Forums

Help › Forums

best of par threes

Fri, Feb 8 2013 1:12 PM (59 replies)
  • xXxxMARCxxXx
    427 Posts
    Thu, Feb 7 2013 3:04 PM

    WGTicon:

    trophy's are an interesting notion. I can bring it up.

    as for rated... the way system works now, it's impossible to keep stats yet ignore average.. everything will be skewed. But, we are working on many different ideas to see if we can make it work

    -wgticon

    Since we see skins on this, and Cabo and Whistler are a part of.......can we see skins on those 2 courses in the future?

    Or maybe a Best of Cabo/Whistler  :)

    -xMarc

  • bettergloberoman
    586 Posts
    Thu, Feb 7 2013 3:34 PM

    WGTicon:

    trophy's are an interesting notion. I can bring it up.

    as for rated... the way system works now, it's impossible to keep stats yet ignore average.. everything will be skewed. But, we are working on many different ideas to see if we can make it work

    -wgticon

    Why not ranked rounds on best of par 3?

     

    If you can program the system to multiply the score by 1.333 you will have  71.982 (close enough  to 72) so if a player scores -4 on front 9 his score will be 23*1.333=30.659 (post like an 31 on his avg).

    Just an idea.

  • alcaucin
    9,041 Posts
    Thu, Feb 7 2013 3:46 PM

    Just done the course and a great job Icon...

    Some of the ones that are hard to get right every time are a welcome addition, can now practice them alot instead of going through 10 or 14 holes to get to them. N1

    Andy

  • WGTicon
    12,511 Posts
    Thu, Feb 7 2013 5:35 PM

    bettergloberoman:

    WGTicon:

    trophy's are an interesting notion. I can bring it up.

    as for rated... the way system works now, it's impossible to keep stats yet ignore average.. everything will be skewed. But, we are working on many different ideas to see if we can make it work

    -wgticon

    Why not ranked rounds on best of par 3?

     

    If you can program the system to multiply the score by 1.333 you will have  71.982 (close enough  to 72) so if a player scores -4 on front 9 his score will be 23*1.333=30.659 (post like an 31 on his avg).

    Just an idea.

    Interesting. I'll mention it:)

    -wgticon

  • PUHOLINO
    1,189 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 6:09 AM

    WGTicon:

    bettergloberoman:

    WGTicon:

    trophy's are an interesting notion. I can bring it up.

    as for rated... the way system works now, it's impossible to keep stats yet ignore average.. everything will be skewed. But, we are working on many different ideas to see if we can make it work

    -wgticon

    Why not ranked rounds on best of par 3?

     

    If you can program the system to multiply the score by 1.333 you will have  71.982 (close enough  to 72) so if a player scores -4 on front 9 his score will be 23*1.333=30.659 (post like an 31 on his avg).

    Just an idea.

    Interesting. I'll mention it:)

    -wgticon

    I hate to say this, but this math only works if you score par. Every other result would need to be multiplied by a different number. If you'd multiply every result by 1,333 and you scored a perfect 9, your avg would be 48, which is 6 strokes lower than it should be.

    In order to get it right, you would need to multiply scores on each individual hole. The correct math would be:

    HIO = × 2

    Birdie = ×1,5

    Par = ×1,333

    Bogey = ×1,25

    Double bogey = × 1,2

    etc. Can't be bothered to work out the rest, but you get what I mean.

    If you could make calculations this way, the scores on the par 3 course would accurately represent one's avg.

    P.S.: The other way to go would of course be to stop calculating avg in numbers like 60  and simply calculate it in  X strokesUNDER - EVEN - X strokes OVER  mode. That would actually be even more fair. That way a -5 on Oly F9 and -5 on Whistler F9 would count as the same score and not as a 3 stroke difference.

  • bettergloberoman
    586 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 6:22 AM

    PUHOLINO:
    P.S.: The other way to go would of course be to stop calculating avg in numbers like 60  and simply calculate it in  X strokesUNDER - EVEN - X strokes OVER  mode. That would actually be even more fair. That way a -5 on Oly F9 and -5 on Whistler F9 would count as the same score and not as a 3 stroke difference.

     

    That is a good idea. 

    Just hope they will do something so we can play it in CC tourney.

    Alex

  • PUHOLINO
    1,189 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 6:46 AM

    bettergloberoman:

    PUHOLINO:
    P.S.: The other way to go would of course be to stop calculating avg in numbers like 60  and simply calculate it in  X strokesUNDER - EVEN - X strokes OVER  mode. That would actually be even more fair. That way a -5 on Oly F9 and -5 on Whistler F9 would count as the same score and not as a 3 stroke difference.

     

    That is a good idea. 

    Just hope they will do something so we can play it in CC tourney.

    Alex

    I'm sure this was suggested a million times before, so the fact it's not implemented yet won't really make me hold my breath ;-)

    And I agree, I'd love to be able to play that in a CC tourney.

  • courteneyfish
    15,796 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 7:22 AM

    alcaucin:

    can now practice them a lot instead of going through 10 or 14 holes to get to them.

    You didn't have to before.

     

  • PUHOLINO
    1,189 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 10:38 AM

    PUHOLINO:

    In order to get it right, you would need to multiply scores on each individual hole. The correct math would be:

    HIO = × 2

    Birdie = ×1,5

    Par = ×1,333

    Bogey = ×1,25

    Double bogey = × 1,2

    etc. Can't be bothered to work out the rest, but you get what I mean.

     

    LMAO, I just realized I'm a complete dumba$$ for overcomplicating this. There's a very easy solution. Just add 1 stroke per each hole to the scorecard (18 strokes per 18 holes) and you get the exact and true avg for a par 72.

    So if you score -5 for 18, that's 49, you add 18 and you get a 67. Easy peasy.

  • alcaucin
    9,041 Posts
    Fri, Feb 8 2013 1:12 PM

    courteneyfish:

    alcaucin:

    can now practice them a lot instead of going through 10 or 14 holes to get to them.

    You didn't have to before.

     

    I've been through this before...to get the greens and winds you wanted...

    You did !!

    Or maybe I'm wrong ?

    Let me know how I could've practiced Cabo and Whistler holes without playing the whole 9 or 18 holes ?

    Or #3 Oly etc etc on Champ greens with high winds ?

    I'm quite a fan of your, shall we say 'succinct' answers to posts (unlike others it seems)...however they are usually correct.

    Andy

     

RSS