Par Talk

[txmxer]

Ultimately, what matters IMO is a hole with scoring distribution.

Chuck talks about fractional PAR, which really means the hole is in the middle of integer PAR. It could be a great hole to play, but the variance in scores implies it's not ideal for an integer. But, who cares? It's either an easy birdie or a solid PAR in that case. If the distribution of scores is good, don't mess up the hole to make it fit an integer.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't understand the thrust of your point. Birdie is intrinsically a function of the par value of the hole. The "hole" can't provide birdie opportunities, only the par value relative to the requirements of the hole can do that. You design the hole with a par value in mind. The combination of the two is what provides the opportunity.

I think the point is that if par is properly set, the hole provides birdie opportunities.

The suggestion was that par can be improperly set, and provide even more birdie opportunities. That would be par providing them, not the hole.

In this sense, I use "properly" to mean "expected score".

So if you have a par-3 providing 20% birdies, and change it to par-4 (with no change in the actual hole) and it provides 70% birdies, that's par, not the hole, providing them.

 

[johnrhouck]

There is probably a theoretical a point where an OB penalty should be included as one of the parlecules that add up to par.


To decide where to draw the line, the TD or Course Designer needs to ask: Can an expert be expected to avoid the penalty with errorless play?

I appreciate this discussion. I'm going to back to my standard position, which in this case is: if so many players are going OB that OB even becomes a consideration in determining par, then there's a problem with the hole, not a problem with par.

We would do more good for the sport to address the design issues. Fix those, and the par problems cheerfully disappear.

 

[johnrhouck]

I think the point is that if par is properly set, the hole provides birdie opportunities.

I would even go a step farther, David. How about this: If the hole is properly designed, then par will be properly set, and the hole will provide birdie opportunities. Yes?

 

[DavidSauls]

I would even go a step farther, David. How about this: If the hole is properly designed, then par will be properly set, and the hole will provide birdie opportunities. Yes?

Pretty much. I said a while back that "ut good design should incorporate these concepts, in at least a backhand way -- by being aware of how the game is played, and avoiding NAGS, you're designing for a certain number of expected shots.
"

Though we have to designate par on well-designed holes and poorly-designed holes. It should still be the expected score.

 

[Rastnav]

I think the point is that if par is properly set, the hole provides birdie opportunities.

The suggestion was that par can be improperly set, and provide even more birdie opportunities. That would be par providing them, not the hole.

In this sense, I use "properly" to mean "expected score".

So if you have a par-3 providing 20% birdies, and change it to par-4 (with no change in the actual hole) and it provides 70% birdies, that's par, not the hole, providing them.

Sure. As I said birdie opportunities are a function of hole design and par setting. Except that isn't responsive to Chuck's point, as I see it.

Let's talk a look at the opposite of your scenario, a par 3 that gives up 70% birdies. Steve would want to make that hole a par 2. But now you've set par in a way that makes birdies essentially impossible.

We can even look at a specific example, Albert Oakland last year. They had a ~200 foot hole that teed down a wide chute into an open field with one very mature oak tree to miss, hole #10 IIRC. There was OB behind the basket that almost never came into play. I want to say the MPO average was 2.15 or something like that. I don't know if there were any aces on the weekend, but certainly not very many.

Now, that's a bad hole design for a professional tournament, for sure, but that course was a last minute substitution for Harmony Bends and it's immaterial to the question of how the par should be set for the hole.

There was another hole that was a par 3, the one that played around/near a play structure, that had an extremely guarded green on a rise where birdie was extremely hard to get. I can't remember what it averaged, but if the TD were to throw in some OB, I could easily see that hole averaging over 3.5, despite being very reachable off the tee. Again, we could say it was a bad hole design, but you still need to decide what the par should be.

 

[Steve West]

...But now you've set par in a way that makes birdies essentially impossible.
...

Why do people want to count birdies? To see how much they are gaining on the field.

How many people will gain a throw on the field on this hole? Virtually none.

So, now you've set par in a way that recognizes birdies are essentially impossible.

Any version of par which would try to tell players they should feel unexpectedly good about a 2 on that hole does not serve the reasons why par is useful.

Yes, get rid of the hole. How would we know which holes to get rid of if we papered over the flaws with fake birdies?

 

[johnrhouck]

Pretty much. I said a while back that "ut good design should incorporate these concepts, in at least a backhand way -- by being aware of how the game is played, and avoiding NAGS, you're designing for a certain number of expected shots.
"

Exactly.

 

[Three Putt]

Exactly.

It's one of those things though, right?

The gimme deuce hole goes all the way back to our origin. This is a gross oversimplification, but you have games and sports. Games are relatively easy and leave a lot to chance. Sports are supposed to be a test of skill, so efforts are made to reduce what is left to chance.

Ed Headrick to me (based on my 1990's conversations with him) was promoting a game. He wanted people to have fun. Birdies are fun and bogeys are not. He was responsible for a lot of the early course designs, and his course designs were trying to make sure you had a chance to get some birdies.

Once you flip the script from game to sport, those gimme deuce holes are par 2's. They are not much in the way of a test of skill. They kinda snuck into standard course design, though. Having a couple of fun holes that you either call "Ace runs" or "deuce or die" holes or whatever is just kinda how a lot of us like our disc golf courses. Taking all the fun out of disc golf course design isn't what we signed up for. Having a couple of shots like that is pretty standard course design. They are there for the same reason they were there in the beginning; they are there to make people like me that are not any good at disc golf feel better.

At the highest levels, you try to eliminate them since they are not enough of a test of skill. Which sometimes leaves me watching a DGPT video thinking "I really wish I could ask Ed what he thinks of this course." :|

For "Professional course design" you kinda have to balance that idea of "how do we challenge the best players" with "why do people love disc golf?" If you create the challenge by ignoring what we love, you risk creating events that we don't want to watch. If DGPT creates events disc golfers don't want to watch, that defeats the purpose.

 

[Rastnav]

Why do people want to count birdies? To see how much they are gaining on the field.

How many people will gain a throw on the field on this hole? Virtually none.

This assumes several things, things that are only true in a specific set of circumstances.

It assumes that par is set for competition and competition only. The overwhelming bulk of disc golf rounds are thrown in a non-competition setting. Par is then set as a useful way of short-handing your score on a hole. There is no field to gain or lose strokes to.

Second, even in a competition setting, the vast bulk of tournament rounds are played with a dramatic range of skill in players playing from the same tees. Tiers from MPO to FA4 may all tee from the same tee pads playing to the same baskets. Par for a given hole is not, by and large, going to vary based on division, and therefore tells you little about expectations for your division's field.

Even within a tier, with the theoretical potential for 50+ rating point differences in field strength within a tier, or even 100s in the case of age protected divisions, par can't be set in this way. I played in a singles league this year and decided to play in MA3. My current rating, based on a single round over a year ago, is 767. The ratings of all the others who played in that division over the course of the season ranged from 737 to 878.

The idea of setting par to the "expected" field outcome perhaps has meaning for a very narrow slice of tournaments. These are one where you have really good expectations about what your field strength will be and you have the resources to change the course setup so that it's very clear that any resemblance to the course as it normally plays is coincidental.

If the course is set up as normal, and will be played predominantly by local players one would be well advised not to change the pars of the holes.

So, now you've set par in a way that recognizes birdies are essentially impossible.

Any version of par which would try to tell players they should feel unexpectedly good about a 2 on that hole does not serve the reasons why par is useful.

The local putter only course (Cornwallis Road Park) is a course where I frequently play around par from the red tees (i.e a 54 total) although I have shot everywhere from -7 to +7. A recent singles league round there at -5 was 882, so around the mid-point of recreational skill level.

I don't believe you could pick 5 holes out there that I should feel bad about taking a 3 on. I'm going to feel good about any of the birdie 2s I get, and bad about any of the 4s I get. Even if you were to pick out of 5 holes, which ones you pick out would vary based on whether you're thinking of a rec level player who has only a backhand, only a forehand, or both.

Yes, get rid of the hole. How would we know which holes to get rid of if we papered over the flaws with fake birdies?

Changing the par of the hole I described so that it now averages .15 over par doesn't change whether the hole is good or bad. The only thing that indicates this is the par 2 designation, because we understand at a design level that a par 2 either can't provide adequate scoring separation or that it's a literal circle 2 putt, which would be unique in a tournament setting, and perhaps interesting as a novelty, but not particularly good.

Changing a "par 4" to a "par 3" because it averages 3.15 also doesn't make the hole now a good hole. If anything, it hides the fact that it's (likely) a sub-optimal hole (for tournament play) that doesn't provide adequate scoring separation.

 

[DavidSauls]

Once you flip the script from game to sport, those gimme deuce holes are par 2's. They are not much in the way of a test of skill. They kinda snuck into standard course design, though. Having a couple of fun holes that you either call "Ace runs" or "deuce or die" holes or whatever is just kinda how a lot of us like our disc golf courses. Taking all the fun out of disc golf course design isn't what we signed up for. Having a couple of shots like that is pretty standard course design.

For myself, a hole doesn't play any differently, nor do I have any more fun playing it, when the term for a 2 changes.

On a duece-or-die hole, that 2 doesn't feel like a birdie -- not like a birdie on a hole that required really good play to get it -- it's just a relief that I didn't blow it.

 

[Steve West]

This assumes several things, things that are only true in a specific set of circumstances.

...

Good points. I am focused on getting par to where it should be for top competition. From there, the effects should trickle down to make par somewhat better at all levels: the best possible for MPO and FPO, very good or excellent for MP40 and FP40, MA1 and FA1, etc.

As you point out, there is no way nor no need to get par that good for the lower levels. Par loses almost all of its meaning around 600 rated. At that level, yes, par should be whatever is not discouraging. The guidelines do take this into account.

 

[txmxer]

Good points. I am focused on getting par to where it should be for top competition. From there, the effects should trickle down to make par somewhat better at all levels: the best possible for MPO and FPO, very good or excellent for MP40 and FP40, MA1 and FA1, etc.

As you point out, there is no way nor no need to get par that good for the lower levels. Par loses almost all of its meaning around 600 rated. At that level, yes, par should be whatever is not discouraging. The guidelines do take this into account.

Since at least a part of this issue is derived from comparing ball golf to disc golf, do you have any statistics comparing the standard deviation for PGA versus MPO scoring in tournaments?

I'm curious how much different the scoring spread is between the two sports.

 

[Three Putt]

For myself, a hole doesn't play any differently, nor do I have any more fun playing it, when the term for a 2 changes.

On a duece-or-die hole, that 2 doesn't feel like a birdie -- not like a birdie on a hole that required really good play to get it -- it's just a relief that I didn't blow it.

You know that. I know that. Back when I could still play a little bit competitively (it's a victory if one of the various injuries doesn't force me to quit before 18 now) the league I ran had four "gotta deuce" holes; there was never a feeling that you maybe gained a stroke on anybody there, just the knowledge that you were keeping up.

You would be surprised how many people suspend disbelief and get excited about that.

That course had scorecards with the park district par, and I think six shots were listed as par fours on the scorecard. They were all 3's and we used par 3 in the league. I had guys who were experienced disc golfers who had played for a long time get really mad at me once they realized this hole they thought they were going to auto-birdie/sometimes eagle wasn't going to score that way. My point was who cared, you are playing against these other guys and not against the number on the scorecard. It still used to get them all fired up; they would turn in cards with a birdie on 10 and grumble "should have been an eagle" at me.

So I get what you are saying and I 100% agree with you, but my experience tells me that a lot of people don't care and just want their total against par to have a "-" in front of it. It's like the Willie Nelson quote; "Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker." It sounds funny, but it's true.

Those people then become spectators and kinda apply that logic to what they are watching, which in my mind is a lot of the par 2 blowback. They want holes they can birdie, and now you are expecting them to watch the top pros play a hole that no one can birdie. It really doesn't matter and has no bearing on the outcome, but emotionally it upsets people. It doesn't upset me and probably doesn't upset you; we both know it's just fun with math.

 

[Rastnav]

Good points. I am focused on getting par to where it should be for top competition. From there, the effects should trickle down to make par somewhat better at all levels: the best possible for MPO and FPO, very good or excellent for MP40 and FP40, MA1 and FA1, etc.

As you point out, there is no way nor no need to get par that good for the lower levels. Par loses almost all of its meaning around 600 rated. At that level, yes, par should be whatever is not discouraging. The guidelines do take this into account.

I'm not sure this is really addressing one of the larger points I'm trying to make about par, which is that its foremost relevance is not for competition. Par is the most relevant it will ever be the very first time someone steps onto a tee for a hole. It tells you what the designer of the hole was envisioning when they laid it out. It it is most relevant in telling whether the design intended that you be able to get your tee shot to within putting distance of the hole.

In the PDGA design guidelines, we see this acknowledged in the specific distance guidelines for the minimum hole length for par 3, 4 and 5 holes. And we also see it the guidelines for approach distance. "Course designers create holes to be reached in one, two or three good throws."

Side note: I'm not positive, but I'm guessing that you had a hand in creating these guidelines as well as those around setting par?

Now, I understand those documents are written as if the primary purpose of course design is to set up courses for sanctioned events. As I've already stated, I think that is a mistake, as that is not the primary use for which course are created. From the standpoint of how par will be understood, the experience of the amateur, non-elite player, while playing casually, is going to dominate the overall disc golf communities understanding of what par is. You will find it nearly impossible to make par understandable to people if you change the definition for them as they enter, or simply observe, a sanctioned event.

Now, for a second, different point. Even assuming we are talking about only setting pars for competition, averages don't give you a good sense of what "errorless" play is. Let us takes Jones Supreme Hole #1. I don't know how to check what the averages on that hole were over the tournament, but the average certainly does not reflect errorless play. Errorless play on that hole yields a 2. You have a relatively short par 3 with a wide open path to the pin and green. A top level professional player, whether at the FPO or the MPO level, does not miss that green without having made some sort of an error.

The fact that it was very hard to get it to that green without committing an error doesn't change whether a play without making the error of not hitting the green was possible and well within their ability. We can even see from the number of people going OB after laying up, where it is crystal clear that not hitting the green is an error, that it is simply very hard to hit that green. The average doesn't tell you what errorless play is. The average can only tell how difficult it is to play in an errorless manner. There will always be holes that are harder and easier to play in an errorless manner. Simply adding strokes to par on the harder ones, or subtracting strokes from par on the easier ones, only reflects difficulty, not the (designed) errorless play.

 

[Steve West]

...It it is most relevant in telling whether the design intended that you be able to get your tee shot to within putting distance of the hole.

Is it though? I think everyone knows how far they can throw. If they know the hole length, they don't need par to figure out whether they can get their drive to the target.

...we also see it the guidelines for approach distance. "Course designers create holes to be reached in one, two or three good throws."

• A target somewhere way short of the player's drive length means they will be essentially laying up from the tee.
  
• A target somewhere around the drive length is a distance where they'll hope to make the first putt, but will quite likely will have to make a come-back putt.
  
• A target somewhere out beyond drive length is a distance where they are laying up their second throw.

The reason the course design guidelines recommend designing holes at integral throw lengths is because only one of those zones I mentioned gives the best chance of creating two different scores.

Sure, perfect throws that go as far as the target would result in one putt, but extra challenges besides pure distance are always part of a good design. Therefore, players often land farther from the target than one-putt range, even if they didn't hit a tree or go OB. For example, they may have been forced to throw something other than that 320 foot hyzer which is the only throw they have perfected.

So, designing for an integral number of perfect throws - but adding all sorts of ways to make the throw less than perfect along the way - happens to result in pars that meet the definition. Count the perfect throws and a one-putt, plus one for the challenges which prevent perfect throws without actually creating errors.

Like all false definitions of par, Reach+2 only works in certain cases. For Chuck and John, they don't create anything but well-designed holes, so their whole life experience is that reach+2 has always set par well and always provides enough birdie opportunities.

That is the reason Chuck and I could agree on the Par by Effective Hole Length and Foliage chart. The actual definition and reach+2 both work well enough for holes he's designed.

Reach+2 doesn't usefully extrapolate beyond well-designed holes, though.

For the 33% of holes on tour that were not designed as integral perfect throws plus challenge, par is needed to tell players what score would be good, whether they are gaining on the field, etc. All the useful aspects of par derive from par being the expected good score.

Players and spectators would not be served by adding one to the expected score on those holes, nor by calling every low score which happens less than 10% of the time an eagle.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

You don't need to put words in my mouth. I've posted what I meant with no obfus..clarification needed. Par as defined in disc golf cannot do as good of a job as a new definition based on the expected score/birdie perspective, closer to the way many players think, have stated, or requested at all levels. Let's take a poll to confirm.

I'll double down and say that the expected score/birdie should occur between 10-60% of the scores as one aspect of a good hole for a skill level. If it's 0-10% or 61-99%, it's a weaker design for that skill level, i.e. too many or not enough birdies.

A key problem with our current par definition is it can be calculated properly with Steve's methods for holes with too many or not enough birdies and be considered "good" because it may have decent scoring spread. Houck (he can confirm if he reads this) and I say those holes are not necessarily good or are simply weak from a scoring standpoint for players and spectators because they are not reasonably birdieable or produce too many birdies.

The ball golf par definition allows, and their hole designs provide, a reasonable chance for birdies. One of the reasons is that needing a second putt is considered normal and not an error. In our case, we can't allow that second putt to be normal because we've discovered that only half a stroke extra is "normal", and the other half is technically an error due to "easier" putting stats in DG.

This 50/50 normal/error valuation of the second putt is at the root of this discussion. Our par definition operates from one side of it; what I'm proposing is giving the other, birdie side a shot. I believe par will come out the same with the new definition much of the time. But on those holes where the stats show too many or too few birdies, the new definition derived from expected birdie score and the par value it produces has a better chance to potentially spur design changes on the hole to move it into the right birdie zone, especially for FPO who regularly plays holes with too few if any birdies.

Bottom line is that birdies are the primary currency of scoring for tour players and viewers. The par values should provide birdie opportunities on every hole just like ball golf. The amount of strokes under par on a course is a metric players and viewers use for comparisons of "goodness" even though typically they are comparing apples to bananas, oranges, or grapes. Ratings work better for comparisons, but we know that's a more abstract reference. If par on every hole in every tour stop was set so it can be birdied, ideally in the 10-60% range, it would allow a more accurate way to compare extreme rounds under par from course to course along with comparing 3 or 4 round totals under par.

FPO should always play shorter tees then the men, making the course an equal challenge par wise IMO.
1.5 putts is probably right, so those that take 1 putt after an error less drive should get birdie and those that take more than 1.5 should get a bogey. Just eliminate par all together and par can be set properly.

 

[Monocacy]

FPO should always play shorter tees then the men, making the course an equal challenge par wise IMO.

Depends on the course. Sometimes the better solution is for the women to play a longer hole (say, a par 4) while the men play a shorter par 3 hole. Done well, this can make the holes equally challenging vs. par for both divisions.

 

[Rastnav]

Been a little busy and I also have been pondering on this a little bit. I fear we may just be talking in circles at this point, but the ancient Greeks thought of circles as the perfect shape, so we've got that going for us.

Is it though? I think everyone knows how far they can throw. If they know the hole length, they don't need par to figure out whether they can get their drive to the target.

Once we have played a hole the first time, we really don't need the tee sign information about it. We know the lines, the length, etc. The more times we throw it, the less we need it. Par becomes merely a convenient means by which to keep score.

However, when we step up to a hole the first time and see that the a wooded hole is listed as 341 feet from the white tees, the par helps us understand whether there is a line that the designer believes a typical 875 rated player can throw to the basket. Frequently we need to figure out the lines and the basket location in order to understand how we should play the hole, and the par helps us understand what we are looking at.

• A target somewhere way short of the player's drive length means they will be essentially laying up from the tee.
  
• A target somewhere around the drive length is a distance where they'll hope to make the first putt, but will quite likely will have to make a come-back putt.
  
• A target somewhere out beyond drive length is a distance where they are laying up their second throw.

The reason the course design guidelines recommend designing holes at integral throw lengths is because only one of those zones I mentioned gives the best chance of creating two different scores.

Frankly, I'm surprise to see you saying this. There are many, many holes where players are playing to intended landing zones far short of their max drive length. The specifics of the layout of the various obstacles is what determines the precise shot a player wants to throw. We see fairway drivers, mids and putters being thrown off the tee all the time on holes that need two shots to reach the green, even at the highest level. Even at my level, I'm frequently thinking about the best way to reach certain landing areas, and whether other lines that require more distance will pay off. This does not make the holes bad. On the contrary these can be very good holes that offer good risk/reward payoffs.

Sure, perfect throws that go as far as the target would result in one putt, but extra challenges besides pure distance are always part of a good design. Therefore, players often land farther from the target than one-putt range, even if they didn't hit a tree or go OB. For example, they may have been forced to throw something other than that 320 foot hyzer which is the only throw they have perfected.

So, designing for an integral number of perfect throws - but adding all sorts of ways to make the throw less than perfect along the way - happens to result in pars that meet the definition. Count the perfect throws and a one-putt, plus one for the challenges which prevent perfect throws without actually creating errors.

This is something of a circular definition. "Par requires errorless play. And you know what errorless play is by seeing what scores people make, which defines par." It essentially removes all actual meaning from the phrase "errorless play".

I note that you aren't really engaging with the specific examples I'm making. Jones Supreme Hole #1. Should a pro be able to hit that green if they do not make an error? Make that putt if they hit the green. They are all perfectly capable of throwing a shot that hits that green. Anyone in contention out there will feel they didn't execute a shot to the best of their abilities if they miss the green.

(and, the hypothetical of a pro who can't throw anything other than 320 hyzer? C'mon man.)

That hole is basically a 2 or a 4. It creates tremendous scoring separation. And before you start talking about laying up before the creek, that hole came close to being designed with everything being OB except the tee, the drop zone and the green. We have to decide par for a hole like that.

...

For the 33% of holes on tour that were not designed as integral perfect throws plus challenge, par is needed to tell players what score would be good, whether they are gaining on the field, etc. All the useful aspects of par derive from par being the expected good score.

Players and spectators would not be served by adding one to the expected score on those holes, nor by calling every low score which happens less than 10% of the time an eagle.

(Side note: When you say "integral", I think you are meaning the definition of it that is "of or denoted by an integer"? If so, the word I would use is "whole", i.e. a whole number of throws, which I think is more common. Otherwise, I'm not sure what an "integral number of perfect throws" is.)

Putting that quibble aside, I'm going to say this more clearly than I did last time. I do not believe it is possible to prospectively set a number that tells you what a hole will average, or what percentage of the field will make a specific low score. You might be able to do it retrospectively for the pro-tour, once a particular hole set up has been played by the field a number of times, but this is only because the skill level of the pro-tour is highly quantified.

However, even for the pro-tour, the task is still essentially Sisyphean. Hole designs change every year. Limbs fall. Trees droop. Whole new courses are designed. Conditions change. A hole that was a "must birdie" hole last year can be a challenging par this year simply because what played in a tail wind is now playing in a head wind.

Par has to have meaning in all of these situations. Par will be set to something in all of these situations.

But we still have the issue that a whole number par still doesn't do what you want it to.

Another specific example. At Cornwallis Road Park from the Red tees, as I said before, a -5 will get you an 884, so where you need to be to keep up with the hypothetical recreational field. Every single hole on that course can be birdied about as easily as any other. There are perhaps 3 or 4 holes where birdie is less likely than some other hole. The par on the holes won't be able to tell you that you will need a -5 to keep up with the field, as they all will generate "birdies" at about the same rate and thus par will under or over estimate what you need. What you really need to know is net you are targeting to know whether you are keeping up with the field.

Even if we were to, say, use a decimal par, say assigning 15 of the holes a 2.67 par this still wouldn't get where you want to be (and that is a truly terrible idea that, among other things, simply renders unusable any of the names for scoring on holes, such as birdie, bogey, and, even, par, and means that all scoring will need to be relayed as total, rather than net). You don't need to know what the field will do, you need to know what the TOP of the field will do (if your goal is to win the tournament). What you really need to know is what percentage of the field takes what score, and whether that holes score correlates well with the lowest net score. Those are the holes you have to "birdie".

And what if non-rec players are also playing that course? What are the pars then? Do the pars change for every different tier playing the tournament? Will there be a chart at each tee box listing the 20 or so different pars?

What pars would we set for DGPT MPO courses? The par for 970 rated players (i.e. the gold tees that MPO is supposed to target)? How does that help the 1050 level players? How does that help the spectators?

And how are we going to set pars on recreational course that go in the ground in a city park that may never see a tournament at all? When do they get tee signs? What happens when (as at Cornwallis recently) 20+ dead trees get taken down? Will the city pop for new tee signs? Hole 15 lost it's tee sign over ten years ago and it still hasn't even been replaced.

So what happens when the par that is set at the courses the spectators play every day are set using a completely different rubric than the pro-tour? How will that help spectators understand what is going on?

This idea that you are going to change the definition of par for DGPT level play and that it's going to slowly trickle down to 800 and 900 level players, who don't hold a rating, and have never even played in a tournament outside of Tuesday random doubles, that doesn't hold any water in my opinion.

 

[Steve West]

...
This idea that you are going to change the definition of par ...

It's too late at night to process all of this, but what makes you think anyone is changing the definition of par? Do you have another older actual official definition you found somewhere?

Or could it be that we are just getting everyone to learn and apply THE definition, instead of all the various rules-of-thumb that are floating around?