DGCR Scratch Scoring Estimate

[timg]

I've recently rolled this feature out onto all the course pages as a test. The idea is to give you an approximate, best guess as to what a course's SSA (Scratch Scoring Average) will be on an average day.

The SSE is calculated on the fly based on the current course and hole information. So if you update a pin position, the SSE will reflect that change immediately.

I'd like to thank all the guys that put the discussed this and put the formula together. In particular, New013 and jeverett for bringing this back up and putting together a formula.

For those interested in seeing the discussion leading up to this, here are the threads:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43426
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61788

If you have any questions on the SSE and how it's calculated, etc. those questions can hopefully be fielded by the guys that put the formula together. I only implemented their hard work

 

[solomon.trenton]

so it looks pretty cool. just one question is the SSA what you need for a 1000 rated round?

 

[ReinZ_96]

so it looks pretty cool. just one question is the SSA what you need for a 1000 rated round?

yes it is. and thanks tim, been waiting for this

 

[New013]

so it looks pretty cool. just one question is the SSA what you need for a 1000 rated round?

Yes, but it's important to keep in mind that the SSE is not an equivalent to SSA. In many cases they will not be exact for several reasons and that the SSA can change depending on the conditions of the course and who was playing; while the SSE is a constant that only depends on the structure of the course itself.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Making a good thing better

Yet another great addition to the site. Thanks Tim, New and jeverett. :clap:
Even if it can't be SSA, still provides some idea of a course's overall difficulty.

 

[aggreen]

Great stuff. New, you know how much I love this idea. The next step is to produce round ratings! With the SSE being achieved, this could be an easier task.

One questionable rating I noticed, there seems to be an inconsistency in the SSE rating on one course (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3503). Not sure if there are other instances.

 

[aggreen]

...after looking at it, I think it has to do with the terrain and landscape not included - the formula must not account for this if it isnt listed. I fixed it, but an FYI.

 

[jeverett]

Excellent, the implementation looks good so far! @Aggreen: that definitely could be the problem. The formulas for calculating a SSE are based entirely on the foliage level of the course (light, moderate, heavy) and the current course layout length. I don't know if Tim is ever going to incorporate the 'fix' for including a known SSA and course length pair, but it would also help to fix the accuracy of the system for some courses (particularly those with a lot of risky greens, forced layups, OB, etc.)

Also, I mentioned it in the other thread too, but post #7 (with the tiny correction in post #8) has the correct formulas for calculating round ratings. Also, there wouldn't have been so many mess-up posts if the window on editing posts were longer. *hehe*

Anyway, it's great to see this get implemented! The only item I can see so far is perhaps the SSE's are better with a decimal place or two? I think the SSA's use two decimal places. Definitely don't use a rounded SSE for calculating a round rating estimate, regardless.. it will be *much* less accurate than it already is (inaccurate).

 

[foo_g]

Does this apply to 9-hole courses as well?

I might have to start keeping score again. :\

 

[jeverett]

Yep, the formulas work for all courses, even those other than 18 hole. However, it should probably be noted that results may not be hugely accurate.. After all, most sanctioned events (where you could get an actual SSA) are at 18+ hole courses.

 

[kyflash]

so it looks pretty cool. just one question is the SSA what you need for a 1000 rated round?

Yes, but it's important to keep in mind that the SSE is not an equivalent to SSA. In many cases they will not be exact for several reasons and that the SSA can change depending on the conditions of the course and who was playing; while the SSE is a constant that only depends on the structure of the course itself.

I really like this addition to DGCR, great tracking tool.

Is there a way that a listing of top SSE courses could be posted?
I know that you wouldn't be able to compare SSE to SSE from course to course because it looks like SSE is relative to course par.

However, I don't think these are representative of a 1000 rated round. The SSE's for my local courses look attainable. My overall skill level would be considered average at best. I am not a PDGA member, but play with many who are members. Based on their ratings and how I compare myself to them, I would say my rating (based on scores) on a bad day could be 875 and on a good day could be 930.
At my local course Freeman Lake Park (par 56 SSE 52) guys with 950 ratings routinely shoot a 50 or better. The same scenario applies to Radcliff City Park, Muldraugh, and Otter Creek.

 

[New013]

I don't want seem like I'm running my mouth about things I don't really know because I've never played Freeman Lake Park. But, from the pictures alone I would say that the course is not moderately wooded, it looks very lightly wooded. That's where the system will break down due to human error in deciding a courses foliage and hill values; again not saying there is human error on that course just that it seems to be more lightly wooded to me.

Another factor for many courses will be multiple pins because the SSE is being calculated for one tee layout and not the multiple pin layouts.

For Freeman Lake Park - using both distances provided on DGCR and if it were Lightly Wooded and not Moderately Wooded as it is listed.

@ 5904 & LW - the SSE would be 48
@ 6554 & LW - the SSE would be 50

So there you can see how much it would change just by getting a better description of the course down on the website. I encourage everybody to look at their local courses and try to make better decisions on the foliage and hill values. Don't base it on just the other courses in the area, think about how it would fit in globally verse other courses.

I'll also add that a lot of people can shoot 1000 rated rounds at their local courses during casual play because they know the ins and outs of the course so well.

 

[kyflash]

I don't want seem like I'm running my mouth about things I don't really know because I've never played Freeman Lake Park. But, from the pictures alone I would say that the course is not moderately wooded, it looks very lightly wooded. That's where the system will break down due to human error in deciding a courses foliage and hill values; again not saying there is human error on that course just that it seems to be more lightly wooded to me.

Another factor for many courses will be multiple pins because the SSE is being calculated for one tee layout and not the multiple pin layouts.

For Freeman Lake Park - using both distances provided on DGCR and if it were Lightly Wooded and not Moderately Wooded as it is listed.

@ 5904 & LW - the SSE would be 48
@ 6554 & LW - the SSE would be 50

So there you can see how much it would change just by getting a better description of the course down on the website. I encourage everybody to look at their local courses and try to make better decisions on the foliage and hill values. Don't base it on just the other courses in the area, think about how it would fit in globally verse other courses.

I'll also add that a lot of people can shoot 1000 rated rounds at their local courses during casual play because they know the ins and outs of the course so well.

The trees there are strategically place and they rotate the trees around constantly. I would say moderately wooded is fair for Freeman. Other courses in the area should be listed as heavily wooded. The heavily wooded courses here all have defined albeit more narrow fairways than Freeman, the trees there are more fairway definers than obstacles.
The trees at Freeman Lake are definitely shot blockers and route changers, and if you get into the thick stuff, they are punishing and disc claimers.

Many thanks for your contributions to this new addition, I'm sure it wasn't easy.

 

[great white buffalo]

I can not figure out where on the course page you see this.

 

[great white buffalo]

It does not work for My home course. It has a sse 10 strokes lower than recorded averages. The sse is also one stroke lower than the course record set in the pro division two years ago.

 

[sisyphus]

Hey, kyflash: "they rotate the trees around constantly"
Cool! I haven't seen this at any of OUR local courses
Seriously, this (SSE) sounds like a cool feature to add to DGCR, thanks for the thread guys :clap:

 

[jeverett]

It does not work for My home course. It has a sse 10 strokes lower than recorded averages. The sse is also one stroke lower than the course record set in the pro division two years ago.

Are there recorded lengths for each hole on the course page for your home course? And are the 'foliage' and 'hilly' fields on the course page filled in? Both of those are required in order for it to calculate a SSE.. also, which course is it? I'd be interested to see.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Are there recorded lengths for each hole on the course page for your home course? And are the 'foliage' and 'hilly' fields on the course page filled in? Both of those are required in order for it to calculate a SSE.. also, which course is it? I'd be interested to see.

By "Foliage" and "Hilly"? You mean "Landscape" and "Terrain?"
I don't see where foliage actually appears on the course page. The landscape field only accounts for trees (i.e. lightly, moderately, heavily wooded), but IMO, it doesn't really desrcibe "foliage," per se.

I only point this out because while dense woods can be challenging, IMO dense brush is even moreso. If you hit a tree and bounce off the fairway on a heavily wooded hole that doesn't have a lot of brush, you can often find a recovery shot to get back on track, whereas landing in or near dense brush is usually tougher to recover from.

 

[urwatuh8]

It does not work for My home course. It has a sse 10 strokes lower than recorded averages. The sse is also one stroke lower than the course record set in the pro division two years ago.

If the rounds are recorded by, on average, a 900 rated player, you should expect the SSE to be about 10 strokes less. (Or even more on a longer course.) SSE is supposed to approximate what a 1000-rated player would shoot, not the average player.

Depending on who the "Pros" in the tournament were, it is also possible they weren't 1000 players either. According to the PDGA site, the highest rated player in VT or NH has a rating of 963. If you didn't get any Pros coming in from out of state, I'd guess the best round from a max-960ish field would be about 1000.

Which is not to say that the SSE for your course is accurate. It may well be off by a few strokes, but I doubt it's off by a mile.

 

[_.-Dut-._]

This is bad ass. Pretty accurate based off a few of the courses I knew. :thmbup: