Dumb SSA Question

[optidiscic]

I was always led to believe that a good hole had an SSA closer to a whole number, such as 4.02 or 3.11, instead of an SSA such as 3.5 or 2.5. I was pondering what makes a good competitive hole and figured this makes no sense.
If 50 players of equal ability play a hole and 49 of them get a 3 and one gets a 4 the SSA would be 3.02

If the same 50 players played another hole and 30 of them scored a 3 and 20 scored a 4 then the SSA would be 3.4.

I would think the score that creates score separation would be a better tourney hole?

I realize ideally you would have a hole where out of 50 players on a technical par 3..these 50 players would be split with 1 ace,9 birdies, 30 pars, 9 bogeys, 1 double bogey for a perfect SSA of 3.00.

My point is that often there are holes that can be bogeyed but cant be birdied (poor holes but they exist) and these provide a better spread than a hole where its par or die or the dreaded deuce or die. where the majority of the field scores the same.

Maybe I was given bad info regarding whole numbers being better SSA. Ive been struggling with some design issues and have a few long 3.5ish holes which I was trying to avoid.

I guess I never looked inside the numbers until today.

For 50 players in a tourney round on a par 3 hole I would think more scoring spread is a good thing causing numbers closer to 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 etc....I know theres no one to judge luck vs skill inside the numbers and its often a feel thing when designing holes but was wondering what some of the more serious thoughts on this are.

I like the idea of a hole that can be bogeyed or birdied or even better Eagled or Double Bogeyed.....but these are rare and difficult to design.

[Steve West]

I've been trying to wrap my head around the preference to avoid "tweener" holes, too.

Obviously, if a hole can only generate two scores, the widest scoring spread would come when half the scores are high and half low. Assuming the scores are within 1 of each other, that gives an average score of X.5.

Perhaps the thinking is that tweener holes are bad because they only generate two scores, and that an average nearer X.0 usually comes from a hole that generates three different scores.

But then, a hole that generates four different scores would go back to an average of X.5, which doesn't seem bad to me.

[optidiscic]

I am relieved I am not the only one......the entire thinking that this hole is a true par 4 or true par 5 and therefore better than a tweener 3.6 or 4.4 seems to causelogjams in scoring unless its somehow birdied as much as bogeyed which seems so rare in my experience with bunches of scores being the same and a few outliers on these "true" par 4s and 5s

Scratching my head and waits for some math geek to make sense of this

[grodney]

There's no math answer -- only design answers.

A "tweener" hole is one whose length is between a 1-shot hole and a 2-shot hole, or between a 2-shot hole and a 3-shot hole. For a given skill level of player(s).

The actual scoring AVERAGE (for the field, or for a bunch of 1000-rated players) will not indicate this for you, as you have discovered. (The scoring DISTRIBUTION *can* help indicate these holes.)

If the SSA for a hole is 2.4, for instance, this PROBABLY is NOT a bad hole for 1000-rated players. But it might be for a group of 930-rated players (they'll all get 3s). Or a Final 9 of 1040 rated players (they'll all get 2s).

As an example of scoring DISTRIBUTION, if 85% of your field (of similarly-skilled players) gets the same score, regardless of the scoring average or what the other 15% get, this is probably a tweener hole and a bad hole. For that skill level.

[optidiscic]

I was assuming equal talent pool of players....u know blue hole, gold hole, red hole etc...

[grodney]

I was assuming equal talent pool of players....u know blue hole, gold hole, red hole etc...

In that case:

If the scoring average (not SSA) is between whole numbers, then it is PROBABLY NOT a tweener (bad) hole. Might be, but probably not.

If the scoring average (not SSA) is near a whole number, you have no idea.

Again, for whatever group produced that average.

[DavidSauls]

I think you need to go beyond scoring averages and look at the spreads.

For example, if a hole averages 3.0 because almost everyone gets a 3, it's bad. But if it has 25% 2s, 50% 3s, and 25% 4s, it's probably pretty good.

If the hole averages 3.5 because it's getting 50% 3s and 50% 4s, the drawback is that it may not be creating much score separation at the top of the division.

I think the latter is not necessarily a big issue, unless the great majority of holes on the course are like this.

[Steve West]

There's no math answer -- only design answers.

A "tweener" hole is one whose length is between a 1-shot hole and a 2-shot hole, or between a 2-shot hole and a 3-shot hole. For a given skill level of player(s).

...

As an example of scoring DISTRIBUTION, if 85% of your field (of similarly-skilled players) gets the same score, regardless of the scoring average or what the other 15% get, this is probably a tweener hole and a bad hole. For that skill level.

Huh? These two definitions seem incompatible.

How can a hole that produces the same score for 85% of the targeted players be a tweener? Sounds more like a right-on-er.

Or, are you using the word tweener to describe all bad holes of any kind?

[Steve West]

I think you need to go beyond scoring averages and look at the spreads.

I think judging a hole by its average was a shortcut which came about because there are tools to determine scoring average before a hole is built.

When evaluating holes using actual experience, the scoring spread should be used.

Below is a link to a tool to compute the width of a scoring spread. It tells you the equivalent of the number of different scores the hole generates.

It can be used to evaluate a single hole (wider is better).

I also like to use it to see how the Scoring Spread of the entire course is affected by that hole. A hole that increases the scoring spread of the course is good, one that decreases it is bad.

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/ScoringSpreadFunction.aspx

[grodney]

How can a hole that produces the same score for 85% of the targeted players be a tweener?

Tweener, in its most common usage (as I've seen), would be a hole that is beTWEEN a par-3 and a par-4, or beTWEEN a par-4 and a par-5. Thus, everybody gets the same score on it. Example, it's too long to be a par-3, but too short to be a challenging par-4, so everybody gets a 3, with only a minute chance of a 2, and not any big danger of a 4.

A few people might use "tweener" when talking about scoring average. I don't know how they use it in that sense or how it might be useful in that sense.

[optidiscic]

Tweener, in its most common usage (as I've seen), would be a hole that is beTWEEN a par-3 and a par-4, or beTWEEN a par-4 and a par-5. Thus, everybody gets the same score on it. Example, it's too long to be a par-3, but too short to be a challenging par-4, so everybody gets a 3, with only a minute chance of a 2, and not any big danger of a 4.

A few people might use "tweener" when talking about scoring average. I don't know how they use it in that sense or how it might be useful in that sense.

interesting and probably true as it describes exactly what Ive heard in conversations....that hole is a tweener (a long par 3 or a short 4....a difficult par 4 etc.) SSA probably should not be used in the tweener conversation as the concept doesnt translate well mathematically.

What I don't get is why we then change holes to avoid tweener holes and have a more rounded par....what I noticed with a recent hole that transformed from a 4 to a 5 that more players are scoring 5s and scoring spread is reduced.....seems we sacrifice scoring spread to assuage everyones ego.

Doubles is a good tool to decipher if a hole can be Eagled or Birdied. Often the hole that seems impossible to birdie or eagle can be achieved. What happened at my local course was too many teams were getting the Eagle (EAGLE POT) on 2 holes one was a short par 4 and the other a winding difficult 5 and typically scored a 5. The solutions thought of were to assign the long par 4 as a par 3
(3.5 SSA) and not change the hole. The longer hole was lengthened and is now a true par 5.

The hole that remains unchanged yields more scoring spread with many 4s and then 3s and 5s accuring.

The changed hole now seems to bunch scores up and although playing fairer the scoring spread maybe has reduced with most players getting a 5 and 4 becoming quite rare.

[dodgeball]

Interesting thread here. I think I kind of like 'tweener' holes. At the local park, I've got several of these type of holes, where I personally score about as many 3's as 4's. Just as a reference, they play from 400 to about 430. A lot of times I'll play shorter tees to make them closer to a par 3, but playing them longer, definitely makes them more challenging and yields different scores. In general, I tend to feel that the longer the hole, the wider the scoring distribution, all other things being equal. Agree, disagree? To Opti, how long are these holes you consider these tweener types? What's your personal scoring distribution when you've played them?