Par Talk

[Steve West]

But how about for normal, everyday play? Elsewhere you've said that a 1000 level player is the standard for par. Please let me know if this is wrong.

Lets use Deep Creek Elementary School as an example. And hole 2 was shortened, so lets assume it is now 60 ft. The course at Deep Creek ES was designed for and mostly played by K-6 students. For normal everyday recess play should holes 2 (60 ft) and 3 (70 ft) be par 2s? Not to mention the rest of the course that 1000 rated players should shoot 2s on

1000-rated is the standard for Gold par, used for Open and MP40 divisions.

I'm OK with TDs or designers using other pars in other situations.

Let's get back to the current discussion. Should #17 on a Gold level course, used for an Open tournament be par 3 because it is possible to get a 3? Or should it be par 4 if so few experts get a 3 that it cannot be said they are expected to get a 3? Can they still be said to be expected to get a 3 even if the frequency of 3s is much lower than on any other par 3?

 

[Olorin]

Let's get back to the current discussion. Should #17 on a Gold level course, used for an Open tournament be par 3 because it is possible to get a 3?

Good idea. I need one more piece of information. What is the elevation change on hole 17?

 

[Rastnav]

But how about for normal, everyday play? Elsewhere you've said that a 1000 level player is the standard for par. Please let me know if this is wrong.

Lets use Deep Creek Elementary School as an example. And hole 2 was shortened, so lets assume it is now 60 ft. The course at Deep Creek ES was designed for and mostly played by K-6 students. For normal everyday recess play should holes 2 (60 ft) and 3 (70 ft) be par 2s? Not to mention the rest of the course that 1000 rated players should shoot 2s on

I think you are undercutting yourself here, Olorin. That or you and Steve are in deep and intractable agreement.

If you are taking the skill level of the players into account when setting par, then the expected abilities of players of that skill level matter. Expected abilities have a great deal to do with the expected number of throws to complete a hole. So you might substitute expected ability for expected score, but that should have a great deal of correlation with expected score.

 

[Steve West]

Good idea. I need one more piece of information. What is the elevation change on hole 17?

It follows a creek, so essentially zero.

 

[DG_player]

In my formula I've set the cutoff for the most difficult par 3 at the point where if less than 45% of the experts get a 3, we cannot "expect" them to get a 3 and so par is 4.

You have to appreciate the malleability of errorless play. When the definition was "errorless play plus 2 shots from short range" errorless was defined as if an expert could reach short range with his best shot. Now that the 2 shots part has been dropped and it's strictly "errorless play", suddenly errorless play is now defined as if more than 45% of experts can consistently do it.

With any remotely honest reading of the current definition, half of par 3s would be 2s, half of par 4s would be 3s, and almost all 5s would be 4s.

As an aside, if you're going to continue this thread, can you please remove the annoying 2 year old poll at the top?

 

[Steve West]

You have to appreciate the malleability of errorless play. When the definition was "errorless play plus 2 shots from short range" errorless was defined as if an expert could reach short range with his best shot. Now that the 2 shots part has been dropped and it's strictly "errorless play", suddenly errorless play is now defined as if more than 45% of experts can consistently do it.

The words "reach" and "plus" were never in the definition. It was "...errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out". So, if errorless play already included two close range throws (finishing the hole by landing near enough the basket to make the putt seems quite errorless to me), the phrase "allowing two" would have no impact. I think "allowing two" was in there so players did not need to make long throw-ins to get par.

Par 3 is still not defined as 45% of players getting a 3 or better. That's just my method for getting at a suggested par that is very likely to be the same as what the actual definition would produce, and is almost certainly not too low, and also produces very nice results in terms of being useful for all the things we want par to do.

It would not be possible to always determine the score that would be expected with errorless play by just looking at scores. However, it does seem to be possible to find a score that is almost certainly not lower than what would be expected with errorless play. That's what my formula does.

For example, I am at the point where I think #17 at Idlewild should be a par 3 even though fewer than 45% of players got a 3 or better. It just seems that with errorless play an expert should be expected to get a 3.

My formula suggest par should be 4, but just because too many players don't know how to avoid the temptation to go for a 2 doesn't mean that going for 2 and taking a 4 is errorless play. It also does not seem that playing for 3 but ending up OB (for 4) would be errorless play. So, par of 4 doesn't feel right, even if that's what my formula would suggest.

However, I wouldn't want to lower the cutoff point down to the 24% of players who got a 3 or better. That would make par too low on normal holes. I'm thinking I'll leave the formula as it is, and let TDs identify the holes where par should be lower than suggested because there is so much punishment that unusually few experts can play errorlessly.

With any remotely honest reading of the current definition, half of par 3s would be 2s, half of par 4s would be 3s, and almost all 5s would be 4s.

Not that many par 2s, but yeah, that's essentially what would happen. Primarily because most Open tournaments are held on courses with pars set for the masses.

As an aside, if you're going to continue this thread, can you please remove the annoying 2 year old poll at the top?

I'd like to. How?

 

[Olorin]

According to Close Range Par Idlewild 17 is a par 3. With an effective length of 500 ft on a Gold layout the OLD CR Par maximum length for a Gold par 3 is 500 ft. But CR Par is being revised and the new range for a Gold level par 3 is 226-625 ft.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Both Steve and Olorin's par calculations don't account for holes whose design will result in a high percentage of errors. Those type of holes can be considered inappropriate or "gimmicky" within the parameters of golf design OR simply a design appropriate for a derivative golf game that needs a different way to determine par. The only par that makes sense on this hole is whatever the designer/TD prefers. Par 3 would produce the kind of psychological distress appropriate for more drama in elite tour events. Par 4 would be more appropriate for daily play below elite level.

 

[Olorin]

In my view, according to Close Range Par, the percentage of players who make errors on a hole is irrelevant to par. Those issues measure difficulty, not par. On more difficult holes more players will make errors.

Close Range Par is Under Revision because of the "new" definition of par, but it still uses the concept of a tube on the intended flight path. Every shot inside the tube is errorless; every shot outside that tube that hits something was due to an error.

Here is the relevant section from the CR Par explanation--

Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a clear tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Depending on the shape of the fairway and the proximity of foliage the tube may be large or small, very wide or very narrow. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues.

Many holes are not designed for the best shots to be made with enough power to reach the average drive length, though. A course designer can use narrow fairways, low ceilings, and nearby OB so that the smarter throw will be a shorter shot using a more controllable disc. In these cases the designer will determine reasonable throws that are intended to reach a landing zone that is shorter than that of designate CR length.

 

[Steve West]

In my view, according to Close Range Par, the percentage of players who make errors on a hole is irrelevant to par. Those issues measure difficulty, not par. On more difficult holes more players will make errors.

This way of thinking is shared among your method, my method, and the definition.

Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. ...

Close Range Par is a very good method for setting par, but is not the definition of par. It would not diminish your method - and it would help your credibility - if you would edit your manifesto to adopt this stance.

For example, the quoted sentence above would become: "Note that this method of setting par is based on a 'reasonable throw' along an intended flight path to a landing zone.

You could also better align your method with the definition - without changing the algorithm or parameters - by switching from a designer-based perspective to a player-based. For example, you could say it is "based on a 'reasonable throw' a player would be expected to make along a flight path to a landing zone.

 

[Olorin]

Steve,
Those are great suggestions and I will incorporate them into the revisions. Thanks for making the time to point that out.

 

[DG_player]

Here is the relevant section from the CR Par explanation--

Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a clear tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Depending on the shape of the fairway and the proximity of foliage the tube may be large or small, very wide or very narrow. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues.

Many holes are not designed for the best shots to be made with enough power to reach the average drive length, though. A course designer can use narrow fairways, low ceilings, and nearby OB so that the smarter throw will be a shorter shot using a more controllable disc. In these cases the designer will determine reasonable throws that are intended to reach a landing zone that is shorter than that of designate CR length.

I stand corrected almost all of our 3s should be 2s, 4s should be 3s, and every 5 should should be a 4 minimum and possibly a 3!

 

[Steve West]

Dustin Johnson shot 30 under par this weekend. He had at least 5 eagles. Eagles fly all over the PGA Tour. in ball golf the PGA usually sets up some very easy birdie holes, along with some really tough par holes. It is not uncommon at all for a hole to be played by the field more than a half stroke under par. By you thinking that would mean that the PGA is setting par wrong. I think you have a really bad opinion on what par should be.

I don't recall seeing a lot of holes that score .5 under - except those stupid par 4s that they call 5 (For excitement? Or to get par up to 70-something so they aren't accused of having a soft course?)

Sure there are easy-to-birdie holes in both golf and disc golf, but that description can only be stretched so far.

If a hole is too easy to birdie, it is no longer an easy birdie; it is a mis-parred hole. If everyone scores a 3, that cannot be a par 4 under any definition. "Expect to birdie" should never be a valid description of a hole.

There is debate about where the line between "easy to birdie" and "actually one lower par" should be. (Probably when you start using "very".) However, I would find it difficult to justify to anyone that when a hole has more scores of 4 than scores of 5, we can still call 5 "the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole".

So, yes, I think they set par wrong for Holes #2 and #18 on TPC Boston.

If you think that 5 is somehow more expected than 4 on #2 and #18, or can tell me how par of 5 fits the USGA's definition, I'd like to hear it.

 

[DG_player]

If a hole is too easy to birdie, it is no longer an easy birdie; it is a mis-parred hole. If everyone scores a 3, that cannot be a par 4 under any definition. "Expect to birdie" should never be a valid description of a hole.

Except the traditional definition of par (shots to reach plus 2) that has been used in golf for the past 100 years and was used in disc golf for most of its existence until recently...

 

[Steve West]

... Par is defined in disc golf as landing in C1/2 plus 2 putts. So the problem is the basket and nothing else. It's the exact same definition as ball golf. Par 4 is landing on the green in 2 (regulation) plus 2 putts. Par 3 is landing on the green in 1 plus 2 putts. Quite simple. ...

You are simply wrong about this. Disc Golf Par is defined in Rule 811 F. 5.

Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director.

 

[oldmandiscer]

You are simply wrong about this. Disc Golf Par is defined in Rule 811 F. 5.

Yet that isn't fully accurate either. It's not taking into account two putts (C2 and in) for par which is basic common sense. Or are you saying holes shouldn't be birdieable? Because no one wants to see a 600 foot par 3 where most players take par. That's just silly. Every hole needs to be birdieable with a great to excellent long shot or 2-3.

Par isn't the problem itself. The problem is that it's far to easy to 1 putt most holes. That IS the problem.

 

[Jay Dub]

Because no one wants to see a 600 foot par 3 where most players take par. That's just silly.

So the same thing with one difference, par is 4, would make that fun/exciting to watch? Nuts!

 

[oldmandiscer]

So the same thing with one difference, par is 4, would make that fun/exciting to watch? Nuts!

One difference, make the basket smaller so it's not a gimme birdie. Now it's a true par 4.

 

[Jay Dub]

*Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn*

 

[oldmandiscer]

*Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn*

Something has to be done at some point. We can't have players shooting 15-18 under par every other round and players are still going to be getting better AND more of them. I disagree with Steve about "par" holes. That's just stupid. The goal on every hole is to make a birdie. It's not to make par. If you make birdie nearly impossible then it's completely ridiculous. Then you still have the same problem and all the top players are take par instead of birdie. You are just changing a number on the scorecard, not how the hole is played or designed. That basket has to get smaller to challenge putting just a little bit for the top pro's. Players will still be shooting 12-15 under I am sure but it would be at least a step in the right direction versus 15-18 under.