What do these stats tell you about design?

[ssjfewp]

This is taken from 3 rounds of tournament play.

Hole 1 Avg. 3.285714286

2's - 30
3's - 154
4's - 60
5's - 20
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 2 Avg. 3.304511278

2's - 20
3's - 161
4's - 69
5's - 16
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 3 Avg. 3.372180451

2's - 22
3's - 152
4's - 67
5's - 21
6's - 4
7's - 0

Hole 4 Avg. 3.830827068

2's - 14
3's - 94
4's - 96
5's - 50
6's - 9
7's - 3

Hole 5 Avg. 3.169172932

2's - 36
3's - 163
4's - 56
5's - 8
6's - 3
7's - 0

Hole 6 Avg. 4.093984962

2's - 0
3's - 66
4's - 129
5's - 54
6's - 14
7's - 3

Hole 7 Avg. 3.281954887

2's - 26
3's - 156
4's - 69
5's - 13
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 8 Avg. 3.026315789

2's - 49
3's - 171
4's - 38
5's - 6
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 9 Avg. 3.109022556

2's - 50
3's - 157
4's - 43
5's - 12
6's - 4
7's - 0

Hole 10 Avg. 4.609022556

2's - 0
3's - 22
4's - 114
5's - 87
6's - 33
7's - 9
8's - 1

Hole 11 Avg. 3.360902256

2's - 26
3's - 142
4's - 78
5's - 16
6's - 4
7's - 0

Hole 12 Avg. 2.95112782

2's - 72
3's - 141
4's - 48
5's - 4
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 13 Avg. 3.740601504

2's - 0
3's - 118
4's - 104
5's - 40
6's - 3
7's - 1

Hole 14 Avg. 2.680451128

2's - 103
3's - 147
4's - 14
5's - 2
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 15 Avg. 3.766917293

2's - 15
3's - 96
4's - 105
5's - 37
6's - 13
7's - 1

Hole 16 Avg. 2.981203008

2's - 50
3's - 176
4's - 35
5's - 5
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 17 Avg. 3

2's - 49
3's - 171
4's - 43
5's - 3
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 18 Avg. 4.135338346

2's - 1
3's - 51
4's - 146
5's - 48
6's - 19
7's - 1

Here are the same stats using only the pro open field. The layout used was intended for pro's. This tournament included some of the best players in the world and had a combined average player rating of 991.

Hole 1 Avg. 2.901234568

2's - 26
3's - 40
4's - 12
5's - 3
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 2 Avg. 2.987654321

2's - 18
3's - 47
4's - 15
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 3 Avg. 3.086419753

2's - 15
3's - 48
4's - 15
5's - 2
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 4 Avg. 3.382716049

2's - 12
3's - 37
4's - 23
5's - 7
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 5 Avg. 2.913580247

2's - 22
3's - 46
4's - 12
5's - 0
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 6 Avg. 3.765432099

2's - 0
3's - 31
4's - 39
5's - 10
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 7 Avg. 2.864197531

2's - 19
3's - 55
4's - 6
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 8 Avg. 2.666666667

2's - 31
3's - 46
4's - 4
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 9 Avg. 2.802469136

2's - 30
3's - 42
4's - 6
5's - 1
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 10 Avg. 4.308641975

2's - 0
3's - 12
4's - 43
5's - 17
6's - 7
7's - 2
8's - 0

Hole 11 Avg. 2.901234568

2's - 20
3's - 48
4's - 12
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 12 Avg. 2.641975309

2's - 37
3's - 37
4's - 6
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 13 Avg. 3.345679012

2's - 0
3's - 57
4's - 20
5's - 4
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 14 Avg. 2.234567901

2's - 62
3's - 19
4's - 0
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 15 Avg. 3.271604938

2's - 10
3's - 44
4's - 23
5's - 3
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 16 Avg. 2.703703704

2's - 29
3's - 47
4's - 5
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 17 Avg. 2.790123457

2's - 26
3's - 45
4's - 9
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 18 Avg. 3.703703704

2's - 1
3's - 32
4's - 40
5's - 6
6's - 2
7's - 0

These numbers say a lot to me but I also know the course in and out. If you know which course this is from, please refrain from commenting. I'd like to know what stands out based on these numbers. Which holes should be addressed to improve the design based solely on these stats. Thanks.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The numbers are not useful for analysis unless they are normalized to a specific skill level of 1000 rating for Gold or 950 rating for Blue depending on what level the course was designed for. Check out this article for help: http://www.pdga.com/course-design-validation

 

[solomon.trenton]

par for the hole would be nice, I can guess the par from the average but...

 

[ssjfewp]

Chuckles,
I know that article well. The layout used was intended to challenge gold level players but knowing that blue and white level players were there, we didn't go all out. That's why I separated it by the pro field only and the entire tournament. We're seriously limited to what can be done but other pin positions and some other tees exist to accommodate those blue and white level players for recreational play. I understand these numbers don't paint a great picture but do they tell you anything about the design?

Thanks

 

[Cgkdisc]

You need to either use the scores from a set of those players with ratings between say 965 to 1045 who average exactly a 1000 rating. Or, you need the program that the DCGD course designers use to adjust the scores to produce a distribution for the equivalent of a 1000 rated pool. Otherwise, analyzing the data doesn't mean anything since you won't always get the same mix of players each event.

 

[ssjfewp]

I can do that but I may be missing the point. Why exactly 1000? Some of the ratings are likely inflated and they're ever changing anyway. Design according to the color scheme is nothing more than a reference point, right? You don't design for a specific rating...more of a range that falls roughly into those categories. I'm happy to do it but why doesn't the average rating of 991 not tell you enough?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Gold level is 1000 rating average and it's also the rating for the course SSA. All of the design data is referenced to that. Even though you always get a mix of player ratings at an event, the scoring spreads are based on specific ratings reference points of 1000, 950, 900 or 850 so you can look and see if the layout is suited for the gold, blue, white or red level as planned. If you look at spreads for a pool of 50 players averaging 1009 versus a pool averaging 991 like you have, they are both 9 points from 1000 but they average almost a half a skill level difference and the spreads will be different on each hole. Both sets of numbers either need to be mathematically adjusted to 1000 or you need to select scores only from a group of players who average 1000 exactly, not just the ones who shot well compared to their rating but everyone you can include and still have the average at 1000. It's okay, in fact desirable, to have more than one round of scores on the same layout from the same players if available.

 

[agent_peebody]

looks like a bunch of jibberish to me

 

[Cgkdisc]

looks like a bunch of jibberish to me

That "gibberish" is what helped tweak the Lemon Lake courses, as a group, to be one of the most balanced and fair set of holes at Worlds, based on player feedback.

 

[Steve West]

They tell me that there must have been an ace on both 11 and 17 in the second round, and some joker played only hole 15 in the first.

 

[ssjfewp]

Ok, this equals 1000

Hole 1 Avg. 2.818181818

2's - 26
3's - 28
4's - 6010
5's - 2
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 2 Avg. 2.893939394

2's - 17
3's - 40
4's - 8
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 3 Avg. 2.893939394


2's - 15
3's - 43
4's - 8
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 4 Avg. 3.257575758

2's - 12
3's - 30
4's - 19
5's - 5
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 5 Avg. 2.787878788

2's - 21
3's - 38
4's - 7
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 6 Avg. 3.696969697


2's - 0
3's - 29
4's - 29
5's - 7
6's - 1
7's - 0

Hole 7 Avg. 2.803030303

2's - 18
3's - 43
4's - 5
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 8 Avg. 2.651515152

2's - 25
3's - 39
4's - 2
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 9 Avg. 2.772727273

2's - 27
3's - 32
4's - 4
5's - 1
6's - 2
7's - 0

Hole 10 Avg. 4.196969697


2's - 0
3's - 12
4's - 35
5's - 14
6's - 4
7's - 1
8's - 0

Hole 11 Avg. 2.772727273

2's - 20
3's - 41
4's - 5
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 12 Avg. 2.560606061

2's - 36
3's - 24
4's - 5
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 13 Avg. 3.257575758

2's - 0
3's - 51
4's - 13
5's - 2
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 14 Avg. 2.181818182

2's - 54
3's - 12
4's - 0
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 15 Avg. 3.151515152

2's - 10
3's - 37
4's - 18
5's - 1
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 16 Avg. 2.651515152

2's - 27
3's - 35
4's - 4
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 17 Avg. 2.712121212

2's - 25
3's - 35
4's - 6
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

Hole 18 Avg. 3.606060606

2's - 1
3's - 30
4's - 30
5's - 4
6's - 1
7's - 0

 

[sgamerp]

looks like the stat tracker is off. but it also seems like peope give up after the first hole.

 

[ssjfewp]

Hole 1- 4's=10

 

[Kwick]

This hole seems a little too easy. A par loses a stroke on the field, which shouldn't be the case.

Hole 14 Avg. 2.234567901

2's - 62
3's - 19
4's - 0
5's - 0
6's - 0
7's - 0

 

[Cgkdisc]

Front 9 is solid gold where maybe just hole 6 could be toughened up. Consider adding around 100 ft to 14 and 50ish ft to 12. Hole 18 is pretty good but could be made a little less of a tweener with a little more length if possible in the 30-60 ft range. Hole 13 should maybe be shortened by as much as 100 ft. Overall, a pretty solid gold level layout from a scoring standpoint.

 

[Dave242]

13 & 14 jumped out to me as holes that need tweaking (both in your 991 avg data and 1000 avg data). Chuck's suggestion of length is OK, but of course you could do things with hole shape as well to force a harder line for shot-shaping (rewarding those who can do it and punishing those who can't).

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not sure how the routing works on these holes but I might look at 12 thru 14 as a group for potential changes in all three.

 

[Dave242]

Gold level is 1000 rating average and it's also the rating for the course SSA. All of the design data is referenced to that. Even though you always get a mix of player ratings at an event, the scoring spreads are based on specific ratings reference points of 1000, 950, 900 or 850 so you can look and see if the layout is suited for the gold, blue, white or red level as planned. If you look at spreads for a pool of 50 players averaging 1009 versus a pool averaging 991 like you have, they are both 9 points from 1000 but they average almost a half a skill level difference and the spreads will be different on each hole. Both sets of numbers either need to be mathematically adjusted to 1000 or you need to select scores only from a group of players who average 1000 exactly, not just the ones who shot well compared to their rating but everyone you can include and still have the average at 1000. It's okay, in fact desirable, to have more than one round of scores on the same layout from the same players if available.

I have not invested nearly as much time or effort into this as you (and others), but it seems to me you need to understand the spread of scores going into those averages.

For example, for determining the appropriateness of scoring spread for Blue level players on a Blue level course if you have scores from 5 players each from each 10-point range from the 880's to 1020's you have MUCH more meaningless data than if you have data from 75 players whose ratings are 945-955.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The formal range of player ratings for each level is +/- 25 points from those midpoints, i.e., ideally for gold 975-1024(+), blue 925-974, white 875-924 and Red 825-874. From a practical standpoint, I use scores +/- 35 from the midpoints, i.e. 965+ for gold or 915-985 for blue and the Hole Forecaster template adjusts their score distribution to the midpoint rating if needed.

 

[chrishysell]

Those scores tell me that no one aced. I didn't look any farther than that.