Is course difficulty over-rated ?

[Countchunkula]

^I think I agree with you in general, but Flip City is a notable exception to the more difficult = better rating pattern.

Based on memory of the half dozen rounds I've played there, I'd consider it a white level course. Still one of the highest rated on the site. Part of that is from the intangibles (history, vibe, etc.), but a lot of the reason it's so well liked is that it's challenging, but score-able for the skill level range that most players fall into.

 

[Mando]

^I think I agree with you in general, but Flip City is a notable exception to the more difficult = better rating pattern.

Based on memory of the half dozen rounds I've played there, I'd consider it a white level course. Still one of the highest rated on the site. Part of that is from the intangibles (history, vibe, etc.), but a lot of the reason it's so well liked is that it's challenging, but score-able for the skill level range that most players fall into.

Even that is changing. The last 10 reviews for Flip City average 4.25.

 

[Steve West]

Because they chose to register for an Open division at a DGPT event despite not being that level of player would be my first answer.

Yes, that's an issue. But this course was too hard for even the top-rated FPO players. (Besides, FA1 in the companion event played an even longer course.) Total par of 71 was right for FPO, but playing a true par 71 course is a grind for most people. On top of that, the scores were tilted more heavily to tough pars than easy pars.

How are you defining "fit"? IMO a course "fits" a player based primarily on a lack of shots that said player is simply incapable of executing. Simply looking at the scores paints an incomplete picture, particularly on multi-shot holes.

The measure I use is based on how well a course lets the players get the same mix of scores as 1000-rated players get at ES+ events. This means not too easy, not too hard, and not too many of the same score.

It's true, I make the leap that two players getting the same mix of scores are having a similar experience. Scores can tell us a lot.

In this case, we can see that 930-rated players have only about a half a chance of getting a two during any round. That means the 930-rated payers aren't capable of parking many - if any - holes. So, we know that the course took away almost all the chances to park a hole from the tee.

I was admittedly surprised at how poorly the lower rated women (the aforementioned 875 players) played holes 13 and 14 in the event. …

It wasn't just the lower-rated women; holes 13 and 14 played as one higher than the assigned par, even if only the 930-rated players are considered.

Compared to the MPO course, the FPO course was about 88% as long. This is longer than the 75-80% recommended. A good start would be to add (or use) short tees for all the holes. (That's after re-thinking whether the par 71 Blue course was too difficult for MPO.)

As to the original question: I don't think difficulty is over-rated yet, but it has now become possible to have courses that are too difficult. Blindly adding difficulty is no longer a sure-fire way to improve a course.

 

[Steve West]

Forgot to add this.

 

[grube.fresh]

Par 3 golf with shot shaping needed is my bag of tea. Long holes for the sake of distance are boring for me. I don't throw very far (300ft) so drive, drive, upshot, putt is not stimulating my dg brain.

 

[Pevio]

I'm gonna address the original question here. Note that all of this is at least partially just my opinion. Tl;DR: High rated courses have difficulty, but not all difficult courses are high rated.

Course ratings should focus on the top level of players, not just for skill accessibility, but also for difficulty. Even though not many players are at the pro level, we can all pretend we are and appreciate the course design for its difficulty for the pros. Now this is sometimes a problem; a 400 foot water carry might be a good hole, but it is problematic for a lot of people.
Howver, a short tee could be added to the hole so weaker players can see the difficult hole and choose an easier option on the same course.

All 5.0 rating courses should be difficult, or at least have the ability to be difficult if long pins and such are in play. However, an easy course can be 4.0 rated if it is scenic and has a fun factor that some difficult courses don't have.

In the case of Flip City, it's not super difficult, but it's difficult enough that if everything else is right, it can get a 5.0 rating. (I haven't been to Flip City; I'm just guessing here based on what I've heard.)

 

[beereakfast]

If i didn't enjoy getting my ass kicked by a hard course, i wouldn't even bother with this sport.
A rainy morning at De La, or windy afternoon at Stafford Lake can easily yield scores in the +30 range. Duh. I'm no pro. I don't throw that far. Hard courses are still fun!

 

[TiltedFlipCurves]

Birdie chances are fun. I need my red tees :\

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I played Maple Hill for first time in October. I played the red course, but chose to play some of the iconic holes from the Blue, or even White tees.

Best part of that place was the variety and options. You can't really complain about losing a disc or the difficulty of the hole when you have the option of laying 5 other layouts on that same hole. I lost one disc on hole 14, I chose to play the long tees. It cleared the main pond, but ended up fading too much and went down the drop off on the left and into the smaller pond, lol. Well worth the price of admission to give that hole a try.

This post is spot on.

 

[biscoe]

Forgot to add this.

What is par on this "ideal" course or is this graph based on Par 71? How did you come up with these numbers as "ideal"?

 

[biscoe]

How frequently should a player of a given level be able to execute a given shot for that shot to be "appropriately difficult" for said player? Can a course where every shot is "appropriately difficult" wind up being "too difficult" or "too easy"?

 

[Cgkdisc]

How frequently should a player of a given level be able to execute a given shot for that shot to be "appropriately difficult" for said player? Can a course where every shot is "appropriately difficult" wind up being "too difficult" or "too easy"?

If a player cannot accurately execute a particular throw more than 50% of the time in an open level field, it would seem they have not yet mastered it at a basic level since their results are no better than a coin flip. So, let's say they have mastered a throw to the 70% success level. If they are only 60% successful on a hole they can reach (needing that type of throw), the hole is more difficult than their baseline of 70%. If their success percentage is even lower than 60%, the hole is progressively more difficult for that player. However, once their success percentage drops below a certain point, when does the hole become "fluky/random" for that skill level versus just really difficult?

 

[Steve West]

What is par on this "ideal" course or is this graph based on Par 71? How did you come up with these numbers as "ideal"?

Short answers: par on the ideal course is about 63 and the distribution is like what the 1000-rated players get at the most well-run events.
Long answer here.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's fluky/random if essentially the same shot, gets different results.

I putt 50% from 25'. That's not a coin flip; if I throw the putt well, I usually make it; if I throw it poorly, I don't. That's just inconsistency.

I can think of tunnel fairways I can hit 25% of the time. But I hit them the 25% of the time I throw really well, and miss them the rest. (Such is my game these days. Sigh.)

It's too diifficult if, regardless of whether I throw well poorly (by my standards), it doesn't matter. For example, a water carry longer than my range.

 

[Steve West]

How frequently should a player of a given level be able to execute a given shot for that shot to be "appropriately difficult" for said player? Can a course where every shot is "appropriately difficult" wind up being "too difficult" or "too easy"?

Yes. A course with 18 appropriate par 5s would be too difficult. For one thing, the size of field that could finish before dark would be too small.

I don't want to utter the two-word phrase that would - if ever spoken out load - instantly reduce all of disc golf to a pile of gray dust, but you can imagine how a course could be too easy even if all the throws are appropriate.

 

[nothinbuttree]

My issue is, with the recent surge in popularity, our area still needs intermediate and beginner courses. I don't necessarily want mom, dad and four kids under 8 y/o in tow, on the champ course, on a Sat afternoon. Providing them a selection of appropriate courses in nice parks benefits the entire golf community.

BINGO! Having 4 kids that like to play--and sadly, one that doesn't, don't know what her problem is , I often lament the lack of beginner level courses or even holes out there. Even courses with multiple tees tend to not have any tees at the beginner level (is that purple?).

For as rich a DG area as I live in (Dayton), we really have to go to Columbus (Blendon Woods) or Cincy (Winton Woods) to find an 18 hole course suitable for some of my younger arms. My 10 yr old (who is still very small) gets tired and I think frustrated after 7-8 holes on most courses, and I think he is also tired of bogey being a good score for him. There is one 9 hole course nearby but that is overly short, some holes being in the 80' range.

Both the above courses are actually well designed as well (esp Winton), with a variety of shot shapes, use of trees (but no real narrow gaps), etc. I actually enjoy them as for me they give great upshot practice.

Any we do feel the pressure when taking the kids to a 'normal' length course, as 5-7 throws for a couple kids starts adding the time up rather quickly.

 

[biscoe]

Yes. A course with 18 appropriate par 5s would be too difficult. For one thing, the size of field that could finish before dark would be too small.

I don't want to utter the two-word phrase that would - if ever spoken out load - instantly reduce all of disc golf to a pile of gray dust, but you can imagine how a course could be too easy even if all the throws are appropriate.

I don't think I agree with the bolded. IMO said course would very likely be "too long", "no fun", "dumb", or a selection of other descriptors but I do not see how a course with no inappropriate shots for a skill level can be construed to be "too difficult" for that skill level. Same goes for a par 2 (there, I said it) course. More or fewer shots on a course in and of itself imo says nothing about the actual difficulty of the course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes. A course with 18 appropriate par 5s would be too difficult. For one thing, the size of field that could finish before dark would be too small.
.

Perhaps. though I once played a 14,000-foot course on a ball golf course that, particularly with my arm, was an ordeal. I'm not sure that too difficult would be the right phrase; it was a lot like field work, just throw hard over and over.

Which makes me think that length, total par, or total throws may not be the best measures of difficulty, let alone how difficult is too difficult.

Round ratings vs. well-set par might be.

Then again, it may not be quantifiable; both terms may be too subjective.

 

[biscoe]

If a player cannot accurately execute a particular throw more than 50% of the time in an open level field, it would seem they have not yet mastered it at a basic level since their results are no better than a coin flip. So, let's say they have mastered a throw to the 70% success level. If they are only 60% successful on a hole they can reach (needing that type of throw), the hole is more difficult than their baseline of 70%. If their success percentage is even lower than 60%, the hole is progressively more difficult for that player. However, once their success percentage drops below a certain point, when does the hole become "fluky/random" for that skill level versus just really difficult?

You didn't really answer the question. I agree that 50% is too low. Yes, a shot a player can execute less often is more difficult than one they can execute more often. Obviously there is also a threshold somewhere that is too high. Any take on the range within which shots are legitimately challenging yet not unfair or fluky?

 

[biscoe]

Quoting Steve's document:

Ideal
Many designers and course designers seem to be gravitating toward a consensus that an ideal course would be par 63, with more par 3s than anything else, a couple of par 5s, one par 2 (or "ace-able par 3"), with the rest par 4.

While I am also of the OPINION that my preferred course par lies in the range from 62-66 I also would not categorize the concept as anything other than my opinion. Many (most?) people will prefer something shorter, some will prefer something longer. To paint something as "ideal" is using very broad strokes. To say that "3" is the "ideal" number of 2's to be carded in a round is pretty much the same as the owl determining the number of licks to get to the center of the Tootsie Pop as "3".