Calculating Fun by Rating for Courses

[Steve West]

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.

That's essentially what I'm trying to get at.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure how far score-based gets, beyond that.

My favorite courses (most fun for me) vary widely, from a short old-school course that suits my declining skill level, to one that's way over my head and I struggle to shoot under 80 on. I can imagine two holes on which my scoring spread is similar; one, a standard wooded hole, and another with some really cool features incorporated in the design. The latter is a lot more fun.

If you had access to player ratings to go with reviews, it might be interesting to see which courses get their highest course ratings from 960-rated players, and which other ones, from 870-rated players. That might give a bit of a clue of how fun they are, for different skill levels.

 

[Steve West]

I'm not trying to get beyond that. Think of it as figuring out whether certain divisions should have used the other tees.

 

[Hampstead]

Not sure what I can add other than there are certain courses I will never play in a tournament setting no matter what layout is played and other courses I'll play no matter what layout is used. Fun isn't necessarily about score, for me at least, it's about the course and variety of holes.

 

[biscoe]

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.

Land smack dab in the middle of the 8th largest city in the country is hard to come by. Morley was established 30 years ago. It wouldn't get built now.

I haven't heard of locations where the shortest 18 in an area isn't the most popular.

In my area Loriella Park is certainly the most played and is not the shortest.

In Richmond either Bryan Park or Gillies Creek is the most popular and neither is the shortest. They are the most accessible to more of the population.

Burke Lake in NOVA is almost certainly the most popular in that area and again is not the shortest (although it is short).

 

[biscoe]

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

Then don't call it "fun"- call it "divisional appropriateness" or something...

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Wurdz have meening.

 

[Jukeshoe]

What is par? What is fun?!!

*reality meaningless*

Jukeshoe: <---Wanders foreign lands, a naked, raving madman....

 

[DavidSauls]

Then don't call it "fun"- call it "divisional appropriateness" or something...

Part of that distinction is that it seems that players have more fun playing courses above their skill level, than below it. So a tough course may have more people considering it fun, than an easy course.

I recall an interview with Pete Dye (golf course designer), who said duffers would go to his best courses and play the longest tees and just get destroyed, but love doing it.

 

[Steve West]

Then don't call it "fun"- call it "divisional appropriateness" or something...

Yeah, I should have. Know how to change a title?

 

[ballgolfconvert]

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.

One solution is that you can raise par on those tough holes, so then they become fun!

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

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.

Again the straw man. At least you're consistent with this approach.

I didn't state that TD should make [no] effort to match players to courses. What I am saying that rating a course by a single, hopelessly subjective criteria would result in a meaningless result.

As to tools for matching courses to players, first I have to express my envy of every TD who has that problem/luxury (I have only 3 courses in my area that are suitable for tournament play). However, it seems to me like a solution searching for a problem. In any event, the tools already exist: a point you seem to ignore. I also surmise that the vast majority of TD's, or at least the ones holding tournaments where matching course rating with player ratings matter, are quite familiar with their local courses and the relative propriety of each for testing various skill levels. Additionally, and this is probably what matters, they are also probably fully aware of which tournaments at which course draw the most competitors.

 

[Steve West]

One solution is that you can raise par on those tough holes, so then they become fun!

As with most problems, "the" solution is "all of the above".

Certainly, par should be appropriate, but I don't think making 7 or 8 throws on every hole is the experience most players are looking for; even if that resulted in an even-par round.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

As with most problems, "the" solution is "all of the above".

Certainly, par should be appropriate, but I don't think making 7 or 8 throws on every hole is the experience most players are looking for; even if that resulted in an even-par round.

I don't have an issue if a couple holes play very hard. I would love to see an example where most holes are having everyone shooting 7 and 8's. Could you post a tournament you are referring to?

Tournament play in itself is not suppose to be fun. Tournament play is suppose to be a test of skill. The fun in tournaments comes before, after and in between rounds. I play Throw Down the Mountain every year. The course is fun as hell and practice rounds are great fun. However, once it becomes tourney time, the rounds are not 'fun'. They are hard and challenging. They can still be enjoyable, but 'fun' is not a word that even one competitor would use in describing their round at this place, no matter how much fun the practice rounds may be. Maybe tourneys are not the place for those looking for the rounds to be 'fun'.

 

[Steve West]

I don't have an issue if a couple holes play very hard. I would love to see an example where most holes are having everyone shooting 7 and 8's. Could you post a tournament you are referring to?

Tournament play in itself is not suppose to be fun. Tournament play is suppose to be a test of skill. The fun in tournaments comes before, after and in between rounds. I play Throw Down the Mountain every year. The course is fun as hell and practice rounds are great fun. However, once it becomes tourney time, the rounds are not 'fun'. They are hard and challenging. They can still be enjoyable, but 'fun' is not a word that even one competitor would use in describing their round at this place, no matter how much fun the practice rounds may be. Maybe tourneys are not the place for those looking for the rounds to be 'fun'.

One word, to both points: "Recreational".

 

[ballgolfconvert]

One word, to both points: "Recreational".

If you play competitive events for 'recreation", then i can't imagine them being much fun in the first place. Just saying.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you play competitive events for 'recreation", then i can't imagine them being much fun in the first place. Just saying.

So, poker night with your friends is not supposed to be fun recreational competition? Why do people do it if it's not fun competition? Why go to casinos to compete and likely lose money if it's not fun?

 

[Dingus]

I have never had my score impact my "fun" level. The only thing that does that is adverse weather (too hot, rainy), lost discs, or delays on the course. Because of the pace of play, tournament rounds are by default less fun.

 

[klodkrawler05]

Ledgestone 2021, PDGA 127449, MA3, Course order: Mcnaughton, Westwood Meggido, Bradley Park

Least fun:
Bradley Park, think of the typical park course in your area, congrats, that's Bradley. Started the round off going -4 through 5, which was somewhat thrilling, and the best scoring stretch of a tournament ever for me. But the rest of the round was squarely MA3 like and the course just wasn't that thrilling. I could play ever single one of those shots at a course near my house without a 3 hour round.

Mcnaughton, second least favorite. So many holes were just completely unreachable for me. I don't mind long holes, nothing more fun than getting a birdie look on a max distance drive, but just like the championship length course near my house. "Birdie or die" holes that are 375'+ plus and offer no real scrambling or score separating just becomes wearing after a while.

Meggido westwood, my favorite, I love hacking my way through the woods, good shots rewarded with a birdie, bad shots allowing for a chance to get rewarded with a good scramble to save par. But I tend to favor wooded courses and the chance to shape shots more precisely over the longer more open courses.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't have an issue if a couple holes play very hard. I would love to see an example where most holes are having everyone shooting 7 and 8's. Could you post a tournament you are referring to?

Tournament play in itself is not suppose to be fun. Tournament play is suppose to be a test of skill. The fun in tournaments comes before, after and in between rounds. I play Throw Down the Mountain every year. The course is fun as hell and practice rounds are great fun. However, once it becomes tourney time, the rounds are not 'fun'. They are hard and challenging. They can still be enjoyable, but 'fun' is not a word that even one competitor would use in describing their round at this place, no matter how much fun the practice rounds may be. Maybe tourneys are not the place for those looking for the rounds to be 'fun'.

Speak for yourself. I've always found competition to be tremendous fun, in all sorts of sports and at various levels.