Should every hole be birdie-able?

[optidiscic]

The way I see it

a few difficult and a few easy pars have their benefits

a course with easy pars and difficult pars...produces excitement off the tee as the deuce or die scenario puts pressure on players to either birdie the easy hole or par the survivor hole as in each half the field often falters. This would be in opposition to the war of attrition type true par holes where most players 3 and we wait until someone messes up for bogey or for someone to score birdie.

I think all 3 type of holes have their place on a course in some kind of harmony

18 true pars is not nearly as much fun as a mix of the 3.

IMO the benefits far outweigh the negatives

a course that caters to an advanced player will be boring scorewise to rec players as "I have to par everything cause I will rarely birdie" just as a course that is catering to rec players will be entirely deuce or die for the advanced....which is also boring scorewise.

An example I will give is whenever I play the gold rated SSA 68 Nockamixon....fantastic course but scorewise its dull for my ability as I am playing par or die golf as I never/rarely get birdies there. Nocky hands it to me and I enjoy the challenge but keeping score becomes pointless once I have taken 3 bogeys as I realize there are no birdies out there for me. Once I get a handful of bogeys I usually don't care as I know my personal best is impossible...zzzzzzzzz

 

[DavidSauls]

Try this experiment: Take the hole-by-hole-by-player results from a tournament.

First, see how much scoring separation there is with the actual results (among the top third, and the bottom two-thirds of the field).

Then, see what would have happened if there were no Birdies. (Change all the scores that are lower than the mode to the mode.)

Also, see what would have happened if there were no Bogies. (Change all the scores that are higher than the mode to the mode.)

What I found was that for the bottom of the field, advancing up the ranks was due to getting fewer bogies. The few birdies were randomly scattered around and didn't do much for separation.

As expected, for the top third of the field, the scoring separation was strongly influenced by birdies.

HOWEVER, the bogies were just as important as the birdies for separating the top third. Also, the bogies were just as important for separating the top third as they were for separating the bottom two-thirds.

In other words, holes that give players a chance to avoid high scores separate all of the field, not just the bottom two-thirds.

Holes that give players a chance to birdie are needed to get separation among the top third of the field. But bogies are never less important than birdies.

Interesting.

I suspected as much, partly because I like looking through the top Open scorecards after a tournament at our place to see how holes played out. But I've never actually done the math, and am thankful not to have to now.

 

[Dave242]

Try this experiment: Take the hole-by-hole-by-player results from a tournament.

First, see how much scoring separation there is with the actual results (among the top third, and the bottom two-thirds of the field).

Then, see what would have happened if there were no Birdies. (Change all the scores that are lower than the mode to the mode.)

Also, see what would have happened if there were no Bogies. (Change all the scores that are higher than the mode to the mode.)

What I found was that for the bottom of the field, advancing up the ranks was due to getting fewer bogies. The few birdies were randomly scattered around and didn't do much for separation.

As expected, for the top third of the field, the scoring separation was strongly influenced by birdies.

HOWEVER, the bogies were just as important as the birdies for separating the top third. Also, the bogies were just as important for separating the top third as they were for separating the bottom two-thirds.

In other words, holes that give players a chance to avoid high scores separate all of the field, not just the bottom two-thirds.

Holes that give players a chance to birdie are needed to get separation among the top third of the field. But bogies are never less important than birdies.

This is great! What I just did was grabbed something I had handy from an A-Tier at Hornet's Nest (with lots of top pros in attendance - a few days before the start of the USDGC). All I have handy that is applicable to this thread is hole-by-hole data for 4 rounds on holes 2 & 6 (432' open & 410' open with OB road down the right side). IMO, these holes sort of fit the description of this thread as they are long-ish par-3's.

For the top 1/3 of Gold (975+ rated) taking out birdies (changing them to pars), still had every single one in the top 1/3.....as did taking out the bogeys.

In the top 1/3 the distribution was 63/119/10 (33%/62%/5%). The bottom 2/3's were 15/237/36 (5%/82%/13%).

So, on these tweener holes birdies separated the top 1/3 of Gold level players. Bogeys separated the the lower 2/3's almost 3x what birdies did.

(As a side note, it is easy to see from these numbers that ~420' open holes are OK for the super-Gold players rated >1000, but are horrible for the 975-1000 rated players))

 

[Steve West]

Interesting.

I suspected as much, partly because I like looking through the top Open scorecards after a tournament at our place to see how holes played out. But I've never actually done the math, and am thankful not to have to now.

You still have to do it. I only looked at one tournament. That's not enough to confirm a hunch.

The Math is easy, it's getting all the scores into the computer that is hard.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm lazy. I'll continue looking through the Open Pro lead cards and noticing where bogeys, or worse, impact them. With particular interest in the bogeys on our "unbirdieable", tough-par holes.

 

[BrotherDave]

The question is whether there should be holes with a spread like:

3 60%
4 30%
5 10%

(For the intended skill level).

I like a few of these holes, where you're penalized if you screw up, and there's a fairly good chance (40%) that you will. Yet it is, to me, still a par-3, though unbirdieable.

Holes like this seem to be too punitive in the area of rewarding luck more than skill which generally translates to players playing much more conservatively than they or the spectators would like. The only people that seem to consistently like these types of holes (survival holes) are designers with a sadist streak or players with a masochistic streak.

Like hole 5 at Winthrop Gold seems like it moved from what Dave242 is stumping for to a survival hole after the tee was moved to the dock. Previously there was a reward element involved for the big arms like Lizotte to short cut the final corner by playing over the water but now the vast majority just plays conservative b/c the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. I might have remembered this wrong, hopefully someone will validate this (I want to say bikinjack has been a spotter on this hole a lot over the years).

Every hole should have scoring separation, which doesn't necessarily mean a birdie. I had 2 holes at my last tournament where EVERY Open and Advanced player got a 3. Might as well have skipped the holes altogether. This year, I'll use different pin positions.

I've been waiting to jump in this thread with my normal comment on this topic.

I love the term "survival hole" and I like them sort of holes due to the psychology.....but only with 1-2 per course. Here is why:

Good hole design should reward good play/skill and should punish poor play. The goal of a course should be to provide an appropriate challenge to determine who is displaying the most skillfully during a given event.

So, scoring separation should be caused by both punishment AND reward.

The hole you describe has no/little reward element.....so what it is doing is separating the players scores who are the bad players. That is not the point of competition - the point of competition is to separate the scores of the players who are the best players in the field.

Yeah, I'm with my fellow Dave here on practically all of his posts. I can see the appeal of having "all you can do to get par" holes to balance out the numerous "birdie-or-die" aka par 2 holes that are too prevalent on our courses but to me that is more of a "two wrongs make a right" solution. Just b/c there are a lot of easy to birdie holes shouldn't necessarily justify more survival holes. We should be doing more to reduce birdie-or-die holes instead (by making them par 2s or making greens harder etc, different subject for a different thread).

People in general? No. But the people in 16th and 17th came out for a competitive experience too, they're going to get more out of it if there are holes that give them a chance to gain or lose strokes.

I think most of those people are probably playing a division too high for their skill level anyway. I wouldn't be too concerned with separating the bottom thirds of fields for that reason alone. Way too many people have allusions of grandeur in the tourney scene.

 

[DavidSauls]

Holes like this seem to be too punitive in the area of rewarding luck more than skill which generally translates to players playing much more conservatively than they or the spectators would like. The only people that seem to consistently like these types of holes (survival holes) are designers with a sadist streak or players with a masochistic streak.

If well designed, they don't have to reward luck more than skill. (And if not well designed, that's a flaw in the design, not the concept).

Spectators?

It should read, "designers with a sadist streak, or players with a masochistic streak, or both", so I don't have to decide which is the reason I like them.

 

[BrotherDave]

If well designed, they don't have to reward luck more than skill. (And if not well designed, that's a flaw in the design, not the concept).

Spectators?

It should read, "designers with a sadist streak, or players with a masochistic streak, or both", so I don't have to decide which is the reason I like them.

I think the concept is flawed though. I don't see how you could have a survival hole and it still be a good design. I don't think making par or avoiding bogey is a good enough reward for skilled execution. It just rubs me the wrong way that you can say about a hole "I kicked that hole's ass and made every throw perfectly, it didn't affect my score at all."

 

[Steve West]

Whether these holes should exist or not, if 60% of the players are getting a 3, it's a par 3.

Don't call it a par 4 just so it can be "birdie-able".

Even if you called it a par 4, you would still not have gained anything against the field by getting a 3. And, if anyone ever did get a 2, they would know they gained one throw. One throw that no one else will get, but still only one.

By calling it a par 3, at least you know you cost yourself a throw when you got a 4.

 

[bikinjack]

Like hole 5 at Winthrop Gold seems like it moved from what Dave242 is stumping for to a survival hole after the tee was moved to the dock. Previously there was a reward element involved for the big arms like Lizotte to short cut the final corner by playing over the water but now the vast majority just plays conservative b/c the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. I might have remembered this wrong, hopefully someone will validate this (I want to say bikinjack has been a spotter on this hole a lot over the years).

The thing with hole 5 at Winthrop was that the year the tee was shorter and down by the water was that it rewarded aggressive play that was well executed, as it was possible for the biggest of arms to get within putting range in two very well executed throws. The most recent version of the hole offers no such reward. It only rewards the big arms to play conservative and make the "safe" shot. From my perspective, watching everybody tee off, the new tee just isn't as much fun to watch. Most of the open players tee shots landed in a fairly small area without a ton of variation, and not too much more variation on their second shot.

I would rather see aggressive play by those who deem it worth the risk than the same conservative play by nearly everyone.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think the concept is flawed though. I don't see how you could have a survival hole and it still be a good design. I don't think making par or avoiding bogey is a good enough reward for skilled execution. It just rubs me the wrong way that you can say about a hole "I kicked that hole's ass and made every throw perfectly, it didn't affect my score at all."

The world's full of them---we just don't admit they're par-2s.

Take a hole that has this distribution, excluding low-percentage outliers:

2 60%
3 30%
4 10%

If you kick that hole's ass and make every throw perfectly, you get a 2. That 2 doesn't gain you any ground on the competition. It just keeps you from losing ground---a survival hole.

We call it a par-3, and call those birdies, but they're not, not really.

So the same would be said for a hole with this distribution:

3 60%
4 30%
5 10%

We can call that a par-4 and say most people are birdieing it. But those 3s aren't gaining any ground on the competition; the 4s are losing.

It can play just as fair, and reward skill and not luck. If you're of sufficient skill level---i.e.; much better than me---come visit and I'll show you a few.

Or imagine a double-island hole. Tee to a fair-sized island, 275' to the center. Then 275' from that center to a basket on another fair-sized island. Execute well, and it's a 3. Most players of a certain skill will do just that. But enough will miss the first island, or miss the second island, or miss the putt, to get a 4, or even a 5. The higher scores won't be due to luck, at all. But the 3s will be survivors.

 

[DavidSauls]

Edit to the double-island hole scenario, since there'll be a lot of 5s. Imagine a hole with a lake crossing, starting at 350' from the tee and ending 550' from the tee, with the basket on the far side. Executed well, you throw almost up to the lake, then over, and putt. Most players of sufficient skill will execute well and get a 3. 2s will be negligible. Those who over-drive into the lake, or whose shorter second shot isn't real accurate, or who blow an easy putt, with get a 4. Some will blow up and get a 5.

But it will all be based on skill, not luck, and produce the scoring distribution I describe.

Regardless of what you call par, this is a survivor hole.

 

[FrontRimBanger]

Short answer, no.

 

[loki the trickster]

The short simple anser is NO.

 

[coupe]

I would rather see aggressive play by those who deem it worth the risk than the same conservative play by nearly everyone.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[coupe]

I think the concept is flawed though. I don't see how you could have a survival hole and it still be a good design. I don't think making par or avoiding bogey is a good enough reward for skilled execution. It just rubs me the wrong way that you can say about a hole "I kicked that hole's ass and made every throw perfectly, it didn't affect my score at all."

That's not entirely true. It may not affect your score relative to par, but it increased your total number of throws, and depending on or your competitors did, may have increased your advantage or decreased your deficit relative to the rest of the field, so it DID affect your score.

 

[Smigles]

Par does not matter, so if you are over or under par or wether you should be over or under par does not matter either.

Quit using ballgolf concepts that have zero use in discgolf.

 

[TAFL]

Just b/c there are a lot of easy to birdie holes shouldn't necessarily justify more survival holes. We should be doing more to reduce birdie-or-die holes instead (by making them par 2s or making greens harder etc, different subject for a different thread).

Um...changing those to par 2s only changes them from "birdie or die" holes to "par or die" holes, both of which are "score 2 or die" holes. Which means there's absolutely nothing different.

 

[TYVEK]

every hole should have par set according to the skill of players playing. we see this as Gold, Blue, Red (top level pro, regular pro, amateur) a hole that could be a par 3 for a top level pro could play as a 5 or even a 4 for an amateur. but no matter what skill level you play at EVERY hole must have a reasonable chance to get a birdie on. if you cant have a reasonable chance to get a birdie on a hole with good shots then the par is set too low. the only point of contention here is the definition of what a "reasonable chance at birdie means". to me that would mean having a putt from 50-75 feet out for your birdie shot.

 

[Steve West]

every hole should have par set according to the skill of players playing. we see this as Gold, Blue, Red (top level pro, regular pro, amateur) a hole that could be a par 3 for a top level pro could play as a 5 or even a 4 for an amateur. but no matter what skill level you play at EVERY hole must have a reasonable chance to get a birdie on. if you cant have a reasonable chance to get a birdie on a hole with good shots then the par is set too low. the only point of contention here is the definition of what a "reasonable chance at birdie means". to me that would mean having a putt from 50-75 feet out for your birdie shot.

So, if we have a really dumb hole where 100% of Open players get 3, Gold par is 4?

What good does that do anybody?