Mike Olse recently designed a course in Manor, Texas where the SSA or 1,000 rated round is equal to or higher than course par. Of course, since there has never been a tournament there, I am estimating SSA, but I feel pretty confident that it is 63-65 (depending on wind on a dry day) and course par is 63 using the "common sense" method of what a theoretical 1,000 rated player can expect on each hole with their average shots.

What other courses meet this criteria? Approximations of SSAs are obviously welcome since that is what I did.

Also, please provide a description of the course with an intention of describing why the SSA exceeds par. In the Manor course, the explanation is pretty simple: not landing in the fairway is costly (even 1,000 rated players can expect to do this a number of times per round) and there are few if any par 2.3s or 3.3s.

I suspect any course which meets this criteria is of a similar nature, but I am curious.

Renny Gold in Charlotte usually has SSA at around 69 - 70 and Par is 70.

To me the way to determing difficulty is the difference between Par and SSA. I can make a course with 18 wide open 575 footers all day and par would be 72, but SSA would be around 60. All this does is create a par 4 version of pitch and putt golf. However, I hear people say we need more par 72 courses. To me my example doesn't solve the problem.

What we need are more courses like the one you described and Renny. Courses with not much variance between SSA and Par. I know Chuck will say that Highbridge is like this but the par at Highbridge was horrid....but that is a whole new discussion.

As for why Renny Gold is like this....hmm, I guess b/c there are a lot of holes out there where Birdie is a great score and par is not bad either.

The following gold level courses (1000-rated) indicate that SSA data is closely related with the designated par:

Winthrop Gold ~ (par 68) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=45)

Moraine State Park ~ (par 66) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=3004)

Pymatuning State Park ~ (par 66) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=3514)

Renaissance Park ~ (par 70) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=247)

Charlotte's Web ~ (par 69) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=6964)

Highbridge Gold ~ (par 67) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=2898)

Idlewild ~ (par 72 long / par 67 short) (http://pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=1745)

This is only a sampling of SSA data for a few select gold courses.

Usually, courses with this scenario are those with SSAs over 60 and pretty wooded with doglegs. Nockamixon in PA is one of them and Patapsco near Baltimore is another I'm familiar with. Winthrop Gold also has this situation due to extensive OB even though most airshots are relatively wide open.

The reason par less than SSA is less common has to to do with most courses having par set for blue level players, not gold. Relatively open holes designed with scoring averages between X.6 and X.9 are much more common and more fun than those in the X.1 to X.4 range. Not only that but many times holes with X.1 to X.4 scoring averages are tweener distances where most can't reach ot but the upshot is relatively easy making it a lame par 3 or par 4.

Designers know that players would rather be rewarded with a birdie by playing a hole well rather than a bogey by playing it poorly. So the bias is toward having several more holes where par is higher than the scoring average than the opposite. This difference disappears on wooded holes which get good scoring spread without having to be as concerned about proper length as holes in the open.

I know Chuck will say that Highbridge is like this but the par at Highbridge was horrid....but that is a whole new discussion.



Par for the Gold course was 67 for Open with SSAs shown here at about 65. Makes sense since that course is a more open long course with a few doglegs but without the punitive OB of Winthrop
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=6277 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=6277)
The par for other two courses played by Open was inflated since they were designed as Blue level courses and mostly blue level par was used except for a few controversial holes where I lowered it so the overall course par wasn't too inflated.

What we need are more courses like the one you described and Renny. Courses with not much variance between SSA and Par. I know Chuck will say that Highbridge is like this but the par at Highbridge was horrid....but that is a whole new discussion.



Indeed, that is whole another discussion, but in the meantime to say that par at Highbridge was "horrid" is awfully unfair. To my knowledge the discussion after the event centered really on three holes: hole#1 at Highbridge Gold, listed as a 510 foot par 3, hole#9 on Granite Ridge which was a 610-foot par 3 with an elevated teepad, and Granite Ridge hole#5 which was a 525 foot par 3 that played severely uphill. Listed as a par four, hole#17 on Blueberry Hill which played uphill over the OB rock face and was deuced by some big-armed competitors like Markus K�llstr�m, was another that some could have possibly been argued against.

So altogether, only four holes out of the 90 used during the tournament (5 courses X 18 holes each) might have been debatable. Imo, does that does not qualify as "horrid" and I think it's extremely unfair for you to paint that picture so.

Par for the (Highbridge) Gold course was 67 for Open with SSAs shown here at about 65.



The course par was corrected on my previous post. Thanks.

No problem. Highbridge Gold par ranges from 63 for the 8410 layout up to par 68 for the 9780 layout.

What we need are more courses like the one you described and Renny. Courses with not much variance between SSA and Par. I know Chuck will say that Highbridge is like this but the par at Highbridge was horrid....but that is a whole new discussion.



Indeed, that is whole another discussion, but in the meantime to say that par at Highbridge was "horrid" is awfully unfair. To my knowledge the discussion after the event centered really on three holes: hole#1 at Highbridge Gold, listed as a 510 foot par 3, hole#9 on Granite Ridge which was a 610-foot par 3 with an elevated teepad, and Granite Ridge hole#5 which was a 525 foot par 3 that played severely uphill. Listed as a par four, hole#17 on Blueberry Hill which played uphill over the OB rock face and was deuced by some big-armed competitors like Markus K�llstr�m, was another that some could have possibly been argued against.

So altogether, only four holes out of the 90 used during the tournament (5 courses X 18 holes each) might have been debatable. Imo, does that does not qualify as "horrid" and I think it's extremely unfair for you to paint that picture so.



Par was wrong, IMO, on the following holes :
HG 1
GR 5
GR 9
GR 16 (I think - the one going down to the water)
GR 17
BB 4
BB 10
BB 13
BB 16

That, is why I used, and still use the word horrid.

I would love to see the data of all those 3's that were found on those holes.

The thing that was crazy was some of them were actually good holes, esp hole 9 at GR. The terrible par overshadowed the hole.

Note that other than HG1 those are all blue level holes which I indicated were adjusted downward to reduce gold level par inflation.

Scoring averages for all of the holes mentioned not on HG were less than 3.4 for 1000 rated players with the exception of BB16 which played as a 4. You probably meant GR3 (big downhill) not GR 4 which was still at 3.27 scoring average. All of those holes not on HG except BB16 had a few 2s on them.

I actually meant GR 5 - I forgot about hole 4.

I can't throw very far and even I dueced GR3 once.

Thanks for the info. It looks like only Winthrop Gold, Morraine and Rennie really fit the bill, although Idlewild at par 72 and SSA around 70 is pretty impressive. Also, as MTL points out, the whole premise is predicated on sensical descriptions of par where par is what a 1000 rated player would shoot with mistake free (average) shots. HG is closer than I thought it would be, although #1 is definitely not a par 3 in my mind.

Judging from those courses on (or nearly on) the list, it appears that "SSA - par" is a useful descriptor. More importantly, course designers who strive to "make par a good score on every hole" as MTL said, and not through gimmicky par designations, have their heads in the right place.

What was the par and SSA for the Hippodrome during the recent worlds there? I would have thought that layout would have met the criteria.

Hippodrome was called a par 65 and the SSA averaged 63.

I actually meant GR 5 - I forgot about hole 4.


3.43 (no 2s)
Again adjustments were made to specific holes that became tweeners when shifting from blue to gold level players to reduce overall par inflation for gold level. Looks like we only missed it on BH16 which is not surprising.

To me, and I say this with the upmost respect for you and what you have done for disc golf, a hole with a scoring spread of 3.43 with NO 2s with the worlds best means two things -

1. This is an easy par 4.
2. This is not a good hole in terms of skill seperation

I just don't see how you can logically call a hole with that average with no 2's a par 3 instead of a par 4. It honestly baffles me.

And I know you are going to say that ball golf par 3's have the same scoring average

However, don't just look at the average. Look at the overall seperation.

A tough par 3 in ball golf with a packed field might have 2 2's 5 4's and 12 3's and 1 5 with 20 playing it to get a good mix of scores and an average of 3.25. .25 over par is not uncommon in ball golf for a par 3. Infact, most par 3's average over par, par 4s around par and par 5s under par.

However, that type of seperation doesn't happen on a hole like GR5. My guess would be around 16 3's and 4 4's for gold level players, which is equivalent to a PGA Tour player.

You want to compare us to ball golf on a hole like that but NO HOLE labeled a par 3 in ball golf ever comes out like that. IF a hole had those many players play on it without a 2, more than likely you would see a lot more 4's - my guess is 9 or 10 of them. Look beyond the average!

I remember saying that GR 5 and GR 6 probably produced the same scoring average and I was correct. However, I garuntee that the numbers were much more "all over the place" on 6 than 5, although the average would speak to that differently.

It simply comes down the fact that since the hole could be dueced and it could be a blow up (I went 4 5 on it), that this is a much better hole and gets us closer to the ball golf example of a true tough par 3.

I read this on a hockey message board "stats lie more than anything" and man oh man, is it true.

I can easily provide through stats that Hurricane Center Keith Aucoin is hands down a better player than Wayne Gretzky. In fact, Keith Aucoin had more productivity in terms or goals, assits, power play points and points this season than his teammate Nick Wallin in 28 less games played. Nick Wallin has scored 3 times in the playoffs in overtime, something that Wayne Gretzky never did in his career.

However, the notion that Aucoin is better than Gretzky clearly is not the case, even though in this example, the numbers point elsewhere.

I also think it is worth mentioning that disc golf tends to have a reverse effect in terms or par and averages.

I've never done any studies, but based on my experience, I feel that what I am about to say is true.

Ball Golf, as stated before, gernerally gets easier as you add shots to a hole. This is simply b/c putting is very difficult and the more chances you allow the player to get to the green gives him more of an opportunity to score well.

In disc golf, if you add shots to a hole, it becomes tougher, the complete opposite. I think that is b/c putting is so much easier than driving (compared to golf that is).

When disc golfers have a bad hole it typcially comes between the tee and the green. When golfers have a bad hole, it usually comes on the green.

This is what creates this crazy difference in scoring spread - the element of putting. This is why a hole can look like a par 3 on paper can very easily be a par 4.

I've said before that players have no problem with holes that only have mostly 3s and maybe 30-40% 2s on them. But design a hole that only has mostly 3s and 30-40% 4s on it and somehow the par value of 3 is not right. I understand why that upsets players and am real careful making those 3.2-3.4 holes. Nonetheless, there's not necessarily anything wrong with either hole since disc golf has many holes where more than 95% of all scores will be just two numbers due to easier putting than ball golf.

I would much rather have the metrics of ball golf than disc golf because it's so easy to get decent spread for regular more open holes without OB. However, disc golf rules for scoring spread when you have woods and OB elements you can use.

Robert,

Be careful when you say...
"Infact, most par 3's average over par, par 4s around par and par 5s under par."
If you are stating this as something for the PGA pros, you're incorrect. Par 3s are "done in" about 3.0. Par 4s are done in about 4.1. Par 5s are done in about 4.7.

If you're stating this for some other group of ball golfers, please state what that group is.

Karl

I guess I was referring to something like the masters this weekend - since that was a major and we are discussing a PDGA major.

I've said before that players have no problem with holes that only have mostly 3s and maybe 30-40% 2s on them. But design a hole that only has mostly 3s and 30-40% 4s on it and somehow the par value of 3 is not right.



I have no problem whatsoever with a hole that 30 -40% of the field bogey as long as 10% of the field birdies it.

If you have 60% 3's, 38% 4's and 2% 5 or worse, that is not a par 3, the numbers show that that hole is an easy par 4.

I'm not a big average guy, I'm much more into score seperation. Lack of score seperation on a hole also means lower skill seperation. Great drives are rewarded properly and poor ones are punished properly.

Chuck,

Your...
"I've said before that players have no problem with holes that only have mostly 3s and maybe 30-40% 2s on them. But design a hole that only has mostly 3s and 30-40% 4s on it and somehow the par value of 3 is not right."
...is well put. We've (dg'ers) belittled the term par; thinking that we ALL can shoot par (or, if we can't, PAR must be wrong...it certainly can't be because we may not be GOOD enough!!!). Amazing.

Karl

Ps: Although I STILL don't agree with the 'par for different levels' concept....

Also a lot of the problem is there is no standardization of par. There was a hole that was 585 feet at worlds listed a par 3 that was clearly a par 3, however, a few holes later we have a 550 foot hole that we are arguing about being a par 4 or a par 3.

Clearly we have many more factors in determing par rather than just distance. I can design a 450 foot hole that would easily be a par 3 and I can design a hole shorter than that that would be a par 5.

If you have 60% 3's, 38% 4's and 2% 5 or worse, THAT IS NOT A PAR 3!!!! THAT IS AN EASY PAR 4!!!



All of those holes over 3.0 average had more than 2% 2s. Robert you're not hearing the fact that the holes in question were properly designed with averages in the 3.6 to 3.8 range for blue level. I'm not saying they were necessarily as good for gold level holes where scoring average drops by about 0.3 between those two levels of skill. In fact that's why it's so critical to get the lengths right for a specific skill level during design.

Gold level players will usually have this to deal with since the majority of courses with longer tees are designed for blue not gold level (which is the way it should be given the DG population playing them). The thing is that many courses don't even have the good par 4s for blue level with 3.6-3.8 blue averages so you can complain about them being par 3s for your level when played in tourneys and average around 3.3.

Chuck,

these holes in question - the tweeners at worlds.

A few questions for you.

1. Do you agree that these have little score seperation?
2. Do you agree that these holes were, for the most part, unreachable for 99% of the field?
3. Do you agree that the 2nd shot on all these holes was the most important shot on the hole, assuming you didn't totally shank the tee shot?

I ask these b/c imagine someone who has never seen disc golf before but had knowledge of ball golf were to watch the top players in the world on GR 5. Imagine watching KC, Barry, Nate and Dave all bombing hyzers off the tee coming up 100 - 150 feet short. They step up and pin their approaches for an easy 3.

The observer then notices these players all though both shots looked pretty amazing, that they all received pars for the hole instead of birdies. To me, this person would think that those tee shots clearly were not good shots. I mean, in ball golf all par 3's are reachable by the games elite. So why are our elite players unable to reach this par 3?

If you want to market this game to people outside of our sport you have to think about things like that.

I think that a shorter tee on most of these holes would have been a MUCH better solution.

I've played ball golf courses where there was a 500 yard hole from the whites that was a par 5 and the blues, although they were the "longer" tees were actually shorter, in the 450 range. However, they were par 4s instead of 5s, so technically, they were harder.

If a tee had been placed off to right and made a 400 foot turnover on GR5 and made ia true par 3, you would see much better score seperation in the open divisons.

I'm not going to argue that the tee we played is a bad hole for masters, or women or advanced players - infact I see that hole as being a great hole with great serperation in those divisons - but it was terrible for open players.

I garuntee with a 400 foot turnover on that hole the scoring average would only decrease .2 shots and you would see a much wider range of scores.

This seperates skill b/c KC has a lot better chance of 2ing form the shorts than I do of 4ing from the longs.

Sometimes easier is tougher due to the seperation factor. Many of the games elite beat you on easier holes rather than on the medium - harder holes.

Robert,

Obviously I'm not Chuck, but let me take a stab at an answer to your...

"The observer then notices these players all though both shots looked pretty amazing, that they all received pars for the hole instead of birdies. To me, this person would think that those tee shots clearly were not good shots. I mean, in ball golf all par 3's are reachable by the games elite. So why are our elite players unable to reach this par 3?"

I would say they DID reach the green - the front of it! And they took their 2 putts and got the par! I think a dg green is about 120' in diameter. And if the pin is in the back of a 500+' hole (which would be a monster par-3), it would be like bg having a 320yd par-3 that TW, and co hit their drives 305 and 2 putted.

Karl

I respect your opinion, however, disagree 100%

Acording to our rules, a putt occurs at 10 meters. Outside of 10 meters is not percieved as a putt.

This is evident by the rules changing at least twice for a shot inside of 10 meters.

1. Following through is illegal at that point
2. When a player foot faults from inside 10 meters, he may retrieve his disc. Outside of 10 meters, he may not.

Both of these rules specifically refer to putting and label the putt as ending at 10 meters.

The first thinking I would do is make sure the course being featured was gold level like HG not a blue level course. That would avoid the issue you're presenting. I also might have adjusted the pin or par on HG1.

The issues you're bringing up highlights the difference in design requirements for blue vs gold which hopefully Karl can now see. If I wasn't so technical in doing the designs for blue and later tweaking them for good blue spread, you might not have seen this issue on some GR and BH holes. Wooded holes disguise these issues because you'll get good spread regardless whether the hole is done well versus lucky or not as good for length.

On GR, the standard deviation of scoring spreads ranged from a low 0.51 on hole 8 to 0.77 on hole 10. Holes 4, 5, 11, 16 & 17 were between 0.54-0.57. Holes 6, 15 and 18 were also over 0.7. No hole had an unacceptable spread with more than 70% of the same score on a hole.

On BH, standard deviations for Open on Friday ranged from a low of 0.42 on hole 6 up to 0.73 on hole 10. Holes 2 & 9 were also under 0.5SD. Holes 5, 7, 8 & 14 were all over 0.6SD. All other holes between 0.5-0.6 with holes 2, 6, 13 & 17 having one score being thrown at least 75%, which would be too much if they happened to be gold not blue level holes.

I read this on a hockey message board "stats lie more than anything" and man oh man, is it true.

I can easily provide through stats that Hurricane Center Keith Aucoin is hands down a better player than Wayne Gretzky. In fact, Keith Aucoin had more productivity in terms or goals, assits, power play points and points this season than his teammate Nick Wallin in 28 less games played. Nick Wallin has scored 3 times in the playoffs in overtime, something that Wayne Gretzky never did in his career.

However, the notion that Aucoin is better than Gretzky clearly is not the case, even though in this example, the numbers point elsewhere.

I do see your point that for the most part, the pars on HG were much much more accurate, however, hole 1 was laughable.

BTW, HG was by far the best course on the complex. At first I really like Blueberry, but quickly got tired of the tweeners.

I liked pretty much everything about HG except the par on 1, the bunc'r on 2 and the ridiculous OB on 7.

The issues you're bringing up highlights the difference in design requirements for blue vs gold which hopefully Karl can now see.



Oh you only say that b/c he agrees with you - lol

Have you ever been wrong? Or at least admitted to it? :D

I think that a shorter tee on most of these holes would have been a MUCH better solution.



Don't disagree but the Worlds has to take into account more than just the Open division, although we do our best to bias decisions in their direction. No alternate cement tees at Highbridge yet except for HG where we did use them appropriately for some divisions. With so many divisions, it's much less confusing to have everyone play the same layout on a course so moving pins isn't a good idea. I did pick what I thought would be the best pins for Open on GR and BH based on known scoring on the pins for those holes. Some were still too short but I didn't have any more room for a longer or trickier pin. Now we could maybe have had Open play HG four or five rounds out of the seven but that might have been too radical of a solution.

Robert,

If you go by the letter of the law regarding the definition of a "putt" (which I can't disagree with you on - I've just reread the rules), I would then say it would be like a "short-side chip" from just off the green (hoping you play / know bg terms). I also know that anytime I'm around 120' or in, I've got a different mindset...one of getting close to the pin (hole). It's just like bg - if you're on the green OR close to the green, the next shot is a LAG. No different in dg. If I go for a 110' dg shot, I may not get the comebacker! Remember, a 30' putt in dg reasonably resembles a 5' putt in bg. That would be the SMALLEST bg green in the world. ;) Where as that point where someone is actually gunning for the kill might be something like (exact distances may vary...) bg = 20', dg = 60' (feeling there is a better chance of 1 putting than of 3 putting). Outside of that, it's more of a "gett'r close" mentality.

Karl

Ps: And I know when you're at 34', you're not NOT putting. ;)

Ps: And I know when you're at 34', you're not NOT putting. ;)



correct.

Any shot from 34' or beyond where the player chooses to use a putting motion is equivalent to a golfer choosing to putt from off the green.

Whether he is trying to make it or just get it close, he has other options but has chosen to use a putting motion. The same can be said for disc golf as I have used a putting motion from outside of 34 feet both laying up and trying to make it.

However, the main difference is a ball golfer (and yes, very knowledgeable of BG - played competively on my HS team) is not limited to his shot selection on the green. As we saw this weekend in Augusta, a golfer can chip on the green. While your local course may not allow it, in competition, nothing prevents it. However in disc golf, the act of following through is not allowed and that basically means the disc golfer is forced into some sort of putting motion from 33 feet and in.

I read this on a hockey message board "stats lie more than anything" and man oh man, is it true.

I can easily provide through stats that Hurricane Center Keith Aucoin is hands down a better player than Wayne Gretzky. In fact, Keith Aucoin had more productivity in terms or goals, assits, power play points and points this season than his teammate Nick Wallin in 28 less games played. Nick Wallin has scored 3 times in the playoffs in overtime, something that Wayne Gretzky never did in his career.

However, the notion that Aucoin is better than Gretzky clearly is not the case, even though in this example, the numbers point elsewhere.





Somebody needs to do their homework. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wayne_Gretzky)

that still doesn't change the fact that he has 0 playoff OT winners

Robert,

Regarding your...
"Oh you only say that b/c he agrees with you - lol"
...I only agreed with his assertion of players "agreeing" with pars that make them (the players) look good and "disagreeing" with pars that make them look "less than god-like".

Chuck,

As for the...
"the difference in design requirements for blue vs gold which hopefully Karl can now see."
...I guess I'm still missing it. I don't see / believe there need be any difference in design requirements. Design a course and let the best person win. Period.

As for scoring spread, it is a NICE thing to have, but if given the choice to play a NATURAL, SCENIC, DIVERSE course with little scoring spread or a trump'd-up, bland, boring course with great scoring spread - I'll take the former every day!

And it's funny how we talk so much about scoring spread in our course designs. Bg doesn't, and they're tournaments seem just fine! Chuck, maybe you have the #s regarding this...and I don't mean PGA vs. PDGA majors (where to get into a PGA major, you REALLY have to be good...no necessarily the same relative goodness is needed to get into a PDGA major).

Karl

Ps: Yes, the best of BOTH worlds is the best, but scoring spread as a top requirement is - IMO - not the best.

i hate to do it but i do agree with rob on this one, and i would like to know the answer to this.

Have you ever been wrong? Or at least admitted to it? :D

[/QUOTE]

I respect your opinion, however, disagree 100%

Acording to our rules, a putt occurs at 10 meters. Outside of 10 meters is not percieved as a putt.

This is evident by the rules changing at least twice for a shot inside of 10 meters.

1. Following through is illegal at that point
2. When a player foot faults from inside 10 meters, he may retrieve his disc. Outside of 10 meters, he may not.

Both of these rules specifically refer to putting and label the putt as ending at 10 meters.



I disagree with the opionion above. While the rule does state that any throw within 10 meters is considered a putt, the rules do not prohibit a player from putting outside 10 meters:

<font color="blue"> 803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off

C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole. </font>

A player can putt from any distance. It is only when they are putting within 10 meters that additional restrictions apply.

A player in ball golf can putt from any distance as well. However, if they were to hole a shot from off the green, even with a putting motion, I do not believe it counts towards their putting totals.

I may be incorrect about that, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

it does not count toward there putting totals

that still doesn't change the fact that he has 0 playoff OT winners


He was too busy assisting those overtime goals. :o:D

Robert,

I read what you're writing, agree with some of it, but I again have to state the 5' bg = 30' dg thing. And again having stated that, your "5' bg green" just seems impractical. Unfortunately (due to bg coming first), people's conception of a "putt" is a stroke which is intended to either hole out or get it REALLY close (my definition only). And I'm doing that from 110' in dg (so are you). And you're doing it whether you're "on the green" or not.

And if you bring this tangent discussion back into the "par" discussion, I still believe that (and CK will disagree with this) if a hole CAN be aced, it's a par 3. Maybe the mother of all times (par 3), but a par 3 nonetheless. So in your scenario of several posts ago, if Avery, et al can POSSIBLY ace it (with their very best throw) but DIDN'T do it THAT day, it STILL could be a par 3...just like my hypothetical 320' par 3 bg hole that Woods and Wetterich barely got on to today but Watson aced 2 years ago.

And what does this have to do with a "blue ball golfer (6hcp) and disc golfer (950) like me"? Well, I guess I'm just not good enough to get to the green...EITHER green! I can live with that (a lot of dg'ers can't). :confused:


Karl

that still doesn't change the fact that he has 0 playoff OT winners


He was too busy assisting those overtime goals. :o:D



Oh that is true. Clearly, Gretzky is the greatest ever and in my opinion, the greatest and without a doubt the most dominant athlete in any sport of all time - but all I was trying to do was show numbers can be misleading.

Trust me Karl, most of these holes at worlds had turns in them that prevented ANYONE from reaching.

but all I was trying to do was show numbers can be misleading.


....so can message board discussions. :D

Robert,

If you're correct - that they COULD NOT be aced - then I'd say they each HAVE to be a par 4...albeit maybe a wicked easy one.

Karl

And it's funny how we talk so much about scoring spread in our course designs. Bg doesn't, and they're tournaments seem just fine!


It's only because it matters in DG not BG. Unless the design in BG is totally botched "for the intended skill level of player" they automatically get a decent percentage of at least three scores among pros and more for ams BECAUSE putting is more difficult and produces the spread automatically. We don't have that luxury and we discovered we need to deal with scoring spread issues in design to avoid holes that wouldn't spread the scores for competition. It's really that simple. Make putting tougher and it kills much of these discussions on par and wide open holes would all of a sudden become better.

Wow, it has turned into another "what is par" thread and become needlessly complicated. :D

I typically dismiss this argument because I (and everyone I ever play with) feel that we intuitively know what each hole's par is, as it is not freakin complicated. I ultimately don't care what par is, as long as the hole is fair and produces a spread.

However, I realize now that my original question cannot be answered without an objective meaning of par. I really just posted this to point out to designers that instead of focusing on the distance/assumed par relationship, it is far more useful to ensure that each hole has a spread, particularly a spread above par. Identifying the "difficult to bogey" holes and remedying them with something, anything to create more bogeys is sorely needed. This idea needs to be second nature to all course designers, or at least second nature to clubs, to allow designers the freedom to difficultize (Bushism) holes.

The problem is that putting difficulty just doesn't change enough even with difficult pin placements like the dreaded triple tree at Worlds. That hole had good spread due to what it took to get to it, not the pin itself. If that pin placement were on a relatively wide open hole, the length would still have been more relevant to scoring spread than the elevated and challenging placement.

anything to create more bogeys is sorely needed.



I agree. It seems some peoples idea of this is either lower the par or make stupid holes.

I also wanna point out that we are pointing out courses that are high pars. I know a few courses where par is in the mid 50's and SSA is in that range as well.

Of course, most of these courses are wooded.

However, many people quickly disregard these courses b/c there are lots of 2s on them.

To get back to the original question... Elk Creek in Appomattox VA is allegedly Par 61... from the Blue played to an SSA of 66.3 in the Elk Creek Classic... Yes it was an Am event, but only advanced (allegedly Blue level) players played the blues...

However... it is a relatively new set of tees... with a few fairways that weren't quite finished... winding through the woods...

Actually, there are only two holes that, looking at it, par should be higher on...

I like the definition that par is what an "expert golfer making errorless play would expect to score"

Robert-

According to the PDGA, an Open player makes 7-9/10 putts from 25-30 feet. Back in the late 80s I read a study on PGA tour putting. They measured every putt on a fairly flat green for several tour events in a row. The result? PGA pros were 50-50 from 6 FEET...

Based on the stats quoted by this paper:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/golf.pdf

The PDGA's notion of a putt for a pro is about a 4 footer in ball golf...

So, just because the rules say where you are definitely putting... why does that tell me that that's where the +2 strokes should begin?

Putting is more difficult in golf. It really is that simple.

Like I've said, numbers can be fun when you use them to your advantage.

I bet that top PDGA players hit more trees than top PGA golfers. I also bet top PDGA players have more puts cut through than top PGA golfers have bounce out of the bottom.

Apples and oranges....

James,

Yeah, sorry (for the thread drift).

Your...
"I typically dismiss this argument because I (and everyone I ever play with) feel that we intuitively know what each hole's par is, as it is not freakin complicated. I ultimately don't care what par is, as long as the hole is fair and produces a spread."
...I agree with the first par (I ALSO know what par is for any given hole), but the word "fair" (when used in golf) may actually be inappropriate. What is "fair" for one may not be fair for another (due to each's abilities). If you can't finish a hole because you are unable to throw across a forced carry - THAT may be the only case where a hole is 'unfair'. Other than that, the sky's the limit. Frustrating, yes. "Stupid", maybe. But what is fair? This is a WHOLE 'nother discussion.

As for back on thread - unless you always have wicked fast winds, I doubt you can have a course that has a higher SSA than par unless you have "obsticles" around the green (trees, roll-away potential, etc.)...because of what is being said about "dg putting being easier than bg putting".

Karl

Par is important for many reasons but ultimately b/c we have rules that give out penalities based on par.

With that in mind, that was my main grief at pro worlds. If someone where to miss one of the tweener holes and they got a 7 instead of an 8 and they beat me by one stroke b/c of it, I would pretty upset, especially in the top 10 where the one place can mean a really big difference with your pay day.

If someone where to miss one of the tweener holes and they got a 7 instead of an 8 and they beat me by one stroke b/c of it, I would pretty upset, especially in the top 10 where the one place can mean a really big difference with your pay day.



Setting par is less arbitrary than the number of penalty shots specified in the rule penalizing someone who is late. I would be more upset that DG doesn't DQ someone who misses a hole allowing them to beat you than the fact par was set on the lower side of a tweener hole. How about John E. McCray missing 3 or 4 birdie holes at 2006 Worlds but having to take 7s on those holes? Seems like a 5-shot per hole arbitrary penalty there.

I would be more upset that DG doesn't DQ someone who misses a hole allowing them to beat you than the fact par was set on the lower side of a tweener hole.



I agree it should be a DQ.

However it is not. So, get par right.

And they were with the exception of BH16. All of the others had scoring averages closer to 3 than 4 as expected with some as low as 3.15 that you were concerned with.

Score seperation &gt; scoring average.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10 averages out to the same thing as 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 and 5.5, but I'd say they are totally different.

I don't disagree. But scoring average is closely related (but not always directly related) to par, and scoring distribution is a key factor (but not the only one) to determine how good a hole is for competition among players in a skill category. For example, lucky holes can have great scoring spread but wouldn't be considered good for competition. Island holes can have great spread but if most of the scores are 2s and 4s with few 3s, it's not a good par 3 (like some earlier Winthrop 17 versions and a few knockoffs).

If I had the choice between a poor scoring average and poor score seperation, I would choose the latter.

Don't get me wrong, I think artifical island holes, for the most part, are dumb. Lucky holes are dumb too.

However, I feel the same way about a hole that 80% of the field will make the same score on.

The worst part about all three types of these holes is that there are things that can be done to prevent them!

Robert,

Your...

"However, I feel the same way about a hole that 80% of the field will make the same score on."

...I'm wondering if this is not all that bad! In a "major" (which we're kinda talking about (I think)), over 18 holes (each of which have 80% of the field scoring the same), you STILL could end up with a winner - or a playoff among just a few players. I don't know HOW many times majors in bg have come down to playoffs - usually deemed to be "cool"! Maybe it SHOULD be that ANY player good enough to play in a major SHOULD only be a FEW stokes out of 1st. As it is now, in dg, some players are "moons of strokes" away from Ken, etc.

Karl

It is bad b/c then a great drive is not rewarded and a poor drive is not punished.

One the one hole at worlds (GR5) that I've talked about the most, I threw a HORRIBLE drive. I was playing with Barry who crushed one around the corner. We both got threes.

How does the seperate skill?

Robert,

In your scenario, you OBVIOUSLY threw a good enough approach to then make your putt! How many times in bg have you seen a knocked down driver, a 3-wood to the green and 2 putts for par...and, in the same group, a great drive, a 9-iron, and 2 putts. One good drive, one crappy...but 2 pars. It happens! And usually NOTHING to do with the hole's "goodness" or lack thereof.

Karl

One the one hole at worlds (GR5) that I've talked about the most, I threw a HORRIBLE drive. I was playing with Barry who crushed one around the corner. We both got threes. How does the seperate skill?



If your drive was really that horrible and you still got a 3 then your upshot had to be fantastic and Barry's was routine. I guarantee a truly horrible drive on that hole that's actually in the woods will not result in a 3 without sinking a very long third shot.

I doubt you can have a course that has a higher SSA than par unless you have "obsticles" around the green (trees, roll-away potential, etc.)...because of what is being said about "dg putting being easier than bg putting



Sure you can, there have been at least five courses pointed out on this thread that have greater SSAs than pars. Figuring out the characteristic of such courses was one of the points of the thread. The other point was simply to declare that these courses can, and do, exist.

I've never played most of the ones mentioned, but I'll assume that the pin placements are not all in some 60 feet wide open area. From reports on the thread, the more important quality is that all these courses punish bad drives, 2nd, 3rd and 4th shots. In simplest terms, the designers wanted to seriously challenge the players, not just pay lip service to the idea. Out of that mindset sprung these types of courses.

Once again, one point of this discussion was to show that it is possible to design such courses, and to maybe help change the mindset of the designer community. Get a few of them thinking differently, using different aims when they set out to design a course. Really, do you think the average designer, or even most better-than-average designers really ever strive to ensure that par is a decent-to-good result for each hole.

Doing design and balancing all of the factors is quite a challenge to produce a successful course. Holes with scoring averages between X.1-X.4 are less "fun" on average than those in the X.6-X.9 range, especially in the open. I know how to make a course where shooting par would be rated 1040 and the SSA is 5 shots higher. However, it wouldn't be fun and a total grind for all levels of players, even the best. MTL has already indicated he essentially thinks it's wrong for par to be less than the scoring average on most holes.

We spent much discussion on Castle Hayne and why it's so tough to get a good rating. It's one of the wooded courses where par is close to SSA and more than half holes have a scoring average over par.

If fairways are "fair" on wooded holes, you can have a reasonably fun, and challenging holes where the scoring average is close to par +/- a few tenths. It's tough to do that on more open courses without the oppressive USDGC OB methods.

MTL has already indicated he essentially thinks it's wrong for par to be less than the scoring average on most holes.





Please find where I said that.

I often said that I thought holes like GR6 were great holes b/c the seperation was very high. I believe that came out to about a 3.4 average.

Other holes at worlds that I liked that probably had a scoring average over what par should have been :
HG3
HG17
GR3
GR10

However, usually holes with averages beneath par are going to have a better seperation, but if the average is above par, I certainly don't immediatly think it is a bad hole.

And just for the record - Castle Hayne is very very fair. It is just a tough course.

Holes with scoring averages between X.1-X.4 are less "fun" on average than those in the X.6-X.9 range, especially in the open.


I don't buy this for a minute. I don't buy the converse either, I think your just throwing stuff out there. Same with your assertion that acourse with a SSA 5 shots greater than par must be a "no-fun grind." A poorly designed course, where the lines are unrealistic and the punishment of the kicks is completely random might produce an "no-fun grind," but I have no evidence that these courses are anything like that.


It's tough to do that on more open courses without the oppressive USDGC OB methods.



Some see oppression; others see an immensely fair challenge.

Let's not forget that Chuck said in the players meeting at worlds that "all white flags on the property are OB except the white flags in the middle of the fairway on HG8"

When I asked why they were there if they were not OB he said "we were going to put a boulder there as an obstacle"

So I asked "well then why are they still there"

I'm still waiting on that answer, btw :D

James,

You asked...

"Really, do you think the average designer, or even most better-than-average designers really ever strive to ensure that par is a decent-to-good result for each hole."

Yes, I do think they do...and that is EXACTLY the problem. Their par is a 'decent-to-good result' - is their thought process. Par SHOULD be a 'very good to great' result! Who am I to think that I can par every hole or even close to every hole? Par is NOT sacred in our game. If it were, our very best players would NOT score ridiculously under par.

Karl

Karl, I agree with that sentiment, we are probably just using terms differently.

Let's not forget that Chuck said in the players meeting at worlds that "all white flags on the property are OB except the white flags in the middle of the fairway on HG8"

When I asked why they were there if they were not OB he said "we were going to put a boulder there as an obstacle"

So I asked "well then why are they still there"

I'm still waiting on that answer, btw :D




Sounds like the proposed stream on HG 17. I remember it was marked with flags in 05' because they were going to have the stream there at some point. This year at worlds the stream was there to mess with everyone who threw a poor shot. Of course the stream was just flags. :D

I'm not just throwing things out there. Most don't realize the thought, research, discussions, evaluations and data analysis that has gone on among those doing design professionally over the past 10 years. It's too bad we're too busy doing it to write what we know. I guarantee you that Houck and several other active designers will agree with these so-called assertions.

A course with SSA 5 shots over par would have maybe one or two holes that are twoable less than one out of ten times playing them and a mind numbing set of holes where three wasn't too challenging if you land in the designated landing area and you're worried about not blowing your upshot or missing a putt. All of these holes would have to have scoring averages that would cumulatively average 3.3 or 4.3 for gold level.

A birdie 2 on a par 3 or birdie 3 on a par 4 would be rare (once per round?) and everyone would bogey 1/3 to 1/2 of all holes. I don't even need to trot out examples of holes like this (MTL already pointed some out from Worlds) because anyone reading this would say a course like that would not be fun to play even if each individual hole was designed as well as possible for that type of hole. It's as much about balance and variety as much as anything else. If I get the chance, I might dig thru the data and throw together a "fantasy" 18 holes from those that would meet this criteria that players might know.

The absurdity of Winthrop Gold is shown by the bounty last year for the first player who could shoot a par or better round without a bogey and no OBs. There's not a ball golfer around who wouldn't say that's unbelievably gimmicky. I checked BG stats in their majors and the average ranges from less than one OB per 4 rounds up to maybe 2 per event per player. The use of no penalty buncrs at Winthrop would still make the course challenging but scale the penalties better relative to the risks vs rewards.

The OB in front of the pin was good on 17 I thought.

It was just at the distance where it was not 100% for most people to get over it. It was a very tough 2 if you didn't go over it, which put me to a decision.

I am always a fan of putting someone to a decision off the tee. OB that forces everyone to go for something (i.e. island greens) or an OB where almost everyone can get across is pretty much pointless in my mind.

Risk reward - we need more of it.

HG 17 provided it.

There are many more cool improvements that could have been done at Highbridge that with more time and money could have been completed by Worlds. The white flags on HG8 for the mythical boulders was just one of many including the rock stream on HG17. Regarding HG17, the other improvement we wanted there was to shave down or cut a section out of the hump you had to throw over about 125 feet in front of the tee so you could see the landing area. I try not to have blind landing areas if possible.

The OB in front of the pin was good on 17 I thought.

It was just at the distance where it was not 100% for most people to get over it. It was a very tough 2 if you didn't go over it, which put me to a decision.

I am always a fan of putting someone to a decision off the tee. OB that forces everyone to go for something (i.e. island greens) or an OB where almost everyone can get across is pretty much pointless in my mind.

Risk reward - we need more of it.

HG 17 provided it.



The "stream" didn't come into play in the short pin just the pin that was used in the finals.

The "stream" didn't come into play in the short pin just the pin that was used in the finals.


But we also had the OB pond in front of the trees that added to the stream OB. The safe shot was wide left to the short pin if you weren't trying to drive it. I didn't have time to get JJ to extend the pond to the left or add another one far left for hyzering out on that route.

I didn't know what that stream was. I was referring to the OB short of the hole - that I really liked.

A course with SSA 5 shots over par would have maybe one or two holes that are twoable less than one out of ten times playing them and a mind numbing set of holes where three wasn't too challenging if you land in the designated landing area and you're worried about not blowing your upshot or missing a putt. All of these holes would have to have scoring averages that would cumulatively average 3.3 or 4.3 for gold level.



Huh. Using a hypothetical scenario with 50 1,000 rated players

A par 3...............A par 4
15% 2.................25% 3
40% 3.................25% 4
45% 4.................50% 5
AVG 3.3...............AVG 4.25

These holes easily meet the math for a course with an SSA 5&gt; than par (which was never the goal contained in my original post, but I'll play along), as could numerous other permutations, especially using double bogeys and above, which a good course will produce. There is absolutely nothing about those scoring averages which fits with your description above. In fact, these scoring averages are quite acceptable, the only way they differ from what we normally see is that they slightly lean to the bogey side.


A birdie 2 on a par 3 or birdie 3 on a par 4 would be rare (once per round?) and everyone would bogey 1/3 to 1/2 of all holes



Another "huh." Where do you come up with this? Difficult courses with the %s listed above, would easily produce a spread, especially ones where doubles and triples are possible. So, we have a difficult course, with spread, and it is fair. What more do we possibly want?


The absurdity of Winthrop Gold is shown by the bounty last year for the first player who could shoot a par or better round without a bogey and no OBs.


This doesn't seem absurd to me, at all, and using ball golf to support the notion that it is absurd, doesn't persuade me at all.

Those are unlikely scoring spreads and in my original post about this, I was talking primarily about more open holes where you only get two numbers. You don't see holes with 15%-40%-45% spreads let alone par 3s. That would be bizarre par 4 and a hole with 50% 5s is not going to be considered a par 4 if it were even possible to get that distribution.

You're making up hypothetical distributions to come to an average to prove your assertion. I've studied the actual kinds of distributions you get. If I got distributions like either of those on holes I designed, the par 3 hole would likely be shortened and that par 4 hole would likely be significantly changed in either direction. The thing is, we can now forecast ahead of time what the average and distributions are likely to be before we install the holes.

Like I said, I think I might have enough data to piece together a course that would have an SSA 5 above the par. I'll even try to find the holes with the most birdies but I suspect the average for the course will still be less than 10%. Not fun - just a grind.

You don't see holes with 15%-40%-45% spreads let alone par 3s. That would be bizarre par 4 and a hole with 50% 5s is not going to be considered a par 4 if it were even possible to get that distribution.



Why would this be a bizarre par 4. At any rate, are you just looking at distributions from courses you have designed, or from Winthrop Gold or Renassaince, or Idlewild.

btw, I can easily imagine such a par 3.


If I got distributions like either of those on holes I designed, the par 3 hole would likely be shortened and that par 4 hole would likely be significantly changed in either direction. The thing is, we can now forecast ahead of time what the average and distributions are likely to be before we install the holes.



There is nothing at all wrong with those distibutions. Absolutely no change would be needed.

You're losing any credibility as a potential designer with statements such as these. By definition, par is intended to be the most common value shot on a hole, hopefully with a nice mix of scores on either side of that value. The distributions aren't always bell shaped like that in disc golf versus ball golf. But it's rare and likely a hole that needs to be fixed when par isn't the most common score.

You're losing any credibility as a potential designer with statements such as these. By definition, par is intended to be the most common value shot on a hole, hopefully with a nice mix of scores on either side of that value. The distributions aren't always bell shaped like that in disc golf versus ball golf. But it's rare and likely a hole that needs to be fixed when par isn't the most common score.




I doubt that McCain is giving up any credibility..............he never had any in the 1st place. :D


I have seen some of the course evaluations out there and can say that some of those guys need some credibility. One guy in particular has a mediocre blue level course that is LAME for Gold players scored way higher than a challenging Blue level course that is still good for Gold players.

The funny thing is that he talks about all the weaknesses the 1st course has and how there are three holes that "make" the course yet he rates it so high.

Oh, you should have no faith; I'm not a designer and don't pretend to be, but I do understand concepts. Since when did we start using "Par is the most common value shot on a hole" as the working definition?

In my mind, if a theoretical 1,000 rated player, with two average shots can expect to reach the pin, I am calling it a par 4. If the nature of the hole yielded 25% 3, 25% 4 and 50% 5, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that distribution. At the tee, every player knows that they can pick up two on half the field with an aggressive execution for a bird, play competently safe and still pick up a stroke on some, or screw up and lose strokes. As a spectator or a player, that is the tension/opportunity I want at every hole.

I mean, you are acting like a distribution of 50% 3, 25% 4 and 25% 5 is OK, right? It is relatively the same movement, but the difference probably lies in the difficulty of the shots and the amount of tension at the tee.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, spreads skewing toward plus-par are much more likely to have the potential for major blowups, whereas spreads skewing towards birds usually have limited downsides. Potential for major blowups should definitely be part of any good tourney.

I mean, you are acting like a distribution of 50% 3, 25% 4 and 25% 5 is OK, right? It is relatively the same movement, but the difference probably lies in the difficulty of the shots and the amount of tension at the tee.



This wouldn't be good but also unlikely without some funky OB scenario.

I don't think any designer is against wider spreads. However, we would shoot for the most common number to be par in the design. GR9 which was the tweener we called par 3 had 59% 3s, 38% 4s and 3% 5s. GR7 which we called par 4 had identical distirbution and averages which were both 3.5. So we got par 7 for those two holes that added up to 7.0 scoring average.

Par 4 GR6 had 11% 2s, 59% 3s, 22% 4s and 8% 5s which also is a 3.5 average. That might have been the best of the three holes from a technical standpoint. However, you can pull that off on downhill holes where an eagle is possible but not too common to pull the average down a full shot.

Chuck,

"By definition, par is intended to be the most common value shot on a hole".

By this statement, I hope (but doubt) that you are talking about ball golf - which then you would be correct IF you were talking about PGA players (which have WAY less of a "standard deviation" (among them) do our PDGA players who play in our majors). If you are talking about dg, you MIGHT be correct IF the course has VERY mundane greens. But I could certainly make a hole that is possible to ace, would be deuced a few times, would have a bunch of 3s and maybe even the majority of 4s (lord knows a bunch of worse-than-that scores also). Maybe with an average of 4 or more. This would be (according to me...I know, not according to you) a par 3. Yes, it would be tricked up to the max, but I just don't believe that there should EVER be anything better than the ability to eagle a hole. If you can "double-eagle" any hole, it really is a case of "incorrect par having been assigned" (or technology has "passed" par and par needs to be reassigned) for that hole.

Just the opinion of a rather conservative (at assigning par) type of guy.

Karl

I mean, you are acting like a distribution of 50% 3, 25% 4 and 25% 5 is OK, right? It is relatively the same movement, but the difference probably lies in the difficulty of the shots and the amount of tension at the tee.



This wouldn't be good but also unlikely without some funky OB scenario.

I don't think any designer is against wider spreads. However, we would shoot for the most common number to be par in the design. GR9 which was the tweener we called par 3 had 59% 3s, 38% 4s and 3% 5s. GR7 which we called par 4 had identical distirbution and averages which were both 3.5. So we got par 7 for those two holes that added up to 7.0 scoring average.

Par 4 GR6 had 11% 2s, 59% 3s, 22% 4s and 8% 5s which also is a 3.5 average. That might have been the best of the three holes from a technical standpoint. However, you can pull that off on downhill holes where an eagle is possible but not too common to pull the average down a full shot.




What about hole 5 Chuck? I think I was the only three on it on the card every round I played there and thought it had good spread.

Also hole 6 wasn't as tough to get to as it was tough to stay by because most shots that got to the basket would end up hyzering out and going long.

GR5 was 66% 3s, 27% 4s and 7% 5s for 3.4 avg in the semis - just about right but maybe even longer might have been better.

GR5 was 66% 3s, 27% 4s and 7% 5s for 3.4 avg in the semis - just about right but maybe even longer might have been better.



I agree since it was really about the 1st shot. If you threw a decent 1st you had a relatively easy upshot but if you throw short left or far right you are looking at a 4.

The Big course in Amarillo played at an SSA of 71 and 72 and it is listed at par 70.

I'm going to work on scoring spreads with the hole forcaster this weekend and will get them posted when Im done. I was actually surprised that the SSA came in that high. I was expecting 67 or below for the tournament.

I'm going to work on scoring spreads with the hole forcaster this weekend and will get them posted when Im done. I was actually surprised that the SSA came in that high. I was expecting 67 or below for the tournament.



'hole forecaster' ... is this a spreadsheet or something? could I get a copy of this? andrewjswistak -at- hotmail.com

thanks!

RENNY &amp; WEB both coming in again this weekend w/ SSA higher than 'Par'
Renny - par 70 - SSA ~70.5
Web - par 69 - SSA ~ 70.5

I'm going to work on scoring spreads with the hole forcaster this weekend and will get them posted when Im done. I was actually surprised that the SSA came in that high. I was expecting 67 or below for the tournament.




I'm thinking that 70 would be pretty close on the average SSA. Granted a 74 didn't feel like 980 but a 61 also seems like it would be a tad higher than 1057.

I'm going to work on scoring spreads with the hole forcaster this weekend and will get them posted when Im done. I was actually surprised that the SSA came in that high. I was expecting 67 or below for the tournament.



'hole forecaster' ... is this a spreadsheet or something? could I get a copy of this? andrewjswistak -at- hotmail.com

thanks!

RENNY &amp; WEB both coming in again this weekend w/ SSA higher than 'Par'
Renny - par 70 - SSA ~70.5
Web - par 69 - SSA ~ 70.5


just to help you out a bit Stack the Web Layout is a par 70 as well
mj

'hole forecaster' ... is this a spreadsheet or something? could I get a copy of this? andrewjswistak -at- hotmail.com


It's available to members of the Course Designers group. Send email to [email protected] for info on joining.

'hole forecaster' ... is this a spreadsheet or something? could I get a copy of this? andrewjswistak -at- hotmail.com


It's available to members of the Course Designers group. Send email to [email protected] for info on joining.




And how do you get in that group? Must not be too hard. :D

I'm going to work on scoring spreads with the hole forcaster this weekend and will get them posted when Im done. I was actually surprised that the SSA came in that high. I was expecting 67 or below for the tournament.



'hole forecaster' ... is this a spreadsheet or something? could I get a copy of this? andrewjswistak -at- hotmail.com

thanks!

RENNY &amp; WEB both coming in again this weekend w/ SSA higher than 'Par'
Renny - par 70 - SSA ~70.5
Web - par 69 - SSA ~ 70.5


just to help you out a bit Stack the Web Layout is a par 70 as well
mj



thats what I thought too MJ but I think the scorecards had the par @ 69 for the tourney. Maybe they had the old #6 on there or something? or again... maybe it was the meds?! :o

Got the first set of stats up for the Discrazy Shootout CHAMP course:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.ph...bed7#Post831320 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=831320&amp;page=0&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSE SSID=d2baa24d53f03f0b653c57770acdbed7#Post831320)

Even for Rd.1 which had pretty good weather, SSA ended up above Par.