Par Talk

[Karl]

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.

I'm all for "determining its own suitable measurement metrics"; just think the sale of such to the masses will be tough...and maybe very improbable. Personally I don't even use "par". I think "What score is humanly possible on this hole?" and then proceed to shoot some number higher than that! Sometimes several shots more But sometimes none (aces and LONG throw-ins ARE nice) :clap:

 

[Steve West]

...ALL 3pars can be aced...

That is one method of setting par that works most of the time. But, for this hole, it does not. Is anyone going to think they gained a throw on their competitors by getting that same 3 everyone else did?

There is an official definition of par. It's in the rules. Read it and then tell me whether it says this hole is par 4. Or, how un-ace-ability forces par 4.

 

[biscoe]

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

There is however a threshold which prevents it from having a meaningful par. i'm not sure it matters all that much what we call the ones where the idea is that no number is actually appropriate but "i gotta call it something".

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?

TD's setting par is more problem than solution. IMO par is set in the design process if you are doing it right.

I have no idea of the physical characteristics of the hole in question therefore no way to set par by my preferred method. How long is it? How much elevation change? Is there a forced layup?

 

[biscoe]

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.

When dg started it was based on golf. It remains so to this day. To decide to throw out concepts generated through hundreds of years of development of the most intricate, mentally taxing sport in the world smacks of hubris to me.

 

[Steve West]

When dg started it was based on golf. It remains so to this day. To decide to throw out concepts generated through hundreds of years of development of the most intricate, mentally taxing sport in the world smacks of hubris to me.

You mean, like changing par from golf's "expected score with expert play", to "every hole must be birdieable, no matter how many birdies"? Yeah, we don't want to do that.

 

[Steve West]

There is however a threshold which prevents it from having a meaningful par. i'm not sure it matters all that much what we call the ones where the idea is that no number is actually appropriate but "i gotta call it something".

I agree with all this. I'm not sure where that threshold is, but it would be in the direction of too many different scores, rather than in the direction of too many players getting the same score.

I've wondered what par should be on a hole that gives out every score from 1 to 10 evenly. Nothing can really be said to be expected in that case. Maybe everything but 1 would not be errorless.

(For the record, my method would spit out a 4. Mode would not give an answer. Rounded average would be 5 or 6.)

I'd bet players who are playing a hole with a 10% chance of an ace would be disappointed with anything more than 2.

 

[Steve West]

...I have no idea of the physical characteristics of the hole in question therefore no way to set par by my preferred method. How long is it? How much elevation change? Is there a forced layup?

I'd like to hear what goes through your mind when using your method. (I promise I will just listen, not comment.)

Here is some information about the hole. I'm sure somebody here has played it and can provide more insights.

Target ~ 45.306391° -122.372928°

http://www.bullseyediscgolf.com/or-courses/milo-mciver-east/hole17.html

http://www.beaverstatefling.com/beaver_state_fling/course.php

 

[biscoe]

Nothing groundbreaking going on here- Close Range with Close Range being 150. Hole is a par 3.

Thought process:
Is it longer than 150? Yes, Par>2
How constrained are the shots? Partially- Use legs of 300 feet.
How many legs of 300 to get into CR? One
Hole is a par 3.

From the scoring breakdown I was thinking it would be longer and more open than it is which would have led me to call it a 4. (Yes I am (at least mostly) of the belief that when dealing with holes which are on the cusp/not really an integral par you can have holes with the same scoring but different pars. I would love to hear John H's thoughts on that. )

 

[Karl]

Is anyone going to think they gained a throw on their competitors by getting that same 3 everyone else did? Why are you saying this? It's irrelevant to the discussion. Stop pulling a Kennedy.

There is an official definition of par. I know. It's in the rules. I know. Read it and then tell me whether it says this hole is par 4. Doesn't mention anything about this specific hole. Or, how un-ace-ability forces par 4. Doesn't mention anything about this either.

[My responses in bold next to your questions / statements.]

But looking at the hole, it's a 3par (IMO) in part because it COULD be aced. Not very likely - as your stats show - but your stats do not show that it can't be aced.
Now whether it's a "good hole" (or not), well that's debatable. And my guess is that "...it's not one of the better ones...".

And to provide further explanation / information about this topic - and "par" in general - see my next post.

Karl

 

[Karl]

As long as dg's putting is as easy as it presently is, the task of comparing dg par to bg par will be a futile one. The boat has long since sailed that would "equate" these two 'pars'. Headrick, et al probably never thought of things this deeply (dg's "par" and its relationship to bg's) and personally I'm glad they probably didn't! They played a simpler and more fun game.

But since we're talking about "par"…
If bg had the entire green as it's "final target" (or a hole in the middle of it that was WAY bigger than the 4.25" diameter hole they use now) this comparison would be valid (and statistically probably would be very close). Scenarios:
A. In bg, you'd try to hit your ball far enough so that on the next shot you can hit that next one onto the green / into the huge hole. You'd card a "2". Hogan would have loved it! (Mr. Fairways and Greens they called him). Never would've lost. But "golf" is MORE than that! So even Hogan had to "putt".
In this scenario people would try to increase their chances on getting their 2nd shot onto the green (and thus holing out) by hitting their first shot further / closer. This would've been boring…except for Hogan
B. In dg, you'd try to throw your disc far enough so that on the next throw you'd throw it into the basket. Oh, wait. I used the future tense. THAT'S WHAT WE DO NOW. No future tense needed!
So what's the difference? In bg (presently), there is actually something to do after your first shot. It called putting. It's not just hitting it really close (the vast majority of the times) so that virtually anyone could "hole out after hitting their first so close that only one more is needed".

Or, said another way…

In dg, the best players throw a tee shot that lands 30' (or closer) to the basket a LOT of times. From there it's about a 50%+ chance of making (and thus "…would be expected to make…").
In bg, the PGA pros average a 50/50, miss/make at the 6' distance. Yet their ability to hit that circle on their first shot is very rare indeed.
[Above I was referring to "one full / semi-full shot" type holes; you should be able to extrapolate for holes needing more shots.]

If you want to use your statistical abilities to calculate something, try "working backwards" (from the green towards the tee). Calculate percentages of what occurs for dg and bg. This is where you'll find the answer.

The average bg'er (PGA) probably hits 3 – 5 shots inside that magical "6 foot radii circle" and thus has a 50%+ chance of making it. The average dg'er (Touring Pro, 1000+rated, whatever you want to use, etc.) hits WAY more than 3 – 5 inside THEIR magical "30 foot radii circle".
As long as that "3 – 5 shots (PGA)" is different than the "WAY more than 3 - 5 (PDGA)", each sports' pars will never REALLY be comparable.
Want to force them to be comparable? You can figure out the myriad of answers that would accomplish such.
- Lengthen the shot
- Tighten the gap
- Decrease the target size
- Others (…add at your leisure!)
But guess what? "Par" is not really needed. Well, except for that CM1.05F thing, which could (and IMO should) much more easily be changed than trying to alter / manipulate / change / etc. the definition of a term that may not even really fit dg.

Steve,
We all appreciate your enthusiasm regarding this topic and for the other "statistical works" that you've been willing to post but be wary of becoming "the hammer that sees everything as a nail". Sometimes a hammer is not the tool needed. And sometimes no tool is needed at all.

 

[Steve West]

As long as dg's putting is as easy as it presently is, the task of comparing dg par to bg par will be a futile one. The boat has long since sailed that would "equate" these two 'pars'.

Unless one ignores both definitions, the two pars are almost exactly the same thing: basically the expected score of an expert. Use that, and everything works out fine. Plus, then it's the same as golf.

Even if we did make it so something like "two putts" was as accurate of a rule of thumb as it is for golf, disc golf holes are still so much different from each other than the "throws to get there" would not have much to do with distance anyway.

So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.

So, expected score still means "expert golfer and error free" so Par would become essentially the SSE score?

I don't personally have an issue with that but does make a lot of Par 2's, which is back to that argument.

 

[johnrhouck]

Nothing groundbreaking going on here- Close Range with Close Range being 150. Hole is a par 3.

Thought process:
Is it longer than 150? Yes, Par>2
How constrained are the shots? Partially- Use legs of 300 feet.
How many legs of 300 to get into CR? One
Hole is a par 3.

From the scoring breakdown I was thinking it would be longer and more open than it is which would have led me to call it a 4. (Yes I am (at least mostly) of the belief that when dealing with holes which are on the cusp/not really an integral par you can have holes with the same scoring but different pars. I would love to hear John H's thoughts on that. )

John, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you men by "holes with the same scoring but different pars." Are you talking about two different holes that have the same scoring (as in, 30% threes, 60% percent fours, 10% five or worse), but one's a par three and one's a par four?

If so -- or even if not -- maybe you can give us some examples. Real examples are great when you have them, but hypothetical examples are OK, too.

As for the hole in question, it's a classic 'tweener and should absolutely be changed for Gold players. Shorter would be easy and effective; not sure if there's room to make it longer. I'd much rather argue about whether it's a duck or a goose or a sawhorse or a seahorse, but if we had to pick a par, I would say "Just fix the durn hole." Gun to my head? I guess I'd go with 3.

 

[biscoe]

John, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you men by "holes with the same scoring but different pars." Are you talking about two different holes that have the same scoring (as in, 30% threes, 60% percent fours, 10% five or worse), but one's a par three and one's a par four?

If so -- or even if not -- maybe you can give us some examples. Real examples are great when you have them, but hypothetical examples are OK, too.

The rub is that all the examples are going to be tweeners- the ones that aren't we agree on par regardless of method used. For examples though we can use the hole which Steve brought up at Milo (where basically 80% of the scores are 3's and 20% 4's- roughly 450 feet and semi-obstructed) and the imaginary hole that scoring distribution brought to my mind which would be longer (say 600) and wide open. In my mind the former is a par 3 and the latter is a par 4 despite the scoring similarity.

 

[Steve West]

Here are some examples of similar-scoring holes that were given different pars.

Course 
Hole Length Par Average 2 3 4 5 6

2016 Beaver State Fling Presented by KEEN/Milo East/N. Godbout 
08 395 3 2.98 6% 91% 4% 0% 0%
KCWO 2016/    Blue Valley DGC/ 
17 531 4 2.98 6% 90% 4% 0% 0%
         
The 20th Annual Brent Hambrick Memorial Open Presented by Discraft/Brent Hambrick Memorial DGC/Short Anchors 
27 250 3 3.17 4% 75% 20% 1% 0%
Legacy Discs Silver Cup XVI Pro Tour presented by Rollin' Ridge/Rollin' Ridge/Black to Pin C 
13 417 4 3.17 5% 75% 18% 2% 0%
         
31st Annual "Steady" Ed Memorial Masters Cup - Presented by DGA (Pro)/Dela DGC 24/Jon Baldwin Signature 
01 360 3 3.19 7% 70% 19% 4% 0%
Dynamic Discs Glass Blown Open - National Tour/Jones East/ 
05 477 4 3.19 6% 72% 20% 2% 0%
         
2007 Worlds/Granite/Only 
14 500 4 3.20 6% 74% 16% 3% 1%
31st Annual "Steady" Ed Memorial Masters Cup - Presented by DGA (Pro)/Dela DGC 24/Jon Baldwin Signature 
25 399 3 3.22 4% 75% 14% 6% 0%

In my view, it should be very rare for two holes to have the same scoring distributions but different pars for the same skill level. However, it could happen if a lot of the scores were errorful in one distribution. Say one hole is long enough to get mostly 4s with good throws, and a short hole has so much OB that most players get 4 with a penalty. The first would be a par 4, the second would be a par 3.

In the real-life examples above, I think the difference is from two causes: the TD used the course par which was not set for Gold, or the TD used a distance-based method with the parameters set too short (10m for "close range" or <400 feet for Gold driving distance).

 

[Cgkdisc]

The pars for Granite (and Blueberry) in 2007 Worlds remained set for Blue level so the 3.20 scoring on a Blue Par 4 with a soft dogleg that could be "defeated" with accurate long power is not surprising. I remember hole 25 at Dela as a relatively open, uphill crunch that plays longer than 399 but certainly a par 3 for gold albeit one requiring a drive plus NAGS upshot for many.

 

[Steve West]

I'm still trying to figure all this pat stuff out but if I understand all the arguments correctly if a hole gives out 100% pars... on say a pat 3 that would mean a birdie is seemingly impossible... so shouldn't that be a par 4 hole?

It also means a bogey is seemingly impossible... so shouldn't that be a par 2 hole?

(Spoiler, the answer is "No". To both questions.)

811 F. 5. Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director.

How does anyone get "birdies must be possible" from that?

Or, why does no one complain when bogeys are not possible?

 

[Steve West]

...So, if someone can show me a well-designed hole where par isn't clear, then that example could be instructive for all of us.

Watching Champs vs. Chumps 8 reminded me about this request and #14 at Hillcrest, where I calculate par for 950-rated players to be 6. See post #3324.

Here is the scoring distribution.

And the tee sign.

 

[DG_player]

So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.

You mean like the other part of the definition: "with errorless play"?

Defining an expert is simple, you can just pick a rating appropriate to the skill level you're setting par for.

Errorless play is meaningless, just as "close range" was under the old definition. It's not defined and all it accomplishes is making you go through a bunch of unnecessary statistical rigamarole.

They got it half right when they were fixing it and got rid of "close range". Now they just need to get rid of "errorless play" and make it identical to the ball golf definition.

 

[Steve West]

You mean like the other part of the definition: "with errorless play"?

Defining an expert is simple, you can just pick a rating appropriate to the skill level you're setting par for.

Errorless play is meaningless, just as "close range" was under the old definition. It's not defined and all it accomplishes is making you go through a bunch of unnecessary statistical rigamarole.

They got it half right when they were fixing it and got rid of "close range". Now they just need to get rid of "errorless play" and make it identical to the ball golf definition.

I agree that "errorless" is the next part of the definition to target for improvement. So, let's explore that.

1. If "errorless" were not in there, what would you mean by "expected" and how do you get there without statistical rigamarole?

2. I think we may need something that golf does not have, to indicate that par is something other than average (inclusive of all bad throws). The reason we need it and golf doesn't is that disc golf has way more opportunities to tack on a whole extra throw to a player's score.

Bad tree kicks and OB penalties hardly ever happen in golf, so for golf, "expert play" is virtually the same thing as "errorless" - so they don't need to mention it.

In disc golf, even top-level experts expect to hit a few trees on wooded courses, or go OB a few times on the ropes courses. Thus, I think we need a qualifier that means something like: "but not including the scores that result from going OB or pitching out of the woods".

To me, having this type of qualifier that makes it more like golf's definition (than not having it) because golf doesn't include any bad strokes in their par.