TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[brandocommando9]

This thread is ridiculous whocares if a pro shoots -90 we all know that's difficult as hell and if shooting even were difficult we would look at it the same way nothing is changed but the number, all his throws would be the same the scorecard would just say 0 instead of -90 they mean the same thing! It really doesn't matter if you change birdie to par, if your a top level player your playing against your competition not the course

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Im Tapping this hole.

And the back nine.

:|

 

[coupe]

What? Of course you can. Here: You count how many times a person is trying to land their disc in the basket. To get the average, you divide by the number of holes. And yes, lag putts are putts....and some people lag putt off the tee in DG.

Which means that, using the TAP definition, ace run holes should be par 1.

 

[DavidSauls]

What about multiple tee pads and no more cheating on OB? Did anyone read my post? :gross:

Us peons would play the white tees and the uber golfers play gold tees. Re-throw from original lie on OB.

I did. Addressing the notion that complying with a rule is "cheating", or that we we're cheating to create rules that are different from golf but work better for our sport, seemed a major thread drift---perhaps worthy of an entirely different thread. Besides, many courses have little or no O.B., and the difference in the subsequent lie would have little effect on scores.

 

[DavidSauls]

This thread is ridiculous whocares if a pro shoots -90 we all know that's difficult as hell and if shooting even were difficult we would look at it the same way nothing is changed but the number, all his throws would be the same the scorecard would just say 0 instead of -90 they mean the same thing! It really doesn't matter if you change birdie to par, if your a top level player your playing against your competition not the course

(1) "We" isn't the audience those concerned about -90 are concerned about.

(2) Even for those of us who aren't bothered by -90, there are other benefits of a better, more appropriate, more consistently applied "par", or its substitute.

(3) This thread is hypothetical---a discussion of ideas. Don't let it bother you.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes, as you and Dave242 pointed out, I sort of forgot about one step: "Everyone adopts this definition." I just assumed that would happen, because it so obviously completely addresses each one of everybody's concerns.

I keep forgetting how humans "think".

Elsewhere I've suggested an "Event par", where a more appropriate par system is used at Majors and NTs. Adoption would be much easier, and wouldn't require changing signs. It might catch on. Of course, it would need a better name than I've given it.

 

[sneakytiki]

I just hope we get this settled soon, because I so desperately need the ball golfers to respect our par. Their approval is paramount to the sport, and right now I can't even look a ball golfer in the eyes, for the shame.

 

[ScottyLove]

I hate this thread

The go away. Simple.

 

[DavidSauls]

I just hope we get this settled soon, because I so desperately need the ball golfers to respect our par. Their approval is paramount to the sport, and right now I can't even look a ball golfer in the eyes, for the shame.

Not to mention the real benefits a sensible par system would provide.

 

[sugarnot]

Im not wasting my time reading through this whole thread.

The fact of the matter is that PAR is simply a measuring stick that someone by whatever method determined what they think or feel an average score should be for that particular hole and entire course once the quantity of those numbers are added up. So having scores like -90 at worlds isn't that far out of the question when taking into account the quality of players who are shooting that over a 6 round spread. Upon first look yes it is shocking but with a little logic and thought it isn't uncomprehendable.

Further more when in competition PAR is a null point because you aren't playing against par, you are playing against other people for the lowest total number of strokes. Again, par is just the measuring stick for which you are comparing one another to. In the end its lowest number of strokes that wins unless it is a handicapped style of play and I'm not even going to get on that cluster of a method.

 

[wake911]

I just hope we get this settled soon, because I so desperately need the ball golfers to respect our par. Their approval is paramount to the sport, and right now I can't even look a ball golfer in the eyes, for the shame.

Why are you even commenting on this thread anymore? All you've done is joke about it the entire time, while some folks are having good conversations about this?

1) I 100% disagree that the word "Par" needs changed. Just the way it is determined and the mind-set of the DG community need adjusted. The best way to determine par is to run some tournaments, take statistical values of each hole, and set par per hole that way. There are 2 holes on a local course that after doing this, they became Par 4 for tournaments. They didn't drop any down to a par 2 (which i think would be a good move, as there are 2-3 holes that should be a par 2)

2) Par is a word that basically everyone knows what it means. "Par for the course" is used even outside of the golf world. Changing away from that, would alienate our sport even more. I personally don't have any issue with McBeth being -90 at worlds. I don't really talk about it much, I'll say he won by 5 shots.

3) I think the best way to do this is to have a course par, set by the designer. Hopefully set at a 950-1000 rated player. Then for NT's and Majors, the par should be set via a 1000-1030 player. Par 2's if needed. This would allow for a much tighter to par scoring, which would translate better to the outside world. The only events anyone outside of our community really would hear about are the NT's and Majors. Just like in Golf, no one really cares about the small tourney, just the majors.

4) It probably isn't a necessary step to growing the sport, but I definitely think it would allow our ball golf brethren to relate a little better. And their are a TON of them out there. With our similarities, if we can connect with them and gain some interest, then why couldn't some sort of promotion occur through them and their Golf Channel? (maybe the 2am on a tuesday spot, instead of an infomercial, haha)

5) It won't happen overnight, but anything to legitimize the sport in non-players eyes, while not adversely affecting the game (your score of 50 is still a 50, just instead of -4 you might be +2) can only do good.

6) Also, it's easy enough to explain disc golf par to a ball golfer "Well, we count par as # of throws to reach the circle, which is our green, and then 1 putt, not 2 like in golf. That's why some of our holes are actually par 2 if they are short enough" - pretty simple right there.

 

[fritothedog]

Sorry, but all of this debate about renaming Par seems kinda silly to me and reminds me of the following:
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

(Quoted from here)

If you pay him enough Dave can make one that goes to 12.

 

[DavidSauls]

Im not wasting my time reading through this whole thread.

The fact of the matter is that PAR is simply a measuring stick that someone by whatever method determined what they think or feel an average score should be for that particular hole and entire course once the quantity of those numbers are added up.

The fact is that it's not. It could be, some of us think it should be, but that's not the definition of "par" in disc golf.

So some guys talk about the current definition and application of "par", its flaws and weaknesses, and discuss, hypothetically, what would work better. It's just a discussion of ideas.

Why does that bother anyone?

 

[sneakytiki]

To me, the most important quality for par to have is consistency hole to hole, course to course. Shooting 3 under on one course should be as hard as shooting 3 under on EVERY other course... ideally. I realize it is a ridiculous goal. If this TAP thing adds consistency (which I think it very possibly could) I would sign up for it, but only for that reason. I don't think we need a par that is simply going to be harder to achieve. I don't see par as a motivation tool, or something to lend legitimacy to the difficulty of our sport. I just want consistency. So whether you make it harder or not, as long as there is a more consistent method for setting par that will normalize all courses, I am glad for it.

 

[DavidSauls]

To me, the most important quality for par to have is consistency hole to hole, course to course. Shooting 3 under on one course should be as hard as shooting 3 under on EVERY other course... ideally.

That would be one of the nice benefits of a different par system. True that it wouldn't be exactly the same on every course, but it could be close enough that when you tell me you average 3 under par, it would mean something to me, even though I don't know what course you're talking about.

You could also know how your score compared to top players, if you were interested, without having to do a lot of research or calculations.

 

[Dave242]

To me, the most important quality for par to have is consistency hole to hole, course to course. Shooting 3 under on one course should be as hard as shooting 3 under on EVERY other course... ideally. I realize it is a ridiculous goal. If this TAP thing adds consistency (which I think it very possibly could) I would sign up for it, but only for that reason. I don't think we need a par that is simply going to be harder to achieve. I don't see par as a motivation tool, or something to lend legitimacy to the difficulty of our sport. I just want consistency. So whether you make it harder or not, as long as there is a more consistent method for setting par that will normalize all courses, I am glad for it.

Good, well thought-out post. You have just stated a weakness of using TAP to assign Par on an individual hole. While it will work for most holes, it will not make a ton of sense on a minority of holes. It will certainly be a head-scratcher on holes with big inclines and holes just outside of the 333', 633' and 933' boundaries.

BUT, it will be MUCH less of a head-scratcher than what we've got now. And less than some fractional/non-integer par system that would make the most mathematical sense.

TAP is much more a measure of an entire course/round (or tournament) than of individual holes. Unless a course is filled with a whole bunch of 334'-400' holes (and/or 334'-700' holes), it should never be too inconsistent.

 

[Dave242]

One neat side benefit of TAP is that comparing TAP to SSA (either by subtraction/difference or division/ratio) will give a very good Difficulty Rating for the course.

 

[sneakytiki]

One neat side benefit of TAP is that comparing TAP to SSA (either by subtraction/difference or division/ratio) will give a very good Difficulty Rating for the course.

How is difficulty defined then? Would that not be more of a measure of TAP's consistency? Ideally shouldn't scoring 0-TAP be equally difficult? If that difference/ratio said the course was "harder" wouldn't that be an indication of how inaccurate the TAP is on that course?

 

[_MTL_]

I suggest Dave submit his idea to the PDGA BOD.

Otherwise, this is just mindless discussion with no end result.

 

[sneakytiki]

Otherwise, this is just mindless discussion with no end result.

Welcome to the Internet!