#731  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:05 PM
bluTDI09 bluTDI09 is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Years Playing: 6.9
Courses Played: 80
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
Well, the other option to work with is the length.. if a wider gap is producing a score average pushing into the par 2 category, maybe the solution is the 377ft. position (and the wider gap)? I think there are definitely cases where length gets added to a hole simply to mitigate the fact that the hole lacks the necessary features to spread out scores, but (some) length is crucial for Gold-level play, where it can be safely assumed that players will hit 400ft. accurate placement shots all day.
That would potentially help do it too until the disc technology advances. But keep in mind that if you make the hole longer, you reduce the angle of your wider gap again.
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:15 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 4.9
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluTDI09 View Post
That would potentially help do it too until the disc technology advances. But keep in mind that if you make the hole longer, you reduce the angle of your wider gap again.
Well, if you move the tee pad back, yes. But just moving the basket farther keeps the distance between the gap and the tee the same.

Disc technology definitely has had a significant impact on courses and hole design, true, and that's potentially something that will continue to need to be addresses as the sport evolves.. although with the current generation of "speed 13" drivers already up against the maximum-allowable rim width, I suspect that distance gains via technology are going to be less dramatic than they have been over the past two decades or so. I could be wrong, though.
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:55 PM
keltik's Avatar
keltik keltik is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Horneytown NC
Years Playing: 7
Courses Played: 35
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,784
WhiteyBear that's a par 2 in NC _

all kidding aside the PDGA "Par Chart" does scale things for tree density. That shot is doable even the 377. and my rating sucks so that means I can nail it one or two times in ten. but to me that is a true par 3. It's actually a common shot in the south east.
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 01-10-2013, 03:25 PM
bluTDI09 bluTDI09 is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Years Playing: 6.9
Courses Played: 80
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMcBeth View Post
You learn that... I'll learn how to make that 35 footer
You know, I thought about this post a lot last night, and I think it illustrates really well the difference between most pros and most joes. The pros simply are not ok with the level that they are at, ever. No excuses.

That is not sufficient criteria for being a successful pro, but I bet it is realistically more of it than most people are willing to admit.
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:09 PM
jimimc jimimc is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Delaware
Years Playing: 17.1
Courses Played: 35
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by keltik View Post
WhiteyBear that's a par 2 in NC _

all kidding aside the PDGA "Par Chart" does scale things for tree density. That shot is doable even the 377. and my rating sucks so that means I can nail it one or two times in ten. but to me that is a true par 3. It's actually a common shot in the south east.

I think he meant that should be the norm, not once in awhile. I think that should be about as easy as it gets for a Par 3 on a Gold layout. I love woods golf, but if you feel like you lost a stroke to the field by paring a Par 3, how is that a Gold level course. The same could be said for a 500' wooded hole. Once again the elite player probably isn't going to gain a stroke. To me a Gold level Par 3 should be 350' to 400' on a wooded hole.
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:22 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 569
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,282
Usually, just a bit too long for enough birdieable scoring spread (which you know was my complaint on at least some of the Iron Hill par 3s I played.)
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:25 PM
keltik's Avatar
keltik keltik is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Horneytown NC
Years Playing: 7
Courses Played: 35
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Usually, just a bit too long for enough birdieable scoring spread (which you know was my complaint on at least some of the Iron Hill par 3s I played.)
I disagree with you there Chuck. That shot with that elevation change is birdieable. and it will separate the Pros from the Joes.
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:35 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 569
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,282
You can disagree but I leave it to the stats to sort it out. It's not about birdieable but having enough birdie percentage that matters.
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:41 PM
jimimc jimimc is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Delaware
Years Playing: 17.1
Courses Played: 35
Posts: 144
I know Chuck, but when I think Open or Gold, I'm thinking at least 350' wooded shot. I actually took some of your advice and moved one of the Par 3's from 440' to 370', and made it so you could see it. I think on a Gold layout you should look at the separation of 1000+ rated players. I'd like to see a hole play 25% birdie 50% par 25% bogey or worse for the 1000 rated player. I'm not sure the 1000> rated player should even be considered in the separation equation.
Reply With Quote
 
  

  #740  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:43 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 4.9
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
You can disagree but I leave it to the stats to sort it out. It's not about birdieable but having enough birdie percentage that matters.
I agree. You can find holes where players will all agree "this one is birdiable", but when you actually look at the scoring spread, the number of birdies is effectively zero. Sure, by length a birdie could happen, but sometimes the length/technicality of the hole effectively reduces the odds of the event to near-zero, typically leaving a too-large (>70%) overall percentage of 3's.
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 02:08 AM.


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