In an effort to be transparent about what I do when I make decisions about tournaments, I'll post here a response to a question from Dustin H.
Please note: There is NO requirement in the PDGA rules to announce course layouts or that I will have players play different layouts. The only requirement is that the course be set up the morning of (for B Tiers and below).
See
https://www.pdga.com/rules/competition-manual/503
From Dustin:
Hi Michael,
Is there a reason MPO and MA1 have a different layout at Rosedale? If the days are already split, I don't see the point in splitting pools again. MPO, other than the island, isn't playing a more difficult layout. This just seems like ratings gatekeeping to not have MA1 impact MPO. I think MA1 and Pros should be playing the same layout, in the same pool, if they are playing the same course on the same days. Maybe my rating takes a hit, or maybe theirs does, but the point of the rating is to compare myself to all players in PDGA.
There was no mention of pools until after everyone was signed up, so I think they should be combined.
Thank you for the good work you do. You don't get the credit you deserve. I just don't happen to agree with this one bit.
Dustin Heese
My explanation to Dustin:
Of course there is a reason. Ratings is not a reason, however. Looking at the Rosedale Cup last year, all Sunday divisions played the same layout - 6020' par 56. I evaluated how each division played in 2025 as well as how divisions played Rosedale in the Kansas City Wide Open (obviously, MPO did not play Rosedale, but I looked at the other divisions). I am looking for holes that create scoring separation. I don't mind some hole that have little scoring separation, but fewer is better than more.
Hole 1 (same as 2025) - good for MPO, not as good for other divisions
Hole 2 (same as 2025) - good for MPO, not as good for other divisions
Hole 3 (same as 2025) - generally good separation
Hole 4 (changed in 2026) - generally terrible separation. MPO remained the same, because I have little option for a reasonably good separator hole in MPO. All other divisions playing the par 4 around the corner. I suspect I will have decent separation but it's unknown for sure.
Hole 5 (moved one pin to the right) - Excessively soft in 2025, adding some angle should create decent scoring separation.
Hole 6 (same as 2025) - Good for MPO, not as good for other divisions.
Hole 7 (same as 2025) - safety choice. Other pin positions risk players waiting on 8,
Hole 8 (changed in 2026) - Good for MPO, poor for other divisions in 2025. Adding the short pin should create additional scoring separation in the other divisions.
Hole 9 (same as 2025) -Good for MPO, not as good for other divisions.
Front 9 was generally good for scoring separation for MPO but not so good for other divisions. Small changes to Holes 4, 5, and 8 should help with scoring separation for all other divisions.
Hole 10 (changed in 2026) - the red basket was used for all in 2025, and it was terrible for MPO (too soft) but pretty decent for all other divisions. Adding the long pin for MPO usage should help scoring separation.
Hole 11 (changed in 2026) - changed to short right around the corner in an effort to help speed of play. It was long straight, and that slowed play down, even though the hole had decent scoring separation.
Hole 12 (changed in 2026) - moved from 2nd pin to short, which has given me better scoring separation in all divisions.
Hole 13 (changed in 2026) - moved from middle by road to long by road. Little scoring separation in 2025. Par 3 plays well historically for MPO, soft par 4 is fine for all other divisions (I suspect it will play around 3.5 for all other divisions).
Hole 14 (same as 2025) - decent scoring separation for all divisions.
Hole 15 (same as 2025) - decent scoring separation for all divisions
Hole 16 (changed in 2026) - excessively soft for MPO in 2025, but decent for all other divisions. Moved to middle, which should help in MPO. Also, guardian bush has been beat to hell, which softens the hole for all other divisions.
Hole 17 (changed in 2026) - similar to hole 10. Red basket excessively soft for MPO but decent for all other divisions. Adding long should help MPO.
Hole 18 (changed in 2026) - par 4 was excessively soft for MPO. Moving basket to long and adding mandatory should make it much more difficult for MPO and should be fair as a par 5 (because of the mando) for all other divisions, which providing other divisions with an eagle opportunity.
Back 9 had some excessively soft holes for MPO, and so I changed some holes to make MPO tougher while not hurting scoring separation for all other divisions.
Differences between two layouts:
MPO, par 56, 6452'
All other divisions, par 58, 6100'
Note: Both Pools play a longer layout than 2025.
Hole 4 - MPO long straight, All others Par 4 around corner
Hole 8 - MPO Par 4 island, All others short right
Hole 10 - MPO long straight, All others red
Hole 13 - MPO par 3, All others Par 4 (soft, 3.5 expected)
Hole 17 - MPO long left, All other red
Hole 18 - MPO par 4, All other Par 5
Last, something I did not consider is ratings. However, generally the skill level of MPO players is higher than FPO, MP40, MP50, MP60, and MA1 and is reflected in ratings. If I looked at ratings, MP40, MP50, and MP60 would have a better argument to be grouped in a pool with MPO than MA1. For this event, MA1 average rating is 912, FPO is 897, MP40 925, MP50 929, and MP60 919. MPO average rating is 959. There is a pretty substantial jump in the skill level of MPO players as is reflected in the ratings, hence also justifying a different course layout to create better scoring separation.
Dustin Heese
Feb 25
I don't think there should be two pools/ layouts. I think we should be rated together. I didn't see anything regarding pooling previously.
Nova Politte 
Mario Ortega 
