Par Talk

[txmxer]

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.

Large baskets are apparently the cause of a mental illness which attacks the logic center of the brain in certain induhviduals.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Large baskets are apparently the cause of a mental illness which attacks the logic center of the brain in certain induhviduals.

Why do you ignore the problem? You didn't answer the question either. What percent birdie should we see on a fair and challenging hole? I think 20-30% is a fair spread. You will likely see a birdie or two on most holes for any foursome with much fewer star frames.

The root of the problem is the easiness of putting. Not what par we call a hole. Hard holes are too hard and easy holes are too easy. Both problems need resolution and could be solved with a proper sized target. Open holes immediately become harder, hard holes can have an actual fairway made allowing players to get to the green.

 

[txmxer]

Why do you ignore the problem? You didn't answer the question either. What percent birdie should we see on a fair and challenging hole? I think 20-30% is a fair spread. You will likely see a birdie or two on most holes for any foursome with much fewer star frames.

The root of the problem is the easiness of putting. Not what par we call a hole. Hard holes are too hard and easy holes are too easy. Both problems need resolution and could be solved with a proper sized target. Open holes immediately become harder, hard holes can have an actual fairway made allowing players to get to the green.

Not aware of the problem which I'm ignoring.

Regarding PAR or birdie percentages, there are obviously some folks that have given that a lot more thought than I have. Lots of number/stat geeks commenting on the subject. When we start talking numbers/stats, it becomes an objective discussion of which I'm not knowledgeable enough to form an opinion.

In general, I would look for score spread for example as an indicator things are good. I'm sure there are other means to evaluate the appropriateness of course design.

Ultimately there is a large aspect of opinion.

 

[wolfhaley]

Maybe pars ARE being set correctly now. That's why he's not a BirdieMachine anymore. Just a Grumpy oldballgolftroll.

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

Sorry. You can say it as many times as you want -- and I have no doubt you will -- but you can't make it be true.

We'd employ OB whether the target were a disc-sized slot, or a soccer goal.

And, since this is a Par Talk thread, OB doesn't affect par, either. Unless it's designed so badly that an expert is expected to throw OB, which I've never seen.

Nor does OB have anything to do with scores being too low in relation to par, which seems to be your concept of "too easy". That would imply that changing the par designation on a hole makes it easier or harder, when in fact the par designation doesn't change how the hole plays, at all -- it just changes how we describe the result of the score.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Sorry. You can say it as many times as you want -- and I have no doubt you will -- but you can't make it be true.

We'd employ OB whether the target were a disc-sized slot, or a soccer goal.

And, since this is a Par Talk thread, OB doesn't affect par, either. Unless it's designed so badly that an expert is expected to throw OB, which I've never seen.

Nor does OB have anything to do with scores being too low in relation to par, which seems to be your concept of "too easy". That would imply that changing the par designation on a hole makes it easier or harder, when in fact the par designation doesn't change how the hole plays, at all -- it just changes how we describe the result of the score.

If it was a mail sized slot you'd have to make the long game extremely easy to allow players to land close to the basket for a chance to birdie. Par 3's would max out at 300 feet. Par 4's would max out at 600. You'd need super wide fairways. At that point you'd see 2 putts per hole and under par would be nearly impossible.

To act like putting doesn't effect the hole is ridiculous. If putting was extremely difficult you certainly wouldn't be running that 30 footer. I don't even think that is a good idea either. Because since a disc is flying by we have to allow for a reasonable chance to 2 putt. A mail slot would raise scores by 12-18 shots per round I would estimate. You don't think par changes?

The size of the target is 100% correlated to the difficulty of the hole (par) and design as well.

 

[Jay Dub]

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.

My issue is the fact you admitted in public (these forums) you do not know the meaning of the word mistake. Spin it anyway you want that's all I was replying to.

 

[Billyray]

My issue is that making birdies isn't the goal of the game. The goal is to shoot the least amount of shots. No matter the size of the baskets, where ob is, how easy or hard the holes are.....end of the day we see who's best because they took less shots.

If viewership or popularity were going down this conversation makes sense. However disc golf is in a massive boom, so why change anything? Please answer without using "I like", "I prefer", etc. Give me a real answer using facts to prove why disc golf needs to be changed.

 

[DavidSauls]

To act like putting doesn't effect the hole is ridiculous. If putting was extremely difficult you certainly wouldn't be running that 30 footer. I don't even think that is a good idea either. Because since a disc is flying by we have to allow for a reasonable chance to 2 putt. A mail slot would raise scores by 12-18 shots per round I would estimate. You don't think par changes?

Reading comprehension: I said nothing about the relation of putting to par.

 

[DavidSauls]

Difficulty has little to do with how many throws it takes to complete a hole. I played a 2,000-foot hole that, with my arm, took a lot of throws. It was tiring, but not particularly difficult.

Difficulty entails how demanding the execution to get a score that's better than expected* --- or how much danger that poorer-than-normal throws will result in a higher score than expected*.

* - Par, by actual definition, not personal definition.

 

[Steve West]

If par is set according to the definition, we will not have the problems of too-far under scores. If par is set so that birdies are always possible - or worse, expected - we will continue to have the problem; no matter the size of the basket nor the amount of OB.

Whatever the target is, if par is set correctly there will always be holes where no player scores lower than the expected score with errorless play. Partly because par is a good score: it is tough to beat errorless play by an expert. Partly because some events will not have any experts playing.

So, there is no minimum percentage of birdies that should cause par to ratchet up.

There is a maximum percentage of birdies where par should be bumped down. If there were so many birdies that birdie became expected, then par should be lower. Par is the expected score, not birdie. It's in the rules.

Whether a hole offers no chance at birdie is a good hole or not is another question. Not for this thread.

 

[oldmandiscer]

My issue is that making birdies isn't the goal of the game. The goal is to shoot the least amount of shots. No matter the size of the baskets, where ob is, how easy or hard the holes are.....end of the day we see who's best because they took less shots.

If viewership or popularity were going down this conversation makes sense. However disc golf is in a massive boom, so why change anything? Please answer without using "I like", "I prefer", etc. Give me a real answer using facts to prove why disc golf needs to be changed.

The polls indicate that the vast majority (83%) prefer to not see or play on artificial OB or raised basket layouts. So the current trend is not the popular trend. I'm sure ball golf was growing in the 1700's too. Just because a sport is growing doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made to keep up with the progression of discs and player skill.

We use the same size basket from the 70's. In fact it's bigger and catches more off center putts. Which directly correlates to too easy holes that are in the open and too hard holes in the woods because designers realize that having a decent percentage land in circle 1 will result in a hole thats also too easy. So it goes the other way.

 

[oldmandiscer]

If par is set according to the definition, we will not have the problems of too-far under scores. If par is set so that birdies are always possible - or worse, expected - we will continue to have the problem; no matter the size of the basket nor the amount of OB.

Whatever the target is, if par is set correctly there will always be holes where no player scores lower than the expected score with errorless play. Partly because par is a good score: it is tough to beat errorless play by an expert. Partly because some events will not have any experts playing.

So, there is no minimum percentage of birdies that should cause par to ratchet up.

There is a maximum percentage of birdies where par should be bumped down. If there were so many birdies that birdie became expected, then par should be lower. Par is the expected score, not birdie. It's in the rules.

Whether a hole offers no chance at birdie is a good hole or not is another question. Not for this thread.

Par is just a symptom of the problem. Putting is too easy so thus par is too easy. It's really that simple.

 

[txmxer]

My issue is the fact you admitted in public (these forums) you do not know the meaning of the word mistake. Spin it anyway you want that's all I was replying to.

No, I am trying to understand the definition of PAR as given previously. It is dependent on the word errorless which then needs to be defined. You then used the word mistake.

So, you keep offering words that have no inherent definition themselves.

All I'm trying to get to something meaningful and you apparently have nothing substantive to offer. Not sure why you replied at all, but obviously any further comment is likely to equally meaningless as you have chosen to focus on me rather than the meaning of PAR.

 

[Jay Dub]

No, I am trying to understand the definition of PAR as given previously. It is dependent on the word errorless which then needs to be defined. You then used the word mistake.

So, you keep offering words that have no inherent definition themselves.

All I'm trying to get to something meaningful and you apparently have nothing substantive to offer. Not sure why you replied at all, but obviously any further comment is likely to equally meaningless as you have chosen to focus on me rather than the meaning of PAR.

Are all you Texas people a holes?

I know the meaning of par and think this discussion is nuts. But keep acting like your solving some huge issue inside of disc golf, it'll keep you occupied and out of trouble.

 

[txmxer]

Are all you Texas people a holes?

I know the meaning of par and think this discussion is nuts. But keep acting like your solving some huge issue inside of disc golf, it'll keep you occupied and out of trouble.

I don't think there is a huge problem. I was reading back a few pages and saw all Steve's stats and charts and got a little dizzy. (That's a joke BTW).

As a novice to DG, and particularly the formal/rules side, of m amazed at how poorly the rules are written which results in so many of these discussions/debates. In all my years of playing sports, I've never experienced so many making so much out of so little.

Anyway Mr. Pot, everyone on the internet has the potential to seem like an a hole to someone else.
Signed, Mr. kettle

 

[Steve West]

Par is just a symptom of the problem. Putting is too easy so thus par is too easy. It's really that simple.

Seeing too many scores lower than par is purely and only a symptom of setting par in a way that is different than the definition.

Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director.

I know you skipped that quote, so go back and read it. Slowly. Aloud. Put an emphasis on all the words that being with "e". Mull it over.

Consider what happens when par is set according to the definition. There can't be too many scores under par because most players cannot play better than an expert who is making no errors.

 

[Karl]

That IS the definition, but perhaps it has so many words in it that are "open to interpretation" (my thoughts...perhaps not yours) that a different definition is in order.

 

[teemkey]

The phrase "as determined by the director" means there's only one interpretation for any one tournament.

 

[Steve West]

That IS the definition, but perhaps it has so many words in it that are "open to interpretation" (my thoughts...perhaps not yours) that a different definition is in order.

Par is not very precise, nor is it rare. It is a big target. It is a multiple-choice question. We can hit the right par almost all the time with just about any reasonable interpretation of those terms.

I've talked to many TD's about pars on individual holes. I can't recall a single discussion where differing interpretations of those terms has been the cause of disagreement. Usually, the TD made a rational decision to depart from the part before the comma.

Which is OK; TDs can make whatever decisions they want to make an event better or easier to run. The price of those departures is par problems, but sometimes that's a lower price than whatever else would need to happen to set par according to the definition.

I wouldn't mind if a more precise definition came along, but the current wording is working just fine whenever TDs decide to use the part before the comma.