Par Talk

[PMantle]

I can't get on the par 2 train.

 

[Steve West]

I can't get on the par 2 train.

We'll see if we can find you a ticket. Tell us where you would like to go, I'll bet the train goes there.

 

[PMantle]

We'll see if we can find you a ticket. Tell us where you would like to go, I'll bet the train goes there.

To close range off the tee. Lol

 

[DG_player]

Then, look at whether #6, #10 and #17 are cool enough to survive as par 2s.

Does such a thing even exist? Are there any holes out there that scoring wise should be a 2 and are actually cool?

 

[Steve West]

Does such a thing even exist? Are there any holes out there that scoring wise should be a 2 and are actually cool?

I think so. A par 2 hole could have a significant number of 3s and 4s and 5s, as long as the % of 2s the expert gets is enough to expect a 2 with errorless play.

It could be a hole where the bottom half of the field cannot hope to get a 2, to separate the great from the merely very good.

During the commentary either Nate or Jeremy pointed out that the pressure of a "must get" hole adds something different to the mix. Imagine the pressure if getting a 3 actually meant carding a bogey.

 

[DG_player]

I think so. A par 2 hole could have a significant number of 3s and 4s and 5s, as long as the % of 2s the expert gets is enough to expect a 2 with errorless play.

It could be a hole where the bottom half of the field cannot hope to get a 2, to separate the great from the merely very good.

During the commentary either Nate or Jeremy pointed out that the pressure of a "must get" hole adds something different to the mix. Imagine the pressure if getting a 3 actually meant carding a bogey.

I'm having a hard time remembering a hole that scored that way, that wasn't a short open par 3 with excessive island roping. My personal feeling is that these holes don't qualify as cool. They always seem like a cop out to me. It's as if the scoring average is too low for the TD, so they eliminate any bailout and excessively punish a slightly errant shot.

As far as the mental aspect, I'm not sure it's really relevant. Even if it was, I doubt a pro-level player feels anymore pressure from a "must get par" versus a "must get birdie".

 

[lyleoross]

I can't get on the par 2 train.

Me either, I'm much more interested in using it as a threat to make directors redesign holes. On the other hand, I'm not morally opposed either.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm having a hard time remembering a hole that scored that way, that wasn't a short open par 3 with excessive island roping. My personal feeling is that these holes don't qualify as cool. They always seem like a cop out to me. It's as if the scoring average is too low for the TD, so they eliminate any bailout and excessively punish a slightly errant shot.

As far as the mental aspect, I'm not sure it's really relevant. Even if it was, I doubt a pro-level player feels anymore pressure from a "must get par" versus a "must get birdie".

Steve mentioned three holes at GMC. Hole 6 is the definition of a par 2 hole. It should be gone. Forehand drops right on the pin. Nothing but a little rope. Boring hole. Your assessment is correct, imo. To make this hole play par 3, it becomes random.

There are some wooded par 2 holes that work. At least one comes to mind. De La. Basket on side of hill, guarding tree. The hole is flawed, but it's also iconic.

But as you wrote, most holes of this type really aren't that good. Again, imo.

 

[Steve West]

Think of it this way: if there are holes where the cool part is the upshot (after a drive to a landing zone everyone hits), then those could be cool par 2s by eliminating the drive - if there was a better use for that first 320 feet of hole.

A while back I pointed out you could have 7 par 2s for the space of one par 5. Which would produce more excitement?

However, even if all par 2s should be eliminated, we should correctly label the pars 2s that are out there.

 

[tbonesocrul]

There are some wooded par 2 holes that work. At least one comes to mind. De La. Basket on side of hill, guarding tree. The hole is flawed, but it's also iconic.

I think it's named "Gravity" and was also the first 2 I ever scored.

I think there were some holes at Worlds this year like that. They were more wooded, had some OB close and were on a hill. I think calling these a 2 would be more exciting as a viewer and a player.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

It could be a hole where the bottom half of the field cannot hope to get a 2, to separate the great from the merely very good.

Why doesn't the score do that?

During the commentary either Nate or Jeremy pointed out that the pressure of a "must get" hole adds something different to the mix. Imagine the pressure if getting a 3 actually meant carding a bogey.

How is that any different than the pressure of not losing a throw to your opponents? Calling it a bogey doesn't change anything that matters.

For someone who claims to be unmotivated by the embarrassment of too many birdies, you certainly seem to place an inordinate amount of importance on the label applied to over and under par designations.

 

[lyleoross]

How is that any different than the pressure of not losing a throw to your opponents? Calling it a bogey doesn't change anything that matters.

I'm confused. If it doesn't matter than why bring it up?

 

[Steve West]

Why doesn't the score do that?

It does. The point I was trying to make was that the lower half of the field might be playing them like a par 3 (for them).

Example: A 250 foot throw through a 1000-rated player-tight gap that doesn't give you a chance to recover if you miss it, vs. two 200 foot throws to get entirely around the trouble. Like, maybe a 100 foot wide bamboo fence with a window (plus a mando to throw lower than the top of the fence).

How is that any different than the pressure of not losing a throw to your opponents? Calling it a bogey doesn't change anything that matters.

If we're talking psychology, it could matter. The par 2 label is more in-your-face about the fact that a 3 will cause you to lose a throw. I believe players take some solace in getting a 3 on a must-get par 3, vs. taking a bogey on a par 2. "At least I still got par."

For someone who claims to be unmotivated by the embarrassment of too many birdies, you certainly seem to place an inordinate amount of importance on the label applied to over and under par designations.

Did I say I wasn't embarrassed by too many birdies? If I did, I guess I changed my mind somewhat. But, I'm not going back to re-read everything to check.

I always thought one of the fundamental reasons I set out to come up with an accurate way to set par was so that anything that was called a birdie would actually be something that gained a throw on the field. "Must-get birdie", "expect a birdie" etc., are phrases that irk me. Maybe I was just never embarrassed by it.


Most tournaments would not be a lot different if some of the hole lengths were inaccurate. Players would figure out which ones are wrong and adjust accordingly. Yet, no one is ever accused of placing an inordinate amount of importance on the number applied to hole lengths.

 

[PMantle]

I always thought one of the fundamental reasons I set out to come up with an accurate way to set par

There was never a need to do this. What you're doing is not coming up with an accurate way to set par. You are coming up with another thing entirely. No idea what to call it. It's yours, so you ought to name it.

 

[DavidSauls]

I offered "E.E.S." ("Expert Expected Score"), but it didn't gain traction.

 

[Steve West]

There was never a need to do this. What you're doing is not coming up with an accurate way to set par. You are coming up with another thing entirely. No idea what to call it. It's yours, so you ought to name it.

Well, I guess I have to agree that there never was a need to come up with a way to set par accurately, just as there never was a need to measure hole length accurately, or measure elevation accurately, or trim dead hanging branches, or have tee signs, or mow fairways, or register on-line, or, well, you get the point. No need, but they all help the experience.

I'll just stick with the notion that what I came up with is as accurate a way to set par as any. It certainly agrees with commentary on the videos, and can be proven to set par where the value of a birdie is very nearly equal to the value of a bogey.

Still, if you want to prove there is a better way to set par, please do so we can all adopt the better method. (It's not like I'm getting royalties or anything.) Up to now, I haven't even figured out whether you think my method is biased high or biased low.

 

[teemkey]

Well, I guess I have to agree that there never was a need to come up with a way to set par accurately...

The only need I see for accurate par setting is when Par + 4 comes into play. Consider a shotgun start at DeLa: a player taking par +4 on Gravity is much worse competitively than par + 4 on I5.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Well, I guess I have to agree that there never was a need to come up with a way to set par accurately, just as there never was a need to measure hole length accurately, or measure elevation accurately, or trim dead hanging branches, or have tee signs, or mow fairways, or register on-line, or, well, you get the point. No need, but they all help the experience.

How many false analogies can be inserted into a sentence? I bet you can top this. Changing the definition of par does not "help" the experience.

I'll just stick with the notion that what I came up with is as accurate a way to set par as any. It certainly agrees with commentary on the videos, and can be proven to set par where the value of a birdie is very nearly equal to the value of a bogey.

The only thing it doesn't agree with is the definition of par. So why not name it something else instead of appropriating the name of a concept with which you don't seem to agree?

Still, if you want to prove there is a better way to set par, please do so we can all adopt the better method. (It's not like I'm getting royalties or anything.)

I can't speak for PMantle, but I see no reason nor obligation to "prove" that there is a better way to set par than the current definition. While I don't like the lack of a definition for "close range," I can see why not defining it and letting the TD set the par for a tournament is a good solution versus either a specific distance or a formula to set that distance based on experience or obstructions on the green.

AND . . . until you come up with a way to measure the equivalent of something like "greens in regulation" or find another way to account for two "close range" shots in your statistical analyses, I reject all of your analyses of par for any course or tournament. While par and mean score may coincide, par is not defined by mean score at any player rating.

Up to now, I haven't even figured out whether you think my method is biased high or biased low.

It's simply not par. Whether it's high or low depends on the relationship of whatever you have made up to the par for any given course.

 

[Pedals]

For disc golf I feel almost like "putting" can be considered anything inside 200ft for an experience player. You can use a putter for that after all. I still stand by the idea that the catchers are way to large. Anything made outside of 15ft should be an exciting accomplishment. This would make a par 3 actually play more like a par 3.

I don't feel like par can be found by any specific distance or formula. A 300ft hole could be a par 5 if its layed out in a way that it takes 3 or 4 throws to reach the catcher.

 

[DavidSauls]

For disc golf I feel almost like "putting" can be considered anything inside 200ft for an experience player. You can use a putter for that after all. I still stand by the idea that the catchers are way to large. Anything made outside of 15ft should be an exciting accomplishment. This would make a par 3 actually play more like a par 3.

I don't feel like par can be found by any specific distance or formula. A 300ft hole could be a par 5 if its layed out in a way that it takes 3 or 4 throws to reach the catcher.

Here's the downside to making putting harder, so that anything outside of 15' is exciting:

In disc golf, laying up is also much easier than in golf, except on a few steep slopes, and thus boring.

If you modify the target where 15' putts are exciting and even shorter putts uncertain, you may have people laying up from 50'. Because running at it from 50' will produce fewer makes than overshots of more than 10' that result in misses. The odds will favor boring layups.

So what's better? Some made putts from further out, with boring automatic putts from close, or layups from further out, with uncertainty from close?

The trick would be finding a sweet spot, that would make closer putts a little more missable, without discouraging the longer attempts.