• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Par Talk

Which of these best describes Hole 18 at the Utah Open?

  • A par 5 where 37% of throws are hero throws, and 21% are double heroes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Is it worth having a different set of parameters to set par for different skill levels?
YES!!! Unquestionably YES!!

Steve,

Personally, I am super excited to see you turning your considerable skills, data, and experience in this direction!!

I have believed for a long time that since there are different course levels then there should be appropriate pars for those courses. My thoughts are expressed at Key Par Issues.
 
Should 900-rated players expect more scores over par because they are not as good at avoiding errors?
I think it would be helpful to set some parameters to this discussion...
Can we assume that Skill level pars are only set on courses of the corresponding skill level?

I think that if a Red or Green level course is used for discussion then that will show that using Gold level par is not appropriate. There are more Red level courses out there, but Green level courses show this even better.
Red level ratings = 825 to 874 with 850 PR at the center
Green level ratings = 775 to 824 with 800 at the center
 
I think it would be helpful to set some parameters to this discussion...
Can we assume that Skill level pars are only set on courses of the corresponding skill level?

I think that if a Red or Green level course is used for discussion then that will show that using Gold level par is not appropriate. There are more Red level courses out there, but Green level courses show this even better.
Red level ratings = 825 to 874 with 850 PR at the center
Green level ratings = 775 to 824 with 800 at the center

I think I do need to clarify that I am talking about 900 rated players in relation to par set for 900 rated players. Of course 900 rated players will have a tough time getting par set for 1000-rated players.

As thing stand now, it turns out that 1000-rated players will typically get as many scores over par as under par against par set for 1000-rated players. Should 900-rated players also typically get as many scores under par and over par for 900-rated players, or should they get more scores over par than under par?

By parameters, I mean something different than in most other methods. In CRP, for example, the length of the throw off the tee will be a different parameter for each skill level.

For my method, it's a given that we would use the scores of 900-rated players to set par for 900-rated players. But, should we bother to apply a different formula to those scores?

Specifically, for 1000-rated par, the formula is to call it a par 3 if at least 45% of players get a 3 or better.

For 900-rated players to be able to score above and below par equally we would only call a hole a par 3 if 58% of players got a three or better. This also makers their average scores as near 900-rated par as 1000-rated players are to 1000-rated par.

This change of 45% to 58% - on top of using 900-rated scores - is what I'm questioning.

As it turns out, the 58% parameter is good for all skill levels from 930 down. So, at least there would only be three sets of percentages.

Another way to phrase it is, are at least 76.7% of 1000-rated player throws effectively errorless by 1000-rated standards, but at least 83.3% of 900-rated player throws are errorless by 900-rated standards?

If you want to assume that the skill-level pars are to be set for only courses designed for the appropriate skill level, go ahead. I don't really believe in that. I see every skill level play every course, so I would like pars for all skill levels on very tee sign.

Go ahead and discuss for pink, green, or red, too. The same philosophical questions still apply.
 
DGPT - MVP Open at Maple Hill 2019.

Looks like par for FPO and MPO could have been the same, and #17 could have been par 3.

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • MVP19Bars.png
    MVP19Bars.png
    28.8 KB · Views: 215
  • MVP19Hist.png
    MVP19Hist.png
    50.6 KB · Views: 220
Against my better judgement I will put this out here. Hawk Hollow has for years been a Par 64 course with Par rating varying from 980 down to 962 (SSA 61 to 59 essentially). This has suited my preference for a "blue plus" course very well.

Since it is being used for the USWDGC I have done considerable redesign/tweaking which produces a Par of 65 with my hope that par falls around 940. Some limited play has seemed to back this up. (Helps that i am a 940 player myself so I have a good idea of how they play) Tomorrow i am holding a flex start c-tier which will test my theories more fully.
 
Anyone know if the new PDGA digital scorecard allows the TD to set par at 2? 1? 7? etc.
 
2019 United States Women's Disc Golf Championships - presented by Spotsy Disc Golf Club and Driven by Innova Discs
attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • HHPars.png
    HHPars.png
    54.2 KB · Views: 115
  • LLpar.png
    LLpar.png
    53.3 KB · Views: 113
4 at Loriella does not surprise me at all- it is solidly in par 3.5 range and i know it but have few options to do anything about it. 13 on the other hand I find surprising- I haven't really looked at the numbers (a little burnt after a long couple months) but I suspect the ladies wound up playing it much more conservatively than I anticipated. If you have a good drive there the birdie 3 is relatively easy but even a mediocre drive introduces a lot of choices about how aggressive to get thereafter. I think the ladies may have simply played more conservatively from those spots than myself and my old guy peers tend to.
 
4 at Loriella does not surprise me at all- it is solidly in par 3.5 range and i know it but have few options to do anything about it. 13 on the other hand I find surprising- I haven't really looked at the numbers (a little burnt after a long couple months) but I suspect the ladies wound up playing it much more conservatively than I anticipated. If you have a good drive there the birdie 3 is relatively easy but even a mediocre drive introduces a lot of choices about how aggressive to get thereafter. I think the ladies may have simply played more conservatively from those spots than myself and my old guy peers tend to.

I have found that FPO 930-rated par is not always the same as 930-rated Mixed par would be.

I don't know that #4 needs anything done to it at all. The scoring spread was acceptable, and the correlation was good. Sure, I'd call it a par 3, but it's a good hole for this competition at whatever par.
 
Well, I had a suspicion, so I finally added Confidence Intervals to the graph. The grayed bars show how close the hole could be to another par, based on the confidence intervals around the observed percentages of scores.

This means there is a chance #13 is a par 4 that just happened to score a lot of 3s those rounds. (Of course, this is also means there is a chance that #1 is a par 2 that just happened to score a lot of 3s those rounds.)

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • LLwCI.png
    LLwCI.png
    50.7 KB · Views: 110
Does anyone here know of any measures of hole enjoyment that exist? I'm looking to develop a useful instrument for measuring enjoyment of holes to possibly use in analysis with more concrete/tangible measures of the way our holes play. Anything that is already out there could be used to help me measure convergent validity of my own instrument with others.
 
Does anyone here know of any measures of hole enjoyment that exist? I'm looking to develop a useful instrument for measuring enjoyment of holes to possibly use in analysis with more concrete/tangible measures of the way our holes play. Anything that is already out there could be used to help me measure convergent validity of my own instrument with others.

You might try getting something off the TD feedback forms from the PDGA. Perhaps there are some comments about specific holes.

You might also put out a request to course owners/TDs that have run multiple events over the years. It's not hard to imagine that Maple Hill knows which holes are enjoyed most, or that Nate knows which holes at Lake Eureka were most hated before adjustments were made.

Either source might share anonymously for an academic pursuit.
 
You might try getting something off the TD feedback forms from the PDGA. Perhaps there are some comments about specific holes.

You might also put out a request to course owners/TDs that have run multiple events over the years. It's not hard to imagine that Maple Hill knows which holes are enjoyed most, or that Nate knows which holes at Lake Eureka were most hated before adjustments were made.

Either source might share anonymously for an academic pursuit.
Interesting - but not quite what I'm looking for. I'm more looking for a formal instrument that has been used for measurement before, which I can use for checking convergent validity. That is a good idea though - for the purpose of seeing if they have developed any instruments, checked for reliability or not, that have been used on individual holes.
 
Does anyone here know of any measures of hole enjoyment that exist? I'm looking to develop a useful instrument for measuring enjoyment of holes to possibly use in analysis with more concrete/tangible measures of the way our holes play. Anything that is already out there could be used to help me measure convergent validity of my own instrument with others.
I'm thinking that when a hole is called a "signature hole" that it earns that title in large measure from the enjoyment players have throwing it even if that includes an element of fear in some cases.
 
I'm thinking that when a hole is called a "signature hole" that it earns that title in large measure from the enjoyment players have throwing it even if that includes an element of fear in some cases.
Right. I understand this - but really those are the obvious cases. It doesn't tell us anything to simply go to holes that are "by reputation" good or bad. The goal is to create a validated and reliable instrument for measuring any hole's enjoyability and then be able to use outcomes from that instrument to compare to the more tangible measures of how a hole plays.
 
Right. I understand this - but really those are the obvious cases. It doesn't tell us anything to simply go to holes that are "by reputation" good or bad. The goal is to create a validated and reliable instrument for measuring any hole's enjoyability and then be able to use outcomes from that instrument to compare to the more tangible measures of how a hole plays.

I think you'll need to conduct a survey, then.
 
Top