Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

In ball golf, skill level is measured by handicap which is relative to par and slope (a measure of course difficulty). In disc golf, skill level is measured by rating which is relative to the skill level of other players.

Frankly, I think the PDGA should go all in on the rating system and define par as the hole score necessary to shoot a specific rating for a round. Essentially, this would combine ball golf's handicap & slope into a unified data-driven system for assessing both player skill level and course difficulty. Steve's efforts are well on the way to defining the methodology to accomplish this.

That would be average SSA---which is problematic determining after the event, and would be very difficult to estimate beforehand. At least with par-per-hole, instead of par-per-course, we can estimate it on most holes.

Moreover, having SSA and an accurately set par-per-hole, we would have a measure of difficulty---the difference between SSA and par (hole pars added together).

 

[PMantle]

If you get a score that does not move you up in the rankings, is that score really a birdie? If you get a par that moves you down in the rankings, is that really a par?

Anyway, don't worry. Properly set par will not take away all birdies. Most existing birdies will still be birdies.

Real par 2s aren't really that common. A hole can have more than half 2s and still be a par 3.

Most of the false birdies that would go away would be from fairly open holes that are in the range of 350 to 550 feet. When an expert is looking at a basket 450 feet away, are they happy with a 4? Do they think they've gotten an advantage by getting the same 3 as their peers? Does taking away that false birdie really bother anybody, or does the extra credibility make all the real birdies feel better?

See, I don't agree with this at all. Your way would have par 2s spring up all over the place.

There are no false birdies.

 

[Steve West]

See, I don't agree with this at all. Your way would have par 2s spring up all over the place.

There are no false birdies.

That's an interesting argument that keeps being brought up: The reason we can't acknowledge par 2s is because there are so many of them.

[SARCASM]Sounds perfectly logical.[/SARCASM]

Like I said above, about one in twelve holes might be a par 2, and there is no length - no matter how short - where the holes of that length are more likely to be a par 2 than a par 3.

Again, if that's the only problem you have with my method, use it and change all the 2s to 3s; either in name only or by changing the hole. Even if you just label any par 2 you come across s as par 3, that would still be an improvement from where we were a few years ago.

 

[PMantle]

That's an interesting argument that keeps being brought up: The reason we can't acknowledge par 2s is because there are so many of them.

[SARCASM]Sounds perfectly logical.[/SARCASM]

Like I said above, about one in twelve holes might be a par 2, and there is no length - no matter how short - where the holes of that length are more likely to be a par 2 than a par 3.

Again, if that's the only problem you have with my method, use it and change all the 2s to 3s; either in name only or by changing the hole. Even if you just label any par 2 you come across s as par 3, that would still be an improvement from where we were a few years ago.

Your method is great. The problem is, it has no place in the discussion of par.

I expect twos on almost every hole, and I let the TD know it before he sets par, and I'm not even an expert!

Par does not need improving. For the 500th time: ease of putting and lack of tee boxes. It really is that simple. Once one accepts that, one realizes there is no reason to discuss par at all.

 

[DavidSauls]

That's an interesting argument that keeps being brought up: The reason we can't acknowledge par 2s is because there are so many of them.

[SARCASM]Sounds perfectly logical.[/SARCASM]

Like I said above, about one in twelve holes might be a par 2, and there is no length - no matter how short - where the holes of that length are more likely to be a par 2 than a par 3.

Again, if that's the only problem you have with my method, use it and change all the 2s to 3s; either in name only or by changing the hole. Even if you just label any par 2 you come across s as par 3, that would still be an improvement from where we were a few years ago.

Can we label them a " 3* "?

Then footnote:

* - But you should expect to get a 2.

 

[Steve West]

Your method is great. The problem is, it has no place in the discussion of par.

I expect twos on almost every hole, and I let the TD know it before he sets par, and I'm not even an expert!

Par does not need improving. For the 500th time: ease of putting and lack of tee boxes. It really is that simple. Once one accepts that, one realizes there is no reason to discuss par at all.

So, what do you think par is?

 

[discerdoo]

one realizes there is no reason to discuss par at all.

Yet there are over 2100 posts on this thread. I'm kinda new to the sport and DGCR but I just gotta say......you guys are really anal about some things.

 

[PMantle]

So, what do you think par is?

It's a number assigned to a hole based up the design of the hole taking into account the length and other factors that make it either easy or difficult.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yet there are over 2100 posts on this thread. I'm kinda new to the sport and DGCR but I just gotta say......you guys are really anal about some things.

Ya' think?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's a number assigned to a hole based up the design of the hole taking into account the length and other factors that make it either easy or difficult.

So you agree by this definition that there are Par 2s. The establishment of your parameters for assigning par are all derived from evaluating scoring data at some time, correct? We're just saying the original data needs to be updated to re-establish your parameters.

 

[Steve West]

It's a number assigned to a hole based up the design of the hole taking into account the length and other factors that make it either easy or difficult.

Fair enough. What does that number do? What's the purpose of it? Or, how do you know which number to assign?

 

[lyleoross]

Yet there are over 2100 posts on this thread. I'm kinda new to the sport and DGCR but I just gotta say......you guys are really anal about some things.

The thread that keeps on giving. There's nothing anal about it.

Dictionary definition - what an expert player shoots.

Disc golf use - one above what an expert player shoots.

Now you have to ask yourself the questions, why not use the dictionary definition and why would someone want a number that represents one shot over what an expert shoots?

 

[NegaSnapples]

The layperson just doesn't understand what par is or its intent.

It's not a measure of difficulty. You can have easy par 3's, hard par 3's, easy par 4's, etc.

It literally is, and always has been, an expected score.

It doesn't even have to be the expected score of an "expert". Regular golf does this well with their 4 different tee pads on most courses. It's just meant to be the expected score for some type of player or group.

You can set "Blue" level par which is the expected score of a 950 rated player (ideally)

You can have "Gold" level par which is the expected score of a 1000 rated player (again, ideally).

Steve is just trying to have a standard set, in which courses and holes match the level of par that is intended for whoever is playing.

 

[jimimc]

You can not compare the PGA to the PDGA. The problem isn't just Par. The biggest problem I see is that courses aren't designed for top players and if they are they are usually in places that make raising an appropriate amount of money very difficult. So you get stuck running large events on courses designed for 950 rated players or courses that are tricked up with temp baskets, temp tees, mandos and rope every where. You would never see a PGA Major at a Par 3 course with a tricked up layout. Try selling that to CBS. Until there are enough courses designed to be played by 1000+ rated golfers to host all of these events you can argue about this forever. And before I get blasted I'm not saying you shouldn't make a course harder for an event, I just think designing courses for these events in the first place is a better idea.

 

[DavidSauls]

Steve is just trying to have a standard set, in which courses and holes match the level of par that is intended for whoever is playing.

I believe Steve has actually focused his efforts and arguments on top-level events.

For the time being....we'll see how well it will filter down after that.

 

[DavidSauls]

You can not compare the PGA to the PDGA. The problem isn't just Par. The biggest problem I see is that courses aren't designed for top players and if they are they are usually in places that make raising an appropriate amount of money very difficult. So you get stuck running large events on courses designed for 950 rated players or courses that are tricked up with temp baskets, temp tees, mandos and rope every where. You would never see a PGA Major at a Par 3 course with a tricked up layout. Try selling that to CBS. Until there are enough courses designed to be played by 1000+ rated golfers to host all of these events you can argue about this forever. And before I get blasted I'm not saying you shouldn't make a course harder for an event, I just think designing courses for these events in the first place is a better idea.

No argument.

But that's a separate issue. The point of making par as accurate and useful as possible is that we need to apply it, on appropriate courses and inappropriate courses, whether well designed or poorly designed. It's not either/or; we can work towards better course design, and make par be a useful standard on whatever quality course its used. Because there's still an expected score on a given hole, a score that keeps pace with the field.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If we're going to use scoring data to adjust par after events or even forecast what they are likely to be before the event, here's a way to notate pars to provide more info, still use integer values and avoid labeling Par 2s.

Simply indicate the pars on the holes using the >< symbols where desired/needed. A Par <3 hole means an easy Par 3 with a scoring average for 1000 rated (or whatever skill rating) closer to 2.5 than 3. If the traditional 3 is listed, it means the hole is a "typical" Par 3 with an average closer to 3 than 2.5 or 3.5. The Par 3> of course indicates a hard Par 3 with a scoring average closer to 3.5 than 3. Of course, those easy par 4s and 5s would be notated as <4 and <5, respectively.

No decimals are needed when adding up the pars for the total par which will come closer to the course SSA. Let's say adding up all of the integers equals 55. You then net out the number of < and > in the hole pars. Let's say there are 3 more < than > symbols. The total par on that layout would be <54, essentially 1.5 less than the 55. No decimals needed.

Consider that a hole with a <3 par means the scoring average typically falls between 2.25 to 2.75. Very few "par 2" holes from Steve's data if any should have scoring averages below 2.25. The few that do, well their designs should probably be adjusted before being used at that level of competition again.

With regard to over/under par tracking during live scoring, the computer keeps track of where each player is in relation to the internal net par of the holes they played, always rounding to the benefit of the player as needed. However, I don't see a problem indicating each player's net position above or below par with the arrows where needed.

 

[Steve West]

I believe Steve has actually focused his efforts and arguments on top-level events.

For the time being....we'll see how well it will filter down after that.

Arguments, yes, just to narrow the scope of the discussion. The efforts have gone to all skill levels, so I know what par to put on tee signs for new courses which are designed for various skill levels.

All the methods I know of (not just mine) are developed to the point of applying them to the standard skill levels of Gold 1000, Blue 950, White 900, and Red 850. There is also a list matching these skill levels to each PDGA Division: Gold for Pro Open and Pro Masters, Blue for Advanced, etc.

(There is some room for discussion about those match-ups of Division to Skill Level. For example, I'm picky enough to want to introduce Pink 925 for Female Pro Open, but I don't know if that will get traction. A case can also be made for events in Europe to use Blue for Pro Open, but I don't like that idea.)

An unresolved question is whether everyone should play to the same "expert" par, or whether each skill level or division should have pars based on a "typical" player in that division. There are good reasons for either choice, so I leave that undecided until almost everyone is in agreement on what to use for Pro Open.

 

[Steve West]

....Simply...

I got quite a laugh out of that word.

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Nor is it rounded average. Throws made in error don't count in par, they count for a lot in average.

Par is expected score. If you want to communicate average score, just do it. Rather than add a symbol next to par, just show the average score next to par. Decimal points aren't that hard to understand. Trying to bastardize expected score into some supposedly "simple" representation of average score will ONLY accomplish complication and confusion.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I got quite a laugh out of that word.

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Nor is it rounded average. Throws made in error don't count in par, they count for a lot in average.

Par is expected score. If you want to communicate average score, just do it. Rather than add a symbol next to par, just show the average score next to par. Decimal points aren't that hard to understand. Trying to bastardize expected score into some supposedly "simple" representation of average score will ONLY accomplish complication and confusion.

While I've used the word "average", you can see they are actually half throw ranges. These could be set using the same method for determining your estimated cutoffs for different pars because scoring distributions on a hole vary due to normal variance and weather factors. Holding to the new written definition and your calculation methods are fine for this forum. But I see the longer range goal is to find symbology that becomes widely understood and useful even if the underlying calculations to get there are not averages but a range of expected value ranges via your scoring distributions.

My suggested symbology provides the viewer with more useful and granular information on how the holes play than simple integer pars without violating the revised definition and using Par 2s.