#151  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:46 PM
grodney's Avatar
grodney grodney is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Years Playing: 33
Courses Played: 117
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by New013 View Post
Angry Beaver - 58 / 56
RL Smith - 53.75 / 51
I also see problems with RL Smith and Angry Beaver having the SSE below the SSA. Both of those are listed as heavily wooded and my guess is they probably deserve that distinction but it could be a cause for those being off. Anyone that plays those courses could chime in on that.
I don't know what you're asking. RL Smith and Angry are both heavily wooded. RL has some OB. Angry has some OB. Neither has a ton, but some.

Angry has a few longer hard-to-reach par 3's. But also has some shorter par 4's. Overall I think they would cancel each other with respect to formulas.

RL has a lot of elevation. At least 3 steep uphill, and at least 2-3 steep downhill.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-23-2012, 01:06 PM
Menacewarf's Avatar
Menacewarf Menacewarf is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West Maine
Years Playing: 6.2
Courses Played: 60
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,935
My course has 7 uphill holes with about 165 feet of vertical gain total. Multiplying this by 3 gives me an estimate of 500 feet added to the course distance.

This pushes my course distance from 5800 to 6300. With no other elevation factor in the formula 5800 comes out to an SSE of 54.3

With no other elevation factor in the formula a course distance of 6300 comes out to 56.3

So in this case 165 vertical feet approximates to 500 added feet, bumping the SSE by two strokes.

With the existing formula New uses this course would have an SSE of 54.3 with no factor, 54.8 with a half stroke factor, and 55.3 with a whole point.

So while it does simplify the process to just add a half stroke or perhaps a stroke as a hill factor I think it may come up a bit short for courses which gain at least 100 vertical feet per 18 holes. (That is assuming that the 3/1 factor I use is acurate, which I'm pretty sure it's decent)
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:15 PM
New013's Avatar
New013 New013 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 4.4
Courses Played: 144
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6,845
Send a message via AIM to New013
^^^ i'm confused by your estimates that the elevation adds 500ft to the course. are you saying that there that the total elevation change on the entire course is 165ft or just on 7 uphill holes? Do you know if the holes are measured by the slope or in lateral distance? Are there a bunch of downhill holes as well or does the course end 165ft higher than it begins?

If the holes are already measured by the slope then there's no point in trying to add more distance to it by estimating how much extra distance you are throwing, it's already built in.


If a hole is 300ft long in lateral distance and 100ft uphill then the slope would still only be 316ft. Even on a huge uphill hole such as that only adds 16ft to the length of the hole. Why are you multiplying by 3?
Reply With Quote
 

  #154  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:27 PM
mashnut's Avatar
mashnut mashnut is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Temecula, CA
Years Playing: 12.8
Courses Played: 817
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 14,033
He's talking about effective length, where every foot of elevation gain makes the hole play as through it's approximately 3' longer.
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 08:49 PM.


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