Par Talk

[tbonesocrul]

https://www.lvcdg.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/19LVCOverallPosterWithStatsMinSize.pdf

With LVC approaching I was checking out the course and its changes. Nice to see some changes made to the holes based on past statistics and not just changing the pars of the holes.

 

[Steve West]

...
With LVC approaching I was checking out the course and its changes. Nice to see some changes made to the holes based on past statistics and not just changing the pars of the holes.

Yep. You can't improve the way a hole plays by only changing par. There's a ton of work behind those changes.

 

[PMantle]

The USGA is still looking at rolling back the golf ball. Maybe Disc Golf should limit drivers to 7 speed ;-)

 

[Steve West]

The USGA is still looking at rolling back the golf ball. Maybe Disc Golf should limit drivers to 7 speed ;-)

I'd rather see the minimum leading-edge radius be doubled to 3.2mm from 1.6mm to cut in half the amount of force a disc hits with.

Wait, how does this relate to par?

 

[PMantle]

Wait, how does this relate to par?

Holes and courses are getting easier. Rather than adjust par, they want to roll back the ball. This is because par is what the designer says it is, not what any golfer may or may not score.

 

[Steve West]

... This is because par is what the designer says it is, not what any golfer may or may not score.

Simply because I am very reluctant to change a number, iron-clad logic proves that my real weight is still what I put on my driver's license when I was 16!

 

[PMantle]

Simply because I am very reluctant to change a number, iron-clad logic proves that my real weight is still what I put on my driver's license when I was 16!

 

[Steve West]

Par for MPO of 54 would have been more informative. Hole #16 is on the bubble of being a par 2, (even moreseo than #1) but it wouldn't be worth the trouble to call it that.

It's just too bad the immutable laws of the universe (specifically: "golf doesn't usually do it") will not allow for this course to ever be called a par 54 course for future MPO events.

Even at par 54 or 53, it would still be a birdie-rich course with par being rated below 1000.

Par was perfect for FPO, using a 925-rated FPO player as the expert.

I ran an experiment where I used the MPO scores to calculate 925-rate par. The light blue chart. Note the par 3 on the 500-foot hole #11. For 925-rated FPO players, that hole is a solid par 4.

From now on, I'll try to use only FPO scores to calculate FPO pars, when there are enough of them.

I wonder if something similar would happen for Am scores. Since nobody records those, we'll never know.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hole 7 today listed as 432 ft par 4 is averaging 4.65 for FPO and is close to 1 penalty taken per player. Does this expected penalty raise the true par to an "easy" par 5?

 

[Steve West]

Hole 7 today listed as 432 ft par 4 is averaging 4.65 for FPO and is close to 1 penalty taken per player. Does this expected penalty raise the true par to an "easy" par 5?

No, but if there were no penalty throws, calculated par would be 3 for FPO.

Here are the histograms with and without penalties.

A lot of the penalties came in groups of 2 or 3 per player. The chance of going penalty-free was just about 50/50 for a 925 player. The average number of penalties for the 925 player was just under 1. So, we might not be at the point where we could say an expert would "expect" a penalty.

A related question is: Would errorless play be to just get all the distance you can and ignore the consequences, because there is so much OB that trying to avoid a penalty is not the smart strategy?

 

[Karl]

I don't think so. That MIGHT be "efficient" play but not "errorless".

 

[Steve West]

I don't think so. That MIGHT be "efficient" play but not "errorless".

I'm inclined to agree. Which would make this a par three where "errorless" is mostly a theoretical concept, and not many players get par; averaging 4.65 for FPO and 3.99 for MPO.

 

[Steve West]

Pretty good MPO pars for Course Innova 2019.

 

[Steve West]

When both the FPO and MPO are playing the same course with the same pars, why not set the pars to be appropriate for FPO?

?

 

[Karl]

When both the FPO and MPO are playing the same course with the same pars, why not set the pars to be appropriate for FPO?

?

[Okay, I'll be the stooopid knight who willingly enters the dragon's den and utters something. Especially after it's been quite for a couple of days.]

Pars are about as "appropriate" for FPO as they are for MPO...or as they are for any other random grouping of players. In other words, par is / isn't more (or less) "appropriate" for any one group more than any other! Par is par regardless of who is playing it. It shouldn't change as long as it is being played by humans...

...so says the person who believes "that for any one combination of tee and basket there is one and ONLY one par".

 

[Steve West]

[Okay, I'll be the stooopid knight who willingly enters the dragon's den and utters something. Especially after it's been quite for a couple of days.]

Pars are about as "appropriate" for FPO as they are for MPO...or as they are for any other random grouping of players. In other words, par is / isn't more (or less) "appropriate" for any one group more than any other! Par is par regardless of who is playing it. It shouldn't change as long as it is being played by humans...

...so says the person who believes "that for any one combination of tee and basket there is one and ONLY one par".

Your point that there is only one par is correct - it is supported by the definition, where it says "expert" not "typical player for the group". Also, the TD set only one par for each hole on this course, so that's the par.

By "more appropriate" I meant that for all the things we would like par to do (tell a player whether they gained or lost a throw to the field, whether they are still in contention, etc.) the pars that were set were so high that par performed these tasks better for the FPO field than they did for the MPO field.

So maybe it would be OK to have something par-like for other groups of players. But all that is beside the point of my post.

It seems to me that "expert" would imply a player who has about a good chance of cashing in MPO. The pars on six of these holes are higher than the pars I would set if I were trying to follow the definition. It just so happens they are close to the par-like number which would do for FPO what par does for MPO.

 

[Steve West]

I think I'll stop calculating par based on experts, and instead just document the race to the bottom as we discard any semblance of discipline or professionalism.

For example, par at Fountain Hills was set perfectly for 900-rated Intermediate players. Hey, only 180 of the 182 players on MPO were rated higher than that, so it makes sense, right?

Let's hope it fools ESPN.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think you're on to something, Steve. I mean, what impresses me the most about top players is just how much better than me they are. "Par" can be a measure of that: "Rough day for Paul, he was only 9 strokes better than a duffer!"

 

[Steve West]

I think you're on to something, Steve. I mean, what impresses me the most about top players is just how much better than me they are. "Par" can be a measure of that: "Rough day for Paul, he was only 9 strokes better than a duffer!"

And there are a lot more of us around 900 than around 1000. Maybe 900 should be the standard.

I wonder how hard it would be to get TDs to adjust pars UP when they use a course designed for Advanced players? Most seem very resistant to adjusting it down; would they be as resistant to adjusting it up, or would they jump at the chance?

 

[Steve West]

OK, that resolution didn't last long. Fountain Hills Park should have a par of 50 for Open tournaments. Simon would be an amazing - but credible - 18 under. A par score would have been rated 1012 instead of 953, and a player at even par would have been tied for 45th instead of 144th.

Instead of mentioning the five par 2s (we all know which ones they are), I'll just point out how far from being a par 4 hole #8 is.