Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Preparing for more buzz this week.Well, with all the Discraft buzz going on lately, they certainly didn't put on much of a show at this event
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Preparing for more buzz this week.Well, with all the Discraft buzz going on lately, they certainly didn't put on much of a show at this event
Mark Sanchez says hi.
Anyone else notice the camaraderie on the FPO card last day? Notice who wasn't there? Just sayin'
Ok, that´s not really nice.
But i think the Discgolf media i quite "nice" to the players . . . if a player in Soccer or mosts other sports made a huge mistake like that they would have shown rerun after rerun in different angles
I mean David Beckham missed a penalty decades ago and he will hear that for the rest of his life
"eagle"
On a 294 foot long hole.
Where 83% of 1000-rated players get a 2 or 3.
:wall:
[SARCASM]One throw per landing area, plus two putts. Why wasn't this par 5? He should be on SportsCenter![/SARCASM]
Call it what you will, but my point still stands: Mr. Smart Golf took the risk and got a 2 on a hole where most people try and play safe and get the 3.
Steve, do you have an example of courses with a "better" distribution than the ones shown? In theory, would the "perfect" distribution have every dot on the 0 axis with 100% correlation?
It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.That will take some more thought. This comparison is really geared to comparing holes to each other.
Tweaking the holes in the negative and leaving alone the ones in the positive would be the plan for improving the courses' abilities to sort players by skill.
Or, if you're going for drama, tight finishes, and more chance of a playoff - do the opposite to mask the differences in player skills.
Well, with all the Discraft buzz going on lately, they certainly didn't put on much of a show at this event
It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.
It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.
Getting back to one of my original questions, can you post or point to a posted course example of the best or better contribution chart than the ones for Vegas or are those charts already on the better end from your experience?First, I should make clear these are the contributions of each hole on top of what the other 53 holes have already done. I split them into three graphs just because it was getting crowded.
Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores is a measure of teamwork.
The sum of the individual contributions is a positive number. There is no reason the contributions cannot all be positive and large. In fact, fixing one hole would normally have the synergistic effect of raising the contributions of other holes.
The end game is not more and more correlation. Too much correlation can result in smaller scoring spread of total scores. For example, if all the holes were perfectly correlated a lot of players would be tied with the lowest score. A lot of others would be tied at 54*3=162.
Different holes can play different roles for the sake of the team.
Getting back to one of my original questions, can you post or point to a posted course example of the best or better contribution chart than the ones for Vegas or are those charts already on the better end from your experience?
This tournament is really tough to watch. The MPO course is so boring. There are maybe 3 interesting holes on it. Maybe.