I met a Par loving dufus

[Improbably]

Precisely. using absolute numbers or +/- relative to par are both largely useless without some knowledge of the course. However, if the guy says "I shot a 975 rated round at idlewild" I know generally how good that is relative to other rounds. If the guy references a course I'm not familiar with, the round rating still is a good point of reference.

Not sure why you edited your quote on my statement. When people do so it's usually made apparent in some way.

 

[scarpfish]

I just happened to come across a bundle of old league scorecards tonight. It kind of sheds light on why the "all par 3" way of thinking is so pervasive and so many people give it more reverence than what it's actual practice means.

So I picked out ten of the cards, each with five players on them, so 10 cards X 5 players "X 18 holes = 900 score boxes. At first I searched for any box outside the 2-4 range. I found 39 of them (all 5's and 6's), and about half of them were attributed to one beginner player. I then tried to count actual threes and after about three cards, I just quit because there was a fairly consistent pattern, with about 60% of the boxes being 3's, which to an all par 3 player, could simply be treated as zeroes and be ignored. That makes computing the other numbers that much easier.

I can't imagine this finding would be much different at your leagues, unless you hold it at one of those exceptionally hard courses.

 

[Steve West]

Of about 140,000 scores from mostly bigger tournaments, the count comes out:

1  0.0%
2 13.3%
3 41.7%
4 28.3%
5 11.1%
6  3.8%
7  1.2%
8  0.3%
9+ 0.3%

 

[KniceZ]

Scarpfish - have you done any scoring statistics on the holes. Does every hole average to near 3? Or are some (4,9,15) more likely 4s?

Steve - What's the distribution of "pars" on the courses? If the majority of DG holes are legitimate 3s this doesn't seem off.

I'm not a golfer but as I understand it most golf courses are designed to have 4 x par 3s, 10 x par 4s, and 4 x par 5s. Which is much harder than most DG courses.

Don't get me wrong I use the everything's a 3 for quickly totaling the scores but that doesn't mean I think "par" for every hole should be 3.

 

[gdub58]

Not sure why you edited your quote on my statement. When people do so it's usually made apparent in some way.

My apologies - I didn't want to quote what I assumed was a mis-typed number nor did I feel the need to call out that it was wrong.

 

[Karl]

Of about 140,000 scores from mostly bigger tournaments, the count comes out:

1  0.0%
2 13.3%
3 41.7%
4 28.3%
5 11.1%
6  3.8%
7  1.2%
8  0.3%
9+ 0.3%

I would not have guessed that there would have been 3x (not counting rounding...as the data is only carried out to 1 place) the number of "greater than a snowman" than aces! Hmm.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There were a few par 7s & 8s in there.

 

[Steve West]

Steve - What's the distribution of "pars" on the courses? If the majority of DG holes are legitimate 3s this doesn't seem off.

Who knows? I think it is safe to say that the majority of disc golf holes are legitimate par 3s.

I would not have guessed that there would have been 3x (not counting rounding...as the data is only carried out to 1 place) the number of "greater than a snowman" than aces! Hmm.

Well, it does include Ledgestone, so….