Par Talk

[roggenb3]

Whatever reduces birdies I guess lol

:wall: It's not about the birdies; that's just a side effect of setting an accurate par because pars are very often too high in DG.

If TDs were always setting par too low, then Steve's method would increase the birdies by suggesting the par be raised. But no one sets par too low.

 

[PMantle]

:wall: It's not about the birdies; that's just a side effect of setting an accurate par because pars are very often too high in DG.

If TDs were always setting par too low, then Steve's method would increase the birdies by suggesting the par be raised. But no one sets par too low.

Of course it is.

 

[DavidSauls]

Keep believing that.

 

[Steve West]

...so it cannot be due to score. ...

Perhaps not. It's probably just a coincidence that their pars precisely match the score-based formulas.

Even so, that at least means we have stumbled across a way to use scores to set future pars which come out to be exactly the same pars that golf comes up with by, uh, what are you advocating? Precognition?

Anyway, if the practical result is that the pars turn out to be useful, isn't that good enough? Isn't that the test for whether to use any method?

I'm OK with allowing the alternative of setting disc golf pars by precognition, if that works well enough.

 

[lyleoross]

Perhaps it be more thrilling if it was called a par 2?

As an aside, that what Steve is doing is an attempt to make the sport "appear" harder is also a debate tactic. If Steve's method were used, some holes called par 3 would be called par 2. That does not make the sport appear harder, it makes hole labeling more accurate.

Personally, I don't see calling a par 2 hole par 2 as exciting either. A bad hole is a bad hole. But De La's #18 is a par 2 that works for me. It's short, easy and scary as heck. It was better before it was terraced but even those terraces didn't take away the fear that an improperly placed layup throw would cost you dearly.

 

[PMantle]

Perhaps not. It's probably just a coincidence that their pars precisely match the score-based formulas.

That would be due to the players playing from a tee box that matched their skill level(Tee box issue). Basically no one else plays from those distances. Also, the US Open is going to be one of the, if not the, toughest scoring layout those guys play all year. It's nothing like what they play week in week out.

 

[Steve West]

If all (or even most) birdies were going to go away, that would be a concern and a reason to re-think how we should set par. So, I looked at 1,263 holes from events that were big enough to have a significant number of 975-, 1000-, and 1025-rated players and were well-run enough to record individual hole scores.

(Aren't these the events that really count, being on video and such?)

Below are the histograms. (Par is always the Event or Gold par, the side bars show how the 975 and 1025 players would score relative to Gold par.)

Bottom line, the typical 1000-rated player would go from 5.8 "birdies" per 18 holes, to 4.9 birdies per 18 holes. I think that leaves plenty of scoring opportunities. Especially since the 0.9 missing "birdies" weren't really scoring opportunities anyway.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

:wall: It's not about the birdies; that's just a side effect of setting an accurate par because pars are very often too high in DG.

It's not about the birdies . . .

. . . pars are . . . too high . . .

Hmmm. I read what you are saying and think you protest a bit too much.

If TDs were always setting par too low, then Steve's method would increase the birdies by suggesting the par be raised.

But it doesn't because they're not. In fact, TD's are not setting pars too high either - at least, not if you agree that the current definition of par is authoritative, which Steve apparently does not - else you would not see the silly graphics "analyzing" the pars set at recent tournaments and even musings about attempting to shame the TDs whose tournament's strayed too far form the SOCMOBR-dictated-par.

This thread is about birdies and always has been. You can try to soften that perceived criticism by claiming that it's about accurate par, but that is just another way of saying the same thing. These constant denials in the face of the obvious is the rhetorical equivalent of claiming that its about "6+2" and not "2x4." This is also why I reach the conclusion that the disingenuous refusal to admit that the "too many birdies" rationale is behind the desire to reduce the number of birdies is because of some other apparently unmentionable factor.

One of the supposed benefits of SOCMOBR, claimed by the author of the method, is that TD's can get "[a] more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par."
Since there is nothing "more useful" to a TD, or anyone else, from fewer birdies, I have to ask, what is "unprofessional" about the number of birdies that would otherwise result? If the reason is not embarrassment, then why throw around the implication that anyone who doesn't use SOCMOBR to set par is unprofessional?

Also, how is a TD supposed to implement SOCMOBR? And if all you want to do is eliminate birdies (even if you want to call it accurate par) why not just use EMBR? SOCMOBR is just a complicated way to hit a target that can be hit by much simpler means.

 

[Steve West]

That would be due to the players playing from a tee box that matched their skill level(Tee box issue). Basically no one else plays from those distances. Also, the US Open is going to be one of the, if not the, toughest scoring layout those guys play all year. It's nothing like what they play week in week out.

Oh, THAT's the tee box issue? That's the same as "we should just design better holes", right?

I don't think anyone disagrees that having players always play from tees/holes that are appropriate for their skill level is the ultimate goal.

I recognize that it would be a lot easier to set par in that world. For designers who, say, successfully set out to create only holes with normal (like 25/50/25) scoring distributions, it is obvious what par should be. And, design flows from the intended par.

That leaves three practical issues to clean up. One is that the hole won't always play the same as it was designed. Most often players will find an unnoticed shortcut. Then, if the hole can't be redesigned, we need a consistent way to decide what par should be for the way it actually plays.

Another is that even when holes are well-designed for a skill level, some TDs or designers may have various notions of what par should be. Or, they may be targeting more obscure scoring distributions (50/0/50 is a popular one for island holes). We need standards they can follow.

The third is that the top players won't always be playing on appropriate holes - at least not for a while. For those holes, we need a way to set appropriate par. Since we have methods that reproduce the pars for appropriately designed holes/appropriate tees for both disc golf and golf, we can use those same methods to set pars for inappropriate tees and holes, too.

Merely setting appropriate par doesn't solve everything - and it is not a substitute for improvements in designing and using appropriate holes, but at least par can start doing what it's supposed to do in the meantime.

 

[PMantle]

Oh, THAT's the tee box issue? That's the same as "we should just design better holes", right?

No, not at all. The tee box issue is the(well, one of the) reason no one seems to agree on par in disc golf, yet everyone agrees with it in golf. At my local muni, I have a choice of 5 tees. At the two nicest disc golf courses in this part of the state, I have my choice of two, but that's only because Doof got permission to go out and add red pavers as short tees. I've never played a course with more than 2 sets. So, disc golfers of vastly different skill levels are forced to play from the same place. That can make the course too easy for the skilled, and too hard for the not so. We have lots of guys in this community that avoid our best courses because they are "too hard". Really, they are too long.

 

[Steve West]

.In fact, TD's are not setting pars too high either - at least, not if you agree that the current definition of par is authoritative..

A TD cannot set an unofficial par, but they can certainly set par too high to be useful. It's still correct, but not ideal.

Anyway, I'll grant that it is mostly about reducing birdies, because there are only a few holes with par too low. So what? Isn't getting rid of the excess birdies a good thing?

Or does calling it a war on birdies - or whatever phrase you actually used - somehow invalidate the whole notion that we should question whether some pars could be set to a more appropriate level?

 

[roggenb3]

But it doesn't because they're not. In fact, TD's are not setting pars too high either - at least, not if you agree that the current definition of par is authoritative, which Steve apparently does not - else you would not see the silly graphics "analyzing" the pars set at recent tournaments and even musings about attempting to shame the TDs whose tournament's strayed too far form the SOCMOBR-dictated-par.

Is the crux of your argument that setting par to be more "accurate" (whatever that means) is a useless thing to do in the first place?

Because I really don't see what you are arguing for...that par should always and forever be arbitrarily set by TDs?

 

[DavidSauls]

He's not arguing "for" anything....just "against" something.

 

[biscoe]

Perhaps not. It's probably just a coincidence that their pars precisely match the score-based formulas.

...or because the courses are designed with such and such hole at such and such distance which yields such and such par which produces scores as intended in the design process.

Even so, that at least means we have stumbled across a way to use scores to set future pars which come out to be exactly the same pars that golf comes up with by, uh, what are you advocating? Precognition?

Anyway, if the practical result is that the pars turn out to be useful, isn't that good enough? Isn't that the test for whether to use any method?

I'm OK with allowing the alternative of setting disc golf pars by precognition, if that works well enough.

precognition/informed course design. call it what you like.

 

[biscoe]

Oh, THAT's the tee box issue? That's the same as "we should just design better holes", right?

I don't think anyone disagrees that having players always play from tees/holes that are appropriate for their skill level is the ultimate goal.

I recognize that it would be a lot easier to set par in that world. For designers who, say, successfully set out to create only holes with normal (like 25/50/25) scoring distributions, it is obvious what par should be. And, design flows from the intended par.

That leaves three practical issues to clean up.

IMO you left out the single largest issue- holes/courses which are designed with no real concept of par and what it means during the design process (which are likely the vast majority of extant holes).

 

[DavidSauls]

IMO you left out the single largest issue- holes/courses which are designed with no real concept of par and what it means during the design process (which are likely the vast majority of extant holes).

Yes, but we're stuck with assigning pars to holes as we find them, in lots of cases. If we say, "This hole is poorly designed, so it won't have a par", it's not going to go over too well.

 

[lyleoross]

Courses and holes without a standard par are the equivalents of "muni" courses. Who cares if they have a par? Who wants to go through the effort? In my own play, I assign them whatever par I feel is warranted. Where par matters is in majors. Par should be reasonably correct, IMO, and there should be no hole that would play par 2 unless it is something unique.

 

[Steve West]

...or because the courses are designed with such and such hole at such and such distance which yields such and such par which produces scores as intended in the design process...

Yeah, or that.

Which seems to work for golf because they've winnowed down "acceptable design" so much that distance is just about the only parameter that affects scores.

Maybe someday disc golf will be that, uh, refined? too. For now, you can't always set appropriate par - nor produce holes appropriately designed for a certain skill level - by looking only at distance.

 

[PMantle]

Of the disc golf holes in the world, what percent would you say are now designated par 3?

 

[F. Howl]

...
On the other hand there are way too many holes in play at major tournaments that should not be there. They are fine for your local "muni" course but watching pros toss a two hundred and fifty foot lay up with a drop in putt is hardly thrilling, even if you call it par 3.

I like two or three par-3 (s/b par-2) holes mixed in on tour. The "must gets" add a bit of drama. That birdie 2 (or par 2) doesn't give much thrill, but carding that 3 stings.

It would be fitting to call that 3, a bogey.