Par Talk

[Cgkdisc]

That's factually incorrect. Regardless of your skill level or current handicap, your handicap is calculated based on the index and slope for that particular set of tees. If a scratch golfer and a duffer play together from the gold tees, their handicaps are both calculated off of the course rating and slope for that set of tees. That's the whole purpose of the handicapping system, so people of different skill levels can play each other fairly. If there were multiple sets it wouldn't work and wouldn't be an effective way to compare skill levels.

The only time par ever gets factored in, is to calculate the maximum score you can record on a hole. If you are a very low handicap, I think 10 or under, you're limited to double bogey. If you're above that it's just a number. For instance I think the most i could card on a given hole with my handicap was an 8.

While what you say is true for a male duffer and male scratch player, the hole, course and slope ratings are different if a woman or junior plays those same tees. From the USGA guidelines: see section d.

 

[Hyzflip10]

I though the reason PDGA switched to the ratings system 15-20 years ago was to avoid this debate. Par is a moving target. The rating system compares all players under a specific set of conditions. Same weather, same distances, etc. And assigns a rating based on performance during that round. It doesn't matter if a hole is considered a par 5, it only matters what players actually scored on that hole under those conditions.

Realistically a hole can be a par 4 on one day under calm conditions, and be a par 5 the next day with a howling 40 mph head wind.

 

[PMantle]

Realistically a hole can be a par 4 on one day under calm conditions, and be a par 5 the next day with a howling 40 mph head wind.

This is why we really shouldn't try to define par and why golf ignores the claimed definition. That hole is a par x that just plays hard sometimes and easy some times. We see it all the time on our disc golf courses because ours appear to have been laid out with south or southwest winds in mind. When we get north winds, those holes score very differently.

 

[Hyzflip10]

This is why we really shouldn't try to define par and why golf ignores the claimed definition. That hole is a par x that just plays hard sometimes and easy some times. We see it all the time on our disc golf courses because ours appear to have been laid out with south or southwest winds in mind. When we get north winds, those holes score very differently.

I think par is useful for viewers to see how players are scoring relative to each other during a round. Unless each hole is legitimately a par 3, par seems useless for players during a round. It can be very distracting playing with people who insist on giving their score on a hole as par, birdie, bogey, eagle, etc. The only absolute way to keep everyone on the same page is to give the score as the number of throws, plus penalties, the player actually took.

 

[Steve West]

Realistically a hole can be a par 4 on one day under calm conditions, and be a par 5 the next day with a howling 40 mph head wind.

No, it is always the same par. If ordinary weather conditions are calm, it is always a par 4. If ordinary weather conditions are howling, it is always a par 5. When the weather is not ordinary, it will play hard or easy relative to par that day.

However, you are correct that ratings do not care which par is assigned, ratings are only based on how the course played that day.

 

[Steve West]

This is why we really shouldn't try to define par and why golf ignores the claimed definition. That hole is a par x that just plays hard sometimes and easy some times. We see it all the time on our disc golf courses because ours appear to have been laid out with south or southwest winds in mind. When we get north winds, those holes score very differently.

But, isn't par one thing that tells us whether a hole is playing hard or easy that day? For par to be able to do that, don't we all need to be setting par the same way? To be able to set par the same way, don't we need a definition?

 

[DavidSauls]

If I read PM's posts correctly, the method (distance or shots to green plus two) is the de facto definition, and the actual definition is ignored. Not sure why they have the latter, but that's how I read it.

The golf talk strikes me as a diversion. Disc golf is a different sport; just because we're using the same terminology doesn't mean we have to use it in exactly the same way. We can follow the definition, if we want.

 

[F.Luke]

If I read PM's posts correctly, the method (distance or shots to green plus two) is the de facto definition, and the actual definition is ignored. Not sure why they have the latter, but that's how I read it.

The golf talk strikes me as a diversion. Disc golf is a different sport; just because we're using the same terminology doesn't mean we have to use it in exactly the same way. We can follow the definition, if we want.

Sadly, "green" is not defined in DG. This leads to people equating it with the 10m circle where 2 shots are NOT expected.

This discussion is so circular I feel it's looped around to the same points multiple times over the course of the thread.

 

[DiscJunkie]

This discussion is so circular I feel it's looped around to the same points multiple times over the course of the thread.

Bingo!!!!!

This useful points and discussions on this thread should have lasted maybe ten pages.
But at 350+ pages, we've managed to say the same things many, many times.
It seems to me like two old deaf guys talking, they just talk slower and louder until one of them gives up.
I do like Steve's charts, when I understand them, but haven't heard anything new in quite some time, just old things stated in new and different ways.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying stop, just making an observation.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Odessa! What is Par? (SNL reference)

 

[Hyzflip10]

Bingo!!!!!

This useful points and discussions on this thread should have lasted maybe ten pages.
But at 350+ pages, we've managed to say the same things many, many times.
It seems to me like two old deaf guys talking, they just talk slower and louder until one of them gives up.
I do like Steve's charts, when I understand them, but haven't heard anything new in quite some time, just old things stated in new and different ways.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying stop, just making an observation.

The OP does state that the purpose was to keep all par talk here and not litter other threads with par talk, so that makes sense. Also, alot of people may have never seen the thread before and don't have time to read through 350 pages to see if their point has been covered before. (which it likely has been many times over)

 

[Jimb]

Just another topic of conversation. I couldn't find my rule book and couldn't find the definitions section online, but...

Regarding a definition of par mentioned a few posts above... Maybe something like "Number of throws to circle 2 + 2" instead of "Number of throws to green +2" could work since many people seem to think that circle putting is too easy.

Obviously there will never be 100% accuracy or agreement since we have so many types of "circles". Thoughts? Good, bad, or otherwise

 

[Steve West]

Bingo!!!!!

This useful points and discussions on this thread should have lasted maybe ten pages.
But at 350+ pages, we've managed to say the same things many, many times.
It seems to me like two old deaf guys talking, they just talk slower and louder until one of them gives up.
I do like Steve's charts, when I understand them, but haven't heard anything new in quite some time, just old things stated in new and different ways.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying stop, just making an observation.

I think you're right. So, let's sum up the whole thread:

One point of view is that there is already an official definition of par which is: "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"; and when par is set according to this definition players have a consistent standard to compare their performance to other players during a tournament, on different courses, to the expected prize-winning scores, to their own performance at other tournaments; and players can better plan their strategy by knowing what score they want to shoot for on each hole, by knowing that each bogey costs about as much as each birdie saves; and spectator interest is increased because fans can track favorite players even if they are in different groups, remarkable performances are revealed, and commentators have a meaningful statistic to talk about; and tournament Directors benefit from a more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par, increased player and spectator satisfaction, greater ease of noticing anomalies in scoring, and comfort in knowing penalties for missed holes are fair no matter which holes are missed.

The other point of view is:

 

[Hyzflip10]

I think you're right. So, let's sum up the whole thread:

One point of view is that there is already an official definition of par which is: "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";

Oh man, this entire topic is one rabbit hole after the next. It seems that is a better definition for birdie. Under this definition there are many many par 2 holes out there.

 

[Noill]

par is three... always


*dodges tomatoes*




Anyway, that is another point of view.

 

[Steve West]

Oh man, this entire topic is one rabbit hole after the next. It seems that is a better definition for birdie. Under this definition there are many many par 2 holes out there.

Not as many as you might think. Of all the holes for which I could find hole-by-hole data (1,456 holes), it comes out to about one par 2 hole per 18 holes. All we all know which holes they are, don't we?

 

[Noill]

I'm at least 67% right then.

 

[Hyzflip10]

Not as many as you might think. Of all the holes for which I could find hole-by-hole data (1,456 holes), it comes out to about one par 2 hole per 18 holes. All we all know which holes they are, don't we?

I'm sure if I leaf through the 359 pages, that pie chart would mean something to me. Which courses does this represent? Was this tournament play? And all that shows are actual scores, it doesn't tell me if the "experts" in the field made any "errors". Nor does it tell me how an error is defined.

By definition it would seem McBeth's 1100 rated round at Memorial was as close to an error free round by an expert as we get. Since what he did is possible, it implies that anything short of that means there were non-perfect errant throws involved if an expert doesn't duplicate his effort. Sure maybe one of those throws was a good 400 foot drive, but it didn't fade left when it should have so there was an error involved.

 

[AHagglund]

"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"

-and part of that definition is "as determined by the director", not "as determined by math"
-who is an expert? and if you're basing who an expert is on their rating, then there's no point in all this computation, you should just use the PDGA's standards.
-what constitutes an error? If you hit a tree and get kicked next to the basket, is that an error? If you chain out an ace and the disc then rolls out of bounds, is that an error?

This definition is EXTREMELY subjective, and therefore a terrible starting point to determining a par standard. Especially when the PDGA already has a much more objective standard already: https://www.pdga.com/files/par_guidelines_may_2017.pdf

Also want to add (as I'm sure others have) that deciding whether a hole plays closer to a par 3 or par 4 is completely and totally pointless. It doesn't make the hole good or bad, and it doesn't make it more or less legitimate. From a statistical standpoint, the only things that matter in separating good holes from bad holes are (and this is just my opinion):

1) Having a decent scoring spread, and most importantly
2) having a high correlation between a player's score on that hole and that player's rating.

 

[AHagglund]

Issues with defining par based on this definition:

"One point of view is that there is already an official definition of par which is: "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";

-Part of that definition is "as determined by the director", not "as determined by math"
-who is an expert? and if you're basing who an expert is on their rating, then just use the PDGA's rating-based standards.
-what constitutes an error? If you hit a tree and get kicked next to the basket, is that an error? If you chain out an ace and the disc then rolls out of bounds, is that an error?

This definition is EXTREMELY subjective, and therefore a terrible starting point to determining a par standard. Especially when the PDGA already has a much more objective standard already: https://www.pdga.com/files/par_guidelines_may_2017.pdf

Also want to add (as I'm sure others have) that deciding whether a hole plays closer to a par 3 or par 4 is completely and totally pointless. It doesn't make the hole good or bad, and it doesn't make it more or less legitimate. From a statistical standpoint, the only things that matter in separating good holes from bad holes are (and this is just my opinion):

1) Having a decent scoring spread, and most importantly
2) having a high correlation between a player's score on that hole and that player's rating.