Is course difficulty over-rated ?

[Cgkdisc]

You didn't really answer the question. I agree that 50% is too low. Yes, a shot a player can execute less often is more difficult than one they can execute more often. Obviously there is also a threshold somewhere that is too high. Any take on the range within which shots are legitimately challenging yet not unfair or fluky?

Difficulty of a reachable par 3 hole for the skill level versus difficulty for a specific player in the field are separate issues. For example, a hole might be judged legitimately "fair" for a skill level based on scoring stats. However, the drive on this hole must bend sharply to the right making it particularly difficult for righties without a forehand.

Thus, this hole may not be particularly difficult for the field to shoot birdies and pars 90% of the time and at the same time be particularly difficult for specific players at that skill level to rarely get a birdie without an upshot throw-in let alone throw an ace. As a designer, I'm not sure it's a flaw requiring a shot shape or type of throw too difficult for some players who cannot or may never be able to throw that spin with enough power as long as they have the innate power to throw that distance with their dominant spin. The key for designers is to ideally balance this hole with another hole similarly difficult for players whose dominant spin is lefty hyzer/righty forehand.

With regard to percentages, we've had the discussion before that at least 2/3 of attempts should be successful to determine that hitting a gap is not fluky for players of a skill level. Less than 2/3 success starts falling closer to deciding whether a design element is too fluky, a specific player isn't at that skill level or it's possibly too difficult for a large pool of players at that skill level. In that case, the designer can look at the data and see whether the design seems "fair" for higher rated players, i.e. they have more success than lower rated players or the data shows that success is randomly achieved independent of a player's rating, i.e. fluky. Whether to retain that feature depends on whether the designer prefers the randomness as is or attempts to modify it to reward increasing skill levels.

 

[Steve West]

I don't think I agree with the bolded. IMO said course would very likely be "too long", "no fun", "dumb", or a selection of other descriptors but I do not see how a course with no inappropriate shots for a skill level can be construed to be "too difficult" for that skill level. Same goes for a par 2 (there, I said it) course. More or fewer shots on a course in and of itself imo says nothing about the actual difficulty of the course.

So what is too much difficulty if not "too long" or "no fun"?

Does playing a course above a skill level make it "too difficult"?

When I play a Gold-level course, I simply make twice as many drives as the course was designed for. I'm having just as much fun as if the course was designed for red-level and had pars that were one or two higher per hole.

So, unless it is also a long-even-for-gold course (where I can't finish in a reasonable time - or at all) how would that be "too difficult" for me?

 

[Monocacy]

How do y'all feel about whether a hole needs to be "birdie-able" to be fair and fun? Personally, I like a mix of gettable and tough par 3 and par 4 holes, preferably where accuracy rather than distance causes most of the difficulty.

For example, a tough par 3 for me might be a challenging birdie for a higher-level player, but both of us can find the hole enjoyable.

 

[Steve West]

...


While I am also of the OPINION that my preferred course par lies in the range from 62-66 I also would not categorize the concept as anything other than my opinion. Many (most?) people will prefer something shorter, some will prefer something longer. To paint something as "ideal" is using very broad strokes. To say that "3" is the "ideal" number of 2's to be carded in a round is pretty much the same as the owl determining the number of licks to get to the center of the Tootsie Pop as "3".

I don't disagree with that sentiment. However, when enough of the top TDs share the same opinion, if becomes something more than one person's opinion - it becomes a best practice.

Perhaps there a word less judgemental than "ideal". What word would you apply to a course that complies with the advice that an experienced TD would give to a new TD who wanted to know how to select a course to put a certain division on?

Anyway, broad strokes are intentional. There is no sharp line between a good course and a bad course. Par 62 or 66 would still rate as good fits (unless they have no scoring separation, or too much random punishment). And variations from ideal spice up the mix. There should be a good reason to stray too far from ideal.

 

[Steve West]

How do y'all feel about whether a hole needs to be "birdie-able" to be fair and fun? Personally, I like a mix of gettable and tough par 3 and par 4 holes, preferably where accuracy rather than distance causes most of the difficulty.

For example, a tough par 3 for me might be a challenging birdie for a higher-level player, but both of us can find the hole enjoyable.

Having spent my life playing holes that are essentially un-birdie-able for me, I can say disc golf can still be fun without always (or even often) having a birdie opportunity.

When you hear the term "unfair" it usually means a hole relies too much on luck vs. skill. But luck is fair. That's why they use coin tosses in the NFL. A hole can only be unfair if there is a conscious entity which changes the hole preferentially for specific players.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Yes, that's an issue. But this course was too hard for even the top-rated FPO players. (Besides, FA1 in the companion event played an even longer course.) Total par of 71 was right for FPO, but playing a true par 71 course is a grind for most people. On top of that, the scores were tilted more heavily to tough pars than easy pars.



The measure I use is based on how well a course lets the players get the same mix of scores as 1000-rated players get at ES+ events. This means not too easy, not too hard, and not too many of the same score.

It's true, I make the leap that two players getting the same mix of scores are having a similar experience. Scores can tell us a lot.

In this case, we can see that 930-rated players have only about a half a chance of getting a two during any round. That means the 930-rated payers aren't capable of parking many - if any - holes. So, we know that the course took away almost all the chances to park a hole from the tee.



It wasn't just the lower-rated women; holes 13 and 14 played as one higher than the assigned par, even if only the 930-rated players are considered.

Compared to the MPO course, the FPO course was about 88% as long. This is longer than the 75-80% recommended. A good start would be to add (or use) short tees for all the holes. (That's after re-thinking whether the par 71 Blue course was too difficult for MPO.)

As to the original question: I don't think difficulty is over-rated yet, but it has now become possible to have courses that are too difficult. Blindly adding difficulty is no longer a sure-fire way to improve a course.

Putting players on proper tees is the only solution. Tees need to be selected for the average of the field rather than for the best of the field.

 

[biscoe]

Putting players on proper tees is the only solution. Tees need to be selected for the average of the field rather than for the best of the field.

Ideally yes. Tees also need to be selected however from amongst the ones that actually exist at any given site.

 

[biscoe]

How do y'all feel about whether a hole needs to be "birdie-able" to be fair and fun? Personally, I like a mix of gettable and tough par 3 and par 4 holes, preferably where accuracy rather than distance causes most of the difficulty.

For example, a tough par 3 for me might be a challenging birdie for a higher-level player, but both of us can find the hole enjoyable.

Unreachable par 3's are probably my least favorite "type" of hole both as a designer and as a player. They generally involve a NAGS for the upshot after a "successful" drive. This is not to say that there are not some of them which are fun, primarily wooded ones. Unreachable par 3's in the open are the least interesting holes in the game.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Unreachable par 3's are probably my least favorite "type" of hole both as a designer and as a player. They generally involve a NAGS for the upshot after a "successful" drive. This is not to say that there are not some of them which are fun, primarily wooded ones. Unreachable par 3's in the open are the least interesting holes in the game.

The challenge for designers is making reachable par 3s in the open "not too birdieable" (> 60%) for a skill level.

 

[wellsbranch250]

Unreachable par 3's are probably my least favorite "type" of hole both as a designer and as a player. They generally involve a NAGS for the upshot after a "successful" drive. This is not to say that there are not some of them which are fun, primarily wooded ones. Unreachable par 3's in the open are the least interesting holes in the game.

100 percent agree.

I will add. to me, +350ft water clear or improve island par3s with only one tee, are among the most terribly designed holes. The designer is literally flipping off everyone without the power to get there. Many just have to put head down, go straight to the drop zone and attempt a miracle par save.