Par Talk

[jeremyhilss]

Wow my head hurts after reading all that.

 

[Innova63]

Wow my head hurts after reading all that.

Ditto.....................and I really didn't read it all........

I may get blasted for what follows, but oh well.

I do wonder though, if "we" aren't thinking this wrong.

Try this scenario......

An elite PGA pro, a 5 handicapper, a 10 handicapper and a 20 handicapper walk up to same tee on a hole. I believe for each of them, the par is the same. The realistic expectation is not.

Disc golfers for whatever reason seem to believe that the elite pro and the beer and disc "chucker" should have the same par and be expected to get the same score.

Is this because "we" or many of disc golfers truly believe and understand that this game we all enjoy, really isn't as hard as ball golf.

Thoughts.........

 

[jeremyhilss]

Ditto.....................and I really didn't read it all........

I may get blasted for what follows, but oh well.

I do wonder though, if "we" aren't thinking this wrong.

Try this scenario......

An elite PGA pro, a 5 handicapper, a 10 handicapper and a 20 handicapper walk up to same tee on a hole. I believe for each of them, the par is the same. The realistic expectation is not.

Disc golfers for whatever reason seem to believe that the elite pro and the beer and disc "chucker" should have the same par and be expected to get the same score.

Is this because "we" or many of disc golfers truly believe and understand that this game we all enjoy, really isn't as hard as ball golf.

Thoughts.........

No blasting from me. I concur - I really see no outstanding issues with the pars on the Olpe course. Maybe some less than stellar holes, but nothing ridiculous. My only issues with par in the end are:
-courses where all holes are par 3, when there are OBVIOUSLY multi-shot holes
-courses with 200 foot holes marked as par 4 - I don't care if it is a course designed for beginners, you don't want to get them into a sugarcoated mindset IMO

 

[gdub58]

The higher purpose, even above using the PDGA definition, is to get par that "works". See the first page of this for the things par can do to help the game.

You can't fix a bad hole by giving it a bad par.

If the distribution is 67/25/8, everyone will know the players did not gain a throw on the field by getting the low score, whether we call it a birdie or not. For every hole we try to lie to ourselves about par, the total par for the course and the tournament will get a little farther from what is most useful.

Why do you insist on calling it a bad par if it doesn't conform with your definition? Even if it is a par four, a pro will know he is losing a stroke to the field if he doesn't get a three - calling it a par four changes nothing in that regard.

Lie to ourselves? I'm not trying to pretend that the most common score is something other than three - I'm just saying that I believe it creates a better perception of how the hole is played and viewed. I realize you disagree, but your response sounds a bit dramatic...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Why do you insist on calling it a bad par if it doesn't conform with your definition? Even if it is a par four, a pro will know he is losing a stroke to the field if he doesn't get a three - calling it a par four changes nothing in that regard.

Lie to ourselves? I'm not trying to pretend that the most common score is something other than three - I'm just saying that I believe it creates a better perception of how the hole is played and viewed. I realize you disagree, but your response sounds a bit dramatic...

Let's take the 510 ft hole that some pros were complaining should be a par 4 so it could be birdied. Per the PDGA definition of par as the number of throws plus two close range throws, we have say a conservative drive of 375 by the typical Open player, then 135 feet remaining. I'm going to say open players having to make open throws from 135 feet are going to get down in 2 from there with two good throws. Voila! Par 3 per the definition which says nothing about the right to birdie.

 

[gdub58]

My impression of what Steve is saying isn't quite that. And frankly, if he presented it the way you have, I'd call him a donkey and be done with it. Steve isn't saying there is a one true par that was written on stone tablets. He's saying that a meaningful par engenders discussion, fan participation, analysis etc. He and several other posters have listed numerous fun and interesting things that can be done with par.

Then he described a method to obtain a meaningful par. Not the only one, but one based an accomplished player with a breakpoint that he has said is lower than it could be. He set it low as a compromise recognizing that good, but not accomplished players would be annoyed if you set the bar too high. Keep in mind, I'm not Steve, I'm gleening based on reading a good bit of his posts.

The 1000 rated player is a great expert to use. If you really crunched numbers and did a ton of analysis based on human interest, and driving player and fan participation and found that basing par on a 989.5 rated player got the best psychological response, I'd still say use 1000. To quote Donald Sutherland in Kelley's Heros. "It's a beautiful mother number.". It's round, makes a great talking point etc. It really works well for the casual participant. As for the par breakpoint of 2.67, I don't even remember if that's it, it's a working number. You could move it either way. As I wrote, even Steve wrote that it was a compromise number.

All Steve is really saying is base par on an expert player, and make a performance breakpoint based on that player. It simplifies and takes the ambiguity out of the, par is based on how an expert player plays the hole, definition. It defines an expert player, and relates par to that player.

Why do you insist on trying to explain the same thing over and over? I know Steve's analysis is based on a 1000 rated player, and I've not suggested using a different standard. But, when I or anyone else suggests looking at the picture differently, he consistently refers to those approaches as bad or wrong and throws out absurd examples in an attempt to support his pov.

I realize he's an actuary and is good with numbers - I'm a statistician by trade and believe it or not respect his approach from a data analysis perspective. I'm just frustrated with how intractable he becomes when an alternative viewpoint is presented.

 

[gdub58]

Let's take the 510 ft hole that some pros were complaining should be a par 4 so it could be birdied. Per the PDGA definition of par as the number of throws plus two close range throws, we have say a conservative drive of 375 by the typical Open player, then 135 feet remaining. I'm going to say open players having to make open throws from 135 feet are going to get down in 2 from there with two good throws. Voila! Par 3 per the definition which says nothing about the right to birdie.

I get it - really I do. Whether we use the "errorless expert" standard or the "two throws from close range" standard it is a par three. I still prefer a system that has some additional flexibility wherein a poorly constructed hole that is heavily skewed towards the lowest possible score is assigned a par that makes that score a birdie and not a par.

When that occurs (and we probably know it's going to occur before the event is played) the situation could be mitigated by adding a design tweak (additional hazard area, smaller target, etc.) to reduce the number of birdies such holes would yield.

 

[Steve West]

Why do you insist on calling it a bad par if it doesn't conform with your definition? Even if it is a par four, a pro will know he is losing a stroke to the field if he doesn't get a three - calling it a par four changes nothing in that regard.

Lie to ourselves? I'm not trying to pretend that the most common score is something other than three - I'm just saying that I believe it creates a better perception of how the hole is played and viewed. I realize you disagree, but your response sounds a bit dramatic...

If a pro knows he is losing a throw to the field by getting par, then that par is wrong. Worse, it is useless. What good does it do to assign pars that have nothing to do with what a player expects? By your logic, par of 8 would be just as good because the player would still know that a 4 did not gain him 4 throws on the field.

What about the spectators? How will they know whether a player did well or not? Why should we need to explain to them that on certain holes, we set par in a different way? Why should players need to figure out on each course how many holes have pars that reflect what the players expect and how many have pars that don't?

Not my definition THE definition. Official, PDGA, practical, etc.

How can you say the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on this hole is a 4, without that being a lie?

 

[Ryan C]

I think the pars we've seen on most courses are just fine. The problem I see is the holes themselves. They can't reasonably be two'd, so they SHOULD be par 4, even if they are basically dead easy to 3. So to me, the issue is really just holes that are not going to create scoring separation among good players.

That bring said, it easy to design holes with insane difficulty or randomness that would create tons of scoring separation. The trick will always be finding a balance between risk and reward, not punishing almost good shots too severely, and still making a course that is fun and challenging.

I feel that "par" is a red herring, when what we really want is better hole design.

 

[rhatton1]

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."

Who created the hole forecaster spreadsheet, was it you or Steve? It's a truly excellent document and incredibly accurate way of defining overall course difficulties and setting pars. I'd like to see a slightly updated one though with the technological and player advances of the last few years, is this on the cards at all?

 

[DavidSauls]

They can't reasonably be two'd, so they SHOULD be par 4, even if they are basically dead easy to 3.
.

Why?

If par is the score expected of an expert (PDGA definition, and pretty much the golf definition too), an the expert expects a 3, why should par be a 4?

Nothing in the definition of "par"---in disc golf or in golf---says a hole should be birdieable.

 

[DavidSauls]

I feel that "par" is a red herring, when what we really want is better hole design.

I feel the "bad hole design" argument is a red herring.

God knows it's important. It's far more important than "par".

But as long as bad holes exist, they should have an accurate par assigned to them. It doesn't change the desirability for pars to be assigned correctly---at least for top-tier MPO events.

 

[PMantle]

Why do you care? Your most common comments are, I don't understand your question, and what are you talking about. Given that, why do you care?

It's fascinating to me to see someone type so many words and say nothing.

 

[rhatton1]

I'd be interested to see the stats on the Opie course, I'm assuming hole 13 by the stats would come in at par 3 but by the directors statement IMO it would be a par 2 (ugg my fingers are burning writing it...) - wide open 66 meters has to be considered close range to a top level player (no mention of water/harsh drop zones etc in the directors definition )

 

[Cgkdisc]

Who created the hole forecaster spreadsheet, was it you or Steve? It's a truly excellent document and incredibly accurate way of defining overall course difficulties and setting pars. I'd like to see a slightly updated one though with the technological and player advances of the last few years, is this on the cards at all?

That was me. Someone will need to run another formal distance study to indicate how much distances should increase in the forecaster. Spot checks over the past few years don't indicate that players are scoring any better at longer distances. Possible theory is the wider rim, slicker plastic doesn't help players get any closer to the basket on average.

 

[PMantle]

So, since it is technically possible to get a 2 on any hole less than, oh, let's say 720 feet long (thanks to Simon), wouldn't you say that it is impossible to make a par 3 hole that is technically unbirdieable? Does that mean every hole actually is birdieable and we're done?



Sorry I lost track of your statement. Could you repeat it?

Just to be clear, would both of you answer the question: What is par on a 600 foot hole where almost all MPO players score 3 and almost no one has scored a 2?

Why?



The only holes that are par 2 are those where the tee pad was placed within close range. Not a lot of these get used for MPO. Also, every hole I've seen used for MPO that could possibly be argued is a par 2 is just barely a par 2 and is on or near the bubble for being a par 3. In other words, we don't need to label any hole par 2 for par to be much better than it is today.

But, yeah, if you were to set par for an MPO event on an elementary school course, then most of those holes would be par 2. Would any expert expect to score anything else? How silly would it be to narrate that video using pars of 3?

I can't make any sense of this, but asking what I said, then repeating it again makes me think you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Steve West]

I'd be interested to see the stats on the Opie course, I'm assuming hole 13 by the stats would come in at par 3 but by the directors statement IMO it would be a par 2 (ugg my fingers are burning writing it...) - wide open 66 meters has to be considered close range to a top level player (no mention of water/harsh drop zones etc in the directors definition )

Scoring Distribution % of 1000-rated players at Olpe Lake                        
Hole  Length  Par    2      3      4      5+
  1     360    3    38     17     30     15 
  2     310    3    56     40      4      0 
  3     480    4     0     43     29     29 
  4     510    3     1     63     22     14 
  5     330    3    44     30     25      1 
  6     550    3     0     72     18      9 
  7     230    3    32     57     11      0 
  8     740    4     0     32     35     33 
  9     365    3    44     47      9      1 
 10     300    3    41     59      0      0 
 11     500    3     0     67     23     11 
 12     840    5     0      6     45     50 
 13     215    3    35     36     28      1 
 14     715    4     0     24     63     13 
 15     540    3     0     58     28     14 
 16     610    4     0     48     41     11 
 17     410    3     5     65     28      2 
 18     310    3    54     26     12      8

It's not all about length. Holes 2 and 18 are much closer to earning a label that will spread silliness throughout the kingdom for all time.

 

[PMantle]

Why?

If par is the score expected of an expert (PDGA definition, and pretty much the golf definition too), an the expert expects a 3, why should par be a 4?

Nothing in the definition of "par"---in disc golf or in golf---says a hole should be birdieable.

Because if birdies are never made, then par becomes meaningless. Just throw out the entire idea and keep strokes.

 

[lyleoross]

Ditto.....................and I really didn't read it all........

I may get blasted for what follows, but oh well.

I do wonder though, if "we" aren't thinking this wrong.

Try this scenario......

An elite PGA pro, a 5 handicapper, a 10 handicapper and a 20 handicapper walk up to same tee on a hole. I believe for each of them, the par is the same. The realistic expectation is not.

Disc golfers for whatever reason seem to believe that the elite pro and the beer and disc "chucker" should have the same par and be expected to get the same score.

Is this because "we" or many of disc golfers truly believe and understand that this game we all enjoy, really isn't as hard as ball golf.



Thoughts.........

I haven't read ahead, but I'm gonna respond. Hopefully, I'm not just semi-repeating a better reply. I think you're close. I think you need to leave out the 5 handicapper and the Pro. That is, much of our expectation is driven for and by Ams, not our top level pros. When they comment at all, it tends to be that things are to easy. Keep in mind, I'm not talking baskets. That has been part of this discussion. Setting a standard for top level guys that fits their skills but not changing the rest of the game. Alternatively, building a system that accommodates both, like what bolf has done.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Because if birdies are never made, then par becomes meaningless. Just throw out the entire idea and keep strokes.

Not true. Even ball golf disagrees when they toughen up holes for Majors where some holes sometimes yield no or just a handful of "birdies".