Hardest Course Ever

[Ryan P.]

That would only happen on a poorly designed course that was lucky. All courses with the same SSA haven't been shown to have a different standard deviation in score distribution. Only individuals of the same rating have different standard deviations. But a randomly selected group of players at the same rating will on average produce the same standard deviation for a course of a specific SSA.

I would like to see proof for that assertion. Not that I doubt it, but if that is true, then, by my understanding, every single course is as hard as the next.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the hardest course should be the one with the biggest variance of strokes between 1000 rated players.

I see the problem. The statement above is what I was responding to, not the part where a player could shoot a 47, 60 and 55 on the same course. That happens all the time.

Unless we're using the difference between par and SSA as the definition of a hard course, using SSA alone is sufficient because there seems to be little difference in the scoring spread among well designed courses with the same SSA regardless whether the course is wooded or open. Grodney tried real hard to prove that we had something equivalent to the slope factor in ball golf where some courses with the same base rating (SSA) were tougher for 850 rated players than other courses with the same rating. He could not find any statistical backing for that. Since that time, our extensive database studies have shown that established players at any rating level are capable of shooting their rating on average on any course from SSA 42 to 70.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are courses with the same SSA that have wider or narrower standard deviations in scores but they are exceptions in some way. The Castle Hayne example is one where the individual holes may be designed alright, but tend average over par versus under par making it a little tougher to score really low in comparison to SSA. Regardless, even if we find the two oddball courses at a specific SSA with the biggest difference in scoring standard deviation, how can you say one is tougher than the other when every player will score the same on average on both courses over 20 rounds?

 

[Vegan Ray]

I feel like a bright mosquito orbiting a bug-zapper. I know it is an extremely[/b] bad idea, but I almost cannot help but dive right into the alluring blue light. M-U-S-T R-E-S-I-S-T!

 

[jimimc]

I think the hardest course you ever played is the hardest course you ever played. It doesn't matter about the SSA, par or anything else. When you leave the course was it the hardest for you. Did you feel beat by the course both physicaly and mentaly? Did you want revenge on the course?

 

[Cgkdisc]

A good heated discussion can help me keep warm in this drafty apartment on a subfreezing, blizzardly day in MN.

 

[Dave242]

Chuck - you are looking at things from too high a level. You are mixing/averaging everything together and coming up with a circular definition.

In this example from above:
A wide open hole with a scoring average of 3.7 (mainly 4's, a sprinkling of missed putt or upshot 5's, but also decent number of 3's) will not have as big a scoring spread (standard deviation) as a tight wooded hole with bending fairway that allows some 2's but also lots of 4's and some 5's.

You can not argue that the wooded hole is equal or less difficult than the open hole even though the scoring average is the same. Extrapolate that to a course with 18 each of these holes and you can not argue that the wooded one is equal or less difficult.

What you are trying to do here is say that over 20 rounds the scoring average works out to the same thing so they are the same difficulty. You are making no sense.

Rather than arguing against a definition of difficulty (hardness), what is your definition for it? And, how would you go about measuring it or determining it from available data?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I prefer the definition of difficulty as a high SSA in relation to gold par since I believe those courses will frustrate players of all levels and it works for many values of SSA. You can see all kinds of courses players indicate are the hardest for them where the SSAs are in the 50s. The alternative is to strictly use SSA for 18 holes so the handful of 70 SSA courses would be hardest.

 

[Dave242]

Your alternative is not a measure of difficulty since high/higher SSA could be 100% attributable to length and not obstacles.

If I am reading you right, if the SSA is close to Gold Par the course is difficult. I agree with that for the vast majority of instances with a few caveats:

1) You need to acknowledge that holes with a gold average below 2.5 are par-2 holes (and count that towards course par). No one does that (yet).

2) difficult par-4 & par-5 holes that use scoring average for their par will mess things up. An example is "cedar hell" hole 13 at Renny Gold (video) - 974' par 5 averages well above that. That helps push SSA up Gold Par. If par was set at 6 (based on scoring average), it would lower SSA in relation to par. (a shout out to CR Par is implied here)

3) courses with a majority of x.5-x.9 gold scoring average (or x.0 - x.4) will skew things and not necessarily reflect difficulty correctly. A balance of these 2 types of holes will do better.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Agreed regarding the par 2 issue.
Do not agree on the par 4s & 5s. Your example supports my point when the gold scoring average is over the par as on Cedar 13.
The hardest course in theory would be one where scoring on every hole is X.49 for that skill level and the par is always the rounded down to X.

Actually, you can't use SSA in relation to gold par at all for players under around 975 rating. It's really the relationship of their skill level scoring average in relation to par set for that skill level on a layout. A hard course for one skill level won't have the same relationship of scoring average to relative par as you drop down thru the skill level ranges.

 

[Dave242]

Actually, you can't use SSA in relation to gold par at all for players under around 975 rating. It's really the relationship of their skill level scoring average in relation to par set for that skill level on a layout. A hard course for one skill level won't have the same relationship of scoring average to relative par as you drop down thru the skill level ranges.

Is there a plan in place (or has there been discussion) about other SSA's? SSA = Gold SA = GSA. So would it make sense to calculate (and publish somewhere) BSA, WSA, RSA for each course? All the data needed exists (in your possession) I assume.

Since most courses/pars are set up for White and Red, it makes sense - especially based on your comment above. That could really useful (for the geeks) in looking at difficulty stuff.

 

[sloppydisc]

Renny Gold. I think my earlier review pretty much sums up my thoughts. My thumber is much better now so I may have to go back for another round of abuse.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Is there a plan in place (or has there been discussion) about other SSA's? SSA = Gold SA = GSA. So would it make sense to calculate (and publish somewhere) BSA, WSA, RSA for each course? All the data needed exists (in your possession) I assume.

Our course designers group has been using them for years in design. It's already available on the PDGA Par doc available online although not explicitly stated. http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf
I had mentioned before that the PDGA Course Directory will eventually include fields for this information as it becomes available.

 

[Dave242]

cool about the directory - I must have missed that in an earlier post.

I am well aware of the chart. I was not aware that it was based on RSA, WSA, etc.

 

[wolito]

This thread is rather off topic here. I think the point of it was just opinions about what course you thought was the hardest, not how to judge a course hardness based on numbers, ratings and other criteria. A good debate sure, but I want to read other players opinions about specific courses that give them greif.

 

[bikinjack]

This thread is rather off topic here. I think the point of it was just opinions about what course you thought was the hardest, not how to judge a course hardness based on numbers, ratings and other criteria. A good debate sure, but I want to read other players opinions about specific courses that give them greif.

Only barely off topic, but great discussion none the less.

 

[Olorin]

If you're interested, there have also been some good ideas shared in other threads about course difficulty.

I'll mention "Scratch Player Difficulty" (SPD) as one attempt to quantify difficulty without using par.

Here's the list:
What is Difficult?
Course Difficulty Rating
A Hard Course

Or you can see the same list by going here.

 

[discgolferjr]

I have to say idlewild. this first time i played i got a +27. though the ssecond time i got a +6. But still very challenging, take a look.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=507

 

[humchris85]

I'm going to have to have to give it up for Ammon Ranch, a super long mountain course in the hills of Humboldt County. For my second place I would have to say the temp course set up in Pescadero, Tarwater or something, PeterB and BENFITS will know what I'm talking about.

 

[sidewinding]

Here's my theory:

Course Length in feet divided by average fairway width = course difficulty. How do you like them apples?