Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

1000 is also a rough average or midpoint for our top division---or at least, those in the division rated 970+ and ineligible to move back down. Our top division is one reasonable measure of expert. It would not just involve players with an exact rating of 1000, but those on either side shouldn't vary enough to affect it.

Many people also see it as a threshold of accomplishment, noting when a rising player reaches it.

"Expert" isn't defined by the PDGA and 1000 isn't definitive, but it certainly strikes me as reasonable and practical.

 

[DavidSauls]

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

.

I find the phrases "light foliage" and "heavy foliage" to be extremely subjective. Some holes I'm pretty sure of; some, less so. I'm particularly confused how to classify holes that are half wooded, half open.

But, using these guidelines, at certain distances, that's the difference between one par and another.

(They also state that Par 2s exist, while recommending against them. Blasphemy, in some corners of this thread.)

 

[brutalbrutus]

I do like Jim's idea of once and for all actually defining the green in DG and for it to be circle2. Number of shots it takes to reach circle 2 then add two shots. That would fit into steve's "better than expected" throws idea. Sometimes guys will throw a "better" shot and wind up in circle 1 and an errorless throw would land somewhere inside c2 and not OB.

 

[brutalbrutus]

… oh I almost forgot. We also just have to accept that some holes are just too easy for the people playing them, and might give up too many birdies, until such a time where the top players in our sport are only playing on courses specifically built for top level championship competition.

 

[BrotherDave]

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";

So if an expert disc golfer is 1000 rated, then does that mean only Gold level courses can have pars?

 

[DavidSauls]

So if an expert disc golfer is 1000 rated, then does that mean only Gold level courses can have pars?

Why? I'm looking right now at two long holes---a 600+ hole with a dogleg (and lots of OB), and a 700+ hole with a big elevation drop, lots of trees on the first 200', some OB, and a dangerous green.

Some gold-level players have played these holes, though they're a small percentage of the people who have, and an even smaller percentage of the rounds thrown on them. But if you ask me what score I would expect gold-level players to get, I'm sure of the first one, and have a good guess of the second. (If I had enough results, I might change that expectation).

Though admittedly, I haven't. Because one of the ideas behind better defining par is that it matters mostly at top-tier events, where the players are gold level (or above), and courses are often gold-level, too. Many of the benefits of setting par to 1000-rated experts apply there, but not here.

 

[Hyzflip10]

Interesting point.

Any 1000-rated players out there want to weigh in on whether they feel like an expert?

** Snark alert **

I'm guessing the ratio of 1000 rated players who feel like an expert compared to 850 rated who feel like an expert = 1:1.

 

[Steve West]

I do like Jim's idea of once and for all actually defining the green in DG and for it to be circle2. Number of shots it takes to reach circle 2 then add two shots. That would fit into steve's "better than expected" throws idea. Sometimes guys will throw a "better" shot and wind up in circle 1 and an errorless throw would land somewhere inside c2 and not OB.

In the olden days (before 2018) the phrase was "two throws from close range". The disc golf definition of par never had the words "green" or "putt".

I'm OK with a method of setting par that uses +2 throws within a certain range (60-75m works far better than either 10m or 20m), but we shouldn't move the definition away from the actual expected score to an artificial approximation, even if it might often work OK.

 

[Steve West]

… oh I almost forgot. We also just have to accept that some holes are just too easy for the people playing them, and might give up too many birdies, until such a time where the top players in our sport are only playing on courses specifically built for top level championship competition.

No, we don't have to accept that. Just set a lower par. But ONLY if there truly are too many birdies, not just a lot of birdies.

Jussi is the master at setting up courses with a lot of birdies, but not so many that par should be lower. He builds for top level championship competition. His courses show that at least one possible future is courses with good pars, quality tests of top-level skill, AND a lot of birdies

Note that a hole could have 50% 2s and most here would agree it is still a par 3. That's a lot of birdies, but not too many birdies. That hole would also still be a decent separator. Making it harder just to get rid of birdies could make for almost everyone getting a 3 - which would make the hole worse.

 

[Steve West]

So if an expert disc golfer is 1000 rated, then does that mean only Gold level courses can have pars?

If you set par according to Gold level skill, any course can be Gold level. Sure, par might be 42, and it might not be a very good test of skill, but....

Or, with unlimited resources, all courses could have a separate teeing area for each skill level. All the tees on each hole could have the same par.

Or, we could have all tees have pars for all skill levels. That way, TDs would know what par to use when they hold an event there.

 

[brutalbrutus]

In the olden days (before 2018) the phrase was "two throws from close range". The disc golf definition of par never had the words "green" or "putt".

I'm OK with a method of setting par that uses +2 throws within a certain range (60-75m works far better than either 10m or 20m), but we shouldn't move the definition away from the actual expected score to an artificial approximation, even if it might often work OK.

No, we don't have to accept that. Just set a lower par. But ONLY if there truly are too many birdies, not just a lot of birdies.

Jussi is the master at setting up courses with a lot of birdies, but not so many that par should be lower. He builds for top level championship competition. His courses show that at least one possible future is courses with good pars, quality tests of top-level skill, AND a lot of birdies

Note that a hole could have 50% 2s and most here would agree it is still a par 3. That's a lot of birdies, but not too many birdies. That hole would also still be a decent separator. Making it harder just to get rid of birdies could make for almost everyone getting a 3 - which would make the hole worse.

 

[biscoe]

If you set par according to Gold level skill, any course can be Gold level. Sure, par might be 42, and it might not be a very good test of skill, but....

Or, with unlimited resources, all courses could have a separate teeing area for each skill level. All the tees on each hole could have the same par.

Or, we could have all tees have pars for all skill levels. That way, TDs would know what par to use when they hold an event there.

20 holes... never mind.

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, with unlimited resources, all courses could have a separate teeing area for each skill level. All the tees on each hole could have the same par.

Some thoughts on multiple tees. Coffee hasn't kicked in at this hour, so they may not be coherent ones.

Of course, PM's right that golf uses multiple tees, and it works well for them. They can base it on expected distance for different skill levels, over one or several shots.

This would work for us on some of our courses, as well, but for the resources involved. And, perhaps, aesthetics (our tees can bit a bit of an eyesore in a public park, as it is).

Sometimes, not so well. Particularly on higher-par, doglegged, wooded holes. There's a landing area, and you can figure how far different groups must throw to reach it; but the dogleg after the landing area is the same distance for everyone.

The resources are, of course, a major limitation. But sometimes the design is, as well. We often put courses on otherwise bad land, and the tee may be on the one spot that will work for a tee. It may be in a narrow alley of trees, or with a low ceiling, where a shorter tee loses that, and a longer tee makes for an unreasonably tight drive.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Before any method can be developed, the terms Expected, Errorless, and Expert all need to be given meaning. That does not mean the method does not follow the definition. It means the method follows the definition by selecting one of many possible interpretations.

This is the same as making up your own definition. But you know that. What is more interesting is the following:

No one screams louder or more incoherently than someone who fears being treated fairly after having gotten something for nothing.

If, when you read this, you hear someone screaming, then you might need the kind of help no amount of reading the DGCR forums is going to provide.

 

[BrotherDave]

If you set par according to Gold level skill, any course can be Gold level. Sure, par might be 42, and it might not be a very good test of skill, but....

Or, with unlimited resources, all courses could have a separate teeing area for each skill level. All the tees on each hole could have the same par.

Or, we could have all tees have pars for all skill levels. That way, TDs would know what par to use when they hold an event there.

I'm confused. I thought Par was determined by what an expert player is expected to score? If we're using an 1000 rated player to define an expert player, than the Gold pars would apply to all. That 211' would be a par 2 for everybody. Is there such thing as a Green, Red, White, and Blue level experts? What ratings would define those?

 

[Steve West]

I'm confused. I thought Par was determined by what an expert player is expected to score? If we're using an 1000 rated player to define an expert player, than the Gold pars would apply to all. That 211' would be a par 2 for everybody. Is there such thing as a Green, Red, White, and Blue level experts? What ratings would define those?

You are correct, Par with no qualifiers is based on experts. This could also be called Gold/Pro/Open/1000-rated Par, but these labels are not needed, because this is the one true Par.

There are such things as Green, Red, White and Blue skill levels. The ratings for those are 800, 850, 900, and 950. They're sometimes also called Novice, Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. These are pretty well-known and widely used - safe to say they're a standard set of skill levels.

(I'm advocating for another one: 925/Pink/FPO. We'll see if that catches on.)

The expected score for these other skill levels is based on typical players, not experts. That is, they are the expected-of/errorless-play/ordinary-conditions score of someone rated 800, 850, etc. So, this par-like number works for other skill levels in the same way that Par works for experts. Therefore, these other par-like numbers should not be called simply "Par" but should be qualified like "Novice par", "Green par", 800 Rated par" or whatever.

Open events that use the 211' foot hole should set Par at 2 for all players in the Open division. However, a TD that is running an event for players other than Open players could choose to use a typical player for that division instead of an expert. For example, the Advanced division could use Blue par which would be more fun and informative for those players than true Par.

 

[DavidSauls]

As debatable as "errorless" is to (gold-level) par, it really should be ignored for us Reds. These days, my errors are expected, and any errorless hole comes as a surprise.

 

[Steve West]

As debatable as "errorless" is to (gold-level) par, it really should be ignored for us Reds. These days, my errors are expected, and any errorless hole comes as a surprise.

Maybe so. Within my method, I use the same parameter for all skill levels:

On the toughest hole, each throw has at least a 77.7% chance of being good enough to be a part of a string of throws that result in par.

Over the course of the round, taking into account the easier-to-par holes, about 90% of throws will be good enough to help get par.

So what's the word for the best majority of your throws?

Or, what word for the stinky minority of throws do we add "less" to?

 

[DavidSauls]

I was kidding, but much more seriously, many of us in the lower divisions are so wildly erratic that "errorless" is tough to quantify. That, or we have a really high percentage of "heroic" (for us) shots.

Skill-level pars aren't part of the PDGA definition, so I don't know if it needs to be applied as rigorously to them, anyway. It's easier to just think in terms of expected scores, not expected results of each shot.

I have mixed feelings about skill-level pars anyway, though I can be sweet-talked by any system that might label me an "expert". Particularly since I seem to have lost my "grand" and "master" labels.

 

[TAFL]

I have mixed feelings about skill-level pars anyway, though I can be sweet-talked by any system that might label me an "expert". Particularly since I seem to have lost my "grand" and "master" labels.

I'd question any system that offered me an "expert" label--perhaps if I can regain distance that the years have sapped, I might qualify.

And they can take my "grandmaster" status when they pull it from my gnarled, dead fingers.