Par Talk

[NegaSnapples]

If disc golf par doesn't represent an expected score, then it shouldn't even be considered "par".

When pros are going -13 every round, the metric itself becomes pretty useless.

I agree that certain courses and holes should be designed better. However, you can have a good design, but still have an incorrect par on a hole.

 

[PMantle]

And when (or if?) those holes eventually get fixed and the TDs raise par because those holes are harder, THEN can we start setting par right on all holes?

Wait, remind me again: What bad things happen if we start now?

Wait...start? Where is par not set right?

 

[Karl]

Let me see if I understand. You're not saying "don't fix par". Right?
And, since I would be opposed to any effort to substitute TD judgement with an "official" method to set par, we're actually not in disagreement, right?

Please see below...

"Let me see if I understand. You're not saying "don't fix par". Right?"

Not an easy question to answer but I'll blather away and maybe a few salient ideas will pop up out of it. "Par" by itself can't really be fixed. It's a definition used by golf (and since disc golf IS a type of golf, I would assume dg also) to convey a certain thing. We're not about to rewrite the definition of par in golf, so we should either accept IT or come up with another term / metric. The horse has left the barn IMO on coming up with a new / acceptable term (as we're 40+ y.o. and ARE a type of golf) so I vote for keeping par.

I'm guessing that if a couple of 'really seasoned players / designers' (like Biscoe, myself, etc.) walked a previously-unknown-to-us course and didn't look at any signs, we would be in agreement as to what any hole's par is the VAST majority of holes…like I doubt that there'd be more than 1 of 18 that would be cause for debate. My only caveat to this would be that we're all agreeing on par being for elite players (and not some version of the 'color-coded par system' which I believe is useless).

Note that I'm of the belief that 'dg par' is "not as sacred as golf's par is" (due to coddling the masses, etc.) and even that a drivable 4par is, in fact, just a really hard 3par (as is a 5par that is regularly reached in 2 is just a hard 4par, etc.), so my albeit very conservative concept of par in disc golf is "If it's humanly possible to ace a hole it's a 3par"; "if it could be 2'd with 2 fantastic shots, it's a 4par; etc." I understand that this might make for a lot of "tweener" holes in some people's minds but that's a design issue not a 'par' issue.

So in regards to "fixing par", par can't be fixed. BUT the USE of par or the ASSIGNING of par can!

"And, since I would be opposed to any effort to substitute TD judgement with an "official" method to set par, we're actually not in disagreement, right?"

Not sure.

Now if you're talking about situations where some person who really doesn't either know how the big boys can REALLY throw or can't visualize such 'in the field', then you may end up with "stupid pars" (at least stupid to me). If it's the PDGA running a big event and they allow a TD to do such, then they (the PDGA) made their bed…they now have to sleep in it. Bad on them. And disc golf to the uneducated (general public) looks a bit more farcical than it could / should. But if it's NOT a big PDGA event then yes, I believe to let the TD / course designer "set par" for they may be believing in the color-coded, etc. par system or they believe it will fiscally benefit them to in fact coddle-the-masses (P2P, etc.).

It may come down to IFFFF we're talking about ONE par – for the elitist of players (and that the rest of us just have to swallow our egos and live with that 'we're unworthy') – then the PDGA had better send to all the tournaments they want to reflect such someone who DOES understand what par for the elite should be. Before said event is played. And 'relist par' for said event.
But if there is no consensus that there is only one par for any one tee / one basket combination, etc., then I fear we're going to be caught in a Groundhog Day loop for a LONG time.

 

[Steve West]

Karl, thanks for the long, thoughtful post.

Here's where we differ, I think.

You are thinking of par as a measure of how many drives away the basket is. That's not what par is. In fact, there is a much better statistic to use to tell us number of drives to reach the hole: it's called Hole Length. You simply divide by how far you can throw.

Par is, and has always been, the expected score of a really good player.

Golf: "Par" is the score that a scratch golfer would be expected to make for a typical hole. Par means expert play under ordinary conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

Disc Golf: 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.

Note they are both expected score. Neither is about distance or drives.

Scratch golfers expect two strokes on the putting green, so that doesn't conflict with par being the expected score. You could remove that part and par would come out the same.

Disc Golfers don't expect two throws on the putting green, so the definition used to say "allowing two throws from close range". As anyone who has ever played disc golf knows, we expect to make one putt after throwing an upshot; and close range is where we expect to do that. So that definition also did not conflict with expected score.

Unfortunately, that phrase about two throws was mistakenly interpreted (maybe by highly vocal players were could wield the gravitas that comes with having played the "real" sport of golf) to mean two putts. So that phrase probably contributed to the myth that "ace-able=par 3, 2 drives = par 4", etc. Because that is not what par is, the phrase about the last two throws was taken out of the definition. Now, par is unequivocally expected score.

We don't need to "reach" a hole to expect a 3. We can land the length of an upshot short, and still expect to get up and down in 2 more. So, some holes that are not ace-able are par 3.

Sometimes, we don't need a drive before making our upshot. So, some holes that are ace-able are par 2.

So, disc golf par is very close to what golf par actually is, even though disc golf par is not close to the shortcut way of figuring par that works OK for golf.

 

[lyleoross]

The setting of par.

First, a story. Sorry. I have a friend who on occasion fights with his wife. He will go to her with some issue and say, "you always do X." He's already lost. The discussion, or debate as it has now become, centers on the word always. "I don't always. Once, in 1995, I did just the opposite." As soon as you are debating terminology you are simply trying to win the argument, as opposed to discussing the issue.

No one here disagrees that par should have value, even if some write that it means nothing. The view of what that value is, varies and includes:

1) Par should fit the classical dictionary definition. It is something that a great player shoots and beating it means something.
2) Par is something to be beat. It should be beatable by good players and even on occasion by average players. Beating it says you've done something special.
3) Par should be determined by a TD and that in and of itself brings value to the number. TDs know the sport and the venue and that brings import to the number.

No matter which of these approaches you take you should agree that par should be:

consistent,
repeatable,
simple to determine.

Sorry MTL, but that sort of eliminates the TD option. Yep, it is simple, but it is neither repeatable nor consistent. Par varies much, event to event and year to year even in some of the most prestigious events. Apparently, being a TD doesn't give you as much insight into getting it consistent is one would think? If I understood Karl's last post correctly, he argues that at higher level events you need something better, and at low-level events the TDs assessment is fine. I agree. Simply because a more rigorous approach isn't available for such things.

How you get to par is a whole lot less important than some like to argue. If I decide that the way to calculate par is to throw feces, measure the distance it flew, divide that number by 10, then that number into the distance of the hole, and use that as par. Well, it works. Based on what I've seen thrown around here it would be pretty close too. The notion that you can't use an average, or a non-integer or anything that you so want, to calculate par, is simply wordsmith and personal preference. Of course you can. For the last few years we've used a definition that was a rule of thumb calculation from golf that didn't fit how disc golf is played. Clearly, you can go at it any way that you want to, it is after all, just a number. However, as Karl wrote above, certain things are going to make you look dumb, I would include in that a par value that isn't an integer, but dumber things have been done.

Getting to par, whether it's something that is easy to beat or something that is hard to beat, shouldn't be as hard as we're making it. If we use Steve's calculation and vary the breakpoint we can push it in one direction or the other. Alternatively, if we base it on a 950 rated player, instead of a 1000 rated player we push it towards a value that is easy to beat by decent players.

A simple calculation, with a variable that allows you to push par one way or the other, such as Steve has put forward solves the problem. If you want to make all parties happy, give a range for the variable. In one direction you are going to get an easy to beat par number, in the other, you are going to get par 2s and a harder to beat number. I'm willing to bet that most TDs will use the easy to beat number, but some will use the harder and a few will use it to determine that they should rebuild par 2 holes.

That type of solution fits everyone's desire and allows the TD to drive par at his event to fit what she thinks is appropriate.

 

[TAFL]

Duh! Then don't ya think (and "your people might view..") the courses, or some holes within such, used for our 'majors' may be just a WEE too easy?????

16 trillion posts on 'par' and once again we circle around to "it's the hole / course, not the metric that might be wrong".

To paraphrase some judge talking about porn: "I know it (the hole's par) when I see it (the hole)"

:wall: The holes are as they are. The problem lies in assigned pars that don't reflect the difficulty of the holes.

What you're positing is that the designers/TDs began with a par for each hole and then laid out the holes to correspond with those par numbers, and then did so badly. Cart before the horse.

To put the horse before the cart, the holes were laid out and then the par numbers were assigned--and those numbers were assigned badly.

Just from a practical standpoint, it's far easier to adjust the par numbers than to redesign the holes. So the most efficient way to get the holes and numbers to match is to reassign par numbers.

 

[Karl]

There's a lot that Steve and Lyle said that I may think about / comment on (although it's pretty tough commenting using a stylus to type on a phone) but I will never agree to base any worthwhile metric on a rating system that is statistically flawed. As I said earlier, If I see it I KNOW what the par of any tee/basket combination is (for the most elite players in the world) and don't need any statistics / method / etc. to tell me. Simple as that.

 

[Steve West]

There's a lot that Steve and Lyle said that I may think about / comment on (although it's pretty tough commenting using a stylus to type on a phone) but I will never agree to base any worthwhile metric on a rating system that is statistically flawed. As I said earlier, If I see it I KNOW what the par of any tee/basket combination is (for the most elite players in the world) and don't need any statistics / method / etc. to tell me. Simple as that.

As long as the par which you KNOW is the expected score, not drives plus 2, there's nothing wrong with setting par that way. Ratings aren't in the definition, just "expert".

 

[PMantle]

Karl, thanks for the long, thoughtful post.

Here's where we differ, I think.

You are thinking of par as a measure of how many drives away the basket is. That's not what par is. In fact, there is a much better statistic to use to tell us number of drives to reach the hole: it's called Hole Length. You simply divide by how far you can throw.

Par is, and has always been, the expected score of a really good player.



Note they are both expected score. Neither is about distance or drives.

.

Nah, he's saying he can determine what the par will be. He's right too. I'll say it again, since it keeps being ignored, pars on golf courses(of all kinds) are assigned before any player can expect anything. Golf courses are almost always laid out with 2 5s and 2 3s per side. All 18 will be laid out in a predictable way, and always based upon yardage. Those pars are never changed based upon scoring.

 

[teemkey]

As long as the par which you KNOW is the expected score, not drives plus 2, there's nothing wrong with setting par that way. Ratings aren't in the definition, just "expert".

I think he's also saying "typical play" for an elite player (vs. "errorless play"). The intuitive definition of errorless (IMHO) would be throwing exactly the shot the player envisions before throwing.

However, I don't understand why statistics would not be a means to validate that knowledge.

 

[TAFL]

.. I'll say it again, since it keeps being ignored, pars on golf courses(of all kinds) are assigned before any player can expect anything. Golf courses are almost always laid out with 2 5s and 2 3s per side. All 18 will be laid out in a predictable way, and always based upon yardage. Those pars are never changed based upon scoring.

:wall: And I'll point out again, as it seems to be a difficult concept, that, while golf courses may be planned with specific Par 5s and 3s on each side, disc golf courses are laid out and then the pars assigned. Assigning those pars is often badly done. That's what we're trying to fix.

Comparing the golf design process, with its predetermined par mix, and the disc golf design process, which doesn't predetermine pars, is an exercise in foolishness.

The old school practice of calling everything a par 3 works better for setting course par, at this point. The par 2 holes are balanced by the actual par 4s and 5s being considered par 3.

 

[PMantle]

:wall: And I'll point out again, as it seems to be a difficult concept, that, while golf courses may be planned with specific Par 5s and 3s on each side, disc golf courses are laid out and then the pars assigned. Assigning those pars is often badly done. That's what we're trying to fix.

Comparing the golf design process, with its predetermined par mix, and the disc golf design process, which doesn't predetermine pars, is an exercise in foolishness.

The old school practice of calling everything a par 3 works better for setting course par, at this point. The par 2 holes are balanced by the actual par 4s and 5s being considered par 3.

I haven't seen it "badly done" so I can't comment on that. Otherwise, I don't think your post is responsive to mine in the context of the discussion. You have to take into account the post I was replying to, and the fact that there continues to be a confusion between course par and course rating.

 

[Steve West]

...course rating.

What's a course rating? I never heard of that in disc golf, other than the 5 discs system on here.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Nah, he's saying he can determine what the par will be. He's right too. I'll say it again, since it keeps being ignored, pars on golf courses(of all kinds) are assigned before any player can expect anything. Golf courses are almost always laid out with 2 5s and 2 3s per side. All 18 will be laid out in a predictable way, and always based upon yardage. Those pars are never changed based upon scoring.

They do sometimes change the par for holes in big tourneys. Usually its a shortish par5 that they play as a par4 for the event. Typically when this is done, its at the US Open on the older courses where there isn't room for a long "event tee".

What's a course rating? I never heard of that in disc golf, other than the 5 discs system on here.

I think he means the SSA/SSE.

 

[biscoe]

:wall: And I'll point out again, as it seems to be a difficult concept, that, while golf courses may be planned with specific Par 5s and 3s on each side, disc golf courses are laid out and then the pars assigned. Assigning those pars is often badly done. That's what we're trying to fix.

Comparing the golf design process, with its predetermined par mix, and the disc golf design process, which doesn't predetermine pars, is an exercise in foolishness.

I'm pretty sure that there are a decent amount of disc golf course designers out there who are indeed designing holes with par in mind. I am 100% sure that is the case with one designer around here.

Has this always been the case? No, but the practice is on the rise.

 

[PMantle]

They do sometimes change the par for holes in big tourneys. Usually its a shortish par5 that they play as a par4 for the event. Typically when this is done, its at the US Open on the older courses where there isn't room for a long "event tee".


I think he means the SSA/SSE.

Only the USGA for the US Open, and the change is not based upon scoring. In those same tournaments, the USGA will have a drivable pa 4. 3 will be the expected score.

 

[PMantle]

What's a course rating? I never heard of that in disc golf, other than the 5 discs system on here.

It's the result of all your efforts lol.

 

[DavidSauls]

"Two throws from close range" is already fading away, and will be gone in a few more hours. Happy 2018!

 

[biscoe]

"Two throws from close range" is already fading away, and will be gone in a few more hours. Happy 2018!

Negative.

 

[Steve West]

It's the result of all your efforts lol.

Well, one thing we definitely agree on is that there continues to be a confusion between course par and course rating.