extreme tunnel drive

[optidiscic]

Steve I disagree with your statistical data. No offense but gold level players in my region would get out far more often than 20%. I get through half the time and I'm a lowly AM

[Menacewarf]

Originally Posted by Steve West

One out of five can drive out. Maybe one out of four can pitch out.

Some of the issue is many of the red dots on the right side of the graph would be considered successful shots on an 8' wide tunnel. Down the fairway is the goal on such a hole. Whether one lands within 4 feet of an invisible line going down the middle of the tunnel is much less relevant.

[duckychucky]

Thanks for sharing that graph Steve!
I'm certainly not making my decision strictly on the graph but I think that it is really cool.
Can you do that with curving fairways too?

The tee is staying put. Thanks for the input everyone!
The gold tees on this course are all tests of your ability to shape different lines,
(tight doglegs, narrow gaps, s-turns, etc...) with this being one of the toughest.
With the option to play 3 easier tees with wider fairways, I don't think it's unfair.

[DiscGolfer947]

Originally Posted by Steve West

One out of five can drive out. Maybe one out of four can pitch out.

Where do you get these graphs made?

[solomon.trenton]

Originally Posted by Steve West

If it is truly a 6' gap (you measured it?), then only 12% of Gold players will be able to drive out of the tunnel. 14% for a 7' gap.

I don't think that is tempting enough.

Originally Posted by Steve West

One out of five can drive out. Maybe one out of four can pitch out.

where do you make up this data and what is that graph supposed to show?

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by DiscGolfer947

Where do you get these graphs made?

http://stevewestdiscgolf.com/ThrowSimulator.aspx

Originally Posted by optidiscic

Steve I disagree with your statistical data. No offense but gold level players in my region would get out far more often than 20%. I get through half the time and I'm a lowly AM

You can't argue with data. Unless you have other data. I hope you do.

You CAN argue that it isn't relavent. In fact, I'll do that for you, because no statistics should be presented without the proper caveats – something I left out of my other post by mistake.

I don't have any data on how the disc travels at 100 feet when thrown by gold players. I don't know of any.

What I do have is data on where drives land, and how often players can get aces from various distances. And what I gave is the best estimate I can come up with by using these two sets of data.

By using the accuracy of the drives (and some second- and third-shots) I measured, and assuming a straight flight, I can calculate how far right or left of the desired line a drive was at 100 feet. I simulated many drives and counted how many were within 4 feet (minus a disc radius) of the center of the desired direction of flight.

Now, I know discs curve. However, gold players also know that discs curve. For throws that will curve left, they compensate right, and vice versa. So, the data tells me how many degrees right or left they threw compared to the direction they wanted the disc to go.

These players also know that the first part of a drive's flight is more of a straight line, and they can adjust their throw so the desired direction of flight is to the middle of the gap, instead of out where it will glide back onto the middle of the fairway.

The weakness I see is that some of the inaccuracy of where drives land is due to factors that happen after the disc is released, and after the first 100 feet of flight, and which are unpredictable by the player. Thus, the accuracy of getting out of a tunnel could be better than the accuracy of landing a drive. So, my numbers should be viewed as minimums.

As for the pitch-outs, I can only interpolate how accurate gold players are on throws other than drives. I presume it is in-between the accuracy measured on long drives and the accuracy measured when trying for an ace, so that is what I used.

Originally Posted by Menacewarf

Some of the issue is many of the red dots on the right side of the graph would be considered successful shots on an 8' wide tunnel. Down the fairway is the goal on such a hole. Whether one lands within 4 feet of an invisible line going down the middle of the tunnel is much less relevant.

First, it shows the discs that land within about 2 degrees of the line running down the middle of the fairway. (Not within 4 feet).

However, you are correct that the picture does not actually show the throws that would have been successful. It shows a set of throws that are as numerous as those that would have been successful, assuming that a Gold player's ability to get a disc to land within 2 degrees of a line is the same as that player's ability to throw a disc within 2 degrees of a direction.

[Menacewarf]

2 degrees or eight feet the point remains the same. As the disc moves down the fairway the probability of remaining in a narrow corridor drastically decreases. Many very good shots will be outside tolerance. Also I don't think it is a safe assumption that discs on a line remain on that line in terms of where they settle. Even "gold level".

[1978]

No one complains about the "gauntlet" #13 at Hornet's nest. All major pro's play here for tournaments and average below par.

239' ... probably 120' or more to the opening when it widens out. Just a mid or putter for most pro's.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course....jpg?rand=1499

So, I don't think your hole is bad, similar or worse are tolerated elsewhere.