Scoring in Disc Golf

[Dave242]

It's not just the "No Par 2s" where people feel they must be able to birdie. We had a couple of holes at Stoney Hill with par set where it was the most common score for better players, very doable, but very hard, almost impossible, to birdie. Tough pars, where saving par is the name of the game, and screwing up is a bogey or worse. A number of people howled about this and, because personally I don't care that much about "par" under any definition, we relented and changed them.

The issue with these holes is not the Par setting per se, but rather what they are rewarding/accomplishing. A course should provide a challenge and resultant scoring separation to the top players.....to determine who the BEST players are. These holes only serve to separate and determine who the WORST players are.

I do not believe Par-2 holes should ever be used in a serious tournament (and I am not a fan of impossible birdie Par-3's for the same reason). But, when they are.....they should be correctly designated as such. .....and, due to the evolution of our sport (and skill level demographics), there are plenty of Par-2's in use that top players encounter in the vast majority of the tournaments they play.

 

[DavidSauls]

The issue with these holes is not the Par setting per se, but rather what they are rewarding/accomplishing. A course should provide a challenge and resultant scoring separation to the top players.....to determine who the BEST players are. These holes only serve to separate and determine who the WORST players are.

A course full of such holes wouldn't be good. Or fun. And they may cause more separation among worse players but scores don't separate evenly by talent; checking scorecards, they have an effect at the top, too.

Furthermore, if you've got holes with a scoring average of x.7 for a given skill level, some holes with an average of x.3 help balance things out.

 

[Dave242]

!

but scores don't separate evenly by talent; checking scorecards, they have an effect at the top, too.

What??!! Then why are we competing?

OK...OK, what you say makes sense in 1-2 rounds if you look at isolated holes. But you can't do that. I have played on cards with top players (first round of big tournaments) and been ahead of them after 1-2 holes.....but that does not prove a thing about my skill or their skill or the merits of the hole design.

In long tournaments (4+ rounds of 18), all of this comes out in the wash. But for 1-2 round tournaments, every hole that is either "up side down" in the scoring spread (like x.7 holes) and every hole that has no scoring spread creates results which do not reward excellence or punish poor play.

 

[Goldengary]

I don't usually post, but come to these boards, but this topic and discussion have intrigued me. I have been an avid golfer for 23 years and have been playing disc golf for the past 4 (I have gotten bitten pretty good by the dg bug). I also work in sports broadcasting and I think there is another element that is getting lost inside this debate. I think part of the problem is when we see scores like -90 the public (for right or wrong) consider this as easy since they have been seeing winning scores on the PGA tour typically between -10 and -20. Most people don't know that there are more than 4 rounds for a Disc Golf event, which of course gives more opportunities for the talented pro's to go low. I would love to see (to help the sport grow) the big events borrow from ball golf in having the tournaments be over 4 rounds (72 holes) mainly because then there becomes a frame of reference when seeing something on Disc Golf. I know when I see scores reported I sometimes am confused by the scores then coupled with the round rating. If we want to help the sport grow that's the first step is to simplifying how the big competitions are run and then reported. I feel that if we can start getting media coverage first by getting local reporters/stations to do stories AND are speaking in familiar terms (4 round, 72 hole tournaments) then the sky is the limit in terms of promotion of the sport. Eventually we will see some events on television in some form, but the issues I mentioned must be taken into account in some form with this debate and others.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

-90 sounds ridiculous. to anyone.

 

[Dave242]

I don't usually post, but come to these boards, but this topic and discussion have intrigued me. I have been an avid golfer for 23 years and have been playing disc golf for the past 4 (I have gotten bitten pretty good by the dg bug). I also work in sports broadcasting and I think there is another element that is getting lost inside this debate. I think part of the problem is when we see scores like -90 the public (for right or wrong) consider this as easy since they have been seeing winning scores on the PGA tour typically between -10 and -20. Most people don't know that there are more than 4 rounds for a Disc Golf event, which of course gives more opportunities for the talented pro's to go low. I would love to see (to help the sport grow) the big events borrow from ball golf in having the tournaments be over 4 rounds (72 holes) mainly because then there becomes a frame of reference when seeing something on Disc Golf. I know when I see scores reported I sometimes am confused by the scores then coupled with the round rating. If we want to help the sport grow that's the first step is to simplifying how the big competitions are run and then reported. I feel that if we can start getting media coverage first by getting local reporters/stations to do stories AND are speaking in familiar terms (4 round, 72 hole tournaments) then the sky is the limit in terms of promotion of the sport. Eventually we will see some events on television in some form, but the issues I mentioned must be taken into account in some form with this debate and others.

Most tournaments in some parts of the country are already 4 rounds. For instance, around here they do almost exclusively 1 day/2 round events. In the SE, 1 day PDGA events are quite rare and almost everything is 2 day/4 round/72 hole as you suggest.

 

[Goldengary]

I know when I saw that he was something like -63 at some point on Saturday, I texted a friend of mine who is a player and we had a similar debate with what type of course (too easy, open?) and his thoughts. I also do not think that changing the baskets is the answer. Part of the fun when I golf on the road at courses that have hosted PGA events is the fact that the course is pretty similar to what they played (I'm not playing the championship tees). Back to the par issue; there was an interesting study a few years ago when a group of golfers went to a course they had never played. The first group played and there was no par signs on the holes or the score card. The next group played with the pars restored to the signs and cards. The group that had no idea what the par was shot 4-5 shots better than the other group. Not sure where this lands on the discussion, but it is very interesting.

 

[DavidSauls]

What??!! Then why are we competing?

OK...OK, what you say makes sense in 1-2 rounds if you look at isolated holes. But you can't do that. I have played on cards with top players (first round of big tournaments) and been ahead of them after 1-2 holes.....but that does not prove a thing about my skill or their skill or the merits of the hole design.

In long tournaments (4+ rounds of 18), all of this comes out in the wash. But for 1-2 round tournaments, every hole that is either "up side down" in the scoring spread (like x.7 holes) and every hole that has no scoring spread creates results which do not reward excellence or punish poor play.

I hate to thread-drift, but I'm probably not being clear. Here it is, oversimplified:

The x.3 holes (the tough par) punish bad shots and reward consistent shots (or great saves). They will cause some separation at the top of the field, because some of those top-card players will screw up. They will probably cause more separation in the middle or bottom of the field.

Because, on that x.7 hole, if you've got 30% birdies and 70% bogeys, it's not the top 30% who are getting all the birdies. Likewise, on the x.3 holes, it's not the bottom 30% who are getting all the bogeys.

If you've got a course with, say, 14 x.7 (birdie) holes and 4 x.3 (tough par), they will all cause some separation throughout the field. Most of them having more effect at the top, some of them perhaps having more effect further down.

 

[mashnut]

What??!! Then why are we competing?

OK...OK, what you say makes sense in 1-2 rounds if you look at isolated holes. But you can't do that. I have played on cards with top players (first round of big tournaments) and been ahead of them after 1-2 holes.....but that does not prove a thing about my skill or their skill or the merits of the hole design.

In long tournaments (4+ rounds of 18), all of this comes out in the wash. But for 1-2 round tournaments, every hole that is either "up side down" in the scoring spread (like x.7 holes) and every hole that has no scoring spread creates results which do not reward excellence or punish poor play.

I disagree on the upside down holes, and I don't think it makes sense to confuse them with holes that just don't create scoring spread. Like David said, I think there's room for holes that tend to separate out the bottom third of the field just like those x.3 holes tend to separate the top of the leader board. Looking at golf tournaments, they have a pretty even mix of holes that play a little above par and ones that play a little below.

 

[Goldengary]

Most tournaments in some parts of the country are already 4 rounds. For instance, around here they do almost exclusively 1 day/2 round events. In the SE, 1 day PDGA events are quite rare and almost everything is 2 day/4 round/72 hole as you suggest.

I did not know this; that is very good to hear! I know that when I am looking at results of tournaments that when I see the scores then the extra semi and final rounds then all the different divisions it starts being clutter...I can't imagine glancing at the results as a non-player and trying to decipher them!

 

[DavidSauls]

For what it's worth, these x.3 holes (tough pars) are exactly what the "Par 2" holes are, whether we call them Par 2s or not.

Most of the top of the field pars/birdies them, and those that screw up, lose a stroke.

 

[DavidSauls]

Anyway, enough par and design philosophy. To the basic questions:

Is our game out of line with our par definition?

Is our par definition out of line with our game?

Or are they both fine, and we're just out of line with (ball) golf?

 

[Steve West]

Answer: B.

The reason people feel they need the right to birdie, is because they know it will take so many birdies to cash. If they could cash with nothing but pars, they wouldn't need to have the right to birdie.


On another topic, "bogie" holes (where the only scoring separation is from the minority of players getting higher scores) do spread all of the field equally well. At least according to one study I did of the USDGC.

It is sort of an optical illusion that bogie holes spread the bottom of the field better. This comes from the fact that birdie holes do a better job of spreading the field for the top third, and don't do much to spread the field for the bottom third.

However, for the top third, bogie holes and birdie holes are equally important for spreading the field.

 

[pookie]

I say they go to a tournament rule of under 300' it is a par 2, 300'-500' par 3 and anything over 500' par 4 with guidelines to the td that x amount of obstacles can raise the difficulty of the hole and thus the par as well. Not a perfect setup but one that would limit every hole being a birdie opportunity for pro's

 

[sneakytiki]

Answer: B.

The reason people feel they need the right to birdie, is because they know it will take so many birdies to cash. If they could cash with nothing but pars, they wouldn't need to have the right to birdie.


On another topic, "bogie" holes (where the only scoring separation is from the minority of players getting higher scores) do spread all of the field equally well. At least according to one study I did of the USDGC.

It is sort of an optical illusion that bogie holes spread the bottom of the field better. This comes from the fact that birdie holes do a better job of spreading the field for the top third, and don't do much to spread the field for the bottom third.

However, for the top third, bogie holes and birdie holes are equally important for spreading the field.

Changing par does nothing for the "spread" of the field. Only physically changing the course will change that.

What spreads a field is people taking more or less strokes in relation to others. Par doesn't spread the field. Birdies aren't required to cash. Shooting less strokes than the competition is required to cash.

For whatever reason the disparity between disc and ball golf scores with relation to par is angina inducing for a lot of people.

HOLY GOD! -90!? THIS ISN'T BALL GOLF AT ALL! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG!

Nope. Nothing wrong. That is ball golf, this is disc golf. Instead of talking about whether we want to adjust the baseline we score against (completely superficial to the sport itself) we should be talking about the difficulty level of the sport. Should we change the game to make it harder?

 

[mashnut]

Changing par does nothing for the "spread" of the field. Only physically changing the course will change that.

What spreads a field is people taking more or less strokes in relation to others. Par doesn't spread the field. Birdies aren't required to cash. Shooting less strokes than the competition is required to cash.

For whatever reason the disparity between disc and ball golf scores with relation to par is angina inducing for a lot of people.

HOLY GOD! -90!? THIS ISN'T BALL GOLF AT ALL! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG!

Nope. Nothing wrong. That is ball golf, this is disc golf. Instead of talking about whether we want to adjust the baseline we score against (completely superficial to the sport itself) we should be talking about the difficulty level of the sport itself. Should we change the game to make it harder?

I think you're missing the point a little. Steve's talking about holes where the majority of the field gets the lower of two scores vs. holes where the majority of the field gets the higher of two scores. For instance, two par three holes, one where most players get the three but a few really good shots lead to 2s, and one where most players get the three but a few bad shots lead to 4s are both par 3 holes but one will average something like 2.7 and the other something like 3.3. These separate the field in different ways whether or not you look at the par.

 

[Goldengary]

HOLY GOD! -90!? THIS ISN'T BALL GOLF AT ALL! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG!

Nope. Nothing wrong. That is ball golf, this is disc golf. Instead of talking about whether we want to adjust the baseline we score against (completely superficial to the sport itself) we should be talking about the difficulty level of the sport. Should we change the game to make it harder?

I'm not sure a change in the sport is needed (it's plenty challenging enough). Education is the key to growth of anything and DG is no exception. Anyone who plays knows what type of skill it takes to shoot good/great rounds, but the general public only sees -90 and has no clue as to what it takes and might dismiss it since their only frame of reference is ball golf. But, it's a fun debate as the number of responses shows!

 

[Bubbajoe]

Anyway, enough par and design philosophy. To the basic questions:

Is our game out of line with our par definition?

Is our par definition out of line with our game?

Or are they both fine, and we're just out of line with (ball) golf?

The second. Scores now are unbelievable inflated, not because the courses are to easy, but because the way we calculate par is out of touch. It's all fine and good to say that designing Par two's is a mistake, but it will continue to happen so long as we cant agree on what a Par two is. My simple fix, count all putt's in side the circle as 1.

It also drives me crazy when people argue that we're not golf and shouldn't be compared. We're a direct derivative of golf from out vocabulary to the game structure. When new players step into the game it's golf terms they're going to relate to because that's what we've presented them. To try and argue that one of the most basic facets of the game doesn't mean what you think it means makes you look dumb.

 

[Dave242]

I disagree on the upside down holes, and I don't think it makes sense to confuse them with holes that just don't create scoring spread. Like David said, I think there's room for holes that tend to separate out the bottom third of the field just like those x.3 holes tend to separate the top of the leader board. Looking at golf tournaments, they have a pretty even mix of holes that play a little above par and ones that play a little below.

I'm not confusing upside down holes with holes that have no scoring spread.....I'm combing them into a category of holes that are wasted with regard to the purpose of the course: to crown a champion based on skillful play.

The "a little above and a little below" par thing is of small value or interest. Of interest is holes that produce a decent number of each of 3 different scores (birdie, par, and bogey.....and a few eagles and double bogeys sometimes on multi-throw holes). It really does not matter if birdies slightly outnumber bogeys or visa versa.

 

[sneakytiki]

I think you're missing the point a little. Steve's talking about holes where the majority of the field gets the lower of two scores vs. holes where the majority of the field gets the higher of two scores. For instance, two par three holes, one where most players get the three but a few really good shots lead to 2s, and one where most players get the three but a few bad shots lead to 4s are both par 3 holes but one will average something like 2.7 and the other something like 3.3. These separate the field in different ways whether or not you look at the par.

No, I get it. I am just saying it doesn't really matter in that case if you call it a par 2, 3, 4, whatever. All that is required is that you follow some consistent framework for defining par. How you set up that par criteria will affect how under par everyone will be, but as long as you have some consistent method and you aren't too freaked out by a large negative number, there is nothing wrong. You can adjust your par criteria to have top scores closer to par, but you aren't making a difference if your criteria for judging par is as consistent, you are only shifting the baseline.