Difficulty

[acrosley]

Strokes per foot would be a better measure of raw difficulty.

Sexton said something similar to this on recent coverage (round 2 OTB maybe?). Elevation would probably fudge the numbers up a bit but in general strokes/length is a pretty good rule of thumb

 

[biscoe]

As a simple example, a 100 foot hole will take an average of 2 strokes, or 50'/throw.

A 200 foot hole with take an average of 2 strokes, too, or about 100'/throw.

I'm not sure we'd call the first hole twice as hard as the second.

We certainly would not. You are assuming a linear relationship which I did not claim. It is still more difficult however.

A wide-open 400' hole that averages 3 strokes, will come to 133'/throw. Is it even easier?

Yes, imo it is easier.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

that does absolutely put a wrinkle in my equation. Certainly a hole is not harder or easier if par changes.

It can be if par is set correctly. If par is set correctly and it changes, then this means that the hole has changed. It should come as no surprise that if the hole changes, then the difficulty can change.

The problem with the seemingly rhetorical question in the OP is that it seems to rely on a false assumption (an unstated premise) - that par can change without the hole changing. When you recognize the unstated premise, then all you have to do is challenge that premise and not the question based on it.

 

[BillFleming]

My brother and I (aclay) had an interesting discussion today and I thought maybe others could weigh in. I said that difficulty can only be measured related to par and he said difficulty is just how many throws it takes you and par doesn't matter. Thoughts?

I disagree that difficulty can only be measured related to par.

Take two 350 foot par 3's.
Hole A: straight open fairway, but a triple mando 150 feet from the tee pad and OB behind the green.
Hole B: straight open fairway, no mandos, OB, or other penalty areas.

Both are par 3s. Are they the same difficulty? No.

For number of throws showing difficulty... difficulty would change for each individual. Hole A above might be easy for another player, but for me with a 250ish max throw which isn't always on line, that same hole might be extremely difficult for me.

Bottom line....players determine the difficulty. There's a hole I play with a friend, where it is easy for me as I have a good forehand. My friend, who is a much better player than me, considers it a very difficult hole as he has difficulty throwing a forehand and the backhand anny just doesn't give him the results he needs.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Actually, I take the position that "par" is often not correctly set, so is an unreliable measure of difficulty.

It's why SSA/Par isn't a precise measure of difficulty.

How is it imprecise? Does your par value - "SSA/Par" - use something other than a simple number value for either of the variables "SSA" or "Par"? How difficulty is measured and whether it can be measured are different questions than whether it has been measured correctly. And the latter questions is wholly different than whether the measurement is or is not precise. It can certainly be precisely incorrect.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I disagree that difficulty can only be measured related to par.

Take two 350 foot par 3's.
Hole A: straight open fairway, but a triple mando 150 feet from the tee pad and OB behind the green.
Hole B: straight open fairway, no mandos, OB, or other penalty areas.

Both are par 3s. Are they the same difficulty? No.

For number of throws showing difficulty... difficulty would change for each individual. Hole A above might be easy for another player, but for me with a 250ish max throw which isn't always on line, that same hole might be extremely difficult for me.

Bottom line....players determine the difficulty. There's a hole I play with a friend, where it is easy for me as I have a good forehand. My friend, who is a much better player than me, considers it a very difficult hole as he has difficulty throwing a forehand and the backhand anny just doesn't give him the results he needs.

To "measure" something necessarily involves comparison and then typically results in an output value. For example, distance can be measured in feet or meters where the output value would be a quantity of either unit. When you walk up to something and say that it is "long" or "tall" or "short" or even "hard" or "easy," you have not "measured" it. You are just describing it subjectively. So, if you have a way to measure the difficulty of a hole that doesn't involve the par of the hole, then what is your method and what is your measurement of the difficulty of the hole you describe?

 

[PastorofMuppets]

To "measure" something necessarily involves comparison and then typically results in an output value. For example, distance can be measured in feet or meters where the output value would be a quantity of either unit. When you walk up to something and say that it is "long" or "tall" or "short" or even "hard" or "easy," you have not "measured" it. You are just describing it subjectively. So, if you have a way to measure the difficulty of a hole that doesn't involve the par of the hole, then what is your method and what is your measurement of the difficulty of the hole you describe?

For me when setting Par for a hole for events, or deciding to change the hole somewhat to make it harder or easier, I look at the strokes per hole average from previous events. I analyze each hole based on skill division and what the average score "in strokes" was on that hole.

For instance if I come across a 395 foot Par 3 over water the entire way, that provides a bail out zone to the right (but taking it makes the hole much longer and turns it into a 2 shot par 4 for most players). And when checking the scoring average on that hole I see that it routinely averages 4.15 strokes (in MPO, Pro Masters division, MA1, MA40) and like 5.6 strokes in MA3, MA4 and the women's divisions I change the Par. This is completely subjective though as Par is relative. A person could make 1000 foot hole a Par 3 (or every hole on the course a Par 3 for that matter) OR make every 200 foot hole a Par 5 and it would still be the same number of strokes to play the course regardless what Par was listed at. The best measurement in my opinion is "how many strokes does it take an average 1000 rated player to complete this course" to get a true SSA. Over or under par is irrelevant. Hole difficulty based on distance is super subjective based on shape, trees, elevation, OB, mandos, etc. It's just too much to ever get an accurate standard for.

 

[Rastnav]

I think people are forgetting that par is, literally, just a number. It's my contention is that the notion of par is primarily useful in allowing a shorthand for tracking score. "I'm -3 after 12 holes. He is at -4 after 18." This makes for much easier comparison than "I'm at 38 strokes after 12 holes. He is at 58 strokes after 18." You reduce the information complexity in talking about score.

Substitute the number, and talk in specifics, and you will see you can start having a more meaningful conversation about difficulty. "That's an easy 3 but a very hard 2". This tells you much more about the kind of hole it is than knowing that it's a par 3 that averages 2.9 throws. Of course those conversation only make sense if you know something about the overall skillset of the field. Put me on a wide open 420 foot hole and that "easy 2" is, for me and most people, an easy 3 but a near impossible 2.

Conversely, that island hole (well, if it is played as a true island) that was #1 on Jones Supreme last year probably ends up as a four for me. It's a very difficult 2, an extremely unlikely 3 and easy 4. But there isn't any way you could call that a par 4. It's set up for you to be able to reach the green in one throw. That's the design intention of the hole.

This is why conversations about difficulty end up so muddled. Because par substitutes for a number, we tend to say that a hole is easy when what we actually mean is that it is fairly easy to get below the assigned par number.

 

[BillFleming]

To "measure" something necessarily involves comparison and then typically results in an output value. For example, distance can be measured in feet or meters where the output value would be a quantity of either unit. When you walk up to something and say that it is "long" or "tall" or "short" or even "hard" or "easy," you have not "measured" it. You are just describing it subjectively. So, if you have a way to measure the difficulty of a hole that doesn't involve the par of the hole, then what is your method and what is your measurement of the difficulty of the hole you describe?

Throws. But the number of throws can differ between players.

A hole might be a 350 foot par 3, but you take a 4 on it and I take a 5 on it every time we play it. Is par the indicator of the difficulty? No. The number of throws we each take determines the difficulty. But the difficulty must include other factors...if there are other 350 foot par 3's do you take a 4 and I take a 5 on all of them? If so, then this (and the others) aren't difficult....it's just our ability. But maybe you take a 3 and I take a 4 on all the other 350 foot par 3s. Then there might be something about the design of the other hole that affects the difficulty for us.

For me. When I step up to a hole, I look at the par for a reference. But that doesn't tell me how difficult the hole will be. I look at things like obstacles, Mandos, OB, doglegs, etc. that could affect my score. That lets me know the true difficulty. A par 3 with a double mando, is usually a par 4 for me, so more difficult than the par would show. Double mando with a sharp dogleg....par 5 for me, way more difficult.

 

[magictenor1]

It's both or either. You can also add the physical exertion required.

However, when announcers talk about "third most difficult hole on the course" and the like, they are comparing the average score for the field to the par on the hole.

That's how I use the term difficult like the announcers. If I play 2 courses all the time and I average -3 at the 1st and + 3 at the second then in my mind the 1st course is easier no matter how many actual strokes it takes me. I do agree par is not always set consistently. Think of a course designer who is setting up a course with 2 tees per hole. 1 tee is intended as a gold design and the other as white. The gold layout will be much harder and will be reflected in my score if I play both layouts

 

[txmxer]

Repeatability of achieving a score should be considered.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I know people, especially newer players, who get bent out of shape about what the par is declared for the hole. I ignore whatever the declared par is for my playing mindset. What can I, myself, reasonably expect to shoot to "score" on the hole? If I cannot get to C2 on my drive, I'm not worrying about getting a "birdie." I'm concerned about where on the hole I'm going to get up and down and score. If it's 330' and under, I can get close enough for a look at least in my 50/50 putting range on my tee shot, and it's absolutely par 3 in my mind, with a 2 being a "score" for me. Add 50 feet to that and unless I get a rare roller to do what it's supposed to do, I ain't getting a look better than than my 50/50 range. That "score" becomes 3 even though the par, in my mind, is 3.5...it's a tweener. Add 100' to it instead and I'm bisecting the hole into two 200' holes and it's a par 4 in my mind with a 3 as a "score." Etc.

But yeah, a good friend of mine from Indiana will stress that a 550' hole is called Par 3 on UDisc and he's gotta get that birdie! "I hate how everything is Par 3 in Michigan!" Well, it's been that way for decades, and most of us just try to get the lowest score we can and call it a day. Maybe his mindset, though, why he's one of the better MA-40's around...

 

[Murwen]

The problem with your question is that it assumes that the par of a course can be changed. Of course, it can, but if par is to have any real meaning, changing par assumes that the course is also changed and not just the par designation. There is a correct way of setting par. If you take the position that par is subjective, then to you, "par" and "difficulty" should be essentially meaningless. However, if there is a correct way to set par, and their is (as well as a correct person to set it), then "difficulty" can also easily and meaningfully be defined in terms of actual score in relation to par.

Well then what is this objective method of determining the par of a hole?

 

[txmxer]

Perhaps difficulty is subjective and can't be measured.

Then again, sidestepping "what is par", perhaps the ratio of average score to median score would measure difficulty on a given hole. Or the ratio of better-than-median scores to median scores.

This somewhat addresses repeatability. Not perfect but good.

And with regards to par, Chuck has talked some about fractional par as a means to be more accurate. But it's not practical and thus par will forever be an imprecise measure of difficulty.

 

[foxdawg10]

Well then what is this objective method of determining the par of a hole?

There is no general agreement. We have experts posting on this thread who don't even always agree with each other on how is par is determined, lolol.

 

[Cgkdisc]

For me, a difficult hole is one I normally roll and the park dept hasn't mowed for a month or has lots of spiny foliage bordering the fairway and is also uphill.

 

[DavidSauls]

For me, a difficult hole is one I normally roll and the park dept hasn't mowed for a month or has lots of spiny foliage bordering the fairway and is also uphill.

....and there's a headwind on the tee but seems to be a crosswind at the basket...

 

[lee76007]

The new No. 16 tee sign at Waller Mill Williamsburg, Virginia now listed long to long as a Par 3 at 660 feet is insane. After passing over the gully the hole levels out, but is narrow off the tee, dogleg's right, then dogleg left, then a hooking dogleg right where the basket sits behind a wall of trees. Out of the dozen or so courses I play frequently, its now the most difficult hole and I'll never see par again when it was a Par 4, and only had one par. My last visit a few weeks ago playing long to short, my jaw dropped when I saw the new pars, except for short to short.

Udisc has long to long as a par 5, and next month a tournament will be played, I'll be looking to see where par is set on 16.

left photo: Tee sign

Center: Tee to dogleg right. Decided to throw a Proton Wave for distance on a fade this morning but crossed thru the dogleg and hit a tree. Double bogey today with two more tree hits. Maybe a Plasma Volt next visit.

Right: About 375 from hole the fairway doglegs left and hooks right, the basket sits behind those walls of trees at the end of photo on middle right.

Any pars among you

 

[Hampstead]

Agreed.

Can you give me an example of a hole where strokes/foot would be deceptive in quantifying difficulty? Variables such as elevation, foliage, etc will already be reflected in the scoring so no need to adjust for them. IMO a 200 foot hole that takes 5 strokes on average to complete is quantifiably more difficult than one which takes 3 strokes on average to complete.

USDGC #17?

 

[txmxer]

The new No. 16 tee sign at Waller Mill Williamsburg, Virginia now listed long to long as a Par 3 at 660 feet is insane. After passing over the gully the hole levels out, but is narrow off the tee, dogleg's right, then dogleg left, then a hooking dogleg right where the basket sits behind a wall of trees. Out of the dozen or so courses I play frequently, its now the most difficult hole and I'll never see par again when it was a Par 4, and only had one par. My last visit a few weeks ago playing long to short, my jaw dropped when I saw the new pars, except for short to short.

Udisc has long to long as a par 5, and next month a tournament will be played, I'll be looking to see where par is set on 16.

left photo: Tee sign

Center: Tee to dogleg right. Decided to throw a Proton Wave for distance on a fade this morning but crossed thru the dogleg and hit a tree. Double bogey today with two more tree hits. Maybe a Plasma Volt next visit.

Right: About 375 from hole the fairway doglegs left and hooks right, the basket sits behind those walls of trees at the end of photo on middle right.

Any pars among you

I don't know the hole, but your description implies significant variability in the outcome/score. That sounds like the definition of difficult to me—otoh, skill level could be a significant factor as well. A hole that 1000 rated players tend to go up and over might be easy, but lesser arms have to navigate precise lines.