- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
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)
The award for best performance by a disc golf hole in 2019 goes to Hole 10 at Codorus State Park - Red – CSR, during the 2019 PDGA Amateur Disc Golf World Championships- Powered by Prodigy.
More here.
Lake Eureka 18 was the "best performer" at Ledgestone but Hole 2 on the same layout was the" best performer" at Worlds.
By this metric the best performing hole at USWDGC was the shortest hole used in the event.
On this site that Codorus hole has lengths from the 200's to over 900- any idea which iteration it was?
What is the mean and s.d. of hole performances?
Would we be able to say that an "average 18-hole course" would be expected to have 3 holes in the bottom 17% of holes (<1 sd), 12 holes in the middle 66% and 3 holes in the top 17% (>1 sd). In addition, would courses with no holes in the lower 17% of performance be considered overall "better" for sorting skills in competition or is a higher 18-hole performance average score more important?
The average rating was 894, and many players were FP40. Maybe 228 feet is just the right size. The longer holes didn't give out many birdies.
The question becomes how can this information which takes some effort to produce be used to improve holes/courses unless there's a way to connect the numbers to guidelines. For example, let's say the "worst hole" on Course A is -0.02 the course average is .62 which is higher than the .53 average on Course B whose worst hole came in at .25. Intuitively, one would think the -0.02 hole should be improved but maybe it's more important to bring up the hole average on Course B with several hole changes. Seems the next step is to tie these numbers into a way that guides the designer/TD to make improvements or stand pat.Avg hole performance = .502 and sd = .179
I don't think those are valid questions. You can't figure out which is the best football team by looking at individual player stats. If I were to compare performances of courses as a whole, I would look directly at scoring spread width of total scores for the two courses with the same set of players.
The question becomes how can this information which takes some effort to produce be used to improve holes/courses unless there's a way to connect the numbers to guidelines. For example, let's say the "worst hole" on Course A is -0.02 the course average is .62 which is higher than the .53 average on Course B whose worst hole came in at .25. Intuitively, one would think the -0.02 hole should be improved but maybe it's more important to bring up the hole average on Course B with several hole changes. Seems the next step is to tie these numbers into a way that guides the designer/TD to make improvements or stand pat.
I think the trick is where to draw the line such that a number below X "must be fixed" and above X is "could be better."Use the numbers directly. Remember, they were all tested in mulit-course environments so the performances of the rest of the holes on the course isn't important. Improve the -.02 hole first. Better, improve them both.
If I can suggest an improvement, I think it'd be even better if you measured par 3s differently than 4s, and those both differently than 5s.
I think your ideas are great, and the graphs you've shown in this thread shed a lot of light, but I think you could be much clearer and more influential with simpler communication.
I think the other measure you should use is the correlation of ratings to scores on a hole, which is probably much simpler, but I haven't thought through it as much (and I'd like to read your ideas on it more when I have time). Those two could be simply plotted on a graph (one on the X axis and one on the Y axis). That would show holes/courses that fairly measure a players ability in a way that is easy for people to understand, and that would lead to better course design.
This chart is a bit surprising.
The y axis is how well the hole sorted those players out to increase the scoring spread width of total scores for the shared players.
Are you saying the y-axis measurement is the ability of the hole to increase the width of the scoring spread?
Or the ability of the hole to increase the width of the scoring spread while also being able to sort players by rating.