Par Talk

[txmxer]

with no analysis of competition stats needed to make that determination.

That's not correct.

Without competition (comparison) the discussion is meaningless.

 

[DavidSauls]

We haven't followed golf's lead in so many other areas, why should we follow it in this one?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The attached table compares the proposed GOLF Par method with the PDGA Par method for setting par for players within a specific drive distance/skill range as holes on relatively open terrain increase in length and their resulting scores.

Note that the only distributions where the two par methods disagree are in the yellow shaded zones. Both methods AGREE that the scoring distribution is not ideal for that player distance/skill level. However, the Golf method always allows a birdie "score" and the PDGA method does not. The Golf method can establish par in advance (even if liberal) during the hole design phase by measuring the effective hole length and adjusting it if needed upon consulting the Golf Par/length table to make sure that length falls in a "good length zone" for a reasonable chance that player drive distance level can earn birdies. No competition stats are needed to determine par. The stats are just useful to potentially improve the hole for that player level.

The issue with the PDGA method is that viewers and players can't immediately tell when looking at online scores whether a birdie or par score is "scoring". Scoring should be intuitively obvious. To be generous providing birdie opportunities on every hole does not seem immoral, but it certainly seems a shame for the PDGA statistical par calculation to prevent the appearance of scoring and unnecessarily interrupt a hot shooting player's birdie/scoring run. That's especially true on a few of the shortest holes on tour where the PDGA method can legitimately assign a par of 2 making the hole essentially unbirdieable without an ace. Golf Par doesn't assign pars of 2 until the hole is maybe under 50 feet on a putter course where "aces" occur more than 10% of the time.

(I apologize to Steve if I slightly missed his exact calculations on setting PDGA par on one or two holes but I believe I'm close in most cases.)

 

[Steve West]

The attached table compares the proposed GOLF Par method [...]

Did you capitalize GOLF because it stands for some acronym you made up? Does it spell "golf" because you think that will fool some people into believing it has some basis in the other sport?

What do you think the real definition of par is for the actual sport of golf? What is your source?

Are you aware the golf definition of par mentions neither "driving distance range" nor "birdie chance"?

Isn't the so-called GOLF par column just your wishful thinking, and doesn't really have anything to do with the sport of golf?

Were you aware that the Par by Scoring Distribution method is actually better at replicating the pars golf actually assigns? (Because they are more careful about sticking to the definition.)

Did you even look for any golf holes that have the scoring distributions you made up, and did you actually look at what par golf assigned?

 

[DavidSauls]

A lot has been said, in other forums, about the difference in the greens/putting arenas between the two sports.

Less has been said about the differences in fairway designs. Golf fairways tend to be pretty wide open, straight or with gentle doglegs. I frequently play a disc golf course with holes ranging from 167' to 760', a ratio that you'll never see on a golf course. I don't know how foliage density is defined in effective distance, or how it compares to a 10' wide fairway vs. a 40' wide fairway, with thin or thick rough, straight or twisting through the woods. That's before we discuss holes that are tightly wooded at the tee and then open up, or tee across an open area and then into woods. But I'm pretty sure that few golfers have hit a tree 30' in front of the tee and caromed into a tough-save situation.

And that's before we incorporate steep hills, creeks close to pins, obstacles in the fairway or green, and other features that golf would never use.

The result of playing a different game, different in all sorts of ways, is that the variations from the expected score on a given hole, aren't going to be the same as those in golf.

So, yeah, we're similar in that we score by fewest strokes, and we've adopted the same names for scores that are expected, or better or worse than expected. But I think it's foolish to try to twist those terms to produce similar results to those of a different game.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Been playing a ton of regular golf after taking 15 years+ off and mostly was just DG.

Id say pars honestly are what they should be for the sports. I am still a fan of par 2s for DG but that wont ever be a thing.

still can shoot an 8 regardless of 450 feet or yards. lol..

 

[Steve West]

Trying to match our elite "strokes under par" with PGA ball golf has been a false goal for the following reason. Ball golf actually has two separate skill/power games within one > striking the ball primarily through the air to land on the green (target) and skillfully rolling the ball on the green into the cup (target). DG just has one skill/power game > throwing the disc primarily through the air to hit the target in a way that it stops in the basket. Our putting is an artificial term for short, accurate throws, not truly a different way to propel the disc near the basket like a putt along the surface in ball golf. Yes, our players putt with different stances but it's still a throw.

Getting birdie in ball golf requires good execution in both subgames. Getting birdie in disc golf on our reachable par 3s for a skill level usually requires just one good throw, either parking the drive or sinking a longer throw near the bucket. Note that players with ratings of 1030+, the average MPO rating for the top 25 at an elite event, are expected to average at least 4 below SSA just to shoot their rating on gold level courses and SSA is usually 3-5 strokes lower than the listed par. So, viewers should expect to see -8 in our sport in bogey free rounds as normal at the elite MPO level.

Players must shoot about half of their rounds better than their rating to maintain their rating, even more to increase it. Seeing a few or more rounds in the -12 to -15 range should be expected when these top players are on a heater.

If our sport's leaders and designers really felt it was important to reduce the birdie percentage in a more skillful way (not with penalty strokes), there are ways to add another subgame for putting, but I doubt players and viewers would like them. Some of those ways have been discussed in other threads on course design.

For any given scoring distribution, the score-based methods in the PDGA Par Guidelines will produce the same pars as are seen in golf. There is no reason disc golf NEEDs to have way-under winning scores.

So why do we? Well, for FPO we really don't have way-under winning scores.
For FPO, the pars are generally set both according to the guidelines and generate score that are similar to golf relative to par.

For MPO, two things are creating way-under-par scores. First, not all the pars are being set according to the guidelines. Second, for the holes where par is set according to the guidelines, the holes are on the easier side of par.

The Preserve provides examples of what typically happens.

The first cause is that par is still being set wrong in some cases. At the Preserve, For FPO all the pars match the guidelines. And the winning score was about 7 under per round.

For MPO five of the pars were higher than the PDGA Guidelines recommend. Just fixing these would bring that -37 winning score to -22 (a little more than 7 per round).

The second cause is that, for both MPO and FPO, there are many holes which have the correct par, but are about as birdie-rich as possible (no bar going up from the guideline par dot). Especially for MPO. If, these holes were more balanced with some tough, some easy, and some medium difficulty, that would easily bring the winning score to the 4 or 5 under per round territory of golf.

This second cause is just a choice we've made so far. We like more birdies than golf wants, so we design holes to be on the easy side of par (even when we set par correctly). There is nothing fundamental that would prevent us from simply choosing to make these holes a little more difficult while still staying within the bounds of proper par.

 

[Olorin]

Close Range Par is the most successful, being the most widely used by the best-run events.

Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?
How do you know which PDGA Par Guideline that various events use? Is that just from your own personal networks and contacts?

Obviously, I have a vested personal interested in learning which events use CRP. I know that Steve Dodge is a proponent, so does the DGPT use CR Par?

 

[biscoe]

Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?
How do you know which PDGA Par Guideline that various events use? Is that just from your own personal networks and contacts?

Obviously, I have a vested personal interested in learning which events use CRP. I know that Steve Dodge is a proponent, so does the DGPT use CR Par?

I am obviously not Steve W. but Steve W, does contact the TD's for some par discussion after the fact. In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.

 

[Olorin]

In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.

Biscoe, that makes perfect sense.

What PDGA par method did you use at the 2022 Lake Marshall Open?

 

[Olorin]

In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.

And as a corollary, follow up question... did the DGPT give you any input or feedback about the pars that you set? Or is the TD the final authority on par by default?

 

[biscoe]

Biscoe, that makes perfect sense.

What PDGA par method did you use at the 2022 Lake Marshall Open?

I use CRP for the most part with Close Range varying a bit based on elevation and obstacles- for gold I carry it out to around 200.

 

[Olorin]

The attached table compares the proposed GOLF Par method with the PDGA Par method for setting par for players within a specific drive distance/skill range as holes on relatively open terrain increase in length and their resulting scores.

Chuck, would you please define these key terms?
GOLF Par
PDGA Par (especially since there are various acceptable ways to determine par)

 

[biscoe]

And as a corollary, follow up question... did the DGPT give you any input or feedback about the pars that you set? Or is the TD the final authority on par by default?

No real input from them on par. Their input tends to lean towards dealing with the spectators and making the course idiot proof for the players as far as ground rules/markings go.

For what it is worth my pars over the years for a variety of events tend to line up pretty well with Steve's scoring based ones. We tend to differ on 1-3 holes per layout with those holes tending towards being the 'tweeners" under both methods.

 

[Olorin]

I use CRP for the most part with Close Range varying a bit based on elevation and obstacles- for gold I carry it out to around 200.

You are using "effective length", as the explanation stipulates. This is obviously a common sense necessity.

The effective lengths for Close Range in CRP have been modified. These are very close to what was published by the PDGA.

Course Level	Close Range​
Gold	220​
Blue	190​
White	160​
Red	140​
Green	120​
Purple	100​

PDGA Par Guidelines

 

[Steve West]

Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?
How do you know which PDGA Par Guideline that various events use? Is that just from your own personal networks and contacts?

Obviously, I have a vested personal interested in learning which events use CRP. I know that Steve Dodge is a proponent, so does the DGPT use CR Par?

I didn't keep a list of everyone who uses it.

I don't think the DGPT has a par tsar. Yet.

I hear from some TDs about the methods they use when they push back about the Par by Scoring Distribution numbers I send out. Enough of the DGPT and majors use CRP successfully to lead me to the conclusion.

Until this year, the most common method of setting par for events seemed to be to use whatever is on the tee signs - which seem to be mostly set for the Blue/Advanced/MA1 skill level.

However, since the PDGA Par Guidelines have been published, the consistency of par across events has improved dramatically. Only rarely do I get to sink my teeth into see a really stupid-easy set of pars these days.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Chuck, would you please define these key terms?
GOLF Par
PDGA Par (especially since there are various acceptable ways to determine par)

See my post 4543. The way golf par is set, it automatically provides the opportunity to score a birdie or better "against the hole" for a specific player distance range. Shooting "birdie and better" is the definition of "scoring" in ball golf. If we wish to emulate the scoring system in ball golf, which I believe has been our primary idea behind the discussions on how to set par in disc golf, then the appropriate par for each player distance range will allow the player to score birdie or better on every hole.

"Good" holes for scoring provide birdie chances in the 10%-50% range for a player distance range. Greater than 50% is not enough challenge and less than 10% is not enough and favors longer throwers in competition. A well-designed layout from a scoring "against the course" standpoint using the "birdie sets par" (BSP) method for a player distance range would have an average birdie percentage in the 22%-39% (from 4 to 7 birdies in 18 holes) which is achievable when every hole is birdieable at least 10% of the time.

CRP is a technique that misses the boat regarding "scoring" on each hole in golf because non-birdieable holes are acceptable and requires the player and spectators to look at scoring distributions to know whether shooting par or birdie is actually scoring. That's a non-intuitive and indirect way to communicate scoring information to players and spectators versus the BSP method where seeing a blue score on UDisc means the player scored against the hole. The fact that on some holes 75% of the field score birdies is immaterial because all a player can actually do is play each hole. They can't do anything about what the other players are doing.

 

[Steve West]

Injecting a single falsehood into a system of logic can generate an unlimited number of false conclusions. Here, the falsehood is that setting par is the same thing as designing a hole. It is not.



Yes, a good way to design holes is to make sure players can get birdies.



No, that cannot be achieved by setting par one higher than the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.



Golf does not set par based on a rule of "one higher than the lowest somewhat frequent score". They eliminate holes where birdies are not possible.



If there are unbirdie-able holes, attack the designs. Don't grant these "bad" holes a status of "good" design by setting par higher than what the definition says. Don't destroy all the benefits of par to wall-paper over bad design.

 

[Rastnav]

I remain mystified by the idea that setting par "correctly" will somehow reveal poor hole designs.

As an example, let's look at hole #13 at the KC Wide Open and how it played for FPO. It averaged 3.96 strokes and generated almost no 2s with the most common score on the hole a 4, but a lot of 3s. It looks like the appropriate par would be a 4.

It was a 364 foot hole. Uphill, but not excessively so. No real trees to speak of. The big issue was that the OB formed a fairly tight circle around the basket and was defined by tall grass. It just wasn't reachable from the tee for most of the players in that field, but it extended out quite far towards the tee, so most players were laying up short of it with essentially a short chip shot off the tee. But that field wasn't a particularly strong one, even for an FPO and wasn't particularly long off the tee. Holyn Handley went for it every day and only made it on once.

No matter whether the par is 3 or 4, you can tell that the design is poor for the FPO field, but you can tell that by watching the hole being played. The average to par tells you that the hole is poorly designed as well, something that would be obscured by setting the par at 4. Setting the par at 4 would have generated a good number of birdie 3s (perhaps too many, but not egregiously so) and a mix of pars and bogeys with very, very few eagles.

Setting par "correctly" in this case makes it more difficult to understand that the hole is poorly designed for the field.

And then you get to the issue that the average will change depending on the field size and composition. Make the field a very strong one, equivalent to an elite series event, and the average likely comes down quite a bit. That still wouldn't make the hole a good hole for the FPO field.

 

[Steve West]

I remain mystified by the idea that setting par "correctly" will somehow reveal poor hole designs.

As an example, let's look at hole #13 at the KC Wide Open and how it played for FPO. It averaged 3.96 strokes and generated almost no 2s with the most common score on the hole a 4, but a lot of 3s. It looks like the appropriate par would be a 4.

It was a 364 foot hole. Uphill, but not excessively so. No real trees to speak of. The big issue was that the OB formed a fairly tight circle around the basket and was defined by tall grass. It just wasn't reachable from the tee for most of the players in that field, but it extended out quite far towards the tee, so most players were laying up short of it with essentially a short chip shot off the tee. But that field wasn't a particularly strong one, even for an FPO and wasn't particularly long off the tee. Holyn Handley went for it every day and only made it on once.

No matter whether the par is 3 or 4, you can tell that the design is poor for the FPO field, but you can tell that by watching the hole being played. The average to par tells you that the hole is poorly designed as well, something that would be obscured by setting the par at 4. Setting the par at 4 would have generated a good number of birdie 3s (perhaps too many, but not egregiously so) and a mix of pars and bogeys with very, very few eagles.

Setting par "correctly" in this case makes it more difficult to understand that the hole is poorly designed for the field.

And then you get to the issue that the average will change depending on the field size and composition. Make the field a very strong one, equivalent to an elite series event, and the average likely comes down quite a bit. That still wouldn't make the hole a good hole for the FPO field.

Setting par correctly will not reveal all bad designs. No one is saying it would.



What we're saying is we should not set par incorrectly to hide a lack of birdies. Assuming too-few chances to do better than expected is "bad", a hole cannot be made "good" by pretending the expected is better than expected.



For Hole #13, remember that the definition of par is not set based on the average score of the field; par is the score that would be expected of an expert. For FPO, the standard in the guidelines is that a 930-rated FPO player is the expert. For hole #13, the most common score from a 930-rated player would be 3, not 4. Par of 3 is correct because a 930-rated player would be expected to get a 3 with errorless play.



With par of 3, the hole offers so few birdies that some would call it a bad hole. (This is not a universal opinion, but we'll go with it.) The quality of the hole would not be improved by calling it a par 4.



Par 4 would not magically allow the majority of 930-rated players to suddenly feel they did better than expected, gained a stroke on the competition, or wiped out an earlier bogey. All it would do is use subterfuge to remove the hole from the list of holes that offer too-few birdies. Possibly preventing it from ever getting fixed.