What is Par?

[Cgkdisc]

I've done it a few times. Granite Ridge and Maiden Shade are two I can remember. Granite Ridge hole 17 before the redesign prior to PW2007 had the red tee behind the blue tee and one par higher at par 4. I think Giants Ridge. Recently on Maiden Shade, they installed the Blue and Red concrete tee pads longer than specified making the hole too long from both tees (auto 3s). Just last week I suggested that the owner reverse the tee colors and make the long tee a Red par 4 and the shorter Blue tee a par 3. Both lengths then fall in the proper length range for each.

 

[Dave242]

Cool! How do people react to these? Do people get it?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It worked at Highbridge. The other change is just underway. The course is closed so it will be next spring to see the reaction.

 

[Sadjo]

A course were are working on now present a similar situation. The two tees will likely be side by side...about 10 to 15 feet between them with the Blue tee being slightly closer than the Red tee. The challenge is different enough with the angle to the elevated basket position and the two large trees that guard the green. Were also looking at a third possible tee on this particular hole.

Its a 9 hole course that were trying to have both tees on each hole represent a very different look...more than length.

 

[Steve West]

I have a hard time seeing how a hole short enough to be a Gold par-2 is a Red par-4. At 249' would a Red level player often be more than 10' away after their 3 throw?

If they are 10' away after their 3 throw, isn't that 4?

It is not a real strong par 4. On its own merits, this hole would not be a Red 4. It's not an easy 3, but the thing that pushed it up to 4 was that I needed 1-throw higher par somewhere on the course, to get the total I wanted.

This hole will have a few more 4-and-higher scores than most of the other par 3's because in some configurations, the flight paths are quite narrow for a Red player to hit, there is a lot of trouble around the basket, and there is OB possibly in play.

The higher average score by itself would not make me raise par for this hole, but it did make this hole the kindest place to add the 1 to get the total par up.

 

[Dave242]

I was commenting on the "same trepidation" comment of yours. Inside of 10' for par-4 for Red is much higher percentage than a 249' deuce for Gold. Put another way, a 249' birdie-3 is much higher percentage than a 249' birdie-1 (ace) for Gold.

Thanks for the clarification on the challenges of the hole (did not look too challenging from the map or course pictures.....but you cannot tell much from them) and your rationale. Makes sense.....but for those that are complaining about a par-2 hole, I guess my beef is calling a 249' a par-4 hole (although you see that all the time for "recreational par" on park signage).

Glad to see you are not firmly in the scoring-average camp when it comes to assigning pars!

 

[Steve West]

I was commenting on the "same trepidation" comment of yours. Inside of 10' for par-4 for Red is much higher percentage than a 249' deuce for Gold. Put another way, a 249' birdie-3 is much higher percentage than a 249' birdie-1 (ace) for Gold.

Agreed. But, it's been my subjective observation that for an 850-rated player to be as comfortable about not going over par as a 1000-rated player claims to be about not getting more than 2, the Red par needs to be more than 3. Even though they both may be mis-estimating their chances.

Glad to see you are not firmly in the scoring-average camp when it comes to assigning pars!

Actually, I'm at least within the warmth of the campfire.

If par wasn't around as a concept, I would put throws expected (to the nearest .1) on the tee signs. [See how they compute "Strokes Gained -- Putting" from golf.] I think this can apply at all distances for disc golf. You get a 3 on a 3.1 hole, you know you gained a little on the field, but not much. You would know that to win an Open tournament, you'd need to gain 4 or 5 throws per round.

For an integral par, I would define it as the score that 36.8% of players at that skill level match or beat. Since the "average scores" being computed throw out high scores and scores with OB, this is actually pretty close to the same thing. My method just throws out high scores automatically instead of subjectively. It also produces more "reasonable" winning scores of a few under par instead of gobs under par (mostly by allowing par 2's).

But, for now, I set par on new courses based on the predicted scoring average. I don't always simply round each hole's score, but I try to get the course total to be within 1 of the expected course score. I think it's the nearest thing we have to a standard that can be compared across courses, so I use it.

 

[Olorin]

The new generation of DGCR users might want to read this thread.

 

[Olorin]

2013 resurrection

 

[sneakytiki]

haha, one par related thread AND THE RESURRECTION BEGINS!!!!!

 

[Kenny53691]

The new generation of DGCR users might want to read this thread.

This still stands true. There is some good stuff buried in this thread.

 

[scarpfish]

 

[Karl]

I had a lengthy discussion with a long-time dg'er whose opinions I respect and was quite amazed / amused the 1) we ended up talking about something which we never (I guess) previously had and 2) learned that that topic was that he believed whole-heartedly that "par" was NOT needed - nor beneficial - in our sport.

I know people will jump all over me regarding NEEDING it to cover the "holes not played need to be scored as par+4, etc.", but that point could be VERY easily handled by having some other thing take care of such...like a DQ. But that's another thread topic.

Maybe less 'standards' and more diversity would 'help' the sport. Anyway, while I didn't argue the opposite side (to his "par isn't needed") and just listened a lot, it was quite thought provoking. And I need to think some more about the merits of having / not having "par".

Karl

 

[Cgkdisc]

Par is not needed for the game. Par is needed for the sport.

 

[Steve West]

Well, get him on here to explain the disadvantages of the existence of par.

 

[Kenny53691]

Well, get him on here to explain the disadvantages of the existence of par.

I agree! Feed him to the wolves!

 

[Karl]

Yeh, this place can get rather Lupine for sure!

From what I remember him saying, these are some of the "cons":

A. Since "par" may (or may not) be 'correct' - depending on whom said par is derived for - it may do more harm than good*.
B. Even though we are "golf" there are very few other sports that have such a 'norm' ingrained into the scoring as ours does. Virtually all others are sort of simply 'score what you can and at the end we'll see if you won or not'. Bowling, Darts, Archery, etc. isn't "what is your percentage compared to a what a great player would do" nor is there any reference of such any where in them. Why should there be such for ours?
C. And considering A. above, if all 'pars' aren't 'equal', practically speaking about it - in simple terms (i.e. without getting into a lengthy discussion) - can very possibly lead to misconceptions.
D. Any thing that CAN be taken out of something (and that something not really be 'hurt' any) SHOULD be taken out (he also agrees with the KISS thing).

And I don't know if he reads threads on this site or not.

Tell you what o'furry snarling ones, list out the Pros. I'm sure we all have a bucket load of thoughts as to why par SHOULD exist. I haven't really taken a side yet although I'm leaning toward HAVING it - only because I've played bg for a bazillion years and am sort of bias toward its workings.
I always like to hear all sides of a discussion.
And I REALLY like to make complex things simpler...as this sport's rules COULD use a heavy dose of**.

Karl
* I do know that I first scored "par" after 4 months of playing dg...and this told me that "par" was 'cheaper' in dg than in bg! This may (or may not) be a detriment to newbies in bringing them back / keeping them.
** Yes, I know grammatically I shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition...but I did anyway

 

[Olorin]

Tell you what o'furry snarling ones, list out the Pros. I'm sure we all have a bucket load of thoughts as to why par SHOULD exist.

Look here for something to consider.

 

[Steve West]

A. Since "par" may (or may not) be 'correct' - depending on whom said par is derived for - it may do more harm than good*.

If he's talking about inconsisent standards, that would be an argument for fixing par. If he's talking about different pars for different skill levels, it's an arugment for making sure players can find the par for their skill level.

B. Even though we are "golf" there are very few other sports that have such a 'norm' ingrained into the scoring as ours does. Virtually all others are sort of simply 'score what you can and at the end we'll see if you won or not'. Bowling, Darts, Archery, etc. isn't "what is your percentage compared to a what a great player would do" nor is there any reference of such any where in them. Why should there be such for ours?

For most other sports the playing field is standard, so something like par isn't needed. Eveyone runs 100 meter races. If they ran "to the end of the block", someone would figure out what's a good time for each block.

NASTAR skiing uses the expected time an expert would get as a standard, because all ski hills are different (and different in different conditions). There are probably other examples.

Anyway, so what if no other sport but golf has it? You might as well say we shouldn't have a high score be "bad" because only golf does that.

C. And considering A. above, if all 'pars' aren't 'equal', practically speaking about it - in simple terms (i.e. without getting into a lengthy discussion) - can very possibly lead to misconceptions.

Addressed in A.

D. Any thing that CAN be taken out of something (and that something not really be 'hurt' any) SHOULD be taken out (he also agrees with the KISS thing).

It would really be hurt. See Olorin's reference.

We'll keep par. Done.

 

[scarpfish]

If we want par to be statistically meaningful for competition, then it can't be simple (i.e. using whole numbers for each hole).

Conversely, if we want par to be simple, so beginners and onlookers can understand it, then you have to dumb it down to where it can't be statistically meaningful (i.e. calling everything a par 3 to keep score keeping simple).

Choose your poison.