2018 Steady Ed HOF Classic PDGA NT

[Steve West]

Pros have had their chance to provide adjusting feedback on the new holes and hopefully, the guys in charge will make adjustments (or not) based on their goals for the course.
The next question in my head would be to check on MrWest's charts to see which ones were good score separators (fair and challenging) and which were biased toward randomness.
Queue SteveWest...

Here are the charts.

I think I'll be retiring Contribution, and therefore changing the formula for Luckiness. The method I have been using has a flaw: a larger Contribution is usually, but not always better. Like identifying the loudest voice in a meeting, it measures the influence on the final results, but maybe not the quality of that influence.

 

[Steve West]

The new holes are 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 16.

#3 gives out more 4s than it should, but it performed pretty well; as high-average-score holes are wont to do. More opportunities for top players to get 3s and avoid 6s would help

For all the different scores #4 gives out across all ratings, the average score should vary more by rating.

#5 is just OK. More low scores for better players would help.

#6 gives out too many 3s. Plus, top players can't avoid 5s.

#11 also gives out too many 3s. The 2s and 4s don't distinguish between the elite and the merely very good. At all ratings, this hole's scores are barely higher than a wide open flat hole of the same length (also just as steep).

#16 has a nice pattern for the 2s and 3s, but the hole presents more than twice as much trouble to the 1020 rated player as to the 950 rated player. This makes the average score as a function of rating flatter than a wide open flat hole (higher, but flatter).