TAP or DOP instead of Par?

[Lewis]

The more I read in this thread, the more I think the best solution would be to use smaller chain assemblies for the highest level of pro competition to make putting more of a challenge. When everything within 30' amounts to a tap in for most pro disc golfers, it makes that element of the game relatively boring. And Paul McBeth can correct me if my memory is bad, but I think he suggested somewhere on these forums that he could support a change to smaller targets.

Think about what video footage gets used by tv hosts who want to ridicule disc golf as "not a sport". It's always somebody putting from inside the circle, isn't it?

 

[Dave242]

How is difficulty defined then? Would that not be more of a measure of TAP's consistency? Ideally shouldn't scoring 0-TAP be equally difficult? If that difference/ratio said the course was "harder" wouldn't that be an indication of how inaccurate the TAP is on that course?

No to everything except your first question. Scoring 10 over TAP on a 6000' wooded course is MUCH more difficult than getting the same score on a wide open course.

TAP would be the same for both.

What you are asking TAP to do is what SSA does and SSE tries to estimate. With the wide variety of courses we have, there is not a simply applied or understood Par-type system that can possibly achieve that.

Difficulty is a measure of the challenge obstacles impose your attempts to get a perfect score of 18 (on a 18 hole course). The ground is an obstacle (in other words, Distance is an obstacle too).

 

[Lewis]

I get the impression that TAP would come out to be roughly equivalent to "par minus 1" on the majority of disc golf holes, to correct for the well-documented difference between putting in disc golf vs. putting in ball golf (just ask our friendly "rater of tossed arcs"). Holes around 334'-400' would be most of the exceptions, but many of these would include what some designers describe as "not a golf shot" upshots of under 100'.

 

[Dave242]

I suggest Dave submit his idea to the PDGA BOD.
Otherwise, this is just mindless discussion with no end result.

Shive was going to champion this.

Actually it is not a mindless discussion, but you are right that is will probably have no tangible end result.

The value of these discussions is that they plant seeds of ideas into people's heads as to the Pros and Cons of how we do things today and how/if we can do things differently in the future.

What I am trying to do here is take an element of the Scoring discussions and an element of the Par discussions and an element of the Course Design discussions out of their normal contexts......and then hold them at arms length and look at them logically.

Who knows.....there might be some good value in this. Thomas Edison discovered 10,000 ways to not make a light bulb.

 

[DavidSauls]

I suggest Dave submit his idea to the PDGA BOD.

Otherwise, this is just mindless discussion with no end result.

A discussion of ideas with no end result is still a discussion of ideas. "Mindless"? A discussion of history or quantum physics can be thoughtful and thought-provoking, without resulting in substantive changes in the world.

 

[fritothedog]

I was just recording some rounds and it got me thinking about this thread a little. I know SSE is an estimate and it seems no one really knows how to exactly calculate SSA but if this calculation were made available then wouldn't we be able to directly compare round results a bit more accurately? Instead of saying "I shot par" (or TAP for that matter) we could calculate an SSA and say "I shot a 922 round."

Just a thought on a different way to compare rounds.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes. SSE or SSA serve, as least somewhat, as portable comparisons between rounds on different courses, and a comparison of an individual round to a standard (what a 1000-rated player would should). If you tell me you shot 3-under I don't know what that means, but if you say you shot a 950-rated round, I do.

Just as not as well as a better system of par would.

 

[Dave242]

Calculating SSA is based on the established ratings of "propagators". It uses how they scored versus how good they are based on their Player Ratings. You therefore need multiple propagators to derive an SSA. You need a lot of propagators to derive and accurate/stable/representative SSA.

If it is only you playing, the SSA will always be the score you just got.

What you need to do is find PDGA events run on the course you are playing and use that for SSA. For accuracy, you need to know the layout used in the event and the weather conditions.

 

[Steve West]

...
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'.

Well, those who are influential positions SHOULD have a grasp on what a 1000 rated player will score, or rely on someone who does. Every one of the members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group does. They are not that difficult to hire.

I know that won't always happen, so see below.

One thing to note, which I forgot earlier: the estimated SSA should be calculated without including expected penalties. "Errorless play" and all that. Besides, the 1000-rated player, if playing errorlessly, would play somewhat above 1000. So, par would naturally fall in between the cash line and the win line. That's where I felt it should be anyway.

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)?

Stop looking at averages. Average is not the same as errorless play. Average is errorless play PLUS errors.

I'll start with the case where you have results from actual tournaments of 1000-rated players. That's the easier case, because the definition applies directly.

50% 4s and 50% 5s would be par 4. Duh. If half the 1000-rates players get a 4, that's obviously the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on this hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions

If all you know is the average, you can't set par perfectly accurately. Take a hole that averages 3.5. It may be 50% 2's and 50% 5's. If so, it's a par 2. I don't know what heck went wrong with those 5's, but it certainly wasn't errorless play.

Or it may be 25% each of 2, 3, 4 and 5's. In that case, it's a par 3. Sure, it's possible to get a 2, but it crosses the line from "errorless" to "errorless and lucky" to get it, because only 25% of players got a 2.

So, for all these 6 or 7 holes with x.5 averages, just see which score covers 37% of the players. Fortunately, for the vast majority of holes, the 37% falls comfortably into a particular score. I haven't seen a lot of cases that are near the bubble.

Now, what to do before the before the course has been played? That's more difficult, because you're trying to estimate what par will be.

The crudest way would be to assign a par to each hole, based on length ranges. These ranges would be figured out by looking at a lot of tournaments hole-by-hole scores, assigning par and graphing them against length. I say "crude" but it would be a huge improvement over what we have now. At least everybody using the same ranges, and pars would be set on something approximating the actual (modified) definition.

If you somehow have access to only score averages of 1000-rated players, a crude (but still better than what we have) way is to set pars based on scores that run from (x-1).6 to (x).6. Anything that averages less than 2.6 is par 2, for example. The extra 0.1 above just rounding approximates the effect of errorlessness.

A step up would be to use the SSE formula. Set the total par for the course at SSE and allocate to each hole based on difficulty or length of hole. I'm not sure how OB and other penalties figure into SSE. I'd take them out if I could.

Better would be to use the Hole Forecaster, (with OB turned off) to calculate the total par for the course, and then allocate that total to individual holes based on estimated scores for each hole.

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

Well, it only fixes the definition, if that's what you mean. If it were universally adopted, which problems do you think it doesn't fix?

 

[Dave242]

I agree with what you are saying and work fine for me and my world view....especially with the "errorless play" part. But, good luck in getting less "invested" people to understand it and implement it.

This part is exactly what TAP is.....with 300' pulled out of the air (as a nice round number) rather than all the graphing.....that you say would still result in a crude approximation:

The crudest way would be to assign a par to each hole, based on length ranges. These ranges would be figured out by looking at a lot of tournaments hole-by-hole scores, assigning par and graphing them against length. I say "crude" but it would be a huge improvement over what we have now. At least everybody using the same ranges, and pars would be set on something approximating the actual (modified) definition.

Well, it only fixes the definition, if that's what you mean. If it were universally adopted, which problems do you think it doesn't fix?

For starters:
It does not fix the aversion to Par-2's
It does not fix the perception that people make Par much more complicated than it needs to be
It does not fix the problem that even if people agreed in concept, they would fix their tee signs
It would cause a problem that Red Tees will not have the same Par as Gold/Black Tees (Golf convention)

 

[coupe]

Take a hole that averages 3.5. It may be 50% 2's and 50% 5's. If so, it's a par 2. I don't know what heck went wrong with those 5's, but it certainly wasn't errorless play.

They're drop-ins..

 

[Rockwell]

A number of people have said that regardless what Par is, you are really just playing against the other people on the course.

But I disagree, golf is about beating the course, not others. That's why we can still enjoy it when we go out by ourselves. If you beat the course, you often beat other people playing the course as well, but you weren't playing defense or something that kept them from doing well.

Now, on the Par discussion, it's really a matter of if we want "Par" to mean you played flawlessly, or if we want "Birdie" to mean you played flawlessly. And even then, I've gotten birdies that weren't flawless (hit a gap I wasn't aiming at, got a good kick, etc.) So really we know if we're beating the course, or if it's beating us, regardless of what our score says in relation to Par.

 

[disc qualified]

Little league, HS and College baseball players use aluminum bats while the pros use wood. I go to a batting cage and get stuck with aluminum. Where is the consistency? How is baseball ever expected to be taken seriously when the pros don't use the same equipment as the ams? How do i explain this disparity to my kids?

 

[DiscNutt123]

Little league, HS and College baseball players use aluminum bats while the pros use wood. I go to a batting cage and get stuck with aluminum. Where is the consistency? How is baseball ever expected to be taken seriously when the pros don't use the same equipment as the ams? How do i explain this disparity to my kids?

That's easy.. Little League, High School and Colleges don't have the same funds that MLB teams have to constantly replace wooden bats. Therefore they use aluminum. And this whole conversation isn't about equipment...

 

[disc qualified]

I thought it was about consistency, uniformity and making things simpler for commoners to understand

 

[sneakytiki]

A number of people have said that regardless what Par is, you are really just playing against the other people on the course.

But I disagree, golf is about beating the course, not others. That's why we can still enjoy it when we go out by ourselves. If you beat the course, you often beat other people playing the course as well, but you weren't playing defense or something that kept them from doing well.

Now, on the Par discussion, it's really a matter of if we want "Par" to mean you played flawlessly, or if we want "Birdie" to mean you played flawlessly. And even then, I've gotten birdies that weren't flawless (hit a gap I wasn't aiming at, got a good kick, etc.) So really we know if we're beating the course, or if it's beating us, regardless of what our score says in relation to Par.

I agree on the beating the course thing.

I'd say one of the biggest uses for par in a competition setting would be when comparing scores throughout the tourney to get an idea where people fall despite the fact that they have played a different composition of holes on the course. That still does not require par to be set low and difficult. Just consistently. Also, comparing solo rounds between courses. If I could go to a new course I have never played, knowing how well I typically play in relation to par on other courses, I could gauge how well my play was with par (ideally).

But also, to your point, I can also gauge how well I am doing on my own. I know when I am having a good game and when I am having a bad game on my own. I know when I am beating the course or the course is beating me. So maybe I don't need it.

 

[Bubbajoe]

Little league, HS and College baseball players use aluminum bats while the pros use wood. I go to a batting cage and get stuck with aluminum. Where is the consistency? How is baseball ever expected to be taken seriously when the pros don't use the same equipment as the ams? How do i explain this disparity to my kids?

That's easy.. Little League, High School and Colleges don't have the same funds that MLB teams have to constantly replace wooden bats. Therefore they use aluminum. And this whole conversation isn't about equipment...

^Exactly^ equipment standards. Aluminum bats are banned in MLB for safety reasons.
A somewhat better analogy would be the confusion that might arise from LL, College, and MLB using different formulas to calculate ERA.

 

[DavidSauls]

So, for all these 6 or 7 holes with x.5 averages, just see which score covers 37% of the players. Fortunately, for the vast majority of holes, the 37% falls comfortably into a particular score. I haven't seen a lot of cases that are near the bubble.

Now, what to do before the before the course has been played? That's more difficult, because you're trying to estimate what par will be.

I'm curious---why 37%, not 50%? It seems to me if we wanted par to be what a scratch player would be expected to shoot on a hole, or be most likely to shoot on a hole, the median would be the right number.

(Another argument against average is those holes, usually with a lot of O.B., that tend to get more than their share of scores 2, 3, 4 shots above the median).

 

[disc qualified]

But i want my batting cage experience to be taken seriously by commoners and replicate what the pros do

 

[Dave242]

Little league, HS and College baseball players use aluminum bats while the pros use wood. I go to a batting cage and get stuck with aluminum. Where is the consistency? How is baseball ever expected to be taken seriously when the pros don't use the same equipment as the ams? How do i explain this disparity to my kids?

You have me feeling like a dumbass with this post since this got me thinking about why I have never used the baseball to slow pitch softball analogy when comparing BG to DG!!??!!

For starters, just look at the pitcher in baseball: the most analyzed and important and skilled person on the field (and among the highest paid). In slow pitch, the pitchers do not even count for squat (provided they can lob the ball over the plate). That's gotta be a good starting point for something.....for some other thread probably.