..
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...
Actually, it does require par to be low. Or, at least a low par works much better. Everyone starts at even par. If par is low, the top players also finish near even par. So, whether you have played more or fewer rounds than the other players, or different courses, you still know where you stand in relation to even par, which is the same as a direct comparison to the top players.
If par is high, then you have to make adjustments based on how many holes each player has completed, and the relative difference between par and what you expect the best players to actually score on each course (even each hole) that you each have played, as well as take a guess as to how many under a "good" score 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).
It's not what a scratch player would be expected to shoot (that would be the average), nor what a scratch player would be most likely to score (that would be the mode). It's what a scratch player would be expected to shoot with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions. A score with no errors and no bad weather is somewhat lower than the average score.
One could ask, why not 1%? If somebody got that score, it's possible, so why isn't that par? That goes beyond expected, and enters into lucky, I think.
Somewhere between "at least one player got this low score" and "over half the players got this low score", there is a point where enough players get that score that you can expect a player to get that score if he doesn't make a mistake.
I chose (1/e) because that is the percentage of a distribution which maximizes the contribution to the information content. That tells me 37% is pretty good evidence.
A case could be made for anything from about 25% to 50%. Looking at a lot of scoring distributions, I got the feeling that 37% works pretty well.
For example, say 10% get 2, 30% get 3, and 20% get 4, 5, or 6. It's clear a player should get a 3, and might get a lucky 2. Par should be 3. When I tried a cutoff of 50%, it resulted in more cases like this where it seemed to include some players who were not playing errorlessly.
Even better would be to go out and watch the hole being played. If you decide someone made an error, don't count that score. Then, look at the scores of the other players.
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)
If the definition were actually accepted, all but the last do go away. People would understand that on some holes a 1000-rated player should get a 2 if he doesn't make an error. Do you really think that is news to anyone?
Par would be simpler, because it would be based on a simple to understand definition. While "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions" might not roll off the tongue, everyone would know it's "what an expert should score."
All those other definitions of par, which I think are the sources of complications you are talking about, go away. Or, if you're referring to the internal calculations, who would see those except those doing the calculations? All players would see is a number on the tee sign or scorecard. They would know that score is both doable, and what they should shoot for. (For the par for their level.)
We don't have golf's handicapping system which can tell players what score they should expect on any course and any set of tees for any set of pin positions for any given day.
We have the system where players only need to know what colored-coded level of player they are, and simply look at their par on the sign. Even without knowledge of ratings, people would figure out which color of par matches their scores after one round. That system would continue to work just fine. It's not a problem, it's a feature.
Isn't anyone going to come on and defend the current system of par as the best we could possibly have?
Haven't you been paying attention? It's best because it's what's on 8,000 tee signs. It's best because people are averse to par 2's. It's best because people have an inalienable right to birdie, it's best because par doesn't matter anyway...need I go on?
Every step of progress made in the history of humankind has been in SPITE of the majority saying "It's fine as it is."
Translated from grunts and clicks: Why all this discussion on learning to use fire? Raw meat is my favorite food. Leave it alone.
