Par Talk

[_MTL_]

This document is very useful for understanding tweener holes and what might cause them, but that's about it.

 

[brutalbrutus]

That looks like hole6 at Idlewild. except ho6 is a hundred feet shorter and might still be a par5 cause the fairway is tighter.

 

[Olorin]

For fun, give me a method of determining par, that will relate to real outcomes, for disc golf. Any takers?

Close Range Par

CR Par takes into account 2 throws from close range, effective hole length (effects of elevation), and forced layups (doglegs). [The items that MTL mentioned.]

 

[Cgkdisc]

Until this document accounts for elevation and more importantly doglegs, it's completely useless.

Hyperbole much? Try this update: Par Guidelines

 

[_MTL_]

Hyperbole much? Try this update: Par Guidelines

Thanks, Chuck.

Was not aware that existed.

Even when I googled "PDGA Par Guidelines" the older one popped up.

I'm glad this was updated. It was laughable before.

EDIT: Seriously? it was updated TODAY. No wonder I didn't know it was there.

 

[lyleoross]

Close Range Par

CR Par takes into account 2 throws from close range, effective hole length (effects of elevation), and forced layups (doglegs). [The items that MTL mentioned.]

Nice article, thanks!

A couple of things, who wrote it? I didn't look far. Also, I'd love to see a summary rule. The beauty of the oft ignored, what an expert is expected to throw, is that it gets the point across in less than a paragraph. It just annoys people because it means, par 2. That said you've posted a methodology, and it seems good, whereas the other is a definition. But a digestible rule of thumb would go a long way imo.

 

[lyleoross]

Thanks, Chuck.

Was not aware that existed.

Even when I googled "PDGA Par Guidelines" the older one popped up.

I'm glad this was updated. It was laughable before.

EDIT: Seriously? it was updated TODAY. No wonder I didn't know it was there.

Chuck got caught out. . However, it says that these kinds of discussions are making people think. Man I love democracy.

 

[_MTL_]

Chuck got caught out. . However, it says that these kinds of discussions are making people think. Man I love democracy.

The timing is too coincidental.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Thanks, Chuck.

Was not aware that existed.

Even when I googled "PDGA Par Guidelines" the older one popped up.

I'm glad this was updated. It was laughable before.

EDIT: Seriously? it was updated TODAY. No wonder I didn't know it was there.

I did it just for you. Those length adjustment notes have been in the Hole Forecaster used by members of the Course Designers group for about 12 years now. TDs and players should seek assistance from an experienced designer in their area if they have questions.

 

[_MTL_]

I did it just for you. Those length adjustment notes have been in the Hole Forecaster used by members of the Course Designers group for about 12 years now. TDs and players should seek assistance from an experienced designer in their area if they have questions.

You say that in almost "I give up get your way tone."

I've had multiple course designers and TD's reference that document before on doglegs. It's important to make sure things are correct.

 

[DavidSauls]

For fun, give me a method of determining par, that will relate to real outcomes, for disc golf. Any takers?

I'd whittle it down to something like (with more careful wording):

As determined by the TD (or course designer), the score a 1000-rated player would be expected to get, under ordinary conditions.

Where appropriate, a "skill-level par" may be set for players of a particular skill level; i.e., blue-level-par for 950 rated players.

 

[Ye Olde Am]

Let's be frank. The PDGA currently assigns the authority to set par to the TD. References to an expert player, hole features, and so on are simply guidance. And I agree: par should be set by a person who is familiar with the course, and more importantly by the person who has to justify the par settings to the tournament players (and world at large, if needed).

Is it not the case that the PDGA sends a representative to work with the TD for NTs & Majors? If so, what does that representative try to accomplish?

 

[_MTL_]

Is it not the case that the PDGA sends a representative to work with the TD for NTs & Majors? If so, what does that representative try to accomplish?

The PDGA rep isn't responsible for setting par. I'm not saying he shouldn't or should. Just saying what is the case.

The next worlds' TD blog I'm writing for the PDGA, I talk about stuff like this. Should be out this month. In editing phase.

 

[Olorin]

Nice article, thanks!

A couple of things, who wrote it?

I wrote it, but I had editorial help from friends, esp. Dave242.

But the ideas were refined over the course of several years through discussions that involved Chuck Kennedy, John Houck, Harold Duvall, Stan McDaniel and other members of the DG Course Designers Group. They each hold their own, and different views, but differences make you think and refine.

Steve West and I have also interacted a fair amount and I am leaning towards modifying the lengths because of his influence.

 

[Olorin]

Should there be different par standards for different course levels?

My thoughts are posted here at my (very basic) disc golf course design site.

 

[DavidSauls]

Olorin's been fighting the good fight, on behalf of par, for a long time.

 

[Olorin]

Olorin's been fighting the good fight, on behalf of par, for a long time.

And I've watched your conversion over the years. You started as one who resolutely said that par doesn't matter... yet you usually followed par threads and chimed in regularly to give that perspective. Now I guess that you've gotten sucked in too. You contribute a great deal of good perspective to this thread and keep it going. Your thoughtful responses demonstrate a great depth of understanding of the nuances of par. I respect your opinions even though I don't agree on every point.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not that I thought par doesn't matter. I thought par wasn't important. I still don't think it's terribly important, though as big events are now watchable online, one of the attributes of an accurate par could now be enjoyed---that of knowing the relative standing of players on different parts of the course, or different courses.

My philosophy is that par isn't terribly important, but as long as we're going to have it, we might as well have the best par we can.

You were the first person I saw to say "close range" isn't the 10-meter circle, and argue so convincingly.

 

[gdub58]

For fun, give me a method of determining par, that will relate to real outcomes, for disc golf. Any takers?

I don't like your qualifier of "will relate to real outcomes", as I find that to be an issue with Steve's system as a method of determining par. If your mandate is that if, after a tournament we see that 75% of the 1000 rated players got a three on a hole, any acceptable method must make that a par three, then I decline.

But, if I were to provide a starting point for my method anyway, I hope we would agree that if the score distribution of a hole is heavily weighted to the best outcome possible (not counting the occasional ace or fairway hit), then it's a poorly designed hole regardless of how par is set. If a hole has no twos because that score would require a heroic act and 75% of the players get threes, my "method" would say that it's a poorly designed par four rather than a poorly designed par three because I prefer a method of setting par that leaves the possibility of a birdie (even if that possibility is more of a probability). Conversely, if I'm watching a tournament video and see two or more players on a card getting an eagle on a hole, the par is likely set too high.

My method would incorporate Steve's method as a means of identifying opportunities to improve course design. Take Winthrop, for example - they are continually making efforts to keep up with its players' abilities and reducing the number of deuces by changing pin positions (#1), building an artificial mando gate (#7), or tightening up OB/hazard lines (#3). These holes probably played as par twos (per Steve's definition) at some point before these changes were made, but instead of changing the pars they changed the design. So, if a TD approves a hole design that yields a ton of birdies, for the tournament next year some sort of design change/hazard addition should be strongly considered. If a hole is poorly designed use the post-round data as motivation to change the hole to fit the par you want the hole to be. And, no, you can't take the easy way out and leave the hole the same and change the par – a par 3 with no birdies is just as bad as a par four with too many of them.

My method would assign a level (green – gold) to each course/layout and everyone would play the pars commensurate with that level (which would be set utilizing the basic distance/degree of accuracy guidelines that are already out there for each level). In tournaments, the course par will be appropriate for some divisions per Steve's formulae, and for other divisions it won't be. If a gold level player plays a red level course, then expect large under par numbers – round ratings become a more important metric than par in those cases. I realize that it will be difficult to assign a good, red-level par for every hole on a red-level course, so discretion (and data) will be needed. My method would guide the discretion towards a par that makes a birdie possible for the targeted skill level.

So, for gold-level tournaments (majors, DGPT, World Tour, etc.), we would hope that they are played on gold-level courses. If, however you play a DGPT event at a blue-level course you'll likely have lots of birdies and eagles. As an alternative, add design elements to create a gold-level layout on a blue-level course (ideally leaving the original layout intact if you have blue-level players in your tournament) – don't change the pars on the blue-level layout in an attempt to "correct" them for MPO.

My method would not be concerned with defining things like "expert" or "close range". My method would use the 1000 rating for gold-level , and the already-published ratings ranges for the other levels (I'm too lazy to look them up). TDs would use their discretion when assigning a level to a course or layout that has not already been assigned and verified by post-round tournament data. Use the data to adjust as needed.

Thoughts?

 

[Steve West]

...Thoughts?

First point, my method would not set par where 75% of players get that score, it would set par where at least the top 75% of throws are good enough to get that score. There is a difference. Also, that is just the cutoff. On the majority of holes, many more throws will be good enough to get par. The cutoff is just a place to draw the line between a hole being very tough to par vs. tough enough to be one par higher (or very easy to par vs. being one par lower). On average, 90% or more of all throws by 1000-rated players would be good enough to get par. (Doesn't that make par easy enough to get? I think so.)

Any method based on scores will have edges where one par is really as justifiable as another, or where one more player getting or not getting a certain score will cause the par to flip. Also, any statistic is not totally reliable until everybody who will ever play the hole has played the hole.

So, I'm not in favor of mandates, either. If anything, we should call the best methods of setting par "safe harbors". Par set by any of those methods would be good enough. But, a TD would still have the right to set par differently on any particular hole. I wouldn't want any TD to desanctionize a tournament because they don't believe in par 2, for example.

I can see why people would want all holes to be birdieable, but I view the idea of setting par so that there is always a chance of birdie the same as saying all walls must be entirely painted edge to edge.

Some walls have windows, and some holes just don't allow birdies. We shouldn't try to cover up either one.

If you use the skill levels for the course for all divisions of a tournament, that's no better than using random numbers. Since we may not know what level the course was designed for, or if it was designed for a particular level, or if the designer did it right, we would not know how well "3 under" is. What if different courses in the same tournament were designed for different skill levels? One guy is 18 under on the green course, the other is 4 over on the Blue course, another guy is 5 under on a private course during the round that uses the long tees. Who's ahead?