TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[Dave242]

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.

If you look at any one problem that there is with how "Par" is understood and/or implemented, then I agree that TAP adds nothing worthwhile.

But when taken all together, "Par" in DG is totally meaningless and useless - beyond repair....unfixable.

The valuable stuff that the term communicates in Golf takes so much extra explaining in DG (why Par does not really mean Par), that it is much easier for us to use a new term (that has a simple and consistent definition) and explain that term.....or fix all of our course designs and/or baskets.

 

[DiscNutt123]

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?

Because it should be difficult to get a birdie. At the pro level, birdies are more common than pars. It shouldn't be that way, it makes our sport look too easy (which it isn't) and probably turns away the outside money that could make this sport huge. People want to see a challenge, and when pros are scoring birdies on nearly every hole it doesn't look like a challenge.

 

[sneakytiki]

Because it should be difficult to get a birdie. At the pro level, birdies are more common than pars. It shouldn't be that way, it makes our sport look too easy (which it isn't) and probably turns away the outside money that could make this sport huge. People want to see a challenge, and when pros are scoring birdies on nearly every hole it doesn't look like a challenge.

Well, then I say those people are idiots. They think the challenge of the sport is defined by where par is set? And people who are possibly interested in the sport write it off because a pro shot a lot of birdies? I think that sounds completely preposterous, and arbitrary. I don't really care where par is set to be honest. I just don't want to get into any habits of changing it around because an ever fluctuating definition of par is what makes the whole thing useless.

 

[Dave242]

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

At this point, no-one except the 5-10 people who read and comprehended my think-out-loud posts here would know what TAP is.

But once it becomes as commonplace as the words shule, hyzerflip, and Schusterick.....people will have a very good idea that you shot a very solid round with a "2 over TAP".

They will not know if it is a hot round on an easy course (lots of 200' holes) or a world class round on a championship level course. But it will mean a whole lot more to them than "3 under Par".

 

[ScottyLove]

<Beavis voice>

Heh.. heh, heh, he... he said, "parlecule"... heh, heh

</Beavis voice>

 

[ScottyLove]

But once it becomes as commonplace as the words shule, hyzerflip, and Schusterick.....people will have a very good idea that you shot a very solid round with a "2 over TAP".

Too early to order t-shirts with TAP slogans?

 

[joegraham]

If everything was a par 2 instead of 3, the scores would be still the same! But the competitiveness will change. My ball golf handicap is 17.3 meaning I am just under bogey golf most of the time. I am mostly under to way under par most disc golf courses I play. If tournament winners are a couple under par and the rest are a lot over, it may spur players to practice more to improve their games. It is a realistic expectation that most holes are a drive and putt, par 2. If you come to a 500 foot par 5 are you gonna really try to get there parked in two shots for your eagle? Maybe not because you sure will "settle" for a birdie 4!!! Most players should score 3 or 4 on that kind of hole. Long par 4s also. It's all in a skilled up shot that leaves you a makeable putt for that birdie 3. Are most players again gonna really try to groove that up shot close if it's only a par 4? We should tighten up our expectations on par to have a LOT more par 2s.

 

[Smigles]

I see no problem with PAR = number of good shots needed to reach the circle + 1 putt.
Issue: by that definition, a lot of holes would actually be Par 2's.

The problem is that Par in golf is really the professional average rating. What we call "par" in disc golf is actually par+1 for whatever reason. We have the "if you play it well, you should be rewarded with a birdie" attitude while Par in ball golf is something measured by a statistican and it is really just a average of what the best players in the world play on that hole.

Either rename par, or rethink how we set up the par on courses, or just life with the difference.

 

[sneakytiki]

If everything was a par 2 instead of 3, the scores would be still the same! But the competitiveness will change. My ball golf handicap is 17.3 meaning I am just under bogey golf most of the time. I am mostly under to way under par most disc golf courses I play. If tournament winners are a couple under par and the rest are a lot over, it may spur players to practice more to improve their games. It is a realistic expectation that most holes are a drive and putt, par 2. If you come to a 500 foot par 5 are you gonna really try to get there parked in two shots for your eagle? Maybe not because you sure will "settle" for a birdie 4!!! Most players should score 3 or 4 on that kind of hole. Long par 4s also. It's all in a skilled up shot that leaves you a makeable putt for that birdie 3. Are most players again gonna really try to groove that up shot close if it's only a par 4? We should tighten up our expectations on par to have a LOT more par 2s.

If the competitiveness changes, that will entirely depend on the psyche of the player. I personally would not change the way I played or competed if par was changed. I would practice the same amount. Why would a hole now being par 2 make me want to practice more?

 

[ejvogie]

Par 2 holes, IMO, would do just as much damage, if not more, as people shooting -90 over 7 rounds. Unless you'd rather be compared to putt-putt than Golf.

 

[Dave242]

If you come to a 500 foot par 5 are you gonna really try to get there parked in two shots for your eagle? Maybe not because you sure will "settle" for a birdie 4!!!

Maybe some people think this way (weird) but I (and most people) will look at the fairway and see how far down I can get to set me up for the best possible next shot. No consideration will be given to what a number on a sign or website or scorecard says.

If the Par is set correctly for a 500' Par-5, that means it takes 3 throws and 2 putts. So, there better be some pretty good curves in the fairway to force an average 155-165' throw while still playing the hole perfectly as intended.

If it were the case that the designer intended it to be a 3 throw hole and fairway curves limited each throw to say 170', it would be a TAP-4 hole. A 200' wide pond at 150' would also have that effect.

Without the limiting curves (or pond), or even with just one limiting curve near the middle of the hole, it would be TAP-3.

 

[Steve West]

To adress your idea directly:

Par is not broken beyond repair. All we need to do it remove the words "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". Then, set pars accordingly.

Calling it a different name in order to break the connection to current par is a nice try. Like Argentina renaming their currency to stop hyper inflation? However, everything we ask par to do is the same thing golfers ask par to do. It is "par". We just haven't defined it right, yet.

Whenever you say a hole takes this throw and this throw to complete, I chuckle. Even more so when you say "as the designer intended". There are so many ways to score a 2 or 3 or 4 in disc golf, I doubt there is even a way that could be called "the" way. This is the place we really don't want to be like golf. Trying to break it down into throw 1 throw 2, throw 3, etc. is what got us into this mess.

Just

* Stop the definition at "As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions."

* Define an expert disc golfer as 1000-rate player

* Look to see (or estimate) which score at least 37% of 1000-rated players are getting.

That's par. All there is to talk about is whether 1000 or 37% are the right parameters.

Done. Fixes every problem. You're welcome.

 

[sneakytiki]

To adress your idea directly:

Par is not broken beyond repair. All we need to do it remove the words "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". Then, set pars accordingly.

Calling it a different name in order to break the connection to current par is a nice try. Like Argentina renaming their currency to stop hyper inflation? However, everything we ask par to do is the same thing golfers ask par to do. It is "par". We just haven't defined it right, yet.

Whenever you say a hole takes this throw and this throw to complete, I chuckle. Even more so when you say "as the designer intended". There are so many ways to score a 2 or 3 or 4 in disc golf, I doubt there is even a way that could be called "the" way. This is the place we really don't want to be like golf. Trying to break it down into throw 1 throw 2, throw 3, etc. is what got us into this mess.

Just

* Stop the definition at "As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions."

* Define an expert disc golfer as 1000-rate player

* Look to see (or estimate) which score at least 37% of 1000-rated players are getting.

That's par. All there is to talk about is whether 1000 or 37% are the right parameters.

Done. Fixes every problem. You're welcome.

I pretty much agree, except shouldn't it be more like 36.7%?

 

[jeverett]

To adress your idea directly:

Par is not broken beyond repair. All we need to do it remove the words "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". Then, set pars accordingly.

Calling it a different name in order to break the connection to current par is a nice try. Like Argentina renaming their currency to stop hyper inflation? However, everything we ask par to do is the same thing golfers ask par to do. It is "par". We just haven't defined it right, yet.

Whenever you say a hole takes this throw and this throw to complete, I chuckle. Even more so when you say "as the designer intended". There are so many ways to score a 2 or 3 or 4 in disc golf, I doubt there is even a way that could be called "the" way. This is the place we really don't want to be like golf. Trying to break it down into throw 1 throw 2, throw 3, etc. is what got us into this mess.

Just

* Stop the definition at "As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions."

* Define an expert disc golfer as 1000-rate player

* Look to see (or estimate) which score at least 37% of 1000-rated players are getting.

That's par. All there is to talk about is whether 1000 or 37% are the right parameters.

Done. Fixes every problem. You're welcome.

Hi Steve,

Hmm.. are you advocating for allowing a fractional/decimal value of Par? Because in principle I could agree with that, although it's definitely an abstraction of 'real' on-the-course scoring.

i.e. *if* the problem is that the "two putts per hole" component of 'Par' is inaccurate for disc golf (compared to ball golf), this problem does not get resolved by simply reducing the component to "one putt per hole" (i.e. TAP). The reality is, as a rough average 'scratch' disc golf sees about ~1.4 putts per hole.

 

[Steve West]

Hi Steve,

Hmm.. are you advocating for allowing a fractional/decimal value of Par? Because in principle I could agree with that, although it's definitely an abstraction of 'real' on-the-course scoring.

i.e. *if* the problem is that the "two putts per hole" component of 'Par' is inaccurate for disc golf (compared to ball golf), this problem does not get resolved by simply reducing the component to "one putt per hole" (i.e. TAP). The reality is, as a rough average 'scratch' disc golf sees about ~1.4 putts per hole.

I don't even think anyone can define putts per hole.

No, I'm not advocating fractional par. The lowest integer that at least (1/e) players score as good or better than.

 

[Dave242]

Steve, while I agree with your definition/s of Par, I disagree with you in that our definition is broken beyond repair....at least just by changing a the definition officially.

I am chewing over how a change like this would be best implemented. I have not mentioned this, but my thinking is that there is a possibility that once "TAP" is embraced and people see how much sense it makes, one of 2 things will happen:
1) "Par" will go away and be replaced by "TAP" in the "informed" DGer crowd at least
2) The informed folks will say "Hey - this is just like par! Let's not use 'TAP' any more, but 'Par' instead.

If #2 is what happens, that is the best chance that Par will be fixed. So, TAP is then a vehicle to get Par fixed.

 

[Dave242]

Whenever you say a hole takes this throw and this throw to complete, I chuckle. Even more so when you say "as the designer intended". There are so many ways to score a 2 or 3 or 4 in disc golf, I doubt there is even a way that could be called "the" way. This is the place we really don't want to be like golf. Trying to break it down into throw 1 throw 2, throw 3, etc. is what got us into this mess.

This is off topic, and obviously I disagree with you (since I say this stuff all the time). I do not really even get what you are implying. It takes an integer number of throws to complete a hole and tweener holes/NAGS are not good. Also, when I watch players play, I have never (well - rarely) noticed what you are saying play out. But, I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[Dave242]

I don't even think anyone can define putts per hole.

What? Of course you can. Here: You count how many times a person is trying to land their disc in the basket. To get the average, you divide by the number of holes. And yes, lag putts are putts....and some people lag putt off the tee in DG.

 

[Dave242]

Just
* Stop the definition at "As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions."
* Define an expert disc golfer as 1000-rate player
* Look to see (or estimate) which score at least 37% of 1000-rated players are getting.

That's par. All there is to talk about is whether 1000 or 37% are the right parameters.

Done. Fixes every problem. You're welcome.

I agree with your definition/s of par but not the Blue words.

The problem is that when you (or I) would tell someone, "this course's Par is 47", they would say, "oh yeah - whose Par is that?" I would say "What do you mean - its par and par is par. Its just par". And so we would have "Just Par" as this new definition of Par.

And "Just Par" would co-exist with Course, Sign, Pro, Beginner, CR, SA and Rec Par. And nothing would change.

Or maybe the PDGA would change their official definition to what you suggest. And then Just Par would also go by the nickname PDGA Par.

Another issue with what you suggest is that there are plenty of people in influential positions (who make signs, design courses, run parks etc) who have no good grasp on what a 1000 rated player is.....much less how 37% of 1000 rated players will score on a hole or a course. But, everyone knows how to measure 300'.

Even if the decider is completely familiar with 1000 rated players, scoring averages, standard deviations, etc......what if the hole produces results that are 50% 4's and 50% 5's for 1000 rated players. Who is the arbiter to assign a Par value to that? If there is just one hole like this on a course, no big deal. But what if there are 6 or 7 such holes (including of course, 2.5 and 3.5 averages)?

To my thinking at least, your definition fixes only a small part of the problem.

 

[ohtobediscing]

Ah, I was thinking in terms of disc golf, particularly disc golf rules.

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 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

Ah, yes---let's make DG as complex as possible, and alienate the families, noobs, duffers and chuckers [who, together, comprise 95% of our participants], so that the rest of local society looks at the 20 people taking up 37 acres and $35,000 of the budget of a public park and says, "WTF!?!"

Honestly, the "disc can accelerate after you release!" thread was at least humorous for its insight into the cluelessness of the delusional human mind.

This is just pathetically, selfishly sad. Its not broke, so YOU can't fix it.