In multiple discussions with course designers, I hear lots of concepts on proper course design. I generally stay out of those conversations and say: assuming it is not a wide open fest, the only thing that matters is that each hole is fair and produces a good spread. I suspect that only few of the top designers actually perform this analysis. This is a crying shame, both for their education and for the future golfers playing their courses.

My basic assertion and topic for this thread is that before major events, courses should be required to have some analysis performed on them to insure they actually produce an acceptable spread. I am uncomfortable using the entire field (at almost any tourney) to perform the analysis, as I just think the bottom player's scores are unreliable indicators. I am more interested in what part of each division should be used to analyze a spread. I am leaning towards anywhere from the top third to the top two thirds. What in your opinion is the proper group to use in analyzing spread in a field?

good topic james! you'resmart to use just a portion of hte field... our ratings range is so wide the full field may become meaningless. there's prolly more than one right answer...

above the cash line?
all platyers within the rating range for the targeted division?

on the practical side... what would hapopen if the courses came up substandard? worlds are awarded several years early

When the Warwick course was being developed we typically analyzed scores for tournaments from only the Open and Pro Masters scores and used those to come up with the hole averages.

We may throw out certain scores out if there are outliers (e.g. 790-rated golfer playing in Open) Using several tournaments worth of data gave us a feel for how different tees and polehole positions played, and we moved tees or polehole positions accordingly. Holes that played too easily were made longer; for examples, the Blue pin on hole 4 was pushed back a good deal to make it a true pro par four on the Blue-Blue layout. Conversely, the 1000 foot long par five 18th hole was actually shortened 100 feet to 'only' 900 feet long because barely anyone was scoring a birdie four on it.

We did a lot of this analysis on the Pro Worlds 2005 courses with Jordan Creek & Little Lehigh Parkway as well.

Jeff, were you looking at spreads, or mainly concerned about par? If you were looking at spread, what did you consider an acceptable spread?

Pat, if the courses end up substandard, you tweak them like Jeff describes. A two or one year lead time is plenty enough time to realize where the weak holes are.

James, if you really want to do this analysis well, you should consider joining the Disc Golf Course Designers group to have access to the Hole Forecaster and discussions along these lines. The Hole Forecaster not only predicts scoring averages for a skill level but also what the scoring spread is likely to be. This has been done for all of the holes at Highbridge with adjustments made accordingly after the data has been gathered to see how well the forecast met reality. Look for a variety of analyses to be provided on the Worlds courses.

In general, I use only players with ratings within +/- 25 pts of the skill level a hole is being designed for. I also cap any scores more than 3 shots above the average at a score 3 or less above the average for the purpose of analysis.

We were concerned about both pars and spreads, in that order of preference. We didn't want 'tweener' holes that were between pars but may have generated good scoring spreads.

Scoring spreads are important, but the most recent Am Worlds is a good case where courses with ideal scoring spreads still may have left some wanting more. I think there may have been a significant number of competitors who wouldn't have minded a few par four holes and/or holes with length even though many competitors within the same division would have likely taken the same scores and the scoring spread would have been poor. It is understood that the primary focus was getting competitors through the courses as efficiently as possible and using tee/pin combintations that yield the best scoring spreads amongst all divisions without having to move polehole positions or create extra tees to effect higher pars or scoring spreads for the higher divisions.

Thanks Chuck. That seems like a very reasonable approach. I will be curious to see the results from Worlds.

Jeff, I have to disagree about par and spread. Par is basically meaningless to me. I watched so many guys in my groups last weekend worry about the par. I was thinking to myself "who cares." All I want is a hole that is fair, and that I can pick up a stroke on some in the field if I play the hole well. Whether I do that through shooting par or getting a birdie does not matter.

I see your point about par being basically meaningless. However I still think you need to have some variety and length in a course even though it might not be the best way to separate scores. Throwing in a few 600-700 ft. holes where the majority may all take 4s is not a bad thing, imo. Just because you have 18 holes on a course with perfect scoring spreads does not mean it's a perfect course.

Here are the scoring averages for the top 57 Open players who played Granite Ridge in the Semis. They average 1005 rating and they make it look easy:
1 2.75
2 2.43
3 3.25
4 2.59
5 3.41
6 3.43
7 3.29
8 2.55
9 3.32
10 3.70
11 2.30
12 3.52
13 2.30
14 3.18
15 2.23
16 3.25
17 3.18
18 4.29

Holes 7 and 14 were listed as par 4s and played more as 3s. Hole 18 played as a tough par 4 instead of 5. As predicted, holes 9, 16 & 17 played as 3s. In fact, holes 5 & 6 played as the toughest par 3s. Holes 7, 9 15 & 17 were the only holes with a weak distribution with at least 75% of one score.

are you gonna publish the distributions? pretty please :) ?

If someone can set up the option for posting tables, pretty please? I'm not going to insert all of those HTML formatting codes to post.

Chuck, it doesn't take long to insert columns and drag, copy and paste all the code. If you don't want to do that, you can email it to me and I'll be glad to post it.

It's the priciple of the thing. I'd just as soon send people the spreadsheets who are interested when they're done.

That's cool. Put me on the email list for when it's done. Looking at those scoring spreads for USDGC in DGW is always interesting. It'd be nice to see it for Worlds too.

Here's the latest info. Here's the Open A pool playing Highbridge Gold on Saturday:
1 3.4
2 2.6
3 5.1
4 2.7
5 3.8
6 5.2
7 2.7
8 5.1
9 2.9
10 3.7
11 3.7
12 3.9
13 2.8
14 2.8
15 3.8
16 2.4
17 2.8
18 3.7

As expected, Hole 1 was closer to 3 than 4 but is close enough to 3.5 a case could be made to set it at par 4 as originally planned to make players feel better. Looks like we need to toughen up hole 8 to boost it to a par 6 or change the par back to 5 which would be easier to do. All of the scoring spreads had no score more than 70% except hole 17 at 74% 3s. It played much easier than expected. Holes 3 & 6, the par 5s, had excellent spreads.

Still need more work to get the island hole working better. The planned trees along the routes did not get done before Worlds.

If someone can set up the option for posting tables, pretty please? I'm not going to insert all of those HTML formatting codes to post.

ouch, i forgot about that new feature :). i'll volunteer to do the html if you send over a spreaddsheet or raw data...

There's going to be quite a few of them on the Hole Forecaster. Maybe pasting JPG snapshots of them onto a website and linking to it would make it easier to see?

15 and 17 on the Ridge had weak scoring spreads? I'm shocked!
:D

I'm just playing Chuck, you know I love the Ridge!

By the way, something I posted and was curious about a month ago and still am:

I wish there was a time-limit demo of these course design tools. I'm thinking of joining one of these days, the design group, that is... and I've heard nothing but good things. But I'd like to see these tools in action if only for a one-two day trial.


I'm a poor college kid here, Chuck. I think a lot of people that watch their money carefully (read: many discers) would love to join your group if they had a more firm grasp of what the hell you were talking about.

50 bucks without so much as a screen shot? WEAKSAUCE. :) At least give us a series of screen shots, that might be the best idea for all concerned. Pretty much free for you, and gives us an idea of what we're getting here.

We're not looking for lots of members and selling software. We want members who are working to be better designers and need the tools and other resources to do that better.

However, here's a snapshot of the Open Semis on Granite Ridge. The left side is where designers enter info on current or new hole designs to see what the estimated scoring averages might be. The lower right side shows where hole-by-hole scores are entered. Then, the actual scoring distributions are shown right above that. Just above that table shows the forecast distribution for a skill level after adjusting for the average ratings of the pool of players whose scores were entered.

The top right shows the actual and adjusted scoring averages per hole. These numbers are compared with the forecast values to see how well they match up. Holes with more than 74% of one score have the percentage indicated with a yellow background so it stands out as a potential distribution problem.
http://ck34.net/dgbydesign/Forecaster.htm

All of the scoring spreads had no score more than 70% except hole 17 at 74% 3s. It played much easier than expected.



I knew this hole would play easy. B/c hardly no one went for it. If the pin hadn't been tucked behind a bunch of trees and OB, then yeah, more ppl would have went for it.

I took a wraith and just bombed a hyzer left both rounds. Had like a 70 footer both rounds. Pretty simple three.

This was hands down far and away the worst hole on the gold course.

HG17 was intended to be a risk/reward bone for the bigger arms and I think it worked well for that purpose. However, I still thought it might prove more troublesome for those who didn't go for it, but that didn't pan out.

some OB down the left side would have been good. Like I said, most players I played with just played the bail out hzyer and took an easy three.

Let's see how the Granite Ridge data looks with this nifty CSV converter Mike Krupicka provided:

<table> <tr> <td>Validation</td><td>Rating</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>Avg. Rating/Score Avg.</td><td>1005</td><td>2.75</td><td>2.43</td><td>3.25</td><td>2.59</td><td>3.41</td><td>3.43</td><td>3.29</td><td>2.55</td><td>3.32</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.52</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.18</td><td>2.23</td><td>3.25</td><td>3.18</td><td>4.29</td><td>55 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Adjusted Score Avg.</td><td>1000</td><td>2.78</td><td>2.45</td><td>3.28</td><td>2.61</td><td>3.44</td><td>3.46</td><td>3.32</td><td>2.58</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.73</td><td>2.33</td><td>3.55</td><td>2.33</td><td>3.21</td><td>2.25</td><td>3.28</td><td>3.21</td><td>4.33</td><td>55.5 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Estimator</td><td>1000</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.61</td><td>3.27</td><td>2.55</td><td>3.43</td><td>3.49</td><td>3.47</td><td>2.54</td><td>3.46</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.56</td><td>3.74</td><td>2.45</td><td>3.31</td><td>2.49</td><td>3.19</td><td>3.32</td><td>4.44</td><td>56.8 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Difference </td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-1.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Score Forecast</td><td>1&2</td><td>31%</td><td>53%</td><td>0%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>44%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>63%</td><td>0%</td><td>64%</td><td>0%</td><td>70%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentages</td><td>3</td><td>60%</td><td>43%</td><td>64%</td><td>53%</td><td>54%</td><td>52%</td><td>63%</td><td>51%</td><td>59%</td><td>34%</td><td>36%</td><td>47%</td><td>35%</td><td>68%</td><td>30%</td><td>63%</td><td>73%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>9%</td><td>3%</td><td>34%</td><td>5%</td><td>42%</td><td>40%</td><td>35%</td><td>4%</td><td>37%</td><td>57%</td><td>2%</td><td>47%</td><td>1%</td><td>30%</td><td>0%</td><td>34%</td><td>27%</td><td>63%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>7%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>9%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>36%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Std Dev</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.53</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>2</td><td>30%</td><td>61%</td><td>7%</td><td>43%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>46%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>73%</td><td>0%</td><td>71%</td><td>7%</td><td>79%</td><td>11%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>3</td><td>64%</td><td>36%</td><td>63%</td><td>55%</td><td>66%</td><td>59%</td><td>75%</td><td>52%</td><td>77%</td><td>36%</td><td>23%</td><td>54%</td><td>27%</td><td>71%</td><td>20%</td><td>55%</td><td>75%</td><td>2%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td><td>4%</td><td>29%</td><td>2%</td><td>27%</td><td>29%</td><td>21%</td><td>2%</td><td>14%</td><td>59%</td><td>4%</td><td>41%</td><td>2%</td><td>18%</td><td>2%</td><td>32%</td><td>21%</td><td>70% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>9%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>27% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> </table>

Here's the Open A pool last round on Gold:
<table> <tr> <td>Validation</td><td>Rating</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>Avg. Rating/Score Avg.</td><td>1005 </td><td>3.42</td><td>2.60</td><td>5.08</td><td>2.70</td><td>3.78</td><td>5.16</td><td>2.74</td><td>5.12</td><td>2.90</td><td>3.70</td><td>3.66</td><td>3.90</td><td>2.80</td><td>2.80</td><td>3.76</td><td>2.36</td><td>2.78</td><td>3.66</td><td>62.9 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Adjusted Score Avg.</td><td>1000 </td><td>3.46</td><td>2.63</td><td>5.13</td><td>2.73</td><td>3.82</td><td>5.21</td><td>2.77</td><td>5.17</td><td>2.93</td><td>3.74</td><td>3.70</td><td>3.94</td><td>2.83</td><td>2.83</td><td>3.80</td><td>2.38</td><td>2.81</td><td>3.70</td><td>63.6 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Estimator</td><td>1000 </td><td>3.45</td><td>2.58</td><td>4.98</td><td>2.75</td><td>3.85</td><td>5.01</td><td>2.69</td><td>5.14</td><td>2.74</td><td>3.89</td><td>3.50</td><td>3.80</td><td>2.73</td><td>2.79</td><td>3.93</td><td>2.54</td><td>3.05</td><td>3.72</td><td>63.1 </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.0</td><td>-0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.0</td><td>0.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Score Forecast</td><td>1&2</td><td>0%</td><td>43%</td><td>0%</td><td>34%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>34%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>27%</td><td>30%</td><td>0%</td><td>57%</td><td>26%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentages</td><td>3</td><td>53%</td><td>48%</td><td>0%</td><td>58%</td><td>34%</td><td>0%</td><td>54%</td><td>0%</td><td>58%</td><td>38%</td><td>38%</td><td>28%</td><td>62%</td><td>55%</td><td>31%</td><td>39%</td><td>67%</td><td>37%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>4</td><td>43%</td><td>10%</td><td>20%</td><td>8%</td><td>47%</td><td>23%</td><td>12%</td><td>13%</td><td>17%</td><td>46%</td><td>50%</td><td>48%</td><td>11%</td><td>14%</td><td>57%</td><td>4%</td><td>7%</td><td>54%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>5</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>48%</td><td>0%</td><td>17%</td><td>39%</td><td>0%</td><td>58%</td><td>1%</td><td>15%</td><td>11%</td><td>21%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>12%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>29%</td><td>0%</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>Std Dev</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.59</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>1</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>48%</td><td>0%</td><td>34%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>36%</td><td>0%</td><td>22%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>26%</td><td>32%</td><td>0%</td><td>72%</td><td>24%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>3</td><td>62%</td><td>46%</td><td>0%</td><td>62%</td><td>42%</td><td>2%</td><td>54%</td><td>0%</td><td>68%</td><td>46%</td><td>42%</td><td>32%</td><td>68%</td><td>56%</td><td>32%</td><td>20%</td><td>74%</td><td>40%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>4</td><td>34%</td><td>4%</td><td>20%</td><td>4%</td><td>38%</td><td>22%</td><td>10%</td><td>12%</td><td>8%</td><td>40%</td><td>52%</td><td>48%</td><td>6%</td><td>12%</td><td>60%</td><td>8%</td><td>2%</td><td>54%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>5</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>56%</td><td>0%</td><td>20%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>64%</td><td>2%</td><td>12%</td><td>4%</td><td>18%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>8%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>20%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> </table>

Thanks for posting the data. Much appreciated.

Here are results from Open pool A on Friday but it only includes scores from those who made the semifinals:

<table> <tr> <td>Validation</td><td>Rating</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>Avg. Rating/Score Avg.</td><td>1005 </td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>52.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Adjusted Score Avg.</td><td>1000 </td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>53.0 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Estimator</td><td>1000 </td><td>2.4</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.7</td><td>54.2 </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Diff.</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.0</td><td>-0.3</td><td>-0.0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-1.2 </td></tr> <tr> <td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Hole Score Forecast</td><td>1&2</td><td>53%</td><td>26%</td><td>59%</td><td>0%</td><td>28%</td><td>72%</td><td>43%</td><td>0%</td><td>66%</td><td>0%</td><td>53%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>38%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>42%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentages</td><td>3</td><td>44%</td><td>69%</td><td>38%</td><td>74%</td><td>57%</td><td>28%</td><td>47%</td><td>12%</td><td>33%</td><td>58%</td><td>45%</td><td>59%</td><td>67%</td><td>49%</td><td>54%</td><td>55%</td><td>63%</td><td>52%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>3%</td><td>5%</td><td>3%</td><td>25%</td><td>15%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>55%</td><td>0%</td><td>36%</td><td>2%</td><td>39%</td><td>31%</td><td>41%</td><td>8%</td><td>43%</td><td>35%</td><td>6%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>30%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td><td>10%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>Std Dev.</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.57</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>2</td><td>58%</td><td>25%</td><td>72%</td><td>11%</td><td>26%</td><td>77%</td><td>49%</td><td>0%</td><td>72%</td><td>4%</td><td>57%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>40%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>45%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>3</td><td>40%</td><td>75%</td><td>23%</td><td>68%</td><td>66%</td><td>23%</td><td>45%</td><td>9%</td><td>28%</td><td>70%</td><td>43%</td><td>68%</td><td>75%</td><td>60%</td><td>55%</td><td>62%</td><td>75%</td><td>51%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>21%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>66%</td><td>0%</td><td>19%</td><td>0%</td><td>30%</td><td>17%</td><td>34%</td><td>6%</td><td>36%</td><td>17%</td><td>4%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>23%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> </table>

Here are the holes at Worlds where the Open players scores adjusted to a 1000 rated player averaged between x.2 and x.5. I've shown the pars we set and what they probably should be and an assessment of the scoring spread in terms of how well the hole worked to separate players in Open from a competition standpoint:

<table> <tr> <td>Validation</td><td>Score</td><td>HG6</td><td>GR6</td><td>GR16</td><td>HG8</td><td>BH8</td><td>BH10</td><td>BH14</td><td>HG1</td><td>BH16</td><td>GR3</td><td>GR18</td><td>BH12</td><td>GR5</td><td>GR14</td><td>BH13</td><td>GR17</td><td>BH17</td><td>GR7</td><td>GR9 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Effective Length</td><td>.</td><td>911</td><td>440</td><td>390</td><td>1164</td><td>659</td><td>484</td><td>443</td><td>545</td><td>520</td><td>475</td><td>875</td><td>536</td><td>555</td><td>516</td><td>433</td><td>505</td><td>471</td><td>570</td><td>550 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Worlds Par</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Gold Par Should Be?</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Comp. Quality: Gold?</td><td>.</td><td>Great</td><td>Great</td><td>Great</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak </td></tr> <tr> <td>Adjusted Score Avg.</td><td>.</td><td>5.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>11%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td><td>59%</td><td>55%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>70%</td><td>60%</td><td>63%</td><td>62%</td><td>63%</td><td>2%</td><td>68%</td><td>66%</td><td>71%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>77% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>26%</td><td>29%</td><td>32%</td><td>13%</td><td>66%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td><td>33%</td><td>36%</td><td>29%</td><td>70%</td><td>30%</td><td>27%</td><td>18%</td><td>17%</td><td>21%</td><td>17%</td><td>21%</td><td>14% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>39%</td><td>9%</td><td>2%</td><td>63%</td><td>23%</td><td>6%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>27%</td><td>2%</td><td>7%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>4%</td><td>9% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> </table>

Here are the results showing how the top half of the Women, Grandmaster and Sr GM divisions fared in their 2nd prelim round on Blueberry. This group averaged exactly 950 rating which is the intended design level for this course:

<table> <tr> <td>FPO.MPG.MPS Avg 950</td><td>Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>Total </td></tr> <tr> <td>Blue level - Scoring</td><td>Average</td><td>2.67</td><td>3.07</td><td>2.91</td><td>3.51</td><td>3.13</td><td>2.53</td><td>2.84</td><td>4.53</td><td>2.60</td><td>3.93</td><td>2.69</td><td>3.89</td><td>3.62</td><td>3.80</td><td>2.96</td><td>3.60</td><td>3.51</td><td>2.89</td><td>58.7 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>2</td><td>36%</td><td>11%</td><td>16%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>51%</td><td>27%</td><td>0%</td><td>44%</td><td>0%</td><td>36%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>22%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>3</td><td>62%</td><td>76%</td><td>78%</td><td>53%</td><td>82%</td><td>44%</td><td>62%</td><td>2%</td><td>51%</td><td>29%</td><td>62%</td><td>27%</td><td>49%</td><td>36%</td><td>60%</td><td>49%</td><td>56%</td><td>64%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>9%</td><td>7%</td><td>44%</td><td>16%</td><td>4%</td><td>11%</td><td>49%</td><td>4%</td><td>51%</td><td>0%</td><td>58%</td><td>40%</td><td>49%</td><td>18%</td><td>42%</td><td>38%</td><td>9%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>18%</td><td>2%</td><td>16%</td><td>11%</td><td>16%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>7%</td><td>2%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td> </td></tr> </table>

I haven't been real happy with the short pin we played on hole 5 for blue level. I'm thinking it needs to be shorter or longer. But we played it more because it was a tough birdieable hole for Open. In addition, the pins on holes 2 & 3 are a little too tough for blue level but the pin placements look nice where they are.

I haven't been real happy with the short pin we played on hole 5 for blue level. I'm thinking it needs to be shorter or longer. But we played it more because it was a tough birdieable hole for Open. In addition, the pins on holes 2 &amp; 3 are a little too tough for blue level but the pin placements look nice where they are.



Though the statistics bear otherwise, with greater than 75% of one score (3) taken, I thought holes 2,3, and 5 were quite appropriate for all levels of play. The deuce opportunity was there for an exceptional drive, and a bogey was a real possibility for poor play. In practice I played each hole twice and scored a 3 one round and a 4 the other round on all three holes.

We're not looking for lots of members and selling software. We want members who are working to be better designers and need the tools and other resources to do that better.

However, here's a snapshot of the Open Semis on Granite Ridge. The left side is where designers enter info on current or new hole designs to see what the estimated scoring averages might be. The lower right side shows where hole-by-hole scores are entered. Then, the actual scoring distributions are shown right above that. Just above that table shows the forecast distribution for a skill level after adjusting for the average ratings of the pool of players whose scores were entered.

The top right shows the actual and adjusted scoring averages per hole. These numbers are compared with the forecast values to see how well they match up. Holes with more than 74% of one score have the percentage indicated with a yellow background so it stands out as a potential distribution problem.
http://ck34.net/dgbydesign/Forecaster.htm


I understand. My main point was: Why would anybody trust it would make them a better designer without having ever seen it first?

It looks very interesting. I won't be designing any courses until UT allows me to put one in on campus there, but I know when that time comes I'll look into this.

I would think the testimonials of other experienced designers might be persuasive. It's also the only program of its kind. Houck claims he'll write a book on design someday and I have a book in me on a variety of things. But it's unclear whether we will ever get to it.