Par Talk

[Jay Dub]

Everyone here knows what you want, no need to post it 100 times.

 

[txmxer]

What is the definition of "errorless" play?

 

[Jay Dub]

What is the definition of "errorless" play?

Play without making a mistake.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Everyone here knows what you want, no need to post it 100 times.

I don't think everyone has read it. lol

 

[txmxer]

Play without making a mistake.

What is a mistake? Going OB is a mistake.

Is landing 100' from the basket on a 500' hole a mistake for an elite player? If yes, what distance from the basket is no longer a mistake?

 

[txmxer]

Something has to be done at some point. We can't have players shooting 15-18 under par every other round and players are still going to be getting better AND more of them. I disagree with Steve about "par" holes. That's just stupid. The goal on every hole is to make a birdie. It's not to make par. If you make birdie nearly impossible then it's completely ridiculous. Then you still have the same problem and all the top players are take par instead of birdie. You are just changing a number on the scorecard, not how the hole is played or designed. That basket has to get smaller to challenge putting just a little bit for the top pro's. Players will still be shooting 12-15 under I am sure but it would be at least a step in the right direction versus 15-18 under.

No, something does not have to be done. Your issue is your opinion. I enjoy the it as it is.

 

[Jay Dub]

What is a mistake? Going OB is a mistake.

Is landing 100' from the basket on a 500' hole a mistake for an elite player? If yes, what distance from the basket is no longer a mistake?

Yes that's a mistake. You're over thinking this.

Error-less play is something we all do but the pros do it much more often.
Did your throw go where you wanted? Did that happen for the complete hole? If so you played an error-less hole.

An error for an elite player would create par or worse no matter the distance.

 

[oldmandiscer]

No, something does not have to be done. Your issue is your opinion. I enjoy the it as it is.

It's OK but would be better if you took the handcuffs off of the players. The game has been going to this raised basket and artificial OB everywhere layout. Which incentivizes much more chip it around 300-400 feet at a time. Just stay in bounds. The penalty is too large so it limits what the players can do or should do. The aggressiveness is very rarely the smart play anymore.

I'd rather see players enticed to go for the riskier shot to see if they can pull it off. We just have too much chip it around and stay in bounds = boring.

 

[Billyray]

I'd rather see players enticed to go for the riskier shot to see if they can pull it off. We just have too much chip it around and stay in bounds = boring.

Basicly you want Dude Perfect on a ball golf course with smaller baskets

 

[oldmandiscer]

Basicly you want Dude Perfect on a ball golf course with smaller baskets

I never said ball golf course, though it's fine as well. Just handcuffing the players and making them throw safe shot after safe shot is boring though. Usually longer par 4's or 5's with ropes/artificial OB. I don't need to watch layup hyzers over and over. Or chip it FH's. Putting is far too easy so to add challenge they make artificial OB everywhere. Otherwise the holes would be too easy.

 

[DavidSauls]

Courses don't use OB because putting is too easy. They use it because driving is too easy.

 

[Steve West]

Yet that isn't fully accurate either. It's not taking into account two putts (C2 and in) for par which is basic common sense. Or are you saying holes shouldn't be birdieable? Because no one wants to see a 600 foot par 3 where most players take par. That's just silly. Every hole needs to be birdieable with a great to excellent long shot or 2-3.

Par isn't the problem itself. The problem is that it's far to easy to 1 putt most holes. That IS the problem.

How can the official definition be not fully accurate?

BTW, throws from C2 are not putts. Read the rules.

Where in the world did you get this two putts notion? Have you ever seen disc golf being played? The last two throws are always intended to be: Get within putting range and make the putt.

The definition of disc golf par has never included the phrase "two putts" (nor "reach" nor "green" nor "plus" nor "birdieable" for that matter).

It is worth noting that par also does not include an assumption of one putt. It is purely the number of throws expected of an expert with errorless play. It doesn't matter what kind of throws. Maybe there are some holes where experts would be expected to take two putts. Par doesn't care.

Holes set according to the definition of par are certainly birdie-able. Well, most of them. I agree no one wants to see a 600 foot hole where no one gets a two and most players get a three. But, that doesn't change the fact that par would be three on that hole.
What purpose would it serve to call it par four? What authority are you citing to claim it would be par four?

I think the problem is that you have built a worldview based on a falsehood.

Par does not include two putts and expert players do not usually expect to need two putts. But, if you believe that two putts are somehow a requirement, you could convince yourself that we must do something to correct the problem of not enough putts.

You could also convince yourself that par is bad score and everyone expects a birdie on every hole.

(Just like if you believed four equals five, I could prove you are a kangaroo.)

In the past there were others like you who labored under this same falsehood. I thought everyone had come around by now. You might be the last.

At this point your best path forward is to educate yourself about how the game is actually played and how par is actually defined so you can recast your worldview.

Or, you can continue to believe the falsehood that somehow expecting two putts is part of the game and keep leading with that bogusness as the main reason for smaller baskets.

I hope you educate yourself (starting with reading the rest of this thread) because there are actually other good reasons for considering smaller baskets. And no one will take you seriously if you lead with the need for two putts.

 

[txmxer]

Yes that's a mistake. You're over thinking this.

Error-less play is something we all do but the pros do it much more often.
Did your throw go where you wanted? Did that happen for the complete hole? If so you played an error-less hole.

An error for an elite player would create par or worse no matter the distance.

Your description would definitely imply that most holes should lower PAR by at least a stroke for pro tournament play.

I.e, All holes in a professional tournament should average above PAR.

 

[Jay Dub]

Your description would definitely imply that most holes should lower PAR by at least a stroke for pro tournament play.

I.e, All holes in a professional tournament should average above PAR.

My description came from the definition of the word mistake, I did not imply anything and disagree with your conclusion.

 

[oldmandiscer]

How can the official definition be not fully accurate?

BTW, throws from C2 are not putts. Read the rules.

Where in the world did you get this two putts notion? Have you ever seen disc golf being played? The last two throws are always intended to be: Get within putting range and make the putt.

The definition of disc golf par has never included the phrase "two putts" (nor "reach" nor "green" nor "plus" nor "birdieable" for that matter).

It is worth noting that par also does not include an assumption of one putt. It is purely the number of throws expected of an expert with errorless play. It doesn't matter what kind of throws. Maybe there are some holes where experts would be expected to take two putts. Par doesn't care.

Holes set according to the definition of par are certainly birdie-able. Well, most of them. I agree no one wants to see a 600 foot hole where no one gets a two and most players get a three. But, that doesn't change the fact that par would be three on that hole.
What purpose would it serve to call it par four? What authority are you citing to claim it would be par four?

I think the problem is that you have built a worldview based on a falsehood.

Par does not include two putts and expert players do not usually expect to need two putts. But, if you believe that two putts are somehow a requirement, you could convince yourself that we must do something to correct the problem of not enough putts.

You could also convince yourself that par is bad score and everyone expects a birdie on every hole.

(Just like if you believed four equals five, I could prove you are a kangaroo.)

In the past there were others like you who labored under this same falsehood. I thought everyone had come around by now. You might be the last.

At this point your best path forward is to educate yourself about how the game is actually played and how par is actually defined so you can recast your worldview.

Or, you can continue to believe the falsehood that somehow expecting two putts is part of the game and keep leading with that bogusness as the main reason for smaller baskets.

I hope you educate yourself (starting with reading the rest of this thread) because there are actually other good reasons for considering smaller baskets. And no one will take you seriously if you lead with the need for two putts.

What is a fair and challenging hole to you? What percent of players in DGPT event should be birdieing any single hole?

 

[oldmandiscer]

Steve- Your change to par doesn't address the real problem however. I don't care what you call a hole in the end. You can call them all par 1's. The problem is that bad holes and designs will continue to exist due to the easiness of putting. When courses are set up with artificial OB everywhere and raised baskets we will continue to see more layup golf from long range and short range. Holes are going to enter both extremes of essentially no lines or "fairway" to the basket or they will be too easy and most will easily birdie.

Like my example of a fairly open 600 foot par 4. You can call it a 3, but the primary objective for any hole is to birdie it. If no one can birdie it then it's a terrible hole. You can call it a 4 but then over half the field birdies it as well. Either way a snooze fest.

We have seen this year as well multiple holes around 400 feet through the woods where no legitimate line is available. We've had Zero birdies to 1-2 birdies for a 70-100 open field. Again the problem lies in that course designers think they have to make the long game extremely hard BECAUSE putting is so easy. The entire we can't let players have a fair line into circle 1 bit. Again a snooze fest watching the best players in the world hit tree after tree.

Both issues get resolved with a smaller basket. Open holes get tougher immediately. Course designers then open up fairways and allow players to get to circle 1.

 

[txmxer]

My description came from the definition of the word mistake, I did not imply anything and disagree with your conclusion.

You should re-read your description.

Did your throw go where you wanted it?

An elite pro has certain expectations. On a 300' island hole EVERY pro expects to hit the island. Once on the island, they expect to make the putt. Anything less is not what they wanted.

That's just an example. We could discuss a variety of holes and an elite pro would always WANT/expect an ideal outcome.

Your disagreement appears to be with yourself.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Courses don't use OB because putting is too easy. They use it because driving is too easy.

Nope. The HOLE is too easy. You only think the long game has to be very hard because players 1 putt most holes. The problem is 1 putting most of the time.

 

[Steve West]

Steve- Your change to par doesn't address the real problem however. I don't care what you call a hole in the end. You can call them all par 1's. The problem is that bad holes and designs will continue to exist due to the easiness of putting. When courses are set up with artificial OB everywhere and raised baskets we will continue to see more layup golf from long range and short range. Holes are going to enter both extremes of essentially no lines or "fairway" to the basket or they will be too easy and most will easily birdie.

Like my example of a fairly open 600 foot par 4. You can call it a 3, but the primary objective for any hole is to birdie it. If no one can birdie it then it's a terrible hole. You can call it a 4 but then over half the field birdies it as well. Either way a snooze fest.

We have seen this year as well multiple holes around 400 feet through the woods where no legitimate line is available. We've had Zero birdies to 1-2 birdies for a 70-100 open field. Again the problem lies in that course designers think they have to make the long game extremely hard BECAUSE putting is so easy. The entire we can't let players have a fair line into circle 1 bit. Again a snooze fest watching the best players in the world hit tree after tree.

Both issues get resolved with a smaller basket. Open holes get tougher immediately. Course designers then open up fairways and allow players to get to circle 1.

See? We agree, scores in relation to par is not a reason for smaller baskets. Now get that other non-par talk off this thread.

 

[oldmandiscer]

See? We agree, scores in relation to par is not a reason for smaller baskets. Now get that other non-par talk off this thread.

Large baskets are the cause of poor design and par. So yes it is valid in this discussion. Like I said, what you call a hole, doesn't really matter in the end. Only in that every hole needs to be birdieable.

You didn't answer the simple question. What percent birdie should we see on avg for the DGPT for any particular hole? What is a good percentage of birdies?

I'll go first. I think 20-30% is a good birdie percentage. Maybe a par 5 that could be reachable in two could push higher but I think most holes would play well in that 20-30% range.