Par Talk

[Steve West]

Steve---if I understand your method for assigning par, which I probably don't, wouldn't you assign the same pars as all those holes in the examples MTL cited?

If I were to apply the "errorless play" calculations to ball golf, I would use a different percentage for the cutoff.

Our game has a lot more "errors" – tree hits or throws that land on the wrong side of a rope and cost a penalty throw for no good reason.

They don't allow that sort of fun in ball golf. So, a larger percentage of ball golf strokes are errorless.

In disc golf an average of 90% of throws are good enough to score par, if par is set for 1000-rated players in a way such that round ratings for even par are near 1000.

In ball golf – according to their scoring data and their pars – the average across all holes is:
97.7% of strokes on par 3 holes are good enough to get par,
98.7% of strokes on par 4 holes are good enough to get par, and
99.6% of strokes on par 5 holes are good enough to get par.

I don't know why the allowable number of mistakes per stroke should be more than 5 times as high on par 3s as on par 5s. That's why, to me, it looks like they are being overly generous when calling something a par 5.

Then again, I don't really care what ball golf does. They have so few errors, maybe it doesn't matter. If we allowed 5 times as many errors while still getting a par on par 5s as we do for par 3s, the par 5s would be clearly much easier. You could hit a tree every other throw and still make par.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm with you that some of the par 5's should be set at 4, and that in general disc golf over pars their holes. What I don't think would be a good move (which I've seen talked about on here a lot) is changing 300ft par 3's to a par 2. That would look worse than the top pros shooting way under par IMO. Makes it looks like a silly mini golf course.

That's a straw man. No one in this thread is arguing that it looks bad that pros are shooting way under par.

Personally, I don't think either looks bad.

 

[Steve West]

I'm with you that some of the par 5's should be set at 4, and that in general disc golf over pars their holes. What I don't think would be a good move (which I've seen talked about on here a lot) is changing 300ft par 3's to a par 2. That would look worse than the top pros shooting way under par IMO. Makes it looks like a silly mini golf course.

Nobody is saying that should happen. (Except maybe some people who have an overly optimistic view of how many 2s are actually scored on 300 foot holes.)

 

[NegaSnapples]

If I were to apply the "errorless play" calculations to ball golf, I would use a different percentage for the cutoff.

Our game has a lot more "errors" – tree hits or throws that land on the wrong side of a rope and cost a penalty throw for no good reason.

They don't allow that sort of fun in ball golf. So, a larger percentage of ball golf strokes are errorless.

In disc golf an average of 90% of throws are good enough to score par, if par is set for 1000-rated players in a way such that round ratings for even par are near 1000.

In ball golf – according to their scoring data and their pars – the average across all holes is:
97.7% of strokes on par 3 holes are good enough to get par,
98.7% of strokes on par 4 holes are good enough to get par, and
99.6% of strokes on par 5 holes are good enough to get par.

I don't know why the allowable number of mistakes per stroke should be more than 5 times as high on par 3s as on par 5s. That's why, to me, it looks like they are being overly generous when calling something a par 5.

Then again, I don't really care what ball golf does. They have so few errors, maybe it doesn't matter. If we allowed 5 times as many errors while still getting a par on par 5s as we do for par 3s, the par 5s would be clearly much easier. You could hit a tree every other throw and still make par.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "ball" golfers have "so few errors"?

 

[Disczealot]

That's a straw man. No one in this thread is arguing that it looks bad that pros are shooting way under par.

Personally, I don't think either looks bad.

Not the fact that they are shooting way under par, but that shooting way under par could just be an average round.

The problem is that shooting way under par doesn't mean an exceptional round. I want par to mean something.

 

[Steve West]

That's a straw man. No one in this thread is arguing that it looks bad that pros are shooting way under par.

Personally, I don't think either looks bad.

Well........

If par is set correctly, there is no limit on how far under par the Top pros can play.

However, one problem with inconsistent pars is that we can't tell how well a player is doing by just looking at how far under par they are. If you say -15 these days, you don't know if it was a course record 1104 rated round, or just a mediocre round during an event held on a course with tee sign pars set for intermediate players.

What is of more concern, the 950-rated players shouldn't be averaging under par like they often do now, even though we call them pros because they're allowed to enter the Open division.

 

[Steve West]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "ball" golfers have "so few errors"?

98.6% of strokes in golf are good enough to get par. The rest are errors.

 

[NegaSnapples]

That's a straw man. No one in this thread is arguing that it looks bad that pros are shooting way under par.

Personally, I don't think either looks bad.

The thread is over 100 pages and I'm late to the party, but people have definitely been comparing disc golf par to golf par. And people have been saying it's silly how far under par disc golfers go. I think it's silly to have par 2's that you cannot birdie.

A wide range of topics have been discussed in this thread. Me bringing up an old point isn't a straw man.

 

[Disczealot]

98.6% of strokes in golf are good enough to get par. The rest are errors.

I would argue against this for the definition of par, though. As I said in the last post on page 116, I would say that professional golfers are beyond experts, supreme if you will.

You would need a way to find how many errors expert golfers make.

 

[PMantle]

In ball golf – according to their scoring data and their pars – the average across all holes is:
97.7% of strokes on par 3 holes are good enough to get par,
98.7% of strokes on par 4 holes are good enough to get par, and
99.6% of strokes on par 5 holes are good enough to get par.

I don't know why the allowable number of mistakes per stroke should be more than 5 times as high on par 3s as on par 5s. That's why, to me, it looks like they are being overly generous when calling something a par 5.

Can you rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean-especially the strokes part.

OTOH, I can tell you why par 3s are harder. Pros, and anyone else really, will have a longer club in their hands on the approach to the green.

 

[NegaSnapples]

98.6% of strokes in golf are good enough to get par. The rest are errors.

Interesting. Can you give me that same breakdown for a disc golf tournament? (I'm sure it's in the thread. You can just point me to the page. I'm too lazy to search every page )

 

[DavidSauls]

The thread is over 100 pages and I'm late to the party, but people have definitely been comparing disc golf par to golf par. And people have been saying it's silly how far under par disc golfers go. I think it's silly to have par 2's that you cannot birdie.

A wide range of topics have been discussed in this thread. Me bringing up an old point isn't a straw man.

The argument is that on a given hole, too many players can score below par, so that par doesn't represent the expected score on that hole.

In fairness, the argument that total scores being far below par looks silly is often made....but I don't think it's being made here. If I've missed it, I retract the straw man comment.

 

[rhatton1]

Then again, I don't really care what ball golf does. They have so few errors, maybe it doesn't matter. If we allowed 5 times as many errors while still getting a par on par 5s as we do for par 3s, the par 5s would be clearly much easier. You could hit a tree every other throw and still make par.

I'm confused. Surely percentage of fairway hit stats gives you ball golf "errors" straight away. At the top end this is 70%, so 30% of all tee shots on par fours and fives at least are "errors"

sounds like a lot of errors to me from top class players?

IMO not being on the fairway definitely constitutes an error even if it's a recoverable one, it has lessened your potential distance on the drive and given you a tougher lie for you next shot, it's the disc golf equivalent of hitting a tree and ricocheting into the woods.

Nearly every golf course has numerous water hazards playing through them that work pretty much the same way our ob's do.

Loads of potentials for "error" in golf unless i'm missing something?

 

[rhatton1]

Or is it not an "error" if they recover for the "par" score and that's all the data records?

Or can you get error then one better than error (one putt or one throw from close range) = errorless?

 

[rhatton1]

98.6% of strokes in golf are good enough to get par. The rest are errors.

ok.

So we are to take errorless as not errorless but whatever was required to get par, errorless as given by the director in your opinion is not a literal description of the throws taken but whatever the data says is the most common low score from ~1000 rated players (ish) Because 98% of ball golf professionals get par on a par 4 their play is errorless despite potentiall making real world errors they have made better than error to make up for an error to equal errorless.

So coming back to how to set par for a new course, how do we do it before a tournament including a reasonable amount of 1000 rated players play there?

 

[_MTL_]

OTOH, I can tell you why par 3s are harder. Pros, and anyone else really, will have a longer club in their hands on the approach to the green.

This.

Also, it has to do with a lot of forced distances.

I'm really comfortable, for example, at 105 - 125 yards. 95 yards I'm extremely uncomfortable.

If I'm on a par 4 and can hit a driver to 100 yards or closer to the pin, I won't hit driver to make sure I'm more than 100 yards out.

However if I'm on a 95 yard par 3, not much I can do.

This is a personal example, but can be applied to basically every club. Golfers have "perfect numbers" and that basically means a distance with a club that they are extremely comfortable with.

I have perfect numbers in disc golf, as well. In a field, 220, 280, 320 and 360 are really comfortable distances for me.

The difference is even a 390 foot hole, I can throw my comfortable 360 shot and get a 30 foot putt. Missing by 30 feet isn't a big deal. In golf, that's at best case a lengthy birdie putt.

 

[lyleoross]

The argument is that on a given hole, too many players can score below par, so that par doesn't represent the expected score on that hole.

In fairness, the argument that total scores being far below par looks silly is often made....but I don't think it's being made here. If I've missed it, I retract the straw man comment.

LOL, your focus was on those shooting under par as a strawman, and he pulled out the lesser point you made of par 2. The pros shooting way under par is one of my bugaboos, and I suspect I'm the only one who discusses it. For me, the top twenty players shooting more birdies than pars is as embarrassing as par 2. I have no problem with par 2. I also understand that arguing we're different than BG while simultaneously arguing that par 2 is embarrassing, something that only has meaning in the context of BG, is a great debate tactic, but is also a contradiction.

 

[lyleoross]

The thread is over 100 pages and I'm late to the party, but people have definitely been comparing disc golf par to golf par. And people have been saying it's silly how far under par disc golfers go. I think it's silly to have par 2's that you cannot birdie.

A wide range of topics have been discussed in this thread. Me bringing up an old point isn't a straw man.

A point of clarification. We're comparing par to par. Definition, what an expert player would be expected to shoot on a hole or course. It's the same. But, we often treat birdie the same way that BG treats par. You can find exceptions. BG has holes they expect to birdie. Problem is, we have series of holes we expect to birdie. Again, when at a major the top twenty players have more birds than par, birdie is now what you're aiming at, not par.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This discussion seems to parallel creationism versus evolution. The creationists here revere the ball golf god that decrees a reasonable chance for birdie is a commandment. The evolutionists here use statistics to determine the real par which sometimes may make birdies rare.

 

[DavidSauls]

LOL, your focus was on those shooting under par as a strawman, and he pulled out the lesser point you made of par 2. The pros shooting way under par is one of my bugaboos, and I suspect I'm the only one who discusses it. For me, the top twenty players shooting more birdies than pars is as embarrassing as par 2. I have no problem with par 2. I also understand that arguing we're different than BG while simultaneously arguing that par 2 is embarrassing, something that only has meaning in the context of BG, is a great debate tactic, but is also a contradiction.

So you're the one that has me eating straw.