Calculating Fun by Rating for Courses

[Steve West]

I've been seeing a lot of situations where tournament players are assigned to courses where they get a lot of 7s and 8s. This doesn't seem like much fun.

It seems we could come up with a way to use the hole scores to determine how much fun a course offers by rating. For that, I need samples of rounds (or courses) which were fun, and others which were no fun.

I know it's always less fun to play below one's rating, but I want to exclude that factor. The end goal would be to assign a value to how well a course matched the players who were assigned to it. About half of all players will play better than their rating, and half worse. So, for the group, that will wash out.

Think back to your recent tournaments. Which course was most fun, and which the least fun? Or, more accurately, which would have been most fun and least fun if you had played at your rating? Please share the tournament, courses, and your rating at the time, or your PDGA#.

What would be especially helpful is getting players rated lower than 900 to share.

Here are a couple of mine (#23616):

2021 PDGA Tim Selinske U.S. Masters Championships Presented by Innova. More fun: The Dam Course. Less fun: AO Lower.
Lake Superior Open: Fun= Hidden Meadows, not fun = SMF.

 

[elmexdela]

just look at udisc course ratings

 

[ru4por]

All rounds are fun to me. Score, par, difficulty, course design are not really factors in my enjoyment. Beauty, upkeep, ammenties, golfmates, weather are all factors. I just want to be outside, enjoying nature. I don't really find a 7 less fun, than a 2. It is all about me, the course and the challenge, shot by shot.

I appreciate what you are trying to do and applaud the effort, I guess I am not the demographic that you are directing this at.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I've been seeing a lot of situations where tournament players are assigned to courses where they get a lot of 7s and 8s. This doesn't seem like much fun.

It seems we could come up with a way to use the hole scores to determine how much fun a course offers by rating. For that, I need samples of rounds (or courses) which were fun, and others which were no fun.

I know it's always less fun to play below one's rating, but I want to exclude that factor. The end goal would be to assign a value to how well a course matched the players who were assigned to it. About half of all players will play better than their rating, and half worse. So, for the group, that will wash out.

Think back to your recent tournaments. Which course was most fun, and which the least fun? Or, more accurately, which would have been most fun and least fun if you had played at your rating? Please share the tournament, courses, and your rating at the time, or your PDGA#.

What would be especially helpful is getting players rated lower than 900 to share.

Here are a couple of mine (#23616):

2021 PDGA Tim Selinske U.S. Masters Championships Presented by Innova. More fun: The Dam Course. Less fun: AO Lower.
Lake Superior Open: Fun= Hidden Meadows, not fun = SMF.

Really?

 

[biscoe]

IMO "fun" is too abstract to meaningfully quantify, particularly "fun" in an event setting. I have played miserably and had a lot of fun, I have played great and had none whatsoever. In general I would venture that "fun" is at least as dependent on who is in your group as it is on your play. I would guess that UDisc ratings probably contain a significant amount of fun factor and ratings on this site somewhat less but still a goodly amount.

 

[DavidSauls]

Where's the fun in the trying to statistically quantify "fun"?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I give Steve credit for attempting to quantify what I believe you be unquatifiable.

FWIW- there's a thread where many of us posted about what makes a hole fun (pardon me, but I can't search for it now).

But making fun holes is somewhat different than designing a fun course (at least from my perspective).
The key to a fun course is variety. Just because you have a collection of fun holes, doesn't necessarily make it a fun course. If all fun on their own, but feel pretty similar, the fun quickly wears off.

Conversely, you can have a collection of holes that aren't incredibly unique, or even all that fun individually, but but have plenty of variety such that they make for a fun round.

If you have a bunch of fun holes, that collectively create great variety, then you've got something really special.

 

[Monocacy]

I have had a ton of fun on courses that kicked my butt.

 

[DavidSauls]

IMO "fun" is too abstract to meaningfully quantify, particularly "fun" in an event setting. I have played miserably and had a lot of fun, I have played great and had none whatsoever. In general I would venture that "fun" is at least as dependent on who is in your group as it is on your play. I would guess that UDisc ratings probably contain a significant amount of fun factor and ratings on this site somewhat less but still a goodly amount.

Yes. I think the course and the company are the biggest contributors to my having fun at a tournament -- other than my own play, good or bad. I don't see much correlation between skill level and course; I have great fun on good courses that are way over may skill level. Not so much on courses below my skill level (fewer and fewer of these, these days).

I make a slight distinction between fun courses and good courses (or, more precisely, holes, as in the thread Bogey mentioned). A fun course has more of those fun throws, but that's pretty subjective. Downhills, ace runs that also have peril, and unusual holes that are still well-designed, are some of the course design features I find to be fun. Your mileage may vary.

 

[ChrisWoj]

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135086&highlight=enjoyment - Something I was messing around with for a course I took a few years ago... I see you were contributing to the thread...

 

[sisyphus]

Hi Steve, I'm the opposite of Blackjack Gatling from Little Big League. I love fun.

Courses where I have the most fun are the ones where I enjoy the beauty of a hole, the accessibility to my skill level (age 60, 907 rated), or where the variety makes me want to keep coming back for more. So short, technical courses are my cup of tea. Heck, give me a birdie bash! An ace race!

Then again, I still have fun at a tough course, if it demands variety in the players' skill sets. Since I'll never reach much more that 280-320' on a drive, I've rarely ever enjoyed wide open holes in the 380-450' range where I'm just going to lose a stroke every time, if that big arm guy can stay reasonably accurate. So around Cincinnati, I'll tend to avoid playing Mt. Airy, Wm Harbin, Armco, etc. But I love playing Lincoln Ridge, Idlewild, Stonelick, Osage Grove, and a boatload of 'deuce or die' courses.

I don't mind what lots of folks call 'gimmicks' like mandos, islands, raised or lowered baskets. I have no problem playing what some folks consider 'putt-putt'. There's a reason mini-golf appeals to millions of families worldwide. We're not quite mini-golf or par three golf, and definitely should never try to be stuffy big ball golf. Just don't give me dopey ropey OB designed to suck the fun out of everything!

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I've been seeing a lot of situations where tournament players are assigned to courses where they get a lot of 7s and 8s. This doesn't seem like much fun.

Not everyone agrees on what is fun.

It seems we could come up with a way to use the hole scores to determine how much fun a course offers by rating. For that, I need samples of rounds (or courses) which were fun, and others which were no fun.

Because not everyone agrees on what is fun versus what is not, I do not think this would accomplish anything.

I know it's always less fun to play below one's rating . . .

This is certainly not true for everyone nor have I seen any data that suggests that this is true for any particular percentage of players and certainly not a majority.

The end goal would be to assign a value to how well a course matched the players who were assigned to it. About half of all players will play better than their rating, and half worse. So, for the group, that will wash out.

It seems like the best thing to do would simply be to come up with the "Steve's list of courses that are fun for Steve" and be done with it.

Here are a couple of mine (#23616):

2021 PDGA Tim Selinske U.S. Masters Championships Presented by Innova. More fun: The Dam Course. Less fun: AO Lower.
Lake Superior Open: Fun= Hidden Meadows, not fun = SMF.

There you go. Good start. Just let us know when you are finished so those who may be interested can seek out the completed list.

Of course, another way to to do this would just be to devise some sort of course rating system where everyone could say what they like and don't like about a course, give it a star rating (say, out of 4 or 5 stars (and for kicks you could use discs instead of stars)) and so forth. Oh wait.

 

[Steve West]

... the accessibility to my skill level ...

This is the only part I'm trying to measure. Not everything else that may contribute to fun.

All I know is that when I open live scoring for a division where everyone has PDGA numbers above 160,000 and there is a sea of dark orange, I feel sorry that they didn't get to have the same kind of experience as the Advanced players had.

Let me put forth a few hypotheses to clarify:

• Perhaps the ideal match to a player's skill level results in a total score of around 63. Or some other score. Or perhaps lower skill levels have developed a taste for slightly higher scores because that is all they know.
  
• Perhaps getting 18 twos in a row is the most fun one could have. Or perhaps that would not be enough challenge.
  
• Perhaps no one likes to slog out a score of 7. Or perhaps every throw is pure joy and the more the better. Even OB penalties.
  
• Perhaps, given a total score, more variety in hole scores is better. Or perhaps players only want to vacillate between two possible scores.

We could speculate about all that and argue incessantly without data, swapping opinions about what we think other people think.

Or we come up with examples of courses we like or don't like, then examine the nature of the scores.

 

[Steve West]

Not everyone agrees on what is fun.



Because not everyone agrees on what is fun versus what is not, I do not think this would accomplish anything.



This is certainly not true for everyone nor have I seen any data that suggests that this is true for any particular percentage of players and certainly not a majority.



It seems like the best thing to do would simply be to come up with the "Steve's list of courses that are fun for Steve" and be done with it.



There you go. Good start. Just let us know when you are finished so those who may be interested can seek out the completed list.

Of course, another way to to do this would just be to devise some sort of course rating system where everyone could say what they like and don't like about a course, give it a star rating (say, out of 4 or 5 stars (and for kicks you could use discs instead of stars)) and so forth. Oh wait.

Got it. TDs should make effort whatsoever to try to match players to courses. Nor should anyone try to give TDs tools to help them.

 

[sisyphus]

I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at here, and perhaps a look at it from a course redesign standpoint is in order.

Williamsburg, OH originally had what really could be considered a recreational to intermediate layout. Some of the more advanced players tweaked holes to add distance, adding a blue tee here or a harder pin position there.

A couple of us more ...pedestrian... players had been meeting with the park board and promising a little something for everyone. I helped steer the course into having some red tees, some white tees, some blue tees, and alternate basket positions where we were able (see map)

But just about every time someone would hold a tournament, they would use either the 'original's or the blue tees, and never the red. Red should yield similar scoring and fun for a rec player as blue should for an advanced. But I've seldom seen the red tee options utilized in a tourney.

 

[Three Putt]

2021 PDGA Tim Selinske U.S. Masters Championships Presented by Innova. More fun: The Dam Course. Less fun: AO Lower.

What was it about AO Back that you didn't like? Did they have it tricked out trying to do too much in an effort to make it harder?

 

[Rastnav]

Let's think about this slightly backwards from the way you are putting it Steve. If you were designing a course for a novice skill rating, what design elements should be avoided?

Personally, I think this ends up coming down to NAGS and NIMBS(not in my bag). If I step up to a hole and it looks like it's calling for something that is just not in my bag, so my best bet, or what I am forced to do, is to just throw multiple chip shots, that's what isn't fun.

And what most players, especially newer players, try to do in that situation is throw the NIMB shot, which leads to really big numbers.

Hole #18 at Rock Ridge Park in Pittsboro, NC is an example of a not very fun hole on an otherwise very fun course. It's a 262 foot par 4 from the shorts. The way to play it as a par 4 is something like a 75 foot dumpy forehand hyzer that has to be placed fairly accurately and then you have a shortish tunnel upshot. I don't even know if there is really a possible line all the way to the pin. I'm guessing many people would try and play that hole to get a look for the eagle and end up with a big number.

Hole #8 at UNC has an alternate (local knowledge) tee position that requires a very low ceiling 275 foot drive to get any look at the sharp 90+ degree dogleg basket for your shortish upshot. My best play there would be chip putter, chip putter to get to the dog leg, because I'm not pushing anything that low that far. Not really a fun hole for me.

A made up example (which might not be a good one) would be making a creek OB when it's basically only in play for anyone who doesn't have a long arm, but shots left short of the creek have no shot at the basket and are forced to chip to the corner. Or, if you had a forced OB carry (where the tee is in the OB), but there wasn't a good place to layup, or the only layup was a really short shot. Or a fairly open field par 3 that plays 75 feet longer than my longest drive.

The TD at a tournament at Leigh Farms put in a temporary tee on hole #4 for the lower tiers, so that it played as a par 4 rather than a par 5 for us short knockers, but both of those shots are pretty good defined pulls, whereas as a par 5, you ended up with some rather ambiguous fairways and landing zones (the short tee is there permanently now). That was a pretty good solution.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The formula for "Fun" that enough people are willing to pay for has yet to be discovered or perhaps applied commercially. Otherwise, we would have dozens of profitable pay-to-play facilities and possibly 3 times as many players whose ratings would be under 800, especially women, without needing a pandemic to boost numbers. The oldest pay-to-play and likely still the most profitable in the past 30 years is Morley Field in San Diego. Surprising that no entrepreneur has wanted to or been able to duplicate most of the elements contributing to its success.

If popularity is an important indicator of "fun", then shorter is better since more players can reach more holes for birdies and ace runs. Bowlers have an opportunity to get a strike in every frame. Disc golf at least can theoretically have 18 holes that are birdie/aceable and yet have a wide range of lengths, shapes, obstacles and elevation changes making it much more interesting than bowling and yet provide the ability to "score" on every hole (includes 3s on par 4s).

I haven't heard of locations where the shortest 18 in an area isn't the most popular. However, more and more course installations with longer holes and total length have been driven by non-profits and volunteers without worrying about broader popularity and income versus reduction in cost. The "grow the sport" mantra is touted by some who don't necessarily want more players crowding their courses unless they are easy pickings in league play.

If it sounds like a tinge of bitterness, that's not my intent. It's just my take on how only some things about our sport have evolved sensibly from a financial standpoint and others seem less sensical from a financial standpoint for certain groups of stakeholders in our environment such as TDs, course owners and course designers. With better understanding, there may emerge new opportunities to offer broader "fun" experiences to more people willing to pay enough for them to breakeven or better.

 

[DavidSauls]

That does bring up the "fun for whom?" question. If it's for the entire disc golf world, tournament numbers aren't going to work.

 

[DavidSauls]

Personally, I think this ends up coming down to NAGS and NIMBS(not in my bag). If I step up to a hole and it looks like it's calling for something that is just not in my bag, so my best bet, or what I am forced to do, is to just throw multiple chip shots, that's what isn't fun.
.

That makes me ponder whether we might sort out unfun holes from tournament results. Might be holes that have a too-high percentage of identical scores for a given skill level, as well as holes that have a lot of scores that are, say, 3 or more strokes above the median. The first group might be boring; the 2nd, too punitive.