fair Fairways.....fair Airways

[Dave242]

Picking up on a interesting topic (to me at least) from the John Houck thread.....

What we want to do is increase the ratio of skill to luck, and single trees usually work against us. The classic example is a skinny tree in the middle of a wooded fairway.
......
There will always be times when two similar drives get different results, but our goal is to minimize that. The solution in this case would be to plant several trees and create an obstacle that's several feet wide, not four inches wide. People can make the case that perfectly-placed skinny trees force players to choose to one type of throw or another, and that is a good thing. But in general we want to create fairways that don't rely on thin obstacles.

I have a question about your philosophy of not having single/skinny obstacles in the fairway:

It seems you are focusing on the obstacle and not the airspace. If a fairway is so wide that it presents no real challenge, then leaving a splitter tree in the middle of the fairway half way down makes two separate and more challenging fairways. Now there are choices being made (forced on you by the hole design) and more likely punishment for not executing as intended - I would think that is a good thing on 2 fronts.

Does it not make more sense to focus more on the fairways/airways (the intended path of the disc's flight) and make sure that is fair than worrying as much about missing the intended airway?

An illustrative example is this flyby video (not the perfect example by one I have in hand that will do).

M7N5CQ2kVZg

My perspective of fair airways would be to leave the first splitter tree (larger dark bark with Y trunk) and then probably remove the 2nd and/or 3rd trees (thinner light colored).

How would you explain the point you are making above if there was only the first tree in place? (I realize you will not have a perfect perspective not seeing the fairway in person, so speculation is fine.)

I've never seen that hole in person, but from the video, it's borderline dumb. Especially if it's an example of "If a fairway is so wide that it presents no real challenge...".

(I know you said it's not a perfect example of what you were asking.)

Well, first off shame on you for not taking a 30 minute trip north to visit Sugaw. :D
IMO, Sugaw is the best tournament course for Blue level players in Charlotte (at least it was back when I was there and there were only 5 18-holers - I have not analyzed yet alone even played all the new courses that have some online in the last 3 years!)

Here are the details on the hole:
260' long. Flat ground. OB road running along right side of fairway about 15-20' off the main fairway behind pretty thick underbrush.
Pinch points at 125' of 9' wide on left and 7' on right and at 165' 7' on the left and 12' on right.

Here is a picture of the ideal airways. Obviously, it takes skill to hit the middle of the airway and the further to the edges of the airway your throw goes, the more risk of a bounce into the shule you take (or even OB on the right).

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20221&stc=1&d=1325879372

[biscoe]

i'm with rodney- gaps are too small to be that far away.

[Dave242]

To answer your question about this being dumb and presenting no challenge if there were no splitter trees:

This hole would then be 260' long. Flat. 17' wide. That is a good hole for White level players, but ways too easy to be a good test of skill for Blue level players. I would think that would be a dumb hole.

With the addition of the first Y shaped splitter tree (let's pretend that the next 2 splitter trees are not there since I do not think they need to be there*), now you have a 260' fairway that is 9' wide for a simple RHBH anny throw or a 7' route for the easier RHBH hyzer. Now you have introduced choices and a much more fair test for the skill of accuracy for Blue level players.....and real punishment for not executing. Now there is a legit chance to get a bogey for screwing up the drive (and/or the chance to perform a really good recovery shot for par) where that chance was not really there before.

*Those 2 trees should remain in case the first splitter tree dies, but they should not be there for our theoretical discussion.

[biscoe]

i disagree that a 260 foot tunnel 17 feet wide is not a good test of skill for blue level players. imo it's about right for blue level players.

if your gap were closer to the tee in your example i would be in agreement with you.

[Dave242]

i'm with rodney- gaps are too small to be that far away.

I do not have scoring analysis handy for Blue level players, but I did analyze this hole for Gold level players for an SSA analysis I did (complete with all the splitter trees of course) and scoring fell out like this:
2 - 57%
3 - 36%
4 - 7%

Yes there will be drop-off from that when thinking about Blue level, but this hole is too easy for Gold, so it would be right for Blue.

[Dave242]

i disagree that a 260 foot tunnel 17 feet wide is not a good test of skill for blue level players. imo it's about right for blue level players.

if your gap were closer to the tee in your example i would be in agreement with you.

The issue with having the gap closer to the tee is that then recovery shots for a par save are very difficult. That then decreases the test of skill on recovery shots, and it makes it less fun.

A pinch point of 17' mid-fairway will almost never yield any bogeys (excluding missed putts), so the scoring spread is then lame.

[Dave242]

i disagree that a 260 foot tunnel 17 feet wide is not a good test of skill for blue level players. imo it's about right for blue level players.

if your gap were closer to the tee in your example i would be in agreement with you.

Not to get bogged down on the imperfect example I gave, but this does address my question to John Houck. I am confused as to his carte blanche condemnation of single splitter trees.

There is certainly design for skill level and appropriate scoring spread to be accomplished by choosing appropriate fairway length:width ratios. I do not see what is so wrong about having a splitter tree create 2 fairways/airways and applying the lehgth:width philosophy to both airways. In fact, I think they are great when applied correctly as they force choices and specific shot shapes.....and that is very positive!

You & grodney apparently have a different length:width ratio than me but that is not really the point. The point is that a good/skillful throw goes down the middle of the airway (or at least the preferred sweet spot of the airway) and a less skilled shot does closer to the edges.....or even misses the airway. When you miss the airway you put your throw in jeopardy of taking a really bad kick.

I take issue with John's splitter tree example since IMO, both throw 1 & throw 2 are bad throws since they both missed the middle of the airway and therefore both were subject to a high risk of a bad kick:
The first guy squeaks by the tree and winds up 20' from the pin. Your drive, only two inches left of his, hits the tree and kicks into the shule. .....two virtually identical shots got very different rewards. Basically, you got screwed by weak design.

This sort of thing happens all the time already at the edge of any fairway with a tree on it.....in fact it happens any time any tree or obstacle is in place on a fairway.

[denny ritner]

i agree with dave that if you take away the splitter tree then there will be very few bogeys for blue level players, that's a big gap to hit from 125 ft. true that a splitter tree introduces unwanted randomness, but as dave also stated, that happens with trees along the edge of fairways too. the only way to remove all the randomness from disc golf courses is to plant them in wal-mart parking lots.

[BrotherDave]

Hard to tell w/o ever being there in person but on board with Dave on this hole. I don't mind splitter holes at all and I even prefer them b/c they help with canopy. I don't know if I'd like this sport as much if every fairway was splashed with sunshine. On that hole, I'd much rather hit the pinch and recover then hit an earlier pinch and basically have to drive all over again.

[johnrhouck]

Dave,

I appreciate you moving this thread over -- that was very thoughtful of you.

This looks to be an important discussion, and several people have already made good points. Apparently I didn't make my original argument clearly enough, so I'll work on coming at it from a different angle.

For now, let me just say that the widths of the various alleys created are very important, and offering the proper challenge is also very important. You are right about those two concepts. But I absolutely stand by my admonition against single trees.

Give me a few days, and I'll try again for you. In the meantime, I'll be interested to see what others think.

[denny ritner]

For now, let me just say that the widths of the various alleys created are very important, and offering the proper challenge is also very important. You are right about those two concepts. But I absolutely stand by my admonition against single trees.

john, i'm somewhat surprised to hear an absolute "admonition against single trees". sure, most would agree that a 3-inch diameter tree in the middle of a fairway, 150 ft. off the tee is a random, "pimp tree". likewise, a 3 ft. diameter tree 50 ft. off the tee with fair gaps on both sides would be considered fair. in between these extremes exists a whole lot of grey area.

[Dave242]

Cool. Like I said, "I am confused as to his carte blanche condemnation of single splitter trees". So, I am really interested to know why. I am always all ears to hear good challenges to what I think is sound thinking.....since I then have an opportunity to have even sounder thinking.

I have heard quite a few top pros talk about their dislike of splitter trees.....but often that is a good indication that they present a worthy challenge! :D

[grodney]

i agree with dave that if you take away the splitter tree then there will be very few bogeys for blue level players

There doesn't need to be bogeys. A good split of birdie/par/bogey is nice if you can do it without stupid randomness, but that is extremely difficult to achieve.

As Biscoe said, 260' and 17' wide seems about right for the standard Advanced crowd. You would still have plenty of pars.


Gold level scoring fell out like this:
2 - 57%
3 - 36%
4 - 7%

this hole is too easy for Gold.

Nothing about those stats indicate it is too easy for that group of players. It's on the easier side of a 1-shot hole, but not too easy.

[denny ritner]

There doesn't need to be bogeys. A good split of birdie/par/bogey is nice if you can do it without stupid randomness, but that is extremely difficult to achieve.

holes without the potential for bogey are boring. there are way too many holes out there where a pure drive leaves a putt inside the circle and a mistake, be it slight or horrible leaves a short upshot and a tap-in.

[Dave242]

Nothing about those stats indicate it is too easy for that group of players. It's on the easier side of a 1-shot hole, but not too easy.

Exactly! Yet you and Biscoe are advocating in making it MUCH easier (and much more boring) by replacing a 9' wide pinch point with a 17' wide pinch point.

But, that is not the point of this discussion (at least to me). The point is do (can?) splitter make for better holes.....and thereby make better courses? Houck says "no". I want to understand why since I do not get it.

[Cgkdisc]

Having played this hole, walked it in October and watched the video, the problem I have is not as much the splitter tree but the width of the fairway established by some of the big trees closer to the tee that make it more difficult to shape a shot to hit the splitter gaps. While I agree splitter trees aren't ideal in wooded routes, if the gap and shot shaping options are sufficient, it can work.

Not a fan of skinny splitters like John. If a splitter seems necessary (i.e. no cutting a tree) I prefer big trunks with no low limbs to define alternate routes that are large enough on either side.

[Dave242]

Dang it. I checked my basement, but it looks like I must have purged all my old scorecards when we moved north. I know I did a lot of analysis at different times on a hole-by-hole basis and posted things to the CDGC forum, but I regret not logging all the data in a spreadsheet like I did for Gold level players.

Not that I want to make this discussion about this hole (I keep saying that and then doing the opposite), but if the scoring averages and distribution are bearing out that a hole works, how can you say that the shape of the holes are too difficult? The only way that would make sense is if early trees force you to throw on angles (such as stupid steep hyzers or annies) that make hitting a 9' gap at 125' a random event. Then scoring spread would be a result of random luck rather than skill or lack thereof.

I do not see what you are saying on this hole (I do see it on several Charlotte/Stan holes, however), but even if I did, throwing real disc golf throws accurately is a real disc golf skill that good courses should test. This is not a real good hole to test accuracy on Red level players (and probably not White either), but throwing a pretty much line-drive throw 250' through a 7' or 9' gap at 125' with slight hyzer or anny is not too much to ask a 950 rated player. The scoring spread I have seen on this hole bears that out.

[Cgkdisc]

Scoring spread alone does not indicate whether the spread was produced more by luck versus lack of skill.

[Dave242]

Yes - that's why I said "The only way that would make sense is if early trees force you to throw on angles (such as stupid steep hyzers or annies) that make hitting a 9' gap at 125' a random event. Then scoring spread would be a result of random luck rather than skill or lack thereof."

However if you did have a hole that forced very weird throws as the only legitimate way of driving the basket (say vertical disc with either spike hyzer or overhand) and 70% of the target skill range made it into putting range but of the remaining 30% most took 4's and 5's, a solid argument could be made that the drive was a fair test of a real DG skill. An argument could be made that the recovery was ways too hard and random/lucky if you missed the drive......but still, the majority of the spread was not luck-based. Therefore it is overall a fair hole as it tested a real DG skill for the vast majority.

In this case, around 70% of the Gold players are successfully driving the gaps. You do not successfully navigate obstacles 70% of the time and attribute that to luck. 50/50 is luck.....70/30 is not.

[Cgkdisc]

I thought we were talking about blue level though, at least on this hole?

[atl scott]

I hate this hole. It eats me for lunch. I do get some good rescue shot practice though...

I do agree however that it is interesting and that without the splitter tree it would just be another hole.

[Dave242]

Chuck, we are indeed talking about Blue level....and I said it is not the perfect example to illustrate a splitter tree that work. But it is close. It is a good test of accuracy of Blue level players. Those with good accuracy who can control their throws on a tight consistent line pure the gaps regularly. Those that don't have the very real DG skill often struggle on this hole. Those with dig D w/o as much midrange accuracy have several holes later in the course to shine....and make up strokes.

Scott, IMO several the trees in the fairway after the splitter tree ideally should go as I believe they add nothing to the hole. Do you feel that the hole is unfair as in it is just random luck if you hit the gaps, or has the hole just gotten into your head?

To me, and easy way of knowing if a gap is too tight around a splitter tree is that most people chose to try to hit the tree and trust that they are not accurate enough to do so. Conversely, if the hole makes the majority choose a line they plan to hit and a spot in airspace on either side of the tree to hit, it is working.

I personally prefer not to have splitter trees below say around 1' in diameter (chest high) as splitter trees and for them to be limbed up pretty high. A much bigger pet peeve of mine however is branches that you cannot clearly see that protrude into the airspace that common sense would have you hope/expect to be clear.

[atl scott]

Do you feel that the hole is unfair as in it is just random luck if you hit the gaps, or has the hole just gotten into your head?

Please note I didn't say it was unfair, just that I don't like it. And I was mostly kidding/whining :D That hole has definitely gotten into my head. For some reason I just can't find any confidence when I'm standing on the tee.

IMO holes like this are the reason I like Sugaw so much. It stretches your game.

There are also single splitter trees on holes 6 and 11 and multiple splitter trees on holes 1 at Sugaw. Other food for thought.

hole 6 - most people play to the right (I play to the right)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/232/9e895fb9.jpg

hole 11 - most people play to the right (I play to the left)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/232/fbc065a0.jpg

hole 1 - most people play left or right (I play down the middle)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/232/0498ff94.jpg

[optidiscic]

So hole #1 at Sellersville in PA gets complained about a bunch

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=4502&p=08a45834

essentially its a 300 foot hyzer but the initial throw must make it through a 7-8 ft gap left or a 5-6 ft gap right about 80 feet into the fairway....essentially its a tight lane to a generous landing area and then an approach to a water surrounded green.

It's not a true 3...probably more of a 3.5 but that was the intention

I have noticed locals have gotten better at hitting the line and birdie looks are not uncommon

the notion that this is a gold look or a blue look or a red look is silly to me.....there are red players with gold distance and red players with gold technical skills. This hole pisses off gold level guys as much as reds....but over time the players are figuring it out and becoming better players

[optidiscic]

I should add on these tight looks that it causes some fretting and uncomfortable moments on the tee pad...to me thats a good thing

Biscoe...I truly respect your opinions...your a VA guy...I felt some of the grange holes were way tighter and insane than these...I drew my inspiration for keeping the splitter tree here from some of those crazy VA looks and from Idlewild which I hated but came to realize probably would make me a better player. So I made a hole people hate.

[Rol6566]

This is my home course Moraine State Park. And on hole 14 they have not just one tree but a group of trees in front of the pad that make you choose between the right and left gaps

If you happen to throw straight at those trees it is very hard to get a decent second shot off
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/126/dccc50e4.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/126/af49e004.jpg

[optidiscic]

As for the OP.
I love splitter trees....as a player you should focus on the airway and not the tree anyway. Hitting gaps is what disc golf is all about. Watching the pros bitch and moan about random trees...give us a break....hit the line you little bitch.
I have always been told by Eastern Players that players from Texas are not as good as advertised as they can't hit lines in the woods. I'm suspecting this might be the case if Houck truly thinks fairways should be clear of any pinchpoints or tight gaps. (I might be trolling but I have heard this from NC to PA to NE regarding Texas)
I also think that hitting a tree down the fairway often sets up an interesting recovery or approach shot....this is a skill that should be tested as well. If your truly a gold level player you can recover and keep your cool if you missed the line.

[optidiscic]

The pros bitched at Moraine too lol
Thats a great hole there.....I think that Houck is talking about the infamous tree behind the tree (skinny little bugger) or that 1 tree in the middle of my perfect shot (well I guess thats not really the perfect line than is it)

[mashnut]

I really liked that tee shot at Moraine, clear options like that off the tee are always fun.

[optidiscic]

I really liked that tee shot at Moraine, clear options like that off the tee are always fun.

but theres no big over the top super hyzer shot here cries the big name pro :thmbdown:

[biscoe]

there are red players with gold distance and red players with gold technical skills.

yes to part A, no to part B.

[optidiscic]

yes to part A, no to part B.

ok I can agree with that..

[BrotherDave]

So hole #1 at Sellersville in PA gets complained about a bunch


I would complain about that hole b/c it would be a hard one to warm up on. :o

[SomeChump]

We have lots of single trees....but they're not skinny. You guys should play around shorter trees sometime.

When I played in Virginia we had to watch out for the trunks. Out West we watch out for the branches.

[grodney]

Back to the Sugaw/Charlotte hole:
In short, I think (i.e. in my opinion) this hole would be better without any fairway trees, which ties back to the original topic.

In this case, "better" means a better skill-to-luck ratio, and also means a better playing experience for the vast majority of people who will play this hole in the span of a year. Implied in this is that it would also be a better tournament hole for the people likely to play it in a tournament.

Having said all that, I've never seen it. If I saw it in person, I might see that it (especially the first tree as Dave points out) is a fair test.

[GLong]

So hole #1 at Sellersville in PA gets complained about a bunch

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=4502&p=08a45834

essentially its a 300 foot hyzer but the initial throw must make it through a 7-8 ft gap left or a 5-6 ft gap right about 80 feet into the fairway....essentially its a tight lane to a generous landing area and then an approach to a water surrounded green.

It's not a true 3...probably more of a 3.5 but that was the intention

I have noticed locals have gotten better at hitting the line and birdie looks are not uncommon


i wasn't a fan of the hole myself and for that exact reason... i think intentionally designing a hole as a tweener is poor design. a flat 300' par 3 shouldn't have a landing area - you should encourage players to drive the green, with the risk coming from overshooting the basket. the green is already relatively small with OB behind it. you are encouraging players to take two conservative shots to lay up for par. personally i think that's dumb.

[optidiscic]

I don't take offense to that. I'm pro tweener as it makes for more dramatic scoring changes in a round. The everyone gets a 3 to me is dumb.
If the line is hit a drive can make the green. It's a matter of execution off the tee.
Without the splitter the hole would be a much too easy 3.
Bro D there is a warm up hole with a tee pad to warm up on.
As for the original point I think it's gonna come down to your skill level or playing style. If you enjoy hitting gaps vs hitting broad fairways.

[biscoe]

on sellersville 1- were it me i would take out the 2 (3?) smallest trees on the left side and widen that gap.
the spacing on them appears to be such that a bad shot to the left of the first (innermost) one can get to the green which makes it somewhat random imo. i would like the look of the gap better if the woods actually began at the line set by the innermost of the small trees rather than tree-space-woods as it appears. this would more effectively reward good shots and punish bad ones.

[Dave242]

I don't take offense to that. I'm pro tweener as it makes for more dramatic scoring changes in a round. The everyone gets a 3 to me is dumb.
If the line is hit a drive can make the green. It's a matter of execution off the tee.
Without the splitter the hole would be a much too easy 3.
Bro D there is a warm up hole with a tee pad to warm up on.
As for the original point I think it's gonna come down to your skill level or playing style. If you enjoy hitting gaps vs hitting broad fairways.

Please please please consider changing your fondness for tweener holes! They are bad.

Courses should be designed for a certain skill level and they should be designed to reward good skill and execution and to punish poor execution and not having the appropriate skill for the target audience.

Tweeners are bad for these reasons:
1) The scoring separation they provide to a competition is by means of those not executing well. So, all the separation is happening among the worst players in the division and there is no separation among the leaders. Tournaments are in place as a means to crown a winner (determine who is best) so a tweener hole does nothing to help the event do that.
2) Tweener holers are no fun. For instance, if a hole forces you to layup 80' short after a 250' throw, but you can get to the pin easily with a 200' throw too, there is zero thrill in executing well. The only emotion that hole will provide is boredom (when executing as the hole dictated) or frustration (when mistakes are made on very mundane throws)

On topic.....if a splitter tree (or clump of trees) forces players to make throws that turn a good hole into a tweener hole, that is bad.

I am not sure if the tree in your Sellersville #1 is technically a splitter tree or just a tree that narrows the early part of the airway, but if it is preventing a realistically good throw from reaching the green on a 300' hole, it is bad. At least for Blue & White. For Red, this a true Par-4 hole (a legit 2 throw hole) but then I would think that gap would be too narrow of that level of player to expect to hit the majority of the time.

[GLong]

i'll rephrase what i said - tweener holes are ok if they are between birdie/par. that makes more sense to me at least. designing a 'par 3' hole as a 3.5 seems overly punitive. and you can execute the drive and still miss the 'green' because of proximity to OB. i think you are discouraging people from trying to drive the green on a flat 300' hole - there is little motivation to do so if the true scoring average is actually 3.5.

i think the logic of designing a 3.5 par 3 is very faulty. assume a sample size of 100 throws starting with 50 3's and 50 4's. since the hole is birdieable - you need 3 4's for every 2 to maintain the 3.5 average (4+4+4+2=14 / 4 = 3.5). essentially, more 4's than 3's and 2's combined on a 'par 3' hole.

[Dave242]

i'll rephrase what i said - tweener holes are ok if they are between birdie/par. that makes more sense to me at least

Those are really just hard par-2 holes. The mentality is that you "must have" a 2 to keep up with the field. A bogey-4 is devastating if you are competing for the win.

I will add to what I said above. For a given player, a hole may be a tweener hole where it is still OK for their skill level. As an example, for a Blue level course a flat hole of 420' that has a realistic route from to the basket is a tweener hole for many, but is OK if used sparingly as it is a shout-out to those with the skill of big D and accuracy. For everyone else, it is an easy/safe/routine 300' throw (or more if they want), followed by an easy/safe/routine 120' upshot.

[GLong]

Those are really just hard par-2 holes. The mentality is that you "must have" a 2 to keep up with the field. A bogey-4 is devastating if you are competing for the win.


true, but i would rather play a 2.5 par 3 as opposed to a 3.5.

the 2.5 makes you go for it, because it's 'too easy' to lay up. i'd rather have the extra motivation to go for an easy putt rather than play a 3.5 hole where you can lay up for 3 and not really be penalized for that because of an overwhelming lack of 2's. and i think a bogey 4 should be devastating on a 2.5 average hole - if you are a legitimate contender to win, then you should be able to execute that shot just about everytime. just my .02

[Dave242]

I agree with liking 2.5's more than 3.5's, but in the end, carding a birdie on a hole that you know you should is not too fun....at least not as much fun as carding one on a hole where it challenges you to do so. On a 2.5, the chance for excitement is minimal while the chance of frustration is higher.

That is the point of having a splitter tree in an otherwise routine/boring hole. Not only can it help the scoring spread based on skillful execution (if designed correctly), but it adds to the fun, the reward, the addiction factor.

[Green Aarrow]

My friend says if you can drive a car down the fairway, it's fair. I agree, splitter tree or not. In the case of a splitter tree, I'm fine with it as long as you have decent lanes once you're past it. Pretty lame to circumvent that splitter tree only to hit the thinner tree directly behind it and still get a bad kick.

This thread makes me think of Basil Marella. When my group played hole 2 (180' with a hump of a fairway) there at Am Worlds, 3 of us failed to get halfway down the fairway and the 4th went 40-50' past the basket. That, and a few other holes there, were some of the dumbest I've played.

[Cgkdisc]

Dave242 - As an example, for a Blue level course a flat hole of 420' that has a realistic route from to the basket is a tweener hole for many, but is OK if used sparingly as it is a shout-out to those with the skill of big D and accuracy.
Side note: Holes posted as 420' are "bad" no matter what the skill level, terrain or scoring spread. Mark it at 419' or 421' to reduce tagging and haze...;)

[optidiscic]

Back on topic
There are many types of disc golf that's what is great about the game. Hitting tight gaps is a great skill. If we continue to cater to bigger sweeping shots we are losing one of the funner types of disc golf.
To those who complain a hole is too random I'd guess you are just not that good yet.
The mental aspect of keeping your cool after a bad kick or the technical skills of woods golf are elements that make disc golf great.
I'm trying to think of all the great courses Ive played and picturing no splitter trees and I see some god awful boring holes.

[optidiscic]

So let me guess this right holes where everyone routinely gets a 3 and occasionally yield a 2 are better than holes that garner a 2.5
I can see the thought process but I like my holes to be exciting with that 2 or 3 and 3 or 4 drama on every hole rather than the war of attrition hope someone messes up avg 3 on each hole. My .02

[Cgkdisc]

2.6-2.8 and 3.6-3.8 are better than 2.5 or 3.5, respectively. However, if you can get 2.9-3.1 or 3.9-4.1 with roughly half of the scores being birdies and bogey+ and half pars, that would be even better.

[optidiscic]

I never statistically figured out what ssa would be. Probably never will. I throw .5 around as a way of describing a hole that's not a whole number SSA
That's my goal to design birdie holes that can also be blow up holes

back on topic I get the concept of why splitters too far down a fairway are bad. If they are neither off the tee nor near the green then there's a possibility they are going to be "random"
why do idlewild and Tyler get so much praise when they are simply fairways with trees Splitting many of the fairways in many of the fairways

[Cgkdisc]

Recognize that on average, the lower a player's skill level (other than those who care about course design), the more they tend to favor lucky elements in hole designs. It's more of a fun factor for rec players than it is for more serious players.

[optidiscic]

So Idlewild and Tyler get bumped up by luck seeking casual players?

[Cgkdisc]

Just sayin'...

Our DGCD group discussed a Park & Rec study on luck versus skill elements several years ago which tested that concept. BTW, I don't remember more than maybe 1 or 2 splitter trees at either of those two courses that provided more lucky than acceptable routes.

[optidiscic]

Idlewild 5,6,8, and 11 (signature Y tree) and quite a few other holes w skinny trees forming skinny fairways

Tyler in the longs is loaded with the wizard of oz tree that smacks a disc down out of nowhere

[Cgkdisc]

My problem with Idle 11 is it was much cooler when the basket was framed in the Y tree as a Par 3. Now, the Y tree impedes the way some might want to throw their drive for position on the Par 4. I have had more issues with skinnies on 13 & 14 versus the other holes mentioned.

[optidiscic]

I think basically what Houck is advising against is/are plinko trees too far from the tee to ensure hitting the airway for the skill level......Thats where the debate seems to become muddled as an intermediate will feel many holes are random and lucky and a local pro will enjoy hitting the line/gap airway and getting a reward.
The touring pro will whine about such trees....especially the ones from the southwest lol(troll alert)

[optidiscic]

My problem with Idle 11 is it was much cooler when the basket was framed in the Y tree as a Par 3. Now, the Y tree impedes the way some might want to throw their drive for position on the Par 4. I have had more issues with skinnies on 13 & 14 versus the other holes mentioned.

yeah I agree as a par 3 that'd be such a cooler hole....I could lay-up then anny out then approach and get a routine 4 there. As a three it would be a visual treat as well as a more rewarding hole.
I also was gonna mention 13 and 14 but was trying to be diplomatic

There is no doubt playing such holes will make you a more refined player...one of those great for locals nightmare for tourney or traveling type courses

[Lewis]

I hope y'all don't mind if I chime in on this, even though I haven't been a part of the conversation up to this point.

I'm in the camp against splitter trees. Let me explain part of the problematic luck element by example. Imagine you have a splitter tree as you see in the fairway that Dave started this thread with. You decide to go for the route around the left side of the tree, but you miss your line badly enough to the right that your disc flies safely around the right side of the tree. The next guy comes up, attempts the same route, only misses his line by a little, catches the left edge of the tree, and caroms into the shule. In this example, the person who missed worse is the one who is rewarded with the better result. That's a major part of the luck factor with splitter trees that bothers me. The more of these you introduce, the more of this kind of harmful luck you introduce.

One thing that I love about Flyboy is that the fairways there are well defined, without those pesky splitter trees or plinko fairways, but once you're off the fairway, it's TOUGH to get up and down.

[EeBeKay]

not to derail this thread or anything, but this looks like a good place to voice a bit of frustration that i have about my home course.

it is lakewood hills in wbl. when they went to the 18 hole format, they combined hole 10 and 11 to make one hole ten. now provided that you have a good drive, and make it past the 651 tree, your second shot is just a hope and pray shot that you make it through a barrage of thick oak trees ( i think they are oaks) it has really no skill involved and its just a hope and pray shot. its listed as a par 4 but i have never par'd that hole nor have i seen anyone par it, not to say no one has. and until they remove some trees most of the locals play it as a par 5. ( i don't want to get into a whats par debate) all I'm saying is that they really need to take out some trees on the top of the ridge that separated hole 10 and 11, because as i see it and most others is that it is defiantly the gayest hole on that great course.

rant over. choose to discuss this matter if you know the course or carry on without. i just wanted to voice my opinion

[Cgkdisc]

That hole is my fault. I agree that your second shot can be tougher but the routes are there. It's just that a route that gets you all the way to the pin might not be there. It's a blue level course (925+ rating). It's a legit par 4 with a scoring average above 4 but not enough to make a par 5 as originally designed. The groups I've played in shoot 4s & 5s. I've played it maybe 8 times so far and have shot all 4s, twice with potential for 3s. But they came about in a variety of ways. If I could take out maybe one big oak it might be better. But it's technically okay now as a blue level tough par 4.

[Dave242]

I hope y'all don't mind if I chime in on this, even though I haven't been a part of the conversation up to this point.

I'm in the camp against splitter trees. Let me explain part of the problematic luck element by example. Imagine you have a splitter tree as you see in the fairway that Dave started this thread with. You decide to go for the route around the left side of the tree, but you miss your line badly enough to the right that your disc flies safely around the right side of the tree. The next guy comes up, attempts the same route, only misses his line by a little, catches the left edge of the tree, and caroms into the shule. In this example, the person who missed worse is the one who is rewarded with the better result. That's a major part of the luck factor with splitter trees that bothers me.

Maybe others mind :D, but I am glad you have chimed in! You bring up a point that helps me get to the point that I think is central to this discussion. The point is that your argument misses the point since exactly the same issue/argument can be made with any wooded fairway. In fact, it can be made about any obstacle on any fairway…..including the ground (if you want to extend the argument to ridiculous levels).

The issue I hear very often (and indeed John Houck threw it out there too) is something like “How can a good shot that missed an obstacle by inches not get punished when an equally good shot that is only 2 inches further away gets hammered by punishment?” This is wrong thinking. The correct thinking is that a fairway has a sweet-spot (or really a sweet-tube) and if you miss the sweet-spot you put yourself in jeopardy of getting punished….essentially letting luck determine your score.

See figure E below: If you are in the orange you are risking that lady luck will determine your score rather than your skill. If a player is skillful enough to hit the “sweet-tube” 100% of the time, he will beat his opponent who misses it and gets some good luck and some bad luck 100% of the time (assuming their putting skills are equal).

So then, the real issue is to determine “Does the width of the airway given the length (and shape) of the hole present a challenge that effectively tests skill, or does it produce results that are mainly affected by luck?”. This true whether there is no splitter tree, one splitter tree or multiple. It applies to each airway. In fact, by use of splitters a good designer will present a high risk/reward option were it would clearly unfair if that were the only option…..but he will tempt the player to take a high risk for a good reward by means of this unfair airway.

So, what we are talking about in this simple example of a straight and flat hole with one splitter tree is, “given the skill level the course is designed for, how wide does the sweet-spot (Wss) need to be to be fair and then how wide does the fairway (Wfw) need to be?” Figures A-D show the same hole (very similar to the example hole) with splitter trees - Wfw is listed since trees are all 1' diameter. What is most “fair” for each skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red)?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20318&stc=1&d=1326055645

[Dave242]

In fact, it can be made about any obstacle on any fairway…..including the ground (if you want to extend the argument to ridiculous levels).

You know what, I have rethought this, and it is not ridiculous at all. By exactly the same argument being used, how is it fair that one throw that is way short (poorly thrown) skips big and land close the target (or in it!) and another thrown the same distance digs in (or hits a stick or an iron leaf) and does not skip?

[optidiscic]

The game is about hitting lanes and landing areas. I agree with the tube or airway.
If a pitcher nibbles the plate he's risking a ball
If a field goal kicker flirts with the goal post he's risking a shank
if a hoopster hits rim he's risking a bad roll
why do disc golfers bitch when they miss the sweet spot or the center of the gap

if u hit a tree it wasn't a good shot

[Cgkdisc]

@Dave242 - Yes, the ground can be a lucky element. But you usually have more control over the size of fairway gaps than you have modifying the ground for uniformity.

Your diagram is along the lines of the Whacur Factor concept I started to develop about 10 years ago. The Whacur Factor (WHACking and CURves) is a ratio determined by a bunch of players of a specific skill level who first throw at a basket in an open field that's the same distance (reachable for that skill level) as a hole in the woods. You measure the length from the tee for each drive with any overthrows counted as the same length as the hole. Calucalte that open field length. You then do the same throws with the same players in the woods and make the same length measurements. Calculate the wooded average length.

If the Open field length divided by the wooded length is more than double, the Whacur Factor is too high and the gaps in the trees are too narrow. The average length players can throw is less than half the length of the hole. Now, how low does the ratio need to go before it becomes "fair?" Seems to me that players should be able to average at least 2/3 the length of the hole for the gap(s) to be fair. That would be about a 1.5 WF ratio. To my knowledge, no one has tried this. but it might be the most scientific way to determine what size gaps at what distance are fair for different skill levels.

[EeBeKay]

That hole is my fault. I agree that your second shot can be tougher but the routes are there. It's just that a route that gets you all the way to the pin might not be there. It's a blue level course (925+ rating). It's a legit par 4 with a scoring average above 4 but not enough to make a par 5 as originally designed. The groups I've played in shoot 4s & 5s. I've played it maybe 8 times so far and have shot all 4s, twice with potential for 3s. But they came about in a variety of ways. If I could take out maybe one big oak it might be better. But it's technically okay now as a blue level tough par 4.



Thanks for your insights mr Kennedy. I see what you mean. But that hole just really pisses me off. Other than that hole I absolutely love the place!!

[Cgkdisc]

Actually, the tree that's supposed to come out, and I'll try to get that done this spring, is the big poplar near the broken short tee pad on the right. That would make the right side route a little easier to get your drive to a better landing position for your second throw.

[optidiscic]

its not really scientific (due to your opinion that 2/3 seems to be what you consider fair) but it is an interesting concept

So I have a bunch of shorties that are quite technical.....220ish holes (in an open field these are reachable by everyone) So far so good...however

What if its an early tight gap? avg distance will be quite shorter than a pinchpoint or even the dreaded later splitter tree and of course the protecting the green knockdown trees?

Chuck are you against tight early gaps....these are some of the funnest holes in disc golf?

[EeBeKay]

i wanted to make a few edits to my original post,

Mr. Kennedy,

Your experience in course design is second to none! and i am very grateful that we have such the pleasure of ck design. that being said i'm sure you play with a lot more experienced golfers that it would be no big deal in carding a 4. but us mere mortals have a hard time just to get a five. i don't want to come off as a whining little BEatch (i'm sure i am) but i play that course a lot, really it is the course that i do play.. and i always ask people how they do on this hole, while we are waiting to tees off. and everyone i have talked to do not like it! i am no way putting down your work, but i think it would be a little more likable if you took out some trees on that ridge line. the way it is now, it just seem like a cut and paste job, where you can see even if its your first time playing that something isn't quite right. if trees were removed on that ridge line it would give a better impression of one single uniform hole. Rather than two holes linked together.

yes that poplar would be nice aswell :)

[optidiscic]

Chuck I suggest you plant more trees

[EeBeKay]

Chuck I suggest you plant more trees


NO!!!!!


TROLL

[optidiscic]

The more I ponder the Whac the more it makes marginal sense for the desired shot

I've always been a fan of my personal design formula
trouble early
trouble midway
trouble late

2 of the 3 are ok but never all 3 in designing a fair hole

so chucks idea for trouble only early would mean 50% safe for an early gap
a pinchpoint gap would be perhaps less than 25% clean
Late trouble would probably less than 5%

[Dave242]

Your diagram is along the lines of the Whacur Factor concept I started to develop about 10 years ago. The Whacur Factor (WHACking and CURves) is a ratio determined by a bunch of players of a specific skill level who first throw at a basket in an open field that's the same distance (reachable for that skill level) as a hole in the woods. You measure the length from the tee for each drive with any overthrows counted as the same length as the hole. Calucalte that open field length. You then do the same throws with the same players in the woods and make the same length measurements. Calculate the wooded average length.

If the Open field length divided by the wooded length is more than double, the Whacur Factor is too high and the gaps in the trees are too narrow. The average length players can throw is less than half the length of the hole. Now, how low does the ratio need to go before it becomes "fair?" Seems to me that players should be able to average at least 2/3 the length of the hole for the gap(s) to be fair. That would be about a 1.5 WF ratio. To my knowledge, no one has tried this. but it might be the most scientific way to determine what size gaps at what distance are fair for different skill levels.

I prefer to think of scatter/spray patterns with accurate players having a small pattern (with few in the orange area) and inaccurate players having few in the blue area (sweet-spot) and many in and even outside of the orange area.

But......that is very hard to measure, to record, or to act on when designing. So, I think this Whacur Factor does a serviceable job at more easily measuring the main effect of airway length:width ratio. And, ultimately the result of where is disc lands is almost as important of how/why it got there.

I think it would be great to provide designers with a some design guides - rules of thumb on this. For each skill level provide minimum pinch-point widths at say the 1/4 point, mid-point and 3/4 point of the fairway. Do this for several lengths of holes.

With all the variations of hole shapes, elevation changes, fairway ceiling heights and other variations there could be no absolutes, but it would be a resource designers could use to get a rough idea of if their planned gaps are too narrow for fairness sake (or if they are too wide to provide appropriate challenge).

You have mentioned this before, and I had forgotten about it. I like it.

[Cgkdisc]

Bottom line is if at least 2/3 of the player skill level a shot is intended for cannot make it, then it descends into luck. That's what it boils down to no matter where you place the pinch point. If only half of the players at a skill level can execute the shot, why is that any different than a coin flip?

[Cgkdisc]

@EeBeKay
What is your player rating or estimate? That hole comes in at around 4.3-4.4 for Blue level (925+) which is the definition of a tough par 4. That means the scoring average will run around 4-8-5.1 for White level (875+). A good percentage of recreational Ams who play a course regularly can reach this level on that course with the remaining percentage falling in the red level under 875. Those players would average around 5.3-6.0 on that hole from the Blue tees.

Remember that you're playing the Blue tee and that tee wasn't designed for the next lower levels. Unfortunately, the White tee is damaged and not played. For players under 925 rating, they would likely average around 4 from that tee.

As much as I'd like to take out one tree on the ridge, those are big oaks and that's not going to happen unless one dies. BTW, that hole was originally designed to be that long from the very beginning. You only saw it as two holes because the Park Dept wouldn't let us complete the original 18-hole layout. So we broke it into two holes so we would have more holes until they let us complete the course. That took over 10 years from the original plan.

[EeBeKay]

i hear ya...

i dont have a rating or anything, i tried playing in the sunday leagued a few times and realized it wasn't for me. i just play for fun with a few guys that we all started together. i average 2 over par at the score of 60. ive shot a 59 before and up to 65. but i average 60.

BTW.. thanks for all the dog leg rights! i am a LHBH :)

[Cgkdisc]

So THAT'S why that wooded par 4 is so tough for you...;)

[optidiscic]

Chuck I really like the idea that you are thinking of this...but do you think there is anything wrong with a hole that might seem unfair

HOLE 7 IN THE LONG AT TINICUM

course was designed by one of the best technical players in the world (Joe Mela) and legend has it that Climo's score and composure blew up on this hole

I like an insane hole every so often...it definetely improves your game and your mental toughness

Also given your method for a technical course loaded with 220-3o0 ish holes where everyone can reach the pin in a field how would the stats work in order to be ideal (max fair toughness)

[Martin Dewgarita]

:popcorn:

[grodney]

Well, first off shame on you for not taking a 30 minute trip north to visit Sugaw. :D
IMO, Sugaw is the best tournament course for Blue level players in Charlotte

Okay, I went and played it today. Although the hole in question isn't quite as dumb as the picture/video makes it seem, it's still pretty dumb. And more importantly, it would be a better hole without the fairway trees. The best part was the guy playing with me who said: "So what's this hole? You just throw and hope it doesn't hit anything?". And that was unprompted and with no knowledge of this thread. I kid you not.

To put it as nicely as possible, I totally disagree with your second statement (good tournament course for Blue-level players). But, 1) I'm not too bright, and 2) I gave up commenting on design a long time ago (except for my unfortunate foray into this thread).

[Sadjo]

This is a great thread and that foresight and knowledge is why I'm working on my local county parks department to have Chuck come in and consult our design before everything is final. The park & rec director specificly asked to keep some single trees in some fairways and for pinch points.

[Cgkdisc]

Look at it this way. There is a place on most fairways where at least 2/3 of the players can reach. If that point on the fairway is not where the designer intended the landing area to be (i.e. intended players could reach the pin) then there's a mismatch. If that 2/3 point leaves just a 60-90 foot upshot, then that's probably not a good design. This scenario happens on many splitter holes. If it's a 250 ft hole and the 2/3 point ends up only halfway due to early pinch points, that becomes a 250 ft par 4 hole for that player level. That doesn't sound appropriate.

On Tinicum 7 in the long pin, it takes a wild shot (luck) to birdie that hole. But if you play somewhat safe, it's not unreasonable to pull out 3. In a way, it's like the example I just gave above where you have a hole where the scoring average might be at least 3.5 but the length is within the range for top level players if there were a direct route.. So I'm not a fan of that "ugly" hole. On the other hand, I wouldn't reject it as an inappropriate test because the psychological elements are sufficient as part of the competitive experience. I've been known to have a few psych holes like that in some designs like 16 Blueberry.

[optidiscic]

I wouldn't reject it as an inappropriate test because the psychological elements are sufficient as part of the competitive experience. I've been known to have a few psych holes like that in some designs like 16 Blueberry.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=22&mode=media&view=hole&hole=7&page=1

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=386&mode=media&view=hole&hole=16&page=1#

I am glad you are not against the occasional WTF hole that really tests the intended player and sharpens your game and your psyche

[optidiscic]

that Blueberry hole looks like a perfect flex shot...not really unfair at all.....am I missing something?

[Cgkdisc]

I think those who have played it will tell you it's not as simple as the map might make it. Your direct tee shot is only around 125 feet RHFH or turnover. You can go over the top as shown as the right side route but you have to really throw a high knife hyzer. That route may not even be there anymore with tree growth. The first shot is primarily the psych shot on that hole because it's shorter than the second throw and players feel like they need to bite off more than the design allows, at least safely.

[EeBeKay]

So THAT'S why that wooded par 4 is so tough for you...;)


Maybee.... :)

[optidiscic]

yeah I was thinking there would be something more to it...design arguments on specific holes via computer is always comical

FYI we added 150 feet to hole 13 at Nockamixon....making it 670 ft.....using your WHAC for the 970-1010 rated guys who play there...I'm assuming 450 ft is the avg length of their field drives....how would your formula work...because none of them throws 670 in a field

[Cgkdisc]

You would break down each throw to the desired landing area. The Whacur Factor is applied for each shot, typically a par 3 for example's sake. But the concept should be applied for each throw in a par 4 or 5.

[Dave242]

Look at it this way. There is a place on most fairways where at least 2/3 of the players can reach.

Not nit picking on semantics here, but I do want to understand what you are saying by "can reach". Do you mean theoretically or in practice?

If in practice, that would mean you got 18 players of the intended skill level to throw 5 times each (90 throws) and at least 60 discs landed in that target area.

If theoretically, that would me that 1/3 could not reach that spot no matter what (for all practical purposes at least).....so in practice it could/would often be much lower than 2/3's actually hitting the target area.

[optidiscic]

Dave I am curious what your thoughts on Idlewild's more infamous holes regarding this topic

[zapplayer12]

[QUOTE=optidiscic;1176778]

FYI we added 150 feet to hole 13 at Nockamixon....making it 670 ft.....

For the love of god, not to troll but really? That's just cruel and torturous.

[optidiscic]

[QUOTE=optidiscic;1176778]

FYI we added 150 feet to hole 13 at Nockamixon....making it 670 ft.....

For the love of god, not to troll but really? That's just cruel and torturous.

:D

it's a second basket....you can still play the short 520 ft "bowl on the cliff" basket

[zapplayer12]

That gives me no comfort whatsoever.

[Cgkdisc]

@Dave242
Let's say there's a hole that everyone has the power to reach within a skill level, let's say 240 feet. Say 25 players make 4 throws on that hole. 50 throws made it past 190 feet and 70 throws made it past 160 feet. The 2/3 point is around 160 feet leaving a not necessarily clean 20-80 footer for maybe 65 of those shots that made it past 160 with perhaps 4-6 being within 20 feet with most ending as deuces. However, it's unlikely more than maybe 4-6 of the other 60 shots would result in deuces. So we end up with a hole yielding mostly threes.

[Dave242]

Dave I am curious what your thoughts on Idlewild's more infamous holes regarding this topic

I do not really remember having many issues with splitter trees at Idlewild - none stick out to me as being particularly well used or poorly used. I think there were a few too many spindly trees in parts of some fairways (luck inducing), but I would not consider them splitter trees.

To me the aspect of the course that jumped out most to me was that over all short segments forced by fairway shape and/or very narrow widths (some notable exceptions of course).

I take (took) issue with it being called a Gold level course since the distances required to score well are not Gold level.....but in light of what Chuck is talking about with the 2/3's of the field needing to successfully navigate the fairway segments, I suppose a case could be made that that requires Gold level skill (and scoring averages/spreads bear that out I suppose).

Read more about it in my review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=507&page=8&mode=rev#9271) if you want.

One thing I find curious is that Idlewild which is very punishing and narrow rates right up there in the DGCR ratings with Flyboy & Flip City which are overall relatively open course (I have played all 3 now as of last weekend).

[Dave242]

Chuck - thanks.....that's what I assumed you meant.

[Guurn]

Just for the record Chuck, I am a Blue level player and have carded anything from a 3 to a 7 on hole 10 at LW. My average is probably around 4.5ish. If there is an issue with that hole, and I am not sure there is (it is my favorite on the course) it is the landing area for the typical drive. I see this as an issue with my approach not the design. I try to drive hard with a good fade to the right. There are few good routes to the basket from that side. If the course is going to keep its name lefties should have a clean look from there. ;)

[Cgkdisc]

My one issue with the landing area is the low spot that holds water right where some percentage of decent shots might land. Not sure there's a quick fix to reduce that problem since adding fill would just push any water around it.

[denny ritner]

I would complain about that hole b/c it would be a hard one to warm up on. :o

warm up in the field and be ready to play golf when you get to the course.

[denny ritner]

I think basically what Houck is advising against is/are plinko trees too far from the tee to ensure hitting the airway for the skill level......Thats where the debate seems to become muddled as an intermediate will feel many holes are random and lucky and a local pro will enjoy hitting the line/gap airway and getting a reward.
The touring pro will whine about such trees....especially the ones from the southwest lol(troll alert)

and that point adds to the argument for more tees.

[Royal Hill]

These are my favorite threads on this site, for sure. Good dialogue. And Dave242, I love seeing diagrams like that, really clarifies the concepts at play. I like the Houck articles for the same reason.

And it should be said here, as it has in the past by Chuck mostly I believe, that the average disc golfer underestimates the "influence" a smaller tree has. meaning... the average player thinks of his desired shot as a line without thickness, but even a 1" tree takes up a kick-width of 15-18" or so for discs thrown flat. It also means that the tighter gaps are tighter in reality than our minds estimate.

I do like the analogies to the field goal kicker flirting with a shank or deflection if he gets close to the pole, and the others that went with it. If a majority of the trees on our wooded courses ultimately stay as they are, which they will - that kind of thinking of the airtube will be a good tool for many progressing players mental game development.

[Karl]

Opti,

I know people like tweaking holes, but a tight 520 foot straight hole to a button hook potentially VERY fast green is a good par 4 already. To make a new basket position (and not extending the tee backwards like I thought someone might do someday) further out / left makes little sense (of all the holes that could be tweaked at Nockamixon), especially since they'll have to walk WAY back and across the same fairway to get to the next hole.
I hope I'm wrong (once I play it) in my skepticism.

Karl

[optidiscic]

Karl,
we would never get rid of the "bowl on the cliff" basket...it's still there. When Nocky was first conceived it was meant to challenge and stretch the limits of what disc golf could be. With disc technology improving and players improving the idea came up to change things only if they added something to an existing hole. I think this extra basket position does just that.

[AcesandChains]

There was one poster who made an excellent point. You and your buddy are shooting thru two gaps created by a splitter tree, and you both decide to take the left airway. One of you misses to the right by 3 feet, and the other misses to the right by 6 feet. The 3 foot miss hits the splitter tree, making it seem like a crappy shot, and the 6 foot miss sails thru the right airway, making it seem like a great shot. But one of you missed your desired airway by twice as much as the other.......and gets REWARDED for it!

I think that was an excellent point that you didn't get. I could be wrong, but I would think this may be exactly the problem Mr Houck has with splitter trees (especially small ones.)

Now, that being said, everything has to be looked at from the standpoint of the skill level the course is designed for. I'm only a red level player, and I would consider myself "lucky" to hit either gap. Obviously, this course is not designed for my skill level. It may be that Blue level players see those gaps as being wide enough. And it may be that the difference between a good shot and a bad shot for a blue level player is not big enough for the example above.

My first leading question would be.......is that fairway fair if one of the gaps is completely blocked?

If so, then I think the splitter tree is fine as long as it's not too small in diameter. (If Blue level players are able to hit the single gap regularly then luck probably won't get too many of them thru the second gap on a bad shot.)

If not, then the splitter tree will become too much of a luck factor in the scoring spreads. (Blue level players can't hit the gap at least 2/3 of the time, then luck will get some of them thru the second gap on a bad shot.)

Following that logic, as skill level, and the ability to hit small gaps rises, the girth of an acceptable splitter tree would get smaller.

[optidiscic]

http://http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=32&p=48509b1b

I think too many of you are equating a good splitter tree with a poke and hope
this all comes down to your skill level and your perception in the above scenario both players likely were not up to the level of the hole if they both missed the line....a truly good player minimizes luck and hits that left side line




Jordan Creek 14 looked like a forrest to me the first time I played it....looked like a pinball plinko hole.....now I see the line (tube airway) and am upset when I miss it.....I think a review on this site mentions this hole as stepping up to the tee and seeing no line just a mess of trees.

Most of us see the line but to a beginner it's way more impractical...I think the same goes for much more difficult holes...I would imagine that 1000 rated guys see the hole differently than the rest of us

bottom line is consider what skill level the hole is challenging

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=32&mode=media&view=hole&hole=14&page=1#

[Royal Hill]

"and you both decide to take the left airway. One of you misses to the right by 3 feet, and the other misses to the right by 6 feet. The 3 foot miss hits the splitter tree, making it seem like a crappy shot, and the 6 foot miss sails thru the right airway, making it seem like a great shot. But one of you missed your desired airway by twice as much as the other.......and gets REWARDED for it!


My first leading question would be.......is that fairway fair if one of the gaps is completely blocked? "


Here's a key concept difference I'm noting. In the first paragraph scenario its stated what the players intent was. It was then stated that they both missed their intent (in this case to the same side). The difference was that the amplitude of the miss was different. It was perceived after the event, however, that the low amplitude miss was punished, but the higher amplitude miss was rewarded. This is where I'd call to reconsider those value assignments.

If we follow Dave242's air tunnel, with the blue to orange model, then we would freely concede that both players missed the tunnel based on their intent. Dave242 would counter that "outside the tunnel" anything can happen. You've conceded the decision to "lady luck". Big miss, little miss, just-right in betweener miss.

fortune after-the-fact is great, but what happens outside the tunnel, happens outside the tunnel. In this case, then it would be lady luck doing the rewarding or punishing, rather than anyone else you would naturally vent against.

The second statement about whether a route is fair if it was the only route is a good discussion point. (if the other gaps were suddenly closed with draped fabric or screening for mental picturing)

[Dave242]

There was one poster who made an excellent point. You and your buddy are shooting thru two gaps created by a splitter tree, and you both decide to take the left airway. One of you misses to the right by 3 feet, and the other misses to the right by 6 feet. The 3 foot miss hits the splitter tree, making it seem like a crappy shot, and the 6 foot miss sails thru the right airway, making it seem like a great shot. But one of you missed your desired airway by twice as much as the other.......and gets REWARDED for it!.

I had something like this all typed in for my response to Lewis, but deleted it out since my post was already too long (I have a habit of being too long winded).

I get the point of a worse shot being "rewarded" more so that an less bad shot. Splitter trees can be used, but this can be avoided/minimized if they are used in conjunction with the design of the rest of the hole. I will explain what I mean with the original example hole.

If you are RHBH going for the larger gap on the left you will be throwing a line drive anny (or an understable disc that will flip over when passing the splitter tree). If you miss your line to the right of the tree, you will hit the gap, BUT you will anny out into the thick shule or even kick further right onto the OB road past the shule.

If your disc does end up landing close to the basket that means that you not only missed your line, but you ALSO erred by accidentally throwing a hyzer. You could always just look at your group and say "yeah, I meant to do that!" and they would never know (since the right route is also a valid route).

This exact same thing could (and does) happen all the time in wooded fairways without splitter trees (missing the intended line and screwing up the angle of release resulting in a good outcome). And, we have all seen way errant shots somehow sneak their way cleanly threw a whole bunch of cabbage and somehow land under the basket. This sort of thing is part of the game and playing in the woods, so trying to do away with it is misguided IMO.

I understand and appreciate Houck's desire to minimize the influence of lady luck in design. He is a much more accomplished designer than I ever hope to be and has undoubtedly given this much more thought than I have, but I do not believe that his unequivocal condemnation of all splitter trees is good. It removes very valid obstacles, choice-making that is good for the game, and a lot of potential tests on if golfers can skillfully test a variety of shots.

I think the solution is coupling splitter trees with a well thought out configuration of the rest of the hole.....so the hole is still a good and fair test of skill and produces a good scoring average and spread for the skill level the hole is designed for.

IMO, the use of splitter trees is more of a design style issue just as is the use of wide fairways with baskets tucked into pockets at the edge of fairways (like is done all over the place at Flyboy), or the use of lots of OB (Winthrop Gold, Renny, Idlewild, Cliff Stephens), of the use of "fast greens" (Renny and Flip City), or short & turning fairway segments (Idlewild).

[AcesandChains]

I'd have to agree that the hole design plays a large part in determining if the splitter tree becomes more or less unfair. Your point about the routes determining if the shot is an anny or a hyzer are perfectly valid. But we should also realize that a bad shot that makes it by the splitter tree is still MUCH better than a bad shot that hits the tree and bounces off into the schule. It still adds a bit of luck into the equation.

"And, we have all seen way errant shots somehow sneak their way cleanly threw a whole bunch of cabbage and somehow land under the basket. This sort of thing is part of the game and playing in the woods, so trying to do away with it is misguided IMO."

If we are talking theory here, then I don't buy into the above argument. Theoretically, we should try to minimize luck and maximize skill.

However, we are not talking theory when we use the example hole you mentioned. Sometimes practicality has to take over. Barring another option for that hole, is the hole better with, or without the splitter tree? That is really what it comes down to in the real world. Ideally, the designer would find an airway from tee to basket that does not require any elements that introduce luck into the equation. In practice, this isn't always possible.

With that said, I would not be one of the players complaining about this hole. But it certainly makes for a great discussion.

And yeah, I can be long winded too. Lol.

[Cgkdisc]

Here's a scenario related to the splitter tree discussion. Scott Stokely was talking about a subtle failing in the design of the holes at Swope in KC that couldn't be avoided by the designer. For those who haven't played it, Swope is the classic public park with mowed grass everywhere and the only trees remaining are old oak trees spaced 30-50 feet apart and lining many of the fairways. As Scott noted, if you are only slightly off line, you're likely to nail a tree and lose distance. However, if you're further off line, you can get rewarded with your shank flying all the way down the parallel fairway and getting near the basket.

I think the way to combat this situation when it presents itself to the designer is to set the tee closer to the tree line than you might have been inclined. And in the case of Swope with several holes where the tree line is on both sides, place the tee close to the tree line on one side or the other rather than in the middle like they've done there.

[Dave242]

If we are talking theory here, then I don't buy into the above argument. Theoretically, we should try to minimize luck and maximize skill.

However, we are not talking theory when we use the example hole you mentioned. Sometimes practicality has to take over.

There are only 2 options to take luck out in practical course design. 1) Like Denny said way up-thread, put your course in a huge open Walmart parking lot, or 2) play with fairways lined with perfectly uniform smooth walls extending from tee pad to basket.

The bottom line is that over a course of a tournament, the player that hits the blue sweet-spot in the airway tube will always 100% of the time beat the player that leaves the orange area of the tube getting some good kicks and some bad.

So, the question remains: is the tube of a width (and shape) such that navigating it successfully is based on luck or on skill? This can absolutely be answered definitively, but of course that will depend on what skill level of player you are talking about.

[Dave242]

I think the way to combat this situation when it presents itself to the designer is to set the tee closer to the tree line than you might have been inclined. And in the case of Swope with several holes where the tree line is on both sides, place the tee close to the tree line on one side or the other rather than in the middle like they've done there.

Oh no - can't do that! That would cause the top Pros to not rely on throwing hyzers! That would not be fair.

/sarcasm

[Karl]

Chuck,

I hear your Stokely story and understand his thoughts but let me state a VERY common (and similar) situation where it can be better to be really bad than a little bad.

Scenario:
Semi-tight tunnel-ish wooded hole lined on both sides by medium sized trees (delineating the fairway - more trees and junk further out to each side).
Player A hugs the left side and gets way down there.
Player B misses A's flight path by 1 foot further left. Hits a tree and deflects 90-degree across the fairway to the right and deep into the crap. Jail.
Player C misses B's flight path by 1 foot and hits the same tree smack solid. Disc falls straight down (on the left side of the fairway). An easy approach shot down same fairway (maybe a sidearm flick..).

Again, this happens ALL the time...and I don't think there's much we can do about this aspect of dg (at least not here in the northeast).

While I'm all for trying to take luck out of dg as much as possible, I just think there are situations (like the one I've stated) that inherently place luck into the equation - where we can't design it out. Crap happens I guess.

Karl

[denny ritner]

Scenario:
Semi-tight tunnel-ish wooded hole lined on both sides by medium sized trees (delineating the fairway - more trees and junk further out to each side).
Player A hugs the left side and gets way down there.
Player B misses A's flight path by 1 foot further left. Hits a tree and deflects 90-degree across the fairway to the right and deep into the crap. Jail.
Player C misses B's flight path by 1 foot and hits the same tree smack solid. Disc falls straight down (on the left side of the fairway).

Brings to mind an important point. As much as possible, I believe that the rough shouldn't be "jail". In an ideal world, the rough should be thinned out enough that players usually will have the opportunity to gamble on an heroic recovery shot.

Lucky/unlucky deflections cannot be eliminated, but the randomness of the punishment can be minimized somewhat by thinning the rough.

[Cgkdisc]

Hey Karl, an example of the type of hole you've just described is the highly touted hole 4 at Blue Ribbon Pines. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=1022&p=bea7a9cb

Players who get the bad kick into the schule on the left or right usually have to just pitch out. My preference would have been to trim the shule back from the tree line about 10-15 feet, especially on the first half of the hole and take out one tree at maybe two different points halfway and 3/4 of the way down the fairway so players with a marginal kick to outside the tree line might have a chance for a hero shot throwing outside the tree line and coming back in where the tree gaps were positioned.

It sort of works that way on the left side where there's a (sometimes OB) dirt road with not much schule. You can sometimes recover down the outside of that tree line with a chance to come back in but no tree has been taken out to allow that bonus recovery option.

[Dave242]

In my mind uber-thick rough has 2 problems:

1) It challenges the norm on what is fair and what is not fair. If it is guaranteed that a shot into the shule will certainly result in a pitch out (with no chance of advancing down the fairway), that defies the norm of what is "fair". But everyone is subject to the risk equally so everyone has the option to forgo the go-for birdie and play for a routine par by playing putter-putter-putter. I can think of plenty of holes that I have birdied, but that my average is above 3.0 when going for birdie. In tournament play I am not "playing the averages" if I go for the glory. I do not think it is in our DNA to not go for it even when it makes sense not to (this is the "problem"....but it is not a problem with the design).

2) If it is guaranteed that a shot into the shule will certainly result in a pitch out (with no chance of advancing down the fairway), that sort of shule robs the player a chance to recover with a heroic effort.....or to help out his competitors by failing to recover and screwing up even worse (turning a bite-the-bullet bogey into a double or triple bogey).

[Royal Hill]

"Player A hugs the left side and gets way down there.
Player B misses A's flight path by 1 foot further left. Hits a tree and deflects 90-degree across the fairway to the right and deep into the crap. Jail.
Player C misses B's flight path by 1 foot and hits the same tree smack solid. Disc falls straight down (on the left side of the fairway). An easy approach shot down same fairway (maybe a sidearm flick..)."


This is key for us as we seek to understand what is fair, or better yet, how we valuate our results.

Player A - made the tunnel, and the executed line was within the bounds of the intended flight path. Hooray! Whether he was close to the borders was a matter of how close he may have flirted with the edge of the parameters, but it was within it.

Player B, and Player C - both missed the bounds of the intended flight path airway tunnel. Both didn't execute as intended.

A couple points here - Player B (Jail result) was left to fend with rough. That makes sense. Player C was perhaps underpunished. Therefore, it would be great for player C to mentally assign a "whew... got a pass on this one" on the mental scorecard.

All things being equal - Player C, if he continues to track offline, will face course hardship later, if not on this hole. Player B will too.

I was speaking with a newish player this weekend sharing how its an interesting time in your progression when you shift from having your valuation based on disc resting results, vs how you threw compared to intent. A new player rejoices in a fortunate sneak through, but the advancing player feels concerned they were offline. That same advancing player begins to feel good about a good line shot, even if something unseen or unanticipated happens along the way.

oh, and there was some discussion that really thinning rough just led to people traveling further into rough. I'm not sure how I feel about that counter argument.

[Karl]

While there are an infinite amount of different possible kicks off all the trees that line any "fair"way (so one could state something to 'rebut' what I'm saying), my post was just to focus on the "dg just ain't fair somethings" aspect of things. And no matter HOW much we try to make it such, I believe - in the case scenario stated by me earlier - we'll ultimately never be able to 100% succeed because of such situations (which happen frequently).

Karl
Ps: Just an O.F. learning a little more each day to come to grips with inequities that happen.

[optidiscic]

Imagine how boring a game would be without luck.
The best ways to eliminate luck are to develop skill to minimize luck or to play conservate to reduce risk.
Random trees
random roots
random stone
random wind
random leaf
random mud
random high water
this is an exercise in futility
part of the game is mental and recovery shots and mental recovery are part of the sport. This thread is interesting but silly
I have some advice hit the airway if it's too tight lay up.

[optidiscic]

Excellent points by Dave and Karl
I am a fan of recovery miracle shots. These provide risk vs rewards that are akin to water,Fast greens, tight gaps etc. I don't usually like impenetrateable brush. I encountered a to of this in Charlotte and found myself pitching out and redriving. This was boring. There is a fine line between too forgiving and excellent risk vs reward.
It's ironic but the hole 13 at nockamixon that I mentioned earlier has the best example of heroic recovery I know of. The second fairway that runs parallel to the actual fairway but is 1/3 as wide and mimics a hallway. U can pitch out or go for the hero or fun lane. Wish I had pics.

[sidewinder22]

IMO there is no way to take out all the randomness between the trees, ground, and wind, much like the "bad beat" in poker, it's a necessary evil and what makes it more fun or interesting. I think when you have competition that is nearly a level playing field you need some randomness or luck to decide the winner or whiner.

[Dave242]

In the court system societally we have an understanding of fairness: The punishment must fit the crime. Too much or too little punishment and everyone inherently knows things are unfair. So, inconsistent punishment is understood to be unfair.

To get consistent results for missing the ideal airway offered, the best way to mete out consistent punishment is to use drop zones for any time a throw lands outside the acceptable bounds. The USDGC has done this does this in at least 2 ways: 1) yellow ropes with either marking the last spot in bounds or re-throwing (stroke & distance), or 2) Hole 17 uses a the drop zone of a re-tee (or the layup area).

Like people have said many times in many ways in this thread, disc golf is NOT a controlled aiming game like bowling, darts, or horse shoes, nor is it a putting contest. Disc golf is not subject to the same notions of fairness that is the societal norm of the justice system. Those who err on the side of shying too far away from inconsistent punishment maybe should hone up their Jarts skills.

To me what is amusing is that for the most part those who want wide fairways and want to minimize the effects of random punishment are the same people who don't like the much more consistent punishment found at the USDGC. I think the common element is them - they cannot possibly be the ones making mistakes so it must be the course making mistakes how it is punishing them.

[Steve West]

I don't think that eliminating luck is a desirable design goal.

Rather, I think a design should offer the choice of more luck vs. less luck. Ideally a full spectrum of it. The more luck, the lower the possible score, but the higher the expected score.

[1978]

Side note: Holes posted as 420' are "bad" no matter what the skill level, terrain or scoring spread. Mark it at 419' or 421' to reduce tagging and haze...;)

Lol, JERKS! I did that exact thing Nevin #16 short.

[AcesandChains]

I see a lot of people dismissing this conversation as stupid because there will always be luck involved in disc golf. That is true, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

However, just because you can't get rid of something, does not mean you shouldn't try to reduce it's effects. And just because you don't want to eliminate luck altogether doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make skill more important.

Personally, I think this is an excellent discussion. Dave242 has been clear in his points, and generated a conversation that we can all learn something from, even if we don't agree with the specific points.

That, to me, is not a silly discussion.

[Karl]

I personally think very few discussions are silly and this isn't one of thoses. I just wanted to point out that there are some aspects of this sport that cause a great deal of luck (either way), and that we'll never be able to get around those ones. As for trying to eliminate others, cool!

Karl

[johnrhouck]

Not to get bogged down on the imperfect example I gave, but this does address my question to John Houck. I am confused as to his carte blanche condemnation of single splitter trees.

OK, I think I have a better handle on where Dave and I diverged, like two shots on either side of a splitter tree. I'll try again.

There have been many good comments on this thread, and it's branched off a few times into territory worth exploring, I think.

First, the easy part: the many times where Dave and I agree:

Now there are choices being made (forced on you by the hole design) and more likely punishment for not executing as intended - I would think that is a good thing on 2 fronts.

I do not see what is so wrong about having a splitter tree create 2 fairways/airways and applying the lehgth:width philosophy to both airways. In fact, I think they are great when applied correctly as they force choices and specific shot shapes.....and that is very positive!

Completely agreed. Using obstacles to create choices is, I would say, not just positive but essential in good course design. It's a good thing on even more than two fronts.

The point is that a good/skillful throw goes down the middle of the airway (or at least the preferred sweet spot of the airway) and a less skilled shot does closer to the edges.....or even misses the airway. When you miss the airway you put your throw in jeopardy of taking a really bad kick.

This sort of thing [one shot hits a tree and an almost identical shot misses it] happens all the time already at the edge of any fairway with a tree on it.....


Absolutely. And on the edges of the fairway it is appropriate and necessary.

And you make a superb point: the sweet spot of an alley (or "airway" as you cleverly call it) does not need to be in the middle. In fact, I frequently design alleys where playing closer to a tree is more desirable because it gets you a better reward. More risk, more reward.

On these points we are completely together, I think.

[johnrhouck]

Now let's see where we got derailed.

It seems you are focusing on the obstacle and not the airspace...

Does it not make more sense to focus more on the fairways/airways (the intended path of the disc's flight) and make sure that is fair than worrying as much about missing the intended airway?

I am 100% focusing on the obstacle and not the airspace. That's where we got lost. It is very important to make sure that the airways are wide enough (and tall enough, for that matter) to be fair. But that is a completely different discussion. Worth having, but not what we were originally talking about.

The discussion I started was about the width of obstacles, not the width of alleys. Remember that the original question posed to me was basically "Should we plant trees in front of baskets." My answer was that if you plant a single skinny tree, you almost certainly make the hole worse, not better.

Then I made the case that single skinny trees do more harm then good anywhere on the fairway.

The point is do (can?) splitter make for better holes.....and thereby make better courses? Houck says "no".

Not quite true. I am not hear to condemn anybody's existing holes. I'm not even prepared to say that the Sugaw hole you posted would be better off without the splitter tree.

What I'm advocating is that, whenever possible, we split fairways using wider obstacles. Generally speaking, that will mean multiple trees acting as one obstacle, though it could mean big rocks or big mounds or several other things, I suppose.

That's all I was talking about: the width of obstacles.

I understand and appreciate Houck's desire to minimize the influence of lady luck in design. He is a much more accomplished designer than I ever hope to be and has undoubtedly given this much more thought than I have, but I do not believe that his unequivocal condemnation of all splitter trees is good. It removes very valid obstacles, choice-making that is good for the game, and a lot of potential tests on if golfers can skillfully test a variety of shots.


I appreciate the kind words, and let me reiterate that I am a huge proponent of the role of decision-making in disc golf. One of the key ways you force decision-making is by splitting fairways using obstacles, generally trees. I would even venture to say that if you saw Lakeside 14 and 15 at Selah, you would see more choices in those two holes than you would in an entire round on most wooded courses. But in every case, the alleys are separated by multiple trees, so much so that if you miss the alley you're trying to hit, the odds are extremely high that you'll hit something sooner rather than later.

Now let's take a quick look at your well-conceived graphic.

[optidiscic]

So you're not a fan of a Basket in Jail?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=3640&p=7a1a29a4

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=3640&p=f524dbd4

[optidiscic]

hole 14 at the black course for above reference....(I hate this website sometimes it's just not user friendly)

[GLong]

So you're not a fan of a Basket in Jail?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=3640&p=7a1a29a4

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=3640&p=f524dbd4

can't tell, but is it even possible to get a clean look at that basket?

[optidiscic]

I really do not understand why you hate skinny trees? You prefer a fat tree instead......what is the difference? It's about the airspace to either side of the tree not the size of the tree

I'm baffled by your logic......a player must have the mental ability to realize a tree is in the fairway and then choose a route....if a player subconsciously decides to ignore a thinner tree and then hits that tree....that is the players error not a design flaw

[optidiscic]

can't tell, but is it even possible to get a clean look at that basket?

It's a 250 feet hole downhill so it's basically an upshot and then executing entry into the jail....it's one of the funnest and most unique holes I've played....I threw a hyzer past the jailhouse and attempted a back door entry which was still tight with jail trees but not as dense as the front.....basically it's tight from every direction but there tight but possible are lines everywhere and from every direction....like I said it's a fun hole that is essentially a basket in jail

:clap:

[johnrhouck]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20318&stc=1&d=1326055645

So let's apply a little quick math to this diagram.

As someone wisely pointed out, if the far side of your disc misses the tree by 7 1/2", the near side of your disc will hit the tree. To make the calculation easier, let's say 9" either side still hits the tree, so your 1' trees essentially act like 2 1/2' wide obstacles. That means that in example C, your pinch point has 20' 1/2' of empty space and 2 1/2' of obstacle.

This means that you could close your eyes and just randomly hit the fairway 89% of the time. With just blind luck alone (literally), you would hit wood and receive some sort of punishment just 11% of the time.

So if you have the skill to hit a 23'-wide gap that's 125' from the tee, you pretty much have the skill to hit the same fairway with a 1' splitter. It really doesn't take special skill to miss the tree.

Yes, you can shape the hole differently, and that could make a difference. And yes you can use a wider tree, but even with Denny's 3' tree, you can still randomly miss the tree 80% of the time. If you can have 80% success just throwing a random shot (assuming you have the skill to hit a 23' gap), I wouldn't consider that a real test of skill. (By the way, Denny is quite right that bringing the tree closer to the tee essentially makes it seem wider.)

Yes, you can make the hole longer. And yes, there are psychological factors that could come to bear. And, yes, if you throw a righty hyzer angle on the left side of the tree you will probably hit wood later.

But let's not get bogged down in what if's. My point is that the single tree still allows you to close your eyes and be successful a huge percentage of the time.

Your other examples reduce the chances of getting through clean, but the smaller gaps introduce different random luck.

So I'm hoping we can agree on a simple principle: wider obstacles make for fairer fairways, provided -- as always -- that the alleys are wide enough (and tall enough).

[optidiscic]

Looking at Selah Lakeside 14

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=4528&p=0ecd8681

you appear to favor an impenetrteable obstacle of cluster trees or thick trees as opposed to a single tree that splits a fairway.

Thats a great looking hole.....what is your argument for these tree clusters over single trees. To me I would focus on the airway on these holes as much as I would the airway on a fairway with 1 splitter tree as an obstacle.

I'm not trolling but I have yet to see what is better about your clusters or big trees.....I'm not trying to disagree or troll you I just don't get it

[Cgkdisc]

The bigger the trees or clusters framing the desired airway, the more slightly offline shots that miss the airway are "fairly" punished.

[Karl]

On any given hole, there's a difference between one fairway with two or more gaps and two fairways each with one gap. John and Chuck are advocating the latter (can't blame them). Unfortunately, we are used to course designers either strapped with constraints (not allowing them to do so) or just "lazy designers / builders" who don't want to take the time to carve out TWO distinct avenues (making each a true dogleg) on any given hole.

Karl

[optidiscic]

I get the concept. I guess I do agree in principal but not in practice. I think there is a place for that pesky single tree. I think you actually are limiting shot making and creativity by forcing players to essentially throw through holes rather than the weaving and line shaping that "random" splitter and thin trees here and there provide.

[Dave242]

hole 14 at the black course for above reference....(I hate this website sometimes it's just not user friendly)

Just a little technical help here as once you "get it" this site is actually quite slick in what you can do.

To embed a picture right in your post,
1) find the picture you want to post,
2) right click on it and select properties (Using Chrome is easier since it offers you to "Copy image URL" - so you can skip step 3 here)
3) copy the URL of the picture
4) come back to the post you are typing and click the "Insert Image" icon
5) Paste the URL into the window that pops open

One note is that if you are grabbing a picture from the course page here, it is best to click on the picture you want to open it large size in the pop-up window and then copy the URL for that image as that picture is sized correctly to fit well into the Forum and it is easier to see.

[optidiscic]

Thanks Dave I swear I followed those steps Grrrrr

[gregorvn]

Imagine how boring a game would be without luck.
The best ways to eliminate luck are to develop skill to minimize luck or to play conservate to reduce risk.


“Being deeply learned and skilled, being well trained and using well spoken words; This is good luck”
Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism.

“Luck favors the prepared, darling”
Edna Mode, The Incredibles

[Dave242]

And yes, there are psychological factors that could come to bear. And, yes, if you throw a righty hyzer angle on the left side of the tree you will probably hit wood later.

But let's not get bogged down in what if's. My point is that the single tree still allows you to close your eyes and be successful a huge percentage of the time.


John - thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. I love being able to be able to latch onto your thoughts and "rules of thumb" for good design practices because I really think as more and more people "get it" and talk about it (including in reviews on DGCR), over time we would see less and less goofy holes out there. I think your articles are fabulous and I have really latched onto several concepts you have talked about.

On this topic however, I still do not get it. There are 2 specific things in what I quoted from your conclusion that I do not get:

1) I do not see how you can divorce the "psychological factors" from the hole design. I have heard plenty of beginners playing narrow holes talk about just throwing and hoping/praying. But we are not talking about them....we are talking about players who can hit a 10' gap at 125' consistently (or whatever the length:width ratio is....that is fair) and in fact feel confident they can consistently hit their sweet spot in that gap (dependent on the throw they choose).

2) I do not buy the close your eyes and be successful concept. My issue is in what seems to be your definition of "success". If success is merely throwing a line-drive throw and getting past the splitter/s, then I agree with you. To me however, "success" is landing in your intended landing zone.....and that takes a combination of accuracy on the the line you throw (yaw & pitch) and accuracy in holding the shot shape (disc selection & roll) you are trying to achieve.

One of my concerns, and that is why I am posting so much on this thread, is that I have heard plenty of really good players express that splitter trees are always bad/dumb. I too hate splitter trees with narrow gaps late in the fairway (or late in the flight segment for multi throw holes) as those are totally a crap shoot (usually), but spitter trees in the first half of the fairway offer designers many wonderful options they can present to competitors.

[Dave242]

To me, the best argument for multiple splitter trees in a clump is that if one dies you are still left with a split fairway. Same cannot be said of single splitters (leaving a 10' high stump works but is fugly....and sometimes that is not even possible).

[optidiscic]

One of my concerns, and that is why I am posting so much on this thread, is that I have heard plenty of really good players express that splitter trees are always bad/dumb. I too hate splitter trees with narrow gaps late in the fairway (or late in the flight segment for multi throw holes) as those are totally a crap shoot (usually), but spitter trees in the first half of the fairway offer designers many wonderful options they can present to competitors.

I like splitter or thin trees in the first portion of a throw and around a basket as these provide interesting approaches and interesting putting scenarios......I enjoy the Houck hole in the wall types of looks and if I think of it some of my favorite holes are these. I also still enjoy single splitter trees that leave you wondering where the line is and these make me think and be creative more/so than the more direct Houck throw through one of these holes approach

[Dave242]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20440&stc=1&d=1326297291

Looking at this diagram, I hope to illustrate something by simple use of pinch-points (and splitters). What we are looking at is 1' diameter splitter trees (so they block 18" of airspace - assuming a 9" disc diameter) in a wooded corridor - straight and flat. For "choices" I will talk about, I am limiting the "choices" to the player using only their backhand throw or only their forehand throw (for simplicity of discussion I do not want to get into rollers, overhand throws, off-hand throws, or even the choice of FH or BH).

Figure A presents good trepidation in that you are forced to throw pretty much a line-drive down the heart of the fairway to get into the putting area. If you want to flirt with the edges and unlucky kicks you can vary that throw some and throw some sort of hyzer or anhyzer.
Summary: Good trepidation, 1 main throw choice (3-4 subtle choices)

Figure B presents two clear choices - a hyzer route and an anhyzer route. Some minor variation in throws is possible to get into the putting zone. The designer has forced you to throw the shot you chose. But, there is less trepidation than in Figure A since there is more airspace and that gives you allowance for a larger margin of error.

Figure C also presents two clear choices in throws but with almost no variation allowed - you gotta pure the gap exactly as the designer dictates or you are screwed (from getting into the putting zone). There is even less trepidation however since there is so much airspace other than the pinch points.

What is the best hole? I flip flop between A & B depending on how I want to force the player to chose their exact throw balanced with the punishment the hole dishes out for screwing up. Any way I slice it, C (the one with the wide splitter) comes out last.

[AcesandChains]

"So let's apply a little quick math to this diagram.

As someone wisely pointed out, if the far side of your disc misses the tree by 7 1/2", the near side of your disc will hit the tree. To make the calculation easier, let's say 9" either side still hits the tree, so your 1' trees essentially act like 2 1/2' wide obstacles. That means that in example C, your pinch point has 20' 1/2' of empty space and 2 1/2' of obstacle.

This means that you could close your eyes and just randomly hit the fairway 89% of the time. With just blind luck alone (literally), you would hit wood and receive some sort of punishment just 11% of the time."

Well said John.

All John is saying here is that the farther you separate the airways, the less chance there is that a lucky shot will get thru an airway you weren't aiming at.

I would add to that that the more skilled the player, the smaller the obstacle separating the two airways can be without introducing too much luck into the equation.

But let's look at it another way. Instead of focusing on the airway, let's focus on the tree. In John's math above, a 1' tree creates a 2.5' obstacle. Dave242 contends that at blue level, this is still a fair obstacle.

To determine how luck affects this shot (only up to the obstacle itself...this does not take into account the shape of the fairway beyond it.) we could use a test group of blue level players and challenge them to hit the splitter tree. This test is to determine what percentage of errant shots will be offline more than the effective width of that splitter tree as an obstacle in disc golf.

Let's say, for example, that our test group hits that tree 50% of the time. That means that the other 50% of their throws were off by more than 2.5', which is exactly the type of errant throw that has a chance to "luck" thru an airway they weren't aiming for.

Now, to follow thru on that example, take the same test group, and have them aim at a tree that is 3' wide (effectively a 4.5' wide obstacle.) Obviously, our test group is going to improve significantly on the percentage of successful hits.

Simple, I know, but it shows how a bigger obstacle obviously translates into less luck and more skill required.

[optidiscic]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20440&stc=1&d=1326297291

Looking at this diagram, I hope to illustrate something by simple use of pinch-points (and splitters). What we are looking at is 1' diameter splitter trees (so they block 18" of airspace - assuming a 9" disc diameter) in a wooded corridor - straight and flat. For "choices" I will talk about, I am limiting the "choices" to the player using only their backhand throw or only their forehand throw (for simplicity of discussion I do not want to get into rollers, overhand throws, off-hand throws, or even the choice of FH or BH).

Figure A presents good trepidation in that you are forced to throw pretty much a line-drive down the heart of the fairway to get into the putting area. If you want to flirt with the edges and unlucky kicks you can vary that throw some and throw some sort of hyzer or anhyzer.
Summary: Good trepidation, 1 main throw choice (3-4 subtle choices)

Figure B presents two clear choices - a hyzer route and an anhyzer route. Some minor variation in throws is possible to get into the putting zone. The designer has forced you to throw the shot you chose. But, there is less trepidation than in Figure A since there is more airspace and that gives you allowance for a larger margin of error.

Figure C also presents two clear choices in throws but with almost no variation allowed - you gotta pure the gap exactly as the designer dictates or you are screwed (from getting into the putting zone). There is even less trepidation however since there is so much airspace other than the pinch points.

What is the best hole? I flip flop between A & B depending on how I want to force the player to chose their exact throw balanced with the punishment the hole dishes out for screwing up. Any way I slice it, C (the one with the wide splitter) comes out last.

Dave this is excellent work

I like A and B as well

A thought that Houck is not acknowledging regarding B (the "dreaded splitter tree) If I choose to throw a rhbh hyzer and miss my line and hit the wrong fairway I will hyzer early and have a less than optimal look requiring a sidearm, overhand, or some type of long putt or approach....If I attempt an anhyzer and miss but hit the wrong fairway I will again end up with a less than optimal look requiring a sidearm, overhand, or some type of long putt or approach. If I miss the hyzer or anhyzer in C (Houck design) I am left with a pitch out or a similiar shot from said distance to the green... then shooting at the green. This brings less shot making as less long putts, fun approaches, or recovery shots are needed. I think an anhyzer in the hyzer lane or a hyzer in the anhyzer lane can be just as devastating and more fun to recover from than just simply hitting a wall and stopping.
To be fair Splitter trees should induce 2 different types of shots and not be the same hyzer or anhyzer line no matter which side u choose with some interference random splitter tree along the way.
basically don't hyzer in the anhyzer lane and vice/versa

[Karl]

Interesting.
I personally prefer "C", followed closely by "B", followed by a distant "A"...for the following reasons.

"C" is the same as "A" except that it gives the player choices.
Example: "Oo, this hole has 2 distinct possible ways to get to the hole! Which one is better? Which one can I hit better? Which way of throwing is working better for me today? Oh, too many questions!! Argh!" Indecision kills the cat.

"A" is a no brainer; hit the gap, win a prize. No cat killing here.

"B" is a miss it by a mile (or even 10' ;) ) and you still succeed; miss it by 6' and you may die / or not die...depending on how lucky you are.
Another example of "1 fairway with 2 gaps" instead of "1 hole with 2 fairways"

Karl

[Cgkdisc]

I prefer C+ which is C but with enough smaller stuff trimmed in the middle so you can see the pin. A & B are each fine for what they do as holes providing different but acceptable challenges on the course.

[Steve West]

Let's use some actual percentages. Here is how accurate Blue players are:

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/TreeGraph.jpg

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/TreeTable.jpg

So, the single splitter does two things: 1) Increases the average score a little through what seems to me to be almost pure luck, and 2) gives players the illusion that they are making a strategic choice by choosing to throw toward the right gap or left.

[optidiscic]

I think there is room for all 3 types of holes. Some of my favorite holes are C holes. Karl gives a great explanation. I think the more a B hole performs as a C hole the better meaning the choice of either line should require a different line.
To attempt to eliminate the woops I threw an anny into the hyzer gap would to be replaced by a pitch out isn't as interesting. If the only trouble is hitting a houck wall I say blah.

[Dave242]

Karl - correct my misperception that you are failing to notice that fairway on C is around 27' wide and B is around 24'. I like your Another example of "1 fairway with 2 gaps" instead of "1 hole with 2 fairways", but I think that is way over-stating the difference challenge and choices. I based my clump of trees loosely on John Houck's example of Selah #14 (DCGR pictures).

Steve - correct my misperception that your model is using the assumption of straight line throws and is based on data collected in an open field. (I beleive this is based on the data collected in that big field (with a ditch running perpendicular to the middle of the fairway that you used 3 spotters to triangulate the discs landing area and identify player and match them with their throws).

[Dave242]

Steve - correct my misperception that your model is using the assumption of straight line throws and is based on data collected in an open field. (I beleive this is based on the data collected in that big field (with a ditch running perpendicular to the middle of the fairway that you used 3 spotters to triangulate the discs landing area and identify player and match them with their throws).

The reason I am pretty certain your model is way off is due to what I posted way up-thread regarding a hole (Sugaw #4) that is very similar to this hole, but is harder than the example you are modeling. It has much narrower gaps and additional trees in the fairway.

I do not have scoring analysis handy for Blue level players, but I did analyze this hole for Gold level players for an SSA analysis I did (complete with all the splitter trees of course) and scoring fell out like this:
2 - 57%
3 - 36%
4 - 7%

Yes there will be drop-off from that when thinking about Blue level, but this hole is too easy for Gold, so it would be right for Blue.

[Steve West]

Steve - correct my misperception that your model is using the assumption of straight line throws and is based on data collected in an open field. (I beleive this is based on the data collected in that big field (with a ditch running perpendicular to the middle of the fairway that you used 3 spotters to triangulate the discs landing area and identify player and match them with their throws).

It is mostly full-power throws collected in an open field. If there were data about mid-ranges, or trying to play a hole with a gap, I would have used it. Without that, we really can't pretend any of us knows what's what.

It does not assume straight-line throws. I measured where the disc landed, so the "accuracy" measured is how far right or left the disc landed. If you assume players know how a disc curves, this translates into the accuracy of the initial line they intended to throw the disc on.

My gut (and some data) tells me players would be more accurate if they were only throwing 125 feet. But here, they're trying to throw all the way to the hole. I don't see any indication in the data that accuracy is much better at 260 feet than full power.

Let's find a place to get some players out there to play a hole like this (NOT just try to hit a gap at 125 feet - that's a different throw).

[Royal Hill]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20440&stc=1&d=1326297291

My initial preference as a player would be C, if it was available during course construction. It would likely be a result of my esthetic sense more than any mathematical, strategic, or fairness sense.

Esthetically, it lays out the options with the center mass having "weight", even if thin enough for basket spotting.

However, if B already exists, then a bushy shrub in front of the single center tree, regardless of its thickness (or even height really) could add back some "weight" to the splitter, more in line with the actual tree + 2 x discwidth number.

Would a bushy base of a single splitter make a difference on players mental perception of a fairway splitter enough to notably shift their "fairness" perception? If not a bush, then a pile of boulders? a neatly stacked log pile in line with the long axis of the fairway? My thought is that it would be akin to the yellow triangle stacks of rubber garbage cans at the start of a divided roadway. Yeah, I know, adding more obstacles adds for variables to talk about, but I'm talking about perception, not mathematical realities.

[Karl]

Dave242,

Oops, while I didn't notice that - I DID NOTICE that I can't type! I meant that C was best, followed by your A (the 1 gap), followed by B (the 2 gapper). Duh!

As for the size of the openings, no, I didn't take note of such...but I don't think it matters (from my perspective) as I tend to think in generalities and speak as such (as others have specific knowledge of hole / sizes /etc. that I don't) and discussing any ONE hole has little merit. Discussing future design concepts has wicked good merit - as this is how we will become better!

Karl

[johnrhouck]

This is really turning out to be a valuable discussion.

Right now, Dave, where I'm having trouble is understanding exactly what you're saying about your new diagram. So I'm hoping you can clarify.



Figure B presents two clear choices - a hyzer route and an anhyzer route. Some minor variation in throws is possible to get into the putting zone. The designer has forced you to throw the shot you chose. But, there is less trepidation than in Figure A since there is more airspace and that gives you allowance for a larger margin of error.

Figure C also presents two clear choices in throws but with almost no variation allowed - you gotta pure the gap exactly as the designer dictates or you are screwed (from getting into the putting zone). There is even less trepidation however since there is so much airspace other than the pinch points.

Any way I slice it, C (the one with the wide splitter) comes out last.

What I see is two clear choices on B and the same two choices on C. You go LTR, or you go RTL. In either case, as you say, you must pick a route and commit to it. They are almost entirely identical -- just the angle is the tiniest bit different on C, since you made sure that the alleys are the exact same width on each hole.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't understand what you mean when you say that C has "almost no variation allowed." Can you at least explain that one statement for me?

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

1) I do not see how you can divorce the "psychological factors" from the hole design.

Let me also quickly clarify my statement, to which you were reacting here.

You cannot disregard psychological factors when designing a hole. The player's thought process is a very important part of the game, so it becomes an important design factor.

My goal here was just to try to cut down on the number of things we're discussing all at once, so we don't get too confused or sidetracked. In the examples we're discussing at, we can get into width of pinch points, location of pinch points in the fairway, total length of the fairway, the number of options, the decision-making process, etc. etc.

I just think we'll have a better discussion if we take them one at a time. Then we can put them all back together to make a great hole. Believe me, I understand that they all impact each other. I'm just trying to enhance clarity and decrease distractions (and the luck factor!)

[Dave242]

I realized that after posting that and seeing what I wrote that I was not nearly clear enough, but with the 5 minute edit rule here I couldn't go back and fix it to clarify.

Basically what I am getting at is that a lot of people like to throw a forced anny that curves around the single tree and then flexes out towards the pin. By adding more length to the splitter (I am visualizing the DGCR picture of Selah 14....or actually even a little bigger than that), you have taken away valuable airspace needed to execute that shot. So, you have taken one type of throw away.

But now the discussion becomes more about, as a designer, if you want to force a very specific throw on a certain hole. But, that discussion/decision is more about how the hole fits into the rest of the course than being pertinent to the discussion we are having here about fairway splitters.

Does that make more sense? I hope that I did not come across as condemning the idea of figure C or as being trivial to promote my position (I am often tempted to be that way but try hard not to be).

[Dave242]

I just think we'll have a better discussion if we take them one at a time. Then we can put them all back together to make a great hole. Believe me, I understand that they all impact each other. I'm just trying to enhance clarity and decrease distractions (and the luck factor!)

I am with you 100% on this.....I too think to discuss this stuff you have to take one aspect at a time and then put it all back together.

Reading back through the discussion, I realize I should have been more clear in how and why I said what I was trying to say. I was reacting to the mentality that newbies have that all you can do is chuck at a gap and hope you hit it.....and a mentality put forth by some that even to good players hitting your line is basically random luck (see Steve West's diagram and comments for one such example).

In my mind when I was typing my reply to you I was thinking of the psychology of risk/reward when deciding to flirt with the edge of the gap to improve the line I really want to throw (you talked about this earlier saying that the sweet spot is often not the middle of the gap).

Your "close your eyes and throw" perspective on air space and obstacles fits that mentality to a large degree.....and I was trying to get at the idea that we need to think of it more as the spray pattern when throwing a whole bunch of darts at the bull's eye. The vast majority of darts for a decent player will very close to the bullseye and maybe 5-10% will be big errors (outside the triple ring) and maybe 1-2% will miss the board entirely.

[DGRZ001]

I agree with John said, let us take one factor at a time here. For the example that Dave gave here, the difference between B and C would not get a great one for most throws. However if there was a sharp dog leg around the obstacle, then a forehand would be more advantageous to use, and the additional trees would come into play with a FH than with a BH.

[Dave242]

What has thrown me a little in this discussion is that I thought John was talking about completely different fairways rather than a smallish clump of trees (like in my diagram C and Selah #14).

For the sake of this discussion I think we need to make a distinciton between a single splitter tree and then extend the bigger splitter to maybe something even beyond this (which is a very similar length and shape hole to the short basket......and has the dogleg you mention DGRZ001).

Hopefully this will make a bit more sense to understand what I am trying to say since diagram C fails to convey my point. But....you may still think I do not have a point and I am open to considering that.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20543&stc=1&d=1326487846

5NclDK599YM

By the way, I am not a fan at all of the splitter tree in the second segment of the fairway since the fairway already is very difficult due to width and shape.

[optidiscic]

These discussions make me realize course design is more of an art than a science and I am ok with that

a few things
I like some things about the houck 2 fairway 2 holes in a wall of trees approach.
I also like the WELL placed splitter tree

Houck demands execution but dismisses creativity
splitters encourage creativity but dismiss execution

[Dave242]

Houck highlights execution but diminish creativity
splitters encourage creativity but diminsh execution

Fixed to say what I think you meant

I have not been fortunate to play many Houck courses (other than IDGC) so I can't be for certain, but I am sure there are plenty of holes he has designed that lend to a ton of creative shot-making.

[Dave242]

These discussions make me realize course design is more of an art than a science and I am ok with that

I think they blend.

Sounds like an idea for a book:

There should be established "rules of thumb" for each skill level that outline appropriate (effective) length ranges (including forced water carries and guidance of good segment lengths for multi-throw holes), good length to width ratios, and some good guidance on design practices that lead to luck-based outcomes. Some guidance on erosion control and other things would be good to have in a consolidated place. Of course, things like tee pad construction and installation are available now and should be part of the package.

Some standards for setting par would be great to be included!

From there, there should be (and are) ideas for fun and creative holes that reward skill. This is where things branch out to the art of getting the most from the land (and constraints on the allowable use of the land) and getting creative variations on the theme that vary around the more scientific "rules of thumb".

[Sadjo]

I think a great project would be for Kennedy and Houck and others that are highly regarded in course design should write an E-Book discussing all the different elements to course design. I know I would buy one.

Thanks for a great discussion.

[optidiscic]

GENERALLY, In Courses I've been involved with. The more we encoraged options off the tee the more forgiving a hole became. If we forced a specific line the less forgiving the hole would be.
Houck is trying to provide 2 forced options. Which encourages some creativity in a less forgiving manner. I must admit I think the more I think about it I do like it in theory. I do think a well placed splitter can achieve the same off the tee concept.
Alt short tees and nearby fairways to other holes can cause the same forgiveness factor.
What I've found works best is to have an ideal route and risky/sucker or less than ideal route. This adds to a hole without allowing a misfire to be totally forgiven.
Tight lane and wide lane or a lane to knockdown trees vs a lane directly to the basket.

[Cgkdisc]

Here's a draft outline for a book I prepared back in 2006 where course design would only be part of it. I hope I live long enough to get time to write it. I thought it would be fun to have relevant but non-integer values for some of the chapter numbers. Several items are things we've done in Minnesota. You saw it here first.

Disc Golf by the Numbers

Chapter

001 Who’s Number 1?
Steady Ed #001
World Champions
1 On Targets
Posts / Objects
Baskets
Aces
1.67 Around The Green
Putting Stats
2 It Takes Two
Doubles
Match Play
Swiss
2.5 It’s Two Below
Par 2
3 Par For The Course
Par 3
DGA Rec
Ball golf background
Others
3.14 Circular Logic
Discs
Measurements
150 Class
Vintage
4 Get In The Zone
Mider Cup and the MFA Zone system
6 Rainbow Coalition
Six colors of PDGA Skill Levels
6.6 It’s Over Your Head
Two meter rule
8 Matching Up
Team round robin formats
18 Courses, Of Course
Evaluation
Forecaster
Design group
Tourist guide
50.4 Scratch Right Here
Development of ratings system
Scratch Scoring Average / World Class Par
USGA comparison
72 Be Leaguered
Handicap
Seasonal (Mulligan, Ice Bowl, Harvest, Discglow)
Other X-tier
100 Getting The Points
PDGA
MFA
Others
285 Going To Great Lengths
Driving data
Grayzone
Standards
(current world records)
Length Matters
$1000 Paper Or Plastic?
Tournament Finances
Basic Math
Generating Added Cash
Payout Tables
Plaque Award System
4949 Chuck Stats

[dreadlock86]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20440&stc=1&d=1326297291

What is the best hole? I flip flop between A & B depending on how I want to force the player to chose their exact throw balanced with the punishment the hole dishes out for screwing up. Any way I slice it, C (the one with the wide splitter) comes out last.


i don't see how B and C are any different. :confused:

[Cgkdisc]

You can throw RHBH turnover flex thru left side of shape B (LHBH thru rights side) but it wouldn't work too well or at all with C.

[dreadlock86]

it might not work as well but it still works. you just might have to get a bit further to the left initially.


John's reasoning on skinny obstacles makes sense to me. i think i would prefer C over the other two.

[Royal Hill]

I think a great project would be for Kennedy and Houck and others that are highly regarded in course design should write an E-Book discussing all the different elements to course design. I know I would buy one.

Thanks for a great discussion.

e-Book or real book? Whatever could realistically happen - would sound good to me. I'm a sucker for visuals, and photos, so something combining thoughts on the game, design philosophy, with diagrams and artsy photography would be sweet. Best coffee table book ever.

More so... perhaps a collection of essays on course design topics. No need to have a collective thread throughout. Give opportunity for each major designer a chance to write something that they are truly passionate about - if its design philosophy, then great, if its erosion control for mid-atlantic forest courses, then that's good too. Gosh, a story filled essay on post-install adjustments by Stan McD would be a blast to read. The questions could be primed with.. - if as an established course designer, you could chose what your legacy contribution to the sport is...

[Karl]

As I've mentioned previously, a "forced" shot plays no games with your brain. You HAVE to hit it or pay the penalty. It's my belief that designers putting in multiple (2 or more) possibilities do at least 2 things that "forced" holes don't. One, they make you decide. And two, they allow you to throw a way that you can (read: make it a little easier by NOT forcing you to throw a way you possibly can NOT throw). Want to make a REALLY high SSA course? Make it 18 forced throws of every kind imaginable (1 each hole). I personally would like it but most won't play it other than the first time they did.

And don't get too hung up on the specifics by analyzing the size of the gaps / trees in a "diagram". Think in concepts. It's one of the following: a 1-gap hole, a 2-gap hole separated by a small object, or a hole with 2 separate gaps. As was alluded to before, if the 'splinter tree(s)' is small enough to allow a miss to go through the other-than-the-intended-gap's gap and still make it (at least part way) downstream, then the 'splinter' is NOT big enough!

Picture a hole with a 1" splinter tree dead nuts in the middle of 1 wooded, moderate-wide fairway. But this is no normal tree. It grows. Ever wider! It stretches space (and time...no, not time - different topic :D ). Pretty soon the tree is 20 feet wide, creating 2 distinct avenues...one of which you'll have to attempt to throw through. There came a time somewhere during the growing of that tree that you said to yourself "If I throw now, I can still maybe get lucky by missing to the other side of the tree..." And then a second later you think "Nope, the chances are now that if I miss, I'm in trouble with virtually no chance of getting lucky..."
At THAT moment the 'splinter tree(s)' is the size that is "big enough" to not be a splinter tree and act as a "proper" delineation between gaps.

Karl

[optidiscic]

Dave....trying to think of holes you are familiar with

Reedy Hole #1
Hornets Hole #15
come to mind......both are Houck type of holes with 2 fairways instead of one with splitter trees

I am a fan of splitter trees and the 2 fairway concept. I can see the merit with both. It is probably easier to create 2 fairways instead of designing a course with the perfect splitter tree placememnts

[Cgkdisc]

Usually, my splitter tree designs occur when a particular route has a big oak tree I can't remove and I see if the trees on either side are smaller, lower quality (poplars, buckthorn), dying or dead and can be taken down to provide acceptably wide fairways on either side.

[johnrhouck]

OK, having had more time to think about the subject and to read and re-read everyone's contributions, I think I have more clarity. Maybe I can make my final argument here.

I'm glad we agreed to try to take each issue one at a time, so let's start with the original topic I brought up, which was a very simple one: the WIDTH of the obstacles in a fairway.



Basically what I am getting at is that a lot of people like to throw a forced anny that curves around the single tree and then flexes out towards the pin. By adding more length to the splitter (I am visualizing the DGCR picture of Selah 14....or actually even a little bigger than that), you have taken away valuable airspace needed to execute that shot. So, you have taken one type of throw away.

This objection is easily put to rest if we just stick to Dave's original A-B-C diagram. Dave, you make a good point that some people would like to throw a flex shot, and that your Hole C makes that shot very tough because of the depth of the obstacle. You are absolutely right. But I never said the obstacle needed depth --I was only talking about the WIDTH of the obstacle, not the length or depth.

If you can reconfigure hole C so that it has the same width but no extra depth, I think most everyone here would agree that you can still throw that flex shot, and that C is now a better hole than B. All the shot-making options are virtually identical, and the wider obstacle on C will stop or deflect (and therefore punish) more bad shots; that makes C superior.

By the way, Hole 14 at Selah is a completely different concept and is not at all relevant to the discussion of your A-B-C holes. That hole might be worth a discussion sometime, but right now it's not pertinent.

But now the discussion becomes more about, as a designer, if you want to force a very specific throw on a certain hole. But, that discussion/decision is more about how the hole fits into the rest of the course than being pertinent to the discussion we are having here about fairway splitters.

If we want to talk about when the designer should force a particular shot, we can do that, too. Again, it's just a different discussion. And you're absolutely right that it becomes about how a hole fits into the overall scheme of the course.

[johnrhouck]

Want to make a REALLY high SSA course? Make it 18 forced throws of every kind imaginable (1 each hole). I personally would like it but most won't play it other than the first time they did.

Karl, I'm glad you're with us. I think your course with 18 forced shots would be a great one to practice on, but I wouldn't consider it a complete golf experience unless it involved course management and decision-making. And I personally wouldn't consider it much fun to play unless it had a bunch of par fours where I could have a different experience every time I played it.

Picture a hole with a 1" splinter tree dead nuts in the middle of 1 wooded, moderate-wide fairway. But this is no normal tree. It grows. Ever wider! It stretches space (and time...no, not time - different topic :D ). Pretty soon the tree is 20 feet wide, creating 2 distinct avenues...one of which you'll have to attempt to throw through. There came a time somewhere during the growing of that tree that you said to yourself "If I throw now, I can still maybe get lucky by missing to the other side of the tree..." And then a second later you think "Nope, the chances are now that if I miss, I'm in trouble with virtually no chance of getting lucky..."
At THAT moment the 'splinter tree(s)' is the size that is "big enough" to not be a splinter tree and act as a "proper" delineation between gaps.

Now you're talking. I need to buy some of those trees! Where can I get some?

[johnrhouck]

This discussion, and the one about NAGS Zones, have brought up a lot of interesting concepts. So much so that I've been inspired to use some of them as the basis for my next Disc Golfer article.

Mostly, I'm interested in examining the role of luck and the importance of skill. My desire to user wider obstacles whenever possible is an effort to minimize the role of luck. Getting rid of NAGS Zones is all about getting rid of shots that don't require skill.

When it comes to luck, one comment stuck out to me:

I don't think that eliminating luck is a desirable design goal.

Rather, I think a design should offer the choice of more luck vs. less luck. Ideally a full spectrum of it. The more luck, the lower the possible score, but the higher the expected score.

Steve, I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you really saying that if you had the chance to completely eliminate luck in a situation, you might not do it?

And are you also saying that there are situations where you would like to introduce MORE luck?

Also curious how many people agree with what Steve is saying. Thanks.

[Cgkdisc]

John, I think an example might be where there's a regular line drive safer (less lucky) route to the pin but you could throw a thumber over the top and risk pinball action or even a 2m penalty due to the cedar or those pepper trees (Pt. Arthur).

[wkelly42]

From a player's POV, luck is a lot of the reason I keep playing. I throw a shot that misses the tree limb by a few inches, or curves back left just in time to miss the tree, or hits a tree and ends up closer to the basket than I deserved. Fair? Nope. And it doesn't happen often, but those throws are just as memorable as the ones that actually went the way I planned them to (which often feels a lot like luck to me).

I wouldn't want to play a course where there was no possibility of a lucky bounce, or a lucky shot. (I also wouldn't want to play a course where that's all there was.) There's one hole I absolutely hate at my home course (Armco White in Ashland, KY). #12 there just seems like a pure throw and pray hole to me. Yet last spring I was hitting just the right line to score well on the hole. I still dread the hole, just because I'm not sure that it was my skill that was getting me through those trees. BUT, when I manage that "lucky drive," it makes the hole (and the round) that much more fun.

[Cgkdisc]

Designing a hole that's both fun and skillful is one of the 'fun'damental challenges for course designers.

[johnrhouck]

From a player's POV, luck is a lot of the reason I keep playing. I throw a shot that misses the tree limb by a few inches, or curves back left just in time to miss the tree, or hits a tree and ends up closer to the basket than I deserved. Fair? Nope.

Lucky breaks can certainly be fun and exciting.

And it doesn't happen often, but those throws are just as memorable as the ones that actually went the way I planned them to (which often feels a lot like luck to me).

Now that's interesting. If someone really thinks it's a matter of luck to hit a good shot, then there's not really a lot of skill involved at all. At that level, every shot would be like spinning the roulette wheel, I suppose.

I wouldn't want to play a course where there was no possibility of a lucky bounce, or a lucky shot.

I don't think you have to worry about that. We'll never be able to design a course where you don't get a favorable kick, or when a fortuitous wind doesn't kick up at just the right time (or just the wrong time).

[/QUOTE] #12 there just seems like a pure throw and pray hole to me. Yet last spring I was hitting just the right line to score well on the hole. I still dread the hole, just because I'm not sure that it was my skill that was getting me through those trees. BUT, when I manage that "lucky drive," it makes the hole (and the round) that much more fun.[/QUOTE]

Well, if it really is a "throw and pray" hole, I wouldn't think we'd consider it a good hole. If that gap were wider, it would still be just as much fun to hit it it, don't you think?

[johnrhouck]

Designing a hole that's both fun and skillful is one of the 'fun'damental challenges for course designers.

True enough, but there are plenty of ways to have fun that don't involve luck, no?

[Steve West]

Steve, I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you really saying that if you had the chance to completely eliminate luck in a situation, you might not do it?

And are you also saying that there are situations where you would like to introduce MORE luck?

Also curious how many people agree with what Steve is saying. Thanks.

It’s not that hard to eliminate all luck - as a thought experiment. A 400-foot carry over water into a Teflon-coated bowl that dumps into a basket at the bottom would eliminate all luck, and would be a pure test of one aspect of skill – the ability to throw more than 400 feet. You can, you get an ace. You can’t, you get infinity. (Or go to a drop zone and get a 3.)

So no, I would not do what it takes to eliminate all luck. If I did, there would be no reason to play the game. A tournament could be held “on paper” with 100% certainty of the outcome.

Including enough luck is part of the game. Without it, the terms “Risk vs. Reward” and “Course Management” have no meaning.

But, as you pointed out, the game has a lot of luck now, so the push is generally to try to reduce it. But not always.

For example, offering a nearly impossible peephole opportunity as an alternative to going around the edge of the trees increases “luck”. It makes the hole more fun, and makes the player think more. Yet, it is still a fair test of two skills – the ability to resist the temptation to go for it, and more accurate players will get through more often, if they ever find themselves in a situation where it is their only hope.

[Steve West]

True enough, but there are plenty of ways to have fun that don't involve luck, no?

Name one. (Keep in mind the phrase "Got lucky last night.")

[wkelly42]

Well, if it really is a "throw and pray" hole, I wouldn't think we'd consider it a good hole. If that gap were wider, it would still be just as much fun to hit it it, don't you think?
If it was even six or seven feet wider, I'd feel a lot more confident off the tee. Sad thing is, they just took out a bunch of trees at the park, and none of them were on #12. I could show them which ones to take out ... :cool::D

[Dave242]

The hole you are talking about according to the DGCR page is 288' (left pin position) & 318' (right). It is so hard to tell perspective by photos, so how wide are the gaps here and how far down the fairway are the pinch points?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3230/5ad7a3ee.jpg

This looks like more of the wide splitter sort of hole John is talking about.

Those gaps do look awfully narrow for a hole of this length, but again....perspectives on photos are deceiving so I'm interested in your feedback when you have provided the measurements.

[johnrhouck]

The hole you are talking about according to the DGCR page is 288' (left pin position) & 318' (right). It is so hard to tell perspective by photos, so how wide are the gaps here and how far down the fairway are the pinch points?

This looks like more of the wide splitter sort of hole John is talking about.

Those gaps do look awfully narrow for a hole of this length, but again....perspectives on photos are deceiving so I'm interested in your feedback when you have provided the measurements.

I'm with you, Dave. I like the width on the obstacles, but the alleys do look narrow... and it is hard to tell in photos.

[Green Aarrow]

This hole looks like BS to me. If my forehand through the left gap doesn't kick left towards the road, it's not a good angle to come back towards the hole. The middle gap looks extremely narrow and unforgiving. I'd probably throw driver right of the middle tree in the foreground and hope it sneaks through those two thin trees halfway down the right side. Just doesn't look like it gives you any room to shape your shot.

[Dave242]

Before calling BS on this hole, I would want to know a few more things:
1) What skill level is the course designed for?
2) What sort of trees are behind the island of trees?
3) How tricky/dangerous is the green?
4) Does this hole characterize the course? Are very high risk holes used a lot (overused) or is this one of few holes that offers a choice of one fairway as very high risk and the other slightly lower?

I think #4 is most intriguing. IMO, if used sparingly (1-2 holes per course), holes that give you the option of a safe 3 by going putter-putter-putter have their place in competitive play.

Course management and the mental part of the game are real legit disc golf skills and should be tested. This hole does that as I think the left route looks relatively easy to navigate at low/medium power while the right fairway is so risky as to be dumb.....and dummies should be dared to try it.

On the flip side, holes like this knock down the fun-factor.

[Green Aarrow]

For me, a medium flick down the left side is just going to slope towards the spindly trees on the left side of center gap. Putting more on it just to reach that open landing area on the left a) risks a terrible tree kick because of the odd angle and b) brings the road into play. The center gap looks 5-6' wide at its tightest with a low canopy. I agree that the right side is not a great option, but it would be my only chance for a deuce. All 3 gaps seem like BS.

Taking down one tree guarding that left gap would open it up considerably and make it fair.

[Rockwell]

Yeah, the angle from the tee to the left gap looks like a backhand turnover route rather than a forehand. (something I think right-handed designers don't always take into consideration--as was mentioned in one of Houck's past articles...) It may be a roller-and-hope hole.

[Norcal]

Steve, I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you really saying that if you had the chance to completely eliminate luck in a situation, you might not do it?

And are you also saying that there are situations where you would like to introduce MORE luck?

Also curious how many people agree with what Steve is saying. Thanks.

I disagree with Steve because golf is a game of skill not luck. Therefore, designers should strive to minimize luck wherever possible- this ensures that the lowest scores go to the best played rounds, not the luckiest. In my mind, this is a fundamental golf course design principle.

Luck cannot be eliminated but I see a distinction between risk-reward and luck-reward. a pure plinko shot (luck-reward) doesn't test skill so it should be discouraged whenever possible by the designer.

If you want to design for luck call it putt putt or something else but don't call it golf cause it ain't.

[Dave242]

Steve's definition of "luck" is pretty unique. Makes sense, but is a different twist on the definition than most use. I know he has defined it for us in the past, but I am afraid I could never find it. Can you go over it again Steve? I for one, appreciate being challenged to think about terms/concepts in different ways.

I think that in this whole discussion a lot of the disagreement is in how we define/perceive/connotate the terms/concepts of "luck" and "fair".

[Steve West]

The more luck there is in a hole, the more difficult it is for a player to predict his score on that hole.

So, a hole that gives each player the same score time after time would have 0% luckiness.

A hole that gives out equal shares of 3's, 4's, and 5's - but always gives the same players the same scores - would be very good at ranking those players according the skill it takes to play that hole.

Another hole that gives out equal shares of 3's, 4's, and 5's - but doesn't tend to give any particular player any particular score - would do nothing to rank players by skill, even though it has a wide Scoring Spread. That hole would be all luck.

[Cgkdisc]

The flaw in this is assuming players with a specific skill level make the same shot(s) over and over like a robot tuned to repeat throws with consistent precision. A hole can be 0% luck and a single player of a specific skill level might "precisely" shoot 33% 2s and 67% 3s on a hole because their skill is such they can consistently excel and get a 2 about 1/3 of the time. Now, we take three players of exactly this same skill level and they each play the hole 30 times. We would expect all three to shoot the same scores with 10 2s and 20 3s. The hole does not separate scores for the three players but also would appear to still be 0% luck versus 100% luck.

[Dave242]

The more luck there is in a hole, the more difficult it is for a player to predict his score on that hole.

So, a hole that gives each player the same score time after time would have 0% luckiness.

So if a hole is 30' long, and a good player scores a 1 on the hole 90% of the time versus me who scores a 1 50% of the time, does that mean there is a lot of luck separating our scores?

I am not being facetious, I am just trying to understand. Your definition of "luck" is very linear....very cut and dry. I like it for that reason....but I am having a hard time applying it to how I think about things.

In my mind, "luck" and "fair" are really actually very complex concepts/calculations involving normal variations of performance coupled with proportional punishment for those variations.

There are assumed limits/ranges to how much punishment there should be for any given variance. Punishment outside that acceptable range is seen as "unfair". Things such as bounces, rolls, spits, etc that force punishment to a disproportionate level from what is acceptable are seen as luck (good or bad).

Most people do not consciously calculate these things, but rely on their intuition to take a shortcut to get to the result. Each person has their own assumptions/expectations of what "acceptable" and "proportional" are.....and this, if not stated/defined, this is what leads to misunderstanding.

I hope that made sense.

[Steve West]

The flaw in this is assuming players with a specific skill level make the same shot(s) over and over like a robot tuned to repeat throws with consistent precision. A hole can be 0% luck and a single player of a specific skill level might "precisely" shoot 33% 2s and 67% 3s on a hole because their skill is such they can consistently excel and get a 2 about 1/3 of the time. Now, we take three players of exactly this same skill level and they each play the hole 30 times. We would expect all three to shoot the same scores with 10 2s and 20 3s. The hole does not separate scores for the three players but also would appear to still be 0% luck versus 100% luck.

How can you say a hole has no luck if it gives out scores in the same manner as rolling a single die and giving a score of 2 whenever a 1 or 2 is rolled?

My skill at rolling dice is such that I can "precisely" roll a 1 or 2 about 1/3 of the time.

A robot might be able to roll a 1 or 2 every time, so I guess rolling a die is not a matter of luck?

The only point you've made is that there may not be any such thing as a hole with zero luck.

[Steve West]

So if a hole is 30' long, and a good player scores a 1 on the hole 90% of the time versus me who scores a 1 50% of the time, does that mean there is a lot of luck separating our scores?

Actually, it means there is not much of anything separating your scores. Half the time nothing separates your scores at all; you tie.

As a "group" you'll get 70% 1s and 30% 2s, for a narrow Scoring Spread of 1.89.

The Scoring Spread of the scores the better player will get is 1.38, and yours is obviously 2.0. (So, this hole is more a matter of luck for you than for the better player.) Average those to get 1.69. Compare that to the 1.89 Scoring Spread across players, and you see that 92% of the separation is coming from luck.

Shocking, I know. But think of this. You tie 50% of the time. If you were evenly matched (both making it 70% of the time), the percent of time you would tie would only go up to 58% - and obviously if you were evenly matched it would be pure chance that provides any scoring separation. So, you're experiencing about 86% of the tie scores you would expect if the hole were pure luck, which is kind of another measure of luckiness (not one that can be generalized as easily) and it's about the same size as the measure I'm trying out.

I am not being facetious, I am just trying to understand. Your definition of "luck" is very linear....very cut and dry. I like it for that reason....but I am having a hard time applying it to how I think about things.

In my mind, "luck" and "fair" are really actually very complex concepts/calculations involving normal variations of performance coupled with proportional punishment for those variations.

At least you recognize the "luck" and "fair" are different. A coin flip is fair - that's why they use it to make million-dollar decisions like who gets the ball in overtime. A coin flip does not measure skill, and this causes many people to label it "unfair". However, it is much more productive to separate the question of "how well does a hole measure skill?" and examine it on its own.

There are assumed limits/ranges to how much punishment there should be for any given variance. Punishment outside that acceptable range is seen as "unfair". Things such as bounces, rolls, spits, etc that force punishment to a disproportionate level from what is acceptable are seen as luck (good or bad).

Most people do not consciously calculate these things, but rely on their intuition to take a shortcut to get to the result. Each person has their own assumptions/expectations of what "acceptable" and "proportional" are.....and this, if not stated/defined, this is what leads to misunderstanding.

I hope that made sense.

I'm trying to get us to the point where we don't need intuition.

In the olden days, if you wanted a house that wouldn't fall down, you tried to find an architect with good intuition. Now, every architect can do the calculations to make sure the house won't fall down, the roof won't leak, and people won't feel crowded in the kitchen. And yet, the variety of houses available now is greater than ever.

Turning something into a science doesn't stifle creativity at all – it allows creativity to flourish.

[Green Aarrow]

Yeah, the angle from the tee to the left gap looks like a backhand turnover route rather than a forehand. (something I think right-handed designers don't always take into consideration--as was mentioned in one of Houck's past articles...) It may be a roller-and-hope hole.

And even that turnover depends on how dense it is beyond what we can see. It seems like everyone's best option is still not a good option.

If I were playing this hole in a tournament, I'd throw backhand about 60-70' down the left gap and try to forehand the rest of the way from a hopefully better angle. Even that strategy is dependent on luck.

[bombmk]

Actually, it means there is not much of anything separating your scores. Half the time nothing separates your scores at all; you tie.

I feel you are derailing yourself with this one, Steve. One scoring 1.1 on average and another scoring 1.5 on average is far from nothing. Its pretty huge.

"half the time you are tied" is somewhat nonsense in this context as it negates the fact that the evaluation of skill is never(or rarely) done on one hole alone and especially not such an easy one - which is of course necessary because of the discrete scoring for non-discrete skill levels on each hole. It is expected that over several holes the difference in skill level will manifest itself beyond the "half the time you tie" and approximate the difference in skill level.

It does, of course, hold up in the sense that it is possible, on a given day, to perform on the right side of the bell curve, so to speak. And you can label that difference from the average luck - if we assume that it was a difference that was merely down to the variance in your throws/individual holes coming out right that day. A variance that you, by the very nature of it, cannot control. You can call that luck, I reckon. Rolling the dice and having a good day at the tables basically.

Which is somewhat beside the point when trying to debate about luck on the individual hole vs the player. Yes, there is chance, and hence luck, in the variation of your throw. You usually have a decent feeling for the variation you bring to the table - and expect results accordingly. You know you roll more 1's and 2's than sixes, fx.
But in that context, and the one we are debating as far as I can tell, what is relevant is how the punishment correlates with the variation you introduced.
(Basically what Dave242 said.)
If it seems random whether those 1's and 2's become -4 or +5, it starts _feeling_ like a matter of luck. Especially if the hole is one of those where only a 5 or 6 is really good and you roll very few of those statistically.

And thats where Houck has a point too. It is very likely that for many players a single splitter tree allows more 1's and 2's to not be punished accordingly. Making 3's and 4's worse because they actually hit the tree.

[Steve West]

I feel you are derailing yourself with this one, Steve. One scoring 1.1 on average and another scoring 1.5 on average is far from nothing. Its pretty huge.

"half the time you are tied" is somewhat nonsense in this context as it negates the fact that the evaluation of skill is never(or rarely) done on one hole alone and especially not such an easy one - which is of course necessary because of the discrete scoring for non-discrete skill levels on each hole. It is expected that over several holes the difference in skill level will manifest itself beyond the "half the time you tie" and approximate the difference in skill level.

It is significant, it's not huge. Granted, over 18 holes there is a vanishingly small chance that the better player will not be ahead. But, there is only a 44% chance that the better player will win the first time they play the hole, and only a 66% chance that the better player will be ahead after two holes.

Huge would be like what happens on Hole 11 at The Valley, where I always score a 6, and everybody else always scores a 4 or 5. That would be a Scoring Spread of 2.95, and the average number of different scores each player gets is 1.75.

Now, to correct the way my luck statistic is calculated. I realized that since zero luck implies that each player gets the same score every time, I should have used (Average Number Of Different Scores Each Player Gets -1)/(Scoring Spread – 1) as the measure of how much of the Scoring Spread comes from luck. So, for the 30-foot hole example, it should be 77% luck, not 92%. (1.69 -1)/(1.89 – 1).

And, for Hole 11, 38% of the spread in my group (according to my biased, faulty memory) comes from luck (1.75 – 1)/(2.95 – 1).

...Yes, there is chance, and hence luck, in the variation of your throw....what is relevant is how the punishment correlates with the variation you introduced.

I agree. Another way to put it is that design features are there to leverage the variation in your throw into more variation in your score. Their purpose is to improve the ability of a hole to rank players by skill. Too little leverage and the hole can't sort out skill levels as well. Too much leverage and the hole is labeled "too lucky".

I'm just proposing a measure of how much of the Scoring Spread relies on luck. That way, we can figure out which features are in the sweet spot of just enough leverage. We can tell that because they will improve the ability of a hole to rank players by skill.

For example, I worked out an example for John Houck to prove that the additional luck of a 400 foot carry over water improves a hole. It turns out that the forced carry increases the Scoring Spread from 1.99 to 3.73. At the same time, it increases the average number of different scores each player gets from 1.84 to 2.85.

So, the hole has gotten more "lucky" (players are less certain about what they will score), yet the proportion of the Scoring Spread that comes from luck has been reduced from 86% to 68%. So, adding luck has made the hole better able to rank players by skill.

To bring it full circle, that's why I say I would not want to eliminate all luck from the game.

And, I understand that everyone is concerned only with "too much luck", or "luck the player didn't cause", or "only the luck that happens after I let go of the disc", or "things that I couldn't foresee". That is what people are thinking of as the "luck" they would try to get rid of. However, there is no way to look at scores and determine what the source of the luck is. I can only measure all of it, no matter the source. I think as we get experience with the measure, we'll conclude there is a base level, or comfort level, of luck in relation to the Scoring Spread. We'll only call holes that have more luck than that "too lucky".

[johnrhouck]

Fascinating. I'm so glad people are chiming in, and I feel like my article on luck will be better for having considered the topic from so many different angles.

Here's where I've come to so far. Steve's definition of luck is basically a measure of unpredictability. And of course that makes sense in one way: we cannot predict which number will come up on the next spin of a roulette wheel, and if we happen to predict correctly, we say that we got lucky. No one, as far as I know, would really argue that there's skill involved, unless it's some kind of ESP.

But when it comes to a test of skill, which is what we want disc golf to be, it's really very different. If you roll your wrist a little, and you turn one over too much, and it goes OB, you don't say "That was bad luck." You say "I messed up. I have the skill to make that shot, but I didn't execute." Someone looking from above might say, "He turns it over 18% of the time, so the fact that he turned it over today and not yesterday is just a matter of luck." OK, you can go there if you want, but I don't think that viewpoint will be helpful to this discussion.

The question is: how do we make disc golf more a test of skill and less a matter of luck? I think there will be several aspects to the final definition of luck that I'm trying to get to, but here's one part: If a skillful player and an unskilled player have similar outcomes (e.g. they both hit that 4' gap about 15% of the time), then that shot does not measure skill -- it's a matter of luck.

Make sense?

[Steve West]

The question is: how do we make disc golf more a test of skill and less a matter of luck?

I don't think of it as a one-dimensional continuum, with luck on one end and skill-measuring on the other. I think of it as two-dimensional with skill-measuring on one axis, and luck on the other.

Skill-measuring and luck will tend to go in the same direction, and just about everything we do in design to increase skill-measuring tends to also increase luck. Rewarding good shots and punishing bad ones multiplies the effects of both different skill levels and day-to-day fluctuations in one player's performance.

The trick is to find designs that increase skill-measuring by enough to justify the increase in luck.

[johnrhouck]

Steve, I think we're working with different definitions of luck. I guess we're entitled to our own definitions. It's just too bad, because it makes the conversation more difficult. But there is something very interesting in what you say that's worth pursuing.

The more luck there is in a hole, the more difficult it is for a player to predict his score on that hole.

I've basically taken this as your definition of luck. If you consider it more of a description than definition, then please correct me. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

So, a hole that gives each player the same score time after time would have 0% luckiness.

I would generally agree.

A hole that gives out equal shares of 3's, 4's, and 5's - but always gives the same players the same scores - would be very good at ranking those players according the skill it takes to play that hole.

This one is very important. That hole does seem to separate players based on skill, but it's a dumb hole for each individual player. Fortunately, I don't think such a hole exists -- one where a 950 player would get a 4 every time and a 1000 player would get a 3 every time.

Another hole that gives out equal shares of 3's, 4's, and 5's - but doesn't tend to give any particular player any particular score - would do nothing to rank players by skill, even though it has a wide Scoring Spread. That hole would be all luck.

Another important point that highlights where our definitions differ, I think. If I got a two yesterday because I executed well and a three today because I shanked it, luck was not a factor. On the other hand, if I threw two virtually identical (good) drives, and I got a two yesterday because I made the four-foot gap 275' feet away, and I got a three today because I missed it, then luck was a factor.


And, I understand that everyone is concerned only with "too much luck", or "luck the player didn't cause", or "only the luck that happens after I let go of the disc", or "things that I couldn't foresee". That is what people are thinking of as the "luck" they would try to get rid of. However, there is no way to look at scores and determine what the source of the luck is. I can only measure all of it, no matter the source.

This statement really struck me, because it highlights a macro (everybody's results) vs. micro (my results) perspective and a statistical (what we can measure) vs. an experiential (I got screwed) perspective. And I guess that gets to crux of our different approaches. I want analyze a player's experience and actual shots to determine what design elements we need to change in order to reduce the effect of luck. And you want to look at scores from a group of players to make a similar judgement.

So it seems that it boils down to just a difference in methods, which is fine. Unless I'm still missing something.

[Karl]

John and Steve,

I personally think you're both sort of traveling down the same superhighway (both northbound doing about 100kph) - just that you're each on a different level of the road (so don't know of the other's presence)...but you'll both "get there" (in the end) at the same time...just from different paths.

Although, John - your...
"If a skillful player and an unskilled player have similar outcomes (e.g. they both hit that 4' gap about 15% of the time), then that shot does not measure skill -- it's a matter of luck."
...has me saying "No".

Assuming they are TRYING to hit that gap 100% of the time, if they both hit it 15% of the time, they are of "equal skill" (at least in hitting a gap of that size that far away). No luck involved. In fact, gaps are the great "spreader-outer" when it comes to 'the skill of throwing on any intended (by the designer) line'. Of course "accuracy" is but 1 skill facet.

Now although ludicrous, a mail slot able to accept a disc through it IS a viable gap. Maybe not a good score separator but a 'test of skill'. So taking this to a more practical 'size'...

And although hard(er) to do (in the designing factor), a gap that - 1) if hit yields you 1 less shot on the hole than if you did not, and 2) if missed didn't cause you to lose any more shots than that one - would be a very useful score-separator. This best (in our sport) manifests itself in the form of an "early" window. The key here is "how big IS that window"? And this will vary from that theoretical mail slot to "the sky's the limit" (literally)! And, as a bonus factor, you're allowed to move the window closer / further away so that "apparent window"('s) size varies.

Now I'm not a big fan of every hole has to have an early window (nor am I a fan of every hole has to be a theoretically good provider of scoring separation), but - to me - it seems that this "type" (again, very hard to set up in reality) of hole is the one that yields a lot of separation, somewhat less "luck", and still be a "test of skill".

Karl

[Dave242]

I think the main perspective that Steve is coming from is as a statistician "standing at the basket" versus John's as an architect "standing at the tee".

Since at the end of the day it is the score that matters in determining the winner (and that score is made up of all the individual hole scores), it seems Steve is trying to shoehorn the definition of Luck (and Fair) into the scoring data (that is so much much easier to collect than flight pattern data). It is a measure of the "what the score is/means", but really sheds little to no light on the "how the score got to what it is".

If I am reading his explanations upthread (and elsewhere) correctly, his desire is to come up with a relatively simple (for the math-inclined) and portable statistical model that will be very useful in determining if a hole is good at determining who the better player is.

Is this even close to capturing/explaining your perspective? If it is, I personally think it is very valid (and useful).....but borrowing language/terms from another perspective is not helpful at all, IMO.

[johnrhouck]

John and Steve,

I personally think you're both sort of traveling down the same superhighway (both northbound doing about 100kph) - just that you're each on a different level of the road (so don't know of the other's presence)...but you'll both "get there" (in the end) at the same time...just from different paths.

Karl, always good to hear from you. I suspect you're about right on the destination and the timing, but I'm wondering why our progress is measured kph? If we're in Canada or Europe, I think I missed a turn somewhere.

Although, John - your...
"If a skillful player and an unskilled player have similar outcomes (e.g. they both hit that 4' gap about 15% of the time), then that shot does not measure skill -- it's a matter of luck."
...has me saying "No".

Assuming they are TRYING to hit that gap 100% of the time, if they both hit it 15% of the time, they are of "equal skill" (at least in hitting a gap of that size that far away). No luck involved. In fact, gaps are the great "spreader-outer" when it comes to 'the skill of throwing on any intended (by the designer) line'. Of course "accuracy" is but 1 skill facet.

Alright, Dr. No, I hear where you're coming from, but let me try again. First of all, if we're both trying to roll a two on a die, and we both hit it about 16.667% of the time, are we equally skillful? I suppose we are, since neither of us is demonstrating any skill. But no one calls that a test of skill. That may look like a bad analogy, because no amount of practice will change those odds -- it's clearly not a matter of skill, whereas throwing a disc is, right? Stay with me.

Now...

Now although ludicrous, a mail slot able to accept a disc through it IS a viable gap. Maybe not a good score separator but a 'test of skill'. So taking this to a more practical 'size'...

A mail slot is a big enough for a disc to go through. Let's look at it from your personal experiential perspective. If you're 100' away, trying to hit that slot, will there ever be a time when you say, "That's the one -- that's going through that slot," and really believe it? Or will you generally say, "That's got a chance.... could be the one...?" And sometimes -- since it's you, maybe just once every hundred tries -- "Oops, that was a bad throw."

I would say this: Hitting a door with a slot in it from 100' is a test of skill. Hitting the slot itself is just a matter of luck. Can we agree on that?

Basically, I'm saying there's a point where it becomes luck in that situation. If no human can consistently demonstrate that skill (hitting the slot), it's not a test of skill. At that point, I call it luck. If you can say, "I nailed that shot 20 times and it never went in," it's luck. No amount of practice, weight training, and meditation will get you there.

Now if someday someone developed a new technique and showed consistent success, then I'll say it is now a skill. Fair?

[johnrhouck]

I think the main perspective that Steve is coming from is as a statistician "standing at the basket" versus John's as an architect "standing at the tee".

Now that is well said. Great insight -- thanks, Dave.

[Steve West]

Yep, that’s were I’m coming from, here’s where I’m going.

When we have enough data, we’ll be able to tell what part of the unpredictability of an individual’s scores comes from the player and how much from the hole design. Here’s how. We’ll see that the level of unpredictability bottoms out a certain level. That bottom is the player-generated unpredictability which no hole design can get rid of. It may vary by rating and length. I think it will be fairly common for holes to be near this bottom.

Then, we can look at the rest of the unpredictability (what most call luck), and see what levels we find in “good” holes and “bad” holes as we already think of these terms. I expect to find a sweet spot of hole-generated unpredictability where the good holes are clustered. (My guess is it won’t be none.) That will give us a measure for which “best” is defined and we can shoot for. Then, we can look at the characteristics of holes near the best, and use that to replicate good designs, refine existing holes, and to come up with never-before-thought-of designs that we expect will be good.

I don’t recall having ever defined “fair” here, because as a concept I find it to be useful only for emotional out-bursts. So here’s my take. “Unfair” would be a hole that favors worse players, and that’s impossible unless the characteristics of the hole can be changed from player to player by a conscious, biased, agent of change.

So, no holes are actually unfair. Rather, there are several things which can bring on the label of “unfair”. Some holes don’t measure skill well (because too many hole-generated random events happen, or everybody gets the same score), and players call these unfair. Some measure skill too well (they don’t give some players any chance), and players call these unfair. Some holes are perfectly fine but the player is playing the wrong tees or is just having a bad day; players still cry “unfair”.

I think it will be more productive to separate out the different sources of complaints of “unfair” and deal with them individually.

I’m open to calling the number of different scores a hole assigns to each player something other than “luck”. We can reserve luck for just the hole-generated unpredictability (not the player-performance generated unpredictability), now that we seem to have teased out that player-generated unpredictability is not what we are talking about when we say” luck”.

I’ve switched to “unpredictability”, but I don’t like to define things by using a negative. Suggestions?

However, I think we are still not at the point where the definition of “the luck we want to get rid” of is clear yet.

If a slot is luck, and the door is not, what is a window? I don’t see a bright line. Something is becoming more annoying to players as the size of the target goes from door to slot. I suspect it is the instinctive knowledge that as the chance of hitting target goes from 50/50 to one in a thousand, the target is becoming less and less able to separate players by skill.

The usefulness of the target also gets less and less as the target goes from door to barn door to hangar door, and the chance of missing it goes from 50/50 to one in a thousand. Yet, the hangar door and slot both are equally stupid because they only affect one in a thousand throws. Why is only the slot end of spectrum luck? What’s the other end?

[Steve West]

This one is very important. That hole does seem to separate players based on skill, but it's a dumb hole for each individual player. Fortunately, I don't think such a hole exists -- one where a 950 player would get a 4 every time and a 1000 player would get a 3 every time.

While we're refining terms, can you come up with something other than "dumb". It doesn't do anything to describe what is wrong with that hole.

Besides, a hole that can tell each player's skill and always assign the same score based on that skill would be very smart, not dumb.

Perhaps "boring", or "non habit-forming"?

[Karl]

WOW, so many things to discuss / think about! And limited time on a MB (and not in person talking with the proponents of each / all just doesn't do justice to such a neat topic) :(


John, your...
"Now if someday someone developed a new technique and showed consistent success, then I'll say it is now a skill. Fair?"
Agreed - to some extent. I personally have been "accused" of "playing unfair" by threading a vertical disc through some wicked small vertical slit in the canopy and get a -1 compared of what they thought I should have gotten. And I've only chosen that shot because I knew that I COULD hit it a high percentage of the time!
People normally have some preconceived notion of what THEY believe is a satisfactory "hit" percentage to differentiate between "skill" and "luck"; I'm guessing yours is about 33%. Why? "Skill" knows no such number! Skill only knows 2 things: 1) was the person REALLY trying to hit the gap and 2) the percentage of hits. 1) x 2) = skill (for that gap). 2) is easily measured; 1) not so much :p . The only "fly in the ointment" that I see is that you MIGHT be able to calculate the percentage of random throws that would hit that mail slot and somehow back into a "gap size" that would differentiate skill via success rate through the gap to a greater extent than that randomly through the slot.
And practically, this may be tough to measure because can we REALLY believe someone (especially a dg'er :sick: ), when they say "I was / wasn't really trying to hit / miss that gap"?? -;)-
Remember, there is ALWAYS the ability to increase one's "hit" rate efficiency!


Steve's...
"So, no holes are actually unfair."
...is a concept I've been saying for years now! Maybe impractical and boring and stoooopid, but not "unfair". With 1 proviso. If say, a player is asked to carry an OB area of 300' (with no options of "playing around the OB in some fashion") and can only throw 280' (and thus would be forced to tin cup it forever), THAT would be an "unfair" hole. All others - including the mail slot hole - while stooooopid, would not be "unfair"...just not good.


Karl

[bombmk]

Steve's...
"So, no holes are actually unfair."
...is a concept I've been saying for years now! Maybe impractical and boring and stoooopid, but not "unfair". With 1 proviso. If say, a player is asked to carry an OB area of 300' (with no options of "playing around the OB in some fashion") and can only throw 280' (and thus would be forced to tin cup it forever), THAT would be an "unfair" hole. All others - including the mail slot hole - while stooooopid, would not be "unfair"...just not good.


I don't agree with that. If a hole has too many features where it heavily promotes punishment and that punishment is too random compared to the crime - then it becomes unfair. Maybe not for the player playing it perfectly or well enough. But thats not a useful measurement anyways.
I am not saying there are many of those holes out there. But its quite possible for a hole to be unfair without posing a distinctly impossible shot.

Fair is getting a score equivalent to the level of your play. Unless you miss on a designated gamble.

And, to get back to the OP :), thats where the single splitter tree is a problem. It increases punishment for those who miss a little more than a lot.

[Dave242]

Agreed bombmk. BUT.....it is really a semantic AND and application issue. Everybody comes to the table with their own connotation and use for "unfair" .......to a point that the term is frustratingly un-useful in online dialog.


It can mean that "the crime does not fit the punishment" - like you are saying
It can mean that "it is not a fair test of skill" or "it does not fairly test the top players whom you are trying to test"
It can mean nothing since "everybody has to play the same course"
It can be an emotional outburst (as Steve calls it) for someone who wants to blame the course for their own lack of performance/skill/consistency.
etc....

All are valid to a greater or lesser degree depending on........

"Fairness" is an essential and even central concept in course design.....but one has to be very clear on what definition/connotation is being used and why it is being used.

[johnrhouck]

I bet we can find a statistical definition of luck in the situations we're talking about. Steve, maybe you can concoct the precise formula.

Let's take a door and cut a slot in the top half. Cut a slot that 12' long and 3" deep. Players try to hit the slot from, say 75'. If the top of the door is 3' x 3' (9 square feet) the slot is about 2% of the surface area of the door.

If about 2% of the shots go through the slot, then I'd say it's a matter of random luck, not skill. Skill to get it close, luck to get it through.

Yes? Maybe?

[Steve West]

I bet we can find a statistical definition of luck in the situations we're talking about. Steve, maybe you can concoct the precise formula.

Let's take a door and cut a slot in the top half. Cut a slot that 12' long and 3" deep. Players try to hit the slot from, say 75'. If the top of the door is 3' x 3' (9 square feet) the slot is about 2% of the surface area of the door.

If about 2% of the shots go through the slot, then I'd say it's a matter of random luck, not skill. Skill to get it close, luck to get it through.

Yes? Maybe?
OK, it's the ratio of how many more players hit the target divided by how much easier the target is to hit.

For example, here is how many players (Red = 850 Rating, Blue = 950 Rating, and Gold = 1000 Rating) will hit a gap at 200 feet.

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/HitSmallGap.jpg

If we make the gap 3 times as wide, here is how many players will hit it:
http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/HitBigGap.jpg

Take the ratio of those two, and you see that for very small gaps, about 3 times as many players will hit a gap that is 3 times as wide. For larger gaps, just about everyone will hit both gaps.

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/3TimesGapRatio.jpg

Divide that by how much easier the wider gap is to hit, and you get:

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/HouckLuckChart.jpg

Now all we need to do is decide what is "too much luck".

[Steve West]

Wait, this is better:


(1 - % that hit hard target / % that hit easy target) divided by
(1 – angle to hit hard target / angle to hit easy target).

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/HouckLuck2.jpg