How wooded do we like it?

[Dave242]

Yeah, Renny isn't "Very Hilly". Maybe somebody just set it like that so the SSE is closer to the SSA. Oh wait, maybe hilliness isn't in the SSE calc -- yeah, maybe not.

ha. I thought about the effect SSE tinkering might have played into this, but like you say, the trees/obstacles play much more into that formula than Hills (is it even part of the calculation?). Either way, I doubt that formula (or even functionality) is known widely enough to have many people making adjustments to course set ups here.

To see if I could get more courses and thereby mute/dampen statistical irregularities, I ran the numbers for 3.5+ rated with only 5+ reviews. The numbers vary by a few percentage points, but as suspected, the trends/conclusions stay the same:

[B]How Wooded	How Hilly	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Lightly……	Mostly Flat	46	259	18%
Lightly……	Moderately	56	163	34%
Lightly……	Very Hilly	19	36	53%
Moderately	Mostly Flat	125	351	36%
Moderately	Moderately	219	387	57%
Moderately	Very  Hilly	104	145	72%
Heavily……	Mostly Flat	35	103	34%
Heavily……	Moderately	89	169	53%
Heavily……	Very Hilly	65	86	76%

[B]How Wooded	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Lightly……	121	458	26%
Moderately	448	883	51%
Heavily……	189	358	53%

[B]How Hilly	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Mostly Flat	206	713	29%
Moderately	364	719	51%
Very Hilly	188	267	70%

 

[grodney]

Quality work, Dave.

 

[sgamerp]

ha. I thought about the effect SSE tinkering might have played into this, but like you say, the trees/obstacles play much more into that formula than Hills (is it even part of the calculation?). Either way, I doubt that formula (or even functionality) is known widely enough to have many people making adjustments to course set ups here.

To see if I could get more courses and thereby mute/dampen statistical irregularities, I ran the numbers for 3.5+ rated with only 5+ reviews. The numbers vary by a few percentage points, but as suspected, the trends/conclusions stay the same:

[B]How Wooded	How Hilly	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Lightly……	Mostly Flat	46	259	18%
Lightly……	Moderately	56	163	34%
Lightly……	Very Hilly	19	36	53%
Moderately	Mostly Flat	125	351	36%
Moderately	Moderately	219	387	57%
Moderately	Very  Hilly	104	145	72%
Heavily……	Mostly Flat	35	103	34%
Heavily……	Moderately	89	169	53%
Heavily……	Very Hilly	65	86	76%

[B]How Wooded	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Lightly……	121	458	26%
Moderately	448	883	51%
Heavily……	189	358	53%

[B]How Hilly	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Mostly Flat	206	713	29%
Moderately	364	719	51%
Very Hilly	188	267	70%

Is Flip City considered Lightly Wooded? Or moderately Hilly?

 

[Dave242]

Flip City is listed as "Very Hilly & Lightly Wooded" (look in the Course Details section near the top of the page/section).

I would consider it Moderate/Moderate......but I can see why one could argue for the way it is set up.

 

[Toro71]

I think those terms have a bit of a regional bias, just like the ratings. If everything in one area is completely flat, the course with one small hill is going to get labeled hilly. Same thing with the park style course among desert courses.

This, mostly.

Lik, I'd bet that at the time Renny was added here, it was the most elevation on a course in Charlotte....?

And I wonder if there are differences among those who apply the "hilliness" ratings...do some consider just the shots on the course, and others the total walk? Renny might get "very hilly" simply because it wears you out so much? Some holes, like 9 at Renny, involve going up and down a hill on the walk to the basket, but there's I bet less than 5' of elevation diff between tee and basket.

So, some think "hilly" and think about how up and down the walk is, some thing "hilly" and think only about how many drastic up- or down-hill shots are on the course?

 

[Dave242]

...do some consider just the shots on the course, and others the walk? Renny might get "very hilly" simply because it wears you out so much?

Or if you suck, holes 2, 6 & 18 become pretty hilly!
They are flat if you can control your disc.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Maybe the moral of the story is "Hitting trees is fun for some of the people some of the time, but throwing downhill is fun for all of the people all of the time"

^this. Even those of us who prefer tight and technical courses can get frustrated on heavily wooded courses like Nevin, Summit, Whitehall, etc. You hit the nail on the head Dave.

Moderately to well wooded (but not necessarily heavily) wooded is perfect as far as I'm concerned, but give me elevation. Put 'em together = Flip City. :thmbup:

 

[bikinjack]

I'm with mashnut. I think how wooded or hilly a course is listed as on here is very much relative to what else is in the area. As an example, Renny is listed as very hilly, while Sugaree is listed as only moderately so. I would venture to guess that you'll change elevation more at Sugaree than at Renny. But when you compare Sugaree to Ashe County,Bear Tree, or Plumtree, it's not nearly as much up and down. While Renny is much more than the Nest, or Kilborne.

 

[sgamerp]

Flip City is listed as "Very Hilly & Lightly Wooded" (look in the Course Details section near the top of the page/section).

I would consider it Moderate/Moderate......but I can see why one could argue for the way it is set up.

how does it not make the top 3 courses then?

 

[Dave242]

Because I made a mistake on that one - after filtering, I forgot to sort on ratings and so I just grabbed the first 3 alphabetically. :wall:

The top 3 are:
Flip City Disc Golf Park (MI), Base Camp Adventure Lodge DGC (UT), Stafford Lake County Park (CA).

I sent Bill a small donation of $12,000 for offending the Flip Faithful by not including them in a thread of top DGCR courses.

 

[mashnut]

[B]How Wooded	Count	Total	Percent[/B]
Lightly……	121	458	26%
Moderately	448	883	51%
Heavily……	189	358	53%

This confirms what my gut feeling was when your first posted this thread. Open courses are not nearly as exciting as ones with trees, but I'll personally go to heavily wooded courses and moderately wooded courses about an equal amount given equal access to them.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I suspect sunlight has a much to do with preference for wooded courses as anything. I know I would prefer to play more wooded courses on hot, sunny days versus say Winthrop.

 

[mashnut]

Maybe, but even on a beautiful 65 degree day where shade isn't a necessity I would rather play a wooded course than an open one.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Maybe, but even on a beautiful 65 degree day where shade isn't a necessity I would rather play a wooded course than an open one.

^ding, ding, ding. I agree with Chuck on avoiding open courses on oppressively hot days, but I favor the challenge of having to shape shots regardless of weather.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer courses with some degree of balance between the two. For example a course that's mosty in the woods, but has a few out in the open, or vice versa. While there are many very good courses don't have that type of split personality, they typically don't score as well here. In fact, that lack of variety is often cited as a reason for not rating the course higher.

 

[sidewinder22]

Statistically, a wide open hilly versus wide open flat course of the same length will have about the same SSA. In other words, hilliness in general does not directly affect the net challenge of holes.

Do you have actual data to back that up? I think a course like Brandywine plays a few strokes harder with the elevation changes especially with the wind than if the course was flat. The elevation factor is probably a bit harder for Ams rather than the Pros though. I think it's really hard to get a real apples to apples comparison anyways.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, those comments are based on actual data. Remember we're comparing the effective lengths of the uphill holes and downhill holes with their flatland equivalents. And wind would affect them essentially the same. The flatland length of an uphill hole is roughly its length plus 3 times the elevation difference from tee to pin. For downhill holes in terms of challenge, you do not deduct 3 times the elevation difference. You use the actual length. You only deduct 3 times the elevation difference on downhill holes when determining how long it plays from a throwing energy standpoint.

So the flatland equivalent length of a course with elevation is going to be the direct line distance from tee to pin (following the dogleg paths) plus 3 times the net elevation differences on all of the uphill holes.

 

[New013]

courses like Richmond Hill definitely add strokes because of the elevation. layout wise it's mostly a bunch of straight shots through gaps but a lot of holes are over a big valley so if you go offline you can get farther off the fairway than if it was flat; and if you dink a tree and end up at the bottom of the valley your upshot is way more difficult than if it was flat. not to mention the numerous roll aways you'll encounter.

 

[BionicRib]

I agree with Mash about the regional differences when it comes to what is lightly/heavily wooded or very hilly/ moderately hilly. I would also add that region plays a huge roll into what a course is rated. Unfortunately I just don't think there is enough data out there to come up with "factual info". I personally prefer a "challenging" course. Typically that means moderately wooded or heavy and moderately hilly to very hilly.

Different strokes for different folks is always going to make the numbers inconsistent...especially without a large selection to derive numbers. IMO (and I'm sorry to bring this up on this thread) there should be a better system for "who" gets to write reviews. The "trusted reviewer" thing is just not cutting it. There are only a select few whose reviews I will read when deciding whether to play a course or not. I don't really have a better answer as to what would work better, but I would push for an amendment......just saying

 

[humchris85]

Woods + hills = :thmbup:

Open + flat = :thmbdown:

That was my thought.:hfive:

 

[BionicRib]

Maybe a green, red, white, blue and gold level of reviewing status.........skill level vs. experience and course preferences.....(like a mini biography of who the reviewer is)......

sorry for the thread derailment, but I had to get that out there