Throw Down/Texas States/Nick Hyde

[Steve West]

wow...awesome data, thank you. hmm...perhaps I should have upped the ante a bit to just include the elite players, those over 1020 or so. Would that increase it more than 25%? And wow...25% getting birdie seems very low for a 370ft hole. What am I missing here?

There is less data for higher skilled players. This chart has only about half as many holes, and there is less data for each hole.

It looks like for 1025-rated players to get a two 90% of the time, the hole has to be under 300 feet long, and very easy for that length.

Still less than 30% will get a 2 on the typical 370 foot long hole.

 

[Jolt]

So FPO started R2 over from start? And only 2 round total. . to bad

 

[Jolt]

Still less than 30% will get a 2 on the typical 370 foot long hole

Thats very intresting. . .you hear that "must get" all the time. . .

 

[swhite]

Good eyes. It makes me wonder of course designers haven't subconsciously divided holes into two categories, those under 300 and those above 350?

There could be something to what you are suggesting.

Perhaps designers often look at holes and think that 320-330 ft is just a bit too much for most folks to get as a par 3, but would be too easy as a par 4. So, they either shorten or lengthen it a bit to make it more obviously classifiable.



So, a question for folks might be: ignoring all other factors, what distance separates par 3 from par 4?

 

[Steve West]

Thats very intresting. . .you hear that "must get" all the time. . .

Must-get-to-win is a lot different than expect-to-get-regularly.

 

[Halcón]

Looks like Rebecca Cox is making the best of her do-over. :thmbup:

Edit: Wow, as soon as I posted this, she got her first bogey of the round. :doh:

 

[Steve West]

So, a question for folks might be: ignoring all other factors, what distance separates par 3 from par 4?

I'm only answering this here to direct all further discussion to the Par Talk thread.

But, since I'm here...

1. There isn't one specific length that divides par 3 from par 4, because par is defined by score, not length. Even the length-based methods like Close Range Par and the PDGA Guidelines make adjustments for, and are based on, the effective length of a hole, which can be different than the actual length.

So, there are some par 3s that are longer than some par 4s. See graph.

2. It's a lot longer than people think. If I had to pick a dividing line, it would be 480 feet. At that cutoff point, 88% of the holes that are either par 3 or par 4 would be assigned the correct par based solely on length.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Weese with a 245' throw in on 18 for eagle...

 

[Jolt]

Weese with a 245' throw in on 18 for eagle...

Really fun for her, she needed that after a not so great tournament.

Strong finish for PP.. but to late

 

[brutalbrutus]

What's up with them going to finish yesterday's round for the FPO? They are talking about it the YT chat for Tallahassee but I cant find any info?...

 

[Jolt]

I dont understand Udisc, R3 restart? Thought Cox was playing for the win on 19

 

[brutalbrutus]

They just updated the udisc scores to include yesterday's partial round. What a joke that is. Especially since they apparently didn't tell them till they were 5 holes into today's round?

 

[Jolt]

Looks like they going to play 9holes To "finnish" R2 ...terrible News for Cox

 

[Halcón]

They just updated the udisc scores to include yesterday's partial round. What a joke that is. Especially since they apparently didn't tell them till they were 5 holes into today's round?

I just checked Udisc and I'm totally confused.

 

[JC17393]

I hope they're doing the same with the men (making them play an extra 9 holes). Just because the ladies were able to start their round yesterday before the day got wiped out by weather doesn't mean they need to finish it.

If the intent was to complete the already started round (even at just 9 holes), it should have been done BEFORE any third round was attempted. The PDGA mid-event delay/cancellation policy says that any round that has been started should be completed before any subsequent rounds are attempted. If they're tossing the completion of yesterday's round on to the end of the tournament, the TDs royally screwed this up.

 

[Jolt]

So MPO leadcard starts in 10min and Jomez film the FPO extra holes. How Will that work?

Very strange to play R2 after R3 . .never heard of that happening

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's what appeared to happen but I have no direct knowledge of the discussion.

1. TD thought he could cancel an incomplete round so the scores on completed holes would not count. (not allowed per Comp rules, just suspension)

2. Players were told to play the same holes today that they completed yesterday (thinking previous round was canceled) when it was discovered they didn't need to.

3. A key Comp rule is to try and use scores from every hole completed which is why suspension is the correct choice during the event unless it's the final round.

4. Now that the same 4 or 5 holes had been played a third time, the administrative challenge was to figure out a way to officially use those scores.

5. So the decision was made that to use them, they would need to play enough additional holes a third time to complete 9 holes to call it an official round, thus using every hole score. The other option would be to throw out the scores on holes 1-5 thrown today since not enough holes would have been thrown to get to the minimum 9 required for a partial final round to be official.

 

[Jolt]

Why did the FPO leadcard not play hole 5?

 

[Jolt]

What is happening...first Udisc has a birdy and tie...now an Eagle and PP win?

 

[JC17393]

I'm assuming the MP50 division is in the same boat as MPO in that they never got on the course yesterday before the delays began. But MP40 looks like they got round 2 started before being halted, but they only had to complete 3 holes? Seems inconsistent to me that they didn't have to finish a minimum of 9 holes as required by the mid-event suspension policy, but the women did.

What a cluster****.