Some player ranking statistics and thoughts on course design

[mizunodave]

I played a course today that I feel was not designed with me in mind. I suppose that's okay, I didn't pay for the course but it would be nice if courses were set up to be fun and challenging for as many skill levels as possible.

Several of the holes featured a combination of length and tightness such that a 3 was out of the question, a 4 would have been good for me and a 5 was most likely. While it can be argued that par is just a number and doesn't matter, these holes were so difficult for my skill level that they were frustrating and not fun. It felt like these holes were designed to be challenging for a 900+ rated player and I'm far from that.

It got me thinking, how much should average player ranking be considered when designing courses? Should courses be set up to suit the skill level of the largest selection of rankings?

44,700 ranked players

>1000 .003%
950-1000 7.9%
900-950 30.5%
850-900 32.5%
800-850 16.2%
750-800 6.7%
<700 6.0%

61.5% of ranked players are rated under 900. Of course that doesn't count those who play and are not ranked.

What I'd most like to see would be holes set up with a tight/difficult line that would lead to a birdie if hit and a safe/easy line that can only give you a par. Let the better players go for the birdie and let me work towards that while I take my safer par.

Just want to get some conversation going..

 

[sidewinder22]

I think you might be jumping the gun as in my experience there are far more rec level pitch and putt courses than pro caliber courses. New designs largely depends on a number of things, I'll assume you are talking about public park courses. Are there any other local courses and what are those like? Ideally new courses would provide variety from the other existing courses. Often times multiple tees can cater to the majority of players fairly well. Whether that is ideal or not or even an option for a particular park/course is another question. When you have people playing different layouts that can sometimes cause course flow issues and other conflicts.

 

[lasasj]

I agree with SW22. A pro course can easily accommodate a rec tee layout and allow everyone to enjoy it. A short & tight course aimed at 850 rated players, however, will not offer as much to the same spectrum of players. I personally would like to see more challenging courses installed, but that's probably bias on my part. I'm not a fan of short, tight "birdie or die" courses.

Also par is relative. You could have 2 different "pars" on the same layout. i.e. Pro par is 54 and Am par is 58. Determine what par should be for your skill level, and just roll with it. Forget what the sign says.

 

[ru4por]

Again with the par consternation. Play the course, count your strokes, play again and try to beat it. If par is bothering you, play the local 2200 ft high school field course....most areas have one. Bonus...they are usually not very crowded.
I want to be challenged. I play myself and the course. A long tight hole is a challenge, I relish the opportunity to test my mettle against tough holes.

 

[Steve West]

...it would be nice if courses were set up to be fun and challenging for as many skill levels as possible.

The best way to do that is to have multiple courses. With thousands and thousands of courses, not every course needs to fit all players anymore. At least not in the well-developed areas.

 

[brutalbrutus]

There are Golf courses that require an established handicap at or under a certain level to be allowed on the course. St. Andrews Old Course is one, Bethpage Black is another. Read reviews and look at course photos. if a course looks to tough for you then don't play it. Or play it going in with mindset that your gonna get your butt kicked and just enjoy the experience... Especially if its one of the biggies like Iron Hill, Idlewild, etc.

 

[DavidSauls]

It got me thinking, how much should average player ranking be considered when designing courses? Should courses be set up to suit the skill level of the largest selection of rankings?

No. Different courses should be designed for different skill levels, so players have a choice and everyone can play an appropriate course.

Generally, any given course works for a spectrum of skill levels---just not all of them. And players have different tastes---I'm a sub-900 rated player who much prefers playing a course designed for players rated 100 points more than me.

Sometimes a course can be set up with multiple tees to suit a wide variety of skill levels. If it can be done without compromising the layout, or having excessively long transitions between holes, great. Otherwise, I'd prefer each course to be the best layout for a particular skill level, or range of them, and give me the choice of which course to play.

 

[takman]

I played a course today that I feel was not designed with me in mind. I suppose that's okay,

You are setting yourself up for abuse with opening lines like this.

 

[sillybizz]

I bet 0.03% of courses are built for 1000+ rated players anyway, if that. The percentage of courses catering to under 800 rated players is greater than 12.7% I can assure you. OP there is a great website that will direct you to the nearest pitch and putt, it's www.dgcoursereview.com you should check it out. No we don't need more chucker courses, thanks for the thread. :|

 

[brutalbrutus]

I bet 0.03% of courses are built for 1000+ rated players anyway, if that. The percentage of courses catering to under 800 rated players is greater than 12.7% I can assure you. OP there is a great website that will direct you to the nearest pitch and putt, it's www.dgcoursereview.com you should check it out. No we don't need more chucker courses, thanks for the thread. :|

I beg to differ. I think that the more chucker courses out there, means people will spread out and less congestion on the better courses...

 

[JC17393]

I bet 0.03% of courses are built for 1000+ rated players anyway, if that. The percentage of courses catering to under 800 rated players is greater than 12.7% I can assure you. OP there is a great website that will direct you to the nearest pitch and putt, it's www.dgcoursereview.com you should check it out. No we don't need more chucker courses, thanks for the thread. :|

Should it really come as a surprise that there aren't that many courses catering to 1000+ players and that more courses appear to cater to "chuckers"? When we're building courses on public lands that are funded and maintained by public dollars (mostly), the point is that the courses get used (lest the funding and/or the maintenance dry up). There are infinitely more players of the "chucker" variety than there are 1000+ rated players. As the OP demonstrates, Gold level courses can be frustrating and a turn-off to players who can't match the skill level needed to play them.

So in any given area, the first courses to go in are typically going to be the pitch-and-putts that can keep the chuckers interested. That is likely never going to change. So there will be more of them built, and with good reason. The key, as others have said, is to follow those up with the larger, tougher courses to provide the variety of challenges for all skill levels.

 

[sillybizz]

I beg to differ. I think that the more chucker courses out there, means people will spread out and less congestion on the better courses...

I see what you're saying but maybe if we had tougher courses we would have less chuckers. Those that want to carry more beer than discs might move on to something else. Those of us that want to be challenged will be.

 

[sillybizz]

Should it really come as a surprise that there aren't that many courses catering to 1000+ players and that more courses appear to cater to "chuckers"? When we're building courses on public lands that are funded and maintained by public dollars (mostly), the point is that the courses get used (lest the funding and/or the maintenance dry up). There are infinitely more players of the "chucker" variety than there are 1000+ rated players. As the OP demonstrates, Gold level courses can be frustrating and a turn-off to players who can't match the skill level needed to play them.

So in any given area, the first courses to go in are typically going to be the pitch-and-putts that can keep the chuckers interested. That is likely never going to change. So there will be more of them built, and with good reason. The key, as others have said, is to follow those up with the larger, tougher courses to provide the variety of challenges for all skill levels.

Right but the OP is saying that the course he played is too challenging and that it needs to accommodate him and as a newbie which is does not. Like you guys say there are already tons of those courses. We don't need to make courses to accommodate everyone. When I first started I thought all the courses were too tough - I got better and realized I was wrong. The OP needs to find a 9 holer on an elementary school or suck it up.

 

[DSmith]

Just throwing this out there and maybe Steve West could put together a chart for it; how many people have considered the rating improvement/development in players over time from when they start up playing and as they improve their skills. You might start out as a 800 rated player but many improve, ratings wise, pretty quickly. Some dont. Ideally I feel courses should be laid out to encourage new players rather than discourage them while providing the opportunity to improve their game and grow into the harder layout.

Id recently worked on a layout for a par 72 disc golf course that was blue/white rated (2 sets of tees). 5 par 5's, 5 par 3s and 8 par 4's. I then inserted a second layout within it which cut the par 4's and par 5's down a stroke to make it a par 59 with 5 par 4's and 13 par 3's using the same tees and that layout was white/red rated. It have 31 baskets total (13 to make the short greens and 18 to make the long greens).
I know it sounds confusing but it creates a short course, with a shorter par, within a long course with a higher par on the same layout.

As with everything Greensboro related, we'll see if this comes to fruition. opcorn:

 

[DavidSauls]

I see what you're saying but maybe if we had tougher courses we would have less chuckers. Those that want to carry more beer than discs might move on to something else. Those of us that want to be challenged will be.

Or maybe we could not slur everyone who wants to play easier courses as beer-toting chuckers?

Some are. There are also kids and families and old guys, people just playing for casual fun, beginners who'll move to bigger courses in a year or two, experienced players just out for a short or light round, etc. Not everyone's ambition is to be the best disc golfer they can be. There's a place for those people, and those easier courses, too.

 

[mizunodave]

Just throwing this out there and maybe Steve West could put together a chart for it; how many people have considered the rating improvement/development in players over time from when they start up playing and as they improve their skills. You might start out as a 800 rated player but many improve, ratings wise, pretty quickly. Some dont. Ideally I feel courses should be laid out to encourage new players rather than discourage them while providing the opportunity to improve their game and grow into the harder layout.

This is what I was getting at. If the course is designed to be 'fun' for only 30% of players and as such only 30% of players use the course, that's a shame and a bit of a waste when we could design differently and make the course work for ALL players.

 

[sillybizz]

There are also kids and families and old guys, people just playing for casual fun, beginners who'll move to bigger courses in a year or two, experienced players just out for a short or light round, etc. Not everyone's ambition is to be the best disc golfer they can be. There's a place for those people, and those easier courses, too.

Yes but again not every course needs to be a "family friendly" (better?) course. The OP is saying that the course he played was too hard and needs to accommodate him. There are already tons of courses like that; we don't need to build gold courses with low rated players in mind. Either suck it up, cupcake or find an easier course.

 

[Jay Dub]

There's nothing wrong with playing a course to your own par. If five is the best you can do on a particular hole then that is your par. Accept that and work to improve your game if that isn't satisfactory for you.
But don't expect others to do things or change to make your golf fun, find a way to do that for yourself.

 

[DavidSauls]

This is what I was getting at. If the course is designed to be 'fun' for only 30% of players and as such only 30% of players use the course, that's a shame and a bit of a waste when we could design differently and make the course work for ALL players.

But often it can't be.

Sure, you can put tee pads 200' up the fairway and maybe that will help. Those weaker players will have to walk an extra 1/3 mile during the course of the round when they could be throwing. But the angles may not work from those short tees. Or you can widen fairways until they're not challenging for that 30%, but that's a waste.

Or, instead of designing courses that are good, but not optimal, for good players, and good, but not optimal, for weak players, you can design different courses that suit each skill level. Then everyone gets to play a better course---just not the same course, at the same time.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes but again not every course needs to be a "family friendly" (better?) course. The OP is saying that the course he played was too hard and needs to accommodate him. There are already tons of courses like that; we don't need to build gold courses with low rated players in mind. Either suck it up, cupcake or find an easier course.

Exactly. I was responding to your suggestion that if we had tougher courses, the chuckers might just something else.