Par Talk

[disc.golf.jay]

Just about any method, when applied to a 1000-rated player, will work fine for most holes. However, that doesn't qualify any method to become the new definition. A definition has to work for all kinds of holes. The only true commonality possible to all holes is the score expected of an expert.

I understand your point, but would suggest most people have a sense of what par means based on experiences with golf. I don't believe disc golf should attempt to change that perception. Rather, we should have a method that aligns to that definition.

So, shots to green +2. But in current definition of disc golf putting, 1-putts are more expected, not 2-putts. There will always be oddities due to course design.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[disc.golf.jay]

Or just:

par = expected shots

Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. Par has a very standard definition that goes WAY back... maybe not all the way to 1457, but a long way all the same. Shots to green + 2. Some holes are designed to play to par, others are designed to play below and above par but not at par (e.g. small island hole), but par stays the same. I think disc golf should simply have a method to implement this consensus view of par.

 

[disc.golf.jay]

Do you always put with a glove on?

Noticed a few wobbly puts maybe grip has something to do with it.

I don't see many putting with a stack of putters in their hand.

Very informative videos so far just a few things I noticed. Gives me the same vibe as the old Discraft videos I really do think it's great.

Were you watching my Variables of Putting video? On some of those I was trying to force more wobble to make it very visible. However, I do have some wobble for sure. I have a hypothesis that wobble actually helps accuracy on longer putts by breaking up the influence of the wind. A little wobble, that is. Take a look at this video that measure Drew Brees' accuracy to see where I got the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6EguTZFK5s

At about 7:20 they say, "Surprisingly, a little wobble is necessary to keep the ball on target." and then they explain why. Doesn't have anything to do with disc golf per se, but got me thinking about the topic.

I probably don't need the glove to putt, but I have a neurological disorder that falls under the MDA diseases. I don't have reflexes and my muscles at the extremities atrophy. Too many foot surgeries to count. I have issues with grip fatigue through a round, so the glove helps even out my grip to keep my throws consistent. I prefer to leave it on when putting, so I practice with it when putting as well.

And yes, I've moved to putting my putters on a stool most of the time. However, look up McBeth's 50+1 putting video and he's holding a stack. Thanks for taking a look at my channel!

 

[DavidSauls]

Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. Par has a very standard definition that goes WAY back... maybe not all the way to 1457, but a long way all the same. Shots to green + 2. Some holes are designed to play to par, others are designed to play below and above par but not at par (e.g. small island hole), but par stays the same. I think disc golf should simply have a method to implement this consensus view of par.

To dredge up issues from way back in this thread, golf's definition does not say shots to the green +2. At least, not the definition I could find on the PGA website, nor any definition anyone else cited. It is simply the expected score of an expert (in so many words).

It happens that in golf, shots to the green +2 is a method producing results that match that definition, in almost all cases. In disc golf, the same method doesn't.

 

[disc.golf.jay]

To dredge up issues from way back in this thread, golf's definition does not say shots to the green +2. At least, not the definition I could find on the PGA website, nor any definition anyone else cited. It is simply the expected score of an expert (in so many words).

It happens that in golf, shots to the green +2 is a method producing results that match that definition, in almost all cases. In disc golf, the same method doesn't.

That's fair. I should have said "par has a very standard ASSUMED definition." In other words, that's what most people think of with the word, and that method describes the majority of the situations. I think the goal is to create an approach that uses the simplest definition/method possible to account for the most situations. Shots to green + 2, with a properly defined putting area for disc golf (20m and in?), is remarkable for its simplicity and the breadth of situations it can cover.

There will be courses with holes designed to yield non-par results with this definition. For instance, a tiny island green might yield mainly birdies and bogies+, with very few pars. That's okay in my mind, and doesn't undermine the beauty of a very simple definition/method that covers most other situations.

 

[Steve West]

Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. ...

I'd bet more new players would know that "par is a good score" than would know the commonly used unofficial method for calculating par in golf.

Re-educating only applies to the minority of players who had a background in golf and didn't really know golf's definition in the first place and mistakenly applied that method to disc golf. Plus the designers and players who listened to them.

That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?

 

[disc.golf.jay]

That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?

Too true. :|

 

[Steve West]

...I think the goal is to create an approach that uses the simplest definition/method possible to account for the most situations. Shots to green + 2, with a properly defined putting area for disc golf (20m and in?), is remarkable for its simplicity and the breadth of situations it can cover. ...

There are a lot of methods that account for most situations. "All holes are par 3" does remarkably. But, the definition needs to apply to all situations.

What you've described is Close Range Par, except the real CRP uses 100 feet instead of 20m. A better version of CRP would use 200 feet or more. If everyone used that as applied to a 1000-rated player, par would be really well set almost all the time.

Every method will fail on some exceptional holes. For example, I still would not like to apply par 3 to a hole where almost no one gets a 3. For this and other exceptional holes, we need to abandon the method and revert to the definition.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd bet more new players would know that "par is a good score" than would know the commonly used unofficial method for calculating par in golf.

Re-educating only applies to the minority of players who had a background in golf and didn't really know golf's definition in the first place and mistakenly applied that method to disc golf. Plus the designers and players who listened to them.

That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?

I think there's a broader audience to re-educate; many of us came up in disc golf being told by mentors that it was "shots to green + 2"; played many courses where it was set that way; and inferred from the old definition in the rulebook.

But we're on our way.

In our favor is the other notion of par: a standard score, neither good nor bad in the competition. That, too, is in a lot of people's minds.

 

[disc.golf.jay]

What you've described is Close Range Par, except the real CRP uses 100 feet instead of 20m. A better version of CRP would use 200 feet or more. If everyone used that as applied to a 1000-rated player, par would be really well set almost all the time.

Every method will fail on some exceptional holes. For example, I still would not like to apply par 3 to a hole where almost no one gets a 3. For this and other exceptional holes, we need to abandon the method and revert to the definition.

Good thoughts. I was thinking more of an inverted CRP. Instead of asking, how close before two shots will get it done, ask, how far out when 2 shots is needed on average? Haven't really thought through why I prefer that approach... probably because I don't like par under 3. I'm biased toward every hole having a chance for birdies without an ace.

 

[Steve West]

Good thoughts. I was thinking more of an inverted CRP. Instead of asking, how close before two shots will get it done, ask, how far out when 2 shots is needed on average? Haven't really thought through why I prefer that approach... probably because I don't like par under 3. I'm biased toward every hole having a chance for birdies without an ace.

So if someone puts the tee where two good shots will get it done....? Even if a miss will result in a 4 rather than a 3?

I have no problem with anyone who does not like par 2s. Eliminate them if you want, just don't call them par 3s. It makes as little sense as someone who thinks there should be no par 6s simply lowering par on all their 1,500 foot holes to par 5.

The question of whether all holes should be birdieable is a design question, not a par question. In other words, the solution is to make the hole enough harder (based on errorless play; not by adding penalties) to justify the higher par, not to leave the hole too short and inflate par above the expected score.

 

[Karl]

The question of whether all holes should be birdieable is a design question, not a par question.

I disagree in so much as without 'par' there can not be 'birdie'. ALL holes (unless it's a 1par) can be birdied. Some are just a LOT easier to birdie than others. [This is what I think you're alluding to but you can't have birdie unless par is in the discussion.]

 

[Steve West]

I disagree in so much as without 'par' there can not be 'birdie'. ALL holes (unless it's a 1par) can be birdied. Some are just a LOT easier to birdie than others. [This is what I think you're alluding to but you can't have birdie unless par is in the discussion.]

My point is that even if no one has ever scored one lower than par, that's not a sufficient reason to raise par.

An example is Beaver State Fling Presented by KEEN - National Tour 2017/Milo McIver East/ Hole 17. In 83 rounds of play by 1000ish-rated players, no 2s were recorded, but 82% of those players got a 3. That hole is par 3. It does not need to have any 2s at all to prove it is a par 3.

Is it birdieable? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter.

 

[biscoe]

What that hole is is inappropriate for the level of player playing it. Debating what par it is is like taking a chicken and debating whether it is a goose or a duck. it is most likely a blue par 4. For gold it is literally neither a par 3 or par 4 and whether you call it a ridiculously difficult par 3 or a ridiculously easy par 4 just depends on your method.

 

[johnrhouck]

What that hole is is inappropriate for the level of player playing it. Debating what par it is is like taking a chicken and debating whether it is a goose or a duck.

John, I absolutely agree with this statement.

In fact, I agree with it so much, I wrote it in my most recent article for the PDGA magazine a couple weeks ago. I didn't use birds, but I did stay in the animal kingdom. I guess great minds...

Mr. West, or Mr. Kennedy, just so I don't get accused of plagiarism, would you please confirm that you read my article before it went to the printer last week?

 

[Cgkdisc]

John, I absolutely agree with this statement.

In fact, I agree with it so much, I wrote it in my most recent article for the PDGA magazine a couple weeks ago. I didn't use birds, but I did stay in the animal kingdom. I guess great minds...

Mr. West, or Mr. Kennedy, just so I don't get accused of plagiarism, would you please confirm that you read my article before it went to the printer last week?

Definitely read the mane parts....

 

[Steve West]

What that hole is is inappropriate for the level of player playing it....

That may be true, but it's irrelevant. There is no threshold if inappropriateness which exempts a hole from having a par.

For gold it is literally neither a par 3 or par 4 and whether you call it a ridiculously difficult par 3 or a ridiculously easy par 4 just depends on your method.

Well, it was literally a par 3 at this event because the TD said so.

The only "method" which would assign that hole par 4 is what I call Swedish Par: Take the score players expect to be able to get and add one.

What logic would you use to make it a par 4?

 

[Steve West]

....

Mr. West, or Mr. Kennedy, just so I don't get accused of plagiarism, would you please confirm that you read my article before it went to the printer last week?

Yes, and you know which line I was very tempted to quote in response to biscoe.

 

[Karl]

My point is that even if no one has ever scored one lower than par, that's not a sufficient reason to raise par. Why not? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't / it's possible.

[bold above is my quick response]

An example is Beaver State Fling Presented by KEEN - National Tour 2017/Milo McIver East/ Hole 17. In 83 rounds of play by 1000ish-rated players, no 2s were recorded, but 82% of those players got a 3. That hole is par 3. It does not need to have any 2s at all to prove it is a par 3.

Is it birdieable? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter.

I think it does matter!

A few prefaces:

A lot of people TRY to make disc golf (dg) "different" than golf (bg) but precedence has been set - dg IS "golf".

As some others, I happen to be in the camp of par is NOT an "average" (of even the greatest players), therefore you can trick up a hole all you want and par, birdie, bogie, etc. will NOT change.

In bg, on a 3par, one can get an eagle (ace), birdie, par, bogie, etc., but albatrosses aren't (as zeros and minus numbers aren't). Any 'drive able 4par' is REALLY just a 3par usually fraught with danger that the tournament has set up as a 4par "for viewer's like", drama, and the like. Personally I don't like that they do such but that's just me. ALL 3pars can be aced...and, yes, some of these sham 4pars (that aren't REALLY 4's) can be also.

So working on the premise that all 3pars CAN be aced (remember we ARE golf!)...
...your brain can probably travel to all sorts of scenarios - and a lot faster than I can type on a silly phone with a stylus!

Therefore:
If a hole can't be aced, it's a 4par (or higher...determined by if it can't be "had" in 2, it's a 5par, etc.)
If a hole can be aced, it's a 3par.
If a hole isn't giving you the "scoring spread" or "challenge" or "...whatever..." you're looking for, PAR is not the problem. Design is! And thus I bow to Steve's post numerous posts prior (the one where he said something about it being a design issue).

But as I've said numerous times before: if JB, JH, myself, LL, and (name any other reputable designer) looked at 100 holes in person, the number of holes that we wouldn't agree on its par would probably be on 1 (maybe 2) fingers. Par is like that senator asked if he knew the definition of porn - and said he knew it if he saw it. Thus is par.

Have at it

Karl
Ps: This stylus stuff is for the birds

 

[Cgkdisc]

Disc golf appears to be a sport being designed and tweaked to fit the measurement metrics of another sport versus developing the sport then determining its own suitable measurement metrics. Seems like the tail wagging the dog or an inferiority complex that the sport could be legitimate on its own merits.