TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[Dave242]

All the talk of scores like -90 at Worlds got me thinking that we need to just ditch the term Par in our game……and I was going to jump in and suggest that. But that is a losing battle even if it is needed. That will never happen.....nor will coming up with a standard universally agreed upon and applied definition.

So, instead of ditching Par, I think we need another measure to communicate to DGers what Par essentially communicates to BGers.

What we are essentially interested in when looking at a score is knowing 1) how many Drives the course designer intended for an expert to get into the 10M circle (and if they player achieved that), and 2) if they made their Putt.
So, we should measure that. Let's have a term/stat that measures that.

Here are the terms I thought of (exact term is up for grabs):
DOP – Drives and One Putt
TAP – Throws And one Putt
POT – Putt Once and Throws
POD – Putt Once and Drives

If we only count "Drives" that might be confusing on some holes where the designer has intended an expert to land say 100' short of the basket…..then is the upshot a Drive? Doesn't feel like a Drive! That hole would be a DOP-2. Course DOP very would rarely be achieved and basically never broken (to go under DOP you would need all Birdies and at least one legit Eagle - in today's terms).

So, TAP would count the Drive, the Upshot, and one Putt. That hole would be a TAP-3 hole. TAP measures perfect play as intended by the designer.

I prefer TAP to DOP……but POT is the best term in that is specifies ONE putt (the clear differentiator to most people's concept of Par). But, DG already has more POT than is needed. TOP would also work, but just does not sound right to me.

 

[DeadEye]

This thread isn't up to par.

Cwutididthere?

 

[UTTERBACK]

This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd like to see a course par established without individual hole pars. Say a course is par 60 and leave it at that. If this type of thing were established, you wouldn't have people arguing about what par is for certain holes. There is a course in Omaha (Hummel Park) that is listed as a par 60. I feel that it should be closer to a 57 because there are some holes (hole #10) that are called par fours even though a well executed drive can leave a drop in deuce. To me, that is a par 3, but because it's one of the longer holes on the course and rarely two'd, people say it's a par 4. If hole pars were dropped, we could combine some strokes on those tweener holes everyone argues about and simply apply one number to all 18 holes. For example, say there are four holes like the one I mentioned that are arguably a par 3.5. If we put them into a single course par, we could say that those four holes should take 14 strokes. Odds are you're going to three a couple and four a couple. This is a horrible mess of ideas I've rambled out, but I think it kind of gets the point across.

 

[sneakytiki]

Why not keep the term par but define it as you are defining it? I think those acronyms sound silly.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

DOP: no - too close to dope, and not all shots are drives.
POD: no - that's a group of whales
POT: no - too much of that on the course already
TAP: makes sense, but honestly: isn't that how we should define PAR, since it's deeply ingrained in the lexicon of the game and not going away?

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.

Those are my thoughts. Sorry if they don't add much.

 

[Rockwell]

Do we want perfect play to be -18 or Even? The -90 turns heads and raises questions, but it was the best player in the world over 135 holes.

 

[DavidSauls]

This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd like to see a course par established without individual hole pars.

SSA serves this purpose on courses that don't change much for tournaments, or week-to-week.

 

[_MTL_]

The more we get away from mainstream golf terms, the more difficult it is for our sport to go mainstream.

 

[tarel]

Can we use A2M or DVDA in DG please?

 

[bnbanbury]

I think one of the problems with the scores that are silly under par is that people are looking at par the way it is laid out in the op, that is to say they look at how many shots it takes to get to the circle. The problem is that few of the expert players miss anything from in the circle. Many people have suggested smaller targets as a way to protect par, as 25' putts are automatic for many expert players. I think another thing to consider is expanding the definition of where the "putting green" is. For expert players i think a par 4 can be a hole in which 2 good shots leaves you a 40'-60' look for a birdie instead of two good shots getting you inside the circle.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

The more we get away from mainstream golf terms, the more difficult it is for our sport to go mainstream.

:thmbup:

I think course design is the answer. This won't help established courses, but future courses need to follow something along the lines of IDGC. Long, wooded, with fair fairways. Challenging, but attainable. The best of the best can score well there, but definitely won't shoot -18.

And I know the land dictates course design, it's a tough balance

 

[DavidSauls]

How about "P-1" (Par minus one), since you're really talking about the PDGA par description, with 1 close shot instead of 2.

The Society for the Protection of the Inalienable Right to Birdie isn't going to take this idea very well.

 

[tbird888]

The Society for the Protection of the Inalienable Right to Birdie isn't going to take this idea very well.

Is that disc golf's version of the Illuminati?

 

[sneakytiki]

I think instead of having all these discussions on par we should try some large negative number anxiety counseling. I think it would be a lot more effective to tackle the issue psychologically and overcome our phobia towards larger negative numbers. This par debate just gets so exhausting.

 

[Bubbajoe]

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.

Most holes in the ground are Par 2's. The issue is getting people to accept this.

To the OP, why would this make it any easier to convince people that Par and keeping score are different things? This seems to be the biggest issue when debating par at this point.

 

[DavidSauls]

Is that disc golf's version of the Illuminati?

Nah....just guys who were introduced to disc golf on pitch-&-putt courses, and didn't get weaned off them in time. Next time you teach a new player disc golf, as soon as he reaches 3 baskets in the same round, tear him off that course, plant him on a serious course and tell him it's time to eat solid food.

 

[Dave242]

I think instead of having all these discussions on par we should try some large negative number anxiety counseling. I think it would be a lot more effective to tackle the issue psychologically and overcome our phobia towards larger negative numbers. This par debate just gets so exhausting.

Most holes in the ground are Par 2's. The issue is getting people to accept this.

To the OP, why would this make it any easier to convince people that Par and keeping score are different things? This seems to be the biggest issue when debating par at this point.

There are a lot of things wrong with "Par" as it is used today - it is not just one problem:
Signage
Putting is too easy
"No Par-2's" mentality
Counting convention rather than scoring convention
No good/consistent tie-in to hole design concepts (designers' intent)

All of this is far too ingrained to ever change it.

That is why I think TAP should augment Par for now.....and if it catches on it would probably eventually replace the usage of the term Par for many.

The problem I see with TAP replacing Par in how we think of things is that many/most of us want to be able to often have the chance at beating something....not just achieving something.

 

[jongoff09]

I think instead of having all these discussions on par we should try some large negative number anxiety counseling. I think it would be a lot more effective to tackle the issue psychologically and overcome our phobia towards larger negative numbers. This par debate just gets so exhausting.

Essentially what I think every time this is mentioned. What's wrong with our best players being so far under par?

The "best" way I have heard to remedy that is to make the baskets smaller like was mentioned in an earlier post. The issues with that are enough for their own thread.

I'm fine with our best players being 90 under par.

 

[tbird888]

Next time you teach a new player disc golf, as soon as he reaches 3 baskets in the same round, tear him off that course, plant him on a serious course and tell him it's time to eat solid food.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[DavidSauls]

That is why I think TAP should augment Par for now.....and if it catches on it would probably eventually replace the usage of the term Par for many.

A nice thought exercise, but little chance beyond that. We can't agree on what an established word means; it would be that much harder to agree on what a new word should be, what exactly it will mean, and to use it.

If we had to do it, perhaps a "Modifier-/I]Par" would be the answer. Like "Pro Par" or "CR Par" or "Real Par" or something. (Of course, "Pro Par" is already used by some people to refer to all-par-3, "CR Par" means using Olorin's definition, and "Real Par" is overly sarcastic on my part).