Par Talk

[Cgkdisc]

Your calculated par of 50 or 51 is 1 or 2 throws below the SSA of 52.5. Does that mean the OB penalties are "artificially" padding the course difficulty from a throwing skill standpoint? BTW, I believe 52.5 was the same SSA on that course when McBeth shot his 1132 round. So the course difficulty has remained pretty stable over the years other than the less common extreme wind and rain rounds.

 

[Steve West]

Your calculated par of 50 or 51 is 1 or 2 throws below the SSA of 52.5. Does that mean the OB penalties are "artificially" padding the course difficulty from a throwing skill standpoint? BTW, I believe 52.5 was the same SSA on that course when McBeth shot his 1132 round. So the course difficulty has remained pretty stable over the years other than the less common extreme wind and rain rounds.

Par is typically about one or two throws better than SSA. 1000-rated players make SOME errors, and one or two throws is a pretty normal amount of punishment over a round.

Par don't care whether the punishment comes naturally or from OB.

 

[Steve West]

For MPO Vista Del Camino had just one or two par 2s and a couple of overly generous par 4s. Course par of 60 was rated only 969. Par of 56 or 57 would have been rated 1003 or 995. Errorless Par this close to SSA of 56.4 indicates VDC nearly evenly balances punishment for errors with rewards for lucky throws.

Par is appropriate for FPO, except #15 should be par 3 not par 4.

 

[Steve West]

I just wanted to see what this paragraph from https://www.pdga.com/after-close-calls-lizotte-finally-masters-memorial would sound like with better pars.

"Lizotte's 5-under par 51 Saturday took his four-day total to a 23-under par 189 and held off his close friend and training partner Eagle McMahon, who notched his own career-high Memorial finish with a 20-under par second-place showing. Nate Sexton's 7-under par 49 matched the day's hot round and kept him in third place overall with a 19-under par 193, while Ricky Wysocki (-14) and Paul McBeth (-13) rounded out the top five."

 

[Cgkdisc]

"They each had an 80% conversion rate on the 10 par 2 holes played."

 

[Jimb]

Here's the addendum for members of the DGCD Course Designers group pertaining to what length to use for determining par on holes with doglegs and water carries. This was not included in the Public Par chart on PDGA which is simply a rough rule of thumb, not the more technical methods used by designers and advisers to TDs.

"Special length adjustments are needed for wooded doglegs and sometimes carries over water. For doglegs, the amount to add depends on the color tees being calculated. Subtract the distance from the tee to the dogleg landing zone from the following numbers for each tee: Gold = 320, Blue = 270, White = 230, Red = 200, Green = 170. Or, in the case of water carries, enter the additional distance a player who can't throw straight across the water would have to traverse."

I was having some issues while working with the "Adjust Length" area of the "Determining Par for Each Tee Color Based on Hole Length and Foliage Density" chart. I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around what the intent of the dogleg adjustment is. Plus I'm missing why the Gold number is the highest starting point.

My apologies for being a bit dull in this circumstance. I would certainly appreciate any clarification, and even fun criticism. If an actual example could be given, that would be fantastic. Thanks. Jim

 

[Cgkdisc]

On a true dogleg, no matter how far it is to the turn, the second leg is the same distance. Let's say the second leg is 200 feet. Determine how long a straight hole would have to be for players of that skill level to still have 200 feet on average to the pin. For Gold players, we determined they could consistently average around 320 to a landing area on a moderately restricted fairway. That means they would be about 200 feet from the pin on a 520 ft straight hole. And it wouldn't matter if it was a straight hole. The next 200 feet could be in any direction once they threw 320 and still average the same score as the straight hole.

So when you think it through, no matter how long the first leg is from the tee up to the max accurate distance for that skill level, their scoring average is going to be about the same as their max accurate driving length on that dogleg plus 200 feet because they can't use their max distance to get around the corner of the dogleg. Hopefully now it makes sense why the gold value is higher and progressively lower down the color chart because they throw farther off the tee on average.

BTW, the same math applies for water carries. Let's say it's longer to the other side (400 feet on a 500 ft hole) than what a player can throw off the tee but maybe it's 200 feet to the water edge. The effective length for a gold player on the hole is 620 feet from an expected scoring standpoint, not 500 feet. He can only throw just under 200 feet to the water's edge but we know he can throw at least 320. Then, add the slightly more than 300 feet to the pin. Not saying this is an ideal design for gold players but certainly psychologically frustrating when they have to lay up on an open shot.

 

[Steve West]

Or, if a hole will only let you throw 100 feet, it acts like 320 feet because it takes one good throw by an expert to get there.

 

[DG_player]

Par is typically about one or two throws better than SSA. 1000-rated players make SOME errors, and one or two throws is a pretty normal amount of punishment over a round.

Par don't care whether the punishment comes naturally or from OB.

I don't follow how you're arriving at par?

If a 1000-rated player is your benchmark expert, shouldn't a 1000-rated round SSA be the same as par?

 

[Steve West]

I don't follow how you're arriving at par?

If a 1000-rated player is your benchmark expert, shouldn't a 1000-rated round SSA be the same as par?

Pretty close. Some differences:

1. SSA only applies to the course, while par is set hole by hole. This can result in rounding-like differences in the total.

2. From the rule book: "811 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. ..."

[Emphasis added.]

SSA includes all the extra throws that happen as a result of errors (or bad weather). It also includes all the unexpectedly lucky bounces that shave throws. So, SSA hovers near par - usually SSA is one or two throws higher than par, sometimes more, and sometimes about a throw lower than par.

3. Par is a fixed number that applies to the course no matter how the players do on any particular round. SSA changes every round.

Having said that, setting par so that it is as close as possible to an SSA from a recent round is a very good method of setting par- unless the weather was unordinary.

 

[Steve West]

For DGPT - Waco Annual Charity Open presented by Dynamic Discs 2018, Brazos Park East, course par was 67, rated 974. That's good for Ams, but a Pro par would have been par 61, rated 1016 (according to the results from round 1). All the par 3s were accurate, but pars of 4 and 5 were doled out, let's say, somewhat loosely.

I guess that makes the course look tougher or something. It really shouldn't need a puffed-up par to boost its self-esteem; accurate par of 61 is plenty tough.

These are by hole number. Play actually started on hole 7; a horrible thing to do which should be punishable by removing the TD's left little toe (from a stats viewpoint, anyway).

 

[Steve West]

I added another round of data and put the numbers in the order they appear on the videos, for your viewing pleasure.

Apparently, the wind died down, some holes are maybe lower pars now.

I also superimposed last year's results (faded).

Hole 3 qualified as a par 4 last year, but this year seems to be a par 3. Hole 5 looks like it might want to be a par 2 this year. Does anyone know if these holes changed physically?

 

[Steve West]

We need a name for the phenomenon where the FPO pars are always really good, even though the MPO pars are soft.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They blue it.

 

[teemkey]

Goldilocks and the Doughboys?

(the G-D set up)

 

[Jenga54]

We need a name for the phenomenon where the FPO pars are always really good, even though the MPO pars are soft.

Blue Ribbon Pars

 

[brutalbrutus]

I added another round of data and put the numbers in the order they appear on the videos, for your viewing pleasure.

Apparently, the wind died down, some holes are maybe lower pars now.

I also superimposed last year's results (faded).

Hole 3 qualified as a par 4 last year, but this year seems to be a par 3. Hole 5 looks like it might want to be a par 2 this year. Does anyone know if these holes changed physically?

Did you mean hole 2 not 3? Because hole 3 in the order they actually played them is a 270ft fairly easy 2 hole? If you did mean hole2, I think the wind played a factor. If I recall correctly it was pretty windy all three rounds last year right? I think they just feasted on it this year...

 

[brutalbrutus]

Looks like there were 19 more 1000 rated players this year than last, would that have an effect? I would think more 1000 rated players means scoring should be better, especially on a hole like that.

 

[Steve West]

Did you mean hole 2 not 3? Because hole 3 in the order they actually played them is a 270ft fairly easy 2 hole? If you did mean hole2, I think the wind played a factor. If I recall correctly it was pretty windy all three rounds last year right? I think they just feasted on it this year...

Yeah, I meant that hole where the graph shows a faded par 4.

Related question: How windy is "Ordinary Weather" there? The single wind-free round would not seem to be ordinary, right?

 

[Steve West]

Looks like there were 19 more 1000 rated players this year than last, would that have an effect? I would think more 1000 rated players means scoring should be better, especially on a hole like that.

If you look at field averages, it would. That's not what I use to calculate par.

I use the scores from all the players who are at, above, and below 1000-rated to generate a mathematically constructed player who is exactly 1000 rated. So, more above 1000-rated players would just add to the amount of data (because there are always plenty of sub-1000-rated player to counter balance them), but would not bias the scoring downward.