Par Talk

[roggenb3]

Of the disc golf holes in the world, what percent would you say are now designated par 3?

Going by what par they are given in PDGA tournaments, what par people play them as casually, or what par is on the tee sign?

 

[PMantle]

Going by what par they are given in PDGA tournaments, what par people play them as casually, or what par is on the tee sign?

Both.

 

[Steve West]

Of the disc golf holes in the world, what percent would you say are now designated par 3?

In the world, I can't say. I'd like to see a download of the data in the Hole Info. tabs.

Here is the distribution of pars used in PDGA tournaments for the 2,048 holes for which I have scoring data by player and know the official par. These were not all Open division pars.

2= 0.05%
3= 69.58%
4= 25.93%
5= 4.39%
6= 0.05%

 

[Steve West]

No, not at all. The tee box issue is the(well, one of the) reason no one seems to agree on par in disc golf, yet everyone agrees with it in golf. At my local muni, I have a choice of 5 tees. At the two nicest disc golf courses in this part of the state, I have my choice of two, but that's only because Doof got permission to go out and add red pavers as short tees. I've never played a course with more than 2 sets. So, disc golfers of vastly different skill levels are forced to play from the same place. That can make the course too easy for the skilled, and too hard for the not so. We have lots of guys in this community that avoid our best courses because they are "too hard". Really, they are too long.

OK, thanks for re-explaining it to me. Genuine thanks, I had forgotten.

So, to re-state to see if I understand: Everyone should have a tee where the par is set for their skill level.

I agree with that.

I'd do it by assigning Green/Red/White/Blue/Gold and (maybe Pink) pars to every tee on every hole. But, sure, 5 tee pads would be better.

 

[lyleoross]

I like two or three par-3 (s/b par-2) holes mixed in on tour. The "must gets" add a bit of drama. That birdie 2 (or par 2) doesn't give much thrill, but carding that 3 stings.

It would be fitting to call that 3, a bogey.

As long as there is some risk, I agree. That agree is for my viewing pleasure and I understand that others have different standards.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Anyway, I'll grant that it is mostly about reducing birdies, because there are only a few holes with par too low. So what? Isn't getting rid of the excess birdies a good thing?

I can't agree that there is such a thing as excess birdies. That's like saying extra money. I also disagree that reducing birdies has any benefit or is "useful" in any way. Changing par doesn't change the calculus involved when a player steps up to the tee and decides how to approach a hole based on his/her estimation of the abilities of his competitiors. "Par" may be shorthand for that decision making approach, but if there were no par, the analysis would be exactly the same. The only thing that matters in determining the winner of a tournament is the score. In relation to par, a -18 compared to a -27 is the same as an even par score compared to a -9, they are just numbers, nothing to be afraid of or embarrassed about. And certainly not worth throwing around implied claims of unprofessional behavior for not using one over the other.

Basically, I worry very little about par. It is a tool for beginners to understand the basic expectation of them on a new course. My little bit of worry is in not setting par too difficult for those starting out when I make tee signs. Other than that, I occasionally smile when someone asks me in a tournament what the par is on the hole we are about to play, like it matters. They probably look at me the same way when I ask what the distance is.

But, I have been meaning to ask this question; since there was a pretty drastic change in the definition of par at the beginning of this year, basically eliminating a mandatory stroke, how did you change SOCMOBR to adjust to the new definition?

 

[PMantle]

In the world, I can't say. I'd like to see a download of the data in the Hole Info. tabs.

Here is the distribution of pars used in PDGA tournaments for the 2,048 holes for which I have scoring data by player and know the official par. These were not all Open division pars.

2= 0.05%
3= 69.58%
4= 25.93%
5= 4.39%
6= 0.05%

OK, so 70% will never change down. 30% will be argued about. What are we doing again?

 

[DavidSauls]

I can't agree that there is such a thing as excess birdies. That's like saying extra money. I also disagree that reducing birdies has any benefit or is "useful" in any way. Changing par doesn't change the calculus involved when a player steps up to the tee and decides how to approach a hole based on his/her estimation of the abilities of his competitiors. "Par" may be shorthand for that decision making approach, but if there were no par, the analysis would be exactly the same. The only thing that matters in determining the winner of a tournament is the score. In relation to par, a -18 compared to a -27 is the same as an even par score compared to a -9, they are just numbers, nothing to be afraid of or embarrassed about. And certainly not worth throwing around implied claims of unprofessional behavior for not using one over the other.

Basically, I worry very little about par. It is a tool for beginners to understand the basic expectation of them on a new course. My little bit of worry is in not setting par too difficult for those starting out when I make tee signs. Other than that, I occasionally smile when someone asks me in a tournament what the par is on the hole we are about to play, like it matters. They probably look at me the same way when I ask what the distance is.

But, I have been meaning to ask this question; since there was a pretty drastic change in the definition of par at the beginning of this year, basically eliminating a mandatory stroke, how did you change SOCMOBR to adjust to the new definition?

What is the benefit of the expected score on a hole, the normal score, being called a birdie? How does that, in any way, benefit the game?

I agree completely that par does not---or at least should not---affect a player's decision when he steps to the tee. But that, and the final score, has very little to do with the idea of "usefulness" of par reflecting the expected score. Those weren't the claim, anyway.

If par is the expected score, among the useful benefits are:

---For spectators, knowing whether a player's score on a hole likely gained on the field, or lost ground, or did little of either (par). (Yes, I know, we have very few spectators, but the target of this thread was our top-tier events, which do have some)

---For spectators and competitors and just people checking scores at home, a better way to compare scores by competitors on different courses, or mid-round, different parts of the same course.

---A score the roughly translates from course to course. If par is the expected score, then a score of -10 or +10 means something. But a score of -10 on a course where the expected score on a bunch of holes is a birdie, is quite different from a score of -10 on a course where expected scores are pars.

None of which is critical. Tournaments are still won and lost based on total throws. But it would still make par more useful than it is now.

Beyond that, if par is defined as the expected score, it certainly looks more professional for it to be what the definition says it is.

 

[Steve West]

I can't agree that there is such a thing as excess birdies. That's like saying extra money.

Birdies are exactly like dollars. No individual wants fewer of them, but if the central authority puts out too many, each one looses value, until you get to the point where they are so worthless nobody bothers to even count them.

If all holes were par 9, would you even care about birdies any more? No, you'd only care about getting 7 under on most holes, 6 under on some, and 5 under on a couple. (And perhaps avoiding 6 under on a few very short holes)

Why not make it so you care equally as much about getting 1 under on every hole?

But, I have been meaning to ask this question; since there was a pretty drastic change in the definition of par at the beginning of this year, basically eliminating a mandatory stroke, how did you change SOCMOBR to adjust to the new definition?

No, I made no adjustment. I viewed the "allowing two close range throws" as redundant. There are valid arguments that it may not have been perfectly redundant, but I treated it as such, and now it's gone, so my method needed no adjustment.

 

[PMantle]

But it would still make par more useful than it is now.

What would?

 

[Steve West]

OK, so 70% will never change down. 30% will be argued about. What are we doing again?

Tweaking toward optimal. The last few steps are the smallest.

Remember, these are selected from the tournaments that are already the largest and best-run with pretty well-set pars.

The point is that we can be comfortable knowing that there won't be radical changes to events that are already setting par fairly well.

If we looked at all holes in every event, there would be a lot more 4s and 5s to argue about. Those are the events with the most potential for improvement.

As for the 70%, perhaps they won't change down, but perhaps some of them will, or perhaps some of the holes will be improved to earn their 3. At least all three options are on the table now.

 

[F. Howl]

I can't agree that there is such a thing as excess birdies. That's like saying extra money. I also disagree that reducing birdies has any benefit or is "useful" in any way....

If an expert player expects to birdie a par 3, an expectation likely formed from past experience on that hole or a similar hole (all this "pre not post" talk is semantics, PMantle), then a 2 is by definition, "par" for that hole.

Basically, I worry very little about par. It is a tool for beginners to understand the basic expectation of them on a new course.

It'd be a better tool, if it demonstrated their skill relative to an expert player.

My little bit of worry is in not setting par too difficult for those starting out when I make tee signs. Other than that, I occasionally smile when someone asks me in a tournament what the par is on the hole we are about to play, like it matters. They probably look at me the same way when I ask what the distance is.

I think I see why you're so entrenched. You don't want to make par 2 tee signs at your course.

 

[PMantle]

As for the 70%, perhaps they won't change down, but perhaps some of them will, or perhaps some of the holes will be improved to earn their 3. At least all three options are on the table now.

Earn their 3? Seems you've learned nothing throughout this discussion lol

 

[F. Howl]

Earn their 3? Seems you've learned nothing throughout this discussion lol

I must have missed something too. Why is that phrasing inappropriate? Unless we are trying to keep par meaningless and up to random TD whims, it should be held to some standard.

 

[roggenb3]

I must have missed something too. Why is that phrasing inappropriate? Unless we are trying to keep par meaningless and up to random TD whims, it should be held to some standard.

No, you didn't miss anything.

That's what they are arguing for: because the definition says it's up to the TD, we shouldn't bother trying to guide TDs to set an accurate par, because "accurate par" has no meaning, since the "accurate par" is whatever the TD decides.

 

[Steve West]

Earn their 3? Seems you've learned nothing throughout this discussion lol

Tru dat.

 

[str8]

Is it time for a poll?

Change par because:
Make in useful across holes/courses
Too many birdies
Too few eagles
TDs are mean
Other

Don't change par because:
We've always done it this way
Par doesn't mean anything, it's strokes
TDs are all-knowing
Get off my yard
Other

 

[PMantle]

I must have missed something too. Why is that phrasing inappropriate? Unless we are trying to keep par meaningless and up to random TD whims, it should be held to some standard.

If it hasn't earned its 3(whatever that might possibly mean) then what is it? A 2? What's been pointed out many times, and ignored almost as many is, there are hard par 3s . There are not so hard par 3s. There are really hard par 3s. What are we going to do? Design all par 3s to play to the exact same number? This is supposed to be a par thread/discussion, not a poorly designed hole discussion. Oh, and tee boxes.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

No, I made no adjustment. I viewed the "allowing two close range throws" as redundant. There are valid arguments that it may not have been perfectly redundant, but I treated it as such, and now it's gone, so my method needed no adjustment.

So now you know why I say that SOCMOBR ignores the definition. You ignored the previous one and now you ignore the current one too.

 

[F. Howl]

If it hasn't earned its 3(whatever that might possibly mean) then what is it? A 2? What's been pointed out many times, and ignored almost as many is, there are hard par 3s . There are not so hard par 3s. There are really hard par 3s. What are we going to do? Design all par 3s to play to the exact same number? This is supposed to be a par thread/discussion, not a poorly designed hole discussion. Oh, and tee boxes.

Sure there are hard and easy par 3s. There is a point though, when a hole is hard enough to become a par 4, and I think it should go the other way when it is too easy. It should be called what it is.

So yes. A 2.

Who is discussing poor hole design? (bringing up tee boxes is the closest I've seen to that drift) I'm not saying that a hole an expert player expects a 2 on is a bad design. I'm just saying that par on that hole is misstated somewhere around 99.95% of the time (according to Steve's data set).