TLDR: Look up Procrustean.
I'm moving this to Par Talk to spare Denny's thread.
The lowest score that players of a specific distance/skill level can reasonably shoot should be considered "scoring", and in the case of golf, that score is called a birdie.
First, you just made that up. It has no historical support. Second, a player hasn't "scored" in any sense of the word in any game if they did not do something which gives them a leg up on the competition. So, if the lowest score possible is three, a player who got a three did not score. By your logic a three should not be called birdie.
Par in disc golf should be defined as Birdie plus one which is parallel to ball golf.
That definition equivalency does not currently exist in disc golf.
You could do that, but it is not at all parallel to golf. The REAL definition of par in golf IS parallel to disc golf.
- USGA's definition: "Par is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green."
- PDGA's definition: "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."
Note there NOTHING in either one about one more than ANYTHING. Let alone one more than the score everyone gets on a hole where low scores aren't possible.
Sure, logically, you could define par as one more than birdie. So why not take it to next step? Define par as two more than eagle. Aren't there some holes where no one gets eagle? Would the lowest score anyone ever got then become "eagle"? Why not define par as albatross plus 3? Would the lowest score anyone ever got be an albatross? (Hint: the answer should be "no".)
Obviously, it is possible and logical to be able to define albatross, eagle, and birdie in relation to par, whether or not anyone has gotten an albatross, eagle, or birdie yet.
Even though they state their scoring rule in how par is set, the result of their definition is par on every hole is also birdie plus one.
Yes,
birdie plus one. No, not
lowest score plus one. Don't try the old subliminal switch-a-roo, Kevin Nealon.
The empirical observation that almost all holes in golf have par as one more than the lowest reasonable score, is NOT the result of their definition. It is the result of them always designing holes where it is reasonably possible to score lower than a scratch golfer.
Sure, for golf, it is much easier to design holes to create the chance of birdie. Anyone can reasonably one-putt from where two putts are expected of a scratch golfer. However, I think they probably also needed to stop using the rare holes where it simply wasn't possible to score better than a scratch golfer.
The result of the way they design holes (plus the nature of the game) means you just don't see golf holes where most players get the lowest score. If there were any holes like that, the
golf definition would say most players got par, not birdie.
If the rules definition for disc golf par does not provide the ability for players of a specific distance/skill level to score/birdie on every hole, then the par definition is flawed. Simple as that.
First, it's not in the rules anymore. It's in the PDGA Par Guidelines for course designers and TDs. The rules only say: "
Par is determined by the Director".
Second, for a tool to compare actual to expected, using anything else than the expected would be the flaw. For sports, science, or anything. Many aspects of life are based on comparing actual to expected.
Third, the rules don't prevent players of a specific distance/skill level to score/birdie on every hole, hole designs do that. Fix what's broken (if it's really broken, which is another debate), don't break something else.
Basketball has no par. But if it did, you missed a major point,
earning the chance to make a free throw or a clear shot is a big part of scoring in basketball. But, that's really too silly of an analogy to respond to.
You got nothing.
I know you plan to go on talking until you convince yourself you're right, but then you'll be wrong in two ways because your opinion of whether you are correct or not will be mistaken.
It would be better to put your energy toward taking responsibility as a leading designer to
show everyone how to make holes where players can actually get a score lower than expected by a scratch player.
Inflating par is just a low-effort cop-out which damages the game. To pursue it is morally wrong and would show a lack of character.
