Can we do what Merion did?

[DavidSauls]

If this concept were tried, I think it would need to be limited to NT and Major events, where the "event par" could be tuned to the top pros without concern for other divisions, and where the PDGA might be able to strongly encourage a uniform standard. Perhaps the courses in those events might work better, too, with fewer par-2s or holes that average x.7 than your run-of-the-mill course.

It's true than I'm ambivalent about the need for leaders to score near par, or the importance of par in general. But as long as we're going to have pars, I'm interested in doing them as well as possible; if others decided that we need for leaders in big events to be scoring near par, I'm interested in doing that in the best way possible.

 

[DavidSauls]

Those are two of par's jobs. A third is to be able to compare the performance of two players in the same competition who have not played the same holes.

For that purpose, a par that produces a winning score that is close to par will do the best job. The reason is that if the winning score is exactly par, then every birdie means you gained exactly one throw on the leader, every par means you stayed up with the leader, and every bogie means you lost exactly one throw.

That's a good point.

I think it's somewhat mitigated in disc golf because we generally are playing 4 rounds with foursomes or fivesomes so that, by the time the tournament is halfway through, everybody close enough to win are likely to be on the same hole, or only one hole away.

 

[Steve West]

For the Pro Open:

You could calculate that the total par of 376 for 6 rounds was based on the expected score of a player rated 957. (The only player who scored even par was rated 953.)

That seems too low on its face. The result was that after 6 rounds, the leading score was 68 under. The top 10% of players were 55 under or better, the median was 27 under par. Each birdie gained only 0.81 throws on the leader, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player. Each par lost 0.19 throws to the leader, and .08 to the cash line.

If the par were set based on the expected score of a player rated 1000 (par=345), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 37 under. The top 10% of players would have been 24 under or better, the median would have been 4 under par. Each birdie would have gained 0.89 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on the 41st percentile player (roughly the cash line). Each par would have lost 0.11 throws to the leader, and nothing to the cash line.

If the par were set based on the expected score of the highest rating of 1048 (par=310), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 2 under. The top 10% of players would have been 11 over or better, the median would have been 39 over par. Each birdie would have gained 0.99 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on second place. Each par would have lost 0.01 throws to the leader, and gained 0.11 on the cash line.

So, it seems more rational to me that the total par should be the expected score of some specified rated player. I'm OK with anything 1000 or higher. Say we pick 1030 and that results in a total par of 323. Then, the individual course and hole pars should be determined by allocating these 323 parlecules (trademarked by me) to each hole, based on expected SSA.

 

[biscoe]

i think i'm going to play around a bit with basket sizes on a few holes at hawk hollow. won't cost anything to simply drill a new hole through the pole of a discatcher to either raise the tray or lower the top assembly. those of you who come to the dgcr mid-atlantic meet up can see how they work out.

i'm also playing around with the idea of a par 69 setup. current par is 63 which generally has rated out about 980. (which i consider personally to roughly equate to "expert play".)

 

[davetherocketguy]

There are two things I completely disagree with in this thread:

1. The concept of par in the first place is ridiculous. We need a completley different scoring convention. We DO NOT need to follow everything ball golf does.

2. Making smaller targets. Really? I for one, would hate that. Disc golf is too freaking hard to begin with and now you're going to make that harder?! I vote NO.

-Dave

 

[mashnut]

The advantage of some sort of "par" system is that just about everyone understands that concept before they play their first round of disc golf. They know what a birdie or bogey is and how you keep score relative to par thanks to the popularity of golf. I have a hard time seeing a completely different system being as easy to understand and as easy to explain to new players. I'd love to hear your replacement idea though, maybe I'm just not being imaginative enough.

 

[biscoe]

1. if properly used par is a meaningful/important design concept. it is much less important as a scoring convention.

2. no way dg is "too hard".

 

[mashnut]

1. if properly used par is a meaningful/important design concept. it is much less important as a scoring convention.

2. no way dg is "too hard".

I think it would be important as a scoring convention if you believe that disc golf will ever be a spectator sport (I don't), and as I said above I think it makes the game more familiar for new players as well.

Agreed that DG is not "too hard" in the least when moderately athletic folks can come into the sport and be near the top of the game in a couple years.

 

[Steve West]

For the Pro Open:

You could calculate that the total par of 376 for 6 rounds was based on the expected score of a player rated 957. (The only player who scored even par was rated 953.)

That seems too low on its face. The result was that after 6 rounds, the leading score was 68 under. The top 10% of players were 55 under or better, the median was 27 under par. Each birdie gained only 0.81 throws on the leader, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player. Each par lost 0.19 throws to the leader, and .08 to the cash line.

If the par were set based on the expected score of a player rated 1000 (par=345), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 37 under. The top 10% of players would have been 24 under or better, the median would have been 4 under par. Each birdie would have gained 0.89 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on the 41st percentile player (roughly the cash line). Each par would have lost 0.11 throws to the leader, and nothing to the cash line.

If the par were set based on the expected score of the highest rating of 1048 (par=310), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 2 under. The top 10% of players would have been 11 over or better, the median would have been 39 over par. Each birdie would have gained 0.99 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on second place. Each par would have lost 0.01 throws to the leader, and gained 0.11 on the cash line.

So, it seems more rational to me that the total par should be the expected score of some specified rated player. I'm OK with anything 1000 or higher. Say we pick 1030 and that results in a total par of 323. Then, the individual course and hole pars should be determined by allocating these 323 parlecules (trademarked by me) to each hole, based on expected SSA.

Oops, I calculated the value of a birdie wrong. The following is corrected.

For the Pro Open:

You could calculate that the total par of 376 for 6 rounds was based on the expected score of a player rated 957. (The only player who scored even par was rated 953.)

That seems too low on its face. The result was that after 6 rounds, the leading score was 68 under. The top 10% of players were 55 under or better, the median was 27 under par. Each birdie gained only 0.37 throws on the leader, or .71 on the cash line, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player. Each par lost 0.63 throws to the leader, and .29 to the cash line. (No wonder people don't think par is useful.)

If the par were set based on the expected score of a player rated 1000 (par=345), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 37 under. The top 10% of players would have been 24 under or better, the median would have been 4 under par. Each birdie would have gained 0.66 throws on the leader, a full 1.00 throw on the cash line, and would have gained a full throw on the 41st percentile player (= the cash line). Each par would have lost 0.34 throws to the leader, and nothing to the cash line. (That's the most useful definition of par for players who are hoping to cash.)

If the par were set based on the expected score of the highest rating of 1048 (par=310), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 2 under. The top 10% of players would have been 11 over or better, the median would have been 39 over par. Each birdie would have gained 0.98 throws on the leader, gained 1.32 on the cash line, and would have gained a full throw on second place. Each par would have lost 0.02 throws to the leader, and gained 0.32 on the cash line. (That's the most useful definition of par for players who are hoping to win.)

So, it seems more rational to me that the total par should be the expected score of some specific rating. I'm OK with anything 1000 or higher. Say we pick 1030 and that results in a total par of 323. Then, the individual course and hole pars should be determined by allocating these 323 parlecules (trademarked by me) to each hole, based on expected SSA.

 

[Okie-J]

You wanta see what Merion really played like?

Play it here ----> WGT(World Golf Tour)

Free too.

let me know if you sign up and we can play some rounds.