PORN!

[Skookum]

...for mathletes.

Look at the stats on that course, SSA must be 60, that sooo hot!

FIXED sorry about the messup, just wanted you mathletes to do a little streching before really digging in. These are the real numbers.

http://sites.google.com/site/masoncountydiscgolf/math/The%20Lowdown.jpg?height=496&width=800

Looks like "hole" 14 could use a be a little "longer" or "shorter?" BOW CHICKA BOW WOW.

Anybody else like looking at this kinda kinky stuff?

[KG_MCDGC]

SMH

But, yeah, good stuff!

[Jeff Hemmerling]

Anybody else like looking at this kinda kinky stuff?I love math & stats. I'll be posting some DG stats over on the team golf thread real soon now. Analysis of last years results with an eye on how fair the handicapping was for singles and doubles.

What course are your scores from?
How did you determine the "1000 Rated AF" numbers?
What does "AF" stand for?

[Skookum]

AF stands for adjustment factor. I used the SSA calculator to find not only the SSA but also the AF. We are using adjusted hole averages to gauge the fairness? or playability of a given hole in the scope of the whole 18.

For example we should probably change 14 to a longer hole call it a par 5 or a shorter hole staying a par 4. Although you can't let pure numbers decide everything sometimes the relative importance of a hole trumps the math. On a good DGC you will pay attention to the math because you want most of your holes to play at 2.5-2.8, 3.5-3.8, 4.5-4.8 averages.

So that on a card of 4 players, 1-2 player will bird, 2-3 will par, with the occasional boggie. This avoids a course full of Star frames and Par frames and allows good players or players playing well that day to distance themselves from the rest of the field.

This data is from Shelton Springs and it is so new that I still feel the numbers are a little inaccurate. Once the course has been played a little more i think as a whole the average score will come down a bit.

[Jonesy]

looking forward to seeing your findings mr hemmerling.
________
Roor bong (http://roorbongs.org)

[cefire]

Hole 3 looks a little wonky as well with the vast majority of players scoring a 5 - although I think you need to break this down by the skill level you are targeting not just scoring averages (as you noted).

[olydiscgolf]

Why is the average for #16 3.76? looks to me it should be 3.0

[Yardbird]

Thanks for the stats. I have been inputing and analyzing the scoring info from the Whiners in the Woods tournament in my spare time, which is kind of scarce, but I am done with the Fairgrounds course. Actually, the data entry is easy. It took me a while to design a spreadsheet that I liked, which includes the percentage of 2,3,4,5, and other hole scores.

Anyway, back on topic.

Yes, the scoring averages on a hole are important, but a hole needs to avoid having the same score occur more than 70% of time and at the same time have three or more different scores occur. For example, here is an actual score range from the 'Whiners' event for two holes with the same hole scoring average of 3.2. Hole A(2-8%, 3-68%, 4-24%) and Hole B(2-20%, 3-50%, 4-30%). As you can see Hole B would be a better hole to create the scoring spread to allow players to gain or lose ground on the competition.

Holes averages of x.5 - x.8 allow the top 1/3 players to distance themselves from the other 2/3s, while hole averages of x.1 - x.4 create a scoring spread by sending the lower 1/3 players further from the top 2/3s of the field. I read somewhere that a ratio of 2:1 is ideal to allow the "Hot" hand to have an advantage above the player that is having an "Off" round. A hole with an averge of "Par" doesn't allow any scoring seperation between players, but sometimes the hole averages need to be overlooked because the hole could be the signature hole of the course. Some holes are just too cool to have and the "stats" need to be overlooked.

Also, you need to determine the player skill set that you plan on targeting. Do you focus on the Open players (950+ rating) or the average Experienced player (900 - 950 rating) that make up the majority of the players?

Another aspect of course design that I would like to see more often (if possible) is to create a better flow of the difficulty of the holes. For example, the first few holes should be somewhat easier (hole averages of 2.6- 2.8) to allow a player to warm-up, then throw in a few hard holes, then let up for a few holes, then have a string of 'bogie trap' holes (holes average of x.2 - x.4) to test your mental game and see if you can play error free for three or four holes in a row, then alternate easy/short and hard/long, and then set up a tough finish (par 5).

Anyway, enough for now.
Sam

[Skookum]

That stats I have got messed up when I added the hole labels. The hole numbers got added to the averages so the higher the hole the further off it was, fixed now. Everything was fine when I was going over the data then i added some stuff before i posted it and didn't catch the changes, my bad. The SSA was fine because the word Total doesn't compute so it was ignored.

These stats are taken from a round played on our BLUE course. We have a RED course but I have not done the math on it yet as it still needs 3 tee boxes.

While flow as a concept is cool and can be done to an extent, like we tried to space our par 4s and 5s out through the course, when it comes to tournament play that can be unfair to the poor bastard who is starting on the harder section. I'm sure there are standing complaints for example for folks starting on 14 at Seatac?

[TYVEK]

this is cool to look over, im just glad that there are people like skookum that like putting it together ( i know that i couldnt do it).

in the second round on hole #14 my group was talking about how difficult it was to get there in four throws. Over the last couple days i have been thinking about it and i came to the conclusion that if you were to have some 1000 rated players play that hole most of the time they wouldnt have a problem holeing out in 4 throws. i dont think you need to change the distance on that hole, because from the red(AM) tee box it is a good par 4 hole and from the black(PRO) tee pad you need to be able to play like a pro to make that par.

An AM player shouldnt be expecting to be able to make par on all the holes from the PRO teepads. that hole is a challenging hole even for the pro players, and that is something that is valuable to have in a course.

thanks for all the work you put into the numbers and the tournament Skookum, it is appreciated!

[papatart]

Once again, you guys rock with the cool stuff. Thanks for the info and all of the breakdown! With an SSA of 60 this will play as a tough course to get a really killer rating on for a round but it will be worth it when you do throw that perfect round.

As for the holes, I am glad that the scores show exactly what we were talking about on hole 14 as far as either lengthening it or shortening it. I think the idea you had for going down the hill another 100 to 150 feet will make it a great par 5 from the black and a super great par 4 from the red.

I was very surprised to see how high the scores were for hole 6 but also realize that it is a very difficult hole to get around for a look at the deuce. I think I threw about as perfect as a shot could have been thrown and still only got to within 50 feet of the basket. I heard rumor of looking for a new long teepad sight so this may also be a great change.

I think holes 8 and 10 were hurt in you scoring here by the wind that was going at the time so I wouldn't necessarily think of these as the best representation of true scoring on the hole. It should probably be a bit lower with kinder conditions.

And as always, I have to give my opinion on the island hole. Just like USDGC I really don't think that a hole should automatically have a two stroke swing built into it. Most of the scores are either 2 or 4 and that is just based on hittng the island or not. If you were to have a safe area that extends frome the teepad out about 100 feet then the player could opt to go for the island or play safe in the short zone, approach to the island and putt for three. This then puts the onus on the player as to whether he wants to go for the deuce and risk the four or have little to no chance of a deuce but should be a very simple 3.

Bottom line, this is still a super incrediblicious course that all should play on and donate money to the club for so that it can be finished up with the baskets it so humbly deserves. This is just the first one they are working on so I can only imagine what is in store down the road. There is no other course in Washington that has me more ready to go back and play again to try and better my score. I just KNOW that I can do better and I just can't wait to get back there. It has been a loooooong time since I have felt that way about a course and that is why I have no problem in saying that this has to be the best course rolling in our state at this time. Kudos to all and I can't wait to get back!

Later,
Scott Papa

[papatart]

this is cool to look over, im just glad that there are people like skookum that like putting it together ( i know that i couldnt do it).

in the second round on hole #14 my group was talking about how difficult it was to get there in four throws. Over the last couple days i have been thinking about it and i came to the conclusion that if you were to have some 1000 rated players play that hole most of the time they wouldnt have a problem holeing out in 4 throws. i dont think you need to change the distance on that hole, because from the red(AM) tee box it is a good par 4 hole and from the black(PRO) tee pad you need to be able to play like a pro to make that par.

An AM player shouldnt be expecting to be able to make par on all the holes from the PRO teepads. that hole is a challenging hole even for the pro players, and that is something that is valuable to have in a course.

thanks for all the work you put into the numbers and the tournament Skookum, it is appreciated!

Oooooh, the difference in thought on this. I disagree that an amateur should get a par from pro tees, as that is why they are called pro tees. An amateur should feel they can get par from the AM tees as that is waht they are, amateurs. If they excel on a hole then they should expect to birdie it from the am tee. If they excel on the pro tee then it should be a par as they are playing from a tee pad that is set up to test a skill set higher than what they currently have.

You are absolutely right about it being easy to hole out in four for a higher rated pro. In fact, the lead card this weekend three out of four foured the hole. I had actually thrown to within 50 feet in two throws and that is why I say it needs to be lengthened. My shots were fariway-fairway and without a branch tick would have put me within the circle. Troy, for example, hit pretty much the first tree, went about 75 feet on his first throw, and from a stand still stance on his second throw was still able to card a four. Chris G went about 40 feet on his second throw and was able to card a four. This to me is what says the hole will benefit from either being longer down the hill (yes please!) or shorter in front of the dirt road (awww, but still an awesome hole).

But most importantly the club must swear to never, ever, ever move the pro tee pad as it is the most incredible woods fairway tee shot view on the course and it is so perfect that it just can't be moved. Really, perfect. No touchy!

Later,
Papa