Par Talk

[BionicRib]

It's ball golf....not "real golf"

Shheesh

Seriously.....

Minus 25 internets for that guy

 

[PMantle]

Glad you said that. I thought what I was doing was imaginary golf, which gave me some difficulty in accounting for my knee injuries.

Fake, not imaginary.

 

[BlueMonk]

Quite a few people are of the opinion that par isn't really important. And some of the arguments make sense to me. But here's a question I have:

If you feel par doesn't matter, just your score, do you feel there is any reason to have multiple tee pads?

Other than maybe saving rec players from losing a disc on a water hazard they don't have the distance to throw over, what else would be the point if score relative to par isn't important?

Just trying to better understand the perspective.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Nonsense. He's not ignoring the rule. He's interpreting the word "expert" in it, as he's well explained. What interpretation would you use, and how significant a difference would there be?

Or are you falling back on Director's Whim Loophole ("....as determined by the director..."), that par is whatever the director says it is, and ignoring the rest of the definition?

There's no loophole in the definition. Like "straw man" you seem to be unaware of the definition of a loophole, or perhaps, unable to interpret that definition. But what is really interesting is that you would think of the fact that the vague or ambiguous terms in the definition are wrapped up with what is basically the opposite of a loophole as a loophole itself shows the real flaw in your, and Steve's approach.

Steve apparently wants whatever he determines par to be to be par. He is so confident in the value judgments that he makes to get there that he is willing to ridicule TD's who don't reach the same conclusions just as you are willing to call them unprofessional. Thus, when the PDGA purposefully promulgates a vague definition of par, leaving it up to the TD to interpret, Steve and his SOCMOBR disciples see that as, at worst, a "loophole" in the obvious intent that Steve be the arbiter over any such undefined terms.

Just as Steve decided that parts of the definition didn't serve his purposes before the definition was changed, he's doing so again. That SOCMOBR required no change when there was a significant change in the definition demonstrates that Steve really isn't overly concerned about the definition.

Another obvious conclusion is that by defining "expert" at whatever arbitrary value he chooses, and then claiming that par is more "accurate" or "useful" if it aligns with that arbitrary value, Steve is ignoring the fact that par is clearly not meant to be the same at every tournament just as one example. And yet, SOCMOBR disciples are clearly insisting that the opposite is true.

By claiming that any part of a purposefully vague definition is a loophole is an intellectually dishonest, and obviously so, attempt to rationalize definitional support for SOCMOBR where no such support exists. The very language of the definition is pulling the rug out from under that argument.

What interpretation would you use, and how significant a difference would there be?

If I were to attempt to interpret it, I would be committing the same folly as you and Steve, unless, of course, it were solely for the purpose of setting the par at a tournament in which I am the TD, then I'll set it as I damned well please, and it will be correct . . . by definition.

BTW, you are unwittingly making a good argument for the use of EMBR instead of SOCMOBR. With EMBR, the TD gets to use any definition of an expert that he chooses and doesn't have to consult with Steve before he can hold a tournament not worthy of Steve's ridicule.

If the PDGA wants to enforce some kind of SOCMBR'esque par to avoid the widespread public outcry of TD or disc golf "unprofessionalism," they really need to put that in the rule. All they have to do is promulgate the SOCMOBR formula as definition . . . and then disseminate spreadsheets.

 

[sidewinder22]

Quite a few people are of the opinion that par isn't really important. And some of the arguments make sense to me. But here's a question I have:

If you feel par doesn't matter, just your score, do you feel there is any reason to have multiple tee pads?

Other than maybe saving rec players from losing a disc on a water hazard they don't have the distance to throw over, what else would be the point if score relative to par isn't important?

Just trying to better understand the perspective.

Scoring separation within lower divisions would be one.

 

[teemkey]

Quite a few people are of the opinion that par isn't really important. And some of the arguments make sense to me. But here's a question I have:

If you feel par doesn't matter, just your score, do you feel there is any reason to have multiple tee pads?

Other than maybe saving rec players from losing a disc on a water hazard they don't have the distance to throw over, what else would be the point if score relative to par isn't important?

Just trying to better understand the perspective.

A shorter hole and/or fewer obstructions improves the speed of play for less skilled divisions.

 

[Motorpro]

Quite a few people are of the opinion that par isn't really important. And some of the arguments make sense to me. But here's a question I have:

If you feel par doesn't matter, just your score, do you feel there is any reason to have multiple tee pads?

Other than maybe saving rec players from losing a disc on a water hazard they don't have the distance to throw over, what else would be the point if score relative to par isn't important?

Just trying to better understand the perspective.

Because if first timers start out on all 500 ft tunnel holes most won't try it a second time. Especially if they are holding up a group behind them.Beginners need beginner tees and pros need pro tees.

 

[DG_player]

Because if first timers start out on all 500 ft tunnel holes most won't try it a second time. Especially if they are holding up a group behind them.Beginners need beginner tees and pros need pro tees.

This is a good point and is something ball golf does very well, provide skill appropriate tees so that players of varied skill level can play the same hole, the same way, with the same par. For some reason disc golf seems to very lacking when it comes to this. My limited experience with courses is that they generally fall into two categories: You have your older short courses that provide an enjoyable experience for recreational players, but are boring and routine for expert players. On the other hand you have newer courses that seemed to have been designed without taking recreational players into account, where the shortest of the two or maybe three tees is beyond what a recreational player can handle.

You see the argument often that, the fix is to put different pars on the tee sign for different skills. This is a bandage at best. A quality par 3 for a pro is going to play like a crappy par 4 for me. A quality par 4 for me on the other hand is likely to be a crappy par 3 for a pro. Ideally you would have multiple tees so I could play the same hole as the pro, with similar difficulty for our skill level.

 

[DavidSauls]

Multiple tees often work better on par-3 holes, than higher-par holes. If you have a par 4 or 5 with an ideal landing area off the tee, and then a long second shot from that landing area, you could have multiple tees from which different skill levels could hit that landing area. But the second long shot is still going to be the same distance, for all skill levels.

They can be nice things to have, but there are all sorts of practical reasons why we don't often have them.

 

[DavidSauls]

There's no loophole in the definition. Like "straw man" you seem to be unaware of the definition of a loophole, or perhaps, unable to interpret that definition. But what is really interesting is that you would think of the fact that the vague or ambiguous terms in the definition are wrapped up with what is basically the opposite of a loophole as a loophole itself shows the real flaw in your, and Steve's approach.

Steve apparently wants whatever he determines par to be to be par. He is so confident in the value judgments that he makes to get there that he is willing to ridicule TD's who don't reach the same conclusions just as you are willing to call them unprofessional. Thus, when the PDGA purposefully promulgates a vague definition of par, leaving it up to the TD to interpret, Steve and his SOCMOBR disciples see that as, at worst, a "loophole" in the obvious intent that Steve be the arbiter over any such undefined terms.

Just as Steve decided that parts of the definition didn't serve his purposes before the definition was changed, he's doing so again. That SOCMOBR required no change when there was a significant change in the definition demonstrates that Steve really isn't overly concerned about the definition.

Another obvious conclusion is that by defining "expert" at whatever arbitrary value he chooses, and then claiming that par is more "accurate" or "useful" if it aligns with that arbitrary value, Steve is ignoring the fact that par is clearly not meant to be the same at every tournament just as one example. And yet, SOCMOBR disciples are clearly insisting that the opposite is true.

By claiming that any part of a purposefully vague definition is a loophole is an intellectually dishonest, and obviously so, attempt to rationalize definitional support for SOCMOBR where no such support exists. The very language of the definition is pulling the rug out from under that argument.



If I were to attempt to interpret it, I would be committing the same folly as you and Steve, unless, of course, it were solely for the purpose of setting the par at a tournament in which I am the TD, then I'll set it as I damned well please, and it will be correct . . . by definition.

BTW, you are unwittingly making a good argument for the use of EMBR instead of SOCMOBR. With EMBR, the TD gets to use any definition of an expert that he chooses and doesn't have to consult with Steve before he can hold a tournament not worthy of Steve's ridicule.

If the PDGA wants to enforce some kind of SOCMBR'esque par to avoid the widespread public outcry of TD or disc golf "unprofessionalism," they really need to put that in the rule. All they have to do is promulgate the SOCMOBR formula as definition . . . and then disseminate spreadsheets.

I have not called TDs unprofessional.

 

[Steve West]

You see the argument often that, the fix is to put different pars on the tee sign for different skills. This is a bandage at best. A quality par 3 for a pro is going to play like a crappy par 4 for me. A quality par 4 for me on the other hand is likely to be a crappy par 3 for a pro. Ideally you would have multiple tees so I could play the same hole as the pro, with similar difficulty for our skill level.

You're right, adding pars for all skill levels is not the THE fix. But, why not do it? We all know that players often choose to or need to play holes that are not good for their skill level. Also, there is overlap in what is a "good" hole for various skill levels.

 

[sidewinder22]

What's the problem with par here?
https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/36173

 

[teemkey]

You're right, adding pars for all skill levels is not the THE fix. But, why not do it? We all know that players often choose to or need to play holes that are not good for their skill level. Also, there is overlap in what is a "good" hole for various skill levels.

Yep, pairing a good algorithm and database of scores by tee and pin position would easily (i.e. press of a button) generate appropriate pars. They could even conform to the registered players in age protected divisions.

It won't be long before tournament scorecards are kept on the players' phones -- with a full uDisc app or equivalent.

 

[F.Luke]

tl/dr

I think the gist of this is, if the PDGA defined expert and removed TD whims, then we could have a useful par... right?



PS: I KNOW what par is at my local courses. I ignore the tee sign suggested par, though we agree sometimes. One, Signal View Park, even has a few par 2's (on the signs)!

PPS: I'm pretty sure I know what an expert disc golfer is. Occasionally I consider myself one.;p

 

[DavidSauls]

I think the gist of this is, if the PDGA defined expert and removed TD whims, then we could have a useful par... right?



PS: I KNOW what par is at my local courses. I ignore the tee sign suggested par, though we agree sometimes. One, Signal View Park, even has a few par 2's (on the signs)!

PPS: I'm pretty sure I know what an expert disc golfer is. Occasionally I consider myself one.;p

Ha, ha. Then some people would dig in their heels about what "expected" means. Then "errorless". Then extended arguments that almost all weather deviates from normal, so the definition never truly applies. And I suspect, eventually, back to the philosophy that golf owns the concept of "par", and the PDGA has no right to tailor it to our sport.

 

[Steve West]

...They could even conform to the registered players in age protected divisions....

They could, but I'm in the camp that thinks pars should not vary from event to event to fit the mix of registered players. They should be set based on a standard skill level. That way, a player at an event that did not attract any good players could still know how they are doing, as could a player at an event that attracted the top players in the world in their division.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Ha, ha. Then some people would dig in their heels about what "expected" means. Then "errorless". Then extended arguments that almost all weather deviates from normal, so the definition never truly applies. And I suspect, eventually, back to the philosophy that golf owns the concept of "par", and the PDGA has no right to tailor it to our sport.

FINALLY! You finally understand what a straw man argument is. It certainly took you long enough. You have attained expert usage of that logical fallacy BTW. Congrats.

It's just my opinion, as is everything I post here, but if the PDGA wants to get rid of any valid arguments (ordinary people and statisticians will always think that they know better than the PDGA), all it has to do is specifically define par with some sort of definition as follows:

"Par for all holes at any A-tier tournament shall be determined by the rounding, to the nearest whole number, the mean score attained by players in the MPO division at the most recent A-tier tourment held on the same course."

Change it to reflect only 1000 rated players or players within n rating points of 1000 or whatever if that is what suits the PDGA. You would get no argument from me for following such a definition or railing against the TD's who failed to follow that standard. But without such a specific standard and with the current Par being entirely TD dependent, and permissibly variable from tournament to tournament, it just doesn't seem to be what the SOCMOBR disciples seem to think that it is.

 

[lyleoross]

I have not called TDs unprofessional.

Yes, but you haven't acknowledged that they're omniscient or omnipotent, which is just the same as saying they're unprofessional. Until you can acknowledge that the par they set is perfect, you're just being mean.

 

[DavidSauls]

FINALLY! You finally understand what a straw man argument is. It certainly took you long enough. You have attained expert usage of that logical fallacy BTW. Congrats.

Rats. I was trying for ad absurdum.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes, but you haven't acknowledged that they're omniscient or omnipotent, which is just the same as saying they're unprofessional. Until you can acknowledge that the par they set is perfect, you're just being mean.

Guilty.

Actually, I'm just reluctant to use the word "professional" in regards to pretty much anything in disc golf.

The Professional Disc Golf Association being an exception, and perhaps a handful of players and company owners.

Though the charge probably comes from my commenting on someone else's "professional looking" phrase, which I understand to connote something like more polished or better organized. Like a caddybook is "professional looking" (with that particular usage), though lack of one wouldn't be "unprofessional".