What is wrong with par 3.5/2.5 vs par 3 holes?

[optidiscic]

I have yet to understand what the problem is for a given skill level to have SSA around 2.5 or 3.5 vs just a solid 3. I try to design attainable 2s (reachable greens within 1 throw I call them par 2.5) and then difficult 3s (holes that require a challenging upshot to get a 3 I call these 3.5s)

This has drawn the ire of many traditionalists who think all holes should be on the whole number 3 or a 4. I think of all of the holes as par 3s with some easier and some tougher. Blasphemous it seems to design a hole that is impossible to ace as a par 3. I don't care because what I am after is exciting disc golf. I like a course that if you are in a 4some every hole can swing based on you executing and getting a fair shot at a 2 or fair shot at a 3 instead of the holes where a birdie is tough to come by and thus competitive rounds become a battle of attrition or a battle of who makes a mistake. (missed putts etc.) I find this type of everyone should get a 3 type golf to be boring and I fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

Obviously I don't care what the so called experts on here think. I am gonna do things my way and continue to design either very easy 3s or very hard 3s and let the wild and interesting rounds speak for themselves

I'd like to know if anyone else prefers this type of golf and if you don't why is everythings a par 3.0 better?

[MNcyclone]

Who the hell enjoys easy par 3's? There is little joy in a hole that should be a 2 every time. Either you get your 2 like you should, or you are pissed, never really happy.

If I were designing a course I would make every hole as challenging as possible (while still having clearly defined fairways and greens) using the terrain and space provided.

[timothyasteele]

I agree with you, and like it when there is a definite "oh crap, this is a par three?" feeling to a hole where you have to have your A game to make it happen.

Tim S.

[optidiscic]

I know many will say a hole that yields a birdie, 2 pars, and a bogey....is a fine hole. I agree. but typically the holes with a SSA on or around 3.0 do not attain the avg this way....typically its 4 pars. I would rather the 4some go 2 birdies and 2 pars or 2 pars and 2 bogeys....this to me makes for a more exciting and challenging round. Because you know everytime you step up to the tee that you must execute because if you don't you probably will lose a stroke to a competitor.

[optidiscic]

Who the hell enjoys easy par 3's? There is little joy in a hole that should be a 2 every time. Either you get your 2 like you should, or you are pissed, never really happy.

If I were designing a course I would make every hole as challenging as possible (while still having clearly defined fairways and greens) using the terrain and space provided.

I prefer a hole that a 2 is a highly possible. That doesnt mean it is an easy hole.

You hit the tight gap in the beginning and you have a 2 look, or you hit the long putt with the basket near a ledge or water, for instance.....not easy but highly possible...theres a difference

[snappyfingers]

I know many will say a hole that yields a birdie, 2 pars, and a bogey....is a fine hole. I agree. but typically the holes with a SSA on or around 3.0 do not attain the avg this way....typically its 4 pars. I would rather the 4some go 2 birdies and 2 pars or 2 pars and 2 bogeys....this to me makes for a more exciting and challenging round. Because you know everytime you step up to the tee that you must execute because if you don't you probably will lose a stroke to a competitor.

I agree, especially the bold part.
Good thread! :thmbup:

[nic777]

I like the idea.

[grodney]

Opti, I think your terminology is funky, and/or you're not understanding something.

Forget about SSAs, score averages, and "par" for a minute. Instead, worry about DESIGN.

If you design a hole to be reached in 1 shot, then a large majority of your target audience should usually be able to reach that hole in 1 shot. That is, they should be putting on their 2nd shot. Notice the vague terms "large majority" and "usually". These are on purpose.

If you design a hole to be reached in 2 shots, then a large majority of your target audience should usually be able to reach that hole in 2 shots, and it should require a good drive and a non-trivial 2nd shot. In some cases, this hole might be reachable with 1 very heroic shot that requires substantial risk of severe consequences if it isn't executed. Anyway, as long as you meet the first sentence of this paragraph, it's a good 2-shot hole.

What's *bad* is a hole that almost none of your target audience can usually reach in 1 shot, but almost everyone can usually reach in 2 shots without much trouble at all, and the 2nd shot isn't very challenging at all. In other words, too long to be a good 1-shot hole, and too short to be a 2-shot hole.

As far as score averages, for open-ish to average courses:
- An easy/short 1-shot hole will typically average under 2.5, maybe as low as 2.4. There's nothing wrong with this hole.
- A hard/long 1-shot hole will typically average 2.7 or 2.8. There is nothing wrong with this hole.
- A bad hole as described above will average much closer to 3.0, as most everyone will get a 3.

(The scoring averages shift higher and this gets more complicated when you add more trees.)

[optidiscic]

Grodney I agree with your premise. I guess I get hung up on SSA and tend to think along those lines. I shouldn't throw that term around as most rounds I witness are Red,blue to low gold level players. A handful of 1000 rated have played but I never track how they do.
As far as designing such holes. I try to set up holes where a 2 is very possible and a 3 is easy or a hole where a 3 is very possible and a 4 is easy. These to me come out as easy 3s and hard 3s. A super drive yields a birdie look on the latter and a solid drive yields a birdie look on the former.
I am all for deuce or die par 3s but not the boring variety. I am also happy with the not quite a par 4. My experience with holes that are true 3s and 4s or true 5s is bunched up scores that come down to missed putts or someone making a mistake to separate scoring.
I am striving to provide scoring spread in my design by incorporating the spread into design.
Instead of playing a hole and thinking that's a par 3 or par 4 I want the player to think I should birdie this hole for the easier 3s or to feel dirty for taking a 4 on the hard 3s.

[simpletwist]

I play plenty of courses where there are close to impossible par 3s as well as a mix of easy 2s. Of course the best courses have those easy par 3s mixed with a serious risk reward. I think every good course should have some no brainer ace runs. Just like in ball golf where there are 140 yard or less par 3s and some par 3s that are 200 yards or more. I go for the ace or at least an easy birdie when I can and I play for the par and hopefully not a bogey when I have to. You get that par on the "no gimme" par 3 and its like getting a birdie on the easier holes.

[AdamH]

What's *bad* is a hole that almost none of your target audience can usually reach in 1 shot, but almost everyone can usually reach in 2 shots without much trouble at all, and the 2nd shot isn't very challenging at all. In other words, too long to be a good 1-shot hole, and too short to be a 2-shot hole.

Excellent description, that is much simpler than thinking about things in terms of par 2.5 or 3.5.

[GT Chris]

Grodney I agree with your premise. I guess I get hung up on SSA and tend to think along those lines. I shouldn't throw that term around as most rounds I witness are Red,blue to low gold level players. A handful of 1000 rated have played but I never track how they do.
As far as designing such holes. I try to set up holes where a 2 is very possible and a 3 is easy or a hole where a 3 is very possible and a 4 is easy. These to me come out as easy 3s and hard 3s. A super drive yields a birdie look on the latter and a solid drive yields a birdie look on the former.
I am all for deuce or die par 3s but not the boring variety. I am also happy with the not quite a par 4. My experience with holes that are true 3s and 4s or true 5s is bunched up scores that come down to missed putts or someone making a mistake to separate scoring.
I am striving to provide scoring spread in my design by incorporating the spread into design.
Instead of playing a hole and thinking that's a par 3 or par 4 I want the player to think I should birdie this hole for the easier 3s or to feel dirty for taking a 4 on the hard 3s.

But isn't that sort of the point? If no one made mistakes then no one would score worse than par. And for most holes, no one will score better than a birdie. Since players in a given division should have skills fairly close to each other, the scoring separation has to come down to mistakes and missed putts.

[GLong]

i think a lot of it depends on why a particular hole is a '3.5' - either by design or scoring average. also, the intended skill level for a particular course/tee must be considered as well.

I have yet to understand what the problem is for a given skill level to have SSA around 2.5 or 3.5 vs just a solid 3. I try to design attainable 2s (reachable greens within 1 throw I call them par 2.5) and then difficult 3s (holes that require a challenging upshot to get a 3 I call these 3.5s)

to me, a hole that requires a well-executed drive and a challenging upshot is a par 4. it might be a 'soft' 4, but the reality is that few players are carding 2's. this is your '3.5' hole. i'm thinking of those 360-400' wooded holes with very tight fairways. they require a drive with pinpoint accuracy and decent power to get to the green. this falls into the high end of what the pdga recommends a par 3 with 'heavy foliage' should be for blue level players. for gold level players, this is extended out to 475'. for reference, here is the pdga par guideline chart (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf).

Blasphemous it seems to design a hole that is impossible to ace as a par 3. I don't care because what I am after is exciting disc golf. I like a course that if you are in a 4some every hole can swing based on you executing and getting a fair shot at a 2 or fair shot at a 3 instead of the holes where a birdie is tough to come by and thus competitive rounds become a battle of attrition or a battle of who makes a mistake. (missed putts etc.) I find this type of everyone should get a 3 type golf to be boring.

if a 'par 3' hole is impossible to ace, then i would have to question why. not because i feel that aces are an essential part of the game, but as a matter of accessibility to the basket. i find the bolded part above to be hilariously hypocritical - you just defined your beloved 3.5 holes! a 2 is somewhat uncommon and smart players will play for an easy (tap-in) 3, which 'almost' feels like a birdie.

...and I fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Obviously I don't care what the so called experts on here think. I am gonna do things my way and continue to design either very easy 3s or very hard 3s and let the wild and interesting rounds speak for themselves


i would like to see some examples of these numerous 3.5 holes you've designed. how many courses are you credited with designing? a lot of this dialogue just sounds like theoretical arguing to be honest.

I am also happy with the not quite a par 4. My experience with holes that are true 3s and 4s or true 5s is bunched up scores that come down to missed putts or someone making a mistake to separate scoring.
I am striving to provide scoring spread in my design by incorporating the spread into design.
Instead of playing a hole and thinking that's a par 3 or par 4 I want the player to think I should birdie this hole for the easier 3s or to feel dirty for taking a 4 on the hard 3s.

good competitive golf is about making putts and minimizing mistakes. that's the difference between good and great players. the problem with using design to encourage scoring spread is that it requires you to design within a relatively narrow range of lengths for those tough 3's. why not just make the hole a bit longer and make it a legit 4?

[optidiscic]

GLong most of this concept came from experiences at Nockamixon. Hole 2 fell into the par 3.5 category as did the old basket position for hole 5 which came out to be a 4.5. These holes were considered to be bad holes because they were not true 4s or true 5s So some oob was added to hole 2 to make it play tougher and I extended hole 5 to make it a true par 5. What we learned was that this was great for doubles play in singles most players were getting the same scores and nobody was really being rewarded.
If u want things to come down to a putting contest or a war of attrition why not just put 18 baskets in a field and play it that way. You would determine the most consistent and best player but it would be boring as hell.
As for par 3s that are not aceable I agree I like th eagle chance on every hole. I just prefer to call an easy par 4 a hard par 3 it's part semantics
You've played Iron Hill. Plenty of impossible to ace par 3 s there so I don't think it's wrong to label tough 3s as such. Those 3s at iron hill would be easy 4s as well

I set out to design a course that scores fluctuate and hot and cold rounds can be had. To me it's the funnest and best type of golf

[bradharris]

The problem with tweener holes is the idea of forced separation. Separation should not be forced by the course, but should be earned by the player.

Consider a true par 4. The expectation is that every player (of the target skill level) should hit a 4 every time. There will be outliers that crush the hole for a birdie or make a mistake to get a bogey. Those outliers will separate the players positively or negatively.

On a tweener hole (say a 3.5) you could crush it and still end up with a 3 while someone else plays it slightly better than normal and ends up with the same score.

In fact, it seems tweeners create less separation. While whole number wholes will have a greater concentration around one score, there will be an even spread of outliers above and below. Tweeners will have a greater spread to two scores with far fewer outliers.

Especially in tournament play, whole number par ends up creating much more exciting competition. Even though you're not playing on the same card as everyone you're competing against, it's nice to know that when you get a birdie, you've gained a stroke on most of the field. With tweener holes, getting that "virtual birdie" only means you've separated yourself from some of the field.

In the end, tweener holes are a coin flip while whole number par presents an opportunity to gain ground with good play or lose ground with poor play.

[Cgkdisc]

In my view, if everyone is getting the same scores on certain par 4s and 5s at Nocky, one reason might be too many trees and not enough escape routes. Well designed, wooded par 4s and 5s should naturally have better scoring spread than more open holes with similar scoring averages. So something is wrong there. Players apparently don't have sufficiently good enough routes and big enough "good" landing areas where they can regularly get birdies (20%-35%) if they execute the routes and landing areas well. It sounds like players can only throw "sort of good" shots with some better and some worse on the routes to the hole so the net effect for everyone is to arrive at the basket with the same score.

[optidiscic]

The problem with tweener holes is the idea of forced separation. Separation should not be forced by the course, but should be earned by the player.

Consider a true par 4. The expectation is that every player (of the target skill level) should hit a 4 every time. There will be outliers that crush the hole for a birdie or make a mistake to get a bogey. Those outliers will separate the players positively or negatively.

On a tweener hole (say a 3.5) you could crush it and still end up with a 3 while someone else plays it slightly better than normal and ends up with the same score.

In fact, it seems tweeners create less separation. While whole number wholes will have a greater concentration around one score, there will be an even spread of outliers above and below. Tweeners will have a greater spread to two scores with far fewer outliers.

Especially in tournament play, whole number par ends up creating much more exciting competition. Even though you're not playing on the same card as everyone you're competing against, it's nice to know that when you get a birdie, you've gained a stroke on most of the field. With tweener holes, getting that "virtual birdie" only means you've separated yourself from some of the field.

In the end, tweener holes are a coin flip while whole number par presents an opportunity to gain ground with good play or lose ground with poor play.

I agree with your premise and it is sound

This is where design comes into play...adding enough elements of risk either through oob or obstacle that the birdie 2 on the easy par 3 is rewarding and where 2 good shots are required to garner the 3 on the hard par 3.
A 2 is hardly simple on the par 2.5s as a degree of execution is needed either through a soft landing avoiding oob or hitting a tight gap...if this is done the reward is the birdie chance.
A 4 is hardly a bad score on the 3.5s as 2 good shots are required to get to the drop in putt either low ceiling approaches/oob near the basket etc

I should add designing good 3.5s and good 2.5s is not easy and I am aware of this....blow-ups are a high possibly on a good tweener hole. Some hate blow-ups as they "unfairly" can ruin a round. I'm not reallyso concerned with PDGA guidelines I am more interested in fun and interesting competitive rounds.
First one to make a mistake...eeehh not really so much fun for me..I like shotmaking as opposed to not messing up to determining my winners.

[GLong]

If u want things to come down to a putting contest or a war of attrition why not just put 18 baskets in a field and play it that way. You would determine the most consistent and best player but it would be boring as hell.
As for par 3s that are not aceable I agree I like th eagle chance on every hole. I just prefer to call an easy par 4 a hard par 3 it's part semantics
You've played Iron Hill. Plenty of impossible to ace par 3 s there so I don't think it's wrong to label tough 3s as such. Those 3s at iron hill would be easy 4s as well

I set out to design a course that scores fluctuate and hot and cold rounds can be had. To me it's the funnest and best type of golf

competitive golf comes down to how well you putt and how well you recover from bad shots. throwing ability amongst players in any given division is usually pretty similar - the guys that win are the ones that hit their putts and recover from bad shots.

the 'semantic debate' between an easy 4 and tough 3 shouldn't be much of a debate - the pdga has guidelines for what par should be based on length/foliage/skill level. there are also guidelines suggesting what width gaps should be at different lengths from the tee but at the moment i can't find it. but you "fly in the face of conventional wisdom" and "don't care what the so called experts on here think" so i'm sure you haven't read any of that stuff.

regarding iron hill - i think the par 3's there are all ace-able. are they easy? no. there is nothing easy on that course. i also don't play for aces, even on shorter courses. i'm trying to put it next to the basket and have an easy putt.

one of the reasons i love iron hill is that the course is incredibly fair. there is more than ample room to throw there. if you hit something and take a bad kick, it's your fault. the only hole that i'm not a fan of is 17. not because of the distance or abundance of trees, but because i feel like there really isn't anything resembling a defined fairway. i feel like you should be able to step up to the tee of a hole you've never played and figure out the optimal route to take on your first shot. on hole 17, you have a wealth of options with no clear-cut 'path' to follow. you basically pick your own path to the basket and then execute as well as possible. each time you play the hole will be different. i liken it to those 'choose your own adventure' books i read as a kid. which isn't a bad thing, but just not something i prefer.

[optidiscic]

In my view, if everyone is getting the same scores on certain par 4s and 5s at Nocky, one reason might be too many trees and not enough escape routes. Well designed, wooded par 4s and 5s should naturally have better scoring spread than more open holes with similar scoring averages. So something is wrong there. Players apparently don't have sufficiently good enough routes and big enough "good" landing areas where they can regularly get birdies (20%-35%) if they execute the routes and landing areas well. It sounds like players can only throw "sort of good" shots with some better and some worse on the routes to the hole so the net effect for everyone is to arrive at the basket with the same score.

the holes I mention have plenty of fairway and plenty of escape routes....did you perhaps mean to say too many escape routes where nobody is being punished as severely for missing the fairway or landing zones?

[Cgkdisc]

I thought you indicated that players are all shooting par. If that's the case, then what I said is likely true. If everyone is getting birdies, then what you say is likely true. Either that or maybe the par is set incorrectly.

[GLong]

I should add designing good 3.5s and good 2.5s is not easy and I am aware of this....blow-ups are a high possibly on a good tweener hole. Some hate blow-ups as they "unfairly" can ruin a round. I'm not really so concerned with PDGA guidelines I am more interested in fun and interesting competitive rounds.

again i would like examples of the holes and courses that you have designed as testament to your design ability or please STFU with this theoretical rambling.

i find it laughable that you're "not really so concerned with PDGA guidelines". i'm sure that they were created by a group of individuals with a wealth of collective experience, with the intent of creating enjoyable, fair, competitive courses. but i'm sure you know way more about designing courses than they do.

[optidiscic]

GLong....I love Iron Hill as well....even though scores in the 80s feel ok to me. I don't really think the gold par 3s there leave a chance for an ace. Possible I suppose it's possible but plausible. I don't think so. I birdied hole 14 and this was my most rewarding birdie to date.
I think Chuck might agree with me concerning the lack of ace runs at Iron Hill.
Regardless I am not trying to design Iron Hills but my point is that not all good par 3s have to be ace able.....I also attempt to create fair shots...but I also think demanding a player to execute a particular line or hit a particular sweet spot is not a bad thing. If holes around or well under 300 feet you can demand a little more of a player as far as execution goes.
I love a big woodsy course with huge fairways like Iron Hill, Nockamixon, Quakers Challenge, and Trap Pond but there are different types of courses and requiring different types of skills than just hitting big drives in the woods.

[Cgkdisc]

I think several of the gold par 3s at Iron Hill are too tough to yield sufficient birdies in the mix (let alone ace runs) and I told them that when I played the event in 2010. I'm no gold level player but could see from the routes and scores they were not sufficiently birdieable. No problem with one, maybe two, inverted par 3s on a high overall par course where there are more 4s and few 2s (3.2-3.4 average). But the majority of par 3s, especially in the woods, should range from 2.6-3.0 with at least 15-20% 2s on the toughest of those 3s.

[optidiscic]

I thought you indicated that players are all shooting par. If that's the case, then what I said is likely true. If everyone is getting birdies, then what you say is likely true. Either that or maybe the par is set incorrectly.

most players of the intended gold level were getting pars. In retrospect this is not really a bad thing as the occasional birdie and occasional bogey did demand you keep up with the field

I suppose this brings me to my point. In my opinion every course should have a balance of these types of holes

I-the birdie holes that you feel like to compete you need to birdie 2.5

II-the survivor holes that you are just trying to not blow up on 3.5

III-the holes that are set as true pars 3.0

I think too many courses adhere to III....why I dislike this is because it lacks excitement. If you mess up on a birdie hole often if you don't blow up on a survivor hole you might get a stroke back. If you screw up on a true par hole you have the birdie holes to make it back up. If you get all the birdie holes, survive all the survivor holes, most likely you are in for a hot round......Stringing a bunch of true pars together, while it has it's merits, to me is not as much fun nor does it promote shotmaking..to me it induces rounds of trying to play it safe and not fall behind and either wait for that rare birdie or more often for that time when your competitor blows up. I'd rather players try to make great shots.

I don't throw the PDGA guidelines out I am a bit of a free thinker and a bit of a rebel but I don't think my concepts in design are too far off from what the PDGA might reccomend.

[biscoe]

i think a lot of your disagreement here is just a result of (inappropriately in my belief- chuck and i may disagree here) substituting scoring averages for par. what you are calling "par 2.5" holes are actually par 3 holes using par as a design concept.

[optidiscic]

i think a lot of your disagreement here is just a result of (inappropriately in my belief- chuck and i may disagree here) substituting scoring averages for par. what you are calling "par 2.5" holes are actually par 3 holes using par as a design concept.

you are probably correct Biscoe....I should just say some holes provide more birdie looks 2.5, some are rarer birdies 3.0, and some are plain difficult birdies 3.5....all 3 are par 3s......I am simply a fan of less of the true par 3s as the way they play to me induces less exciting rounds.

I should add you can design and adjust all you want and scores will often not reflect your intention....players miss putts, players play safe, etc....but in design I mentally think in the 2.5,3.0, 3.5 concept...I guess semantics might be an issue in this discussion

What I find interesting is that Iron Hill par is set by the SSA. Chuck even admits that theres some design flaws in the par 3s there so there is obviously some art to course design it's not all science and math

[Dave242]

I think another thing that has to be taken into account is what naturally happens when a course is well designed for a particular skill level. What then will result is these tweener holes (x.5 scoring average) for players that are above or below that level.

Take a par-4 hole (a 2 throw hole) designed for Blue level players for instance (tons of other scenarios illustrate this too, of course). First segment is 300' relatively open, 2nd segment is a 250' wooded chute/corridor 20' wide.

Blue level: good challenge - must land accurately near opening of chute and then throw a decently difficult throw to the basket. 4.0 average but with decent and roughly equal number or 3's and 5's.

White level: Has difficulty stringing together the 2 shots required so seldom gets into putting range for a chance at 3, but very easily can play for a boring/safe 4. Scoring separation happens due to screw-ups. Around 4.5 average (or slightly above) - a few 3's, a good amount of 4's and a good amount of 5's. Tweener hole.

Gold level: Very easy hole.....but also very boring. Slightly under 3.5 - mostly 3s and some 4's. Tweener hole.

[optidiscic]

I agree with you Dave.....tweeners will emerge and disappear based on skill level. Holes that are a great test for some will be yawners for others. I don't mind having a variety of difficulty on the same course. This is where I stray from the PDGA. I think the best courses Ive played have a good mix of easier and then more difficult holes. Attempting to use SSA to set an AVG par for a skill level yields a boring hole if set on the true par (whole number).

[tallpaul]

My .02 cents is that it appears to me that Opti is a low level blue player; and most other comments are coming from a high blue level perspective. As has been mentioned at least once; the outlooks for these two player skill sets are very different.

[optidiscic]

regardless of my playing ability I guess I am advocating the excitement of well done birdieable holes that employ some element of risk and punish playing it safe and also at the same time advocating well done holes where you just want to survive and not bogey....I am against the everyone gets a three on every hole (breather holes)
If every hole is a relax and take your three hole....the course is boring and the reward is for playing it safe...I want players to execute some risk and get a birdie or execute and get a par rather than just playing safe and hoping someone else messes up

[MNcyclone]

If you don't like the holes you describe, don't settle for par. Do what you need to do to get 2's. The problem is your mentality, not the hole design.

[optidiscic]

If you don't like the holes you describe, don't settle for par. Do what you need to do to get 2's. The problem is your mentality, not the hole design.

I am not talking about my game...I am talking about how the field approaches a hole

It's a matter of balancing risk/reward in such a way that on those attainable 2s you had better perform or you lose a stroke or 2. On those tough par 3s you had better perform or you fall behind. Many holes fall into the drive/approach/putt with less chance of birdie or bogey as the above 2 scenarios

[MNcyclone]

It's a matter of balancing risk/reward in such a way that on those attainable 2s you had better perform or you lose a stroke or 2. On those tough par 3s you had better perform or you fall behind. Many holes fall into the drive/approach/putt with less chance of birdie or bogey as the above 2 scenarios

Yea, so you have to strive to achieve greater things in order to get that stroke. If you want to gain a stroke, don't take the hole off, go and get it. Birds shouldn't be handed to you.

[optidiscic]

Yea, so you have to strive to achieve greater things in order to get that stroke. If you want to gain a stroke, don't take the hole off, go and get it. Birds shouldn't be handed to you.

again we are agreeing

I want to punish players who play it safe

a good 2.5 hole does that as playing it safe leaves u with a 3 and your competitor a 2
a good 3.5 hole does this as playing it safe leaves you with a 4 and your competitor a 3
the true par 3 hole comes down to who misses a putt or screws up the conventional drive...basically the field typically takes a 3.....its the relaxer hole, the breather hole, the non pucker hole.....a few of these are ok but I am pretty much against them for a said skill level

[tistoude]

I think most of this discussion is just a mis-interpretation of various terms involved with course design.

Opti, I have heard very good things about Sellersville which you designed but when I look at the scores logged on this only two of the holes fall into the 2.5/3.5 range. I know the sample size is not great (34 and a couple are doubles I think) but from the black tees the averages are below. Is this the kind of scoring spread you are looking for? Because to me they seem pretty standard with so much OB on the course.

1. 4.06 300ft
2. 3.85 320ft
3. 3.45 420ft
4. 3.47 270ft
5. 3.15 220ft
6. 3.03 250ft
7. 3.03 230ft
8. 3.15 290ft
9. 2.94 220ft

[optidiscic]

The majority of those rounds were submitted by an intermediate player. Holes 1-3 are what I regard as the tougher par 3s. Holes 5-9 are known as the birdie holes. 9 is a 4 or a birdie. It's not meant to be a beast of a course. We have Nockamixon for that role. Our winning tags round typically come out around par which tells me the overall par is fine with some easier par 3s and some tougher par 3s which was our intention.

[Karl]

"Many holes fall into the drive/approach/putt with less chance of birdie or bogey as the above 2 scenarios"

That probably because the "gaps" are disproportionate to the length of throw. In ball golf, the tee shot is hugely wide (25yds?) because the player is hitting it 300yds. The approach shot may be (target) only 15yds wide because they're hitting it from 150. The hole is 4.25" wide because they're hitting it from "close". In dg, our tee shot can be WAY more narrow proportionately than our approaches and our approaches are rarely never hard enough. Think of greens as 100' radii from the basket, design? / have specific gaps to try to hit, and watch the quote above go south.

Karl

[GT Chris]

I want to punish players who play it safe

That's an interesting design philosophy, and that bit of background makes your design ideas much more coherent to me. I am content to let safe players play for par. Only punish those who make mistakes, be it going for a riskier shot to try for a birdie or failing to execute the safe par shot.

[Cgkdisc]

For a given skill level, I believe this is how various scoring distributions rank with increasing preference. The values X & Y can represent 2 & 3, 3 & 4 or 4 & 5

Y.0 where this is almost 100% of 1 score
X.8-Y.2 where the Y score is over 80% (primarily 2 scores)
Y.2-Y.4 more due to luck (primarily 2 scores)
X.4-X.6 more due to luck (primarily 2 scores)
X.6-X.8 more due to luck (primarily 2 scores)
X.8-Y.2 more due to luck (primarily 3 scores)
Y.2-Y.4 more due to skill (primarily 2 scores)
X.4-X.6 more due to skill (primarily 2 scores)
X.6-X.8 more due to skill (primarily 2 scores)
X.8-Y.2 more due to skill (primarily 3 scores)
X.9-Y.1 more due to skill (primarily 4 scores with more birdies than bogeys plus double bogeys)

Statistically, more scores with decent percentages (>5%) are better for scoring spread if they are produced primarily due to skill elements versus luck.

[Dave242]

I agree with you Dave.....tweeners will emerge and disappear based on skill level. Holes that are a great test for some will be yawners for others. I don't mind having a variety of difficulty on the same course. This is where I stray from the PDGA. I think the best courses Ive played have a good mix of easier and then more difficult holes.

I gotta agree and disagree (I think) on this with you. I agree with the part where you are agreeing with me. :)

I am not sure what you mean about "variety of difficulty", but I disagree with you if you mean a good course has a few holes each suitable to be a perfect test of Red, White, Blue, and Gold level players (or even 3 of the 4), then you have a course that is ho-hum at least half the time for everybody.....but also great half the time for everybody. *

Shouldn't it be the goal to get a whole lot of courses in the ground that are great all the time for those who choose to play them? If someone goes to a course that is either too much for them or too little, then they could decide to go to the courses that are right in their wheelhouse (and only visit the others to work on their midrange game or to stretch themselves with a nice beatdown).

The way to accomplish this is to design around a specific skill level. Lengths should vary from the midpoint/average distance that skill level can reach and likewise widths & shapes should reflect airway widths/shapes that are a fair test of skill.

For distance determination take the midpoint of the skill level and vary (effective) hole lengths by + and - 15% (or something close to that). For lightly wooded, mostly open holes:
Gold: 360-425-490
Blue: 275-325-375
White: 220-260-300
Red: 190-225-260

The result will be the variety you desire....but there will also be holes that are tweeners/ho-hummers for some in that level, and there will be holes on each level of course that are appropriate/good/fun/rewarding/challenging to other levels.

With this sort of variation you will offer the tough psychology "must have birdies" and "tempters to throw max D with a risk of lack of control".

Factor in similarly planned variety of widths & shapes (including terrain) and you have yourself and excellent course (for your target audience).

-------
* Lots of times with the way the math works out, if designed correctly a hole for Gold can work out perfectly for White, and a hole for Blue can work out perfectly for Red. For example a Gold Par 3 of 470' could be a good test for White throwing a 260' drive followed by a 210' upshot (a legit par-4).

[New013]

i've got no problem with a par 3 you can't ace. the course in my yard is chalk full of holes that are next to impossible to ace, difficult to birdie, but attainable to par.

i think courses should mix it up as you're saying. throw in some very deucable holes with ones that are very difficult to deuce that make you work for par.

[Dave242]

That's an interesting design philosophy, and that bit of background makes your design ideas much more coherent to me. I am content to let safe players play for par. Only punish those who make mistakes, be it going for a riskier shot to try for a birdie or failing to execute the safe par shot.

For some reason, Opti seems to have a design philosophy that causes scoring separation at the lower end of the skill group (Level or division).

That does not really make sense as courses are supposed to provide a venue to test/determines who is the best player on a given day.

I do see a ton of courses that find many ways to do this though, so apparently he is not alone.

If the PDGA decided to add a super-duper-Pro division and then bumped all the divisions down 25 points, suddenly Opti would be seen as a genius in the vein of Nostradamus since all his courses would now be perfect. :clap:

[Steve West]

...courses are supposed to provide a venue to test/determines who is the best player on a given day.

That's not asking as much of the courses as they can deliver. Shouldn't a course be asked to rank ALL the players according to how well they play that day?

[Dave242]

yes.

[jenb]

Opti, dude, you're asking why folks balk at fractions. Seriously?

[jimimc]

Even though I can only throw 360' I've birdied every hole at Iron Hill including the 5 Par 3's. They are all in the 370' range. Gold 14 has been moved to the A pin with plans for a new shorter Silver pin. In the Silver layout there are a few 3.5 holes, but that's because I use the SSA as par. Most of these are Blue level Par 4's.

[mashnut]

Opti, dude, you're asking why folks balk at fractions. Seriously?

That's what you got out of this thread? Seriously?

[BrotherDave]

I suppose this brings me to my point. In my opinion every course should have a balance of these types of holes

I-the birdie holes that you feel like to compete you need to birdie 2.5

II-the survivor holes that you are just trying to not blow up on 3.5

III-the holes that are set as true pars 3.0


One man's survivor hole may be another's birdie hole, I'm not sure how anyone can accurately design a course to achieve the kind of equilibrium you're talking about.

[optidiscic]

A few things
I don't think all par 3s need to be aceable. A few should be to give some fun factor
Every hole should be able to be birdied. You need scoring separation.
A good hole should have some punishment for overaggressive play and some punishment for playing it to safe. I seem to be in the minority here.
I think there is room for that 1 hole in a field that is a mere mid range away. It's funny how often people mess up on these holes. The classic deuce or die. I'm a fan many hate these outright but to me that feeling that u have to birdy is great drama.
I prefer easy pars and hard pars. The avg pars which is what most designers strive for don't cause as much fluctuation in scoring. Just my taste but I like a course I can be 8 down one day and 12 up the next.
I also think most players enjoy these courses more as well. As long as they are fair.
Also birdying all the gold par 3s at Iron Hill is amazing. I got one par 3 birdy there and it felt like an eagle. For my player rating it probably was an eagle.

[Karl]

Opti,

Your...
"I don't think all par 3s need to be aceable."
and
"Every hole should be able to be birdied." Birdied how?

Let's work from the extremes (and I'm not saying you advocate this in practice...nor do I).
Two HUGE throws by Christian Standstrom (the latter one goes in) and we have a birdie! That means 1000' par-3s. Not what you (or I) am envisioning. So let's take that down a bit. I'm saying that IF Mr. S could thread a shot through a tightish gap at 500', hit metal, and have it stick (a 1 in a million shot maybe), it can't be a par-4 because par-4s can't be reached in 1 (par being the old 'shots to get to the green plus 2'...and defining a green is a whole other topic). That leaves us with foliage, elevation, brick walls, etc. getting in the way to lessen the effective distance of any par-3. Or, in your scenario of "every hole birdieable", if you can GET to the green and make a putt!?!? the hole is 'birdieable'. And if you can GET to the green you can (occasionally) park-it / ace-it. So it comes down to how far can you throw / how close you can get to the basket. Forced doglegs prohibit this number from being 'true flatout distance'. But a hole that is 300' out and 90-degree turn around a 8 story building for 80 more feet (and NO WAY can it be aced) is NOT par-3. It's just a crappy par-4 that everyone expects to 3.
IMO, if a hole can be scored in anything less than -2 of the par, then that par is set incorrectly. Birdies with excellent play. Eagles with freakish rarity. Double Eagles shouldn't happen (if they do, then par is set wrong...as is the case of a LOT of PGA par-5s and the driveable par-4s).

If you and I can't birdie a hole (like CS) then that shouldn't change the hole's par...it just means we are not worthy!

Karl

[bradharris]

Just my taste but I like a course I can be 8 down one day and 12 up the next.

I disagree completely. A course with those kinds of scoring swings ends up being more a test of luck and who's having a good day rather than being a test of true ability.

[denny ritner]

But a hole that is 300' out and 90-degree turn around a 8 story building for 80 more feet (and NO WAY can it be aced) is NOT par-3. It's just a crappy par-4 that everyone expects to 3.

almost correct. a hole like that probably is crappy, but it's still a par 3, not a par 4.


Double Eagles shouldn't happen (if they do, then par is set wrong...as is the case of a LOT of PGA par-5s and the driveable par-4s).


disagree. take, for example the par 5's in john houck's latest discgolfer mag article that offer 2-shot and 3-shot options, like most ball golf par 5's. those holes could be deuced, but that doesn't make them par 4's.

[IHearChains]

When I look at tourney results, ties for the win occasionally show up, but I rarely see 3-way or 4-way ties for the win. So I am not convinced that "scoring separation" is really as big a problem as some people make it out to be. :\

[denny ritner]

When I look at tourney results, ties for the win occasionally show up, but I rarely see 3-way or 4-way ties for the win. So I am not convinced that "scoring separation" is really as big a problem as some people make it out to be. :\

the problem occurs on individual holes. i'm sure you play holes where you're thinking "why bother with this one, i ALWAYS get an X".

good holes either make a player excited about a birdie or nervous about a bogey.

great holes simultaneously make a player excited AND nervous.

[Dave242]

I disagree completely. A course with those kinds of scoring swings ends up being more a test of luck and who's having a good day rather than being a test of true ability.

I agree with huge scoring swings like that (20 strokes from round-to-round or day-to-day) probably points to design deficiencies, but 10-12 stroke swings on a course that is over say an SSA of 63 is not unrealistic.

I do disagree with your "ends up being more a test of luck and who's having a good day rather than being a test of true ability." statement. That is exactly why we have tournaments.....to see who is best on a given day (or weekend...or week). If it were not for that reason, we could forgo the competition and just give out awards based on player ratings before the event started.

If someone pures a pinball fairway 18 times out 18 holes....that is skill or "true ability". Conversely, if someone does not do so, that is not necessarily a sign of a lack of skill. Maybe this is what you meant.....but I do not think a course full of pinball fairways is what Opti meant either.

[Dave242]

When I look at tourney results, ties for the win occasionally show up, but I rarely see 3-way or 4-way ties for the win. So I am not convinced that "scoring separation" is really as big a problem as some people make it out to be. :\

Actually, this could make it a bigger issue. If there are very close scores at the top of the leaderboard, it could magnify the issue of unfair holes separating based on luck rather than skill.....and it could magnify the issue of the course not doing everything it could to provide opportunities to prpoerly separate (as in all the top player get the same score on the majority of the holes).

[Karl]

almost correct. a hole like that probably is crappy, but it's still a par 3, not a par 4.



disagree. take, for example the par 5's in john houck's latest discgolfer mag article that offer 2-shot and 3-shot options, like most ball golf par 5's. those holes could be deuced, but that doesn't make them par 4's.

First part:
According to me it is 100% correct (that's why I wrote it!). Not a par 3. Any hole that the majority of players can par is either 1) a crappy example of that par, or 2) has it's par incorrectly listed. Par is NOT supposed to be something that the majority of players can acheive! Say that to a bunch of players of any other sport that uses "par" in their vernacular and they'll laugh at you.

Second part:
If it can be deuced it IS a par 4!

I'll leave it at that as we'll never agree (probably on what "par" is)....
No problem, disagreements are part of life.

Karl

[Karl]

Actually, this could make it a bigger issue. If there are very close scores at the top of the leaderboard, it could magnify the issue of unfair holes separating based on luck rather than skill.....and it could magnify the issue of the course not doing everything it could to provide opportunities to prpoerly separate (as in all the top player get the same score on the majority of the holes).

Happens all the time in ball golf! The majority of PGA players par the majority of hole a majority of the time, yet THEY seem to do quite fine at determining winners / the better/best player(s). That's why ball golf didn't start with 1 hole courses! They realized that it would take numerous holes to separate players - due to the inherent limitations of the courses plus the scoring based on whole integers. In a 6 hole match, the better player may not surface; in a 72 hole match, the odds are a LOT better....

Karl

[grodney]

First part:
According to me it is 100% correct (that's why I wrote it!). Not a par 3. Any hole that the majority of players can par is either 1) a crappy example of that par, or 2) has it's par incorrectly listed. Par is NOT supposed to be something that the majority of players can acheive! Say that to a bunch of players of any other sport that uses "par" in their vernacular and they'll laugh at you.

Second part:
If it can be deuced it IS a par 4!

I'll leave it at that as we'll never agree (probably on what "par" is)....
No problem, disagreements are part of life.

Karl

I'll settle this.

On the first part, Karl is right. If it's 300 feet out, then a 90-degree turn around an 8-story building for 80 more feet, that's a crappy 2-shot hole. (You may call it a "par 4").

On the second part, Denny is right. If it can be reached in 2 heroic shots, but is designed to be reached in 3 good shots, it is a 3-shot hole. (You may call it a "par 5").

See, you're both right!

You're welcome.

p.s. Actually, it doesn't matter what you call the first one -- it is stupid.

[Cgkdisc]

Here's what we know about scoring swings for courses under 60 SSA. For your players over 950 rating, 2 out of 3 rounds will be within a 7 shot range and 19 out of 20 within a 14 shot range around their rating. For players under 950, 2 out of 3 rounds are in a 9 shot range and 19 out of 20 within an 18 shot range. Add a couple shots to the range if it's a course over 60 SSA.

[optidiscic]

When I mentioned a 20 point swing I should have said this instead.
I like a course full of holes I can birdie or bogey but still are fair. These type of holes punish both overaggressive players and overconservative players. U want to recklessly rip then you are oob or miss a gap. U wanna play safe then u will never birdie and sometimes bogey. If and only if u have the skill to execute shots will you get a birdie look.
If one day I bogey all of these holes Im 18 over worse. Conversely if I birdie every hole I'm 18 under. This never happens typically. It's that feeling that it could happen that I enjoy.
At a course like nockamixon or iron hill which are above my skill level. I'm trying to string pars together and not mess up. I love these courses but the scoring is not as much fun for me. I'd prefer a slew of holes I could birdie but could also blow up on. I also like some real tough holes to three In my experience these are known as weak 4s or tough 3s. These are the holes I prefer. They are never routine.

[MNcyclone]

Opti,
But a hole that is 300' out and 90-degree turn around a 8 story building for 80 more feet (and NO WAY can it be aced) is NOT par-3. It's just a crappy par-4 that everyone expects to 3.
Karl

Sounds like an aceable hole...

[denny ritner]

First part:
According to me it is 100% correct (that's why I wrote it!). Not a par 3. Any hole that the majority of players can par is either 1) a crappy example of that par, or 2) has it's par incorrectly listed. Par is NOT supposed to be something that the majority of players can acheive!

previously you said that the hole is a crappy par-4 that everyone expects to 3. that means that most players get a birdie according to your definition of par.

now you say that "Par is NOT supposed to be something that the majority of players can acheive!"

if you follow your new logic, then the hole should be a par 2. of course, that conflicts with your statement that no one can deuce a hole like that. i'm beginning to feel that this thread has become a salvador dali painting come to life.

[Dave242]

Karl works in generalities. :)

[bradharris]

I do disagree with your "ends up being more a test of luck and who's having a good day rather than being a test of true ability." statement. That is exactly why we have tournaments.....to see who is best on a given day (or weekend...or week). If it were not for that reason, we could forgo the competition and just give out awards based on player ratings before the event started.

Let me clarify my comment. I understand that a tournament is a test of who's the best that day in a head-to-head kind of format. My issue is with courses that have huge swings for relatively small mistakes or successes. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone having an off day or a really hot day should finish away from where you would expect based on rating. However, if the round-to-round scoring can really swing based a few small factors as the OP seems to be advocating, it's much more of a coin flip and in a lot of ways, levels the playing field.

There's more to that thought, but I can't find the right words to articulate it correctly at the moment.

Another Thought

When whole number par is the expectation, I still argue that it creates more exciting and intriguing competition. In the classic example, consider every hole is a true par 3.0. You could play a solid, mistake free round and end with a 54. But in a competitive setting, you might have to make strategy decisions to really go for the birdie on some of these holes. If they're well designed, there will be risk/reward on each one. So if you really go for it and miss, you might end up with a bogey instead. In this paradigm, every birdie is exciting and every hole creates a true "scoring opportunity" if you have a chance to go for it.

Watching ball golf on TV is actually very exciting to me. The score that everyone pays attention to is the to-par score. This way the person teeing off on 1 can be evaluated against the person finishing up on 18 in real-time. If there are a bunch of tweener .5 holes on the course, it's much harder to evaluate where someone stands in relation to the rest of the field until all the scores are in for the day.

[Dave242]

Watching ball golf on TV is actually very exciting to me. The score that everyone pays attention to is the to-par score. This way the person teeing off on 1 can be evaluated against the person finishing up on 18 in real-time. If there are a bunch of tweener .5 holes on the course, it's much harder to evaluate where someone stands in relation to the rest of the field until all the scores are in for the day.

Totally agree with this - especially when there are a bunch of x.5 holes in a row. But this happens in watching ball golf too. I have heard countless times things like "Player A has just finished up and Player C is just two strokes back. But Player C has to play the finishing run of holes 16 to 18 so I am not sure if Player C is going to be able to pull it off." In other words, 16-18 are all playing x.5.

[Cgkdisc]

I've played around with a par structure that would more closely represent the parameters in our game because putting is easier than golf but not a full shot easier. Par would be set as follows:
3v
3
3^
4v
4
4^
5v
5
5^
The v or ^ is the equivalent of 0.33 shots but it's not necessary to display these numbers. The v and ^ just give the player a better idea of what to expect on a hole. The over/under scores displayed for each player during events would take the ^/v into account so a player at 5^ is behind a player at 5v. But most importantly, the total par for the course would better be reflected totaling these up. If you have 18 holes with 3v which is like many of the old school courses, it's a par 48 course ([3x18] - [0.33x18] not 54. Now, you could allow a par 2^ but the idea for my system is to better indicate the true scoring for all of those easier courses than par 54 and not use par 2.

[denny ritner]

. . . or instead of 3v you could have:

http://www.mainemade.com/images/profiles/yummy_tummy/v_image_more.jpg

and instead of 3^ you could have:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dcdi--LdAeQ/Sa1sWd8j4pI/AAAAAAAAEBg/BGX_vc32JHc/s400/wtf.jpg

[Karl]

"previously you said that the hole is a crappy par-4 that everyone expects to 3. that means that most players get a birdie according to your definition of par."
True.

"now you say that "Par is NOT supposed to be something that the majority of players can acheive!""
True again! We cheapen par due to (some) people's frail egos that just can't stand to be over par :sick:.

But I also would NEVER design a hole like that...let alone call it a par 3. ;)

Karl

[denny ritner]

I also would NEVER design a hole like that...let alone call it a par 4 ;)

[Karl]

Cool!

[optidiscic]

Hey Chuck I really like your idea with the arrows That point above and below. It's a lot better than me saying easy3 or hard3. And way better than me muddling up and confusing everyone with 2.5 or 3.5 and irritating the SSA and what is par crowd.

[Steve West]

Forget par. Go to "Expected Throws", to the nearest 1/10th of a throw.

Each tee sign would have something like:

Player Skill Level/Expected Throws
Gold/2.6
Blue/2.8
White/3.1
Red/3.3
Green/3.6

Look up "Strokes Gained-Putting" for the source of the idea.

[Cgkdisc]

Over the years there have been concerns about players shooting so far under "par" at Major events and how that somehow cheapens the sport. In 2001 and 2002, we set par 2s on many holes so the total par on the course more closely matched scoring averages for gold level players. And it worked. I predicted in advance that the winner in PW2001 would end up between -30 and -35 and I think Cam won at -34 which was only -4 average per round. Of course, no one liked the use of par 2s so we end up with Feldberg winning in 2008 at -100 under par.

We talked about maybe skipping par completely and just indicating the hole SSA as a reference. That could work but feels a little too far away from familiar concepts and you would need to wait for tournament data to set the SSAs for each hole. But I think the idea with v and ^ just might be a good compromise position. I could even see placing the v and ^ on the bottom and top of the par number on the scorecard or maybe just an underline or overline to keep the indicator symbol as simple as possible.

[jenb]

On those easy holes, instead of making them par 2, you could just bribe the larpers to guard those baskets with their magic swords and strike down the charging disc fiends.

[optidiscic]

On those easy holes, instead of making them par 2, you could just bribe the larpers to guard those baskets with their magic swords and strike down the charging disc fiends.

What you have to remember is that those under 3 holes are not exactly easy par is set based on ideal throws that are realistic for players of skill range. A Stroke and distance hole on an artificial 10m island oob 185 ft away would be an avg 3 but the ideal par is chucks v3...I designed a hole like this and it adds to score swings and separates players.
10 players
6 get birdies
2 get oob bogeys
1 gets a clean 2 putt 3
1 blows up and gets a double oob 2 putt 7
the avg is 3 but the ideal throws is less than 3 and most expect to 2 the hole
the danger is still inherent in the hole despite the low par

[grodney]

Until I see it, I don't know if it goes in this thread, or in "Designing to a Skill Level", or even possibly in "Fair airways", but Charlotte's newest course has a 310-foot Par 4. It appears to have a 90-degree turn.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=5036&mode=hi

[Dave242]

Looks like a "Designing to a Skill Level" thing. There are several more par-4s of less than <400' that seem to be shaped not to be reachable from the tee. Other holes are quite short too. And, the hole info here is all set up in Red....I imagine intentionally. In my last visit to CLT I stayed with Sam (designer) and he was still sizing up the property and chewing over how to lay things out and if I remember correctly he said that this might be the plan. I could call him and ask, but a visit by you and your thoughts would be even more interesting.

Chuck reminded me a few months ago that designing good Red level courses was important since many ladies and older men appreciate playing courses that set up properly to the D they are able to achieve. That was after I mistakenly (age-ism and sexism in full play) made the comment that Red players get enough scoring separation due to an inability to consistently control their accuracy (which does indeed hold true for noobs, but not so much for many women and older men.....which I am too quickly becoming).

[grodney]

Yeah, I think you're right.

From CDGC: "The current configuration is for the expected Worlds’ divisional groupings.". Stan has also mentioned a future expanded version.

So although the Worlds schedule hasn't been announced, I'm guessing you won't see Open or Advanced on this course.

[Karl]

I think every course (that is able to) should have at least one such hole! Yes, even courses designed to challenge the very best players in the world. If you make it tight enough on 1) the tunnelled drive, 2) the skimpy landing area, and 3) the tunnelled approach, it will be a test for 1040 players. It all comes down to HOW tight you make each (fairway, landing area, approach avenue). Besides, to make a hole where a 1040 would throw a putter off the tee 160' to be followed up with a 160' approach, you will have the smart players taking it in stride and some players wining. Those latter ones are the ones that you will be "mess'in with their minds", will make a mistake, will make a +1 compared to the rest of their peers, and will have them muttering to themselves "...that was a stupid hole...". Mission accomplished (for the designer)!

Karl

[Dave242]

Disagree. Getting people PO'ed is not a good rationale for a lousy hole. Accuracy can be tested in much more appropriate ways.

What I am not saying, is that I think this is a lousy hole as I am sure it will work well for the intended audience. How many true par-4's are in existence in the world for Red level players?

[Steve West]

How many true par-4's are in existence in the world for Red level players?

Let's count: 10 at Fort Snelling, plus....?

[denny ritner]

Until I see it, I don't know if it goes in this thread, or in "Designing to a Skill Level", or even possibly in "Fair airways", but Charlotte's newest course has a 310-foot Par 4. It appears to have a 90-degree turn.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=5036&mode=hi

I hate holes like that (for blue & gold level). Reminds me of the only hole that I don't like at Kilborne, hole 3.

[Mr. America]

I don't understand much of this thread. The lowest score still win, right? That didn't change in 2012? What does par or whatever number you come up with matter?

[Lewis]

I don't understand much of this thread. The lowest score still win, right? That didn't change in 2012? What does par or whatever number you come up with matter?

It's useful for evaluating your individual achievement vs. the course. And that's the only direct competition in golf: you vs. the course. :)

[mashnut]

I don't understand much of this thread. The lowest score still win, right? That didn't change in 2012? What does par or whatever number you come up with matter?

If you look back at where it started, it's about design philosophy and how to create holes that challenge and separate a specific level of player.

[optidiscic]

I don't understand much of this thread. The lowest score still win, right? That didn't change in 2012? What does par or whatever number you come up with matter?

The concept is about designing holes where a birdie is highly possible (easy 3s or 2.5s) as a means to create separation and scoring fluctuation versus the holes where everyone gets a 3 (standard 3.0) and its also about designing holes where bogey is likely (hard 3s or 3.5) but a 3 is possible. These holes are either hard 3s or easy 4s.
Whats the point in designing a hole that falls below par or over par. It creates excitement off the tee. You get that birdie rush and you get that tough hole rush rather than the standard I get a 3 everytime no matter what I do off the tee.
The everyone gets a 3 holes become a putting contest or the standard drive/approach/drop-in putt that most of us despise.
Thats what the thread is about in theory

[The dude on the bike]

How about doing away with par altogether? People would have to do less simple math.

[atl scott]

I don't understand much of this thread. The lowest score still win, right? That didn't change in 2012? What does par or whatever number you come up with matter?

It's less about the designation of par and more about the proper distribution of scoring for a hole in order to properly separate skill levels (due to things such as accuracy, recovery, and power) during play.

Tweener holes usually don't do this well at all which makes them not only boring to play but useless for allowing the best players to rise to the top. Luck (or randomness) becomes the primary factor in scoring separation.

[Karl]

"disagree"
You're allowed.

"Getting people PO'ed is not a good rationale for a lousy hole"
Maybe you have too narrow a pre-conceived notion about what is a good hole and should expand it ;) !

Karl

[Karl]

"And that's the only direct competition in golf: you vs. the course."
Yes!! At least certainly the purest.

Karl

[DavidSauls]

It seems to me absent from this thread are specifics about scoring spread. For example, two holes with a 3.0 average score for a specific skill level:

Hole A
2 10%
3 80%
4 10%

Hole B
2 30%
3 40%
4 30%

Both average 3.0. Hole A is boring. Hole B, assuming the spread is not the product of random luck, is much better.

I assume the original post about a "par 3.5" means a hole with scoring something like this (omitting outliers):

Hole C
3 50%
4 50%

Again, assuming the differences are not based on random luck, I don't think this is a bad type of hole. Maybe not as good as Hole B, but certainly meets my own criteria that on a good hole, you should have doubt what score you'll get, based primarily on execution.

The definition and application of "par" is a separate topic. Whether you call Hole C a par-4 (lots of birdies) or par-3 (rare birdies, lots of bogeys) hardly affects whether it's a good hole to play.

[denny ritner]

There’s been a lot of good discussion on this thread. I do have to take exception with one of the fundamental premises that Optidisc has presented, that being that a par 3 that averages exactly 3.0 cannot have good scoring distribution.

The concept is about designing holes where a birdie is highly possible (easy 3s or 2.5s) as a means to create separation and scoring fluctuation versus the holes where everyone gets a 3 (standard 3.0) and it’s also about designing holes where bogey is likely (hard 3s or 3.5) but a 3 is possible. These holes are either hard 3s or easy 4s.

What’s the point in designing a hole that falls below par or over par? It creates excitement off the tee. You get that birdie rush and you get that tough hole rush rather than the standard I get a 3 every time no matter what I do off the tee.

Here are five examples of holes that average 3.0 with a variety of scoring distributions. It must be noted that when examining any hole’s scoring distributions, particularly when comparing one hole to another or one course to another, the data pool need be from a sample that is representative of a defined population, preferably under tournament conditions without freak weather events. There may be more way than one to do this, but I will use a group with an average player rating that matches the color designation, i.e. white = 900, blue = 950, or gold = 1000. I would never use the “most guys that I know” or the “scores entered on disc golf course review” methods.

With all that said, this first example is the one which Optidisc objects to, rightly so:

http://waydowndisc.com/example1.jpg

The next three examples provide symmetric spreads, with varying steepness. The first example with equal percentages of birdies, pars, and bogeys would almost never happen. Either of the other two “could” represent good disc golf holes. I say “could” because other factors such as safety, fairness, aesthetics, etc. could still be bad.

http://waydowndisc.com/example2.jpg

http://waydowndisc.com/example3.jpg

http://waydowndisc.com/example4.jpg

This last example presents an asymmetric distribution, possibly from an island green type hole:

http://waydowndisc.com/example6.jpg

The point of this post is that having the average score alone for a hole, without additional information, says absolutely nothing about the scoring distribution of a hole.

[DavidSauls]

Type faster, Denny.

[Cgkdisc]

You're all too slow. ;) See my post #39. Skill versus luck elements are required to produce a nice scoring distribution. A 50/50 score split isn't okay if a "coin flip" design element is what produces the split.

[denny ritner]

Type faster, Denny.

sorry, i'm only an aspiring nerd. i'll admit to not having read the entire thread.

[DavidSauls]

sorry, i'm only an aspiring nerd. i'll admit to not having read the entire thread.

I had, and waited days for someone to point out that 3.0 doesn't mean all 3s. If I'd have waited 5 minutes longer I could have saved myself the essay.

If someone said it before I missed it. Perhaps Chuck's #39 said it, but in a language beyond my poor comprehension.

[Dave242]

You're all too slow. ;) See my post #39. Skill versus luck elements are required to produce a nice scoring distribution. A 50/50 score split isn't okay if a "coin flip" design element is what produces the split.

But, to take this one step further, we need to be clear how we determine what is truly random luck and what it not.

Take a very narrow hole for instance. Get a good number of similarly rated players to throw it multiple times (players at a level the course is designed for). Say that 50% of all throws get through the gap and 50% do not. Coin flip?

Many would say yes (I have seen Chuck, John Houck & Steve West say things along these lines)......but more analysis needs to be done before you can be sure it is truly random and therefore not a fair test of skill.

What needs to happen next is that players who had a much higher success rate than 50% (say >70%) have at it again. If those players again succeed in hitting the gap a high percentage of the time this indicates that this hole is effectively measuring the disc golf skill of accuracy. (Same thing could be done with length or curving fairways).

[Cgkdisc]

An example of a lucky design element that might produce a 50/50 split is an easily reachable hole, relatively open with OB only 5-10 feet behind the pin where going OB results in a mostly automatic circle 3. Not really a skillful way to split scores.

[DavidSauls]

You don't need a definition of "lucky". Just ask me. I know it when I see it.

[Dave242]

An example of a lucky design element that might produce a 50/50 split is an easily reachable hole, relatively open with OB only 5-10 feet behind the pin where going OB results in a mostly automatic circle 3. Not really a skillful way to split scores.

Just playing devil's advocate here since I do not like this sort of thing generally either, but that is not necessarily leaving scoring spread to luck. It rewards people who have the disc golf skill of controlling the length of their drives and/or assessing risk appropriately when going for a long putt.

Now, if the ground around the target were rough and inclined steeply towards OB, that would tend much more to luck since it is impossible to chose which root or rock to hit/miss from even 30' away.

[Steve West]

Let me clarify: My throwing data tells me nothing about WHICH players will make it through a gap. If my model says "50% of the field will make it", that could be the same players every time (totally "fair") or it could be a coin flip, if there is no tendency for certain players to hit the gap more often.

Which brings me to my definition of "fair": A low Scoring Spread for the scores that a player gets when he plays the hole repeatedly.

To explain that, go back to my definition of Scoring Spread, which is the quantification of how well a hole spreads out scores. For example, here are the Scoring Spreads of the distributions in the examples above. (Somebody teach me how to do a table.)
http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/images/SStable.jpg

Those Scoring Spreads are essentially how many different scores a hole assigns.

If you let a player play the hole several times, and recorded which scores that player got each time, you might get a similar distribution. Or, that player could get the same score every time.

If a hole truly separated players by some underlying, unvarying thing called "skill", then every individual player's Scoring Spread would be 1.

If a hole was all luck, then every individual player's Scoring Spread would be the same as the Scoring Spread across the field.

If we plot Field Scoring Spread vs. average Individual Scoring Spread, we can see which holes do better at separating players, and which holes use luck to do it. Holes that separate better for the same level of luck, or holes that use less luck to separate as well, would be "better".

Notice that many people do not like a hole that gives the same score to the same player every time ("Boring"). So, this means the ideal level of luck in a hole is not none, even though they say they want a hole with no luck.

Fortunately, the level of luck in disc golf is so high that the attempt to eliminate all luck from holes is moving us in the same direction as attempting to eliminate just enough luck from holes.

[denny ritner]

good point, dave. i'd argue that before we can define what's lucky, we'd need to create a system of defining the variance within shots of "equal" quality. of course, this variance would decrease as skill level increases.

for instance, two 400 ft. shots are thrown into a basket. one hits dead-center and sticks and the other hits three inches left and three inches high and spits. some would argue that the ace was a "perfect" shot and the spit was not. i would argue, though, that both shots were exactly the same, in terms of quality and the difference was due to factors other than shot quality.

at the other end of the spectrum, take two 150 lay-up shots. one curls under the basket and the other ends up 22 ft. away, short and right. obviously these two shots are not of the same quality.

now take a perfectly straight hole with a fairway with a pinch point of width, w and divide the hole into x shot quality gradiations. a certain number of those shots would go into the woods on either shot and be punished more or less equally, while a certain number of the shots would make the gap cleanly.

the randomness would come in on the shots of a certain quality that either hit a tree dead on, take a big re-direct off one side or the other, take a minor re-direct off one side or the other, or just barely miss a tree. the extent to which shots of equal quality contribute to different scoring results is due to course randomness.

[Dave242]

You don't need a definition of "lucky". Just ask me. I know it when I see it.

Totally agree that with careful observation a good sense of intuition can be developed on this. I'd like to think I have developed some of this for 920-1000 rated males, but am not nearly as confident for all other demographics.

But it does take paying attention to quite a bit to develop this sort of intuition.....and if discussions like this turn a light-bulb on in the mind of an aspiring course designer, then I am quite happy!

[denny ritner]

You don't need a definition of "lucky". Just ask me. I know it when I see it.

http://www.vescen.com/PracticalPSM/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Potter-Stewart-Official-Portrait-crop-v31.jpg

[Dave242]

Thanks for the clarification Steve. Good stuff. In retrospect I regret "calling you out" (and Chuck & John) if that makes it seem like I think I have a better grasp on this stuff than you do (I don't)....and not that you felt this way. But, I do like to develop ideas and spur discussion so pardon my manipulation.

[Dave242]

If a hole truly separated players by some underlying, unvarying thing called "skill", then every individual player's Scoring Spread would be 1.

I do disagree with this as I think this is overstating that having high skill does not correlate exactly with having a high level of consistency in apply that skill (which for whatever reason in this sentence you call "unvarying"). The best bowlers do not always score 300 nor do the best free-throw shooters in basketball make 100% of them.

[DavidSauls]

Steve, that's interesting but assumes players of a given skill throw the same every time. My score on a given hole, even one with very little luck factor, varies because I don't throw the same every time.

My personal criteria for a good hole is something like, "When I step on the tee I should be in doubt as to what score I'll get, and that doubt should not be based primarily on luck".

"Primarily" is the key word because I think it neither possible nor desirable to eliminate luck as a factor. I just don't want to it be the main factor.

[optidiscic]

Throw away the math of scoring averages. I'm talking about when designing a hole it's best to make it a very possible 2. That being a 2 with a realistic ideal drive and putt. This is better than the typical three which is realistic ideal drive, approach and putt. One example the 3 is a disappointment. The other a three is expected. Same goes for the hard 3. A 4 is a disappointment because a 3 is very possible.
Often the approach saves the bad drive on a standard par 3. On an easy 3 you lost a stroke cause you couldve birdied.

Standard par 3
380 ft in a field some guardian trees. Most will drive and be an upshot away from putt. A bad drive is usually not penalized as an upshot save par is not difficult.
Easy par 3
280 ft in a field some guardian trees most players should be able to drive to the basket but a bad drive is suddenly punished as your possible 2 is now a disappointing 3.
Hard par 3
480 ft across a field with some guardian trees. 3 is possible but requires either a monster drive or a precise 150+ upshot to get a par. Most can do this but doing it everytime is tough. A 4 feels bad here and a 3 is an earned reward.

The easy 3 and hard 3 in design are scoffed at by many scientiffic designers but make for more interesting disc golf.
The holy Grail would be a hole that is bogeyed as much as birdied and par as much as both. The spread for 80 players in a tourney would be 20 2s 40 3s and 20 4s. I think my concept with some added oob or punishment would garner those more probably than the standard 3.
The above examples assume 280-350 of distance which is where most disc golfers are in distance.
Easy par 3

[grodney]

Standard par 3
380 ft in a field some guardian trees. Most will drive and be an upshot away from putt. A bad drive is usually not penalized as an upshot save par is not difficult.
Easy par 3
280 ft in a field some guardian trees most players should be able to drive to the basket but a bad drive is suddenly punished as your possible 2 is now a disappointing 3.
Hard par 3
480 ft across a field with some guardian trees. 3 is possible but requires either a monster drive or a precise 150+ upshot to get a par. Most can do this but doing it everytime is tough. A 4 feels bad here and a 3 is an earned reward.

The easy 3 and hard 3 in design are scoffed at by many scientiffic designers but make for more interesting disc golf.


I said it on page 1, and I'll say it again: I don't think you understand.

Above, your:
Standard Par 3 - Bad hole.

Easy Par 3 - Not a bad hole. Throw in some a little longer, and some a little shorter, and over a number of such holes the best and most consistent players will separate themselves.

Hard Par 3 - On the short side for your stated 280-350 thrower, but probably okay. But this is a 2-shot hole (par 4), not a 1-shot (par 3) hole.

[denny ritner]

It sounds like you're describing holes designed at the white level. Your hard 3 sounds like a short/medium white level par 4.

Just nit-picking, but I think you're way off on this, though:


The above examples assume 280-350 of distance which is where most disc golfers are in distance.

Most disc golfers drive less than 250 ft. Most disc golfers don't play tournaments, have 4 or less discs, and don't post on disc golf discussion boards.

[Dave242]

Hard par 3
480 ft across a field with some guardian trees. 3 is possible but requires either a monster drive or a precise 150+ upshot to get a par. Most can do this but doing it everytime is tough. A 4 feels bad here and a 3 is an earned reward.

The easy 3 and hard 3 in design are scoffed at by many scientiffic designers but make for more interesting disc golf.

I am assuming you are talking about these holes and their appropriateness for Blue level players (935-975 rated). For a White level player, this "Hard par 3" is a decent albeit boring par 4, and for Red it is a hard albeit boring par 4.

I have said this before and will say it again about this "Hard Par 4" for Blue, very very very few will get a 2 on this but a decent number of players will take a 4 due to screwing up their upshot. A very high percentage of the players who get a 4 will be in the 925-935 rating range (low Blue) and a very low percentage of the players who get a 4 will be in the 960-970 range (high Blue).

So, in tournament play this hole does almost nothing to help the course (and the TD) determine the winner of the Advanced division.

Since the way things are often done now, all divisions will be playing the same course and same tees......and for men's Open, Intermediate and Recreational this hole is at least somewhat appropriate (albeit boring) in helping to crown the best player of the event.

So, there is a place for this sort of hole in the run-of-mill-one-size-fits-all sort of course (that there are way too many of).

[grodney]

By the way, check out holes 1-3 in the ParMaker3000, as I've tailored them to your examples, and using drive lengths of 300 to 350.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmDt3ts8a8dLdDk3di1ydWM0OUdGQ2Q1T3VtWHVWc kE

[Cgkdisc]

The scoring average for a hole shifts about 0.33 higher for every 50 points lower the average rating of the players playing it. So, for this same relatively open hole:
Gold: 2.7 Great, easy par 3
Blue: 3.0 Weak, mostly 3s, par 3
White: 3.3 Good inverted spread, tough par 3
Red: 3.7 Great, easy par 4

[atl scott]

Since the way things are often done now, all divisions will be playing the same course and same tees......and for men's Open, Intermediate and Recreational this hole is at least somewhat appropriate (albeit boring) in helping to crown the best player of the event.

So, there is a place for this sort of hole in the run-of-mill-one-size-fits-all sort of course (that there are way too many of).

Interesting and valid point, I think. I have thought the same kind of thing on some holes at some courses but didn't quite know how to put it into words.

[denny ritner]

The scoring average for a hole shifts about 0.33 higher for every 50 points lower the average rating of the players playing it. So, for this same relatively open hole:
Gold: 2.7 Great, easy par 3
Blue: 3.0 Weak, mostly 3s, par 3
White: 3.3 Good inverted spread, tough par 3
Red: 3.7 Great, easy par 4

I agree on Blue, White, and Red, but how would a hole like that be "great" for Gold. "Relatively open", "easy par 3" implies to me almost no bogeys, so about 70% pars and 30% birdies, that's a snoozer drive and putt hole.

[optidiscic]

I knew you would all pick on my example and ignore my point.
Internet discussions frustrate me.
Try this.
You step up to a hole. You have birdied this hole many times before. A sense of excitement is present as you have a chance to go under par. If you don't birdie you feel like you should have. You had a sense of thrill on the tee pad.
Vs
you step up to the tee. You almost always par this hole. Your best drive requires a long putt to birdie and your worst drive is still a routine approach to save par. There is no thrill off the tee. No probable thrill to the hole.
Luck is not a factor in any of this it's all about execution.
You step up to a tee. You can par this hole if you play it right. You have to hit that gap and approach and get your par. If you four here it is a letdown after all a three was possible.

[Karl]

Not that I personally advocate the 'certain tees for certain "abilities" concept' but to use Chuck's example of that GOLD = 2.7, any hole that has a 70% par / 30% birdie outcome...
Times 18 holes in a round,
Times 2 rounds in a day,
Combined with the normal variability of "who's hot, who's not",
...WILL provide all the "scoring spread" you'll need - to determine who is the best player that day. Even if you have 18 such holes! Look at the scoring spread of the PGA. I'm guessing it's a lot tighter than that of a "bad hole" (read: "boring") yielding 30%-other-than-par scores.

And as CK (among others) has mentioned (maybe here, def on other threads), as long as putting (and I'll add, shortish approaches) is as "easy" as it is in our game, the scoring spread(s) will never be what we wish them to be.

Karl

[Karl]

Opti,

In your scenario, it looks like there isn't enough "crap" in the way (either early or near the pin) so that even with your "worst drive" you can still get a par - normally.

Karl

[Cgkdisc]

Denny Ritner - I agree on Blue, White, and Red, but how would a hole like that be "great" for Gold. "Relatively open", "easy par 3" implies to me almost no bogeys, so about 70% pars and 30% birdies, that's a snoozer drive and putt hole.
It's "great" for a relatively open hole, in fact, as good of a spread as you're likely to get on a relatively open hole unless it has landing hazards of some sort. That doesn't mean a wooded hole that averages 3.0 with 25% birdies and 25% bogeys isn't "greater."

[optidiscic]

Karl I agree and I prefer interesting difficult greens.
Most of the scoring spreads in our game comes down to putting (generalization but I think gold pros make every putt within 30 feet) so I try to assume the goal is to get to the 10m circle as a design principle. One ideal throw to the circle is an easy par 3. One ideal throw and an approach to the circle is a hard par 3.
I try not to get bogged down with avgs due to the variances in putting across levels.

[Dave242]

The scoring average for a hole shifts about 0.33 higher for every 50 points lower the average rating of the players playing it. So, for this same relatively open hole:
Gold: 2.7 Great, easy par 3
Blue: 3.0 Weak, mostly 3s, par 3
White: 3.3 Good inverted spread, tough par 3
Red: 3.7 Great, easy par 4


Oh, OK. I see I was a little off on my guestimation.....I was going by this chart from the PDGA.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20733&stc=1&d=1326908130

[optidiscic]

Opti,

In your scenario, it looks like there isn't enough "crap" in the way (either early or near the pin) so that even with your "worst drive" you can still get a par - normally.

Karl

I gave a weak example. I believe in gaps. Punishing OOB for over aggressive play. Well guarded baskets. Trouble off the tee etc. I used the distance example cause I was lazy and didn't want to explain all the other factors that add challenge.
In short I think of design as the number of realistic IDEAL throws to the 10m circle. My concept of easy par and hard par come from this 1 throw is an easy par 3 and 2 throws is a hard par 3. I ignore the water the trees the elevated basket the guardian trees etc as I am thinking in ideal throws and well executed landings.

[denny ritner]

the scoring spread(s) will never be what we wish them to be.

Not true. I did it for Gold level players on The Red Hawk used for the Players Cup 2005-2009. I've done it on the Blue level Magnolia that hosted the women-only tournament La Vie en Rose in 2009-2010.

I'm sure Chuck and others have other anecdotal evidence that this can, and does, happen.

Most disc golf courses were designed and installed prior to these concepts being given much critical consideration. The times have changed, though, and there are more and more designers that are learning and implementing these concepts in new designs and re-designs of existing courses.

A lot of credit goes to the Course Designers Group and the resources that they've developed that serve as great learning and designing tools on this topic and others.

[optidiscic]

I would not be so hard on older course designs. I think they are typically being outdated due to technology and not due to weak design or the fact that they did not have the Course designers group to tell them what to do..lol

[Steve West]

I do disagree with this as I think this is overstating that having high skill does not correlate exactly with having a high level of consistency in apply that skill (which for whatever reason in this sentence you call "unvarying"). The best bowlers do not always score 300 nor do the best free-throw shooters in basketball make 100% of them.

Nothing I said had anything to do with increased skill = increased consistency. I was just defining the least "lucky" hole as one that gives the same player the same score every time. It could give a bad player the same high score every day.

Steve, that's interesting but assumes players of a given skill throw the same every time.

Not quite, but I see your point. Talking about an absolutely luck-free hole muddles the discussion, because it is beyond what is possible. It may be better to talk about holes with low luck. These would be holes where players know what score they expect to get. The less luck, the more certain a player is about his score. With my definition of no luck, the player knows for certain what he will get every time.

My score on a given hole, even one with very little luck factor, varies because I don't throw the same every time.

Luck is just what we label the parameters we can't measure. To me, that includes the mysterious reasons we don't throw the same every time. Or, the reasons the same throw doesn't do the same thing every time.

It sounds like you think of "luck" as just a subset of the factors we can't measure (perhaps everything that happens after you release?). There is no way to see that in the data, so it cannot be quantified. I'm seeking a quantification of what we mean by "lucky hole".

I have said this before and will say it again about this "Hard Par 4" for Blue, very very very few will get a 2 on this but a decent number of players will take a 4 due to screwing up their upshot. A very high percentage of the players who get a 4 will be in the 925-935 rating range (low Blue) and a very low percentage of the players who get a 4 will be in the 960-970 range (high Blue).

So, in tournament play this hole does almost nothing to help the course (and the TD) determine the winner of the Advanced division.

I don't think that is true. It is a misperception based on the observation that the separation among the lower two-thirds of the field is cased mainly by the high scores on each hole. By misguided inference, some believe that high scores on a hole do not separate the top third of the field.

The avoidance of higher scores is as important as getting lower scores for separating the best from the next-best. Take some tournament results, replace all the bogeys and up with par, and you'll see that there is less variation among the top finishers. Just as there would be if you replaced all the birdies with par.

[optidiscic]

I don't think that is true. It is a misperception based on the observation that the separation among the lower two-thirds of the field is cased mainly by the high scores on each hole. By misguided inference, some believe that high scores on a hole do not separate the top third of the field.

The avoidance of higher scores is as important as getting lower scores for separating the best from the next-best. Take some tournament results, replace all the bogeys and up with par, and you'll see that there is less variation among the top finishers. Just as there would be if you replaced all the birdies with par.

This is what I am trying to explain...thank you Steve

[Dave242]

I would not be so hard on older course designs. I think they are typically being outdated due to technology and not due to weak design or the fact that they did not have the Course designers group to tell them what to do..lol

It is not necessarily being hard on old course designs, it is being hard on courses that try to be all things to all people......and by doing so have only half their holes being great for any given person.

I just played Denny's Magnolia course and rated/reviewed it. I am a mid level Blue player and that course was designed centering right around my skill level - with a couple holes too long for me to ever hope to reach (an Opti style hole :D), a couple holes that I would rarely go for in tournament play (but could birdie probably 25% of the time), and a handful of easier holes.....but most right in my wheelhouse of fun/challenge/reward/euphoria.

I tried hard to keep my grade at a 95 so it would be an A grade = 4.5 DGCR discs. This is due to it being a flat course, no water, and very little variation from a very wooded feel....and not over the top beautiful (but still very nice). But to be consistent/honest I had to rate it 96.....which on my scale is an A+ = 5.0 discs.

This was largely due to the incredible high I got from start to finish due to a design that properly fit me. There is just no way possible that a course that was designed with a little bit for everyone could possibly deliver the same experience......and Flyboy was that sort of course to me, since even with 27 holes too much of the course was ho-hum in fun/challenge/reward/euphoria.

[denny ritner]

thanks, dave. i'd send you a check, but i cleaned out my account contributing to the stephen colbert superPAC.

[Dave242]

I don't think that is true. It is a misperception based on the observation that the separation among the lower two-thirds of the field is cased mainly by the high scores on each hole. By misguided inference, some believe that high scores on a hole do not separate the top third of the field.

The avoidance of higher scores is as important as getting lower scores for separating the best from the next-best. Take some tournament results, replace all the bogeys and up with par, and you'll see that there is less variation among the top finishers. Just as there would be if you replaced all the birdies with par.

How is it a misperception that on a hole that provides very low scoring separation (that's what we are talking about here), the higher scores will be disproportionately earned by the less skilled players in a skill group? They are the ones that will shank their drives and short their upshots much more frequently than their higher rated competitors

[optidiscic]

I think it's possible to design holes that are interesting and competitive across all skill levels. It's not that difficult.
For example
A hole across an open field with a basket sitting 365 feet away.....but in front of a stream or dense woods or a cliff or a pond or some combination of these.
The AMs will not fear the trouble deep on this hole and will all out drive and approach putt (danger on approach)
The Pros will not be intimidated by the distance but will need to have a placement drive to avoid trouble on their drive landing.....skips off the cliff into the pond behind the trees or into the stream will garner a bogey 4 instead of a birdie.

A hole with 2 options a tight lane to the basket and a safer route
AMs will feel the tight lane is a sucker route and play the safer route and take a 3
Pros will see the tight lane as doable and take the chance for the possible birdie

any fairway through the woods with a bend beyond the comfort zone of most AMs
AMs will see the bend as a landing area and try to land it just right and then take an upshot 3
Pros will see it as a dogleg drive and attempt to bend a shot around the shot and have a 2 look

These holes are all easier 3s for the pro and harder 3s for the Am....to say a course cannot be good for different skill levels is a common misperception. Scores might be lower for pros but that doesnt mean the hole was not challenging or interesting or did not allow for scoring variance amongst that skill level.

This is all without developing harder greens which further separates the Pros from the Ams

[atl scott]

A hole with 2 options a tight lane to the basket and a safer route
AMs will feel the tight lane is a sucker route and play the safer route and take a 3
Pros will see the tight lane as doable and take the chance for the possible birdie

You've definitely got these backwards. The ams are the suckers who try for the birdies and the pros are the ones who know how to play smart and take 3's on holes like this (that pros usually don't like).

[optidiscic]

You've definitely got these backwards. The ams are the suckers who try for the birdies and the pros are the ones who know how to play smart and take 3's on holes like this (that pros usually don't like).

No pros will see that route and actually be able to execute it

I get your point...but it is not the type of hole I am describing....we all have had that moment when a formerly impossible line suddenly became a possible line...this is much different than the sightline that doesnt really do any good for improving your score

[Karl]

Opti,

Your...
"I think it's possible to design holes that are interesting and competitive across all skill levels."
...I agree with you.
But it's blasphemy with lots of designers here...I believe Chuck, et al included. They are steadfast in their design for a specific "level" of play (their gold, blue, white, etc.).

Without going into a BIG tangent (to this thread) - which this would turn into and I don't have the time right now - I'll just say that I've seen 975 players (oh, what do you call these players? GOBLUE or BLUOLD? :thmbdown: :( ) that 1 can putts light out and can't throw 320 feet and others that can throw 480 feet but is accuracy-deprived. And to think that a "blue course" will satisfy both even remotely equally isn't happening. Horses for courses and not all of 1 "level" are equal in all aspects.

"OK, throw your stones now everyone else!!!" :D

Karl

[denny ritner]

I'll bite on your BIG tangent. (did that sound naughty?)

Without going into a BIG tangent (to this thread) - which this would turn into and I don't have the time right now - I'll just say that I've seen 975 players (oh, what do you call these players? GOBLUE or BLUOLD? :thmbdown: :( ) that 1 can putts light out and can't throw 320 feet and others that can throw 480 feet but is accuracy-deprived. And to think that a "blue course" will satisfy both even remotely equally isn't happening. Horses for courses and not all of 1 "level" are equal in all aspects.

I agree with your premise. There are lots of "blue" players that can throw far and tap in 15 footers, but can't shape shots, scramble, hit lines, throw low, throw rollers, etc. IMO, these players aren't really true blue, they're really white level players with a lot of power that play courses that cater to their games. These types of players will get smoked on the Magnolia Blues :)

On the other hand are those with max D of less than 300 ft. that can thread the needles on short, tight courses, escape, and putt. If they only play and compete on courses in their wheelhouses, then they aren't really true blue, either.

Point being that courses need to be truly "balanced", complete challenges. The term balanced is thrown around alot, but too many think in terms of the old "6 rights, 6 lefts, and 6 straights" makes for a balanced course.

I've suggested previously that I'd love to see players and courses be rated with a matrix approach that has a power component and an accuracy component. (I do realize that represents a huge undertaking.)

[optidiscic]

Denny brings up the regional pro who dominates his home course but never travels or goes to a course that he is uncomfortable on.

Speaking of uncomfortable.....thats what I think one should be on every shot. The tee shot should be with enough risk to your score either a birdie 2 or an earned three that you are uncomfortable. If you are not feeling uncomfortable I'd think its a weak hole. Why would you be comfortable. Because the hole is a routine 3 that most get a 3 on regardless of performance.

I also think putts should be a little uncomfortable...either obstacles, raised, or OOB/dropoff lurking nearby. Whats nice is dangerous greens help to mitigate the bombers scores by forcing them to drive with trepidation. The rest of us will upshot with trepidation.
It's a fine balance though and I believe a few holes should reward the bombers amongst us with distance and wind being the only real obstacle.

Back on topic.....The best holes out there give the player a chance for birdie every time they play it.....they also give a chance for bogey. I think the disdain for the deuce or die hole mentality (although it made sense at the time) misguided many players and designers into creating longer blander holes that turned into parfests. I have seen many bland par 4s and bland 3s. I think the higher the chance to birdie or the higher the chance to bogey the better. If you can get both a chance to birdie and bogey and still have the hole play fair I think you have the perfect hole.

[Cgkdisc]

Many a good 1995 hole has been ruined (reduced scoring spread) by lengthening it under the assumption that players are throwing farther and holes need to be longer. Yes, they are throwing farther but not more accurately. A good hole with a 2.7 average can still be a good hole with a 2.7 average for that same skill level without lengthening it. You add 60 feet and the scoring average will go up to 2.9 with a butt load more 3s even though a higher percentage of people can now throw that far. They're still no better at parking the hole for a deuce. The wider rim discs are harder to throw with control and they skip more than older school discs which is my theory for why older hole designs that were good in '95 can still be good today.

[optidiscic]

Many a good 1995 hole has been ruined (reduced scoring spread) by lengthening it under the assumption that players are throwing farther and holes need to be longer. Yes, they are throwing farther but not more accurately. A good hole with a 2.7 average can still be a good hole with a 2.7 average for that same skill level without lengthening it. You add 60 feet and the scoring average will go up to 2.9 with a butt load more 3s even though a higher percentage of people can now throw that far. They're still no better at parking the hole for a deuce. The wider rim discs are harder to throw with control and they skip more than older school discs which is my theory for why older hole designs that were good in '95 can still be good today.

amen

[optidiscic]

"I think it's possible to design holes that are interesting and competitive across all skill levels."
...I agree with you.
But it's blasphemy with lots of designers here.

thanks for the open mind
Little Lehigh Parkway 16
Nockamixon 6
Tinicum 12
Jordan 13
come to mind as holes that a pro and an am might both enjoy for different reasons (trouble long that most AMs cant reach)
Little Lehigh 17
Nockamixon 18
Jordan 11
Far away doglegs that pros can reach to bend
South Mtn 6
Nockamixon 7
alternate pro routes either super tight or over the top

just to mention a few

[Karl]

To me the biggest "problem", if you call it that, with the older courses (especially the wooded ones) is that they were designed well...but, over time (due to attrition), lost a lot of their key trees...and thus have become "blander", more open, less of a challenge, etc. A bummer but true. Rutgers is just 1 such example; Mt. Kisco (Leanard Park) another.

Karl

[Cgkdisc]

Good wooded holes with good scoring spread (three or even four scores with decent pecentages) for one skill level will likely play well for the other three skill levels. The hole will simply move from an average par X to hard par X to easy par Y to average par Y for progressive levels. However, the more open holes with primarily two scores for a skill level may only be "good" for one or two levels as in the example I gave earlier. In addition, if you design a well balanced gold level course that is a legit par 65, all of the holes may individually play really well for Red level players. However, their par for the holes would be around 83, maybe including a few par 6s. Pretty brutal. And maybe just one or two of the Gold level par 3s would be reachable. Not much fun.

[optidiscic]

To me the biggest "problem", if you call it that, with the older courses (especially the wooded ones) is that they were designed well...but, over time (due to attrition), lost a lot of their key trees...and thus have become "blander", more open, less of a challenge, etc. A bummer but true. Rutgers is just 1 such example; Mt. Kisco (Leanard Park) another.

Karl

I Imagine this to be true with many of the technical courses...good point....those punishing woods become more forgiving and that critical tree dies or falls

[optidiscic]

So chuck loooking at the pdga parometer do you favor holes on the bubble or holes dead center.
I'm talking about the distance to foliage ratio chart. There are other factors that contribute to a holes difficulty. But you seem to like the off center pars like me.

[Cgkdisc]

Just like Steve West, the more scores in the spread the better, if the spread is produced by "fair" design elements. If there are at least three scores with percentages over 15%, then hitting an exact par average is preferred or a little under. If only two scores each have over 30%, then an average around X.6-X.8 range is preferred. But hole averages in the X.2-X.4 have their place in the mix for a whole course so there's some balance in hole challenges.

[denny ritner]

Just like Steve West, the more scores in the spread the better, if the spread is produced by "fair" design elements. If there are at least three scores with percentages over 15%, then hitting an exact par is preferred or a little less. If only two scores each have over 30%, then an average around X.6-X.8 is preferred.

I agree with most of what you say, Chuck, but I continue to struggle with the "hitting an exact par is preferred or a little less". Why not, a little less or a little more? I make my overall course goal to have even par be very close to 1000 for a gold course, 950 for blue, etc, and I've been successful achieving that goal. In order to make that happen, some holes have to average over par to balance the ones that average under par. I think that scores in the X.7 to (X+1).3 range, for the desired skill set, with at least 3 scores over 10% are desired.

[Steve West]

How is it a misperception that on a hole that provides very low scoring separation (that's what we are talking about here), the higher scores will be disproportionately earned by the less skilled players in a skill group? They are the ones that will shank their drives and short their upshots much more frequently than their higher rated competitors

Of course higher scores will be disproportionately earned by the less skilled players - no matter what the hole design. That's the definition of "less skilled" isn't it? [Which is why it is impossible to design an "unfair" hole. But that's another tangent.] I didn't say otherwise.

What I'm saying is that even among the top third of the group, the bogies can play as important a role in ranking players as the birdies do.

[Cgkdisc]

@ Denny
The main reason for the bias toward averages under par versus over par is one important factor that seems to be overlooked with all the math being thrown around > FUN. All other things equal, a hole with 30% 2s and 70% 3s is likely more fun than one with 70% 3s and 30% 4s. Likewise, a hole with 40% 2s, 40% 3s and 20% 4s is going to be more fun than one with 20% 2s, 40% 3s and 40% 4s. Shooting for birdies versus trying to prevent bogeys on balance is more fun. Shooting an overall round that is under correct par for your skill level is more fun than shooting exact par overall.

[Karl]

Which brings up the point of having to stress again probably the most important aspect (IMO) of designing a course...besides "safety first"...and that is "Know thy customer"!

Knowing WHAT that course's purpose is is paramount. Is it to challenge the greatest players in the world? To provide 6-12 y.o.'s gym class exercise / fun? To accommodate A.D.A. personnel? To me, knowing this before you even start mapping out holes (once you've figured out the max. land available for use), and sticking to it, will yield a good (if not great) course FOR THAT AUDIENCE. It's usually the designer who starts with 1 initial idea and then gets swayed into morphs of that original idea who ends up with a so-so course. And IMO this aspect is more important than trying to design it for some " specific level of playing "ability" ".

Karl

[denny ritner]

chuck, thanks for the reply. i understand what you're saying and agree to disagree. (minor difference, really)

it still boggles my mind when i hear these kids today saying how they have 4.5 gpa's. i ask them "isn't 4 the highest?", to which they respond, "i get .2 extra for being in honors courses, .1 extra for being a cheerleader, .1 extra for being good-looking, and .1 extra for having my parents on the PTO."

[denny ritner]

Which brings up the point of having to stress again probably the most important aspect (IMO) of designing a course...besides "safety first"...and that is "Know thy customer"!

Knowing WHAT that course's purpose is is paramount. Is it to challenge the greatest players in the world? To provide 6-12 y.o.'s gym class exercise / fun? To accommodate A.D.A. personnel? To me, knowing this before you even start mapping out holes (once you've figured out the max. land available for use), and sticking to it, will yield a good (if not great) course FOR THAT AUDIENCE. It's usually the designer who starts with 1 initial idea and then gets swayed into morphs of that original idea who ends up with a so-so course. And IMO this aspect is more important than trying to design it for some " specific level of playing "ability".

YES, KARL! that's what we're advocating for. i think it's just a matter of semantics; in my mind "know thy customer" = "design it for some specific level of playing ability".

[Lewis]

Is "par" supposed to describe an average player's typical score or an expert player's typical score?

[Cgkdisc]

Par is set for an expert of the player skill level the set of tees is designed for, just like ball golf. The "expert" in the ball golf lingo means "expert for the skill level" not necessarily "expert" in the sport overall.

[magictenor1]

I knew you would all pick on my example and ignore my point.
Internet discussions frustrate me.
Try this.
You step up to a hole. You have birdied this hole many times before. A sense of excitement is present as you have a chance to go under par. If you don't birdie you feel like you should have. You had a sense of thrill on the tee pad.
Vs
you step up to the tee. You almost always par this hole. Your best drive requires a long putt to birdie and your worst drive is still a routine approach to save par. There is no thrill off the tee. No probable thrill to the hole.
Luck is not a factor in any of this it's all about execution.
You step up to a tee. You can par this hole if you play it right. You have to hit that gap and approach and get your par. If you four here it is a letdown after all a three was possible.I like your philosophy of hard and easy par 3's. One of the most boring courses I ever played had every hole in your second category. If I threw a great drive I didn't have a realistic birdie put but a routine par. If I threw a bad drive I had a longer but still relatively easy approach and still made par. all 18 holes-terrible

[Karl]

Denny,

"YES, KARL! that's what we're advocating for. i think it's just a matter of semantics; in my mind "know thy customer" = "design it for some specific level of playing ability"."

I guess it'll have to accept your 'semantics' (def) here as to me the equation you stated is NOT how I think of it (...and I think you know that). A lot of people here equate a "level of playing ability" to ratings. And while a person's "overall ability" MAY be denoted with some number (rating), ALL the abilities one has - over all the facets of dg play - cannot be quantified by ONE (rating) number. As I mentioned / alluded to in a previous post, IMO you can't design a course that fits a 50-point ratings range and expect it will "do justice" to all (or even close to all) within that range...just TOO many variable facets in any 1 person's arsenal.

It's a small point, but a big enough point to allow us to disagree.

Karl

[Cgkdisc]

If it's not clear, average disc golf throwing distance "with accuracy" is the dominant factor in determining skill level (player rating). All other factors including putting skill pale in comparison. Distance is also the dominant factor in ball golf to an even greater extent than DG. So while some play more accurately in the woods than others and some putt better than others, the average golf distance a player can throw establishes the ratings range a player will operate and the set of tees where they are the most effective.

[DavidSauls]

"Hard Threes"
"3.3s"
"Inverse spread"
& various examples

I assume the references are to holes that produce results something like

3 70%
4 30%

(Excluding the outliers, the rare "2" or the blowup "5" or "6")

For myself, I like these holes. I'm not discouraged by the notion that I can't get a "birdie", other than the improbable field ace. I like the challenge of not losing ground on them.

I wouldn't necessarily want play an entire course of them. But I don't want to play an entire course of similar holes, of any kind.

There's an argument that they don't produce enough variance at the top of the division. But we need spread in the battle for last cash and at the bottom, too. And over 4 rounds I suspect they produce some spread at the top, too.

[Cgkdisc]

Castle Hayne appears to be a course with more "Tough 3s" than many courses from all reports. Pros have reported their frustration that they can't score there in terms of separating from the pack and getting really high rated rounds.

[DavidSauls]

Haven't played Castle Hayne yet. Perhaps too many "Hard Threes"? Or perhaps they're more distance-related than hazard-related, and it's a blue course where gold-level players are making those "routine threes"?

[denny ritner]

As I mentioned / alluded to in a previous post, IMO you can't design a course that fits a 50-point ratings range and expect it will "do justice" to all (or even close to all) within that range...just TOO many variable facets in any 1 person's arsenal.

It's a small point, but a big enough point to allow us to disagree.

I do agree to disagree.

I would state that a set of tees designed for a 50-point ratings range "does justice" a lot better than a set of tees designed for a 150-point ratings range or a 300-point ratings range; those being the traditional "all things to all players" courses with one or tee sets of tees.

I write all here frequently that I think that courses need more sets of tees to create designs that are more skill-level-appropriate. In my opinion, 2 tees is always better than 1, 3 tees is usually better than 2, 4 tees could occasionally be better than 3, and 5 tees would almost always be too many.

Point being that to design for an even finer increment than 50-points would require too many tees, create confusion, and be aesthetically unpleasant.

[Karl]

I hear you Denny.

I guess (not totally sure about this myself as I've not REALLY thought tons about it...just numerous pounds worth) I'm more of the "It's OK if JUST a few (not all) of the holes of any 1 course do a better separating job for any 'general ability level' than other holes on that course do". The upside is that it is 1) a mind game for the player knowing that holes x, z, a and d are "key separater holes" and they MUST move on those, and 2) can cover ALL abilities. The downside is that there are perhaps less "separater holes" (for any 1 "general ability level').

Again, it comes down to "what's the "purpose" of that dg course"? We all have a tendency to (at least on MBs) talk with a "tournament bent" on our discussions, i.e. score separation (which is not NEARLY as pertinent for casual players as fun, aethetics, convenience, etc. is). So I'm just stating 'devil's advocate' type stuff here (always good to see differing opinions...).

Scenario (maybe not fun but pressure-packed!):
18 holes of boring except ONE hole (in the middle there somewhere) where you KNOW (and everyone else know too) this is where the difference will be!
Make the difference (in a positive for you way) and YOU WIN! Not...and you don't (with no real chance of alleviating your "lost" situation)! Talk about a lingering death.... It's like sudden death in the middle of a round.
Interesting for a tournament though.

Karl
Ps: After I wrote this I re-read it. Too ugly even for me :o !

[optidiscic]

So Castle Hayne is full of too many hard 3s. Looking at pics it's a bunch of clear fairways in woods with distances that seem to be two controlled drives and then either a 2 putt or a reachable approach and putt. In my logic this is the standard easy four or hard three. It demands a player to execute a 3 in the same manner an easy 3 demands a 2 to separate yourself from the field. I would think these were good holes to see who the better players are as the lesser players will rarely 3 and the better will have a 3 look quite often.
I think the weaker hole is one where 3 is the expected score.
This reminds me of whiny pros at Tyler in pa who got upset whenever a non touring pro scored the same or beat them on a hole. Immediately the course was random or a poor tourney course. If you are 1020 rated you should be a half stroke better than the local 970 pro so in my mind .5 ssa differences are a good thing to separate the field.

[denny ritner]

Again, it comes down to "what's the "purpose" of that dg course"? We all have a tendency to (at least on MBs) talk with a "tournament bent" on our discussions, i.e. score separation (which is not NEARLY as pertinent for casual players as fun, aethetics, convenience, etc. is). So I'm just stating 'devil's advocate' type stuff here (always good to see differing opinions...).

I get ya here. You are right that what really matters to the silent majority of truly recreational disc golfers is different from what matters to the competitive minority.

In my mind, most recreational-only players are only concerned about score, if at all, to the extent that it's relative to their buddies that they play with. What really does matter to them are things like, is the course beautiful, can the course be navigated easily, is the course crackhead and hooker-free, is it easy to find discs, is the rough thinned out so they don't get bloody, are there trashcans, is there a bathroom, are the fairways wide enough that they don't hit a tree on every single shot.

None of this, however, is in conflict with what we're trying to achieve in skill-based design levels.

[optidiscic]

My point regarding castle hayne is that too many good players expect that holes that are easy for them should be hard for lesser players So they think all I have to do is have an avg round and everyone else falls apart. I understand the premise of true pars but in my sick corner of the universe I want the top players to execute great shots to prove they are great. Watching a pro play methodical safe golf as the rest of the field eventually falls apart. Boring to me. I'm in the minority. I just like my holes to be easy enough to give a birdie look or hard enough to risk a bogey. Or both if possible. I'm weird but these courses are also the most thrilling for solo rounds as well.

[Dave242]

"Hard Threes"
"3.3s"
"Inverse spread"
& various examples

I assume the references are to holes that produce results something like

3 70%
4 30%

(Excluding the outliers, the rare "2" or the blowup "5" or "6")

For myself, I like these holes. I'm not discouraged by the notion that I can't get a "birdie", other than the improbable field ace. I like the challenge of not losing ground on them.

I wouldn't necessarily want play an entire course of them. But I don't want to play an entire course of similar holes, of any kind.

These sort of holes will happen to individual players on a few holes per course if designs are done intentionally for a specific skill level....more often for those with less D than that of their skill group, and less often for those with more D.

For a Blue level player, the consensus is that the average D of that skill group is somewhere near 330'. Some people can achieve the 950+ level with only 280' D since they have exceptional consistency, short games and putting. Those people will find lots of these sorts of holes.

If the course is designed with effective hole lengths for the par-3's varying say +/-15% from the average. For Blue that would be 280 - 380'. So, if there are 2-3 of 18 holes at the top end as a shout-out to those with the skill of big D, that would mean that for those with average D and below we have the type of hole you are talking about.

What this idea is of varying lengths around the average D of the skill group means is that you would avoid open* holes of <280' and >380' (+/- 15%). *These distances would get scaled back as fairway widths and shapes dictate.

So, I guess what I am saying to your post (and a point Opti continues to repeat), it is a bad practice to intentionally design long/hard par-3s (say 400-450' for Blue) but that those sort of holes will be there already for the lower end of the skill group anyhow if the course is designed appropriately to test the entire skill group. Of course, playing on a course designed above your level will result in lots of these types of holes too.

[sheaD]

So Castle Hayne is full of too many hard 3s. Looking at pics it's a bunch of clear fairways in woods with distances that seem to be two controlled drives and then either a 2 putt or a reachable approach and putt. In my logic this is the standard easy four or hard three. It demands a player to execute a 3 in the same manner an easy 3 demands a 2 to separate yourself from the field. I would think these were good holes to see who the better players are as the lesser players will rarely 3 and the better will have a 3 look quite often.


Castle Hayne is my home course and in my opinion, it is what optidisc is looking for. Just enough to reward a birdie but also demanding enough to take a bogey for sure. We have true par 4s and 5s and execution is key on many to most of our holes. Put your drive in the right spot and hit your upshot and you can take a 3 on a par 4. However, it demends execution. If you do not place your shots correctly you are staring at par or bogey quick. It really is one of the only courses I've ever played that caters to this style of golf. Hit your gaps, execute well and you are rewarded. Most other courses I can pretty much GO FOR IT on almost every hole. Go for it at the Castle and you will be punished.

[Dave242]

So Castle Hayne is full of too many hard 3s. Looking at pics it's a bunch of clear fairways in woods with distances that seem to be two controlled drives and then either a 2 putt or a reachable approach and putt. In my logic this is the standard easy four or hard three. It demands a player to execute a 3 in the same manner an easy 3 demands a 2 to separate yourself from the field. I would think these were good holes to see who the better players are as the lesser players will rarely 3 and the better will have a 3 look quite often.
I think the weaker hole is one where 3 is the expected score.

I think you nailed this. Granted, it has been over 6 years since I have played there and some things might have gotten easier since then (or harder maybe), but I have several casual rounds there and 8 tournament rounds.....and the tournament rounds I remember discussion on the PDGA forum regarding this weird phenomenon of top scores not getting as high ratings as would seem intuitive.

Castle Hayne on almost all its longer holes limits throws due to fairway shape and width....but it also tempts you to bite off more - and at a significant risk.

A possible theory is that the bigger arms simply cannot endure a round (and much less an entire tournament) without pushing risky shots up the fairway. Since some try but most fail to gain ground by doing so, this suppresses the SSA of the course. So then, for the players that did risk a bunch and actually succeeded to gain strokes there is a combination of euphoria but a counter-balancing effect of a suppressed SSA (along with a lower than normal ratings points per stroke since it is a higher SSA course). Not sure if this makes sense since I kinda typed this up quickly.

Edited: I actually typed this up before SheaD posted, but just got back to my PC and posted this before reading that post. I believe we are saying the same thing