#2791  
Old Today, 11:36 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.4
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,855
Niced 718 Times in 453 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdub58 View Post
Private courses will make changes mostly based upon the wishes of their boards. When I was 14 I worked for a greenskeeper who had to cut down a perfectly healthy tree because too many members were hitting it.

Daily fee courses are in decline and are the least likely to make changes. The ones that survive have either great designs that don't need changes or have lower greens fees and can't afford to make them.

Tournament courses (public and private) will make adjustments based on results, often mid-tournament. There are many options available - changing pin positions, mowing (or not), moving tees - to adjust the difficulty between rounds. More significant changes like adding bunkers, altering green complexes, etc. to impact play does happen as well but not all that often. There are a few cases I'm aware of (including one at Augusta) where large trees have been planted specifically to prevent pros from taking shortcuts (a la Simon Lizotte).

These changes are often made to get scores closer to par. That's what we are trying to do in disc golf, and tools like Steve's method are a great resource to identify holes that should have some changes in design to be more in alignment with their assigned par.

So, perhaps my divergence with Steve is largely semantic - I reject the notion that par is incorrect. Par is what the TD sets - full stop. I prefer to think of the design as incorrect for the assigned par. When Steve uses his method to say that a hole's par was incorrect, that's results oriented thinking - not the best way to achieve the end goal.

If the TD sets a par on a hole and the data shows too many non-par results, what changes would we recommend to the hole to make it play closer to par? This is the discussion I want to have the next time Steve posts results at the end of a tournament.
Nice reply, thanks. While I'm less worried about the results-oriented approach, I do think your approach is better and really good, if you can do that. What Steve's method allows is less investment. What your proposing gives a better course. Typically, I'd rather have the better course. Providing I understand.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
 

  #2792  
Old Today, 11:41 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.4
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,855
Niced 718 Times in 453 Posts
Default

To make sure, what gdub is saying, by my interpretation, is that the designer has an intent. Anything that is done should be towards achieving that intent. The only problem I have with that approach is that it is excellent for a well-established sport where every venue takes substantial thought and development. It is important to keep the original intent intact. I don't know we are there, although we have courses where one should take that approach. See DeLa, USDGC, Georgia and others. I like the thinking, for me, but I'd want to carefully consider whether the designer had a real intent. We know that some do, but a fair few were a little too hodge podge by my limited knowledge.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.