TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[tarel]

DVDA, one of Americas greatest bands!
"Now you're a man! A man, a man, a man..."

:hfive:

 

[Dave242]

I know Par's been beaten to death in other threads, but for crying out loud, this game's based on ball golf, basically plays like ball golf, and mostly uses the same vernacular. Why should a term as basic as "par" have any differnt connotation?

Realistically, Par should be a decent achievement, and breaking par should be something that really separates you from the pack. A challenging course should be tough for some of the best players to score under par. Look at Pro Golf for example... you don't see don't often see people shooting 8, 9, or 10 under for a round, and most recreational players shoot well over par for the round.

Beating par isn't something your entitled to - you should have to earn it.
I can think of one thing you're entitled to beat on a regular basis, and it's not par.

I agree with that wholeheartedly and completely!......but we have a linguistic legacy of how we use the term "Par". And more importantly, since we are Golf we cannot get away from the "number of shots to the green and then 2 putts" mentality. But with our putting being so easy, our Par numbers do not compute to a standard of excellence.

That is why I came up with this as a proposed "universal" standard:

I would therefore propose 1 standard TAP and center it around Blue level play (950 rated). Basically count throws based on 300' throws as a maximum (drives and approaches). Less than 300' if the hole design dictates forces layups due to hole shape of obstacles.

TAP-2 - up to 333' (300' + 10M)
TAP-3 - 334' to 633' (300' + 300' + 10M)
TAP-4 - 634 to 933'

I think this is good since Blue/950 level play is conceivable and observable by most, but Gold level players will be able to score even-TAP on some courses and even break it on a very few.

I took a look at the 3 courses used in Worlds by MPO (pool A - first round on each). Here is how TAP would look:

[b]Blue[/b]		
SSE&SSA	51.6	53
	7298'	TAP = 49
Best	45	4 Under TAP
Worst	62	13 Over TAP
Avg	51	2 Over TAP
		
[b]White[/b]		
SSE&SSA	60.2	60.3
	8083'	TAP = 52
Best	52	Even
Worst	73	19 Over TAP
Avg	59	7 Over TAP
		
[b]Gold[/b]		
SSE&SSA	62.8	61.4
	8716'	TAP = 53
Best	52	1 Under TAP
Worst	68	15 Over TAP
Avg	59	6 Over TAP
		
[b]Final 9[/b]		
	5658'	TAP = 33
Best	28	5 Under TAP
Worst	32	1 Under TAP

The entire tournament for the Top 4 finishers was played on holes totaling TAP = 390. Here are the final results:
McBeth - 8 under TAP
Felberg - 3 under TAP
Locastro - 2 under TAP
Schusterick - Even

 

[jcarroll]

Didn't take the time to read ALL the way through this thread, but I think OP might be on to something, if at least for statistical insight.

A lot of PGA golf tournaments will highlight a player's scoring ability based on several factors:

GIR: Greens in Regulation - Ball golf holes are designed to allow players a two-putt on each hole. Therefore hitting a green in regulation on a Par-4 would mean landing on the green with your second shot, or better (Par-3 must land the green off tee, Par-5 must land green with your third shot, or better).

Number of Fairways Hit - Not exactly comparable to disc golf, but this is a measure of the number of holes where the player successfully landed within the fairway off the tee.

Number of Putts - Occasionally commentators will break down a player's putts-per-hole. This shows how many times he two-putted, three-putted, etc.

Food for thought...

 

[sneakytiki]

Didn't take the time to read ALL the way through this thread, but I think OP might be on to something, if at least for statistical insight.

Totally! I think that would be cool to see, and sure, we CAN and many probably do follow those stats. Throw some more stats in there. Hit/miss percentages from different ranges, etc. Whatever you have data for.

I still don't have a problem with seeing a -90.

 

[vw02]

DG already has more POT than is needed.

:hfive:

 

[DavidSauls]

Despite how much they get beaten, some horses will never die...

This is one of our most durable.

 

[Dave242]

Continuing to think out loud....

What I like about TAP:
Is easy to implement with minimal math or course knowledge
Takes designers' intent into consideration (forced layups under the 300' boundaries)
Standardized (no recreational par, sign par, pro par, etc)
- Ends the endless "what is Par?" debate
Inherently shows what differentiates DG from BG
Gives a good "difficulty" understanding when compared to a scoring average (mine, yours, SSA, etc)
It is a performance metric, not a counting convention


What I don't like about TAP:
333' is TAP-2 and 334' is TAP-3 (but every integer-based system as this issue)
- therefore is not perfect when following live scoring (this is as much a course design issue though)
Does not take elevation gain/loss into consideration (usually works itself out over entire course)
Works out to a higher standard than Scratch/1000

 

[disc qualified]

y'all can call it whatever you like. i'm gonna keep throwing towards the basket in as few throws as possible. i'm gonna continue to count strokes and i'll let those so inclined attempt to redefine the terminology as they see fit, just don't expect me to buy into it.

 

[Dave242]

And you'll keep on saying things like "I shot a 3 under today" and people will keep on having no idea what that really means.......is that good, is that bad, or is that simply tart and refreshing?

 

[sneakytiki]

Continuing to think out loud....

What I like about TAP:
Is easy to implement with minimal math or course knowledge
Takes designers' intent into consideration (forced layups under the 300' boundaries)
Standardized (no recreational par, sign par, pro par, etc)
- Ends the endless "what is Par?" debate
Inherently shows what differentiates DG from BG
Gives a good "difficulty" understanding when compared to a scoring average (mine, yours, SSA, etc)
It is a performance metric, not a counting convention


What I don't like about TAP:
333' is TAP-2 and 334' is TAP-3 (but every integer-based system as this issue)
- therefore is not perfect when following live scoring (this is as much a course design issue though)
Does not take elevation gain/loss into consideration (usually works itself out over entire course)
Works out to a higher standard than Scratch/1000

Birdies would require miracles, unless you are one of the top handful of players in the sport. Or are you only proposing this for pro play, not as a par replacement?

 

[ScottyLove]

Continuing to think out loud....

What I like about TAP:
Is easy to implement with minimal math or course knowledge
Takes designers' intent into consideration (forced layups under the 300' boundaries)
Standardized (no recreational par, sign par, pro par, etc)
- Ends the endless "what is Par?" debate
Inherently shows what differentiates DG from BG
Gives a good "difficulty" understanding when compared to a scoring average (mine, yours, SSA, etc)
It is a performance metric, not a counting convention


What I don't like about TAP:
333' is TAP-2 and 334' is TAP-3 (but every integer-based system as this issue)
- therefore is not perfect when following live scoring (this is as much a course design issue though)
Does not take elevation gain/loss into consideration (usually works itself out over entire course)
Works out to a higher standard than Scratch/1000

You're starting to sway me. I like the breakdown of current MPO at worlds.

If this were in place, you can overcome the elevation thing I think by simply asking the designer what the TAP should be. I'm no big arm at all, but I recently parked a 580' downhill easily in two for drop in 3. Seems to me that one would be TAP-3, but same hole uphill would easily be TAP-4.

What is the penalty for missing a hole? TAP +4 still?

 

[Dave242]

Birdies would require miracles, unless you are one of the top handful of players in the sport. Or are you only proposing this for pro play, not as a par replacement?

That is not the case. Take a 340' hole. That is TAP-3 and lots of people would get birdies. If it was downhill, even more would.

But, you are right in the regard that shooting under TAP for an entire round would be a really big accomplishment for many people and unattainable by most (at least how most courses are designed today).....just like it is to shoot under Par in ball golf.

 

[DiscNutt123]

Honestly, I don't really care whether its PAR, TAP, etc. I'm trying to get the disc in the basket in as few throws as possible. The score will technically be the same either way. I do like where you're going with this Dave, but I definitely don't think changing Par is going to help change the way people look at disc golf. Whether McBeth was -90 or TAP -8, he still threw the same amount of throws and still won.

 

[DiscNutt123]

Birdies would require miracles, unless you are one of the top handful of players in the sport. Or are you only proposing this for pro play, not as a par replacement?

Have you ever played ball golf? If you have, you would know that if you don't practice your game or play often, birdies are very rare.

 

[sneakytiki]

That is not the case. Take a 340' hole. That is TAP-3 and lots of people would get birdies. If it was downhill, even more would.

But, you are right in the regard that shooting under TAP for an entire round would be a really big accomplishment for many people and unattainable by most (at least how most courses are designed today).....just like it is to shoot under Par in ball golf.

It would definitely be interesting. I am just selfish because I'd say the current par system has been pretty well centered on my own play, and I don't mind that, because I don't really care what they pros shoot in relation to par compared to ball golf. I'd rather keep the par system (maybe tweak it a little for easier consistency) but other than that I don't mind it being more centered on my abilities rather than a pro's abilities. In the ends its stoke count anyway.

 

[Dave242]

You're starting to sway me. I like the breakdown of current MPO at worlds.

If this were in place, you can overcome the elevation thing I think by simply asking the designer what the TAP should be. I'm no big arm at all, but I recently parked a 580' downhill easily in two for drop in 3. Seems to me that one would be TAP-3, but same hole uphill would easily be TAP-4.

What is the penalty for missing a hole? TAP +4 still?

Glad someone sees the merit. . And like any standardized system, it has its downfalls. But nearly as much as the semi-standardized Par system.

The hill thing almost always works itself out of the the entire course since all courses (except those you take a ski lift up and play down - how many of those are there?) start and end at the same elevation.

Very valid point/problem......but for standardization purposes, I think giving latitude for elevation introduces a ton of gray area and resulting confusion. IMO, it is not worth adding exceptions.

Regarding late start penalties.....I have not even thought that far ahead, but TAP is basically PDGA/PRO/Proper/Real Par minus one. So, it would be TAP+5.

 

[sneakytiki]

Have you ever played ball golf? If you have, you would know that if you don't practice your game or play often, birdies are very rare.

I have played ball golf ONCE many years ago. No I don't play it. I don't see what that has anything to do with it. Why does it matter to disc golf how hard it is to birdie in ball golf?

You are also swinging a stick to hit a very small ball... no wonder its harder to birdie.

 

[disc qualified]

And you'll keep on saying things like "I shot a 3 under today" and people will keep on having no idea what that really means.......is that good, is that bad, or is that simply tart and refreshing?

if people won't know what 3 under means then their heads might explode when i say i shot tap+2

 

[Steve West]

I say we set it at 1000 rated players skill level, let the top players blow it away (if we really care about "under par" it could be adjusted for NT's they play)

I think we need to do a better job of getting SSE/SSA set at each course, and making that course par. Then having local knowledgeable folks set which holes are adjusted up/down to match the SSE/SSA. and bam we have Par for each hole. Most courses SSE is under 3 per hole, so a few par 2's would be needed.

Eventually, everyone else will come to realize this is the answer for setting par, no matter what we do to courses. Longer courses, tougher greens, may still be called for, too.

I would therefore propose 1 standard TAP and center it around Blue level play (950 rated).

Setting par at what a Blue level player would score is what got us -90. Setting it at Gold Level (1000) would produce satisfyingly under pars for winners of majors, but not so far under that it ceases to mean anything.

1000 (or Gold) is "able to cash in pro tournaments". I'm OK with that, and the resulting not-ridiculously-under-par winning scores. At least you know that to cash you need to get par or better.

I'd also set Blue par, Red par, etc. based on the total score those players would expect on a course, allocated to individual holes according to their difficulty.

In fact, that's what I did at Fort Snelling. SSA was estimated to be a little over 58, so I set total par on the Gold tees at 59.

I started by giving every hole 2 parlecules, so I had 23 parlecules left to allocate. Give one to the hole that has the highest uncovered score. This was hole 2, which has an estimated score of 4.77. Subtract the two parlecules I gave all the holes, it had 2.77 uncovered, or 1.77 after I allocated it a third parlecule. After 12 and 18 got 3 of their score covered by parlecules, it was again 2's turn with its 1.77 uncovered score. Most of the other holes got up to 3 or 4 parlecules before the remaining 0.77 uncovered score of hole 2 was the largest again, so it had 5 parlecules. Keep going until you've used all your parlecules.

You could do the same thing by starting with 3 parlecules for each hole, but it wouldn't be as useful. If you want to be a theoretical stickler, you could also start with one (or zero) for each hole, but you'd always end up with at least 2 for each hole anyway.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]