Par Talk

[Steve West]

Don't they do that without respect to the par designation? Couldn't they do that even with a "Par 0" designation?

Yes, that's the point. We don't need to go moving the tee pad farther back from the lake just because the hole that was always thought to be a par n may actually be a par n-1.

The change in par could be (but would not have to be) combined with a change to the OB areas to make them Relief Areas, as an "explanation".

 

[Steve West]

All the more reason to notate Par on signage by Handicap.

Or by skill level. I'm all for that, if they are labelled as such.

 

[teemkey]

Or by skill level. I'm all for that, if they are labelled as such.

Would you favor by division or by rating?

 

[Steve West]

Would you favor by division or by rating?

For tournaments, by division, but by choosing a skill level based on a rating that is appropriate for the contenders in that division.

For tee signs, by the skill levels and the color codes associated with them.

(Though, I'm in the "Let's rename them" camp. I was a "Novice" for 45 years. Now, I play Am Worlds as a "Recreational" player. Neither makes a lot of sense to me.)

 

[Casey 1988]

Let's leave the question of whether disc golf needs to be harder in general for another thread.

I'd invite you to defend your premise that a hole must be eliminated if it is a par 2. And invite others to defend the premise that par 2s have a place in disc golf.

Well they do not make it a Par 2 then. Hole 16 is a par 3 for everything including tournaments. More courses need to except that some holes need to be a par 2 so less man designed island holes happen in a tournament. I get the hard blue is a true par 3, enough by being over 200 feet but the rest are par 2. Hole 16 I mention feels like it was squished in to have an 18 hole course. To me I would have eliminated the hole to have a better course ad used the Basket somewhere else as a practice hole that is about the same kind of hole. It does not help that Erie State Park is so small. It is okay to have a par 2, it is okay to have a 17 hole course. In fact a 17 hole course would make the course stand out as having played a 17 hole course.

I know because at the local in town course Steamboat Park, has a similar hole 5 I think that should be a par 2 but is a par 3 simply made possible by the wind we get in South Dakota. We should have not squished the hole in there in fact we had another spot the hole was going to go but the city said nope too close to the Amphitheater. The City insisted on a 18 hole course so we squished it in at a spot you can barely get a hole in and it almost conflicts with the paved bike path to the right that I have seen players shank the disc into a disc biker with a slower Fairway driver. My dad and the other designers including me as a test subject were going to drop the hole for a putting basket, the great deal with the baskets was in sets of 9.

 

[teemkey]

For tournaments, by division, but by choosing a skill level based on a rating that is appropriate for the contenders in that division.

The issue is, of course, determining the "appropriate" rating for MA1/FA1 where there's no ceiling, MA4/FA4 where there's no floor, and age-protected divisions where ratings could be all over the map.

(Though, I'm in the "Let's rename them" camp. I was a "Novice" for 45 years. Now, I play Am Worlds as a "Recreational" player. Neither makes a lot of sense to me.)

Does Am Worlds have ratings protected divisions?

 

[Steve West]

The issue is, of course, determining the "appropriate" rating for MA1/FA1 where there's no ceiling, MA4/FA4 where there's no floor, and age-protected divisions where ratings could be all over the map.

Done. It's the rating that provides the most information to the contenders about whether they are gaining or losing ground.

http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par_May_2018.pdf page 4.

Does Am Worlds have ratings protected divisions?

No, they don't. It's just funny that someone who is categorized as a "Recreational" player would be the type to show up at huge tournaments. Even stranger if they don't finish DFL.

 

[teemkey]

Done. It's the rating that provides the most information to the contenders about whether they are gaining or losing ground.

http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par_May_2018.pdf page 4.

Why are RAF (Green) and RAG (Purple) both assigned to the group of divisions?

No, they don't. It's just funny that someone who is categorized as a "Recreational" player would be the type to show up at huge tournaments. Even stranger if they don't finish DFL.

Well, yeah. But IME the lower rated players are using the Ed Headrick "most fun" success rating system...

 

[Improbably]

No, they don't. It's just funny that someone who is categorized as a "Recreational" player would be the type to show up at huge tournaments. Even stranger if they don't finish DFL.

My perception is that such individuals feel they are attending a festival/convention more so than a tournament.

 

[Steve West]

Why are RAF (Green) and RAG (Purple) both assigned to the group of divisions?

Four reasons: There isn't enough data about Purple players to establish a standard yet.

Green (800) pars are close enough for Purple; the expected throw lengths are so short, Purple players can luck into a birdie every now and then.

Par starts to become irrelevant for players who rarely play an entire hole without an error.

For practical reasons, the number of categories had to be finite; there could be a lot more lower skill levels, down to 500 rated or below. But, there's little value in defining differences in par between very short holes.

 

[Steve West]

Well, yeah. But IME the lower rated players are using the Ed Headrick "most fun" success rating system...

One can be a very serious player at any skill level.

Being born not male enough, or not recently enough, or too recently, or not athletic enough, or having something bad happen to you that ruins some body parts, need not diminish one's commitment to improving and competing. But it will affect one's rating.

 

[teemkey]

One can be a very serious player at any skill level.

Being born not male enough, or not recently enough, or too recently, or not athletic enough, or having something bad happen to you that ruins some body parts, need not diminish one's commitment to improving and competing. But it will affect one's rating.

Of course. But enjoying the competition and camaraderie with others from around the world (e.g. "having fun") with similarly skilled players does not require having illusions about winning their division.

 

[Steve West]

I did a quick run of my method of assessing par to the early results from Pro Worlds because it will heighten my viewing experience of the taped coverage tomorrow.


For Fox Run, all look good – unless you believe in the existence of par 2s (#6 and #10).

I think most of the pars on Fox Run are appropriate for FPO. Holes #5, #9, and #16 maybe should be one higher at 4, 4, and 5.


For Brewster Ridge, none of the B pool were rated high enough for precise calculations, but extrapolation would indicate that most were good, but #3 might qualify as par 2, while #17 maybe could be thought of as a par 3. We'll see if that pans out or not.

The pars work for FPO, except #8 could be higher at par 5.

 

[Steve West]

Here's a rarity. Not that 8 holes were under-parred, but that one hole was under-parred by two throws: set to a par 5 when by the pre-comma part of the definition it should be a par 3.

 

[Steve West]

For PDGA Professional Disc Golf World Championships 2018, FPO the final results compared to par would make one think that perhaps par should have been higher for FPO. That's only partly true. I'd say Brewster Ridge should have been par 63 instead of 61, and Fox Run 64 instead of 63, but that's only 7 throws over 5 rounds. The winning score would still have been 1 over.

What seems to have happened was that so many of the holes were tough pars. Many were near to being a higher par, and none had the usual "long tail" that indicates many birdies.

This is the opposite of some European tournaments where they seem to adjust the holes to generate as many birdies as possible while still justifying the set par.

 

[PMantle]

but that one hole was under-parred by two throws: set to a par 5 when by the pre-comma part of the definition it should be a par 3.

The TD has a time machine?

 

[Steve West]

The TD has a time machine?

The next TD to run an event on this course is here in the past when they can make changes to par for events yet to be held on this course. Just like they could adjust the OB lines. Learning from the past and making improvements for the future is possible.

For most of us.

 

[PMantle]

The next TD to run an event on this course is here in the past when they can make changes to par for events yet to be held on this course. Just like they could adjust the OB lines. Learning from the past and making improvements for the future is possible.

For most of us.

Yikes

 

[lyleoross]

The TD has a time machine?

There's a great Robert Heinlein short story about this guy stuck in this time loop. He gets approached by a guy who comes through a portal in his room and convinces him, via little logic or wit, that it is in his best interests to go into the portal. From there on he keeps cycling in and out of the time frame where he started, talking himself into going through the time portal because it will be very good for himself. He keeps thinking he should stop the cycle but the younger him is too stubborn to listen and keeps entering the portal.

He beats himself up at least once.

 

[Steve West]

2018 Delaware Disc Golf Challenge presented by Innova - National Tour, Gold Layout

All the pars were good for Blue level (950-rated), so this is just a matter of "Who's an expert?".