• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

2018 PDGA World Championships

I'm not quite sure, but Hanna McBeth, while dong live commentary on Smashbox today seemed to be thrilled that the women were playing the Gold layout. She mentioned something about not liking that the two previous events, Ledgestone and Maple Hill both had short(er) tees in play for FPO.

If that's so, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how to challenge players.

But not surprising, people don't understand difficulty.
 
The difference between the Gold layout and Blue layout that the Open Women play on Fox Run Meadows is about 1000' - from the Golds, it's a 9345' layout and from the Blues it's 8,405 feet. Many of the tees on the par 3s on the Blue layout use the exact same Gold tee, and the shorter tees are only used on some of the longer par 4s and par 5s. On Brewster Ridge, the blue layout would be significantly shorter at 1500' and isn't really necessary on a tight wooded course; in fact, I think the Open Women would not have been challenged enough on the Blue layout on Brewster Ridge.

If it's too much of a difference to play the Blues on BR, perhaps a hybrid layout such as blue tees on the par 4s and 5s?

I don't buy the "tight wooded course" thing as it relates to length. If it isn't necessary to have different layouts because of the "tight woods", then why do the different layouts exist? If these layouts are designed to be appropriately challenging to the skill level indicated by the color, then the blue layout should be sufficiently challenging for any/all blue level players (sub-970).

Five holes today played more than a stroke over par for FPO. Two more nearly so. No holes averaged under par. That strikes me as a layout that is inappropriate and arguably too difficult for the skill level in the division.
 
Bjerkaas stumbled in the middle but recovered nicely. I thought for a while she was going to start hemorrhaging strokes but she was very poised today. I am starting to believe that she might be able to hold on. I played a few rounds with her when she was still in Colorado, nice kid (lady now, she was like 16 at the time), I am rooting for her
 
If it's too much of a difference to play the Blues on BR, perhaps a hybrid layout such as blue tees on the par 4s and 5s?

I don't buy the "tight wooded course" thing as it relates to length. If it isn't necessary to have different layouts because of the "tight woods", then why do the different layouts exist? If these layouts are designed to be appropriately challenging to the skill level indicated by the color, then the blue layout should be sufficiently challenging for any/all blue level players (sub-970).

Five holes today played more than a stroke over par for FPO. Two more nearly so. No holes averaged under par. That strikes me as a layout that is inappropriate and arguably too difficult for the skill level in the division.

The average rating is 905 - and if you take out Paige it's 903.

21 of them are sub 900, which is basically men's rec level.

If you asked a group of Intermediate and Rec Men to play these layouts, you'd get laughed at.
 
I would agree with you for a standard tournament. But, this is worlds and the courses should be set to challenge the best of the best. I like that it is giving a real challenge to the top 10 women for this caliber of tournament.
 
Last edited:
The average rating is 905 - and if you take out Paige it's 903.

21 of them are sub 900, which is basically men's rec level.

If you asked a group of Intermediate and Rec Men to play these layouts, you'd get laughed at.

I see your point, but I think you want to challenge the top performers in the division, not the average of the field. The average rating in MPO this week is 983 (986 absent Lloyd Weema). I wouldn't advocate setting courses for a 980 player at Worlds (or any elite level event). You want a Gold course aimed at challenging 1020+ rated players.

So while Paige Pierce (gotta include last names as there are two high profile Paiges) is still the outlier with a >970 rating, the majority of the top contenders in FPO are in the 940-960 range. So a true Blue level course (aimed at 970 rated players) should be more than adequate to challenge the FPO field. So either the Blue layout on Brewster Ridge is inappropriately labeled as Blue, or the powers that be aren't clear on what it means.
 
Calvin with a 9 on #4 and then doubled the next hole. +7 in two holes will take you out of contention real fast.
 
Berjkaas played ok enough today, and luckily Pierce didn't play well at all. Hokom lurks, and there's a lot of golf left. Should be a good finish in FPO.

And Cat?
 
Berjkaas played ok enough today, and luckily Pierce didn't play well at all. Hokom lurks, and there's a lot of golf left. Should be a good finish in FPO.

And Cat?

Berjkaas played just the way she needed to, I thought. The double bogeys were unfortunate, but everyone was taking bogeys and doubles out there today. She didn't get rattled and finished strong with a couple birdies.

On Fox Run Meadow, she can give a few back to her score yesterday (say a 62 or 63) and probably not lose ground overall unless Hokom gets really hot. Taking the same safe and smart approach that she said she took yesterday should be good enough to walk this one in.
 
Berjkaas played just the way she needed to, I thought. The double bogeys were unfortunate, but everyone was taking bogeys and doubles out there today. She didn't get rattled and finished strong with a couple birdies.

On Fox Run Meadow, she can give a few back to her score yesterday (say a 62 or 63) and probably not lose ground overall unless Hokom gets really hot. Taking the same safe and smart approach that she said she took yesterday should be good enough to walk this one in.

I was thinking the same thing. I believe if she shoots par the final 2 rounds she wins it.
 
I see your point, but I think you want to challenge the top performers in the division, not the average of the field. ...

I'd say you want to test the contenders, not just the top two or three players, and not all the players that don't have a chance.
 
I'd say you want to test the contenders, not just the top two or three players, and not all the players that don't have a chance.

Agreed. Did I suggest that "top performers" was limited to the top 2 or 3 in the division? That wasn't my intention.

If we match Blue courses to the Blue division, that would be 935-970 rated players. Which would be the eight highest rated players in FPO (with four more within 10 points of the low end). I would have been comfortable calling them the "contenders" prior to play beginning. They're certainly showing to be contenders so far.
 

Latest posts

Top