Idlewild - Gold or Blue level?

[Dave242]

In several of the on-going design/theory threads recently Idlewild has come up. From the course description here (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=507&mode=ci):

Description: Professional caliber - Beautiful rolling hills with some water hazards. Good variety, from light to heavily wooded. Accuracy and placement as important as distance.

I am not attempting to bash Idlewild, but to use it as a case study since many here are familiar with it. Is Idlewild truly a Gold level course?

Several Gold level players love Idlewild, but does that mean it properly designed to test their skills (accuracy, distance, mental)?

[RUSSELL]

Is Idlewild truly a Gold level course?

Several Gold level players love Idlewild, but does that mean it properly designed to test their skills (accuracy, distance, mental)?

being an intermediate player at best, i don't know about Gold level. but it seems to fit the latter, imho.

[whiz]

Idlewild rewards accuracy far more than distance. While there are a few holes that are the exception most of the multi-shot holes do not provide much opportunity to utilize over 425' of distance to gain an extra shot. I am referencing the long tees and I am not taking into account upshots that are thrown into the basket as these are by nature mostly luck from over 100' even for pros. Breaking it down hole by hole:

1: (640') Big arms could gain a stroke here by taking a two but the three is pretty easy for anyone throwing over 400' especially as the hole is slightly downhill and wide open.

2: (526') The green is simply not reachable from the tee so the best realistic score is a three with two accurate shots of under 300' and a putt.

3: (561') With an island green and being downhill this hole is not reachable on the drive thus leading to two accurate shots of <300 and a putt. Slightly more distance on the drive is rewarded (say 450' vs. 400') but the OB left and woods right make this a risky shot to try to drive too far.

4. (235') Short, no distance advantage.

5. (510') With all the OB on the traditional layup shot down into the flat across the creek this really plays as a hole with 3 as the best score but I would imagine some big arms could possible drive over the trees to the basket. I have not seen anyone throw this shot myself. Does anyone know if the basket is reachable?

6. (588') With the tight turn immediately after the tee I could only see a roller getting more than about 400' off the tee. Maybe a good FH flex shot would work. This hole could be 3'd but only with a very good/long upshot after a very good drive in the middle of the fairway due to how far the fairway turns to the right at the end. I don't see this hole being a big advantage for 500'+ throwers.

7. (261') Short, no distance advantage.

8. (336') Short, no distance advantage. (Okay, it IS slightly uphill but it is not that long of a hole for gold level players)

9. (192') Short, no distance advantage.

10. (672') This hole can be 3'd (I think I have had a putt at it) but it really requires more accurate drives than huge bombs due to the right turning fairway about 300' off the tee. I like to throw a comet or FH and then just a big hyzer to get a putt at the basket.

11. (441') Longish par 3 (seems more like a short par 4 to me but no big deal), no big distance advantage as I don't believe the angle of the hole (long left turning downhill shot) allows for a chance at a putt for two due to the stringent island green OB and drop zone.

12. (142') Short, no distance advantage.

13. ('462) Downhill par 4 with OB in front of the basket. I don't see any short putts for two on this hole but an accurate drive with a midrange can get you to the bottom of the hill (though not across the creek). Definite priority on accuracy here.

14. (477') Uphill par 4. Due to the angle of the right turning fairway as well as the uphill nature of the shot I don't see any short putts for 2 but this hole would reward (accurate) distance slightly. A drive over 350' (plays like ~450') allows an easier approach to the basket but the drive has to finish right or still in the fairway on the left side.

15. (1001') Long par 5 but downhill approach for last ~300' with OB around the green. Definite distance advantage but you must keep it on the fairway for a chance at a 3.

16. (360') With the OB on this hole accuracy is rewarded. I can drive the green if I am lucky but the OB surrounding the pin means I pretty much just play this one safe and lay up on the right side of the fairway.

17. (222') Short, no distance advantage.

18. (641') Par 5 but with a definite chance for 3 with a super straight shot of the tee (probably a midrange for almost all pros). Huge premium on accuracy on this hole as the rough is TERRIBLE and you pretty much lose a stroke pitching out if you are more than about 5'-10' off the fairway. As an advanced player I would throw either a mid or putter off the tee here just to try to play it safe.

In summary, this course places far more of a premium on accuracy than (big) distance (accuracy over 400' though). It is definitely a Gold level course from the long tees and a player who would win here in advanced would need to play mostly bogey free with a few birdies. An open player who wants to win would need to take about 10-14 birdies per round. All of the holes are reachable for a birdie with accurate shots of under 400' (flat distance...scale up for downhill shots). I would see a Nikko, EMac, Feldberg or Johanssen winning here rather than Avery or GG due to the need to be very, very accurate and really make almost all of your putts inside of 40'. With pro level distance you will probably get a LOT of putts inside the circle and an extra 50' to 100' of distance (over 425' or so) will not allow many eagles to gain strokes on a field only throwing 425' or so.

Definite Gold level course with Gold level accuracy and putting ability required. Lots of OB penalizes shots that are slightly off-target severely.

[Jay Dub]

Real nice write up on Idlewild.
5. (510') With all the OB on the traditional layup shot down into the flat across the creek this really plays as a hole with 3 as the best score but I would imagine some big arms could possible drive over the trees to the basket. I have not seen anyone throw this shot myself. Does anyone know if the basket is reachable?
It's reachable but knowing from the tee where you want the disc to fall thru the trees is always tricky.

How you play Idlewild also matters as to what level of course it is. If you play by PDGA OB rules (which Fred Salaz refers to as "Idlemild") it's a notch down from playing by the course rules/OBs.

[Dave242]

In summary, this course places far more of a premium on accuracy than (big) distance (accuracy over 400' though). It is definitely a Gold level course from the long tees and a player who would win here in advanced would need to play mostly bogey free with a few birdies.
....
....
Definite Gold level course with Gold level accuracy and putting ability required. Lots of OB penalizes shots that are slightly off-target severely.

I very much agree with your hole-by-hole analysis. But I do not understand how you become so sure this is a Gold level course rather than Blue .....especially based on your comments in the analysis.

Care to expound?

[weeman]

There's a big difference between Idlewild and Idlemild both distance-wise and number of OBs. I haven't been there in a while but had heard that number 4 got moved to the long position across the road and is way longer than 235' now. In regards to if number 5 is reachable from the tee, I've seen people who can throw 500' only get it about halfway up the hill on their drives. They were set up for a potential three but as already mentioned it all depends on where your disc comes through the trees at. Also in the super hard OB layout, below and to the left of the gravel path on number 9 is OB. So you could potentially have a solid drive and the disc stand up and roll OB. Where I digress with you reasoning between gold and blue is the accuracy required through the trees. Numbers 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 18 have super dense rough and tight fairways. A chance at birdie on any of these holes requires both distance and accuracy. A chance at par will hinge on your ability to recover from in the rough and stay out of OB trouble.

[Cgkdisc]

The course designer using the Hole Forecaster is a way to determine and confirm from real scores whether there are more holes in the gold versus blue range.

[Dave242]

I think the most telling sign of what level a course is, is the segment length the course asks/requires you to throw. This is most obvious on par-3 (1-throw) holes and on multi-throw holes with defined landing zones (such as at the elbow of a L shaped hole).

Here are my estimates of effective lengths Idlewild for these sorts of holes and how you might typically slice/dice the course (I did not measure - these are from memory of my 2 rounds played):


1 300 300
3 290 180
4 235
5 180 200 200
6 220 220 220
7 250
9 170
10 275 340
11 225 175
12 145
13 200 200
14 330 150
16 270 80
17* 300
18 200 420


* The picture, hole lengths listed here and Whiz's notes say 222', but the map says 222/301' and my notes from playing have it fairly steeply uphill requiring a ~300' power throw.

Of these holes, I only consider 14 & 18 to be suited more to Gold length (15 is a really good Gold level hole too, and 2 & 3 are good Gold holes).

I just fail to see how the rest of the hole segments are suited to challenging Gold level players.

[Cgkdisc]

Length alone can't be the only factor that determines a skill level. For a 200 ft upshot that all skill levels can physically throw from end-to-end, as it becomes a corridor and it gets narrower, the skill level required to get thru it 2 out of 3 times goes up.

[Dave242]

That is correct. Narrowness and "effective narrowness" (lane width influenced by fairway shape) have a direct correlation to accuracy skills.....skills that should progress as other skills (D & putting) progress.

Taking this thinking to an extreme, a Gold-appropriate course then could be a short course made up of very narrow fairways. The problem with that sort of skills test is that fails to test an important skill - D.

Another interesting outcome of this is that people get their ratings based on courses that they play in competition. Almost none are this hypothetical type. So a course like this would bring down ratings of most and increase the ratings of those who are particularly accurate but lack much D. Are there Blue level players whose ratings are held down due to lack of D that would progress to Gold level if they only played short, narrow courses?

On topic: are the length-width ratios at Idlewild more suited to test/stretch the skills Gold level or Blue level?

[Cgkdisc]

The ultimate test is how the scoring spreads on the holes look when adjusted for 1000 versus 950 average rated players. Better to do it empirically once you have a design in place versus simply judging how wide the fairways look when playing or designing them.

[Dave242]

This is a Chuck statement that might just need to be framed.

Do I read you right that you are admitting that measuring/quantifying accuracy is next to impossible.......and by extension giving out design rules-of-thumb on length/width ratios? I agree that scoring spreads tell the story best as far as how holes play out at different skill levels....but that is after the fact as far as when the design is conceived and implemented. (As far as the hole forecaster, what exactly is "pinball" or "corridor" or "sparse", etc?)

If not eye-opening (which it was not completely), it was very confirming to me after caddying for groups of top MPO, top MPM, and top MGM (Cam, Sam & Beav's cards) playing Lemon Lake Red this last summer at Worlds, that accuracy is not the dominant skill that gets players highly rated.

[optidiscic]

Dave has a good point. A series of mid range shots favors the technical player. I think idlewild though brilliant is often a series of mid range shots. It simply lacks what most consider gold golf and that is loooooong precise drives through woods. I think an argument could be made that a 950 player could easily hang with a 1010 rated player due to the lack of precision driving required. I'm not gonna call it a Nancy course but it provides a different challenge than most gold layouts I've encountered and personally I didn't think it was fun. For the record I'm far from gold.

[optidiscic]

I should add I don't think many gold players would find it to challenge their complete game.

[Jay Dub]

Dave has a good point. A series of mid range shots favors the technical player. I think idlewild though brilliant is often a series of mid range shots. It simply lacks what most consider gold golf and that is loooooong precise drives through woods. I think an argument could be made that a 950 player could easily hang with a 1010 rated player due to the lack of precision driving required. I'm not gonna call it a Nancy course but it provides a different challenge than most gold layouts I've encountered and personally I didn't think it was fun. For the record I'm far from gold.
I agree with this. I have never thought of, or heard anyone describe, Idlewild as fun.

[Cgkdisc]

Do I read you right that you are admitting that measuring/quantifying accuracy is next to impossible.......and by extension giving out design rules-of-thumb on length/width ratios? I agree that scoring spreads tell the story best as far as how holes play out at different skill levels....but that is after the fact as far as when the design is conceived and implemented.
It doesn't mean you can't establish guidelines that will allow you to nail down designs for different skill levels in most cases. But guidelines alone won't always nail it down because sometimes they miss once the design is tested. You follow the guidelines for starters as well as possible but always test and tweak to make it better where needed before making any design permanent with cement pads.