GOLD, BLUE, WHITE, RED � PDGA Recommended Tee colors. Each should present a proper challenge for certain skill levels. It makes sense that they would follow the recommended PDGA Player Ratings Ranges:
GOLD: (Championship Tees) � 950+ Golfers
BLUE: (Long Tees) � 949 to 900+ Golfers
WHITE: (Short Tees) � 889 to 850 Golfers
RED: (Beginner Tees) � 849 � Golfers
I�m guessing that if the players at PDGAs were provided proper challenges (not too challenging but not too easy) that their enjoyment of play would increase.
What I mean is that if all skill levels are playing the same course layout that some are very likely playing a course that is too easy while others are stretch way beyond their abilities, wouldn�t their experience of the event and the level of competition within the divisions be increased by each playing an appropriate skill based layout? Furthermore wouldn�t this speed play up and avoid back ups?
Does anyone practice this to this extent (4 layouts, 4 skill levels, all playing at the same time at an event)? Don�t you think it would be a good idea?

First of all, one must question the need for so many sets of tees. Does a 900-949 golfer need a different set of tees than a 950+ golfer? I know many 900-949 golfers who can throw just as far, but don't putt as well. I would be insulted to show up at a tournament and not play the same Gold tees that the 950+ rated golfers do.

Even from a logistical standpoint, having 4 sets of tees on most courses/tournaments is impractical. Or at least, having 4 sets of tees that are varied and interesting. (not just 20 feet in front of another tee) It also creates more headaches for tournament director reports and the PDGA volunteers that process them. Enough people complain now about lack of data to generate ratings; in Nick's system, think about the many tournaments in which there will not be enough propagators because there were so many tee configurations.

There certainly is a need for appropriate tees for women and senior grandmasters, legends, etc; there are PDGA course design guidelines and standards for such! That women play the same tees in the final nine at some Supertour events is good for exposure to our sport, but awful for playability. A hole that is 400 feet may be a perfect tough birdie hole for men but is a really stupid 3 for Open women. Nick, I'll agree that most tournaments don't feature appropriate skill based layouts but two sets of tees, not four, is sufficient, in my opinion.

Where can you find a course w/ 4 sets of tees playable at one time anyway? I consider myself quite lucky to have a home course w/ 2 sets of tees and 2 diferent basket placements. Yes thats technically 4 different courses but you can only play 2 at a time. That would be great but is it really practical? I know we couldnt do it here in Burlington just because we dont have the room and our course is huge.

Well, the concept remains the same, do your best as a TD to present appropriate challenges to each major skill range. And when designing a course don't just make the short tee XX feet closer to the pin, consider for which skill level you are creating it (same with reds for beginners).

I do think that this sort of thing would help enhance the experience for different levels of players.

for rec. play it would work but for tourn. play i think everyone should tee from the same tee's

Why?

So an 848 Golfer can take a double circle 7 on a hole a 1000 Golfer can take a 2? We don't need everyone to play the same course to decide who is the winner of each separate division, so what is the point?

Chuck! JH! Is this something worth at least looking into? That is, whether it would benefit PDGA events to offer differring appropriate challenges dependent on skill level?

For me personally there are clearly holes that are beyond my skill level and then there are ones that are not even "golf" holes. I'd love to see a course set up just for or near my skill level, the entire course and not a mix of beginner through championship. How about you?

In theory, I'm very much for having skill-appropriate layouts, but that the use of player ratings to determine divisions is pushing TDs toward using the same tees for everyone. If the intermediates are playing a different layout, even for a few holes, then 10 intermediate propogators with 10 rated rounds are needed, or else their rounds will not be rated. It has been my experience as in intermediate (even in NC, with decent-sized fields) that there usually aren't enough such players. So, our TDs are (justifiably) having everyone play the same tees, for ratings purposes.

I've never seen four sets of pads used, but I have seen three, Dunellon, Fl. There are three sets of pads and it's like three totally different courses. All three sets of tees provide such challenges that even seasoned players can enjoy them all. In tournament play it provides for everyone to play a challenging course competetively and have fun. Another LARGE benefit is that there are less 100+ rounds and faster rounds. This makes the rounds even more enjoyable for the long course players.

Even in weeklies, the extra tees can be used well. By combining all courses in the handicapping, anyone can play any tees they wish, still being competetive without handicaps in the thirties. Playing doubles with each player playing from the appropriate tees, makes it alot more fun and fair.

I know it's not always possible to put in more than one set of tees, or to put extra tees at existing courses, but if it is possble, the benefits are great. The best courses with more than one set of tees, are the ones where each set of tees are designed as separate courses. If you just walk up 50-100' and put in another pad it usually just becomes boring.

The Oak Hollow Disc Golf Club would like to invite everyone to come play the Oak Hollow Open. 3 sets of concrete pads, White, Blue, and Gold! and one set of dirt Rec pads (Red). The past weekend was the am weekend, when asked, the women and Int. wanted to play the same layout as everyone else. Here are the scores. Am OHO 2004 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4220) rounds 1 and 4 were from the white, round 2 from the blue, round 3 from the gold.

The PDGA Ratings Committee are working on that challenge I believe, if not we will. Once layouts have a certain number of Event SSAs that can be averaged (probably something more complicated than averaging) this shouldn't be a problem.

What would solve this right away would be for a local stats master to determine each holes' SSA then any layout of combination of holes could have an accurate course SSA.

Of course this involves a little work, but the payoff should be worth it.

I enjoy playing the same tees as 1000+ rated golfers and comparing my score on the same course.

If such a complete re-design where to be taken on as a project the "design" of each hole would have to revolve around the "par" for each hole. At this point in time - courses are designed by different individuals without collaboration for the most part with other course designers.

Holes would need to be constructed to be "par" for each player type - meaning a par three hole would consist of a drive, an approach and a putt... Duh, right? - the difficulties in doing this is determining the distance breaks - the average drive of an AM woman compared to a PRO woman compared to an ADV man, or even the average drive of an 800 rated player compared to the average drive of a 1000+ rated player. AND HOW ABOUT THIS ONE... Is it really the distance of the drive that makes someone a 1000 rated player vs. a 950 rated player?

I don't see this as a topic that can be addressed at this point in time because the ratings do not provide this type of data (driving distance vs. putting ability) nor are they "final" as the ratings committee is continually tweaking the formula to find one that is closer to reality - not to mention the ratings differences between east and west coast and middle america.

IMO. There is not enough collaboration at this time to undertake such a task as to re-design the current Disc Golf courses to include different layouts for different "skill levels".

We have similar events in our region, and it's novel playing each of the courses, but as an Open player I'd rather play all rounds from the Gold, since these are the tees designed (hopefully) specifically for me.

while it may not be logistically possible, i'd say it's a fine use of the ratings system. if these numbers can be used to identify appropriate divisional breaks then they most certainly can be used to determine an appropriate challenging tee for all levels.

GOLD: (Championship Tees) � 950+ Golfers
BLUE: (Long Tees) � 949 to 900+ Golfers
WHITE: (Short Tees) � 889 to 850 Golfers
RED: (Beginner Tees) � 849 � Golfers

absolutely terrible idea!!! the 890-899 players will have no tees and would be excluded. such a system is detrimental to the growth of our sport. its also counter-productive to the formation of a TRUE AM class, because many TRUE AMs could be expected to be in that ratings range.


:D

there seems to be some gaps in this formula /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Everyone on this board should take a look at Milo McIver State Park in Estacada Oregon. I remember this course having three different and skill based tee-pads, although in tournaments they follow the same tee usage as the OHO did.

I think the whole point of this thread is not about which courses have multiple sets of teepads, it's whether appropriate teepads for each skill base ARE USED during tournaments. A tournament that plays on a course with multiple teepads but still forces all skill bases to play the same tees (which may not be the appropriate length for some skill bases) may not accomplish everything it should. A hole that is 620 feet long might be a perfect par four hole for the Open and Masters divisions, but makes for a very weird par 4.5 for the advanced women, senior grandmasters, and junior divisions. How? Assuming that these latter three groups average 250 feet per drive, 620 feet is a hole length that will likely see no threes, and an uneven mix of fours and fives in those divisions. A teepad roughly 100 feet shorter would make for a much better par 4 for those divisions.

I think the whole point of this thread is not about which courses have multiple sets of teepads, it's whether appropriate teepads for each skill base ARE USED during tournaments. A tournament that plays on a course with multiple teepads but still forces all skill bases to play the same tees (which may not be the appropriate length for some skill bases) may not accomplish everything it should. A hole that is 620 feet long might be a perfect par four hole for the Open and Masters divisions, but makes for a very weird par 4.5 for the advanced women, senior grandmasters, and junior divisions. How? Assuming that these latter three groups average 250 feet per drive, 620 feet is a hole length that will likely see no threes, and an uneven mix of fours and fives in those divisions. A teepad roughly 100 feet shorter would make for a much better par 4 for those divisions.



Good point Jeff. John Houck wrote an excellent article regarding this exact point a year or so ago and it integrates with the "gray zone" concept that John and Chuck Kennedy developed.

The problem is when everyone from a certain divison is likely to card the same score on the same hole. This dosen't allow for birdies and bogeys and everyone ends up about the same.

I experienced this in a final four last year for the advanced division. The first five holes were all pretty long and no one could gain ground -- the guy who could throw 400 feet had a 75 foot upshot and the guy who could throw 325 feet had a 150 foot upshot. Fortunately the last four holes allowed for more excitement.

I know that you are just being a jerk Pat, but being a True Amateur does not mean they have a rating like you, it just means that they do not play for profit (they don't gamble their entry fee against other folks entry fees in hopes of winning other folks money).

Linds,

It is possible now. It might not be practical for courses that don't have the room or human resources to get the job done, but for those that do, assisted by certified top course designers and PDGA Player Ratings, it is entirely possible, and the benefits for casual and PDGA event players will be substantial.

Mostly it is a matter of promoting and getting the word out that it is possible and has benefits. The exact process can (necessarily must) be developed as we go.

I am involved, and have been, in both the PDGA Ratings Committee and the PDGA Course Ratings Committee, and this topic has come up in each. I am a student of course design, but not a master of it or practitioner like Chuck and John H. Still, it is clear that to make a truly great course (and not a compromise or single skill level course) it is wise to consider what skill levels will be playing what tees and pins. That is pretty common sense it seems.

Not only do I think, selfishly, that this will improve the quality of courses I, an Open player, face at PDGAs, but it should improve the quality of play and courses for all skill levels (of which I will someday be a part of).

All projects seem impractical and difficult until the decision is made to "DO SOMETHING". Once that decision is made it is a simple matter of how to do it. Much of what we need is already developed (PDGA Player Ratings, PDGA Course Design Recommendations, soon to be released PDGA Course Ratings), increasing the value offerred by the PDGA by utilizing these great tools is icing on the cake.

Nick

There's lots to this that's happening related to this but I can't respond for several days while on the road. Good topic. It's actually Gold 1000 avg, Blue 950 avg, White 900 avg and Red 850 on down. Many course are now being designed with these standards and they are in writing. Unfortunately, Theo has the file but has yet to post them online with the regular design guidelines. Most courses will only have two sets of tees and will have Blue/Red as most common or Gold/White is just coming into use such as Highbridge and NDGC.

the Crowley course has at least 3 sets for each hole, and 4 for close to half. from shortest to longest they use Blue, White, Red, Gold, which unfortunately is not the same as the pdga standard. makes for a great range of difficulties.

as far as same tees for all levels of tournament play, i agree it would be problematic either way. as has been noted, it would really toughen the burden for ratings to have different tees at different levels, while requiring all levels to play the toughest tees might not be entirely practical. the solidifying of the SSA standards sounds like a good longterm solution.

and nick, yes i was being a jerk. but you are the one who left out the 890-899 players :D

I agree with girlie ...i like comparing my score to the better players and see where I stand. as an am 2 I can gauge when I should bump regardless of rating...tournaments i have done with different layouts makes it where I can't see how I stack up,,,just my 2 sense

There is only ONE way to really know how you stack up to the best, and that is to compete with the best. Playing in another division will not give you that information because playing 2 or 4 rounds with Open players is a much different challenge than playing 2 or 4 rounds with Intermediate players. Same goes for Masters.

Folks always say, "Look at Brad Hammock! He would have won Open if he played in Open." That is not necessarily true. He might have played even better having Open players push him; then again he might have played much worse. Truth is we will never know, because he didn't. Same for you; you'll only know if you actually played Open.

Besides, your player rating is a much better indicator of when you are ready to move up than one round at one event. I'm not trying to be tough on you, just on the idea that you can meaningfully compare scores between divisions as an indicator of when to move up or how you "would have" shot in another division.

As to the reasons for different layouts for different skill levels, it is based on the entirely NEW PDGA competitive system idea that we are all NOT on a single track of improving skill, but many competitors reach plateaus that they might never surpass. So it is appropriate to create challenges specific to their level of play.

Certainly Lindsay and others might find methods of adjusting to the challenge of playing GOLD difficulty level courses and actually enjoy it (I know I have to), but there is I think something to be said, for the bigger picture, for providing appropriate challenges all the way up and down the skill scale. Playing a course for which you just do not, and may possibly never, have the skills to compete on can be very discouraging.

Folks always say, "Look at Brad Hammock! He would have won Open if he played in Open." That is not necessarily true. He might have played even better having Open players push him; then again he might have played much worse. Truth is we will never know, because he didn't. Same for you; you'll only know if you actually played Open.




I've always thought this to be pure poppycock. You're trying to play your best golf no matter what division you're in. Other than match-play format, I've never seen *anyone* play any differently whether they were a few strokes or many strokes behind, or a few strokes or many strokes ahead. The scores ARE directly comparable, in my opinion.

Your level of competition within your card makes a difference, why not in your division.

If you have the box for the whole round and are beating the players on your card by 6 strokes, is it the same as playing on a top card and being BOB half the time.

Is it the same when you can throw a bad shot and still be CTP as when you throw a near perfect drive and still have to putt first ?

Would it be the same if you were able to relax in the final round and play your game without worries instead of seeing the win slipping away and having to chase it back down ?

Unless you are in the middle of the pack with nothing really on the line, where you are playing is very important to your score.

Key phrase being


in my opinion



Thing is, you will never know for sure unless you go head to head with the best. That is not opinion, that is a fact Jeff.

If you have the box for the whole round and are beating the players on your card by 6 strokes, is it the same as playing on a top card and being BOB half the time.



Yes.


Is it the same when you can throw a bad shot and still be CTP as when you throw a near perfect drive and still have to putt first?



Yes.


Would it be the same if you were able to relax in the final round and play your game without worries instead of seeing the win slipping away and having to chase it back down?



Yes.


Unless you are in the middle of the pack with nothing really on the line, where you are playing is very important to your score.



Maybe for you, but not what I have observed and experienced in 8 years of tournament golf. Unless someone was injured or approaching DFL, all I've ever seen is every competitor trying to play their best golf at all times.

Key phrase being


in my opinion



Thing is, you will never know for sure unless you go head to head with the best. That is not opinion, that is a fact Jeff.



It's the same course: Same teepads, same pin positions, all played at the same time. That is not opinion, that is a fact, Nick.

I might be the exception, but just yesterday, I am going into my last round 8 strokes outta the money. There is no doubt I played differently being 8 out than if I had been tied going into the last round.

Also, think if you are tied going into the last hole with Climo or Shultz and the hole is a risky 2 based on your skills. Well, you have to go for it or you will likely lose. But, if you were playing against much lesser players, you might avoid the risk and play the hole differently.

Most of us are humans and these factors will definately influence our game.

Guess you've never played in the lead group in the open division Jeff - or your opinion might differ. Having the competition up close and personal can have a definite effect on performance. this has been my experience- derived from 17 years worth of tournaments.

Key phrase being


in my opinion



Thing is, you will never know for sure unless you go head to head with the best. That is not opinion, that is a fact Jeff.



It's the same course: Same teepads, same pin positions, all played at the same time. That is not opinion, that is a fact, Nick.



Different competitors, different groupings, different skill levels, different pressure, different entry fee, different payout, different pdga points, different sense of accomplishment, different thinking and different attitude. The fact is that it is different Jeff.

If it were the same thing, all of the above would be non-factors. You may like to believe that you are "really" competing with the best, but the truth is an entirely different thing. Sorry.

Why is it that most players shoot thier best scores during casual or practice rounds. The competition level does influence the scores for most players.

Why is it that most players shoot thier best scores during casual or practice rounds. The competition level does influence the scores for most players.



Even though we'd like to think it is just us against the course, there is a little competition going on.

Believe dat! :)

I know that I dropped 6-8 strokes in the last 2 rounds this weekend trying to force birdies and catch up to first instead of just playing the course and maybe getting 2nd or 3rd.

Guess you've never played in the lead group in the open division Jeff - or your opinion might differ. Having the competition up close and personal can have a definite effect on performance. this has been my experience- derived from 17 years worth of tournaments.



No, but I've played in the lead group in the Amateur division, I've played in the lead group in the Advanced division, and I've played in the lead group in the Pro 2 division. I still tried to shoot my best golf no matter if I was a few strokes ahead, behind, or whatever.

I'm not saying that having the competition up close and personal won't have an effect on performance, but if anything, it would make you play even better. Would Hammock "wilt" under the pressure of the lead card in Open? Hardly. The guy has been shooting 1020+ golf all year with a 10 stroke lead when the natural tendency would be to milk such a lead. Maybe he would shoot 1050 golf if he were in that scenario! Sorry, Nick's assertion that Masters divisions scores (or any other division's scores) which are shot from the same tees and to the same pin positions cannot be compared is poppycock. No matter that they are different competitors, different groupings, different skill levels, different pressure, different entry fee, different payout, different pdga points, different sense of accomplishment, different thinking and different attitude, it's you against the course!!!

No, but I've played in the lead group in the Amateur division, I've played in the lead group in the Advanced division, and I've played in the lead group in the Pro 2 division. I still tried to shoot my best golf



Jeff, I gotta side with Gary and Nick on this one. I understand your point. Yes, the scores themselves (when played with the same layout among divisions) are indeed directly comparable. And yes, we all try to play our best golf at all times.

But Gary raises a great point when comparing our play betwen casual (relaxed) and tournament rounds and I'm a perfect example when playing Southern National tournaments. As you may know, the SN has mixed divisions for the first round. Typically, I'm the best player on the card, and often have a novice player. I'm generally very relaxed, and spend a lot of time with the novice player giving tips on play and the rules. I typically throw very well and place well within my division.

Then comes the second round, where I've managed to place myself with the better players in my division. I am no longer relaxed; instead I'm rather tense (although I don't necessarily feel it) because I want to show these guys that I can hang with them. Instead, I invariably demonstrate a strong ability to implode into a downward spiral. I do bad, then try harder to do better, thereby doing even worse.

Different people respond to pressure different ways. I almost always play well when relaxed, but I haven't yet learned to relax under tournament pressure, especially when I'm on the lead card.

Thus, while scores can be directly compared, assuming that any given person would have played the same under different circumstances (lead card in a different division, etc) is not safe.

My opinion, given with respect. :)

I'm not saying that having the competition up close and personal won't have an effect on performance, but if anything, it would make you play even better. Would Hammock "wilt" under the pressure of the lead card in Open? Hardly. The guy has been shooting 1020+ golf all year with a 10 stroke lead when the natural tendency would be to milk such a lead. Maybe he would shoot 1050 golf if he were in that scenario!



You see Jeff that is pure speculation. The only way to know for sure if he, you, or anyone else would shoot better or worse in the Open division IS TO SHOOT IN THE OPEN DIVISION. Drawing cross divisional conclusions is tenuous at best within a single event.


Sorry, Nick's assertion that Masters divisions scores (or any other division's scores) which are shot from the same tees and to the same pin positions cannot be compared is poppycock.



Again, purely based upon your OPINION.


No matter that they are different competitors, different groupings, different skill levels, different pressure, different entry fee, different payout, different pdga points, different sense of accomplishment, different thinking and different attitude, it's you against the course!!!



Yes, self-help golf books would have you believe that, and to a certain degree it is healthy to believe that. However, the reality (or fact) of the matter is that when you are at a PDGA event in the thick of competition it is a constant and ongoing challenge to remain focused on your next shot and not on how other players are doing around you. That challenge IS ABSOLUTELY increased when those around you are of equal or higher skill level as yourself and decreased when you are just smoking them (all the while you having to deal with the thought that you �think� other open players are doing even better than you somewhere else on the course in your division).

So philosophically you are correct, it is you and the course; but there is also the reality of PDGA event competition, and it is important that that challenge be as uniform and FAIR as we can possibly make it. Hence our rule on mixing divisions. What is true in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds is no less true in the first.

But beyond all of this discussion is the very simple issue of whether we, TDs, know and follow the rules (and not some of the time). If we do not then what message are we sending to our events participants?

If it's true that you can't compare a score shot with the Masters with one shot with "Pros" (or Ams, Juniors, etc), then wouldn't that make our ratings system a complete waste of time?

No.

Ratings are based on multiple rounds over a long period of time.

Still, there is something to that. IF a player gets a 1040 rating playing in mostly MPM and another the same in MPO, can it be said that the MPM player actually is not as good of a player?

This is pure opinion, but I'd have to answer yes.

This is all a side issue however. The key point is that different skill levels deserve appropriate challenges. One size needn't fit all. By this I am not saying that MPMs and MA1s should play different layouts than MPO, it is proven that they are in large part of comparable skill level (which is a problem of a different order). This would be for significantly different skill levels. Say Beginner, 875 and under golfers and then for over that number. Three layouts at the most and more likely just 2 at most PDGAs.

The one annoying practice is having the Open players play increasingly shooter layouts. Imagine Tiger Woods playing from the beginner tees at the US Open? Let the Open class play the GOLD tees throughout, please.

consistency is key, regardless of layout..the pros more consistent than AM .cosistency wins tournaments !!!!

No.

Ratings are based on multiple rounds over a long period of time.

Still, there is something to that. IF a player gets a 1040 rating playing in mostly MPM and another the same in MPO, can it be said that the MPM player actually is not as good of a player?

This is pure opinion, but I'd have to answer yes.





The problem you have with that argument, Nick, is that the ratings system does not delineate who the player was throwing with when it determines his/her rating. The score determines the rating, and nothing else. Whether he/she was the only master, or playing with nobody but masters makes no difference. There are no asterisks in the book that say "Dan shot a 936 round, but it was in a group filled with 720 rated Hooters girls, so it isn't a true 936".

Thusly, your argument is null and void.

Next.

:D

BTW, yes, "Pros" should throw from longer tees when possible. Every "pro" that I know would prefer that, and it might have the added effect of getting more dead money into the "pro" pool when Ams that prefer the harder tees find out they have to move up to play them in a tourney (I'm thinking of Warwick as an example). If Gold (and only Gold) gets to play 2 rounds of Blue/Blue there, you'd have some people playing Gold just for the opportunity.

Still, there is something to that. IF a player gets a 1040 rating playing in mostly MPM and another the same in MPO, can it be said that the MPM player actually is not as good of a player?

This is pure opinion, but I'd have to answer yes.

This is all a side issue however.



Then start a side thread, Nick. You are basically asserting that ratings aren't valid for anybody but Open players because they don't play in the Open division. Are you actually inferring that Hammock's 1016 rating and Ginnelly's 1014 rating aren't valid?

If it's true that you can't compare a score shot with the Masters with one shot with "Pros" (or Ams, Juniors, etc), then wouldn't that make our ratings system a complete waste of time?



I'll buy your premise, but not your conclusion. Viewing ratings as independent measure of performance is sketchy. Other factors such as length of course, difficulty of course, righty/lefty, 1st round or last round, wind, rain cold, etc. are important.

If the sport gets really big in my lifetime and there are gobs of money pouring in on this week's tourney, then I'll publish past performance lines similar to horses with all these factors noted next to the rating along with misc. notes like "had to listen to whiney baby all round" or "played 3 holes with the Houck curse" just to offer the bettor the whole story. :p

this one has gotten so twisted i'm not sure who i am agreeing with, but anyway...

yes, the tournament situation CAN make a difference in a score. this is obvious to anyone who has watched or played any form of golf for more than about 3 rounds. taking a risk is more likely if a player is 3 strokes back with 4 holes to play than if the player is 3 stroke up with 4 to play.

therefore, who you are playing against COULD make a difference in your score - you are more likely to be in the described situation if you are playing against relatively equal players.

likewise, playing "up" can make a difference. although, i believe the difference can go either way. an am playing up against the pros could over play and end up with a crappy score from trying too hard. or the am could elevate his game due to the intensity of the competition. i know i have experienced both outcomes myself.

however, given all of that, i believe that in the long run it does not matter, because all of these factors have a way of even-ing out over time.

as more rounds are used for ratings, and more players travel inter-regionally to play rated rounds, the ratings become increasingly accurate and less susceptible to regional or course differences. already they are a fair predictor of tournament outcome, at least for the models i have run.

as for the original questions, different layouts for different skills depends entirely on the course and the event. a packed one-course event is not going to benefit it it has Novice and AM1 players playing 5 to a card and shooting in the 80's while the Pros and Adv players are shooting from -5 to +5. in that case, set them up different. in a low turnout event the TD might have a lot more flexibility with card size and starting holes and be able to offer the same course for everyone.

this is certainly not a one answer fits all kind of question.

I agree with Pat in his assessment.

This was not intended as a thread dedicated to discussing if an Advanced Players round is directly comparable to an Open Players round. On some levels they are and on some they are not. The point of discussion was intended to center around whether at PDGA events (or even for minis or casual rounds) we could serve each significant skill range by providing layout challenges specifically designed and created for them.

I know when I go to play Patapsco, Seneca, Warwick and Knob Hill that I am going there to play the Gold layout as an Open Player. I wish every round was played on that layout, even if it meant fewer rounds. Sure we should be able to score well on the shorter layouts, but that is a completely different challenge, one not specifically designed with Open in mind (and rightly so).

Where I think everyone gets short changed is when we try to dumb down a course to try and accommidate all skill ranges, the result being that none of them get to play a course specifically for them and their skill level.

I agree with the above poster that if only Open got to play the GOLD course all rounds, there well might be a few players from Masters and Advanced that would want to try their game against the most challenging layout and players. While we're waiting for the money to roll in we do need to find a few ways to draw the best to what is supposed to be the division with the best most competitive players, don't you think?

This was not intended as a thread dedicated to discussing if an Advanced Players round is directly comparable to an Open Players round. On some levels they are and on some they are not. The point of discussion was intended to center around whether at PDGA events (or even for minis or casual rounds) we could serve each significant skill range by providing layout challenges specifically designed and created for them.

interestingly and relevant to this discussion is the compression factor that shows shorter (aka easier) courses are better at revealing skill differences. thats a general statement - other course design feature come into play. but the general numbers show that the longer a course gets the less each stroke is worth as far as ratings go. this has been thouroughly hashed out on other threads, and does make sense. therefore playing the longest course available lowers the probability that the "best" player will win.

The compression factor or the fact that one stroke is worth less on a higher SSA course does not imply that a lesser player is more likely to win on hard course.

It means that a 1030 rated golfer is likely to beat a 960 golfer by 7 strokes on a SSA 50, but will win by more strokes on a higher SSA course. In other words, the more golf that is played, the more strokes the higher rated player will win by.

More than likely, the harder the course, the more skill that is required. The more skill that is required, the greater the advantage for the more skilled player.

Does anyone practice this to this extent (4 layouts, 4 skill levels, all playing at the same time at an event)? Don’t you think it would be a good idea?



Different layouts for different divisions sucks because it just causes problems in the results and the ratings. Believe me when I say this. If you believe that ratings are good and that accurate ratings are very important, it will just get you labeled an *******. :(

I generally like the idea of multiple tees and multiple basket locations (who wouldn't?) *BUT* IMO it would be pretty hard to accomplish this for most courses and make it worthwhile.

Of course, course designers should always look at multiple tees and greens when designing/revising a course, but you'd have to be pretty darn lucky to latch onto a site where this can be pulled off and still make a quality course from every tee and every basket (plus the $/time to implement it).

I also approve of having temporary shorter/longer tees at tourneys. I've said this before, but here goes the same ol blah-blah: as a graying tourney open pro, I'm getting more and more tired of spending 5 hours on a tournament round that I can walk myself in 1 to 1-1/2 hours. If I had 3 other mini-me's in my foursome, it would take 1-1/2 to 2 hours max. So what's up with the other three hours? It personally makes me want to play in less tourneys, quite frankly.

Now if we could have shorter/easier tees for other divisions so that a mixed-division tourney round could finish somewhere in the same century, then I'm all for that.

And I realize that if I was an Am3, that I would want to play the beautiful 1000-foot holes, just like the big boys. But also realize that the big boys are understandably tired of waiting 30 minutes at the 1000-foot hole for their turn to tee off. I would approve of shorter temp tees for the 'lesser' divisions, and to be fair, perhaps the pros should be stuck into some harder temp-tees when possible and let the 'lesser' divisions tee off on the original-design hole. And I also realize that there are pros who try for heroics that result in 5-hour rounds, and that there are Am3s who can whip out a quick 1-hour round [puleez get into my group, I need somebody to talk to! :)).

I personally would generally like to play from the hardest tees, but it's also good to play from short tees also. And there are deuce-or-die courses can be just as exciting at tourney time as monster courses.

===============

In summary blah blah blah, I welcome different tees, no matter what the excuse is for having them and labeling them, but more for variety of play and time constraints at tourneys, rather than "well I'm a 942, so I should play THIS tee."

it will just get you labeled an *******.



It's too late for that so I'll stick with what I think is right.

Besides Rhett, having different divisions play different courses is not a problem for the Ratings Committee, so long as the TDs report which divisions played which course and when in the results worksheets.

But that is one more reason to have the MA1s play the same course as the MA2s and MA1s (to have enough Gators)...

Nick,


...having different divisions play different courses is not a problem for the Ratings Committee, so long as the TDs report which divisions played which course and when in the results worksheets...




You know very well that there would have to be at least 10 propagators playing on each layout for the others on that layout to get rated. That works fine for the upper divisions, but for the lower Am divisions, those people would NEVER get rated, because there would be not be enough propagators. It happened this year in one B-tier tournament I played. In the third (of four) round, the Intermediates and Women played from different tees than the Pros and Advanced, so that round meant nothing for any of those people. They paid the PDGA Player Fee (which covers data processing, including ratings calculation) like everyone else, but get nothing for it for that round.

I say everyone plays the same layout. The main problem with "slow traffic" comes from TD's that add extra holes and ghost groups to accommodate more and more players, in order to pad the payout, instead of going out and raising sponsorship dollars. Even with fivesomes, an 18 hole layout, properly populated, should play just fine for two rounds a day.

JMHO

...so long as the TDs report which divisions played which course and when in the results worksheets.



That's the point.

You know very well that there would have to be at least 10 propagators playing on each layout for the others on that layout to get rated. That works fine for the upper divisions, but for the lower Am divisions, those people would NEVER get rated, because there would be not be enough propagators. It happened this year in one B-tier tournament I played. In the third (of four) round, the Intermediates and Women played from different tees than the Pros and Advanced, so that round meant nothing for any of those people. They paid the PDGA Player Fee (which covers data processing, including ratings calculation) like everyone else, but get nothing for it for that round.

I say everyone plays the same layout. The main problem with "slow traffic" comes from TD's that add extra holes and ghost groups to accommodate more and more players, in order to pad the payout, instead of going out and raising sponsorship dollars. Even with fivesomes, an 18 hole layout, properly populated, should play just fine for two rounds a day.

JMHO



Is it me, or is the 10 'gator per round thing an awfully weak excuse? Shouldn't there be a contingency plan for cases where you don't have enough 'gators, to avoid the "I paid my PDGA fee, why don't I get rated?" shafting that Jon mentions above?

I can think of a few courses (once again, Warwick blue/blue comes to mind) that would be absolute torture played twice in one day with Intermediates, Am women, and juniors involved. Fivesomes, even with "Pros", are horrible to begin with. Now you want 5 newbies to play together for 2 rounds on a course like that? Utterly insane. So instead, you are in effect punishing the guys that the PDGA caters to.

Tell me, Jon, why bother to make such a challenging, exciting, and nerve-racking course if you can't let the best golfers play it? Because of a statistical issue? There has to be a better way around that one.

Actually, Dan, in my second paragraph I was making a somewhat cynical counterpoint to Nick's argument that the Ratings Committee had no problem with multiple layouts. I'm not a great player and I've run into the issue of not getting a rated round on more than one occasion because of the issue I brought up. But I also understand that it's my choice to play in the Intermediate division, where the problem may occur.

I think there are lots of problems with the way we run tournaments. Personally, I'd like to see shotgun start tournaments limited to foursomes on 18 hole courses. I think it's a disservice to the players to cram extra holes and extra groups into an event. I know it's an easy way to raise more money on the backs of the players, but let's have more events and make them appeal to the different levels of play. I don't know that ratings-based is the way to go, and am not sure what the answer is, but to cheapen the experience for the Intermediate and Women players in order to "hurry them along" so they aren't in the way of the pros is selfish at best.

There's lots more discussion to be had about this topic. Maybe the stats guys can push the course rating issue through so any "layout" could be used to generate ratings for those players that played it during an event, regardless of the propagators present. There is so much massaging of the numbers anyway that it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a better method. People are going to want their ratings updated more and more frequently in the future and it's going to have to be a lot more automated to make that happen. The numbers are going to have to speak for themselves, rather than be reviewed and tweaked by a human before they are released.

Just another brick in the wall......

Nick,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...having different divisions play different courses is not a problem for the Ratings Committee, so long as the TDs report which divisions played which course and when in the results worksheets...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know very well that there would have to be at least 10 propagators playing on each layout for the others on that layout to get rated. That works fine for the upper divisions, but for the lower Am divisions, those people would NEVER get rated, because there would be not be enough propagators.



"NEVER" is a long time Jon. Your statement is true concerning our current position in the development of PDGA Player Ratings, but it is BY NO MEANS a permanent one.

A) As more players become PDGA Members and get PDGA Player Ratings, there will be more 'Gators' in each division, which will allow smaller divisions to generate PDGA Player Ratings.

B) As courses WCPs become more and more statistically secure, we may someday be able to generate PDGA Player Ratings according to them. (This I think would be a MAJOR value added benefit the PDGA could provide to both members and the general public.)

C) If ALL (a)mateur divisions play the lower SSA course then there should certainly be enough 'Gators' to generate PDGA Player Ratings for every player.

This brings up another interesting idea: Is SSA or WCP the best indicator of which course is best for each skill level range? Or are there other more direct factors of course design that should be used to determine whether a layout is appropriate for certain skill levels?

I suspect that they (WCP and Design Factors) are both useful tools in determining whether a course is right for a certain skill level. Perhaps Chuck or John H could elaborate for us.

All skill levels playing the same course is not always the best option. In many cases the layout ends up being a compromise between the top and bottom skill levels, which puts neither the course nor the players skills in the best possible light. "Why are the Open players playing the same course as the Beginners?" "That hole is silly for Open players to be playing." "Those Beginners are totally out-classed on that hole. Seems like they are required to take an OB stroke."

This goes DIRECTLY to the very heart of why we have other tee pads: Is it just to give the GOLD players a different (easier/harder) challenge? Or are we designing these tees to MEET THE NEEDS of other skill levels?

For a sport that has set goals of growth and mainstream acceptance the answer should be self-evident. Appropriate challenge for appropriate skill levels equals better courses, better events, better flow, better turnout, better purses, better perception.

Misconception #1:

to cheapen the experience for the Intermediate and Women players in order to "hurry them along" so they aren't in the way of the pros is selfish at best.



Yes, this may well happen, however it is not a main motivation for providing appropriate challenges for each skill level. �Enhancing�, �Targeting� and �Designing with each skill level specifically in mind� are what I am talking about. Faster play is just icing on the cake.

Misconception #1:

There is so much massaging of the numbers anyway that it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a better method. People are going to want their ratings updated more and more frequently in the future and it's going to have to be a lot more automated to make that happen. The numbers are going to have to speak for themselves, rather than be reviewed and tweaked by a human before they are released.



Both of your statements Jon have more to do with your �take� or �opinion� or �attitude� towards the topic than the actual reality. �So much massaging� makes it appear as if the PDGA Ratings Committee manipulates 80% of the results, when in reality they only remove probably around 2 to 5% of specific players results that fall outside a set criteria of deviation (are way to low). The numbers �DO� speak for themselves, it is misconceptions like yours that undermine the trust folks have in them, not the PDGA Ratings which are WAY WAY WAY better than even ball golf has.

Any �automation� will simply be an extension or programming of what is currently �reviewed and tweaked by a human�. The �reviewed and tweaked by a human� is a learning process by which we may someday be able to automate the process, but �reviewed and tweaked by a human� will likely never be completely done away with.

Lastly, the generation of PDGA Player Ratings (as Dan pointed out) should NEVER (there I used it) dictate how we should go about creating the best event we possibly can (meaning one that meets or exceeds the needs of it�s participants). It is up to PDGA Player Ratings to figure out how to best glean accurate statistics from events, not for events to figure out how to best provide useful data. If the TD fully and accurately reports all event data (after the fact) then we should have what we need to move our PDGA Ratings statistically and applicably forward.

Ideally, having appropriate layouts for each skill level is desirable. We have identified four different levels for course designers. These levels should be identified on the courses with the tee colors Gold, Blue, White and Red. Recommendations for which PDGA divisions are suited for which color tees are provided, with a differentiation whether it's for day-to-day play or major events. Guidelines for dogleg lengths, approach shots and water carries have also been provided. This document will be available within the next few days as soon as Theo posts a link to it on the Course Development page. Here's the direct link: http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

From a practical standpoint, it's difficult to do multiple layouts at an event for several reasons: more complicated instructions and course markings, getting enough propagators playing each layout to calculate for ratings, course doesn't have alternate tees or pins to do it, and desire of players to play the same layouts. We compromised at PW2001 and had two courses of the four with 5 different holes for the Women and GM+ divisions. Three of their holes were longer than what Open and Masters played because the test statistics in our warmup events indicated which positions were better to spread scores for that skill level.

If possible, having different layouts is much more important on open holes than tight holes. The two courses with the different PW2001 layouts were the two most open ones. Even though a case could be made for changing a few holes on the tighter courses, we didn't do it so players could compare scores on two of the four courses. We have already made plans for different pin positions on a half dozen holes or so on the mostly open Tinicum course for the Women/GM+ divisions at PW2005. These choices will be tested ahead of time to make sure our assumptions work out in practice.

Testing and design knowledge are the key elements whether doing different layouts actually makes a difference. Just because a set of holes is longer doesn't mean they are all better for Gold level players. We are only now getting more experienced with doing the stats required to design and tweak holes so they actually challenge the level of players intended. Again, it's much more important on open holes than wooded holes. The nature of wooded holes typically spreads scores in all divisions regardless of skill level. That's not the case on open holes where it's pretty easy to end up with hole lengths where some divisions have very little variance in their scores (almost all 3s let's say).

The new Highbridge facility I'm developing in northern Wisconsin will become a testing ground to further refine these design parameters. They are also being used by Houck and myself at the courses we're working on in Augusta. I know several other designers that are using the knowledge developed so far in their new courses. At Highbridge so far, two courses have Blue and Red tees, and the other has Gold and White tees. The fourth course will have a single set of White tees and I'm not sure about the fifth. For the Ratings Nationals next June, players will play the course configurations closest to their skill level on the three different courses each division will play. It will be the first time we'll have such large fields of players within fairly narrow ratings ranges to see how our current guidelines work out in practice. Then, we'll adjust the parameters accordingly as needed.

The Majestic NT Final 9 course, which I've designed for the past several years, has been an exercise in determining what's needed to test our elite Gold Plus players. One of my goals is to avoid any holes where all four players have the same score. The first year someone had a different score on all 9 holes but I also "lucked out" with a little rain. This past week, seven holes had different scores. The two where all had the same scores were two of our regular holes that are in there so players can see what the big boys do on the holes that give most people trouble, so these results were expected.

Even though players like to play the same courses as other divisions to compare scores, the game should be more about you against the course. Being challenged by the designer to execute in a way to earn a birdie or par, and not bogey, should be the core essence of our game. If everyone at your skill level just gets easy pars on some holes, even after worm burner or shanked drives, where's the "game" in our game?

chuck, i havent read all the posts on this topic, but what ive read indicates the use of players ratings to allow for "alternate layout" for play in a PDGA tournament.....is the ultimate goal to entice the lower rated players to compete in PDGA events? is it to create a more fair competitive situation for all involved? is it targeted for recreational players not competing in tournaments or just for tournaments? id like to withhold stating my opinion (not that it means anything) about this til i hear back from you about the ultimate goal for different teepads for different players (ratings)....

The goal to design appropriate holes for each skill level where possible is a fundamental course designer's goal for all purposes whether rec play or tournament play. Tournaments have several other considerations that many times makes it difficult or impractical to have different layouts to match each skill level even if that would provide a better experience.

At the extreme, it would be possible to design holes where players in a small division with similar skills shot the same score on every hole. I remember playing the Waco event as a GM Pro in 1999 where our card had nothing but 3s for six holes in a row in the back nine. The way Cameron was set that round was great for Open players (as it should be) but each hole in that series was just out of geezer birdie range, but not so far to make the second shot challenging enough for any of us to blow an easy par.

Having challenging holes for all skill levels any time you play whether rec or tournament play should be the goal although we all know economics and practicalities make this difficult to achieve many times.

The importance of the PDGA Course Design Guidelines for each Player Skill Level (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) cannot be overstated. I encourage all prospective course designers to familiarize themselves thoroughly with it.

In my opinion, the most important points to take away from the document are the following:

1) Divisions comprised of amateur women, recreational (MA3) men, and others with ratings lower than 875 will find a better golfing experience on layouts less than 5000 feet in length. They should not be required to play a teepad that forces a water carry, and should not be forced to throw more than 170 feet (effective length) to reach a corner on a dogleg hole. If your course features a dogleg farther out, these divisions should have an alternate tee.

2) Blue and white tees for advanced/intermediate men, advanced/intermediate masters and Open Women should ideally have an alternate flight path when confronted with a water hazard. If a throw across water is forced, the carry should be no more than 225 feet (effective length) from the tee. A player should not be forced to throw over 240 feet (effective length) to the corner of a dogleg from the tee.

3) Gold tees for highly skilled players should still not force a carry over a water hazard of more than 250 feet (effective length) from the tee. In other words, that 300 foot "Tin Cup" hole you've designed that does not offer an option to throw around the water isn't gonna cut it. And finally, a player should not be forced to throw over 275 feet (effective length) to the corner of a dogleg from the tee.

These design specs are already in use. Earlier this year, Chuck staked out the layout for the Jordan Creek course to be used at Pro Worlds 2005 in Allentown, PA. A shorter tee for all Masters and older female divisions and all Senior Grandmasters and older male divisions was implemented on a hole that forces a water carry. And on several holes, tees were shortened so that an appropriate length to reach a dogleg was enacted. The last thing you want is a hole where a competitor cannot reach the dogleg. Their second shot might then be a "dinker," or basically a putt, just to reach the opening of the dogleg.

I haven't really read much of this thread but was caught by the following in Jeff's post.


3) Gold tees for highly skilled players should still not force a carry over a water hazard of more than 250 feet (effective length) from the tee. In other words, that 300 foot "Tin Cup" hole you've designed that does not offer an option to throw around the water isn't gonna cut it. And finally, a player should not be forced to throw over 275 feet (effective length) to the corner of a dogleg from the tee.




I understand the over water requirement because there is no out, but why the maximum length to a dogleg. Can't I just keep throwing until I get there?

Chuck, John. Please explain.

You could have a par 5 type dogleg where it took a drive and an approach length shot until you get to the dogleg. However, if you have a dogleg intended to be reached with a good throw from the tee, then the players of that skill level should be able to reach it with one good throw. The lengths are based on driving data for the divisions plus accounting for adverse wind. Also, in ball golf, most par threes do not require a driver to reach the green. The first shot shouldn't always require a max length drive.

chuck, im looking at this at two different levels. one is course design for day to day recreational play, and two is organized PDGA tournament course design based on players ratings.
given the resources and time, designing a course with different teepads per hole would be a dream come true. everyone who would come out to play recreationally would utilize the course to their desires, maximizing the pleasure resulting from playing a course fitted to their abilities, and since the vast majority of disc golf rounds played in this world are not in an organized venue, thats what you want.
Chuck-
"The goal to design appropriate holes for each skill level where possible is a fundamental course designer's goal for all purposes whether rec play or tournament play. Tournaments have several other considerations that many times makes it difficult or impractical to have different layouts to match each skill level even if that would provide a better experience"

im afraid i dont agree with the "whether recreational or tourney play" with respect to PDGA organized events. creating divisive course play based on players' ratings only dilutes and diminishes the goals the PDGA i feel is trying to accomplish at this time. i personally dont want to go to a PDGA event and end up playing a lesser course just because my player rating doesnt meet a certain standard. in other words, the "PDGA" becomes the "pDGA", different course play based on players ratings will create a small professional division and everyone else, who plays at a lesser level, even though technically everyone is considered a PDGA member.
i agree with you there is not enough structure to make this happen as it stands right now, but if it did, shouldnt i just bag the PDGA and go join the RDGA?
i try to improve my disc golf skills playing in tournaments and if i feel im not provided an opportunity to compete at the highest level possible, whether im up to the challenge or not, i will not want to pursue furthur activities along that line.
if a course is too tough for my standards then too bad, i either need to step up and try to play better or dont play at all.
heres another way i look at it, - im a member of the PDGA, and i want to be considered a member in all respects to that fact, the Professional Disc Golf Association, if my PDGA player rating does not let me play at the level, in regards to course play, or any other factor, as everybody else who are considered a PDGA member then i feel i am not really a part of the PDGA, just a supporter of the few who are allowed to play at that top players ratings level.
just for the record, when i td tourneys, i do have alternate tee pads on critical holes for different divisions, but thats the only separation between the players i create. i definitely understand the need to create certain "alternate" tee placements in certain situations, BUT making widesweeping policy affecting the whole of the organization, i think should be approached cautiously.....what do you think?

This is awesome Chuck! :)

That doesn't sound like the most challenging of courses.

Max required drive for the pros is 250-275.

I would want to play up to avoid those tees, but those are the longest ones listed.

Think NC dogleg, not TX dogleg. Renny 17 and Hornet's Nest 16 would be good examples of constrained corridor 90 degree doglegs where these guidelines should be considered. The distance listed is the front edge where the dogleg opening begins. If the opening is 50-75 feet wide, then a Gold player has to throw from 275 to 325-350 with control to get a decent position in the opening.

In the case of doglegs with woods on say only one side of fairway, the guides are less important if a player with a short tee shot can still throw wide around the corner and advance down the second part of the fairway. Houck was a key person in setting these guides so he must know what top Texas players can do :cool:

John just doesn't like old men that can still throw over 350' :D

He never lets us play his long tees.

In the case of San Saba, I'm not complaining much, but at Wimberley, the longs are more fun.

I agree, Wimberely is meant to be played from the longs.

Just my two cents, but as a senior grandmaster, I would question the need to play multiple rounds per day on long courses during tournaments. It isn't done in any ball golf tournaments (not that I'm advocating the 'fly 18' philosophy).
As an example, the Golden State this year was played at a greatly lengthened La Mirada course. 9700 feet over 27 holes, which doesn't take into account the distance from the last pole played to the next tee or the undulating and sometimes quite steep fairways. 54 holes on Friday, 54 on Saturday and 27 on Sunday for a grand total of 135 holes, not including the final nine. This translates to about 4 miles a day for the first two days alone (and that's assuming every shot is nearly perfect!).
I love the course, but I see no reason why it or any other course need be played more than once per day in a tournament. The best players will still have the same chance of winning, and more players of all ages will be likely to compete and at least have a fighting chance of keeping up.
I believe there were only 5 grandmasters playing this year and I spoke to several who didn't play because they just plain couldn't do it physically. I played the course once the day before the tournament and my knees still hurt! :eek:
Senior grandmasters who played? ZERO.
It has always been my view that disc golf should be a game of skill and finesse more than one of strength and stamina.
I know that at 59, I'm in a minority here, but anyone who is playing now will one day (hopefully) play as grandmasters and senior grandmasters.
Plus, one round per player per day would allow for more players to play on a given day with morning and afternoon starting times and potentially twice as many players per event with far less waiting around.

P.S.
Hate the title 'Senior Grandmasters.' It is the only division title
other than 'Juniors' that makes reference to age. :mad:

How about Super Grandmasters? I agree with the fewer rounds, not so much for age, but field size. Smaller fields don't need as many rounds to separate the field. However, if you suggest that to the women for Worlds, they feel they're not getting treated equally with the Open Men.

Likewise, some don't realize that the format, at least for Worlds, follows the 'Peter Shive' rule which says the Sr GMs have to play the same layouts and number of rounds as the GMs even though the MPG field usually outnumbers the MPS by 4 times and averages 10 years younger. His rationale is that even though he's in exceptional shape for an MPS, the PDGA shouldn't reduce the rounds and challenge at the Majors level just because other MPS players can't keep up.

In fact, fewer rounds per tournament would have little or no
effect on the outcome other than that the very fit (and generally younger) players will no longer have the HUGE advantage they now have.
The game should be about how well you can play, not how many miles of hills you can climb in 2-4 days.

P.S.
Masters, Grandmasters, Wizards, Legends

Just like Senior implies age, Wizard implies amazing skill . Keep trying. Plus, the possibility of the term Grand Wizard takes us in the wrong direction...

The Legends will need a new name for the 80+ players in a few years. They said they came up with a good name but forgot it... I suggested perhaps the Royal & Ancients in a nod to our Scottish roots via BG.

Chuck:
I like Super Grand Masters far better than 'Senior Grandmasters.'
I'm not locked into 'Wizards,' but it is no different than 'Masters' with regard to implied skill. The title 'Master' indicates tremendous skill, perhaps even more so than 'Wizard.' Who among us is truly a 'master' of the game? The only qualification for the title in disc golf is that you be 40-50 years old. Many 'Masters' have only been playing a short time and have 'mastered' almost nothing. Then you graduate to 'Grand Master' which implies even greater skills and literally means 'Master of masters.' Unless all the division titles except 'Junior' and 'Open' are changed, then 'Wizard' is perfectly appropriate. The original meaning of the word 'wizard' is 'a wise man.'

I could suggest many more titles to replace 'Senior Grand Master,' but I don't think many members are listening.

Here're just a few off the top of my head anyway:
Archon, Avatar, Magi, Icon, Wizard, Vizier, Shaman, Druid,
Gladiator, Bishop, Cardinal, Wisdom Class, Knight, Paradigm,
Zenith, Dragon, Odin, Zeus, Sage, etc.,etc., etc.


P.S.
"Grand Wizard" continues perfectly the direction set by "Masters" and "Grand Masters."

Chuck,

Any chance of you briefly describing a hole and how it is appropriate for one skill level and not for another? Thanks.

Nick

Picture hole 1 at Tinicum when the basket is in the short A position. I don't know the distance on it but it's gotta be over 400 feet, with a sharp right turn needed off the tee. A skilled Open or Pro Masters player needs to throw a very long turnover shot (RHBH) that flexes perfectly to get near the polehole, or alternatively, a backhand roller. Players need to mind the wind on this hole because there is often a headwind that turns anhyzers into unintended rollers! A long putt to score deuce is high caliber play, and this hole is certainly of Pro Worlds worthiness.

For the Open and Pro Masters divisions, this hole isn't so good in the B and C positions because very few if any players will deuce it. Most will score threes (with maybe a scattered few fours) but overall there will be very little score variation to seprate competitors.

For the Grandmasters and Women, the A position will again produce very little score variation. No one will deuce it and most will score three on it. However, when in the longest C position it becomes an excellent par 4 hole for those divisions. The better competitors will three it, while the rest of the field will take fours and maybe even fives on it. Score variation = good.

With only one set of teepads at Tinicum but three or four polehole positions on every hole, Pro Worlds 2005 organizers will make sure that the appropriate pin positions and hole distances are used for each division.

Rounds 2-5 seemed to present a more substantial challenge for Open players. One could say a more appropriate challenge for their skill level.

What would happen if they had ONLY played courses appropriate to GOLD level players: (Gplace = Place according to our imaginary scenerio)

<table border="1"><tr><td> Gplace</td><td>Place</td><td>Name</td><td>PDGA#</td><td>Rd 2</td><td>Rd 3</td><td>Rd 4</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>Aaron Wield</td><td>10789</td><td>50</td><td>58</td><td>49</td><td>157
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>Brian Schweberger</td><td>12989</td><td>55</td><td>51</td><td>53</td><td>159
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>Cameron Todd</td><td>12827</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>51</td><td>160
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>Steve Rico</td><td>4666</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>David Feldberg</td><td>12626</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>52</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>Timmy Gill</td><td>9293</td><td>52</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>Barry Schultz</td><td>6840</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>55</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>Ken Climo</td><td>4297</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>Keith Warren</td><td>13610</td><td>56</td><td>55</td><td>52</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>Mike Randolph</td><td>6138</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>164
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>Chris Heeren</td><td>18464</td><td>58</td><td>54</td><td>52</td><td>164
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>Brian McRee</td><td>7883</td><td>54</td><td>58</td><td>53</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>Walter Haney</td><td>6001</td><td>54</td><td>60</td><td>51</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>Justin Bunnell</td><td>20827</td><td>53</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>Larry LaBond</td><td>6903</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>54</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>Markus Kallstrom</td><td>13150</td><td>53</td><td>54</td><td>59</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>19</td><td>Micah Dorius</td><td>14609</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>54</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>Chris Sprague</td><td>16425</td><td>56</td><td>57</td><td>55</td><td>168
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>14</td><td>Nathan Doss</td><td>11794</td><td>63</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>169
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>John E. McCray</td><td>9852</td><td>56</td><td>58</td><td>55</td><td>169
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I'm by no means saying that this is a more valid test of skill, but it is interesting to consider in light of this discussion.

Nick, I was thinking the same thing. Rodney and I traded e-mails about the ISU course; it's got an SSA of around 49 whereas the other courses are all around 56.

Fitting 950 competitors onto a small number of courses in Des Moines became a logistical challenge. There was also an enormous amount to be said for bring the competition to the town of Ames where the Iowa State University course is located. Think of the revenue and exposure it brings to Ames. Similarly, while the South Mountain course in Bethlehem won't challenge competitors as much as the other courses during next year's 2005 Pro Worlds, the event was pitched by the Lehigh Valley Convention Bureau, which represents Allentown AND Bethlehem. Fortunately, the South Mountain course will likely be used only for female masters and male grandmasters and above divisions.

I would agree that it would be a shame if many of divisions' outcomes are decided by the drive/putt holes on the deuce-fest ISU course, but that's the way the cookie crumbled.

I wonder if the outcome would be any different if all 8 rounds for the Open Division were played between Nockamixon and Lehigh Highway courses and they didn't play Tinicum ( a great course, but not on the level of the other 2) or Jordon (likewise)?

We are interested in playing the game of disc GOLF after all, right?

According to the current setup how many times will be get to play these courses (2 times each)? Man, I would really like the powers that be to consider cutting out the courses with SSAs below 54 for the Open players.

I think there are a couple of unfair assumptions and characterizations here.

Yes, the ISU course has an SSA of 49 or 50. But that's not the whole story.

I haven't seen it, but I've heard a lot about it. At least the front 9 requires quite a bit of accuracy, and also some creativity. It's not like it's 18 holes of 350-foot wide-open holes.

16 of the holes are reachable by pretty much any pro. The other 2 holes are true 2-shot holes, requiring 2 good shots to get to the pin. There are no tweener holes where a large majority of the players will all get the same score on the hole.

In other words, although the scoring is low (on an absolute scale), the course itself may do a great job of separating the good players from the not-so-good. It just happens that this course slants toward those players that are good at hitting lines and being creative. These are certainly important skills when determining a champion.

Having 2 rounds at ISU, along with 1 and Grandview (SSA 50), along with 5 others in the 55-57 SSA range seems like a pretty good mix to me, especially when only a few holes on the 55-57 SSA courses are particularly tight.

Using scores as any kind of indication of appropriateness is not a good idea. You could have a 57 SSA course with top pros scoring in the 52-55 range, and it could have lots of holes that are horribly inappropriate for that skill level.

By the way, both the Carroll Marty course and the ISU course are in Ames.

Using scores as any kind of indication of appropriateness is not a good idea. You could have a 57 SSA course with top pros scoring in the 52-55 range, and it could have lots of holes that are horribly inappropriate for that skill level.



Man Rodney! Aren't we being opinionated today! :) :D;)

Then how about making sure that every hole is appropriate. A course that every Open player can reach the pin on every hole does not sound much like golf to me. I'd rather see courses, and holes, that require drive placement shots leading to approach placement shots leading (to other approach placement shots) then a putt. 3 to 6 tricky par 3s is enough per course IMO (even LH and Nocka have more than this).

I know Chuck is working with these courses to present appropriate challenges for the competitors, I hope that the powers that be really lend heed to his advice and make these courses the best, most challenging and appropriate ever. The potential is definitely there.

Where the winner has rounds like 66, 70, 68, 69, 65, but has shot a total of 22 down. Where not only are birdies possible but actual disc golf eagles!

Nick,

While the Nockamixon course will clearly be one of the toughest ever used in a Pro Worlds, the Little Lehigh Parkway course will probably play to an SSA only around 54 or 55 after the par five is added, and two par three holes are extended to par fours.

A quick glance at the Course Statistics Page shows that Tinicum Park with all long pins comes in around 56-57. Matt and Chuck have indicated that a mixture of pin positions will be used, but I would expect the Worlds layout to come in only slightly lower than the value quoted above.

Where Jordan Creek will come in is tough to determine. There will be 6 par four holes and a monster par 5 hole up a gigantic hill for a total of par 62! The course length will approach about 6800 feet.

In summary, Little Lehigh Parkway won't be as tough as you think, and Tinicum and Jordan Creek won't be pushovers, either.

OK, but you see what I am getting at. If each hole is designed specifically to challenge the GOLD skill level to it's fullest, and it is possible, even at LH, we could present the Gold Standard for future Championship event courses.

If it is possible, I for one hope we do it.

I have played a ton of events this year, some on great courses, some not; some well run, some not; but in all I have NOT played in a single event dedicated to presenting a 100% targetted challenge (appropriate) to the Open division. Next year I will be far more selective based on those three factors.

The only event I can think of that hit this mark is the USDGC. (One I hope to qualify for this year at Paw Paw). Why more events, particularly top ones like Seneca, Warwick, Knob Hill, Patapsco, Tyler and Brandywine, don't hit these three standards I don't know. Playing the course designed for Top Players EVERY ROUND for the entire event certainly hasn't harmed the reputation or attendance of the USDGC.

Playing the course appropriate to the highest skill level may result in my scoring a 74 (like at Knob Hill), but to not give me another chance at it (until next year) is only one of the frustrating parts. The other is that players that tore it up don't have a chance to enjoy the quiet desparation I did.

Am I alone in this?

So, I guess the issue is once again, dead?
No response to my query, other than an inaccurate and unreasonable dismissal?

All of us will be older one day, if we're lucky.

The title 'Senior Grandmasters' sucks.

:mad:

I talked with Pete May, a Sr. GM and BOD member, about it and he said the division is called 'Esquires' in table tennis. Not sure that's the best choice but there are options out there to consider.

'Esquires' is not terrible. Wizards is better. ;)

Rounds 2-5 seemed to present a more substantial challenge for Open players. One could say a more appropriate challenge for their skill level.

What would happen if they had ONLY played courses appropriate to GOLD level players: (Gplace = Place according to our imaginary scenerio)

<table border="1"><tr><td> Gplace</td><td>Place</td><td>Name</td><td>PDGA#</td><td>Rd 2</td><td>Rd 3</td><td>Rd 4</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>Aaron Wield</td><td>10789</td><td>50</td><td>58</td><td>49</td><td>157
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>Brian Schweberger</td><td>12989</td><td>55</td><td>51</td><td>53</td><td>159
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>Cameron Todd</td><td>12827</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>51</td><td>160
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>Steve Rico</td><td>4666</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>David Feldberg</td><td>12626</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>52</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>Timmy Gill</td><td>9293</td><td>52</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>161
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>Barry Schultz</td><td>6840</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>55</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>Ken Climo</td><td>4297</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>Keith Warren</td><td>13610</td><td>56</td><td>55</td><td>52</td><td>163
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>Mike Randolph</td><td>6138</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>164
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>Chris Heeren</td><td>18464</td><td>58</td><td>54</td><td>52</td><td>164
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>Brian McRee</td><td>7883</td><td>54</td><td>58</td><td>53</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>Walter Haney</td><td>6001</td><td>54</td><td>60</td><td>51</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>Justin Bunnell</td><td>20827</td><td>53</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>165
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>Larry LaBond</td><td>6903</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>54</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>Markus Kallstrom</td><td>13150</td><td>53</td><td>54</td><td>59</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>19</td><td>Micah Dorius</td><td>14609</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>54</td><td>166
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>Chris Sprague</td><td>16425</td><td>56</td><td>57</td><td>55</td><td>168
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>14</td><td>Nathan Doss</td><td>11794</td><td>63</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>169
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>John E. McCray</td><td>9852</td><td>56</td><td>58</td><td>55</td><td>169
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I'm by no means saying that this is a more valid test of skill, but it is interesting to consider in light of this discussion.



What would the results have been for the entire tournament? Throw out all the rounds on courses with SSA of 50 or under.

The total SSA for a course doesn't have a direct correlation to whether a course is more suitable for Gold players. It's possible to make a course with a sub 50 SSA for Gold, and a course not suitable for Gold with an SSA over 54. It's a hole-by-hole design issue. Houck was providing advice to the Iowa team on making the holes on their courses more suitable for Gold players. He would be able to tell you how many changes were made along those lines but I would guess not as much as he would have liked or expected.

And quite a few of them were very obvious and tough.

The total SSA for a course doesn't have a direct correlation to whether a course is more suitable for Gold players. It's possible to make a course with a sub 50 SSA for Gold, and a course not suitable for Gold with an SSA over 54. It's a hole-by-hole design issue. Houck was providing advice to the Iowa team on making the holes on their courses more suitable for Gold players. He would be able to tell you how many changes were made along those lines but I would guess not as much as he would have liked or expected.



I suspect you have an idea or two concerning appropriate challenge for GOLD. Any chance of hearing about a few of the main criteria?

In general I would completely disagree with your assertion that courses designed for Scratch Golfers so that an appropriate Disc Golf challenge is presented can be achieved on a course with an SSA of less than say 64.

Why?

For the simple reason that the course presents no statistical chances of scoring a variety of 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, or even an occasional 6 in a ratio that has variety of challenge. GOLF demands a certain variety of pars. All 3s and 2s for 18 holes is a challenge, but so is trying to throw 18 balls of paper into a trash can at 8 feet; disc golf, particularly at the highest level of competition should be expected to meet a higher standard.

A course with an 64 SSA can have holes with SSAs:

<table border="1"><tr><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><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>64 </tr></td></table>

Now where I think you are going is that there are appropriate expectations of accuracy/distance for Gold players that can be achieved on courses with SSAs of lower number, and that higher SSA does not mean that you automatically have an appropriate challenge. That I will agree with.

So my equation is �Hole Par Variety + Throw Distance/Risk Reward = Appropriate Skill Level Challenge�. Does that sound about right?

I'm not saying the sub 50 SSA course would be a "good" course for Gold, but if more than half of the holes were in the 330-400 range, they would likely be inappropriate (depending on elevation aspects) for Blue (950) or Red (850>) level players. In other words, the holes might be one shot holes for Gold but not necessarily Blue or Red level players. An example course that might be like this is Sunset in Vegas.

I agree with the need for several multiple shot holes for a course to truly be good for Gold level players. But if the distances are "wrong" on those multiple shot holes, an SSA 58+ course might still be better for Blue vs Gold level players.

The total SSA for a course doesn't have a direct correlation to whether a course is more suitable for Gold players. It's possible to make a course with a sub 50 SSA for Gold, and a course not suitable for Gold with an SSA over 54. It's a hole-by-hole design issue. Houck was providing advice to the Iowa team on making the holes on their courses more suitable for Gold players. He would be able to tell you how many changes were made along those lines but I would guess not as much as he would have liked or expected.



My question assumes that all distances are appropriate for Gold players. I am curious as to the final outcome in the Open (and Pro Master divisions, if you have time Nick) and wonder if many of top places and finishes were decided by the drive/putt holes on the deuce-fest courses.

This NOT a bash on Iowa Worlds 2004 courses; everything I've heard has been how great these courses were! This is simply a foray into seeing who plays better on high SSA courses and if that changes the outcomes.

I agree with the need for several multiple shot holes for a course to truly be good for Gold level players. But if the distances are "wrong" on those multiple shot holes, an SSA 58+ course might still be better for Blue vs Gold level players.




Agreed.

Could you breakdown for us a general idea (distances to landing areas and targets, etc.) of what would be an appropriate hole for Gold Players? Perhaps one 2, 3, 4, and 5 par hole? Or pick one that will make your point... :DThanks.

Jeff,

Like Chuck said, such analysis might not be possible with the data we have. I'd need to know shot by shot data along with distances and reasonableness of landing areas. The courses with lower SSAs could well have presented an appropriate challenge for Gold players.

Though I do question if in this day, with courses having higher and higher SSAs if duce or die courses are an appropriate challenge for Gold level players. I know that they are not really my cup of tea (not that I am solidly in the Gold category).

Here's a chart we use for course design that helps guide length decisions. When the foliage is less than 'Average' (the lengths where the colors are darker), like near 2.8-3.2 or 3.8-4.2, are usually less desireable because too many players of that skill level will shoot the same score on the hole. These would be lengths to avoid. If the foliage on a hole is at least 'Average' or more, there's usually enough score dispersion that makes the length choices a little less critical.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg

Excellent. Thanks.

Let's Beat The Crap Out of This Apparently Dead Horse:
Sarcasm to follow:

Just to make it fair to us 'Senior' Grand Masters, here're some fair names for the rest of the classes made equivalent to 'Senior Grand Masters':

Little Kid Juniors
Puberty Players
Post Pubescent-Open
Middle-Aged Masters
Post-Middle-Aged Grand Masters
Senior Grand Masters (already in place and the only class named for being old)
Almost Dead Legends

In chess, a master is someone who will kick the crap out of anybody you've ever met in a chess game.
A grandmaster is someone who can make a master look like some dork off the street.
Has nothing to do with age.
Has to do with skill. If we're going to name classes arbitrarily because of the number of years a player has been on the planet, with no reflection to age (as is already done in all classes except senior grand masters), then why can't Senior Grand Masters be changed to be more in line with the other titles?
Somebody, please, why can't we change the title of 'Senior' grandmaster somehow to eliminate the 'senior' part?
To reiterate, again, with redundancy, and also by repeating myself, and by saying the same thing over and over, Senior Grandmaster is the only PDGA classification that refers to age, and THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT!
It's as insulting as calling masters 'Middle-Aged Masters.'

Again, my suggestion is: Wizards.

If you think that title suggests awesome skill, please see the definition (ANYWHERE) of the titles 'master,' and 'grandmaster.'

Candle in the wind.
:mad:

All protected divisions should refer to age (and/or gender). If we're creating division because of age, why not have names that reflect what they are?

All protected divisions should refer to age (and/or gender). If we're creating division because of age, why not have names that reflect what they are?



Such as:

Generation X, Baby-Boomers, Civil War Vets and Dirt?

how about we don't have ANY names for them and do what they do on all types of questionaire forms for anything where they are trying to not have you give an exact age???

under 10
under 16
under 19
40-49 pro or am
50-59 pro or am
60-69 pro or am
70 plus hopefully only pro at this point :D
open division(any age)

ends all the bullcrraap and still accomplishes what the pdga is trying to accomplish with names...

keith

I'm offended by that elitist remark.

Do you feel there something wrong with being an amateur player for one's entire life? :D

keithjohnson:
Not bad. Still, the names are more colorful, even though they reflect nothing.
I'm only objecting to one of the division names. The rest are fine with me, though totally meaningless.

We over 59-year-olds have a right to a meaningless title just like everyone else!
;) ;)

I'm offended by that elitist remark.

Do you feel there something wrong with being an amateur player for one's entire life? :D




not at all....but by the time you are playing legend you might as well be getting CASH back for your entry fee..it helps subsidize the social security check that probably WON'T be there when i retire :D

besides after a lifetime of playing ams you should have enough plastic, unless you REALLY succk and are playing in bad tournaments where the td's don't reward you for being old :eek:

And we all know those 'Legends' pros really rake in the dough at tournaments. Mmmmm, might even get part of your entry fee back!
;)
:D

Generation X, Baby-Boomers, Civil War Vets and Dirt?



Works for me.

how about we don't have ANY names for them and do what they do on all types of questionaire forms for anything where they are trying to not have you give an exact age???

under 10
under 16
under 19
40-49 pro or am
50-59 pro or am
60-69 pro or am
70 plus hopefully only pro at this point :D
open division(any age)

ends all the bullcrraap and still accomplishes what the pdga is trying to accomplish with names...

keith



Lame. :D

Try:
Open - open division(any age)
Tikes - under 10
Kids - under 16
Teens - under 19
Gen-Xers - 40-49 pro or am
Boomers - 50-59 pro or am
Dino-Golfers - 60-69 pro or am
Dirt - 70 plus hopefully only pro at this point :D

I know this thread is about tournament play where par doesn't matter a whole lot, because you're really only interested in total score. But for the majority of the time people are just playing casually. Another reality is that most existing courses only have 1 set of tees or 2 if they're lucky.

For casual (non-tournament) play at courses with only 1 set of tees could you accomplish the same effect by having 4 sets of par-- Gold, Blue, White, Red? Par would have to be set taking SSA into account, accounting for elevation, foliage, and obstacles, and using the chart "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length". Of course, there's a lot of overlap in the pars. e.g.- depending on foliage a 275 ft. hole could be a par 3 for all 4 Levels.

I thought this thread was mainly about the vast majority of courses that will never see a PDGA tournaemnt. Certainly not tournament play where par is meaningless except to broadcasters and viewers.

It has been written, by John Houck and others, that a good hole will tend to separate scores for your target group of players. In other words, if a large majority of players are getting the same score on the hole, then the hole might not be appropriate for that skill level.

The exact percentage of the field for this "large majority" is subjective, but is usually quoted as somewhere between 67% and 80%.

This ultimately leads into the discussion of holes that are appropriate for one skill level, but not for another. With this in mind, I present hole-by-hole statistics for one of the Des Moines Worlds courses.

http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/gview.jpg

As you can see, data is presented for the top 40 finishers in the A pool (MPO) and the G pool (MA1). I could have extended this to the entire pool, but I wanted to narrow the skill level a bit more than what was provided by the full 72 players.

The numbers in red are any hole where >70% of the field got the same score.

The grey-shaded numbers are those holes that appear to be more appropriate for one division than for the other.

Small note: I have not shaded holes 1 and 18, even though they have red numbers for pro, but not for adv. These stats are strange in that the MA1's actually got more deuces than the MPO's. My guess is that if we had a larger sample of data to work with, either the MPO's would get more deuces and thus make the holes look more appropriate, or the MA1's would get less deuces and thus call the holes into question for both divisions.

Interesting chart. I'd like to see Womens, Masters and Interemediate divisions mixed in as well.

My personal feeling (based on no data at all, purely subjective), is that Advanced and Open Men should be playing the same tees. Masters should be playing an easier layout if only because they are opting in to a protected division. Intermediates and Women should play shorter holes because in general their driving distance is shorter.

That's not to say these other divisions shouldn't have some challenging holes, but that the challenges should be tailored toward their skill set.


On another note, any hole where over 70% of the division birdies the hole is either a bad hole (for that skill set), or mislabled. A par-4 where 80% of the field gets a three, should probably be called a par-3. And because we know that par-2s don't exist a par-3 where 80% of the field gets a two is not a good hole.

My personal feeling (based on no data at all, purely subjective), is that Advanced and Open Men should be playing the same tees.



That's an interesting feeling, and I think one that is questioned by this data. I think it shows that it's pretty tough to get a hole that "works" for both MPO and MA1 (at this level anyway).

Of all the holes, only numbers 3, 8, and 10 hold all percentages under 67%.

Heck, 8 of the holes are shaded. So by having them play the same tees/pins, for almost half the holes if you're getting good separation for one division, you're doing almost nothing for the other division.


On another note, any hole where over 70% of the division birdies the hole is either a bad hole (for that skill set), or mislabled.



I think some would say that it's a bad hole no matter what it's labeled. If 70% are getting birdies, or 70% are getting pars, you still don't have enough separation. Any further talk of labeling should probably go to the par thread.

In discussing appropriateness of challenge with John Biscoe at Paw Paw this year we concluded that the difference for 1000 and 950 is pretty clear.

Hole 15 at the Whipping Post Course (http://www.westvirginiaopen.com/posthole15.htm) is a clear example. 395 slightly up hill.

It is entirely birdiable for most 1000 rated golfers and with the deep woods along the entire right side there is a high probability of score diversity. I am certain that the hole is 3ed by the majority of 950 rated players. Throw it up the hill approach from 100 to 80 feet away, drop it in.

It's a great Par 3 for GOLD players and a mediocre Par 3 for Blue. (It probably gets interesting again for White level players as the approach shot and putting get trickier.)

Here's another twist. Do players of different ages/genders with the same average rating shoot the same score? This table compares the hole scoring average of Open players vs a group of MPG & FPO players of the same average rating at PW2001. As you might expect, the Open players did slightly better on the more open, power oriented holes and the MPG/FPO did better on the tighter, finesse holes. Players of the same rating essentially play at the same level but it's poosible to skew the results toward one group or the other based on the hole mix of a course. This course would be considered a finesse course and the MPG/FPO do slightly better overall.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Division ></td><td>Open</td><td>GM.FPO</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating ></td><td>950</td><td>950</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Field ></td><td>25</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounds ></td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>OAKWOOD</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole</td><td>Avg</td><td>Avg</td><td>Description</td><td>Feet
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>Finesse</td><td>415
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.6</td><td>Finesse</td><td>285
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>370
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.9</td><td>Power</td><td>590
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>235
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>Finesse</td><td>240
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.0</td><td>Finesse</td><td>245
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.1</td><td>Power</td><td>430
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>Finesse</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.4</td><td>Finesse</td><td>215
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.5</td><td>Finesse</td><td>350
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>Neutral</td><td>255
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.7</td><td>Power</td><td>380
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>Power</td><td>330
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.5</td><td>Finesse</td><td>505
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.6</td><td>Neutral</td><td>385
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>Power</td><td>390
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.5</td><td>Power</td><td>595
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>60.4</td><td>59.8</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This reminds me of the discussion I had with Steady Ed once about him wanting courses designed so that on any given day he could beat Ken Climo.

It is a nice dream, but 6 tenths of a stroke does not a reality it make...

I'm not sure your example correctly correlates age/gender with a superior level of finesse, but even if it does I don't see how it could be made into a useful tool for designing layouts specifically for them any more than other more tangible and well established tools (distance, obstacles, etc.)

Interesting though...

In Ed's ideal situation he would be playing Climo from a different set of tees so both had an equivalent challenge. And, that's what a lot of this thread discussion has been about. His Lakeport course had as many as 5 or 6 tees on each hole so he gave it an 'unscientific' shot.

The chart I posted above was just an FYI that seemed related to the topic because many feel that players in different divisions with the same rating aren't equivalent. The data indicates that you can force it to be true, but it takes work to skew the course design in a way to favor a specific skill.

Yeah,

This seems a little different from the original topic, where we were talking about appropriate challenge not which is more advantagious for a certain age or gender.

It is interesting though.

Part 2: Walnut Ridge

Text repeated from an earlier post.

It has been written, by John Houck and others, that a good hole will tend to separate scores for your target group of players. In other words, if a large majority of players are getting the same score on the hole, then the hole might not be appropriate for that skill level.

The exact percentage of the field for this "large majority" is subjective, but is usually quoted as somewhere between 67% and 80%.

This ultimately leads into the discussion of holes that are appropriate for one skill level, but not for another. With this in mind, I present hole-by-hole statistics for one of the Des Moines Worlds courses.

http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/wridge.jpg

As you can see, data is presented for the top 40 finishers in the pre-shuffle A pool (MPO) and the G pool (MA1). I could have extended this to the entire pool, but I wanted to narrow the skill level a bit more than what was provided by the full 72 players.

The numbers in red are any hole where >=70% of the field got the same score.

The grey-shaded numbers are those holes that may be more appropriate for one division than for the other.