thank you jeff. the link provided does indeed show all of that, but the link provided is just about the most annoying interface imaginable for surfing a course online :) (too bad, cuz the content is awesome)

hole 6 should stay a par 3. it is a beautiful par 3. even though the average is over 4, the MOST COMMON score is 3. (not saying that the most common score should be the par... just making an observation).

Steve asked for my comments based on the scoring stats. The average rating of the top 50 players was 987. Here's what I told him based on the Hole Forecaster:

For Airplanes, I evaluated it based on Gold level guidelines. Hole 11 has a poor distribution with 78% 4s. Looks like it might be easier to make this hole easier and produce more birdie 3s. Hole 13 comes in with an adjusted average of 2.38 making it a little too easy for gold level. Not sure what your pars are but the stats indicate these holes would be par 4s: 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17 & 18. Hole 12 would be a par 5. Holes 3 is a tweener hole that maybe could be tweaked easier or harder to make it a more solid par 4 or just a tough par 3 depending on what you wanted there. The SSA comes out to 62.8 so a total par of 63 or 64 fits nicely with the hole stats.

It's quit odd. I am currently watching golf channel and they are showing the Top 10 holes in golf. Everyone of these holes is demanding, and very punishing. One of the comentatorys made the comment its either a par or bogey or worse. Almost every one of these holes is about accuracy and scare factor, many had tight fairways and water... lots of lots and waters.

Chuck made the comment that if 2/3's of the top 50 players were OB it was a bad hole... while these top golf holes show OB, OB, OB.

Scoring averages for players who the hole is designed for though do not go OB even 1/5 of the time. It's just poor design if say half of players go OB on any hole whether disc or ball golf. Penalties should be for bad shots, not just pot luck such that statistically half the time players of your skill will take a penalty. Even taking a penalty on average one out of three is brutal. The implication that if you just shoot well you won't take a penalty just doesn't "hold water" because we're saying the hole is set so players of your skill level WILL take a penalty one out of whatever number of times playing it.

Jeff and Chuck,

What are the Course levels of the courses used at the MSDGC?
Are Pyramids Gold and Maple Hill Airplanes Gold level? If not, are they Blue level?
What level are Pyramids Silver and MH Elements?

Chuck,
How is the Course Level set? Using the PDGA Course Desgin Guidleines (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) length seems to be to only criterion and even that has some ambiguity. e.g.- a Blue level course is over 4800 ft. and a White course is under 6000 ft.

I assumed the Airplanes course was intended to be a gold level course but I'm not sure the specific guidelines for any level were used, as is the case for most courses in the U.S. at this point.

I use the par guidelines that include foliage when setting out to design a course for a specific level. I know that for a good blue level par 4 with average foliage, I need to get out in the 500 ft range and for a par 3 with good scoring spread, I shouldn't get much longer than 310 and not much under 260 unless it's a tighter corridor situation. Of course, if I'm looking for the controversial tough 3, then I might be looking at a 415 ft hole with a fairway bend in the 265-295 neighborhood.

Jeff,

You stated
"As Chuck indicated, if too many top players go OB it's fairly obvious that there's a course design issue."
Maybe not!
Chuck (and others) are touting the "differences between dg and bg". Maybe this is one of those difference! Maybe dg should have OB ratioes greater than bg. Maybe dg is "supposed to be" luckier than bg. Since bg fairways are HUGH (and a shot that goes OB...at least a tee shot... normally was sucky from the start), OB is less prevalent. But in dg the difference in a parked shot and a tree-deflected shot that goes OB can be probably 1" at the 100' downrange point (...whatever that angle - measured in fractions of degrees - is). So I'm saying, generally, that luck is a greater part of dg than bg.

Regarding par, my thoughts on par Jeff are that if it is possible to ace a hole it's a par 3. If it's possible after a REALLY good shot to then "fairway deuce" a hole, then it's a par 4. Pyramids Gold 13, I believe, is a really hard par 4. People can 3 it (yes, wicked hard...but doable). People COULD (conceivably) deuce it (although I don't think anyone has). Most really good players - IF they execute their shots well - get to the dogleg in 1, get somewhere past the short pin in 2, layup somewhere near the pin and make the putt. What's wrong with a par? Had their approach been closer they might have gotten the birdie. Or think of it this way...if the tee was right were a perfectly placed tee shot was (about 250' down the alley) would not this "new hole" be a par 3? A hard one (because you'd have to go over the short pin to the guarded long pin) but I can't see it being a par 4 from there (the dogleg point). A par 4 is nothing more than a par 3 after a well executed shot!

Nicklaus once said that the par 3 was "the great equalizer". By this he meant that ANYONE could execute 1 really good shot and get a birdie. To do this on a par 4 you have to execute TWO really good shots (...lightning usually doesn't strike the same place twice...). And the PGA stats even show this is true. Par 3's avg ~ 3.0. Par 4's avg ~4.1. Unfortunately, the par 5's have become long par 4's (due to equipment advances, etc.)...but par 4's STILL force you to hit TWO good shots to go for birdie.

In summary: Par should be tough to obtain (even if you're the World Champion, -69 means par was mislabeled). Bogie is not the end of the world. Eagles in bg that are not on par 5's are VERY rare. Eagles in dg that are not on par 5's are much more common - not good...coddle, coddle, coddle.

Karl

nicely worded Karl.

that two really good shots need to be executed in sequence on a par 4 (and 3 in a row for a par5) could be causing some of the grief for the SA disciples. bg has higher "recoverability" from bad shots, hence the only slightly higher SA over par (4.1) for par4s in bg. dg SAs go a lot higher than par because execution errors are typically more costly than in bg.

SA's measurably higher than par are actually predicted in dg if the hole has any teeth at all. calculate the probability of each shot being executed as intended... it gets grim quickly for us. as an example, if the tee shot is a 70% shot to the landing zone, and the second shot is another 70% to the guaranteed-up-and-down zone (aka CR zone), the dg player starts the hole with less than a 50% chance of a par! and thats before any recovery or penalty strokes.

this alone is proof that SA is not a complete solution for setting par. assuming a properly set par, though, ..............Toughness = SA - par................. could end up being very useful.

While conceptually the up-and-down zone goes out to 130 ft, the reality is that it doesn't match with what players would feel is fair. I don't think players internally feel it's right to call a shot from 95 feet a "putt" even at our highest level. The CR concept is just a construct to disguise the fact we have easier putting.

Your concept would lead to pars much lower on average than we currently use. It might make the final scores look better interms of being less under par but the players would fell uneasy about how the pars were set on several holes which was the concern MTL expressed in the original post that started this. SA already produces a few holes where a par 3 might fell more like par 4. Your proposal compounds that issue, especially on wooded courses.

its not my proposal, its the nature of the game.

your concerns may be more true for p54s than for longer pars. scope is a neglected aspect of dg design. as pars go higher, course scope must increase to avoid becoming too "lucky" - especially on wooded courses. if you cram p67 into 6500 feet and 15 foot fairways like you would a traditional p54, you are gonna get a higher SA. how are you gonna figure par though? say "ok, the tee shot is 1... the upshot is 2... oh wait one of those shots will prolly go into the nasty, so the recovery from the schule is 3... the upshot is 4... and the hole out is 5... ok, its a par5"? your definition of par seems more like "par = the score you get when you only screw up once" :)

btw, i dont buy into the strict 130 foot thing. i agree its around that area, but foliage and features make it something other than strictly round. kinda like ball golf in that respect.

chuck, i'm not calling a 130 foot shot a putt. it might be, but certainly not always, and besides it doesnt matter what anyone calls it. its simply a shot made from 130. in my view of CR, the 130 mark is simply the place where you are expected to get up-and-down. nothing to do with putting. the word "putt" should be left out of it, because its making people think the 130 mark and putting are somehow related. they are not.

Jeff,

You stated
"As Chuck indicated, if too many top players go OB it's fairly obvious that there's a course design issue."
Maybe not!
Chuck (and others) are touting the "differences between dg and bg". Maybe this is one of those difference! Maybe dg should have OB ratioes greater than bg. Maybe dg is "supposed to be" luckier than bg. Since bg fairways are HUGH (and a shot that goes OB...at least a tee shot... normally was sucky from the start), OB is less prevalent. But in dg the difference in a parked shot and a tree-deflected shot that goes OB can be probably 1" at the 100' downrange point (...whatever that angle - measured in fractions of degrees - is). So I'm saying, generally, that luck is a greater part of dg than bg.



No one is saying that luck isn't a greater part of dg than bg. The crux of the argument however is whether that luck or unluck should result in OB penalties. Intuitively, when the top 50 and the best disc golfers at the tournament (rated 990) go OB a high percentage of the time on a hole, there's a course design issue. Any course designer in the world worth a salt would agree with that, and most touring and professional disc golfers do too.

Regarding par, I agree that it should be tough to obtain. It is for 99.9% of us! I don't have as many problems as you and others seem to with the fact that at Pro Worlds, the Open final 4 shot between -56 and -69 after 7 rounds and a final 9, or an average of about -8 to -10 per round. These are the best disc golfers on the planet! The Masters Final 4 shot between -37 and -54, or an average of about -5 to -7 per round. The Grandmasters Final 4 shot between -29 and -47, or an average of -4 to -6 per round, and the Open Women Final 4 shot -10 to -23 down, or an average of -1 to -3 per round.

How are these values inappropriate? These are the best disc golfers in their age brackets in the world!

Steady Ed pars and rec pars on the tee signs are coddling. We don't need 250 ft. par 4s on the tee signs just to comfort and encourage novices to take up the sport. Pro pars, determined in most part by the scoring averages of 1000-rated golfers, are not coddling.

OB penalties. Intuitively, when the top 50 and the best disc golfers at the tournament (rated 990) go OB a high percentage of the time on a hole, there's a course design issue. Any course designer in the world worth a salt would agree with that, and most touring and professional disc golfers do too.



If this is true, it is no wonder why almost every tourney has the "too far below par" issue. It's simply institutionalized wussiness, on both the designers and the players. I guess it's inbred into our game and is simply the flipside of our "everyone must have a chance to be a winner" mentality.

MCOP gave examples of tough ball golf holes, that were known as bogey holes by a far more elite group than 990+ disc golfers, and not surprisingly, ball golf doesn't have this issue of 99 below par tourneys.

Alright, back to the discussion of pencil whipping the idea of par in lieu of challenging design.

Jeff,

"No one is saying that luck isn't a greater part of dg than bg."
[OK, we can agree on that, that's cool.]

"The crux of the argument however is whether that luck or unluck should result in OB penalties."
[I personally would LOVE to see a course that was inherently so tough that no OB at all would ever be needed, but most people LOVE the "ropes and lines" (because I guess they feel it "separates the men from the boys")...but I also understand that this takes a VERY special piece of property that we don't have many of. Having said that, I guess we're "stuck" with having OB.]

Intuitively, when the top 50 and the best disc golfers at the tournament (rated 990) go OB a high percentage of the time on a hole, there's a course design issue.
[This is a VERY misleading statement. #1: What "top 50"? Certainly the top 50 players at MSDGC weren't all rated 990 or higher? So why state this "top 50"? Furthermore, one could infer that that your "high percentage of the time" could mean more than 50%. I certainly hope you're not saying that (but someone could think you are...). I hope you're not making the "mistake" stated below...you're smarter than that, I know it.

Debating Tactics Most Persons Use...

Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.
Make an inappropriate analogy
Change the topic to something easier to defend
Claim victory

Example:
You: Vegetables are good for you.
Opponent: That's ridiculous. If you ate a truckload of vegetables all at once you'd die.
You: No one eats a truckload all at once.
Opponent: Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to swim across the ocean, and you didn't know how to swim, and you had no arms or legs, you'd never make it. Surely you can agree with that.
You: Um...that's different.
Opponent: Ha! So now you agree with me that swimming is good exercise.

The worst part is that not only will you be frustrated at your inability to make your point, you will be branded as a person who thinks swimming is bad exercise!

Jeff, not necessarily you...but boy, does this tactic permeate this MB.


"Any course designer in the world worth a salt would agree with that, and most touring and professional disc golfers do too."
[Yes...BUT you're stating / inferring an absurdity (where the majority of 990+ dg'ers would go OB on a hole). I haven't seen that hole yet (in my life)!]

"Regarding par, I agree that it should be tough to obtain."
[Good, another agreement.]

"It is for 99.9% of us!"
[False. We're both rated similarly Jeff, and I can break par in tournaments (tournament card par, not "bunny par" and not "everything's a par 3 par") about 1/4 the time. Recreational par breaking is WAY more common. And I'm not that good! I have no delusions of being good enough to "break par" IF IF IF par is REALLY set correctly. I might approach it on a good day but that's about it.]

"Pro Worlds, the Open final 4 shot...or an average of about -8 to -10 per round"
[Remember, this is the WORLD'S! It's not Doss going to the local muni and shooting lights out. It's like one of bg's Majors. Imagine, TW shooting 61 for 4 straight rounds and beating #2 by only 1 or 2 shots. Easiest major course set up ever! It would be laughed at.]

Karl

While conceptually the up-and-down zone goes out to 130 ft, the reality is that it doesn't match with what players would feel is fair. I don't think players internally feel it's right to call a shot from 95 feet a "putt" even at our highest level. The CR concept is just a construct to disguise the fact we have easier putting.

Your concept would lead to pars much lower on average than we currently use. It might make the final scores look better interms of being less under par but the players would fell uneasy about how the pars were set on several holes which was the concern MTL expressed in the original post that started this. SA already produces a few holes where a par 3 might fell more like par 4. Your proposal compounds that issue, especially on wooded courses.



The players should feel uneasy about shooting more then 4-8 below par anyways. This idea that the winner needs to shoot -50 to -70 under to win should make pro's sick of what we call par. Let's stop caring about hurting players feelings now, and start making par realistic as TOP notch playing. A Pro should be at -2 to -6 on a course. I don't care if I shoot +20 if I know a pro can only shoot -2 on a good day.

Also I Think the 130 feet is a long putt, I'd be really interested to see the top pro's go and play a short course with holes in the 150 to 90 feet range. How many aces would there be do you think? Maybe this how we could determine a true measure of putting distance. If 1 out 20 top pro's could ace the from a said distance then it's definetly putt range. Next worlds why doesn't someone put tis into practice and lets end the debate or at least make it more interesting. Heck to compare I know some BG greens where 70 feet putts are not out of the ordinary.

Karl, thanks for the lecture on debating etiquette, but FYI, I did obtain formal training in such as part of the literary society I was a member of in boarding school.

I'm sorry if you found the statement "a high percentage of the time" misleading, but I intentionally did not specify a number because it likely varies according to the course designer and/or tournament. It may be different for casual play versus a C tier versus a Major. I think Chuck used 1/5 of the time as a rule of thumb earlier in this thread. Perhaps this is a subject for debate in another thread, but I just don't think this should become a standard part of our game. An OB stroke is too penal and should only be used to protect sensitive areas such as marshes, wetlands, ponds, off-course property, buildings, etc. or to preserve the design of a hole and prevent "cheater" routes. Encountering OB should be the result of a very poor shot, not a slightly off-line and/or unlucky one. Improperly used OB is gimmicky, and nearly every course designer worth a salt and most touring players and professionals would likely agree. However, in most cases OB MUST be used in the scoring averages and determining pro par.


"Regarding par, I agree that it should be tough to obtain."
[Good, another agreement.]

"It is for 99.9% of us!"
[False. We're both rated similarly Jeff, and I can break par in tournaments (tournament card par, not "bunny par" and not "everything's a par 3 par") about 1/4 the time. Recreational par breaking is WAY more common. And I'm not that good! I have no delusions of being good enough to "break par" IF IF IF par is REALLY set correctly. I might approach it on a good day but that's about it.]



I'm still not entirely sure what par you are talking about, and also question what courses you play. How often do you approach World Class Par? Not very often, I'd be willing to venture. What courses do you normally play, is it pitch-n-putts like Rutgers, Dunham, and Buzzy's? Then no wonder you shoot par or under. If you play courses with par set appropriately, then it works as it should. If I shoot gold par at Moraine, Maple Hill, Warwick, Nockamixon, Little Lehigh Parkway, etc. then I'm quite satisfied. If I shoot a few strokes under I'm ecstatic.

However, in most cases OB MUST be used in the scoring averages and determining pro par.



If Par is what should be good to great shooting, then why do you think any shot that goes OB should be used for any form of setting par. OB if done right should punish errant play. I would also like to see a hole were you feel OB and luck are linked. Many times you hear that luck played an aspect in a hole, but I would almost argue that some times that luck factor was brought on by the player not seeing, throwing, or hitting the right gaps... or lines. Heck I have seen 4 players come up to a wooded hole and throw 4 completely different routes. if 2 of those routes are are good routes, then how can you say the other 2 players had bad luck... in reality they choose the wrong line or type of shot. Same with players who can not throw different types of shots when the route requires it.

so jeff, how do you set par before the course has been played 50 or 1000 or 1 times?

is there a defniition of par, other than the one used by the SA approach, that -explicitly- calls for SA to be part of setting par?

Matt,

I don't know what courses are like in Columbus, Ohio but there are plenty of courses and holes in Pennsylvania, the Mid-Atlantic States, and New England where you can have a shot that is only marginally "bad" but ends up OB. I don't think that should be the case.

so jeff, how do you set par before the course has been played 50 or 1000 or 1 times?

is there a defnition of par, other than the one used by the SA approach, that -explicitly- calls for SA to be part of setting par?



Pat, in my opinion, a thorough course designer develops a course and uses various tools such as the Hole Forecaster, driving distance data, PDGA Course Design Guidelines, casual round data, and yes, intuition, to assign an initial par to the hole. This would then be verified by tournament data and further casual round data, and adjustments made to tee or basket locations if needed to achieve the desired par, scoring average, and score separation.

Matt,

I don't know what courses are like in Columbus, Ohio but there are plenty of courses and holes in Pennsylvania, the Mid-Atlantic States, and New England where you can have a shot that is only marginally "bad" but ends up OB. I don't think that should be the case.



I guess the real question is what is marginally bad? We have long holes with OB to one side or the other... not to many with OB on both sides, usually one side has woods or shule or water. but if the fairway is 50' wide then I would argue that an OB shot would be more then marginally bad.
To clarify my previous statement.. if yuo have a smaller landing area but you throw an easily skippable driver that lands dead center but skips out, to me this not bad OB, just bad choice of disc. I think OB has it's place, but I also think that people tempt fate sometimes also.

I just watched something and it made me think.

Pro Worlds 06, womens final 9 hole 2.
2 women placed there drives OB, so is it a bad hole? No they were bad drives, Des put her shot long, or short if she was trying to get over the road, onto the road and the other person turned it over into the right OB. Bad choices cost them OB, not the hole. But heck this was 50% of the best 4 players, so it must be a bad hole right?

Jeff,

"I'm still not entirely sure what par you are talking about,"
[I don't buy into the concept of 'different pars'. A hole (from a certain tee to a certain pin) has ONE par and one par only. I don't believe in any "gold par" or "pro par" or "women's par", etc. Par is ALWAYS based on the best. If you or I or anyone else isn't good enough to get par then we have a challenge that lay before us, don't we?]

"and also question what courses you play. How often do you approach World Class Par? Not very often, I'd be willing to venture."
[Again, I don't recognize your so-called "World Class Par" as being different from any other "par". There's only 1 par for any tee/pin combination. As for how I shoot compared to par, I only can go by what is printed on scorecards...and the VAST majority of times this number (par) is WAY too coddling; thus even I am able to shoot under par. And if that's the case, there's something wrong. I understand that the "posted pars" are WAY too lenient, but, as I see this SA par concept, it too would be too lenient (although not quite so much as a lot of posted pars). So I can't advocate that par (SA) either.]

"What courses do you normally play, is it pitch-n-putts like Rutgers, Dunham, and Buzzy's? Then no wonder you shoot par or under."
[I play tournaments on easy ones and tough ones...and par is RARELY if ever set correctly.]

"If you play courses with par set appropriately, then it works as it should."
[My point exactly! Par is NOT set appropriately. But, from what I read (in this MB) SA par will NOT set the par appropriately either! It will STILL be too lenient.]

Karl

"It will STILL be too lenient"

bingo! and it tends to get more lenient as par goes higher, or the course is toughened up.

I guess we will always differ there then. I don't think that par based on the scoring averages of 1000-rated golfers, the best disc golfers on our planet, is too lenient.

But theres not a course set to that par, not even Highbridge was set to that standard.

But theres not a course set to that par, not even Highbridge was set to that standard.



There are indeed true gold level courses set to that par, such as the USDGC layout at Winthrop University, Highbridge Gold at Highbridge, WI and Moraine State Park outside of Pittsburgh. The other courses at Highbridge used for Pro Worlds had a mixture of gold and blue level holes which are necessary for the proper scoring spread and enjoyment of all competitors in the tournament which included older & women's division golfers with ratings less than 900.

And again, I venture that even with a mixture of gold and blue level holes, the "to par" produced by the best golfers in the world over 7 rounds of play plus a final 9 at Pro Worlds are not unexpected nor inappropriate. Unless you try to compare them to ball golf and the "to par" produced in those majors, which is not a fair comparison.

But there has to be comparison. for 1 thats what other people compare to when we say that so and so shot XX under par at worlds.
and for 2 why should our sport be so different?

What other sport can you say is so far off as ours to par being expert play?

So how is a hole that a large percentage of Disc Golfers go OB unfair when we lump together both OB in the Ball Golf OB sense and Hazards in the BG sense?

One of the most recognizable holes and most loved by at least casual ball golf fans is the 17th on the Stadium Course at the TPC at Sawgrass. It is a 132 yard hole that in the Player's Championship had 50 balls go in the water in one round this year...

And these are guys who are playing for a $9MILLION purse...

And the tournament players reportedly despise that hole, especially since it comes as the 17th hole of play and doesn't allow a player to make up lost ground. They would much rather prefer that hole come as early as possible in the round.

I wonder if the course designer or TDs have regrets for creating and implementing one of the most memorable holes in golf. :confused:

I have a bigger problem with the fact that we are trying to make players happy. This is why we are arguing about par, OB and what not. If all the courses were made with more OB's and pars that were hard to get then would we be having this same talk? Doubtfull.

Really, all this has nothing to do with the original premise of the thread which was that par on a few holes at Worlds being LESS than the 1000-rated scoring average, making for the dreaded tough par 3. All the guys claiming that par based on 1000-rated scoring average is too lenient should have been applauding Chuck for that.

Additionally, the concept of CR Par was discussed, which other than artificially making par more difficult (again which should make the "par is too lenient" guys happy) makes for a scenario where the par is quite unrealistic on holes with significant foliage and/or OB. Par in disc golf simply can't be based on hypothetical open field distances. Anyone who goes and plays a hole like Pyramids Gold#13 which is 488 ft. and about as tightly wooded as they come, would scoff at a CR Par methodology which would assess a very inappropriate value of 3 as par for this hole, when expert disc golfers (as clearly shown in the statistics from a tournament two weeks ago) average nearly 5.0!

Hole 13
4.94 Average
0 Aces
0 Deuces
2 Threes
17 Fours
17 Fives
15 6+


From the site.
So if you want to argue that it should go with the scoring average, then why?
What happened to those who shot 6+. Obviously that less then 1/3 of the scores were not on the lines prefered by the other 2/3. Here is a great example of why I will disagree with scoring average. With this data I would still argue it should be a par 4. I am guessing the 1/3 that got 6+ were either OB(if there is any) or deep in the shule (if there is any)

Jeff (or anyone who can help),

The MSDGC Pyramids course doesn't seem to have the elevation changes listed in the course info, as the MH Airplanes does. Can you (or anyone out there) please supply the elevation changes for the Pyramids Gold holes 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13?

Lowe

Jeff,

-MH Airplanes hole 10 has a Score Avg of 3.35. Why doesn't SA Par have this as a par 3?
-Pyramids Gold hole 4 has an SA of 3.33, so why isn't the SA Par as a par 3?

And the tournament players reportedly despise that hole, especially since it comes as the 17th hole of play and doesn't allow a player to make up lost ground. They would much rather prefer that hole come as early as possible in the round.




What is funny is that they hate that they can't "make a good shot" to make up lost ground, but they don't think about someone ahead of them choking and bogeying the hole with one in the drink to come back toward them. Shooting a par is a "good shot" that might actually make up some ground..

The 17th can mean that someone in the clubhouse at -5 still has a chance when a guy at -6 through 16 holes steps up to the tee...

The MSDGC Pyramids course doesn't seem to have the elevation changes listed in the course info, as the MH Airplanes does. Can you (or anyone out there) please supply the elevation changes for the Pyramids Gold holes 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13?



I'll give it my best shot. <ul type="square"> Hole#4: essentially flat, perhaps a slight gain Hole#7: elevation gain of ~25 feet. Hole#8: elevation loss of ~20 feet. Hole#9: elevation gain of ~ 25 feet Hole#12: elevation gain of ~20 feet Hole#13: elevation loss of ~20 feet [/list]


-MH Airplanes hole 10 has a Score Avg of 3.35. Why doesn't SA Par have this as a par 3?



Probably because it plays more appropriately like an easy pro par four. From the tee, the hole shoots through a corridor in the woods before making a hard dogleg turn right. From there, the hole climbs very sharply uphill. Despite listed as only 370 feet long, the total elevation gain on this hole is 42 feet, which would give it an effective length of nearly 500 feet. This is a hole no player, even an elite one, would expect to deuce. With a scoring average of 3.35 though, it appears that most expert golfers are adept at throwing a drive that safely finds the landing zone and then making the very uphill approach to the pin. This a prime example of a hole that scoring averages show should be adjusted to make for a true pro par 4. I believe they have room to move the teepad back and there is certainly acres of space amongst the Christmas trees at the top of the hill to move the polehole back.


-Pyramids Gold hole 4 has an SA of 3.33, so why isn't the SA Par as a par 3?

Good question, and I have absolutely no idea. It absolutely should be according to our defintion of SA Par. You are 100% right on this one.

Really, all this has nothing to do with the original premise of the thread which was that par on a few holes at Worlds being LESS than the 1000-rated scoring average, making for the dreaded tough par 3. All the guys claiming that par based on 1000-rated scoring average is too lenient should have been applauding Chuck for that.



This is the heart of the discussion. The pars for those holes are wrong. No one (I mean very few people) considers a two shot hole a par 3. Most people intuitively know this. Chuck knows that the SSA is like 3,3, so he calls it a par three. I presume he does this as a solution to the "problem" of people shooting 70 under. So, some people say "well, if you don't want people to shoot 70 under, make the holes tougher, but don't butcher the concept of par to do the job that more challenging design should do. It's absurd."

Then, y'all say "but challenging design is too tough, too lucky, too anathema to designers aesthetic, too tough on the player's egos, etc. Others reply "change your mindset, not par."

So, the issue of what is acceptable difficulty is apropos. It is at the heart of the original problem of people shooting 70 under.

btw, determining par is very easy for almost all players to do. It really doesn't require four threads of thirty pages.

and yet you read :)

:D

Not all of it, just bits and pieces, then I lash out. ;)

btw, determining par is very easy for almost all players to do. It really doesn't require four threads of thirty pages.



Then please explain it clearly to everyone. I've obviously been quite unable to do that. :D

The root of this problem goes back to putting in disc golf being much easier than ball golf. Much of the design fiddling and par calculation methods being proposed are to compensate for easy putting. If putting averaged closer to 2 shots per hole, we wouldn't have 2-shot par 3s. Holes in this length range like Granite 9 would be considered just fine because the par would be set at 4 and actually have a scoring average very close to 4. However, by players having a hangup with 2-shot par 3s, we end up either not having interesting variety with a few holes like this or ending up with inflated pars with these type of holes being called par 4s with 3.3 averages.

We also would not have a par 2 issue if putting was tougher and could have legitimately challenging shorter holes for all skills. And Karl could have his wish with tougher pars. With his current proposal, I submit that close to half the holes in the country would be par 2s under his proposal to prevent players from shooting much under par.

Hole 13
4.94 Average
0 Aces
0 Deuces
2 Threes
17 Fours
17 Fives
15 6+


From the site.
So if you want to argue that it should go with the scoring average, then why?
What happened to those who shot 6+. Obviously that less then 1/3 of the scores were not on the lines prefered by the other 2/3. Here is a great example of why I will disagree with scoring average. With this data I would still argue it should be a par 4. I am guessing the 1/3 that got 6+ were either OB(if there is any) or deep in the shule (if there is any)



I'd pick 4, too. 37% of the players got 4 or better. That seems to be proof that a player of this level could expect to score 4 with errorless play.

The average of near 5 indicates that a lot of times, players make an error (or two or three).

Wouldn't the players that got 5, 6, or 7 be able to tell you where they added an extra throw?

(2 players got lucky, that's not par.)

-MH Airplanes hole 10 has a Score Avg of 3.35. Why doesn't SA Par have this as a par 3?



Probably because it plays more appropriately like an easy pro par four. From the tee, the hole shoots through a corridor in the woods before making a hard dogleg turn right. From there, the hole climbs very sharply uphill. Despite listed as only 370 feet long, the total elevation gain on this hole is 42 feet, which would give it an effective length of nearly 500 feet. This is a hole no player, even an elite one, would expect to deuce. With a scoring average of 3.35 though, it appears that most expert golfers are adept at throwing a drive that safely finds the landing zone and then making the very uphill approach to the pin. This a prime example of a hole that scoring averages show should be adjusted to make for a true pro par 4. I believe they have room to move the teepad back and there is certainly acres of space amongst the Christmas trees at the top of the hill to move the polehole back.


-Pyramids Gold hole 4 has an SA of 3.33, so why isn't the SA Par as a par 3?

Good question, and I have absolutely no idea. It absolutely should be according to our defintion of SA Par. You are 100% right on this one.



So SA par cannot be applied universally just according to the SA numbers. Sometimes it needs to be tweaked at the discretion of the Course designer.

That's a must birdie hole. Look at the top cards. You are losing a stroke if you fail to birdie. But it's easy to bogey if your drive isn't in the right zone.

There should be no such thing as a must birdie hole (unless you are in second, 1 stroke behind the leader).

chuck, how do you define "putt" ?

So SA par cannot be applied universally just according to the SA numbers. Sometimes it needs to be tweaked at the discretion of the Course designer.



"SA par" cannot be applied universally because scoring data doesn't exist for new courses. One can only apply the SA concept for existing courses which have an adequate amount of tournament scoring data.

There should be no such thing as a must birdie hole



It's called a par 2. :D

It doesnt matter what people shoot or what the average at a tournament is...If you cant play a hole once and determine what par is,,,well, good luck...It should be pretty easy to do...

Chuck, I don't buy that the issue is totally with putting. We have evolved that way for sure, mainly due to our finances and existence in public parks, where it is difficult to find tough pin placements, and too expensive to build ones.

However, a large part of the problem is with our mindset. We seem unwilling as a sport to embrace more challenge in our shots. Why can't the basket be right next to a blocking bush, a steep dropoff, or OB. Within the right distance, this is well within the ability of top players to place their drive or upshot in the right place, or weigh that decision to play aggressive or not.

Additionally, there are all sorts of creative possibilities out there can be used to toughen up the greens, all which can be used to add strokes to the scoring average, and still be perfectly fair!!!! However, I can already hear the cries, from both players and designers, that these things are hokey, unnatural, whatever the excuse of the day is.

This sport needs a committment to raising the bar, and kudos to those designers and players who embrace this, as they are driving us forward. Maybe one day they can shame, or weed out all the wimps who feel that the sport must be easy, just because it has always been this way.

Putting occurs when the player takes their "putting stance" and is making the throw with the realistic intent to sink it as opposed to laying up. The distance varies by person and the lie. But for most higher level players, it's farther out than 10m but probably no more than 20m. And out to 20m, not every shot is thrown like a putt. I realize that some shots from 15 feet might be lay-ups because of the terrain and stance. But inside 10m, we still call those putts. It's the throws from 10m to 20m that may or may not be putts based on conditions.

So SA par cannot be applied universally just according to the SA numbers. Sometimes it needs to be tweaked at the discretion of the Course designer.



Absolutely! I don't think anyone every claimed it could be applied universally. But SA Par works a very very high percentage of the time. Typically the only place it fails are island holes surrounded by OB. In this case, it shows that Maple Hill hole#10 is too easy to be considered a legitimate pro par four and needs to be toughened with a longer tee pad or pin position. And as has been demonstrated, CR Par methodology fails in many more cases because there are quite a number of holes that are less than 520 feet that play as true pro par fours. (As well as pro par fives that CR Par would assign a par of 4)

Surprisingly James, toughening up the green will not change the putting stats enough to change the BG vs DG difference. If a player has a clear shot, a 20 footer will still be sunk at the same percentage. All tougher green areas do is make the shot to the green more difficult, not necessarily the putt itself. Even elevated pins only add a little to the net challenge and doesn't materially change the overall putting stats for the course unless every hole is that way.

There are 25,000 holes out there and it's unrealistic to expect those courses to upgrade to make more challenging green areas. The only way to materially affect the putting stats is to make the basket tougher to hole out. If players can sink 85% of 20 footers now, we need a basket where maybe only 45% of those are made. That's a significant change in stats and expectations. It would then make approaching accuracy even more important.

It doesnt matter what people shoot or what the average at a tournament is...If you cant play a hole once and determine what par is,,,well, good luck...It should be pretty easy to do...



I agree, but that explanation hasn't been good enough for a lot of people. Intuitively when I play a hole I usually know exactly what the right par is. And that's realizing my skills and limitations while understanding how far 1000+ rated players throw and what their capabilities are.

The issue is that some people want a simple formula like ball golf has where par is:

less than 280 yards = par 3
280 &lt; x &lt; 480 yards = par 4
greater than 480 yards = par 5

Because of foliage and OB considerations, there will never such a simple formula in disc golf. Par based on scoring average for 1000-rated players is the best thing we've got right now, and it works awfully well in almost all cases.

Putting occurs when the player takes their "putting stance" and is making the throw with the realistic intent to sink it as opposed to laying up. The distance varies by person and the lie. But for most higher level players, it's farther out than 10m but probably no more than 20m. And out to 20m, not every shot is thrown like a putt. I realize that some shots from 15 feet might be lay-ups because of the terrain and stance. But inside 10m, we still call those putts. It's the throws from 10m to 20m that may or may not be putts based on conditions.




I'm not sure what you just said, but it is possible to make holes tougher, even if the hole is well within one's distance range.

Sorry for the interruption.

Surprisingly James, toughening up the green will not change the putting stats enough to change the BG vs DG difference. If a player has a clear shot, a 20 footer will still be sunk at the same percentage.



IF A PLAYER HAS A CLEAR SHOT



All tougher green areas do is make the shot to the green more difficult



And thus make par more difficult to obtain, demand more skill from the players, and separate the wheat from the chaffe.



Sorry for the interruption. :p

"There are 25,000 holes out there and it's unrealistic to expect those courses to upgrade to make more challenging green areas. The only way to materially affect the putting stats is to make the basket tougher to hole out."

so it would be easier to change 25,000 baskets? obviously you are in the employ of the basket makers and not the landscaping industry :)

Jeff,

I'm not intentionally picking on you, but you're "defending" the pervasive use of a concept which only leads to par being set - in my opinion - too lenient for the good of the sport. Scoring Average is one thing, Par is something else. I'm not advocating CR par (I don't even know what it is or what it "stands for") so I'm not of that "camp". I just know that when a hole is totally wooded, super tight and no chance to "go over the top", a 150' drive followed by a 90-degree right for another 150' shot followed by a 90-degree left and go 300' more equals a par 5. Maybe a stupid par 5, but a par 5 nonetheless. I don't care what the scoring average is because IF IF IF you play REALLY well you go 150', 150', ~300' and make the putt for your birdie 4. Miss the putt, you get your par 5. Screw up earlier, you get bogie or worse. I don't care if the SA shows that the avg was 6+. If that was the case, it would be obvious to me that a LOT of 1000' player blew a shot!


Your...
"But SA Par works a very very high percentage of the time."
[Says who? SA advocates? That statement is a self-fulfilling profacy. SA Par of course will show that SA Par works! So what. More important is the understanding that this discussion is not about "which system wins" (although the advocates of each have a face-saving vested interest in their own system and thus are touting it) but about what par really is.]

"Because of foliage and OB considerations, there will never such a simple formula in disc golf."
[I disagree. A 440yd very tight par 4 in bg is a tough par 4. A 440yd totally open par 4 might be an easier par 4. Same distance...just 1 has the possibility of the player hitting trees, losing yardage of the tee shot and making par harder to get. But perfectly played, it's still a drive a second shot to the green and then a shot (but no guarantee) at birdie.]

"Par based on scoring average for 1000-rated players is the best thing we've got right now"
[Your opinion, not fact.]

Karl

I'm not advocating CR par (I don't even know what it is or what it "stands for") so I'm not of that "camp".



Karl, it's amazing we've made it this far in the conversation and this never came up. How did you understand a thing Lowe was presenting?

Lowe advocates a methodology of Close Range Par, or CR Par, which assumes that 1) the green is defined as 120 feet and in 2) Pro level driving distances average 400 feet on flat ground. Therefore, all holes of an effective distance of 520 feet or less are par 3s. This is qualified with the understanding that it would not apply to holes with doglegs, which obviously restrict maximum driving distances. Remember also that it's effective distance, which accounts for changes in elevation up or down.

Without even realizing it Karl, you're in the CR Par camp because like Lowe you believe that foliage considerations never matter. You think that just because perfect play through heavy foliage is possible, it is expected. When real life data in tournament situations from expert disc golfers (1000+ rated and up players) shows that they regularly do not execute these shots. If they can't, who can? This methodology makes birdies on many holes, on average, statistically unachievable.

I applaud Lowe for attempting an alternate take on par and coming up with his CR Par methodology. But I'm still convinced that SA Par based on scoring average for 1000-rated players is the best thing we've got right now. If you don't agree with that opinion, where's your methodology, Karl? Let's see your suggested formula.

I was thinking it meant Course Record Par. totally actually seriously.

Without even realizing it Karl, you're in the CR Par camp because like Lowe you believe that foliage considerations never matter.



Karl could also be in the Traditional Golf (TG) Par camp. The assumptions and methodology are very close to CR Par, but the big difference is that TG Par has no close range. All shots "in regulation" on max length holes can reach the basket.

On most Gold level holes of 390 ft or less CR Par and TG Par are identical because a reasonable drive can reach the basket.

Jeff,

Well, from what you've just stated (thanks) I guess IF there were only these 2 "camps" to choose from, I'd have to chose CR par...but I guess I don't totally agree with it either (...just more so than SA par).

Your...
"You think that just because perfect play through heavy foliage is possible, it is expected."
...is just a little off. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't guess what the player is "expecting". But if it can be done, it is what - I believe you are calling 'perfect play' - par should be...at least on the drive through hugh vege. True "perfect play" on a par 3 is an ace. Almost perfect play on a par 3 is a birdie. Really good play on a par 3 is a par. Etc.

Your...
"where's your methodology, Karl? Let's see your suggested formula."
...is an interesting question. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by (or what your definition of) methodology is [gee, kinda sounds like Clinton now :eek:] but my thoughts on par are (I think) similar to what Frizzie stated earlier...if you play a hole once, you'll have a really good idea of what par for that hole is. I know I do! If you're asking me to quantify it, I'll try...here goes.

Par 3
Any hole that can be aced is a par 3.

Par 4
Any hole that can not be aced is a par 4 or higher.

Par 5
Any hole that can not be holed out on a second shot is a par 5.

Etc.

Note that if a hole / course designer CHOOSES to make a par 3 that is STUPIDLY tight, that is his / her decision...but if it can be aced (by a human), it is a par 3. Doesn't mean that it WILL be aced, just as I'm sure there are some par 3 bg holes that haven't been aced (Cypress Point's 16th or 17th...which ever is the par 3...I believe has only been aced twice...and that hole is ~100 years old....so tough IS possible).

Chuck mentioned in an earlier post that if my system was in effect, ~1/2 of the holes would be par 2s. I'm saying that they would STILL be par 3s...just really easy ones. It's not the hole's fault that it is unprotected! Maybe the designer didn't have much to work with.... But it still can be aced, so it's a par 3...again just maybe really easy. I have NO problem with really easy par 3s, just like I have no problem with hard par 4s, etc.

Having said that, I do kind of go along with Lowe's thoughts of the green going out to ~120'...based on % make number for a 120' in dg being somewhat equal to a long putt in bg. I guess where I differ from him (at least that part of his concept which you've outlined above) is in the 400' avg drive + the 120' putt combo thing equaling 520' or less (effective) being a par 3. I don't know HOW far a certain throw can go (a Brinster spike hyzer or a Jenkins laser, etc.) BUT if a hole can be aced it should be a par 3. There's a really good reason why the albatross in bg is WICKED MORE RARE than a hole in one. It's because it was a total fluke! Although, alas, these flukes are becoming less fluky - because bg is pussying there pars also.

Anyway, just my ideas of what par is.

And by the way, a wicked good discussion!

Karl

By Jeff:

you believe that foliage considerations never matter. You think that just because perfect play through heavy foliage is possible, it is expected.



Or you could also put it this way: par is based on a "reasonable throw intended by the course designer for a first-class player of a particular skill level".

Par 3= Any hole that can be aced is a par 3.



I only know of 3 (credible) Par philosophies:
1. Score Average (SA) Par
2. Traditional Golf (TG) Par
3. Close Range (CR) Par

(I won't even mention the bogus and antediluvian "everything is par 3" or the numerous versions of bogus "Rec" par.)

Karl- Your statement about being able to eagle a par 3 puts you squarely in the TG Par camp. You're joined in the TG camp by some illustrious personages as John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, Stan McDaniel, Rodney Gardner.

Par 3
Any hole that can be aced is a par 3.



Karl,

Aced by who? This necessitates some sort of length standard, so who is that standard based on?

If you want to base it on me then all par 3s need to be 300 ft or less. :cool:

Lowe,

I appreciate you mentioning me along with dg illuminaries, but I'm still kind of confused / surprised with this discussion even mentioning the word "concept" in the same sentence as par. To me there aren't "a bunch of systems" or "philosophies" about par, there is just 1 par. Period. To me par is very clear. Both literally (dictionary definition) and practically (as bg has used for a bazillion years).

As for your "...aced by who?", I answer "a human". Any human. If a human (Lou Ferrigno, Ken Climo, Chuck Norris, or any other person) CAN ace a hole, then it can be aced by a human, and therefore it is a par 3. Yeah, I know I'M not good enough to ace a lot of holes too, but then I need to get better if I ever what to dream of an eagle on that hole!

Karl

By Jeff:

you believe that foliage considerations never matter. You think that just because perfect play through heavy foliage is possible, it is expected.



Or you could also put it this way: par is based on a "reasonable throw intended by the course designer for a first-class player of a particular skill level".



I see that statement and I will always point back to the scoring averages of 1000+ rated golfers. If these are our expert golfers, and they don't consistently execute these shots, then that's not what I call reasonable throws. When we call a 510-foot hole through heavy foliage with a 1000-rated scoring average of 3.9 a pro par four, and you call it a par 3, you are effectively saying that a score of 3 is par, and a score of 2 a birdie. When it would likely take a fairway ace or an exceedingly outrageous drive + putt (such that perhaps only one in one thousand plays of this hole could accomplish) to achieve the latter. That's never "reasonable" in my book.

As for your "...aced by who?", I answer "a human". Any human. If a human (Lou Ferrigno, Ken Climo, Chuck Norris, or any other person) CAN ace a hole, then it can be aced by a human, and therefore it is a par 3.



(Note-- I don't mean for the following to sound sarcastic; I just want to make a point using a level tone of voice.)

Karl,

If any human can ace a hole then a par 3 should be around 700 ft. Christian Sandstrom threw a disc 820 ft. (250.00 m) in the desert, so if we allow for more normal conditions I think it would be reasonable to say that he could ace a hole that's 700 ft. long. Heck, I'd even be willing to go down to 600 ft.

Honestly, I'm attempting humor here, but my point is that "humanly possible" may not be a good standard. I didn't even bring in Chuck Norris...

Jeff,

Here's a point that I think needs to be clarified. You often use the term "pro par", and you also said, "I will always point back to the scoring averages of 1000+ rated golfers." Do you think that par for all holes should be based on a Gold standard of 1000 PR players? or were you just talking about Gold level courses (for the sake of convenience)?

If you think that all par is only based on Gold level (1000 PR) players then that's a point where Chuck will disagree with you. Chuck has often said (even repeatedly in this thread) that par should be set for the skill level of the layout, which is based on the skill level of the players that the course is designed for. (For those new to this, those levels are Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green.)

Lowe,

Yeah, I stand corrected. Stating "human" and "Chuck Norris" in the same sentence is a gaff on my part :D. That CS can throw'em 700' is cool and though this distance was in a distance-in-the-desert type setting, he probably could throw a totally open hole at ~600' ace (I think he won the World's distance comp this year with a ~660' throw...but that was a distance comp...he wasn't trying to get a birdie). So, in that case, I'd be willing to say that that hole might be a par 3 (afterall, he COULD ace it). And with a really good throw, he'd birdie it. He might be the only one, but he still could do it. :eek:, gasp, and horror! Some might think I'm loony for thinking this way. Maybe I am just a bit of a sadist...but a bit of a machocist also (for I have to play that hole...and am TOTALLY willing to accept my inability to score a birdie (except a fairway deuce) because I am "unworthy" compared to CS's ability to throw it. But understand that distance isn't the whole hole story! (pun intended). Doglegs could have a 300' hole being a legit par 4 (a 150', then angle, then another 150' upshot), etc. And that's not even mentioning "effective distance" (which I think we all agree really affects a hole).

Your...
""humanly possible" may not be a good standard."
...I'm thinking, what other standard IS there? Certainly not "machine possible". We are humans. We like to judge ourselves against other humans. I say "yes, let us use humans as a standard". In chess, they've already showed (in numerous matches) that computers are better than the world champion. Yet a "world championship" (and yes the most prestigious one) of humans playing chess exists. Computers have their own tournament. Horses, dogs, etc., can outrace humans yet we still have our Olympics, etc. Humans, as a standard, is good!

Karl

karl, thats a nice concise rule of thumb. one question - can you have a par 3 that is -not- aceable? say, a 100', very narrow fairway to a 90degree dogleg, then another 100' narrow fairway to the pin. and due to the nature of the trees, no human could go over the top, ie the only path available is down the fairway. (aceable, not a chance... crappy hole, probably... par 3, i think so...)

Karl,

I just don't think that anybody else will ever accept a 600 ft. par 3.

On a flat hole with average foliage and no OB how long would a par 4 be? a par 5?

Pat,

Your...
"(aceable, not a chance... crappy hole, probably... par 3, i think so...)".
...I think so too!
You'll notice that, in all of my examples in previous posts, my "last leg to the pin" I've always stated to be &gt;120'. In this way, I've "added" another shot to the hole. In your configuration - 100' to the landing area and 100' to the pin - I'd say is just a "lopsided par 3". You drive to the landing zone and then you're on the green (the green just happens to be say at a 90-degree angle from where you teed off of). You then attempt your putt (albiet, a long one). Hit it you got your birdie. Miss it, a par.

Having said that, I see that my "par 3 can be aceable" may need a slight revision! I still stand by the point of "...if it can be aced, it's a par 3...but my if it can't be aced, it's a par 4 (or longer) needs work. Maybe I'm getting a bit closer to Lowe's CR stuff. Not sure. Interesting. Darn it Pat, yer muddying the waters! (Good for you). Keeps me honest, though.

Unfortunately, I have to get to the plane (business trip...won't be back 'til Tues.). Have fun and I'm sure you all will continue this discussion without me.

Karl

Lowe,

Just got time for 1 more entry...

Your...
On a flat hole with average foliage and no OB how long would a par 4 be?
...answer: pretty long!
If you have a STRAIGHT (or semi-straight...i.e. a path a disc could take) and (whether or not it has OB or foliage is no matter to me!) level hole, I'd say if CS could throw a disc to it (and thus have an ace chance on the tee, a putt chance if he pulled off the tee shot, etc.), then that's how far a par 3 would be. Yes you may end up with a 550' par 3 (if all open, etc.) and yes, on the same course, a 260' par 4 (100' to the dogleg (that has to be adhered to) and then 160' to the pin). Maybe stupid ideas, but that's the designer's choice. There are bg course (which I've played!) that have a 84yd par 3 and a par 5 which is over 600yds long and you have to layup 190yds off the tee and then have over a 210yd carry over a pond! Stupid, yes (at least in my mind), but that's what I was faced with so that's what I had to deal with.

Karl

karl, coolio... have a safe trip! i'm not really trying to muddy the waters, as they seem already sufficiently muddy w/o my help. but since folks seem to be trying to concoct a Unified Par Theory, i was just trying some test cases at the boundaries.

here's a -very- rough sketch of a fourth par formula, known as the Probability Par, or P-Par for you george clinton fans:

in P-Par, par = the smallest integer that yields a greater than 50% probability of par.

airplane #10 a par 3:

tee shot - landing zone: 80%
LZ to pin: 85%
putt: 100%

.8 * .85 = .68

answer: yes, par 3 is justified


i actually believe that this process is what players go thru when we walk up to a hole and assess it. we might not whip out a spreadsheet and entry probabil;ities, but inside our brains, thats really whats happening.

i also am not wedded to the exact formula i've proposed. i dont know if the 50% is the correct value... or if it changes depending on whether you're designing a links or US style course. but i do know that if the prob of par gets too low, then par might not be correct.



btw, and this is really wierd - i promise i didnt make up these numbers to fit.... the P-Par methodology can also be used to predict SA. all i do is include a "recoverability" factor to build in the probable penalty that failed execution would deliver. quantifying "recoverability" accounts for foliage, OB, etc, and is basically the probability of making a recovery shot that gets the player back on track for the hole. it has proven very helpful with certain design issues, such as identifying when/where/if to clean out any "short rough" to make advancing towards the pin possible, or just to leave it in a "pitch back out to the fairway" condition. for hole 10 airplane, i use .2 and .7 as the recoverability indexs for shots 1 and 2, repsectively. (a player who makes a typical miss on shot 1 has a 20% chance of getting back on course on the next shot).

here's the wierd part i promised:
if you accept the .8 and .85 chances of execution on this hole, and the .2 and .7 recoverability indexes, P-Par predicts an SA of 3.36 - remarkably close to the actual SA of 3.35! even jiggling all the numbers a little bit one way or the other comes out between 3.3 and 3.4... P-Par (in this single case anyway) not only arrives at a defensible value for par, but actually predicts the SA dead on.



anyway, thats the core of P-Par. may not be appropriate for all cases - use at your own risk.

My I try to give some structure to the discussion?

1) We are not defining par. That is beyond our authority. Par is already defined in the Rules.

"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

What we are doing is trying to come up with methods to determine par on particular holes. The definition leaves room for some interpretation (hence, the need to add "As determined by the director".) So, there can be multiple valid methods. We can choose among them according to our own preferences. The only methods that could not be considered valid are those that do not conform to the definition.

2) There are two categories of methods. I'll call these design-based and scoring-based.

The Design-based camp basically says: the player should throw to here, then here, then here, and putt it in. Add up the expected throws, and that's par. This camp includes Close Range Par; Probability Par; You'll Know It When You Play The Hole; As The Designer Intended; What's Humanly Possible, etc. In my view, these are all valid, because they are based on expected score and errorless play.

There can be differences in opinion. Most of the true differences in philosophy are about how "perfect" errorless play can be, without going beyond "expected". The rest is just the practicalities of how to figure out a score.

The second camp is Scoring-based. This camp says: The scores in this hole are this many 3's, this many 4's, etc. Based on that, par should be X. These methods are valid to the extent that the scores chosen were made by an expert player with errorless play.

Thus, the major philosophical difference within the Scoring-based camp is which scores represent errorless play. This camp includes: Average Of All Scores; Trimmed Average Excluding Outliers; Most Common Score; Average of the Best Players; Median Score; and 33 1/3rd Percentile Score.

3) Methods from either camp could be used for both never-played holes, and existing holes. The scoring-based camp would need to use a predictive model to determine scoring distribution on never-played holes. The Hole Forecaster and Probability Par calculations are two tools for this.

4) A separate difference of opinion is whether Par should be different for different classes of players. The question is what the definition of "expert" is. Should the expert always be a top Open player? Or should it be an expert among the class that the tee/target combination is designed for?

Excellent summary. This should be a FAQ item somewhere.

What an expert is may be decided definitionally in next year's format.

Cool discussion. I may be in the minority on this, but I don't see anything wrong with a small amount of "par 3.5 holes" on a course, as long as it's an interesting hole. How do you guys feel about the "driveable par 4 holes" in BG? (If it is driveable, then it is ace-able, but how can you call a 330 yard hole a par 3?)

What an expert is may be decided definitionally in next year's format.



Don't count on it. Still trying to get this changed to "Elite" Amateur.

Chap

(If it is driveable, then it is ace-able, but how can you call a 330 yard hole a par 3?)



There was a 300-yard par 3 this year at the U.S. Open, amid much controversy. The pin was in the back of the green, and the tee markers were all the way back on the box. Normally it's like a 250-yd par 3 for the members. It's was also downhill.

My thoguht, if you can drive it 330 yds., hold it on a green and then make a putt, you deserve an eagle.

Chap

What an expert is may be decided definitionally in next year's format.



Don't count on it. Still trying to get this changed to "Elite" Amateur.

Chap

Take your best shot. Whatever names they come up with, we're going with Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 and Am 4 next year on our flyers, on our trophies, anywhere we need to refer to divisions. :cool:

Par is 3, by the way. ;)

What an expert is may be decided definitionally in next year's format.



Don't count on it. Still trying to get this changed to "Elite" Amateur.

Chap

Take your best shot. Whatever names they come up with, we're going with Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 and Am 4 next year on our flyers, on our trophies, anywhere we need to refer to divisions. :cool:

Par is 3, by the way. ;)



Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4 works for me. It made more sense to me than the color-coded divisions....because Am1, Am2, etc...at least suggests a hierarchy that an untrained observer could figure out easily.

Chap

good, cuz "expert" doesnt really seem to cut it. good luck!

good, cuz "expert" doesnt really seem to cut it. good luck!



How about "first-class"?

Jeff,

Here's a point that I think needs to be clarified. You often use the term "pro par", and you also said, "I will always point back to the scoring averages of 1000+ rated golfers." Do you think that par for all holes should be based on a Gold standard of 1000 PR players? or were you just talking about Gold level courses (for the sake of convenience)?

If you think that all par is only based on Gold level (1000 PR) players then that's a point where Chuck will disagree with you. Chuck has often said (even repeatedly in this thread) that par should be set for the skill level of the layout, which is based on the skill level of the players that the course is designed for. (For those new to this, those levels are Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green.)



Jeff,

Your thoughts?

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

Although it may not seem like it at times, I have been trying to learn from this discussion, so I've made some modifications to how CR Par is used. Many of the points expressed here have made sense (even Jeff's :D, or in some cases I should say "especially Jeff's"), so I've modified some of my views. I realize that can be twisted in a negative way, but my intention is to make a method of determining par that is as useful as possible.

I welcome your feedback.

Lowe

Lowe, thanks for the document. I do have concerns though with the distances. I am not even a blue level player via my rating. However I can drive 350' acuretly, and 8-9 out of 10 times I can park a shot 180 feet and in. We have a local hole that is 540' OB road and beyond on the left, fairway is 60 feet wide, right side is heavy shule and the fairway has trees around the 300 ft area scattered. I 3 this hole more then I 4 it, but according to the guidelines it should be a 4 for pro's, yet I have seen tyler horne and other pro's 2 it.

Jeff,

Here's a point that I think needs to be clarified. You often use the term "pro par", and you also said, "I will always point back to the scoring averages of 1000+ rated golfers." Do you think that par for all holes should be based on a Gold standard of 1000 PR players? or were you just talking about Gold level courses (for the sake of convenience)?

If you think that all par is only based on Gold level (1000 PR) players then that's a point where Chuck will disagree with you. Chuck has often said (even repeatedly in this thread) that par should be set for the skill level of the layout, which is based on the skill level of the players that the course is designed for. (For those new to this, those levels are Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green.)



Jeff,

Your thoughts?



Lowe,

I'm with Karl and the TG philosophy that a hole should be designed with only one par in mind. Optimally, the longest tees are gold rated, with shorter tee(s) of decreasing distance for other skill levels.The Moraine State Park course is an example of perfect execution of this practice, with a set of gold, blue, and white rated tees on every hole that maintain the same par for everyone.

Unfortunately, this isn't the way that most courses, especially older ones, were designed. So we're retroactively trying to determine what par is for each teepad on a hole and for which level.

lowe, imo whether to make all levels of a particular hole the same par is the designer's choice. i can imagine very practical justifications for both.

back to CRP, and in the spirit of dialog... consider removing specific distances from the concept paper. codifying the distances makes your concept less flexible and far less useful. the important point is that there is a point some distance from the pin that the targeted player will near-certainly hole out in 2.

the shape of CR area can be depicted by drawing a set of radials originating at the pin and ending at the 2-shot point. the nature of the foliage and other features along (or more exactly, near) a given radial determines how long the radial extends. the result is a 2-d drawing that is easily understood as the area in which the player is expected to 2 out.

does this powerpoint (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/CR_Par.ppt) make sense?

Pat,

Interesting thoughts. I equate it to a bg bunker that "is the bunker from hell"...where there is NO chance of getting out of except backwards (and thus, even if it were on a par 4, you'd have no chance of getting on the green in regulation - or - if it was a par 3, you'd have no chance of your obligatory "2 close range shots").

As for my concept of "If it's aceable, it's a par 3 and if it's a par 3, it can be aced" - that you had me maybe retract because of your 150 feet out and 100 feet to the right that can't be aced scenario...that I agreed with you as being a par 3, I now have doubts. I'm waffling! After thinking about it over the weekend (my tournament play was so bad, I had to think of something else), I'm now thinking that your scenario hole just may be a REALLY easy par 4 that can be deuced quite easily! Again, I go back to bg (my roots) and envision a 220yd hole which - from the tee box - has a multiple-storied house RIGHT in front of the green (and I mean RIGHT in front!). A shot cannot go over the house and hit the green (it would go long). The only way to play the hole is to play "just to the right" of the house (your ball would be on the green's fringe) and TX-wedge up and down in 2 from there. You couldn't ace it but any player not getting a 3 would feel they "just lost one" to the field. This would HAVE to be a par 4...a really crappy, unchallenging one, but it can't be aced - I guess, therefore it can't be a par 3.

Confused...I am! But this is my present thinking...I think.

Karl

nice conundrum you've got there, karl :)

thinking about the "...and if it's a par 3, it can be aced" part of yuor rule... even if it is true for every bg hole out there... is it really the Prime Directive... or is could it be simply an artifact of the design process?

whether to call it a 3 or a 4 is so debatable i say its up to the designer. if he's designing a feel-good executive course then call it a 4. if he's going more for winged foot, then its a 3.

hmmm... which leads to this question: does its par stay the same if a hole is transplanted onto a different course?

Jean Luc...I mean Pat,

Because bg holes are so "the same" (at least compared to 1. what they COULD be {said with an evil grin...} or, 2. dg holes) it de facto could end up being the "PD" (although, obviously, I wasn't around when Old Tom Morris started thinking about such stuff). But there MUST be some basis for a bg par-3 being such; I say it's the "if aceable, a par-3" thing.

Your question: "does its par stay the same if a hole is transplanted onto a different course?"
I'll say "I hope so!" The theorist in me would love to see a "perfect world" (...yeah, who am I kidding...) where a par-3 is a par-3 is a par-3, etc. BUT I can also see the "feel good" concept of calling an "x" a "y" just to make someone happy...don't agree with it (think it's cheapening the challenge process), just understand the concepts behind it.

Karl

lowe, imo whether to make all levels of a particular hole the same par is the designer's choice.



Pat,

That's not what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're replying to the first sentence of what Jeff said, and not to the point I was making.

Lowe

does this powerpoint make sense?



Pat,

The powerpoint makes sense. I'd quibble with a few points, but it's pretty good.

Lowe

lowe, imo whether to make all levels of a particular hole the same par is the designer's choice.



Pat,

That's not what I'm talking about. You're replying to Jeff's misinterpretation of what I said.

Lowe

that is quite possible. it gets oh so confusing on these threads sometimes. i still think its the designers choice.
:D

lowe, yeah, i know i took some liberties here and there. i'd be intertested in any tweaks you might suggest. i might add a section for each technique available for working down the fairway.

lowe, imo whether to make all levels of a particular hole the same par is the designer's choice.



Pat,

That's not what I'm talking about. You're replying to Jeff's misinterpretation of what I said.

Lowe

that is quite possible. it gets oh so confusing on these threads sometimes. i still think its the designers choice.
:D



It sure would be nice if before people correct others of responding to a misinterpretation, they inform the original person of what they believe to be the misinterpretation. :mad::confused:

lowe, imo whether to make all levels of a particular hole the same par is the designer's choice.



Pat,

That's not what I'm talking about. You're replying to Jeff's misinterpretation of what I said.

Lowe

that is quite possible. it gets oh so confusing on these threads sometimes. i still think its the designers choice.
:D



It sure would be nice if before people correct others of responding to a misinterpretation, they inform the original person of what they believe to be the misinterpretation. :mad::confused:



Jeff,

You're right. Actually I was in a hurry and I was trying to figure out what Pat was replying to, because I had not made that point. (Also, Pat may have been distracted by other battles that he's waging elsewhere .)

I was wrong to use the word "misinterpretation", and I'm sorry. I think I was reading your post in light of Pat's response.

It does seem that you're saying two different things, though, but I'll have to reply to that post to get it right.

Lowe

P.S.- Notice that I edited my original post.

I'm with Karl and the TG philosophy that a hole should be designed with only one par in mind. Optimally, the longest tees are gold rated, with shorter tee(s) of decreasing distance for other skill levels.The Moraine State Park course is an example of perfect execution of this practice, with a set of gold, blue, and white rated tees on every hole that maintain the same par for everyone.



Jeff,

Let me start by saying that I've gotten a lot out of your input in this discussion and it's helped me to modify my views somewhat. I'm not against you. In fact, I consider you an internet friend and we have lots in common. But in this case we seem to be on different sides, so that's why I reply to you a lot.

OK, to start with your phrase "with only one par in mind" can be taken several ways, and that may have been the starting point of Pat's response. Do you mean:
A. All the layouts on each hole should one (the same) par?
B. Par for all layouts should only be measured by one standard (a 1000 PR Gold player)?

My original question for you was how your "pro par" is determined.

Next, would you please clarify this, "Optimally, the longest tees are gold rated, with shorter tee(s) of decreasing distance for other skill levels." Are you saying:
A. Par for all skill levels are determined by one standard (Gold level) but the lower levels just have shorter holes?
B. Par for each skill level is determined by standards appropriate to that skill level?

You said, "The Moraine State Park course is an example of perfect execution of this practice, with a set of gold, blue, and white rated tees on every hole that maintain the same par for everyone."
This seems to me to mean that you are saying:
1. Gold, blue, and white par should set by standards appropriate for each skill level. (This would negate a standard of "all par is determined by one standard - Gold level.)
2. All layouts on each hole should have the same par.
Did I get that right?

Lowe

good, cuz "expert" doesnt really seem to cut it. good luck!



Hey, you're one vote.....see if you can get 3 more and we'll get it changed.

Chap

If you go with Elite, will you have to throw one to Innova and change Open to Champion?

good, cuz "expert" doesnt really seem to cut it. good luck!



Hey, you're one vote.....see if you can get 3 more and we'll get it changed.

Chap



Huh? What does this have to do with par?

post # 736896, lowe. somewhere in the 550-600 range on this thread.

john, i'll send a note to chris bellinger. have you suggested it formally yet?

post # 736896, lowe. somewhere in the 550-600 range on this thread.

john, i'll send a note to chris bellinger. have you suggested it formally yet?



Pat, several times in passing and in emails, not exactly sure what you mean by formally, but I'll send a note to everyone on the BoD, if necessary. Just let me know by email or PM (I've been lurking and posting on the DB lately, but I sometimes go for weeks at a time without checking it.)

Lowe, it has nothing to do with par, sorry for the thread drift. As far as par goes, Lowe and I are pretty much on the same page, or at least in the same chapter of the book.

Chap

Pat,

Did you download the latest version of the CR Par guidelines from discgolfer (http://groups.google.com/group/discgolfer/files) ? I ask because your powerpoint had the old Gold CR length of 130 ft. That length (and all the others) was changed to 100 ft. to make it a rounder number to remember and to make birdies more possible on maximum length holes.

Lowe

yes, i noticed that change. whether 130 or 100 the concept is the same. i havent seen raw numbers, so its difficult to say what the distance really is. the number could be pretty high for gold if we assume a wide open flat field.

Sth I Forgot to say-- the fact that there was lots of discussion about par at Worlds, and the existence of this thread, lead to me to believe that, despite protestations to the contrary, par really is important.

Oh silly me for stirring up the pot on this one again, but it looks like (at least to me) that the USDGC was yet again another example of "par" being a bit too liberal. Even if you throw out the 2 "anomalies" (the -39 and the -28), numbers 3 through 8 still were on average more than -4 per round. And remember, this is on what I assume is (according to some who've played it) a WICKEDLY hard course...maybe the hardest course you'll ever play. And people STILL can get under par. The "hardest" PGA tournaments are usually WON at about even par or maybe a couple under for 4 rounds (not minus 21 for 8th place). Guess I'll state that even THIS course (07 USDGC) had its par a little off. Definately seems like a trend / plague to me (about par being too liberal).

Karl

Oh silly me for stirring up the pot on this one again, but it looks like (at least to me) that the USDGC was yet again another example of "par" being a bit too liberal. Even if you throw out the 2 "anomalies" (the -39 and the -28), numbers 3 through 8 still were on average more than -4 per round. And remember, this is on what I assume is (according to some who've played it) a WICKEDLY hard course...maybe the hardest course you'll ever play. And people STILL can get under par. The "hardest" PGA tournaments are usually WON at about even par or maybe a couple under for 4 rounds (not minus 21 for 8th place). Guess I'll state that even THIS course (07 USDGC) had its par a little off. Definately seems like a trend / plague to me (about par being too liberal).

Karl



These were my thoughts, as well. But until there is less parody in the quality of professionals at top level tournaments, this probably isn't going to change.

I'd love to have some parody at the top levels, but parity is probably what you are looking for. :D

I'd love to some some parody at the top levels, but parity is probably what you are looking for. :D



I believe that you are correct. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'd love to some some parody



Huh?

I'm thinking we need more parity to produce better par-ity on the holes...

So you think its good that some people shoot 20s on some holes? This kind of a spread shouldn't be necessary to establish par on holes.

Nope. If you look at the analysis I did to compare second round hole scores from 2007 to 2005, I adjusted any score that was more than 3 above the average down to no more than three above the average for analysis. In addition, I only included players down to the point where their group's player rating average was 1000 which was around the top 120. This included very few players who actually had those double digit hole scores to start with.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=749102&amp;Main=748026#Post7 49102

I don't know what the numbers for the USDGC look like, but if a -3 produced a 1030 round, then I would say that the par is spot on. Except if most players ended up shooting significantly above their rating, on the average, for the week.

a WICKEDLY hard course...maybe the hardest course you'll ever play.



How do you measure "hard"?

I don't think that difficulty is measured merely by how high the scores are. Research has shown that high scores are more directly related to long hole lengths than any other variable. (Yeah, I know that all of the OB rope at the USDGC increases the scores too. On that course the OB variable is quite significant.) Imagine a 20,000 ft course on a huge field with no foliage. Would this course be "difficult"? You'd certainly score higher than 54, but does that make it "hard"?

What about the other par 70-72 courses out there? Are they harder than Rock Hill just b/c people score higher on them? What about the Fly 18 courses? How difficult are they?

Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?

[quote
Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?

[/QUOTE]

I don't know that it matters but if you watched the US Masters on TV and saw that the top 10 players are -18 or better you would know they were taking it to the course!

Big events in Golf are as much about the course and conditions as they are about the exceptional golfers playing them, in the end people want to see a battle between golfers and the course with the top golfer squeaking out a win over both the course and competitors. I believe the same is for disc golf as well.

I think it is time to stop stroking the TOP Pro's egos at majors and set par for those that are going to win the event not the middle of the pack. When was the last time a Worlds or US Championship was won by a player rated below 1015? This year at USDGC 1003 golf got you paid, but it took 1040 golf to get a trophy.

Just my thought I am probably way off base on this one but I wa shocked to see Barry (2006) and Ken(2007) tear up the course that is supposed to be the one to determine our US Champion!

How do you measure "hard"? Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?



Hard quantitatively is the scoring spread in relation to Par. Hole 11 at USDGC was hard as it was a par 4. Hole 12 at USDGC was easy as it was a Par 5. If Hole 12 were a Par 4, it would have been hard. Qualitatively "hard" can mean anything you can't do. If the course is long and open, but you can't throw long, it is hard. For those who can bomb long open courses, it's easy. Tight wooded courses are easy for some and hard for others. Qualitatively, "hard" is skill set dependent.

Quantitatively you are measuring how hard it is to get a birdie for example. Birdie was set by the designer, so it can be as hard or easy as he wants.

How do you measure "hard"? Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?



Hard quantitatively is the scoring spread in relation to Par. Hole 11 at USDGC was hard as it was a par 4. Hole 12 at USDGC was easy as it was a Par 5. If Hole 12 were a Par 4, it would have been hard. Qualitatively "hard" can mean anything you can't do. If the course is long and open, but you can't throw long, it is hard. For those who can bomb long open courses, it's easy. Tight wooded courses are easy for some and hard for others. Qualitatively, "hard" is skill set dependent.

Quantitatively you are measuring how hard it is to get a birdie for example. Birdie was set by the designer, so it can be as hard or easy as he wants.


I tend to agree with that analysis, but there are exceptions. There are holes that are "easy" to birdie, but I'd still consider to be "hard" overall.

Take a par 3 with a gap in the 1st 1/3 of the hole that can be hit 1/2 the time by a certain skillset player. Of the shots that make it through the gap, 80% end up making a deuce. So, 40% of the intended skillset make a birdie. I'd consider this to be very "easy" by the birdie standard. (and an example of my hated HAGWAP holes - Hit A Gap Win A Prize)

That same hole, however, could give wicked deflections into dense woods for those that miss the gap. Of the 1/2 of the intended skillshot players that miss the gap 1/3 could get pars, 1/3 bogeys, and 1/3 double-bogeys or worse. That 1/2 could average 4.1 on the hole. The overall average on the hole would end up being about 3.2, which is fairly difficult.

Lowe,

You asked me 8 different questions in you message (and I don't have time to answer all of them) but I'll try to answer a couple [my comments in brackets]...

"How do you measure "hard"?

[In a nutshell, "hard" is something at which we have difficulty acheiving our expectations. And "par" is USUALLY (but not always depending on our ability - we could be on either side of this fence) our expectation. Therefore, the 485 foot 2nd at Chiminey Rock is a really EASY par-5 (as it's listed on the sign post) but is a HARD par-3. Distance of the hole is irrelevant. Expectations are the key...and unfortunately we ALL have expectations.]

"Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?"

[Yes. "Par" is the most widely thought of / accepted standard of expectation and thus IS connected with measuring a course's difficulty. If I said a 20,000 foot course was par-345, you'd probably think it was easy; if par-60 it would be a bear.]

Karl

"Difficulty" is also a function of 'what others are doing on a hole' combined with a dash of 'that person's personnel ability'. As Denny alluded to, if a player faces a "par 5" which his buddies are 3-ing all the time, but he can only 5-it, that hole will be deemed by him as "hard"; partially because his particular skill / shot selection ability doesn't allow him to "pull the shot off" and partially because it is "hardER" for him than others. This aspect really doesn't have anything to do with "par" per se (except that the par MAY (or may not) be mis-set) but still factors into the equation of what is "hard".

Karl

Holes with average challenge average one throw per 285 feet, typically based on foliage but can definitely involve extensive OB like Winthrop. Open holes on public courses typically have less challenge on the order of one throw per 325 feet. Very tight wooded holes that still have a discernable fairway but no OB can run around one throw per 200 feet. To determine the challenge factor on a hole, take the scoring average, subtract 1.7 then divide that number into the effective length of the hole. The smaller the number, the more challenge per foot of hole length.

Here are the stats for Winthrop Gold
<table> <tr> <td>Hole</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>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></tr> <tr> <td>Ef. Length</td><td>194</td><td>675</td><td>310</td><td>470</td><td>1010</td><td>360</td><td>230</td><td>590</td><td>575</td><td>565</td><td>700</td><td>835</td><td>888</td><td>370</td><td>540</td><td>345</td><td>230</td><td>600 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Challenge</td><td>227</td><td>318</td><td>242</td><td>191</td><td>300</td><td>358</td><td>254</td><td>277</td><td>254</td><td>261</td><td>235</td><td>291</td><td>247</td><td>262</td><td>258</td><td>243</td><td>143</td><td>255 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Actual Avg</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>4.1</td><td>5.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.5</td><td>5.3</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Std. Avg.</td><td>2.4</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.8 </td></tr> </table>
As might be expected, hole 17 is the toughest per foot with an impressive 143 Challenge Factor. A "natural" hole with a challenge factor like this in the woods would be considered much too tight to be fair. The Actual (scoring) Average versus the Std. Avg. shows how the OB and other elements, like elevated baskets and bamboo added to holes at Winthrop, boosted the Challenge Factor on open holes that would typically have challenges in the 325 or higher range without them.

what is "Std. Avg."?

Std Avg. is what the scoring average might have been if the Challenge Factor was our sport's average value of one throw per 285 feet.

How do you measure "hard"? Does par have anything to do with measuring course difficulty?



Hard quantitatively is the scoring spread in relation to Par. Hole 11 at USDGC was hard as it was a par 4. Hole 12 at USDGC was easy as it was a Par 5. If Hole 12 were a Par 4, it would have been hard...

Quantitatively you are measuring how hard it is to get a birdie for example. Birdie was set by the designer, so it can be as hard or easy as he wants.



Hear, hear!! I agree with Dave 100%! Well explained by a voice of authority!! Since both the USDGC and the TG Masters Tournament quantify difficulty by comparing score averages to par, I think this is the best measure we can get. I would only add that the Scoring Avgs (SA) should only be for the level of player that matches the course level, not for all players who've played it.

So if the 2 elements of the equation are SA and Par then this shows that it's important to have reliable measures of each.

What about the other par 70-72 courses out there? Are they harder than Rock Hill just b/c people score higher on them? What about the Fly 18 courses? How difficult are they?



For me, overall course SSA and number of shots required directly affects how hard I think a course is. I think any pitch-n-putt where elite players score in the low 40s is easier than a course with multi-shot holes, considerable length, pro par fours and par fives, and a high SSA. Why? Because I'm only going to shoot a few strokes worse than elite players on a short course, but I may shoot 10 or 20 strokes worse than good players on a championship caliber course. You've written numerous times that:

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.



The notion that Ren. Gold is not as tough seems absurd to me. Elite players will shoot in the 60s on this course, while you and I may struggle to just break 80. Just because of the sheer length, smaller margins for error and mental challenges presented at this course, it's got to be one of the toughest in existence.

To determine the challenge factor on a hole, take the scoring average, subtract 1.7 then divide that number into the effective length of the hole.



That hole formula is a variation of one that can also be used for the course as a whole (18 x 1.67 = 30). To get the CF for the whole course use this formula:
(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 20000) [The 20,000 just makes the number more useful with results on a 1-100 scale.]

Funny thing, but if you look earlier in this thread Chuck seemed to dismiss the usefulness of the course CF formula, unless my memory serves me wrong.

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.



The notion that Ren. Gold is not as tough seems absurd to me... it's got to be one of the toughest in existence.



Jeff,

I'm afraid that you've misunderstood my meaning. I never said or meant to imply that Renny is not a tough course. It is very difficult. In the quote you used, I was only talking about measuring difficulty by Score Avg in relation to Par. You also pulled it out of context of a specific point I was making. I was prob addressing the "everything is par 3 crowd". I was merely saying that if you call Renny G a par 70 then it seems much easier than if you called it a par 54. That's not saying it's an easy course!!
If Difficulty (D) = Score Avg (SA) - Par (P) then D is way higher if P= 54 than if P = 70. That's all I was saying and I really hope that makes sense now, and can end here.

Jeff,

I agree with you that longer courses are harder than short ones. To me I would rank course difficulty in descending order according to the skill level they're designed for. Thus the scale is: Gold (most difficult)...Blue...White...Red...Green (least difficult).

But within each level I compare courses by:
Level Score Avg - Level Par.
The higher this number the harder the course for that level.

(BTW, since Renaissance Gold is a Gold level course it's one of the most difficult courses that there are.)

Difficulty shouldn't be based on scoring in relation to par because setting par is a designer choice versus some naturally occurring value. Case in point is holes 11 and 12 at Winthrop on the table I posted. The so called par 4 11th averaged 4.7 and the so called par 5 12th averaged 4.5. Should Harold decide to relabel these holes in reverse such that 11 was par 5 and 12 a par 4, which would not be unreasonable based on results, why should that change the difficulty of the holes?

The Challenge Factor (CF) as shown for each hole directly identifies how many feet on each hole produces a score of 1.00. Or said another way, how tough is the hole per foot of length. Hole 17 might be the toughest hole in the world for its length with a CF of 143. The CF is all data using scores and length, with the only adjustment being the determination of the effective length versus the measured length of the hole. As we've all seen, par is a chioce not a native value that's a mathematical constant for a hole so using it to measure difficulty is much more arbitrary.

In terms of total length of a course, you could say that a course with an overall CF of 245 and 8000 feet long is more difficult than one that's 5000 feet long and also has a CF of 245. However, if the 8000 ft course instead had an "easier" CF of say 285, I'm not sure how we would compare the two in terms of difficulty. Does 3000 more feet still mean it's tougher even though each shot on average is much easier than the shorter course?

To me I would rank course difficulty in descending order according to the skill level they're designed for. Thus the scale is: Gold (most difficult)...Blue...White...Red...Green (least difficult).



I can think of an easy example where I disagree with that. Let's say you have a course with all gold level par 3s. If I play that course I'm likely to get nearly all threes, with maybe a few scattered deuces as well as a couple of dumb 4s. But I'm still likely going to shoot in the 50s, and not much worse than an elite player. Now, compare that to a long par 66 course with many multi-shot holes that are blue level par 4s and par 5s. Maybe I shoot more scores of "birdie," or one under par, on the holes at that course because it's more appropriate to my skill level, but I'm still going to consider the blue level course "tougher" because of the sheer length, smaller margins for error and mental challenges presented at this course.

you guys are talking about slope more than anything else.

Jeff,

OK, I understand what you're saying, even though I don't see it that way.

Lowe

Lowe, I think I've provided a valid example of where course difficulty doesn't necessarily match the skill level a course is designed for. As for the other issue, expect an e-mail to arrive in your inbox within the next hour. :cool:

Difficulty shouldn't be based on scoring in relation to par because setting par is a designer choice versus some naturally occurring value.



I suppose that's true for comparing different courses. For the 2006 USDGC they determined the Difficulty Rating (1-18) for each hole based on SA-Par, though. (See DGW #80, Winter 2007, p. 34) I presume that you will say that's justified since that's all on the same course with par set by one designer.

No. It's relying on a method more suitable for ball golf than disc golf. Ball golf fairways have a much narrower range of difficulty than disc golf. That's why they can use the simplistic "number of shots to the green plus 2 putts" as their par reference and get pretty close.

With the richness in fairway differences in disc golf and the fact that putting is much easier relative to golf, the difficulty of the fairway to the green is our primary determinant of difficulty and is actually measurable.

For example, let's say the designer sets par below the gold level scoring average on most of the holes of an open course like Winthrop without the rope. That makes shooting par seem very difficult even though the CF is 315. Then a wooded course like Renny has pars set above the gold scoring average on most of the holes (which is typical of most courses). Par and birdies will be much easier to shoot even though the CF for that course might be 265. By a simple stroke of the pen, the designer can make a hole or a course easier or tougher simply by changing pars on some of the holes if the ball golf method is used. But I believe most would agree that making accurate shots at Renny Gold is tougher than Winthrop Gold with no rope and structures from the USDGC.

But I believe most would agree that making accurate shots at Renny Gold is tougher than Winthrop Gold with no rope and structures from the USDGC.



With no rope or structures, it's not Winthrop Gold. :)

Exactly. It's a mostly wide open but still long course.