Hole and Course Performance Statistics

[DavidSauls]

Lots of important theoretical discussion going on.

Here's what would help me: would someone please name a hole or two that we would consider a "good" hole that almost never gets birdied. Talking about a real-life example might make the conversation easier. Thanks.

I can think of plenty, on courses I've played, but they won't necessarily be known by everyone in the room. More importantly, it depends on definitions of terms.

"Par" and setting par have been part of this argument. So I'd just go with this: holes with few scores better than the most common score.

"Skill level" plays into this, but should it? if I play a course above my skill level, there'll be holes that play out this way. But I find them good holes, fun to play with uncertainty of scores. So if they can be good holes for the wrong skill level, can others that play this way be good holes for the right skill levels?

"Good hole"? My definition is a hole for which, when I stand on the tee, I'm uncertain what score I will get, and (1) that score will be mostly result of my decisions, execution, and skill, and (2) will not be primarily due to "luck", such as too many trees in the fairway.

Every hole labeled "par 3" but on which more than half the scores are 2s, fits this. And as long as there's a reasonable risk of not getting those 2s, it can be a good hole. We could label it "par 2", but that doesn't change its effect on the competitive results.

Chuck's "birdie means scoring" argument has some merit. But these are landmine holes -- you can't gain on the field, but you risk losing ground to the field. I enjoy them. We have holes on a private course that guests seem to enjoy, that play this way. As I said before, I wouldn't want an entire course of them, but a few offset those holes that yield too many "birdies" (real or inflated).

Define "birdie" or "good hole" or apply "skill level differently", then perhaps the answer is no, there aren't any.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Game design 101, "Define how a player scores in a game played by individuals so a player knows they have scored (with no other players involved). Ball golf has done that using objective parameters > "reach the green in X number of shots for players with at least Y driving distance then add two strokes to set par for that player distance/skill level". If par is the score everyone with that power level can reach, it's the equivalent of a neutral score that is neither scoring on the hole nor against other players, but it's also considered not losing to either the hole or other competitors.

Determining how to score in games like golf where the goal is shooting a lower score is less intuitive than positive scoring games where completing some action produces a score and failing to complete it means no score or scores zero. However, where ball golf sets par objectively for a player distance/skill level, players understand that "scoring" is shooting 1 stroke or more lower than par for players of that distance/skill level whether playing the hole on their own or in competition against others with similar distance range.

The PDGA def for setting par on every hole for a player distance/skill level does not provide objective metrics for setting par in the design phase so players with the distance/skill level a hole is designed for know whether they have scored when playing alone. Players, TDs and designers must wait to evaluate scores in competition by players of the appropriate skill/distance level to confirm whether a par or birdie is "scoring", at least formally.

A metric for setting par that requires structured competition within a membership org to determine whether shooting par or birdie is "scoring" is inadequate for properly setting par/birdie for the basic game of disc golf.

A more objective way to set par for disc golf, independent of competition validation, is to specify a progressively longer series of effective hole distance caps as discussed in my post #130. By definition, players who have the ability to throw at least as far as the longest reachable hole off the tee for that course level at least match that skill/distance level and have the potential to birdie every reachable hole with a good throw. The challenge for designers is how to design skill elements into each hole so it's not too easily birdieable.

With that objective criteria in mind I propose the following definitions for the game of disc golf:
Birdie: The least number of throws players whose throwing distance is within a defined range (see Table X) can reasonably score on a hole under normal course and weather conditions.
Par: Birdie plus 1 throw.
(Table X lengths TBD)

Note that similar to ball golf, this definition says nothing about the "goodness" of a hole design. It just establishes simple, measurable metrics, so every hole is birdieable at some level by players of the skill/distance range specified. "Goodness" of a hole becomes an added layer of discrimination based on several other parameters pertaining to the hole or competition factors. For example, many will likely consider a hole less good for a skill/distance level if it provides too many birdies, perhaps more than 50-60%, or less than 10%. However, scoring a birdie would still be possible on every hole as a consistent basis for evaluation independent of competition stats.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure that a "score" that most players get, is much of a "score". It's a bit like the free spot on a bingo card.

I once proposed a re-definition, too, with the thought of getting out of the "birdie" business. We could have the expert expected score (EES), the better-than-expert-expected score (BEES), and the worse-than-expert-expected-score (WEES), and then to on to WEEWEES, etc. That way, we'd know if someone's score on a hole was likely to gain or lose ground, or neither, and quit arguing about "par" and "birdie".

Sure, we'd have holes where players couldn't gain on the field ("score", in Chuck's game parlance). But that would be offset by not having "scores" that don't gain on the field, because they're expected.

 

[Steve West]

...Game design 101, "Define how a player scores in a game played by individuals so a player knows they have scored (with no other players involved).
...
"reach the green in X number of shots for players with at least Y driving distance then add two strokes to set par for that player distance/skill level". ...

You put a lot of stuff in quotes without saying who you are quoting. You know better than that. Unattributed quotes are the least credible form of argument.

I really doubt Game Design 101 is based on no other players being involved. That also seems like a strange position to take for the guy who invented the concept of using the scores of the other players to measure the difficulty of a course.

The very definition of par is based on player performance. For both golf and disc golf. Look it up, don't rely on what you thought it was or those charts for lengths of holes - which are merely practical guidelines attempting to match the real definition for most cases.

Using only the length of the first (or first two or three) throws does not take into account the point of the game, which is to put the disc in the target. If you over-drive the target have you beat the hole? Too soon to say.

I agree that the definition of par is not an adequate basis to design holes. Just as a yardstick cannot tell you how to design a house. That's not its job. (Note that golf does not actually define par as a function of distance. You can't define golf holes by the golf definition of par either.)

Now, if you want to say that the best way to design a par 3 hole is to make sure players can reach it in one exceptionally good throw, that's fine AND would be consistent with the definition of par. But it doesn't go the other way. A implies B does not mean B implies A.


Your arguments are getting more far-fetched and desperate. I suggest you re-examine what you want validation for. If it is to establish length guidelines for designing holes of various par, there is nothing you actually need to convince anyone of. The definition of par is not getting in your way.

If you're using that as a stalking horse to trick people into thinking par should always be set high enough for everyone to get birdies on even the most poorly designed holes, give it up. That's never going to fly. And you don't need it anyway.


For that 550 foot hole where everyone in MPO gets a 3, par is 3. Not 4. No one getting a 3 thinks they beat that hole. Nor will they think so if you call it a par 4.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You put a lot of stuff in quotes without saying who you are quoting. You know better than that. Unattributed quotes are the least credible form of argument.

I really doubt Game Design 101 is based on no other players being involved. That also seems like a strange position to take for the guy who invented the concept of using the scores of the other players to measure the difficulty of a course.

The very definition of par is based on player performance. For both golf and disc golf. Look it up, don't rely on what you thought it was or those charts for lengths of holes - which are merely practical guidelines attempting to match the real definition for most cases.

Using only the length of the first (or first two or three) throws does not take into account the point of the game, which is to put the disc in the target. If you over-drive the target have you beat the hole? Too soon to say.

I agree that the definition of par is not an adequate basis to design holes. Just as a yardstick cannot tell you how to design a house. That's not its job. (Note that golf does not actually define par as a function of distance. You can't define golf holes by the golf definition of par either.)

Now, if you want to say that the best way to design a par 3 hole is to make sure players can reach it in one exceptionally good throw, that's fine AND would be consistent with the definition of par. But it doesn't go the other way. A implies B does not mean B implies A.


Your arguments are getting more far-fetched and desperate. I suggest you re-examine what you want validation for. If it is to establish length guidelines for designing holes of various par, there is nothing you actually need to convince anyone of. The definition of par is not getting in your way.

If you're using that as a stalking horse to trick people into thinking par should always be set high enough for everyone to get birdies on even the most poorly designed holes, give it up. That's never going to fly. And you don't need it anyway.


For that 550 foot hole where everyone in MPO gets a 3, par is 3. Not 4. No one getting a 3 thinks they beat that hole. Nor will they think so if you call it a par 4.

Here's a direct comparison of approaches to setting par in ball and disc golf.

For the game of Ball Golf, holes can be designed for a predetermined player distance level to where Par on each hole is "shots to the green+2". Every hole is reasonably birdieable for players with that distance. No scoring data required to confirm par/birdie values.

For the game of Disc Golf, holes can be designed for a predetermined player distance level to where Par on each hole would be "shots to the basket + 1". Every hole would be birdieable for players of that distance level. No scoring data required to confirm par/birdie values.

For PDGA Disc Golf, holes designed for a player rating level may or may not be reasonably birdieable when Par on each hole is set according to the PDGA Par definition. Analyzing competition scoring data is required to determine player ratings and confirm par values.

Point being that the PDGA par definition continues to work well to establish how par should be set from analyzing PDGA competition data. Not surprising because PDGA scoring data provides the basis for player ratings and PDGA par. However, the birdieability approach to setting par is more useful for the general game as it does not require evaluating any scoring data. Appropriate holes can be created by any designer who follows the specific length guidelines and players know that every hole can be birdied if they have the distance to reach the hole in regulation.

Understand that non-birdieable holes under PDGA par are the same holes that will be too easy to birdie under the birdieable par system. Both par systems will identify the same weak holes whose designs should probably be tweaked for a skill level. However, I think players, spectators and promoters would prefer those holes be identified as being too birdieable under Birdieability par versus non-birdieable under PDGA par.

 

[Steve West]

Here is an interesting little graph (which was very hard to create):

I looked at 43,080 hole-rounds for MPO and FPO during 2019 through 2022. This shows the maximum score anyone got, compared to par for the hole.

Graph in next post, my finger slipped.

 

[Steve West]

Or not, I seem to have been blocked from attaching a picture.

 

[Steve West]

I looked at the average score for all players of each rating across the A+ tier events in 2022.

Some observations:

If courses were tailored perfectly to all players, these dots would all fall between the lines for about 62 to about 67.

Some evidence of fitting courses to skills can be seen in the Mixed scores in the ratings range of 800 to 950. This part is a little flatter. A huge fraction of all players fall in this range, so there are many players who are benefiting somewhat from course tailoring.

For players of the same rating, it appears that a player in an F division will score about 5 throws worse than a player in an M division.

While scores go up as ratings go down, scores don't go up as fast (by rating) across courses as they do within a course. This indicates lower-rated players play somewhat easier courses. See the chart below for more clarity.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Would increasing the par by one on each hole above have materially impacted their scoring and spread? Most look-like "easier" birdie holes where par has been "artificially" lowered so they appear more difficult, especially the second and third holes where the par was set more than 1 stroke below their average score (I know average score is not always "par" in Steve's calcs). I suspect on several of these holes, (sometimes artificial) aggressive OB was used to increase scoring spread and average.

Interestingly, Steve didn't include any holes that scored as legit par 2s (PDGA def) because none were set by TDs as par 2s for various reasons, one being non-birdieability as a par 2. But I'm thinking there are a few dramatic downhill and/or island holes where the scoring would indicate they are par 2s per PDGA def AND would also be considered "good" holes under some criteria other than scoring such as drama, aesthetics or scoring spread (likely from OB penalties).

For the record I totally agree that pars should be set so that a hole is birdieable without a 100'+ throw in. Tees should also be set to reflect the average distance capabilities of the division. For the most part FPO plays 'tough day" in most of their events which i don't think helps showcase their abilities. IE: FPO should always play shorter tees than MPO. .

 

[biscoe]

For players of the same rating, it appears that a player in an F division will score about 5 throws worse than a player in an M division.

This jumps out at me. "F" field as a whole overrated?

 

[Steve West]

This jumps out at me. "F" field as a whole overrated?

It would seem so. If that is the case, one cause is the tendency of TDs to assign a different layout to a course to keep the M field from catching the low-rating cooties of the F field. Which allows F ratings to drift away from M ratings.

Or, A+ tiers used longer courses which really disadvantage F players.

Or, I screwed up the arithmetic.

Someone else should do a different analysis to get at this particular question.

 

[Steve West]

A hole length variety chart.

 

[Steve West]

Here is a spreadsheet where you can load the hole lengths for a course and calculate the hole length variety and see how it compares to other courses.

 

[Steve West]

Just in case anyone is still here.

 

[Steve West]

I was wondering just how bad my preformance on the short tees on the Black Bear Course at the Preserve was. So I computed the hole-by-hole distribution of scores for my rating, and directly computed the probability of every round score. Mine was so bad, I couldn't trust an assumption of Normality.

Anyway, this has some other tidbits. Here's one chart from it.