Par Talk

[Ryan P.]

My preference would be:

"Par for a player skill level is one stroke higher than the score a player within that skill level would be expected to score with errorless play."

In other words, first determine the legit "birdie score", and determine par from that. This way, there are no par 2s nor even a calculation that would produce them unless the expected score was actually 1 on say a putting course.

That's simple (which is nice) but I don't think that ends up being par on a lot of holes (which isn't good).

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm starting to see your point. Would you define par simply as "what an expert would be expected to score on a hole"? If not, how?

Yes. "Expert" can be quibbled about, but it's the most useful method for a given skill level.

If you get a birdie, you're gaining on the field. If you get a bogey, you're losing ground.

We do this informally, anyway, by calling certain holes "birdie holes", where we know we need a birdie, or we're losing ground on the field.

I once suggested, tongue in cheek, that we ditch the golf terms and go with EES (Expert Expected Score). A better shot would be BEES (Better than Expert Expected Score), a worse one WEES (Worse than Expert Expected Score). And so on. This would do exactly what we want par to do -- tell us whether a performance on a particular hole was likely to help or hurt a player, in competition.

The joke was, that that's what par already claims to be.

 

[Steve West]

My preference would be:

"Par for a player skill level is one stroke higher than the score a player within that skill level would be expected to score with errorless play."

In other words, first determine the legit "birdie score", and determine par from that. This way, there are no par 2s nor even a calculation that would produce them unless the expected score was actually 1 on say a putting course.

We'll set aside (for the moment) that "one throw higher" messes up the very idea and usefulness of par, and just point out we're gonna need your definition of errorless anyway.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That's simple (which is nice) but I don't think that ends up being par on a lot of holes (which isn't good).

It would be par by definition.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

What does "errorless/without error" add to the definition? How does it modify the meaning of "expected score" in a helpful way?

It invalidates statistical models of par that take neither errors nor better-than-expected-play into account.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We'll set aside (for the moment) that "one throw higher" messes up the very idea and usefulness of par, and just point out we're gonna need your definition of errorless anyway.

Par in DG is clearly not as useful as BG par primarily since their 2-putt integer mnemonic works but is off by a half-stroke for DG. Allowing half-stroke pars like 2.5 and 3.5 would be more useful, but traditionalists would reject them as not golf-like, a case of decadisophobia (fear of decimal numbers) although handicaps use decimals.

An error is any reason you don't earn the expected (birdie) score whether it was weak execution, mental or physical throwing mistake, a bad break or a penalty. The focus is on what score the player would be expected to throw based on the challenges present on the hole.

That's how many competitive players think. They figure out what's the score they could consistently make on a hole with good throws to determine their personal perfect round on that course. Competitive players don't really dwell on par on new holes other than as a rough clue that it might be tougher than a typical par 3. A score of par or higher on a hole occurs when you didn't get your expected score goal. How you end up with a par or higher score doesn't need a label other than for stats.

As a designer, it would be easier to design holes based on best expected score for a skill level (then add one for par) than try to figure out the scoring spread to come up with a par value that matches the current definition.

 

[Steve West]

Par in DG is clearly not as useful as BG par primarily since their 2-putt integer mnemonic works but is off by a half-stroke for DG. Allowing half-stroke pars like 2.5 and 3.5 would be more useful, but traditionalists would reject them as not golf-like, a case of decadisophobia (fear of decimal numbers) although handicaps use decimals.

An error is any reason you don't earn the expected (birdie) score whether it was weak execution, mental or physical throwing mistake, a bad break or a penalty. The focus is on what score the player would be expected to throw based on the challenges present on the hole.

That's how many competitive players think. They figure out what's the score they could consistently make on a hole with good throws to determine their personal perfect round on that course. Competitive players don't really dwell on par on new holes other than as a rough clue that it might be tougher than a typical par 3. A score of par or higher on a hole occurs when you didn't get your expected score goal. How you end up with a par or higher score doesn't need a label other than for stats.

As a designer, it would be easier to design holes based on best expected score for a skill level (then add one for par) than try to figure out the scoring spread to come up with a par value that matches the current definition.

For those who wonder how CK can come up with this stuff, remember that the pre-definition idea of "Par = Reach+2" is ossified into his brain. That's the starting point and ending point for all his thinking on par.

There is no 2-putt mnemonic in disc golf. There has not been one since at least 1997 when the definition was first published and did not include the words "putt", "plus", or "add". Only those stuck in the "Reach+2" ancient past think there is a 2-putt mnemonic.

Chuck thinks par in DG is not useful because Reach+2 is not useful. If we look at actual scores and pars set according to the definition, not only is DG par as useful as BG par, it is virtually identical. Take any BG scoring distribution, use the DG definition of par, and you will get the same par as BG uses.

(Except for the one or two fake par 5s in golf which everyone knows don't really reflect par but are set to generate fake scoring excitement.)

This may be evidence that there is a "final two throws" in DG. If so, that last throw to Reach is a layup, already accounted for as one of the final two. So par is the expected score in both sports, not the expected score in one sport and a bad score in another sport.

I'd argue DG par is MORE useful because we cannot know as much about expected score by merely looking at distance like BG can.

There are no half-putts, nor are there any half-scores. It is impossible to expect a score other than an integer because no one can get a score other than an integer.

You would not be able to find any evidence of one-half fewer putts in DG by looking at scoring distributions. The general shape of the skewed hump distribution is the same no matter how many putts are expected. BG or DG. Each distribution is a result of a series of throws/strokes which have an increasing probability of completing the hole. For the same average scores, you would not be able to sort a bunch of scoring distributions into DG or BG piles.

(Except our island holes would stick out like a sore thumb.)

In the past, and still in Chuck's mind, players thought they needed a birdie to keep up because way back in ye olden days "Reach plus 2" was the way par was set. While it is true that a score of Reach+2 would involve an error and would cause players to fall back, the actual definition of par does not allow for one error per hole.

Now that more events are actually setting par according to the definition, you hear more and more that "par on this hole is good"; and that's for the elite players on video who are better than experts. Players these days recognize when a score of par will let them keep up with the field. There is more commentary along the lines of "a hole that hasn't given up any birdies is not the hole to take risks trying to get ahead of the field".

As for designing holes, nothing changes except you skip the step of: "(then add one for par)".

I generally agree with the paragraph starting with "An error is any reason you don't earn the expected ..." except for your Kevin Nealon's Mr. Subliminal attempt to slip "(birdie)" in there. Also, we need something shorter and less circular than that paragraph if we are to fit it in the definition.

 

[Cgkdisc]

For those who wonder how CK can come up with this stuff, remember that the pre-definition idea of "Par = Reach+2" is ossified into his brain. That's the starting point and ending point for all his thinking on par.

There is no 2-putt mnemonic in disc golf. There has not been one since at least 1997 when the definition was first published and did not include the words "putt", "plus", or "add". Only those stuck in the "Reach+2" ancient past think there is a 2-putt mnemonic.

Chuck thinks par in DG is not useful because Reach+2 is not useful. If we look at actual scores and pars set according to the definition, not only is DG par as useful as BG par, it is virtually identical. Take any BG scoring distribution, use the DG definition of par, and you will get the same par as BG uses.

(Except for the one or two fake par 5s in golf which everyone knows don't really reflect par but are set to generate fake scoring excitement.)

This may be evidence that there is a "final two throws" in DG. If so, that last throw to Reach is a layup, already accounted for as one of the final two. So par is the expected score in both sports, not the expected score in one sport and a bad score in another sport.

I'd argue DG par is MORE useful because we cannot know as much about expected score by merely looking at distance like BG can.

There are no half-putts, nor are there any half-scores. It is impossible to expect a score other than an integer because no one can get a score other than an integer.

You would not be able to find any evidence of one-half fewer putts in DG by looking at scoring distributions. The general shape of the skewed hump distribution is the same no matter how many putts are expected. BG or DG. Each distribution is a result of a series of throws/strokes which have an increasing probability of completing the hole. For the same average scores, you would not be able to sort a bunch of scoring distributions into DG or BG piles.

(Except our island holes would stick out like a sore thumb.)

In the past, and still in Chuck's mind, players thought they needed a birdie to keep up because way back in ye olden days "Reach plus 2" was the way par was set. While it is true that a score of Reach+2 would involve an error and would cause players to fall back, the actual definition of par does not allow for one error per hole.

Now that more events are actually setting par according to the definition, you hear more and more that "par on this hole is good"; and that's for the elite players on video who are better than experts. Players these days recognize when a score of par will let them keep up with the field. There is more commentary along the lines of "a hole that hasn't given up any birdies is not the hole to take risks trying to get ahead of the field".

As for designing holes, nothing changes except you skip the step of: "(then add one for par)".

I generally agree with the paragraph starting with "An error is any reason you don't earn the expected ..." except for your Kevin Nealon's Mr. Subliminal attempt to slip "(birdie)" in there. Also, we need something shorter and less circular than that paragraph if we are to fit it in the definition.

You don't need to put words in my mouth. I've posted what I meant with no obfus..clarification needed. Par as defined in disc golf cannot do as good of a job as a new definition based on the expected score/birdie perspective, closer to the way many players think, have stated, or requested at all levels. Let's take a poll to confirm.

I'll double down and say that the expected score/birdie should occur between 10-60% of the scores as one aspect of a good hole for a skill level. If it's 0-10% or 61-99%, it's a weaker design for that skill level, i.e. too many or not enough birdies.

A key problem with our current par definition is it can be calculated properly with Steve's methods for holes with too many or not enough birdies and be considered "good" because it may have decent scoring spread. Houck (he can confirm if he reads this) and I say those holes are not necessarily good or are simply weak from a scoring standpoint for players and spectators because they are not reasonably birdieable or produce too many birdies.

The ball golf par definition allows, and their hole designs provide, a reasonable chance for birdies. One of the reasons is that needing a second putt is considered normal and not an error. In our case, we can't allow that second putt to be normal because we've discovered that only half a stroke extra is "normal", and the other half is technically an error due to "easier" putting stats in DG.

This 50/50 normal/error valuation of the second putt is at the root of this discussion. Our par definition operates from one side of it; what I'm proposing is giving the other, birdie side a shot. I believe par will come out the same with the new definition much of the time. But on those holes where the stats show too many or too few birdies, the new definition derived from expected birdie score and the par value it produces has a better chance to potentially spur design changes on the hole to move it into the right birdie zone, especially for FPO who regularly plays holes with too few if any birdies.

Bottom line is that birdies are the primary currency of scoring for tour players and viewers. The par values should provide birdie opportunities on every hole just like ball golf. The amount of strokes under par on a course is a metric players and viewers use for comparisons of "goodness" even though typically they are comparing apples to bananas, oranges, or grapes. Ratings work better for comparisons, but we know that's a more abstract reference. If par on every hole in every tour stop was set so it can be birdied, ideally in the 10-60% range, it would allow a more accurate way to compare extreme rounds under par from course to course along with comparing 3 or 4 round totals under par.

 

[Rastnav]

If we are going to use the term "par", we shouldn't be surprised when "reach + 2" is the common, layperson's definition, because that is how they set par in ball golf, whence the term comes. They don't suddenly change the par of a ball golf hole to 3 when it starts to give up "too many" birdies, they lengthen the hole, add bunkers, increase the speed and slope of the greens, etc. Or, they just let it stay an easy birdie hole.

Not only that, but the concept of slope and rating in ball golf accepts that the pars of the holes are not the same as the "expected errorless score". Some courses are easier than others, even when the par of the courses is identical. Actually, you don't have to go to a different course, just play a different set of tees.

The real issue that people are struggling with, and this will not go away no matter how par is determined, is that intentional layup putts in disc golf are NAGS (not a golf shot). You aren't designing with the expectation that people will layup their putts when playing the hole as designed. That means either that the expected score involves essentially parking the hole, or that the expected score (as you said Steve) is not a whole number.

There are many reasons why decimal par scores don't work, and this is not a "fear of decimals" issue. For one, the terms birdie, par and bogey all become meaningless as descriptions of the score an individual made on a hole. If the par is 3.2 and I make a 3, did I birdie the hole? par it? People easily keep track of a single digit number, that changes in low single digit increments, usually just 1, (their score in relation to par). Far harder keeping track of a double digit number that can change by double digits.

 

[Ryan P.]

Threads like this are why I keep coming back to DGCR. This good discussion is great for the sport. Thanks for everyone's contributions.

If we are going to use the term "par", we shouldn't be surprised when "reach + 2" is the common, layperson's definition, because that is how they set par in ball golf, whence the term comes.

That is the layperson's definition because it often works, but that's not how they actually set par. They use this: "par is the number of strokes that it is believed an expert golfer would take to move the ball from the tee to the hole". See https://collegeofgolf.keiseruniversity.edu/par-golf-course-determined/

You're totally right though, that we shouldn't be surprised that it comes up because that's the common definition.

I don't want to sidetrack par talk to be course design talk, but it seems that they are inevitably tied together. What a designer thinks about how Disc Golf works determines how they design a hole and how they set par. Chuck already laid out his presuppositions about how DG works (10-60% of scores should be birdies). Steve and David, what are your presuppositions in that regard? Steve, David, and Chuck, why are those your presuppositions/what led you to that conclusion?

 

[biscoe]

Threads like this are why I keep coming back to DGCR. This good discussion is great for the sport. Thanks for everyone's contributions.



That is the layperson's definition because it often works, but that's not how they actually set par. They use this: "par is the number of strokes that it is believed an expert golfer would take to move the ball from the tee to the hole". See https://collegeofgolf.keiseruniversity.edu/par-golf-course-determined/

You're totally right though, that we shouldn't be surprised that it comes up because that's the common definition.

Quoting from the link: "usually, par is a breakdown of the length from the tee to the hole"

"The thought behind the par given to each hole is that it should take no more than one, two, or three shots to the green and then no more than two shots to the hole."

Replace "green" with "close range" since there is no green in disc golf. Define close range appropriately as somewhere in the 200 foot range for gold players and the results mirror Steve's scoring based pars pretty closely.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't want to sidetrack par talk to be course design talk, but it seems that they are inevitably tied together. What a designer thinks about how Disc Golf works determines how they design a hole and how they set par. Chuck already laid out his presuppositions about how DG works (10-60% of scores should be birdies). Steve and David, what are your presuppositions in that regard? Steve, David, and Chuck, why are those your presuppositions/what led you to that conclusion?

Steve's a guy working on better par at the top levels of our sport, with reams of actual data, and I'm just a guy half-responsible for one private course. So with that disclaimer:

One reminder is that par needs to describe holes that already exist. Whether designed well or poorly, par needs to be assigned for competition.

But good design should incorporate these concepts, in at least a backhand way -- by being aware of how the game is played, and avoiding NAGS, you're designing for a certain number of expected shots.

Myself, I'm not bothered by holes that produce very few birdies. What I call tough-par holes, where you must execute well to get the expected score, but if you screw up it'll cost you. I wouldn't want an entire course of them, but they offset the ones that yield lots of birdies. Our course has a few of these. Par doesn't have the pleasure of a birdie; it's more like relief. This is really the way we play holes that are essentially par-2s, but we call par-3s and "birdie holes" and know that we need to get a 2, or we're losing ground. (The worst knock on them is that they create more scoring spread in the bottom of the field, than at the top, and that's valid).

 

[Rastnav]

Quoting from the link: "usually, par is a breakdown of the length from the tee to the hole"

"The thought behind the par given to each hole is that it should take no more than one, two, or three shots to the green and then no more than two shots to the hole."

Replace "green" with "close range" since there is no green in disc golf. Define close range appropriately as somewhere in the 200 foot range for gold players and the results mirror Steve's scoring based pars pretty closely.

I mean, we don't even have to go that deep into the page. It's right at the top:

But how do they actually determine what number of strokes par should be?

Distance

While it's not the only factor in creating the golf course par for each hole, it does play the largest role in generating a number.

Distance is the largest factor in determining par in ball golf.

There is a reason you essentially don't see par-3s that are 200+ yards from the whites/preferred tees. Your are supposed to be able to reach a par 3 from the tee and hold the green. If you can't, you are probably playing the wrong tees. Conversely, the number of par 4s that are 200-300 is relatively small, and those usually involve severe doglegs, elevation changes, elevated greens, etc. that highly encourage you to play to a specific distance off the tee and hit a full shot into the green.

It seems worth considering why "reach +2" doesn't lead to good prediction of outcome for disc golf. The obvious answer is that they are simply different games and we shouldn't expect them to look like each other. But I think the more relevant issue is simply how distance to the basket relates to the expected make percentage. If one has a 60 foot putt, it can be made, but the percentage on that will be quite low. Compare that to the percentages for 45 feet, 30 feet, 20 feet, 15 feet and 10 feet. The curve between the two asymptotes is quite steep.

But the nature of discs, and what that encourages in course design, leads to good tee shots finishing inside the circle. Designing a hole where reaching 60 feet from the tee is easy, but reaching 30 feet from the tee is hard, is not only difficult design job, it also leads to less enjoyable disc golf, with lots of NAGS.

So, whole number par is always going to be a mismatch. I guess this is basically my previous statement, just wordier.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

OB isn't an "error" when it's expected -- and the happy surprise is when the throw makes in inbounds.

*

You'll need to figure into your "different games" formula, holes will extremely dense rough. I frequently play a course with lots of OB -- but also some holes with very dense rough, where often the result of a bad drive is a pitch-out back to the fairway, with the same scoring result as had the off-fairway area been OB. Sometimes worse, when the escape shot fails.

Perhaps we can identify holes with extreme pin placements, and designate those yet another different game.

Thus the need for A LATERAL HAZARD RULE.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Yes. "Expert" can be quibbled about, but it's the most useful method for a given skill level.

If you get a birdie, you're gaining on the field. If you get a bogey, you're losing ground.

We do this informally, anyway, by calling certain holes "birdie holes", where we know we need a birdie, or we're losing ground on the field.

I once suggested, tongue in cheek, that we ditch the golf terms and go with EES (Expert Expected Score). A better shot would be BEES (Better than Expert Expected Score), a worse one WEES (Worse than Expert Expected Score). And so on. This would do exactly what we want par to do -- tell us whether a performance on a particular hole was likely to help or hurt a player, in competition.

The joke was, that that's what par already claims to be.

Expert does not mean the top group of players in the game. This is where this all goes wrong. For example the USGA defines expert as a scratch golfer and sets par accordingly. Scratch golfers have zero chance on competing on the PGA Tour. Disc Golf experts are 950 rated and above in my book. So basically par should be set at what a 950 rated player should be expected to score on a hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

That's golf. We're disc golf. A different game. We're free to define "expert" as best suits us.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Expert does not mean the top group of players in the game. This is where this all goes wrong. For example the USGA defines expert as a scratch golfer and sets par accordingly. Scratch golfers have zero chance on competing on the PGA Tour. Disc Golf experts are 950 rated and above in my book. So basically par should be set at what a 950 rated player should be expected to score on a hole.

It's a little more specific in ball golf which we duplicate in disc golf with ratings ranges. In ball golf, the par is based on experts who play at a scratch level for their class whether it be Men, Women, Juniors or Seniors. And I agree with your point that Experts in ball golf are not the PGA pros although they have their own idea of what a scratch PGA pro can do to set their pars. That's why you'll see a few of their championship par 5s turned into par 4s for Majors. Interestingly, they are now moving the other direction and increasing the pars to 4 on a few longer "par 3" holes with drivable greens to increase the number of birdies and possible eagles, because as I've mentioned above, birdies and eagles are more exciting for viewers.

 

[Steve West]

You don't need to put words in my mouth. ...

I apologize.

 

[Steve West]

Bottom line is that birdies are the primary currency of scoring for tour players and viewers. The par values should provide birdie opportunities on every hole just like ball golf.

This contains the fundamental misconception fueling your viewpoint.

You said: "The par values should...". Everyone else thinks: "The holes should...".

 

[Rastnav]

This contains the fundamental misconception fueling your viewpoint.

You said: "The par values should...". Everyone else thinks: "The holes should...".

I don't understand the thrust of your point. Birdie is intrinsically a function of the par value of the hole. The "hole" can't provide birdie opportunities, only the par value relative to the requirements of the hole can do that. You design the hole with a par value in mind. The combination of the two is what provides the opportunity.