Battle For Bedford

[Jolt]

One round down and this cource looks HARD

That par 5 hole 6 played 6,29 Avg in Open R1!!


PDGA live
https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament/live/event?view=Scores&eventId=48937&division=MPO&round=2

Video of Paul Mcbeth & Brodie Smith | Battle For Bedford Practice Round
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz5De2XKKH0

 

[Jolt]

I got that wrong...it played Avg 7,29!!

11 players in the field got par, all the others got worse, alot worse.

Hardest par 5 in the World?

 

[biscoe]

I got that wrong...it played Avg 7,29!!

11 players in the field got par, all the others got worse, alot worse.

Hardest par 5 in the World?

Nah. 60% of the field is rated under 970. The 1000 rated and above guys averaged just over 6 on it. My suspicion is that scores will improve on it a bit as well as players figure things out.

I have played it (got a 9 with one OB but I am not very good any more). It is beastly long with a fairway which is about 50 feet wide the entire way (it runs through the woods on a utility easement as do a number of holes on this course) and some OB (but not lined with it)- no trees in the fairway at all. If you can throw a mid or putter 300 with control and avoid the temptation to get greedy it should be a relatively straightforward 6 with opportunities for 5. There is a bit of a dogleg left about 280(?) off the tee. If you don't make that then you are in a Northwoods Black style pitch out situation.

 

[Muddyboots]

Biscoe definitely has a point. Par is achievable with consistent good not great shots. However, birdie would REQUIRE a very long (over 500) and ultra precise, second shot. I don't know of anyone that has seen the basket in two shots. It may have happened this weekend. The drive is distance limited by shape, and there is an OB area in front of the green as well. Great hole. Unfortunately, MP40 isn't getting the opportunity to play NLT this year, but several guys have asked me about the course. My advice is that it is very good, a true challenge, and to leave your ego at the parking lot. My best there is 70.

 

[Jolt]

Paul is a beast in tournaments. . i think he said that his best in practice was -6 and most of his practice rounds was just under par.

But now he is at -6 after just 7 holes.

Why can´t i do that . . . i´m good in practice rounds....not so when it is tournament time

 

[oldmandiscer]

I think a lot of the top tier guys simply cannot focus enough, get into the zone, don't care about practice much that they mostly just shred when it matters.

He plays for the biggest stages so the concentration kicks in when it needs too. He needs the pressure to excel. Which is why he is 4 time champ right?

Plus why waste mental energy on a practice round?

 

[wolfhaley]

4 time champ of what?

 

[oldmandiscer]

4 time champ of what?

I guess 5x. Who's counting?

 

[Jolt]

The fact that Paul did go -10 in that last round on this VERY hard Course makes me wonder where the line between "hard and inpossible" is? and do we want holes that are near inpossible to Birdy?

 

[Steve West]

Nah. 60% of the field is rated under 970. The 1000 rated and above guys averaged just over 6 on it. My suspicion is that scores will improve on it a bit as well as players figure things out.

I have played it (got a 9 with one OB but I am not very good any more). It is beastly long with a fairway which is about 50 feet wide the entire way (it runs through the woods on a utility easement as do a number of holes on this course) and some OB (but not lined with it)- no trees in the fairway at all. If you can throw a mid or putter 300 with control and avoid the temptation to get greedy it should be a relatively straightforward 6 with opportunities for 5. There is a bit of a dogleg left about 280(?) off the tee. If you don't make that then you are in a Northwoods Black style pitch out situation.

Not enough 1000-rated players got a 5 (or 4) to prove it is a standard par 5. Perhaps if it cleans up or players learn to resist going for birdie, it could be par 5.

 

[biscoe]

Not enough 1000-rated players got a 5 (or 4) to prove it is a standard par 5. Perhaps if it cleans up or players learn to resist going for birdie, it could be par 5.

It's not really a Par 5 in my opinion but it was designed for the 1020+ crowd so might fit Par 5 for that intended audience. I don't really have a personal metric for judging par for those guys. Hard to make many judgements about it with the field so spread out in skill level and only one top player as well.

The fairway is plenty wide, plenty clean and not all that hard to hit if you play within yourself. I feel like this is an instance where players would play it much differently if you called it a Par 6. Most of the time I don't feel that to be the case. There is definitely not a fluky shot involved like I perceive the tee shot on Northwoods Black 12 to be.

 

[Steve West]

It's not really a Par 5 in my opinion but it was designed for the 1020+ crowd so might fit Par 5 for that intended audience. I don't really have a personal metric for judging par for those guys. Hard to make many judgements about it with the field so spread out in skill level and only one top player as well.

The fairway is plenty wide, plenty clean and not all that hard to hit if you play within yourself. I feel like this is an instance where players would play it much differently if you called it a Par 6. Most of the time I don't feel that to be the case. There is definitely not a fluky shot involved like I perceive the tee shot on Northwoods Black 12 to be.

Applying the same formula gives par 5 if 1020-rated players are the "expert" in the definition of par.

I'd prefer to see standard par (based on scores of 1000-rated players) used for all MPO events, rather than have pars that are harder at some events and easier at others. Whether they are playing on a course designed for 1020-rated players, or - more commonly - on a course designed for 950-rated players.

One reason for using 1000-rated as the standard is that there is precious little data from 1020-rated players, as can be seen from how wide the Confidence Interval is.

CI for 1000 par = 5.71 to 5.81.
CI for 1020 par = 4.94 to 5.84.

We couldn't be really sure what par should be if we tried to use 1020-rated as the expert.

 

[texasissouth]

What is the formulation for this 1000 candidate par?

 

[biscoe]

Applying the same formula gives par 5 if 1020-rated players are the "expert" in the definition of par.

I'd prefer to see standard par (based on scores of 1000-rated players) used for all MPO events, rather than have pars that are harder at some events and easier at others. Whether they are playing on a course designed for 1020-rated players, or - more commonly - on a course designed for 950-rated players.

I tend to agree. I do know though that pars at New London were set for the elite.

 

[Steve West]

What is the formulation for this 1000 candidate par?

Use the scoring distribution experienced by experts in the targeted skill level under ordinary weather conditions.
If 59% of experts get a 2 or better, par is 2. Otherwise,
If 45% of experts get a 3 or better, par is 3. Otherwise,
If 35% of experts get a 4 or better, par is 4. Otherwise,
If 26% of experts get a 5 or better, par is 5. Otherwise,
If 20% of experts get a 6 or better, par is 6.

Those percentages are where the chance of each throw contributing to a par score is at least 76.7% - so they equalize the amount of skill needed to get each par. E.g. 76.7% raised to the power of 3 is 45%.

The 76.7% is the point where the formula balances the value of birdies to the cost of bogeys, if applied to all holes.

See the Par Talk thread for more on how it was developed.

 

[Steve West]

I tend to agree. I do know though that pars at New London were set for the elite.

If so, perhaps you could pass the word that #7 should be a par 4 for the elite.

 

[biscoe]

If so, perhaps you could pass the word that #7 should be a par 4 for the elite.

Undoubtedly a par 4 for the big dogs. I only throw 300 on a good day and had a legit shot at a 4. (It is really a near perfect blue Par 5)

 

[acrosley]

Is there any footage of this event online?

 

[Ryan P.]

The Disc Golf Guy filmed it, and he normally puts videos up about a week after the tourney.

I've played the course multiple times (5ish rounds), and as someone who can throw for some distance (400+ on golf lines), the pars are set very fairly on most of the holes. 2, 6, and 7 are the only possible exceptions.

2: it's a bit too long for a par 4 unless you have elite distance, because having a putt requires two 450' shots that go straight for 400' and have minimal fade after that. On the other hand, it's not long enough for a 5 for even 1000 rated players (let alone the 1020-1060 crowd that McBeth designed it for). the OB on the right makes it look even harder as far as scores go.

6: McBeth said he aimed for this hole to be the hardest hole in the world and surpass his friend Heinold's hole 12 at Northwoods. I don't think he achieved it, but I haven't played NW 12. I have been lying 2 about 475 out, and stupidly went for it to see if it was possible that I could ever birdie it.

Spoiler

I can't birdie it.

7: Like biscoe said, it's a perfect blue par 5. It isn't a great hole for the 1020+ crowd, because it takes two very risky shots to be on the rope island for the eagle opportunity, but it takes 3 fairly safe/easy shots to be on that rope island for the birdie. I think it'd be great as a different type of par 4 for them, one where it's an "easy par" if you play it right, but if you go for birdie you could easily turn it into a double bogey.

 

[Emoney]

Part of golf is having those few holes that push the limit of what we think is possible....

I like these couple of big par 5 holes...the new London and Northwoods black....

The players seem to enjoy trying to get the absurd birdie 4......while crying about getting an average of +1 or 2 over par ,on said holes.