What's wrong with deuce or die holes?

[jeverett]

To me, the big problem with 'deuce or die' holes is scoring spread (width). The basic function of a disc golf hole is to spread out the scores, such that higher skill equates to a better score, in a linear fashion (averaging out over dozens or even hundreds of rounds). Basically, for a well-designed Par 3 hole for the target group, you want to see 1). fewer than 70% 3's, and 2). both 2's *and* 4's. Your typical deuce or die holes produce essentially zero 4's.

Steve West actually did a very nice analysis of scoring spread width vs. average score for a hole. His conclusion was "As the average score increase from 2.2 the width of the scoring spread hits a local maximum when the average score is around 2.7. That's as many 2's as 3's and a few 4's. Calculated width = 2.65."

In short, as average score for the target group drops below 2.7, the overall scoring spread width for the hole just decreases.

 

[kerplunk]

I've done some work on wide-open holes which indicates the width of the scoring spread is smallest when the average score is 2.2. You get mostly 2's, a few 3's, and rarely a 1 or 4. The calculated width of the scoring spread is about 2.00.

When holes get shorter than this, the scoring spread widens until there are as many 1's as 2's., where the width is about 2.50.

As the average score increase from 2.2 the width of the scoring spread hits a local maximum when the average score is around 2.7. That's as many 2's as 3's and a few 4's. Calculated width = 2.65.

The scoring spread then flattens in relation to all higher scores. It goes down a little until the average score reaches 3.1. Width = 2.50.

Then it goes up slightly until the average score reaches 3.7. Calculated width of the scoring spread = 2.75.

Higher scores repeat this cycle, with just a little trend toward wider scoring spread for higher scores. Average score of 4.7 produces a width of 2.80, for example.

Caveat: these are based on work with my Throw Simulator, not actual data. I'm still looking for that big database of hole-by-hole-by-player scores. However, scoring spreads (for simple holes) always are at there widest when tow of the scores have equal percentages. They are at there narrowest when one score dominates. So, the average scores would only be off by the fraction of other scores that get mixed in.

So, anyway, holes that score too low just don't generate as much scoring spread.

This statistical breakdown is awesome, but I don't understand what you mean about the throw simulator versus actual data.

 

[tomdizzlefizzle]

Nothing is wrong.

 

[jeverett]

This statistical breakdown is awesome, but I don't understand what you mean about the throw simulator versus actual data.

Hi Kerplunk,

Steve West has a whole thread about his throw simulator. Here's a link to it (there's a download link to the actual excel simulator there, too):

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91043

 

[DavidSauls]

To me, the big problem with 'deuce or die' holes is scoring spread (width). The basic function of a disc golf hole is to spread out the scores, such that higher skill equates to a better score, in a linear fashion (averaging out over dozens or even hundreds of rounds). Basically, for a well-designed Par 3 hole for the target group, you want to see 1). fewer than 70% 3's, and 2). both 2's *and* 4's. Your typical deuce or die holes produce essentially zero 4's.

Steve West actually did a very nice analysis of scoring spread width vs. average score for a hole. His conclusion was "As the average score increase from 2.2 the width of the scoring spread hits a local maximum when the average score is around 2.7. That's as many 2's as 3's and a few 4's. Calculated width = 2.65."

In short, as average score for the target group drops below 2.7, the overall scoring spread width for the hole just decreases.

How big a problem is this for a particular hole, or a couple of holes on a course? If you've got a lot of variety, with good scoring spreads, maybe a couple of holes with poorer scoring spreads, but pressure to not blow the birdie, are worth having. Particularly if they're cool holes to throw.

A bunch of them, a deuce-or-die course, is a different story, of course.

 

[jeverett]

How big a problem is this for a particular hole, or a couple of holes on a course? If you've got a lot of variety, with good scoring spreads, maybe a couple of holes with poorer scoring spreads, but pressure to not blow the birdie, are worth having. Particularly if they're cool holes to throw.

A bunch of them, a deuce-or-die course, is a different story, of course.

True, the impact on overall scoring spread from one or two of these kinds of holes on a full 18 may be minimal.. I've never seen per-hole analyses (measuring the impact on the relationship between player rating and hole score) done before, either..

Plus, taking Steve West's example 2.7 average score hole, you get something roughly like 44% birdies, 44% pars, and 12% bogies. Even at ~44% chance of a birdie, that hole can still *feel* pretty do-or-die. So realistically a reduction in scoring spread width doesn't start happening until you start pushing close to 50% chances of a birdie (for the target skill group, of course).

 

[jeverett]

Note: these are of course huge, sweeping averages, using data taken from a simulator. Real holes on real courses are certainly going to have a lot more variety.

 

[rj29274]

par 4s and 5s are fun because you get to throw more shots and develops all parts of your game. short, yet technical, par 3s are sweet if there is a unique challenge. (tunnel, sharp elevation, sharp dogleg, island hole, water/ob)

 

[DavidSauls]

Note: these are of course huge, sweeping averages, using data taken from a simulator. Real holes on real courses are certainly going to have a lot more variety.

We keep hole-by-hole totals, and do scoring averages and spreads, for our tournaments. But not with the validity we perhaps should; I do one set for all Open players, and another for all Pros and Advanced, since that broad group is who the course is built for. (It's funny, but there's not actually that much difference between these groups on most holes, and it's interesting which ones are or are not).

Which makes this stuff interesting to me.

Stoney Hill doesn't have any real deuce-or-die holes, but I also play Earlewood a lot, and it's loaded with them. Still fun, but not ideal from a scoring-spread standpoint, especially for better players.

 

[Dave242]

I do one set for all Open players, and another for all Pros and Advanced, since that broad group is who the course is built for. (It's funny, but there's not actually that much difference between these groups on most holes, and it's interesting which ones are or are not).

Things are interesting and have validity no matter how you slice and dice the numbers. For tournament scoring, ideally you want the course to do the best job of rewarding those that are the best at the top of the division and punishing those same players for poor play. So, if you have multiple levels of players that you are trying to tune the course for, it becomes a less meaningful exercise.....unless you have separate tees.

 

[Steve West]

How big a problem is this for a particular hole, or a couple of holes on a course? If you've got a lot of variety, with good scoring spreads, maybe a couple of holes with poorer scoring spreads, but pressure to not blow the birdie, are worth having. Particularly if they're cool holes to throw.

A bunch of them, a deuce-or-die course, is a different story, of course.

Actually, my preferred method of measuring a hole's ability to separate players by skill is to look at the impact the hole has on the scoring spread width of the total scores.

A useful hole will cause the scoring spread width of the total scores to be wider (in essence, reduce the number of players that are tied and/or reduce the number of other players each of those players is tied with).

Useless holes have no impact on the scoring spread width (like star par holes).

(I have actually seen holes that have a negative impact on the total scoring spread - but I digress).

The width of the scoring spread on any particular hole is not very tightly bound to its ability to widen the scoring spreads of the total scores.

Long way of saying deuce or dies might have a place in the mix.

 

[GripEnemy]

Bump!!

I left the course early yesterday, layout was (for me at least) a ton of deuce or die holes and I got frustrated. A par on them might as well be a double bogie on a par-5 in my eyes, they just leave a terrible taste in my mouth if I'm not parking it. Had the teepads been my landing zones on longer holes I'd [hopefully] have scored much better...for some reason I ride the strugglebus when concrete is under my feet and it's a "tap-in approach" for lack of a better term.

I personally loathe deuce or die holes.

Opinions, advice, thoughts, etc.?

 

[tallpaul]

They're good practice for up shots on longer holes, if you want to look at it that way.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

They're good practice for up shots on longer holes, if you want to look at it that way.

Paulie finding a way to keeps things positive!

I'm fine with a a few of them on a course, but a course where the majority of holes were Deuce or Die would quickly grow tiresome.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Birdie or die holes for your D level are the true test of your skills to score, sort of like a strike in bowling or making a shot in basketball. That's why they're so frustrating because birdie is in your face on every hole. Playing par 3, 4 or 5 holes longer than your D level to potentially reach for a birdie chance have less pressure. It's relatively easy to get a par when regularly approaching/putting from C2 or longer and there's no regular expectation to reach the basket in regulation to birdie/score on them.

 

[sisyphus]

Personally I enjoy 'deuce or die' holes and courses, as long as you understand that a 'must get' deuce hole should truly be par 2. I keep telling people that, if a 970 or higher rated player knows he 'must' deuce a hole or risk dropping out of last cash, it should be listed as a par two hole for that skill level. I love playing 'birdie bashes' and ace races, and enjoy our local 'pitch and putt' options (Winton Woods, Woodland Mound, etc.) for a quick round aiming to score between 38 and 42 strokes, even with intermediate skills.

I enjoy the fact that Idlewild (the full 24 hole course) includes a handful of these to keep the frustration level down when you struggle on the more challenging holes. But they're certainly few and far between, and they're NOT used for the DGPT event. Those folks play at a different level, and require different challenges to demonstrate their talents.

I find open, 400' to 500' holes extremely dull: for me, they're going to be a 3, and a 4 would be due to a mistake. Tour players can park most of these, so they might be an example of 'deuce or die' holes for their skill level?

 

[GripEnemy]

Birdie or die holes for your D level are the true test of your skills to score, sort of like a strike in bowling or making a shot in basketball. That's why they're so frustrating because birdie is in your face on every hole. Playing par 3, 4 or 5 holes longer than your D level to potentially reach for a birdie chance have less pressure. It's relatively easy to get a par when regularly approaching/putting from C2 or longer and there's no regular expectation to reach the basket in regulation to birdie/score on them.

To an extent I strongly agree. FWIW I play woods golf...is a tap in 2 on an easy 3 more skillful than scoring a par on a 5 through the trees? How can you quantify distance control vs. navigating obstacles? I'd love to hear your thoughts since you're *way* more well versed in course design but I just don't see it. Not hitting obstacles or flying off the fairway for 3-4 shots before making a putt takes much more skill than throwing exactly 189' 23 degress left.

Truly not trying to agrue

 

[DavidSauls]

In evaluating a deuce-or-die hole, perhaps the risk of death should factor in.

If the obstacles or flight path leave a 35% of not birdieing, or if many of those 2s involve a 25-30' putt instead of a drop-in, there's a lot more excitement than a hole with an easy, relatively worry-free, park-it-and-drop-in 2.

 

[Jukeshoe]

The main strength of my mental game is repeatedly ignoring the fact that I died on a deuce-or-die hole. :| :|

 

[chevis]

for the 'fun' factor, these holes are a moral booster after a hard hole (bogie taken). like many have said, too many of these is not good, but having a few is fine for variety.