Beginner Throwing Distance

[Steve West]

Finally getting around to look at the numbers to try to get a better grip as they relate to certain hole distances. The first hole that came to mind is a local hole that is 600' long and mostly open. Using your chart (hopefully correctly) and the above comment, I get the following.

600 feet Hole

Rating Calculation

1050 2 + ((600 - 171)/496) = 3
1000 2 + ((600 - 160)/379) = 4
950 2 + ((600 - 151)/307) = 4
900 2 + ((600 - 143)/258) = 4
850 2 + ((600 - 135)/222) = 5

Because I am getting the course owner to put in alternate tee boxes with the intention that some be blue level, some gold level, I have compiled the availabe tournament scores for the course. The 600 ft hole sees MPO (with scores averaging below 1000) scoring mostly 3s and no 5s. MA1 (with scores averaging above 900) scores mostly 4s, with about 20% 3s and a few 5s. Of course, these are small samples.

This made me wonder whether there was an overlap in distance where 1000 and 850 would be expected to score the same. At 576 feet, the distance of another local hole (adjacent course) average score would be the same for both 1000 and 850 rated players.

576 feet hole

Rating Calculation

1000 2 + ((576 - 160)/379) = 4
850 2 + ((576 - 135)/222) = 4

I don't have 850 rated player numbers for this hole, but I can't imaging the distribution being the same for these two player ratings.

I'm not quibbling with the statistics, but I am wondering whether you quote above might better be stated:

"If you take a hole whose length equals the sum of the throw length and close range distance for a specified rating, the predicted score will be the same as the actual score from a player of that rating 50% of the time, and 25% of the time they'll get a higher score, and 25% of the time they'll get a lower score."

Would there be some sort of curve, not represented in your chart, that might represent the same data without overlapping 850 and 1000 rated players on such holes, or that might acknowledge the very different expected distribution of their scores, or maybe a chart that shows separate scoring curves for the different ratings at various distances?

Of course, maybe I'm just wrong.

It's not designed to be used to predict scores. That's like using a nail to push a hammer away from a board.

All that calculating of scores and comparing them to real scores was just to come up with the most typical lengths of throw and close ranges.

There is a lot of overlap between scores of 850-rated players and 1000-rated players. One reason is because most holes don't ask players to throw 379 feet.

Here is a chart showing the scores by length for 850- and 1000-rated players.

 

[txmxer]

If you take a random hole and use the throw length and close range (for a specified rating) to predict the score, it will be the same as the actual score from a player of that rating 50% of the time, and 25% of the time they'll get a higher score, and 25% of the time they'll get a lower score.

It's not designed to be used to predict scores.

That's weird.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

It's not designed to be used to predict scores . . .

Fair enough.

There is a lot of overlap between scores of 850-rated players and 1000-rated players. One reason is because most holes don't ask players to throw 379 feet.

This is why I specifically used a long (for 850 rated players) hole. I presume that your chart predicts that all ratings would overlap on 150' - 180' holes: with 600 rated players scoring the same as 1050 rated players. But most 150' holes used in tournament play (that I know of) have obstackles (see "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" for the correct pronunciation of "obstackle") that cause a considerable spread between the scores from player groups of even narrower rating spreads.

I've never seen the similar scoring from players of such ratings spread as your earlier quote states that the chart predicts. Again, I am limited by my small samples. I also accept that the prediction statement might not have been the best way to describe the chart, hence my prior question.

BTW, the latest chart/data you posted may obviate my questions, I just haven't had time to try to digest it yet.

That's like using a nail to push a hammer away from a board.

Well, a nail does push a hammer away from a board. You just have to use the right reference frame.

 

[txmxer]

Here's something interesting.

According to Steve's chart/formula, low rated players are expected to be much more accurate as a percentage of throw length. i.e., a 1050 rated player is expected to throw ~500', but be accurate (close range) from only 34% of the maximum throw length, where as an 800 rated player is expected to be in close range at 66% of their maximum.

I don't have "lotsofscores" to work with, but we do have accumulated statistics via ratings.