So what you're saying is that we needed to make DeLa easier. Do you have the breakdown on where the spray area occurs and what factors cause it? I have the tendency to put such ideas in the category of hypothesis until some data moves them towards having real world impact.
Making a course easier, so to speak, isn't the same as creating lower scores. One is a physical change in the course, the other is par manipulation. Yes, there is a good bit of overlap, make a hole easier without adjusting par and scoring goes down. The problem is that the making holes easier made a lot of holes ar DeLa play below par. I would think on a well adjusted course, you'd have some holes that play below par, say 2.7, and some that play above par, say 3.2 (if par was always three). DeLa seems to have a significant chunk of holes that are 2.7ish, and very few that are 3.2ish. Just to my very untrained eye.
I meant lower scores. I have a hard time remembering that some people think "easier" and "harder" always means in relation to par.
No, I don't have the spray patterns and such, but I think those who made the changes have years of experience with the course. They know where discs land. It would seem silly and perhaps insulting and ungrateful to question their efforts.
There is no real reason some holes must average above par and some below. It would be nice, I suppose, but eliminating interference is far more important.
A derogatory statement opening, " I have a hard time remembering that some people think "easier" and "harder" always means in relation to par." Bad start.
Since my written statement was, "Making a course easier, so to speak, isn't the same as creating lower scores. One is a physical change in the course, the other is par manipulation," I do believe that I moved out of the "par determines easier or harder realm into something more nuanced.
My thesis was exactly what you've written, and then not addressed, because it would be silly and perhaps, insulting. "They changed the holes, the result is that the vast majority of the holes now play below their set par." Apparently, their experience didn't prevent that from happening. Whether it was hole structure, or an inability to set some pars at 2, that prevented the majority of holes from playing below par, isn't clear in some cases, but in some it is quite clear. Two kinds of adjustments were made, one was to shorten holes, the other was to raise par on some holes. Those two adjustments meant that par went from generally being above -10 for the top players to being below -10 for the top players. I feel that was a mistake, that isn't the universal that some like to make it, that is for my personal enjoyment of the game. However, I would argue that it does include credibility for how we are percieved. Remember all the ESPN coverage over Paul's -18? Funny enough, it went away when he did it again. I have to wonder if they didn't figure out that it has less meaning than one would hope it would, and might be based more on our use of par, than on any real acheivment?
Speaking of playing from the gut, experience that is, don't, period. That's why we have math. That is why I support your supposition that we should use math to assess hole strength and why I paid attention to your math that showed that the vast majority of these holes played below the set par.
The notion that we should give someone credibility based on their vast experience has led to, George Bush's gut notion that Iraq had WMDs, that Donald Trump is a good businessman, and to the crushing of many careers in science and business because some investigator or manager, with lots of experience, made a call without doing the research and math. Two of my favorites are the scientists at NASA who's gut instincts told them that the O rings would hold, even though the science said they wouldn't, and the managers for BP that decided that cutting edges on lining wells, going against what had always been done, as determined by engineers, would be okay.
So, I'm quite happy to question the guys at DeLa, especially when the end result shows that the course dynamic is completely different than it was, not just for the single hole where safety was concerned.
It is fine if the DeLa wise men think that making the course easier was a good thing, but then they should take up the mantle, like you seemed to, and say "we wanted DeLa to play easier." I don't care if that is your, I forget everyone does this, easier, as defined by par, or the easier they used, by shortening holes and increasing par on others.
"There is no real reason some holes must average above par and some below. It would be nice, I suppose,"
This is a correct statement, in a vacuum. Can we agree that if all holes play below par, as opposed to being distributed on either side, that scores will be lower? How will that be percieved? Is our goal to drive scores lower? Is a hole that plays at 2.6 better than a hole that plays at 3.2? (and no, I don't think that is the case). Does it look, if all your par 3 holes score below three, that you've tried to make an easy course?
As an aside, if all things are random, then I would expect some distribution of holes around par, above and below. When I see a statistically significant skewing in one direction, it gives me pause. I'm not going to take such a course very seriously. It suggests someone wanted low scores to me. I suspect it would in a ball golf setting too.
What does eliminating interference mean? That leaves me lost. Do you mean stopping fans from being in the fairway? Or something else?
Last, perhaps you can indulge me farther, how do you define spray, what causes it etc. Just so I know what I'm discussing.
