2010 Fox Valley Metro Presents IOS #3 @ Oswego, IL June 5 & 6 - The Oswego Open

[pdga#7648]

If the hole analysis says it was a par 4, then I was good on both 4 and 14, as I got 4's on both, YAAAAAHHHH00000000!


Hole #14, could use some trimming up, but I really don't understand why I heard at least 10 people say it was the stupidest hole they ever played??  I got to the teepad, and said ok, just pitch a roc into the fairway. That worked and left me a hyzer to the basket, just like the shot from the am tee, but shorter( I took a 2 from the am tee). Yeah, I did smack a tree on my 2nd shot, but threw to within 30' on my 3rd, then made the putt. Had I not smacked that tree on shot #2, I could have easily taken a 3 from the long tee. And I'm just an old am player.   

[pickax]

Does good score separation necessarily equal a good hole?

Good score separation that separates the wheat from the chafe is a good hole. If it just stirs the wheat and chafe together then no.

[pickax]

Interesting stuff. I have a pair of questions regarding the analyses.

- Could you explain the color coding? >70% triggers the red, presumably indicating a hole in need of attention. No idea on yellow.

These triggers are defined somewhere in one of Chuck Kennedy's articles on the PDGA site. http://www.pdga.com/course-design-validation

The concept behind the red triggers is if everyone is throwing the same score, then why bother with the hole?  The yellow triggers are slightly more nuanced. There the idea is that you want to separate the top x% off, rather than the bottom x%. e.g. If everyone is taking a three except for the last couple of players who take a four, then the hole only sorts the bottom players. If everyone is taking a three except for a small handful of players taking a two, then the hole is sorting out the top players.

- On the comparison for longs Sat vs Sun and the hole analysis for holes 13A and 19, why do the data set numbers differ from the actual number of 900+ rated players shown on the PDGA for those days? Where' are the extra numbers coming from?

There are a couple of non rated players who threw 900+ rated rounds. I added some of those into the mix so that I had more data points. (or I just have a typo or two).

[Dan Michler]

Does good score separation necessarily equal a good hole?

Good score separation that separates the wheat from the chafe is a good hole. If it just stirs the wheat and chafe together then no.

In Jon's plinko analogy, there would be an equal number of 2's, 3's, and 4's.  On paper, wouldn't this look like a good hole?

[pdga#7648]

throwing your disc and hoping for the best? another words, poke and hope!  I hate those kind of holes

[pickax]

Numbers are not sufficient to tell the whole story, but they are a start. I have the ability to cut this data in all sorts of parts to analyze it. One thing I do is look at narrower ranges of ratings and then compare the two. If there isn't a difference in the spread (or it's inverted) between the 900+ and the under 900 group, then somethings wrong.

[Jon Brakel]

Does good score separation necessarily equal a good hole?

Good score separation that separates the wheat from the chafe is a good hole. If it just stirs the wheat and chafe together then no.

In Jon's plinko analogy, there would be an equal number of 2's, 3's, and 4's.  On paper, wouldn't this look like a good hole?

It will until you compare the scores to the ratings of the players.

[Jon Brakel]

Here's another analogy of a hole that will give you good separation of scores but might not be a good hole:

A 1650 foot hole with no tress, no OB, no elevation, just flat grass and a wide enough fairway that no one ever throws off the fairway...like a 1000 foot wide fairway. This is an extreme example but then you understand the point. So guys that can throw 400 feet and putt from 50 feet will card a 5. Guys who can throw 350 feet will card a 6. Guys who can throw 300 feet will card a 7. Etc.

With some exceptions this will generally follow ratings (I know, I know it's the putting that separates the elite pros from the also rans but you will find that top pros usually can drive pretty far also.) and give you a nice spread.

I still stick with my opinion that a hole that has a nice spread of scores that are generally related to ratings is a good indicator that it is a good hole. But it's not the only criteria.

A good hole would be one that separates scores by ability and is fun to play for all skill groups that play it.

[Dan Michler]

A good hole would be one that separates scores by ability and is fun to play for all skill groups that play it.

I agree with this point Jon.  Fun.  This is the #1 factor for me to determine if its a good hole.  Think about holes that you think are fun, and they probably also produce a good separation in scores.

[Jon Brakel]

A good hole would be one that separates scores by ability and is fun to play for all skill groups that play it.

I agree with this point Jon.  Fun.  This is the #1 factor for me to determine if its a good hole.  Think about holes that you think are fun, and they probably also produce a good separation in scores.

I think this is a good rule of thumb but probably more true for higher rated players than for lower rated players. Given my sub 900 rating before my back injury, I probably had more fun holes on most courses in the Chicago area than someone rated 100 points higher. A hole that I might have found to be challenging and fun, someone with just 50 feet more on their drive and better putting range might find it boring.

It's for this reason that it is hard to design good courses for multiple skill levels. But it is also why courses often have long and short tees. When you have all divisions playing the same layouts then the compromise you make is that some holes might not be exactly appropriate for all skill groups. But because of ratings issues and course routing confusion it is better to play the same layouts in rated events.

[pickax]

I was looking at the course statistics for the Oswego Open and compared Saturday to Sunday. Wow!

The shorts played the same, but round 2 (longs)
Saturday: SSA=56.33
Sunday: SSA=60.73

That's roughly 4 and half strokes harder due to wind and unexpected rain.