#1  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:03 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 40.4
Courses Played: 190
Posts: 1,362
The Most Powerful Holes in the (Am) World(s)

www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/DGStatTour.pdf

This is either the most boring, soul-less way to drain all the fun out of disc golf, or really cool hyzer-metrics™ that make you drool to learn more.



Depending on who you are.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-12-2014, 01:10 AM
elmexdela elmexdela is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Courses Played: 79
Posts: 2,761
you have a little too much time on your hands mr dubs
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-2014, 01:31 AM
BC Product's Avatar
BC Product BC Product is offline
Bogey Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Years Playing: 6.4
Courses Played: 14
Posts: 84
To me, it is the former; however, I admire the effort you put into the hole by hole analyses. Now, if one could isolate the variables that make a hole well designed vs. poorly designed, one could create a guide for course design. Or maybe I can just look at the pictures of each hole and figure it out myself.

Calling it hyzer-metrics™ does make it sound pretty badass though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-12-2014, 07:03 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/DGStatTour.pdf

This is either the most boring, soul-less way to drain all the fun out of disc golf, or really cool hyzer-metrics™ that make you drool to learn more.



Depending on who you are.
The former, because who I am is someone who never played any of those courses.

I'd switch sides if I had such numbers for courses I know well.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-12-2014, 10:04 AM
Qikly's Avatar
Qikly Qikly is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New Orleans
Years Playing: 2.3
Courses Played: 70
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,627
I think this is very cool! Thanks for sharing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-12-2014, 10:51 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 40.4
Courses Played: 190
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
The former, because who I am is someone who never played any of those courses.

I'd switch sides if I had such numbers for courses I know well.
Gather up some scorecards and make them.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:00 AM
smarkquart smarkquart is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Years Playing: 9.4
Courses Played: 88
Posts: 2,898
The two things I noticed that pertained specifically to me:

1) The hole that I aced during round 1 and almost aced during round 2, effectively meaning that I had this hole dialed in, is no where listed. Basically meaning that I really did not pick up too much on the field but at the same time it was not a complete waste of owning that hole.

2) I noticed how often CP Adams is listed on the least well-designed holes. I am all for 18 hole courses, most being better than not having anything at all. It also could be a factor that with how blessed we are in the Twin Cities to have so many courses that this one is so far from my house that I never play it. However, I am not a fan of this course and was extremely upset that of all the courses we played, this was the one course we had to play twice.

I hate the manufactured OBs and Mandos, yet without them it would be a totally bland course. Forgot the hole, but it was a 500 foot fairly open shot with some mature trees near the end. I understand the need for Mandos because the course WANTS to have numerous 400-500 holes right on top of each other instead of having 300 foot safer holes, but the mandos as they are are poorly placed. I launched a beautiful 410 foot shot that turned just a tad too much. The mando was 400 feet off the tee and I missed it by a foot on the right side. Where I landed was in no way endangering any other fairway and giving me a clean look at the basket for a long two or an easy three. I end up carding a five. Sour grapes? Yes. Still, a poorly placed mando that punished an otherwise great shot that in no way was going to affect any other fairway; at 400 feet, the mando was not meant to shape lines to make it more difficult.

A similar mando at Oakwood existed that did not really need to be in play, but at the same time it was clearly being used as intended; safety. Oakwood 4/18 uses a giant tree on the bottom of the hill, approximately 350 feet for both 4 and 18. The Mando is to protect those who are playing opposite directions, meaning for you to drive to the left of the tree as the other direction is doing the same from the other side. However, because of the frequency of players consistently missing this mando, both directions often waited for the other group to clear out anyway, in effect making the mando unnecessary because the players were being cautious anyway. I barely missed the mando on 4 on another crushed drive, yet again turning a long two or an easy three into a round-wrecking five. I was within a foot or two missing the mando on 18, but now being forced to come back around the tree instead of just going up the hill for another easy three, again adding strokes. Sour grapes again? Yes. This mando easily added three, if not upwards to five, throws to my score. Yet at the same time if the mando was not at Oakwood, you would have had more discs flying at the opposite fairway, possibly creating an accident for the one time a player was not paying attention.

The mandos at CP, while in intent were serving the same purpose, was not affecting play of opposing holes even if you missed them. The poorly placed mandos and OBs easily cost me five throws the first round and three the second. Yes, yes, sour grapes that from unnecessary mandos I could have finished 40 places higher (assuming others were not as greatly affected by mandos as I was), maybe even making the final day (albeit the B group). Yet it is also good to see data that supports my feeling that CP Adams is not a good course, especially for Am Worlds and two rounds.

Would I like to have CP Adams in my backyard? Definitely, the west side of the Cities is sadly void of large courses, especially once Bryant and Elm Creek close for the season. If I was in charge of Am Worlds, would I use CP? Definitely not.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:26 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Gather up some scorecards and make them.
We have, just not on the same scale. And with limited math skills.

For our tournaments I compile hole scores for (1) Open players only and (2) All Pro & Advanced Men. I know this isn't as valid as sorting by player ratings, but it's easier. (1) creates a small sample, but they're more consistent; (2) is the range of skills the course is intended for.

We study the results for averages scores, mean scores, most common scores (and their percentages), and range of scores (eyeballed, since the math is over our heads). Since we have a private course, and holes can be changed, we use this to decide if they're playing as intended, or need to be altered.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:34 AM
Dave242's Avatar
Dave242 Dave242 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake Forest, IL
Years Playing: 20.4
Courses Played: 366
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Gather up some scorecards and make them.
It would be cool if there was a spreadsheet or web-based tool into which one could just enter scorecards and have all the fancy calculations pre-configured.

This is good stuff! I plan to spend some time looking at your numbers and hole diagrams.

Another next step I think would be cool is to take your best and worst identified holes and do a video tutorial of why each hole is good or bad scoringwise and provide explanations as to why....and suggestions to fix the bad ones. This would be be a good resource for designers on how to provide/avoid design elements that lead to good holes for the competitive sport of disc golf.
Reply With Quote
 

  #10  
Old 10-12-2014, 01:46 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 40.4
Courses Played: 190
Posts: 1,362
Smarkquart, CP12, the hole you aced is listed as the hole that would have had the smallest average effect on the scoring spread of total scores over many simulated tournaments of 72 randomly selected players. It was the “weakest” hole.

However, looked at by itself, It had good measures. It also ranked 10th in Correlation to Tournament Scores. Even the 1.27% contribution is not small, when you consider it is only one of 90 holes. (This number can be zero or go negative.) There just weren’t any holes in the mix that did not make significant contributions.

…as would be expected from such a highly select group of holes. All were designed (or selected and modified) by one of the top designers, specifically for a Major event. To say a hole is lowest in rank among this group is like calling someone the worst player at the NFL Pro Bowl.

So, Dave242, your next step of identifying what makes a hole good or bad may need to wait until we get data like this on some bad holes. We can’t separate the sheep from the goats until we know what a goat looks like.
For now, we can tweak existing holes to change some of these statistics.

We can certainly change scoring averages with high predictability. Also, see the other paper on that page about optimizing scoring spread widths.

The only pattern that appears to be emerging is that making holes harder makes them better at separating players by skill. Even if “harder” means more mandos, OB, or other trouble. However, this pattern is based on holes that we already know are “good” and have had small degrees of extra difficulty added with great restraint. I’d need to see some holes with just crazy trouble to see if there is a point where making a hole harder just for the sake of making it harder can make it worse at measuring skill.

I suspect that long before a hole gets too difficult to separate players by skill, it would generate way too much whining by players who felt it was the gimmicks which kept them from rising through the ranks.

The whiz-bang spreadsheet that does all this may be a future benefit for DGCDg members.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.