparison to a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1. One of the first questions that most new players ask is �What is par on this hole?� We should be able to give them a consistent and universally accepted answer.
4. It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as �6 down� rather than �48�.
5. The reality of disc golf being a golf type game is that the terms �par�, �under par�, �bogey� and �birdie� naturally accompany the sport. It would be strange to have a sport with the word �golf� in it that doesn�t use these terms. If we�re going to use the term �par� then it should have a standard method of determining it.
6. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7. Par is an important factor for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�. A very useful Difficulty Factor is Level Scoring average minus Level CR Par. This will only be useful if there are consistent, universal standards for par, though.
8. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
9. If the term �par� is defined in a multitude of ways by many different people then the term loses its meaning, so it becomes worthless along with the related terms such as �birdie, bogie��.
10. To be able to determine handicaps.

Fly 18 courses in general are going to be "easy" relative to their length because they are more open than the wooded courses typical of many on Lowe's chart.



I totally agree with Chuck!



Agreed as well, especially if you are a big-armed thrower. Cannon-armed throwers who can reach the longer holes in two throws are going to find them a lot easier than noodle-armed guys.



Sigh.....

Being able to throw farther does not necessarily make longer holes easier for players with that particular ability.

Remember this is a game of accuracy and strategy.

For example, take a hole that is 600' long, and has an hour glass shaped fairway with two lakes that make the narrow path at 400-450ft. On each side of the wide parts of the fairway you have thick woods with massive amounts of low brush. Behind the basket is more wooded rough.

Now lets look at your two players competing on this hole, player 1 is a max distance thrower of 500', with average golf distance drives of 425-440ft being a 950 rated player with 3 years of experience his accuracy % drastically drops when he throws over 350ft. Player 2 is a max distance thrower of 415' with an average golf distance drive of 350-375', he is a 950 rated player who has been playing for over 10 years. He is accurate at basically any distance up to his average driving range.

Each player steps up to the teebox, player 1 knows that while he is capable of clearing the water hazard, he has to lay up. He throws his driver at 75% power but being an inexperienced player the spin generated was not enough to keep it perfectly straight and he skips off to the left edge of the open fairway about 385' from the tee pad. Player 2 steps up and throws his normal drive knowing that he cannot reach the hazard. Being able to use his normal driving form/power/disc he lands ideally in the middle of the fairway about 360' from the tee box.

Player two steps up to throw next, he has a straight shot only 240ft away from the basket. He steps down a disc level and picks out a straight midrange disc and throws towards the basket landing inside 20'. Player 1 is up next faced with only a 215ft second shot, however his orientation to the basket leaves him having to hug the outside of the fairway with a hyzer shot, getting him nervously close to the trees. He compensates with an overstable disc and the disc lands ideally right at the basket, but due to the speed of his throw and the angle the disc struck the ground, his disc skips 40ft beyond the basket and up against a bush.

Being 950 rated players, statistically player 1 will miss his 40ft hindered straddle putt. But player 2 will easily make his 20' putt.

Short arm Player 2 = 3
Long arm Player 1 = 4

Sure, it is easy to say that big arms think long mostly open holes are easier. But that is assuming that there are no obstacles present. Throw in some obstacles and distance becomes more of a hindrance as the player must adjust his game more then a shorter arm, the short arm can go about playing their normal game.

Far fetched? Same as the blanket statement of that big arms have it easier on longer courses.

More throws to reach the hole does not perfectly equate it being harder for one player or the other.

I have played on more courses that "punish" big arms then ones that "punish" short arms. I have played around 30 courses, and there has only been 1 hole where you HAD to throw over 300ft to land in bounds off the tee box. It was from the pro pad on a hole on John Houcks CR2 Ranch in San Saba, TX, Strawbale Fields was the course, I think it was hole #9, I think.

6. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.



All of those statements above apply directly and easily to every hole just being par 3. Think in terms of 3, and you can still address all the comments you made. And in my mind "3's" do so much easier, because of any inconsistency in determining any other posted par. There's no inconsistency with all 3's.

BUT, the comment about tournaments with pools played on different courses blows up the "3's". It would not be fair to have all players throw a 6 on a 1400' hole at one course, which would hurt their overall standings in terms of under 3-par (despite it being completely fair relative to all the players in that pool on that course). Yes, this specific instance needs to take direct account of course difficulty (I hope they do a good job at Am Worlds to account for the HUGE spread in difficluty between Dineen and Brown Deer in Milwaukee).

Sure, it is easy to say that big arms think long mostly open holes are easier. But that is assuming that there are no obstacles present.



You've obviously never played a Fly18 course. There are basically no obstacles present. You're throwing down ball golf fairways, with most holes being 600-1100 feet long. Guys that can reach 850+ foot holes in two throws are gonna find them a helluva lot easier than guys who can only throw 300 feet.

Sure, it is easy to say that big arms think long mostly open holes are easier. But that is assuming that there are no obstacles present.



You've obviously never played a Fly18 course. There are basically no obstacles present. You're throwing down ball golf fairways, with most holes being 600-1100 feet long. Guys that can reach 850+ foot holes in two throws are gonna find them a helluva lot easier than guys who can only throw 300 feet.



Actually, even being a considered a "big arm" (I used my qualities in describing player 1) I stay away from Fly 18, they do not appeal to me because of the free wheeling huck it style that will dominate. Now, add some insane OB to a Fly 18 and I am in business.

The most open/long non-OB course I have liked is Blue Valley in KC. Mainly because of all the huge elevation changes on every hole.

jeff, while thats true for fly18, there just arent that many of those type course around. most disc golf is as lowe described.

longer courses with higher pars should prove to be more of a seperator (this is a theory, not a fact). for example, take 600' par 4 with a landing zone from 300-340. put the basket at 350' and all you have is a 70% chance of getting a 2 and a 30% chance of a 3. but at 600', you have to execute two shot back to back... 70% first shot and lets say a tricky approach that gets hits 60% of the time from the landing zone. the net result is a 42% chance of a birdie 3. some player will be off a bit on both shots and take a 5 or 6, others will shoot ok on both and have an easy 4. stringing multiple shots together is a whole lot different than stringing multiple holes together.

Players look at hole length to determine which disc to use, how hard to throw, etc etc. Players DO NOT look at what par the hole is to determine what disc to throw or how to throw it! Par is only relative - still.




Thank you for helping demonstrate the reason par is important. Just like length, par is a metric that provides information that can be helpful on a hole. However, it's only useful if it's accurate. I'm sure many players can tell stories where a hole length was mismarked, and the first time they played it, they grossly overthrew/underthrew it. Posting correct hole lengths is one of the main tasks we've been trying to get right at the World Championships each year.

Par is currently a weaker metric to use than length because it's hard to trust them unless you know they've been set following some accepted guideline that you understand. Lowe posted his litany of reasons for par. But I'd like to focus on just one: determining whether your score is a birdie, par, bogey or other.

In a way, having the proper par for a skill level on a hole is somewhat like the PDGA points system. Logically, neither are of great value. However, players like them because both provide an intrinsic reward structure. Using all par 3s on courses with true par 4 and par 5 holes would be very discouragung for players who think they took a double bogey 5 when in reality they shot a par on a hole if it was properly set as a par 5.

In the same way, if the PDGA points system only rewarded one point to each player who played an event, it would be nowhere near as rewarding as earning points for the number of people you beat, the division you entered and the tier. We may all know that anyone who wants to get into Worlds so far has been able to get in regardless of how many points they've earned the previous year. But take the current point system away and the enjoyment of participation would drop just like it would if you take away my birdie 4 on a par 5.

jeff, while thats true for fly18, there just arent that many of those type course around. most disc golf is as lowe described.




Yes, but we were talking specifically about Fly18 courses. Chuck stated the following:


Fly 18 courses in general are going to be "easy" relative to their length because they are more open than the wooded courses typical of many on Lowe's chart.



And my comments that followed were based on that statement.

More throws to reach the hole does not perfectly equate it being harder for one player or the other.



The Fountain Hills course from 5 years ago had several holes where the route was shorter if you had the arm and were willing to risk the shot over water. In developing the rating system, we had suspected that some courses like Fountain might have a break in the smooth scoring transition from better to worse players because the higher rated players could take shorter routes.

However, when we analyzed the information, there was no indication that at as the skill level decreased, there was a step change drop in scoring. The ratings curve was as smooth as any other course. Our analysis seemed to indicate that the higher level players took more chances and ended up with proportionately more OBs. This offset any distance advantage they may have had.

So unless you have a really contrived set of holes where players are forced to clear a 300 ft pond on every hole with no left or right bailout due to a woods line on both sides, you'll continue to see a smooth transition from higher to lower skill level in the ratings, even on the trickiest risk/reward setups.

dang, and i was just trying to jump in without reading the whole thread :D :D

Yes, this specific instance needs to take direct account of course difficulty (I hope they do a good job at Am Worlds to account for the HUGE spread in difficluty between Dineen and Brown Deer in Milwaukee).



It may be tough to differentiate using Gold par standards since we wouldn't want to specify par 2s. However, we use the Blue level guidelines for Am Worlds courses so those will likely show a several shot par differential between the two courses.

sigh...

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:
1. In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)

<font color="red"> I've heard at am am worlds once a girl saw she was starting on a 1000 foot hole and knew she could do no better than a 7, probably an 8. She checked and it was listed as par 3. Therefore, she intentionally showed up late, took her 7 and moved on. It turned out to be the best score on the hole in her group and she had the box the next hole. </font>
2. For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15

<font color="red"> Exactly, I get really upset sometimes listening to the commentary on disc golf DVD's and they something like "man, kenny ripped that drive. Look how far down the fairway he is. Now, climo fro birdie from 350 out." It just sounds stupid. </font>

4. It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as �6 down� rather than �48�.

<font color="red"> I agree about this too. I usually keep score in my head off of 54 unless I am playing a course with par in the mid 60s or higher.</font>
6. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
<font color="red"> DING DING DING DING </font>




See some comments above

What do you call bunkers, greens and water.Fly 18 is not about shim sham, it is straight forward ,without gimics.Look at the scores, from past events ,on any of my courses ,they are good golf scores.You do not see double didgets, duce or die putt putt....Jeff you should play the shorter tees, and stop sniveling at the long.... :)

Fly 18 is not about shim sham, it is straight forward ,without gimics.



IMHO playing the greens as OB when DG plays on traditional golf courses is pretty gimmicky. In essence you're saying, "Lets pretend that this big area of manicured green grass is really a pool of water." I don't find the exercise in imagination that satisfying. But traditional golf courses are so open that playing the greens as OB is one of the few things that adds interest to your shot making.

What do you call bunkers, greens and water.Fly 18 is not about shim sham, it is straight forward ,without gimics.Look at the scores, from past events ,on any of my courses ,they are good golf scores.You do not see double didgets, duce or die putt putt....Jeff you should play the shorter tees, and stop sniveling at the long.... :)



Bunkers, water and OB greens are indeed hazards but they didn't come into play very often on the Fly18 layout at Riverside. I think I found one green and one bunker over the course of two rounds there, and I really wasn't making a concerted effort at trying to avoid them. Although conversely, as nice as Emerald Isle was and as much as I enjoyed the course, I thought the OB greens came into play TOO much and were a little gimmicky.

The consensus is nearly unanimous that the shorter tees are better at your courses because they normally play from tees in the trees that shoot out into the fairway. Whereas the long tees are usually just wide open looks straight down the fairway from another 200-300 feet back. By adding tree hazards, you bring an additional element of skill to the game - deciding on a conservative shot that avoids the trees or going for distance and chancing the impact, that makes playing disc golf much more interesting.

It seems obvious to me that the hardest courses are those played on rocky surfaces - for example those in the Flagstaff area of Arizona. A couse of medium hardness might be played on a well worn course of hard pan dirt and roots though this type of course might be a bit less hard after a heavy rain. The least hard courses would be those open courses consisting of fairways of thick green grass like those played on ball golf courses - those types of courses rarely if ever damage the edge of one's disc

I think my hardness scale, perhaps with a bit of modification might be the most likely to be acceptable to all concerned

I agree,I just got through playing my best round @ Circle C aka slaughter creek metropolitan park;+6 from the longs- the record is -3 which was shot by the course designer.Circle C is a tough course with rocky terrains and elevation,as well as about a million cedar trees and live oaks.

Flyboy. You need to put a space after a period. Like that. It looks weird like this.Maybe even two spaces. Like that.


EI , dunedin, indian springs and lutz are all courses that require acuracy and lots of ob.Chuck, it is time you played a real round of golf.You should make comments, on something you have experienced.Not hearsay.

, and I really wasn't making a concerted effort at trying to avoid them. .



Jeff, one person can't make a concerted effort. "Concerted effort" means 2 or more people working together. In concert. Get it? One person can't make a concerted effort.

(One of my pet peeves, along with people using "literally" incorrectly)

, and I really wasn't making a concerted effort at trying to avoid them. .



Jeff, one person can't make a concerted effort. "Concerted effort" means 2 or more people working together. In concert. Get it? One person can't make a concerted effort.

(One of my pet peeves, along with people using "literally" incorrectly)



What about all the voices in my head? I'm not one person. You should know as well as anyone about that! :D