TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[wake911]

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

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

Both of these. As much as we want to differentiate ourselves from Ball Golf. How do you describe Disc Golf to someone who has NEVER seen/played it. I've yet to successfully describe the sport without "Basically its golf, but with a frisbee"

I have no issue with par 2's. it is a little bit off from my 25yrs of playing ball golf, but easy enough to think about.

I did this at a local course, that has Par 54 (all 3's) and it would become 51. (per pdga par guidelines for Gold Level) 3 par 2's.
Another local course would be par 48 with 6 par 2's. another would be 52.

I'd like to see longer courses, in the par 60 range (with some 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's) and it'd be awesome.

The problem is this. Ricky throws a putter 400'+. I throw a putter 300'+, my buddy Jack throws 175'+. Do we set par based on what Ricky can throw? or what I can throw? Or what Jack can throw? Unlike ball golf, people all play the same tees, we don't have Gold / Black / White / Red like golf, where people actually play their skill level at the tees.

If we set par based on my abilities, then ricky will be FAR under par. If we set it at Ricky's, then everyone else will be far over par. We don't have the luxury of multiple tees that people actually use for skill level, but we use them as "different courses", if the course even has multiple tees.

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.

 

[Dave242]

I have tossed back and forth in my head the idea of having different TAP values for different skill levels: Gold TAP, Blue TAP, White, Red, Green (the PDGA defined skill groups). But, I think that confuses things.

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.

Does this make sense?

 

[NOStheBOSS]

Ricky throws a putter 400'+. I throw a putter 299', my buddy Jack throws 175'+.

fixd

 

[Chadasaurus]

Green in regulation

All this par talk got me thinking about another term used in ball golf, "green in regulation" or GIR. Per wikipedia: A green is considered hit "in regulation" if any part of the ball is touching the putting surface and the number of strokes taken is at least two fewer than par. Based on this definition in ball golf, an "accomplished" player should reach any part of the green in 2 shots under par, indicating that par is based on a two putt. This makes sense in the BG realm as the greens are much larger than the 10M circle we use. It seems reasonable to expect that "accomplished" players can make most putts within the circle so a you would only need one putt rather than two.

With that being said, it's much more difficult (at least for me) to place a disc in the relatively small circle on a par 3 hole as opposed to getting a ball onto a large green. Maybe we need to incorporate a new stat like GIR, say "disc in circle": DIC. Ummmm on second thought, maybe not :doh:....Perhaps a simple modification to CIR, "circle in regulation", would be better

 

[BogeyNoMore]

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.

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.

 

[ScottyLove]

The problem is this. Ricky throws a putter 400'+. I throw a putter 300'+, my buddy Jack throws 175'+. Do we set par based on what Ricky can throw? or what I can throw? Or what Jack can throw? Unlike ball golf, people all play the same tees, we don't have Gold / Black / White / Red like golf, where people actually play their skill level at the tees.

This is the correct solution and much easier to attain that changing the baskets which is the only other viable solution.

As a former avid ball golfer, I played many courses where there was a disclaimer at the blue tee stating something like, "You should have a a 5 handicap or better to play from here". Most ball course have 3 sets of tees and some as many as 5 or even 6. Women and Jr.s would play Red (or Forward tees... NEVER Women's tees!), grandpa played Green, Average Joe plays White, Advance players Blue, and Pros Gold or Black.

The fact is your starting point is based on SKILL LEVEL... Par will remain the same and we quit having these silly discussions. So I propose we more CLOSELY align to ball golf than stray away from it.

I would include penalty for OB to be throw AND distance as well. We cheat by moving up to where the disc crossed the line.

 

[alex513ninja]

I personally do not think there should be any changes.

The -90 turns heads and raises questions, but it was the best player in the world over 135 holes.

Paul and others are really just that good. Plus newer courses are taking measures, to account for these super arms, that still play fair for less skilled players. We don't need any changes to scoring system or special rules to tighten up the field. Us at the bottom just need to put in the work to be as good as these guys. The comparison to BG scores is absurd. I am a lot better at DG than I ever was at BG but I feel like if I were to shoot a round with McBeth at idlewild, I would probably shoot my standard 72-76 and he would probably shoot around 48-52 (I make that assumption on fact that course record is 48 by Climo). Now if I were the same skill level at BG and I shot a round at a top level course set up for pro play I would probably shoot around a 120, while someone like Tiger or Phil would go out and shoot a 70. I think there are just more top level pros in BG so the tourney scores are tighter whereas in DG our elite is a much smaller contingent. Also I think that DGers think BG hacks are a lot better than they are. Shooting 80-90 on a local course from the closest tees is no where close to a pro shooting 80 at the US Open, Masters etc. That same hack would probably shoot about a 130. All in all no changes necessary to DG scoring. Everything is already Par 3's

 

[wake_rider]

: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

This.

Another thought is to make greens much more difficult to where the upshots accuracy and placement becomes far more important (even within the circle, which is a diameter of 60' and that amount of accuracy forgiveness is unheard of in other sports), otherwise you're putting down extreme slope, from behind a group of trees, etc.... The idea that within the circle everything should be cleared out seems silly to me. Give a couple of wide open looks if your placement on the up is spot on, but otherwise leave really difficult angles to the basket so you're forced to bend putts and hit pockets to get to the chains rather than just bashing straight at it, hard putts from anywhere within 30'. Putting should take touch....

 

[alex513ninja]

Another thing I thought of that might make the DG scores seem a little more inflated is the use of drivers in the fairway. Consider a 1000+ft hole, a big arm can throw a drive 500ft and then throw that same driver another 500ft. Now in BG if a player was playing a 700yd par 5 and hit their driver 350yds I would bet them anything in the world they couldn't hit that same driver 350yds out of the fairway with no tee. And they sure as hell ain't hitting 350 out of the rough. It's just the nature of the beast, the sports while very similar have some key differences that allow for DG to boast lower scores.

 

[zenbot]

Thread by thread, Dave is inventing a brand new game.

 

[Shipley]

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.

^This

A lot of golf was played by the best players in the world. After spending all week playing for the world title, we should expect the winner to post a low score.

 

[wake911]

Another thing I thought of that might make the DG scores seem a little more inflated is the use of drivers in the fairway. Consider a 1000+ft hole, a big arm can throw a drive 500ft and then throw that same driver another 500ft. Now in BG if a player was playing a 700yd par 5 and hit their driver 350yds I would bet them anything in the world they couldn't hit that same driver 350yds out of the fairway with no tee. And they sure as hell ain't hitting 350 out of the rough. It's just the nature of the beast, the sports while very similar have some key differences that allow for DG to boast lower scores.

Our trees are our rough. I throw into the trees, my stance is going to be questionable and my route to the basket is impaired, i'm not throwing for max D either, just like a BG-er out of the rough.

This almost makes me question why we have a run-up from anywhere but the tee pad....and I've always been against a "stand and deliver" except off the tee, as i like to use my ability to throw far as much as I can, but at the same time, i'd likely throw further than avg from a standstill too. But at the same time, I don't neccessarily use my "run-up" on fairway shots for power, as much as for creating a smooth throw. Is interesting though. It'd lower foot fault issues as well...

fixd

you don't know how far I can throw :hfive:

 

[who-dat]

Can we use A2M or DVDA in DG please?

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

 

[Bubbajoe]

Par is arbitrary. It's calculated however we wish. Par is also already defined as what a scratch player is expected to shoot on any given day.
With that answers in red:

There are a lot of things wrong with "Par" as it is used today - it is not just one problem:
Signage I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Putting is too easy You're putting the cart before the horse. That fact that putting is easier than the way it's treated in out Par models isn't the issue. Admitting that it's easier as we're making our models is.
"No Par-2's" mentality This is people sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to accept reality. Not something I would put a lot of weight on if I was setting Par's.
Counting convention rather than scoring convention Again, these are folks that don't separate Par from keeping score. Do you think they'll quit doing so because you've changed the name?
No good/consistent tie-in to hole design concepts (designers' intent) And again, if we had a meaningful Par system then things like this would begin to decrease. How are you supposed to avoid designing a Par 2 if you aren't wiling to admit that they exist?

All of this is far too ingrained to ever change it. You're being to pessimistic. Competitive disc golf is tiny. Saying that things can never change just isn't true. I'd much rather think of it as a chance to steer the ship on the right course now before the competitve side of the game does grow to the point where changes are unbearably painful.

 

[DavidSauls]

Par is arbitrary. It's calculated however we wish. Par is also already defined as what a scratch player is expected to shoot on any given day. With that answers in red:

Where is it defined that way?

 

[zenbot]

Where is it defined that way?

Like, all over.

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.

In golf, par is the pre-determined number of strokes that a scratch (or 0 handicap) golfer should require to complete a hole, a round (the sum of the pars of the played holes), or a tournament (the sum of the pars of each round).

 

[BogeyNoMore]

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

 

[Lewis]

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

... many/most of us want to be able to often have the chance at beating something....not just achieving something.

Par is arbitrary. It's calculated however we wish. Par is also already defined as what a scratch player is expected to shoot on any given day.

All quoted for truth. The biggest problem I see with this debate is that average disc golfers have gotten used to saying they scored "par," and don't want to give up the luxury.

 

[DavidSauls]

Like, all over.

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

 

[New013]

or we just call it par and stop arguing about it