- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,856
When does the margin of error for throws from the tee become small enough that we can say that missing all the trees is a matter of chance and not expert play?
That's really the crux of the problem. Not margin of error, but how many experts need to get that 3 on #17 before we can say they would be expected to get a 3 with errorless play.
For example, on #17 we have enough data to be confident that between 35% and 39% of 1000-rated players will get a 3. The issue is not that there is a 4% range, the issue is whether the max of 39% is enough to say that a score of 3 can be expected with errorless play.
In my formula I've set the cutoff for the most difficult par 3 at the point where if less than 45% of the experts get a 3, we cannot "expect" them to get a 3 and so par is 4.
I set that cutoff point based on the nice results it produces if applied to all holes. An even-par round will typically be rated between 990 and 1030 - depending on how punishing the course is. The value of a birdie will be equal to the cost of a bogey (across all holes, not for each particular hole).
My formula is not exactly the same as the definition of par. It's close and produces nice results, but hole #17 at Idlewild may be an example of where it differs.
It seems certain that 1000-rated players are able to get a 3 with errorless play. So, maybe par should be 3. Pushing it further, we know that 1000-rated players are able to get a 2. So, should par be 2? I don't think so; there is too much luck needed to get a 2.
If about 3% of players getting a 2 isn't enough for par to be 2, is 39% of players getting a 3 enough to call it par 3? Where do we draw the line? Can we draw the line based on scores alone?
Is playing for 2 and being willing to settle for a 4 errorless play? Does that make par equal to 4?
The phrase in the definition is "would be expected" which frees us from actually observing enough players getting that score. We just need to think they should be able to get it a lot, if they played right.
Should the impact on the game and on total scores be taken into account at all? Should we figure out which score is plausible with errorless play and set par that low no matter how low that makes par? Or would we prefer that holes have the narrowest possible range of difficulty-to-get-par across all holes?
Where I am right now is that the formula suggests a reasonable par. (This suggestion is almost certainly never too low because it depends on enough players actually getting the score that it cannot be argued an expert would not be expected to get that score.) Then, the TD needs to look at it more closely to see if there is a lower score which would be expected with errorless play.
If they do that, Idlewild #17 might be par 3. Can't experts be expected to make two 209 foot throws in a row without hitting a tree?
And Northwood #12 might be par 5. Can experts be expected to make four 262 foot throws in a row without hitting a tree? Hmm, maybe not. Maybe they can only be expected to make five 210 foot throws in a row without hitting a tree.
Which raises another idea: Maybe par should never be higher than (1 + Length/215) or something. No matter how poorly experts actually play the hole.