Perhaps New's formula is better for some courses and Dave's for others?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGCR Scratch Scoring Estimate
- Thread starter timg
- Start date
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
Hi EricJ,
Hmm.. well, I can think of two possible fixes for that.. one might be an actual 5-option foliage scale (something that New013's method was designed to use, too), the other being adding the elevation (flat) adjustment that New013's method used into Dave242's method.. are 'flat' courses coming out too difficult now, on average? In new013's method, their SSE would be reduced by 0.5.
I've thrown in the adjustment for elevation.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,072
That drops Tom Bass Regional Park - Wilmont to 58.9 SSE. A half stroke "better", but still about three strokes too high.
Well, it is an estimate after all 
It seems pretty darn close on a lot of courses that I checked. I did a search for "ssa" in course descriptions and did a quick compare. Most were within a couple of strokes which I felt was pretty decent.
It seems pretty darn close on a lot of courses that I checked. I did a search for "ssa" in course descriptions and did a quick compare. Most were within a couple of strokes which I felt was pretty decent.
Timko
* Ace Member *
I'm actually quite interested in this new formula. Our club is going to implement ratings soon. Right now, I'm thinking we'll just use the formulas that are in the PDGA's spreadsheet of a couple of years ago. Are you using those, or did you derive all new formulas?
Stoney Hill's is pretty close. Though we're tinking with overlapping layouts and didn't use the one shown in the Hole Info at this year's event, in previous years it's been around 59 for that layout. DGCR SSE shows 59.2.
joshmo65
Eagle Member
The two tournaments I most recently played in have the SSE quite a ways off...
As Chris mentioned, Moraine is off by about 5 strokes. The Ironwood had an SSE of between 66 and 68 for rounds 1 and 2 (artificially inflated due to rain) and right on 66 for round 3.
I also checked Jordan Creek where the People's Championship was held a few weeks back where the SSE came in at 52 to 53 for rounds 2 through 4 which is also off by about 5, just in the other direction. (Pros and adv played rounds 3 and 4 there while int and rec played there for rounds 1 and 2).
I am not sure why Morain's SSE is -5 and Jordan's is +5. Is there anyplace in the equations that take OB into account? We can only enter when there is water on a hole instead of whether there is general OB. I wonder if that would get the calculated SSE closer.
As Chris mentioned, Moraine is off by about 5 strokes. The Ironwood had an SSE of between 66 and 68 for rounds 1 and 2 (artificially inflated due to rain) and right on 66 for round 3.
I also checked Jordan Creek where the People's Championship was held a few weeks back where the SSE came in at 52 to 53 for rounds 2 through 4 which is also off by about 5, just in the other direction. (Pros and adv played rounds 3 and 4 there while int and rec played there for rounds 1 and 2).
I am not sure why Morain's SSE is -5 and Jordan's is +5. Is there anyplace in the equations that take OB into account? We can only enter when there is water on a hole instead of whether there is general OB. I wonder if that would get the calculated SSE closer.
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
I think if we look at anomalous courses specifically, we *should* be able to engineer something that will better fit most of them..
For example, Moraine.. at 'moderately wooded', the SSE is too high, even with a little extra bump from the new 'flat elevation' modifier. At 'lightly wooded' the SSE is too low. This one definitely sounds like a candidate for a more descriptive system for documenting the course parameters.. and I think a lot of 'moderately wooded' courses may have the same problem: does moderately wooded mean open fairways, or tight fairways? Moraine, for example, looks like it has a few amazingly tight fairways on some holes, while others are pretty open except for dense trees lining the fairway. How about implementing some kind of scale with more options than just 'light', 'moderate', and 'heavy'? It would be pretty trivial to determine some new constants for any new categories.. which could then eventually be tweaked as needed.
As for Jordan, unfortunately artificial OB and forced layups are two things that the system absolutely is not going to be able to deal with well at all. Without some kind of calibrating system for specific courses, I don't think any generalized formula I could come up with is going to be accurate.
For example, Moraine.. at 'moderately wooded', the SSE is too high, even with a little extra bump from the new 'flat elevation' modifier. At 'lightly wooded' the SSE is too low. This one definitely sounds like a candidate for a more descriptive system for documenting the course parameters.. and I think a lot of 'moderately wooded' courses may have the same problem: does moderately wooded mean open fairways, or tight fairways? Moraine, for example, looks like it has a few amazingly tight fairways on some holes, while others are pretty open except for dense trees lining the fairway. How about implementing some kind of scale with more options than just 'light', 'moderate', and 'heavy'? It would be pretty trivial to determine some new constants for any new categories.. which could then eventually be tweaked as needed.
As for Jordan, unfortunately artificial OB and forced layups are two things that the system absolutely is not going to be able to deal with well at all.
Without some kind of calibrating system for specific courses, I don't think any generalized formula I could come up with is going to be accurate. 
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 396
While I know coming up with this was a feat, are there any options/plans to produce round ratings for recorded scores against the SSE? I know they may change based on pin position movement, updated distances, course changes, etc.
From reading the responses - the point of the SSE is to be an estimate - not an exact SSA. You open a can of worms, when you want to start tweaking a specific course SSE to match to past SSAs. I have seen the formula used (or versions of it) and it has "limitations", which is very acceptable to follow the to the information entered on the site. It sounds like there are going to be some anomalies, like the 2 courses mentioned, but it produces what it was intended to.
Great job all.
New, love the sig - but if you want to be more accurate. "Drive like a pro. Putt like doh!"
From reading the responses - the point of the SSE is to be an estimate - not an exact SSA. You open a can of worms, when you want to start tweaking a specific course SSE to match to past SSAs. I have seen the formula used (or versions of it) and it has "limitations", which is very acceptable to follow the to the information entered on the site. It sounds like there are going to be some anomalies, like the 2 courses mentioned, but it produces what it was intended to.
Great job all.
New, love the sig - but if you want to be more accurate. "Drive like a pro. Putt like doh!"
When I have time, I'll see if I can apply round ratings based on the SSE. jeverett has already come up with a formula so it's just a matter of figuring out how I want to apply it.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
Hmm.. Moraine being off by that much is a little troubling.
unfortunately artificial OB and forced layups are two things that the system absolutely is not going to be able to deal with well at all.
I have never played Moraine, but it looks like a great case study of why this SSE is an estimator and cannot ever handle every scenario of courses out there.
By looking at things in the pictures and maps, Moraine definitely is a heavily wooded course from a scoring perspective....but due to the small size of the trees and the feel of the course, if definitely does not feel heavily wooded to someone walking through the course.
If you look at the hole shapes there are tons of forced layups and/or big punishment for missing your lines (tight gaps with lots of shule nearby). There are only a couple of holes on the entire course that do not fit this design profile. This shortens average throw length which bumps up SSA....and SSE cannot calculate this sort of stuff by itself.
To test the formulas using the Gold length of 8264' (not sure if these are exactly what are being used)
Moderately wooded:
SSE = Length/285 + 18*1.67 + (Length - 5400)/1500 = 60.9
Heavily wooded:
SSE = Length/255 + 18*1.67 + (Length - 5400)/1200 = 64.8 (only 1.5% off of what Chris says is a typical SSA)
Good stuff! If nothing else, this will lead to a bunch of arguments and good discussion about lots of important concepts in course design as it pertains to scoring. ....and that is a good thing since IMO that is what real disc golf course review discussion should center around.
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
@Dave242: just as a quick aside, yes, the current model used on DGCR is using your exact formulas, with an extra +0.5 for 'very hilly' (or -0.5 for flat) courses. I just distributed them, which is why they may not look as familiar to you. Oh, I also added in your length-based scaling for non-18-hole courses (e.g. instead of the zero point at 5400ft., for a 9-hole course it would be at 2700ft.). Here's the formulas distributed and rewritten:
Lightly wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 355 + 1 / 1800) + #_holes * (1.67 - 3 / 18)
Moderately wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 285 + 1 / 1500) + #_holes * (1.67 - 3.6 / 18)
Heavily wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 255 + 1 / 1200) + #_holes * (1.67 - 4.5 / 18)
Lightly wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 355 + 1 / 1800) + #_holes * (1.67 - 3 / 18)
Moderately wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 285 + 1 / 1500) + #_holes * (1.67 - 3.6 / 18)
Heavily wooded:
SSE = Length * (1 / 255 + 1 / 1200) + #_holes * (1.67 - 4.5 / 18)
This feature is great! Even for folks like myself that aren't PDGA members and don't do tourneys (looking to change that) it's cool to have a goal at the home course to rate myself against. I thought I was the balls for shooting a 54 (once) at Bellamy Park, but the SSE is 51!
MNcyclone
Double Eagle Member
This feature is sweet!! When will we be able to search SSE's?
Please do NOT incorporate the SSA's from tourneys. The problem with SSA is that it depends on how good the local players are. I don't care how crappy the PA players are to give Moraine a 66 SSA, I care how the course should actually play to the competent disc golfer.
Please do NOT incorporate the SSA's from tourneys. The problem with SSA is that it depends on how good the local players are. I don't care how crappy the PA players are to give Moraine a 66 SSA, I care how the course should actually play to the competent disc golfer.
They are also too high in some instances but that's why it's called an estimate
Right now SSEs are calculated on the fly so they aren't searchable. I can change that later if it becomes an established thing.
Right now SSEs are calculated on the fly so they aren't searchable. I can change that later if it becomes an established thing.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 187
(Ignoring the trollish nature of this comment ...)
66 SSA for Morraine Golds is probably more accurate than most SSAs out there. As I understand it, the course has been carefully adjusted to get the SSA to 66. And it is based on a lot wider sample than just PA players. For example, at last years PFDO, an NT drawing lots of top pros, a 66 on the golds was 1004:
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/61920
Part of the problem is Morraine probably sits somewhere between moderately and heavily wooded, and somewhere between moderately and very hilly. Since both are listed at the lower setting, that's going to produce a somewhat low SSE.
Someone's from PA apparently...
