Par Talk

[Steve West]

For FPO, par could have been higher for Holes #2 and #4, but they're both kind of on the bubble.

 

[Steve West]

Par was pretty good for FPO, but a lot of the holes were not very good at giving out different scores. See hole #4 which gave out 81% 4s and no 3s to the prototypical 925-rated player.

Hole #11 gave out just barely enough 3s to qualify as a par 3. No big reason to change it.

Hole #15 gave out 61% 3s. Hard to call 4 the expected score.

Interesting that hole #17 came near to being a par 2. One more 2 would have done it. You don't see that very often in FPO.

 

[barnes7td]

... and adding two throws to the number of drives.

Why is this a mistake?

 

[Steve West]

Why is this a mistake?

It's only a mistake when an expert would not expect to need two more throws after the expected number of drives. In that case, the calculated par would not match the definition of par.

 

[Steve West]

I may have to put Steve Dodge on notice that he is on danger of being kicked out of the club of people who understand par.

 

[Steve West]

Looks like WACO did not change pars to Gold level again this year. I can only assume they made the par 4s and 5s a lot longer to justify those high pars.

 

[Steve West]

I don't know whether there is any general interest in the pars at WACO 2019 or not, but I'll throw this out there anyway.

 

[TAFL]

Looks like FPO pars are good. On the MPO side, not so much.

 

[Steve West]

Looks like FPO pars are good. On the MPO side, not so much.

That's pretty common, because pars at most courses are set for daily play by amateurs (not tournament play by MPO) which is pretty close to FPO skill levels.

I was kind of surprised to see a 516 foot par 3 for FPO. Looking closer at the scores, it checks out. There were a lot of 3s. Good on them.

 

[Steve West]

Tampereen Tulikoe 2018 at Tampere Disc Golf Center

 

[johnrhouck]

I was kind of surprised to see a 516 foot par 3 for FPO. Looking closer at the scores, it checks out. There were a lot of 3s. Good on them.

The idea of a 516' Par 3 for FPO caught my eye, so I went and checked it out.

Can we talk about this? I think I know what Steve thinks, but I'm curious about everyone else.

There's a description of the hole at the 10:54 mark of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMisIeX9yE

Scoring data is at:

https://udisclive.com/live/waco2019/3?t=courseStats&d=FPO

The hole averaged almost exactly 50% threes over three rounds. The trees are scattered, and there are humans playing it, and it is possible to go OB. So a variety of scores is guaranteed; in the first two rounds there were 17% five and higher, but in round three only 4%.

Anyway, those higher scored do not impact par. What I don't like is that "errorless" execution results in a three. If the "expected" score is also a three, then the definition requires us to call this hole a par three (that's if we're willing to accept top FPO players as "experts" here, which is a whole 'nother discussion).

To me, good holes reward "superior" play (generally known as a birdie) over "errorless" play (which is par by definition). But this hole does not if you call it a par three. In order for today's FPO players to birdie this hole, they'd need "miraculous" play, which would be a throw-in.

So, which of these seems right to you?

a) Fix the hole
b) Fix the definition
c) Fix your own mind and be happy living in a world where good holes just don't give up birdies.

Right now, I am not willing to do c). Please help me.

 

[biscoe]

The idea of a 516' Par 3 for FPO caught my eye, so I went and checked it out.

Can we talk about this? I think I know what Steve thinks, but I'm curious about everyone else.

There's a description of the hole at the 10:54 mark of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMisIeX9yE

Scoring data is at:

https://udisclive.com/live/waco2019/3?t=courseStats&d=FPO

The hole averaged almost exactly 50% threes over three rounds. The trees are scattered, and there are humans playing it, and it is possible to go OB. So a variety of scores is guaranteed; in the first two rounds there were 17% five and higher, but in round three only 4%.

Anyway, those higher scored do not impact par. What I don't like is that "errorless" execution results in a three. If the "expected" score is also a three, then the definition requires us to call this hole a par three (that's if we're willing to accept top FPO players as "experts" here, which is a whole 'nother discussion).

To me, good holes reward "superior" play (generally known as a birdie) over "errorless" play (which is par by definition). But this hole does not if you call it a par three. In order for today's FPO players to birdie this hole, they'd need "miraculous" play, which would be a throw-in.

So, which of these seems right to you?

a) Fix the hole
b) Fix the definition
c) Fix your own mind and be happy living in a world where good holes just don't give up birdies.

Right now, I am not willing to do c). Please help me.

IMO the hole is a soft par 4 for the ladies.

 

[lyleoross]

I'd go with fix the hole. Keep in mind, I've bought into John's notion that errorless play gets you a par and brilliant play gets you a bird. And I agree, it would take a miracle to get that bird here.

It has been my observation that TDs and designers think and listen. I suspect that par for MPO will change next year, but that this issue is smaller, in the relative scheme.

 

[JoeyH]

Hole 2 is a par 4. It played soft as a par 4 this year due to the wind blowing from the north. (tailwind) If you look back at last year, the only difference is the wind was out of the South. This is the predominant direction. Birdies averaged 27% in 2018. That doubled in 2019, mostly due to the direction the wind was blowing. The wind direction was also a major factor in holes 17 and 18 this year.

We just finished the Ams at East yesterday and best score we saw was a 62. One player who shot that score was rated 965. He was really happy with his play and his score. That was the theme for all the players I spoke with that shot low to mid 60's. I then asked them what they thought of Paul's 49, and everyone responded that it was hard to believe it was possible.

We had planned to change a few of the pars last year and this year for the event, but for some reason the memo didn't make it to the printers. After yesterday's conversations with the ams, I am not sure I do want to change pars on those holes for the event. I do think par for the course is setup for the 950 player. That's kind of what I had in mind when I designed the course. With par being used in relation to your final score, I would like to see everyone evaluated on a similar scale. I don't see a need for a different par for different skill levels throwing from the same tee. What did you shoot? I shot a 49. How about you? I shot a 62.
I relate to that much better.

If you look back at last year's hole stats and compare to this year's, you will notice the difference the wind direction made to hole difficulty.

https://udisclive.com/live/waco2019/1?t=courseStats&d=MPO
https://udisclive.com/live/waco2018/1?t=courseStats&d=MPO

 

[_MTL_]

I've shared this opinion before and I think it's worth sharing again.

The problem isn't the par on the hole, it's bad hole design.

 

[biscoe]

I've shared this opinion before and I think it's worth sharing again.

The problem isn't the par on the hole, it's bad hole design.

Actually in this particular case i would say the designer was spot on considering the hole was designed for 950 players- the problem is that doesn't translate well to 1050 play.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hole 2 is a par 4. It played soft as a par 4 this year due to the wind blowing from the north. (tailwind) If you look back at last year, the only difference is the wind was out of the South. This is the predominant direction. Birdies averaged 27% in 2018. That doubled in 2019, mostly due to the direction the wind was blowing. The wind direction was also a major factor in holes 17 and 18 this year.

We just finished the Ams at East yesterday and best score we saw was a 62. One player who shot that score was rated 965. He was really happy with his play and his score. That was the theme for all the players I spoke with that shot low to mid 60's. I then asked them what they thought of Paul's 49, and everyone responded that it was hard to believe it was possible.

We had planned to change a few of the pars last year and this year for the event, but for some reason the memo didn't make it to the printers. After yesterday's conversations with the ams, I am not sure I do want to change pars on those holes for the event. I do think par for the course is setup for the 950 player. That's kind of what I had in mind when I designed the course. With par being used in relation to your final score, I would like to see everyone evaluated on a similar scale. I don't see a need for a different par for different skill levels throwing from the same tee. What did you shoot? I shot a 49. How about you? I shot a 62.
I relate to that much better.

If you look back at last year's hole stats and compare to this year's, you will notice the difference the wind direction made to hole difficulty.

https://udisclive.com/live/waco2019/1?t=courseStats&d=MPO
https://udisclive.com/live/waco2018/1?t=courseStats&d=MPO

While I agree with everything you said because Steady Ed at the IDGC is also a Blue level 950 course that was "shredded" in relation to blue level par at the Hall of Fame in 2017. The issue is that for media purposes, we don't have a consistent metric for properly comparing exceptional rounds. Ratings works for comparing courses in the same SSA range. However, Toboggan is one SSA range lower than Waco so even it can't be used properly in extreme round comparisons.

The best course/round to compare Paul's Waco 49 rated 1101 is with Barry's 49 rated 1100 on Maple Hill in 2009 Vibram event. Unfortunately, we don't have hole-by-holes stats saved from that event. However, we do know that the SSA on both of these rounds was about 62.7. To show the inconsistency regarding par assignment, Maple Hill was listed as a Gold level 62 in that event versus blue level 67 at Waco. If Dodge had set the par at a Blue level 67 on Maple Hill, Barry would have thrown the first -18 round.

 

[JoeyH]

I agree with you Chuck. My original plans were to make the two par 5s into 4s and make 18 a 3. That's about as close to the SSA as I would want to get without changing tees or pins. As for the -18, I am happier just calling it a 49. That's a number I and the people who have played the course can probably better relate to.

I enjoy reading all the posts and consider a lot of what I read on these threads.
The variety keeps it interesting.

 

[Steve West]

...What I don't like is that "errorless" execution results in a three. If the "expected" score is also a three, then the definition requires us to call this hole a par three (that's if we're willing to accept top FPO players as "experts" here, which is a whole 'nother discussion).

To me, good holes reward "superior" play (generally known as a birdie) over "errorless" play (which is par by definition). But this hole does not if you call it a par three. ...

(Technical note: we're discussing "FPO par", or "Pink par", not plain old unqualified par.)

The question of whether a hole is good or not is separate from what the par should be. Neither par 4 nor par 3 will make this hole any gooder by your definition of good.

This hole just does not reward superior play. Getting a 3 that all your competitors are also getting - which will not move you ahead in the standings - is not the same as being rewarded. So, it should not be called birdie. It should be called par.

Sometimes, a hole will not give out any scores that are one less than par. Call them bad holes if you want, but don't ruin par just so the hole gives out meaningless "birdies".

Par is NOT defined as "one more than the score superior play will get". So, from the standpoint of setting par, there is no requirement that a hole give out any birdies.

Now, if you want to design by thinking "I'll make this hole three-able, but only rarely and with superior play, not merely expected errorless play, so it will be a par 4" that's fine. That would result in correct pars, if the hole plays as you planned. But if it turns out no one ever gets a 3, you shouldn't raise par to 5.

On a related tangent, as (I think) you and Steve Dodge have pointed out, many holes the FPO play are not good for them. Watch any coverage and you will see a lot of drive (or drives), lay-up, drop-in. They are more accustomed to not being rewarded for superior play. In the hole description on that video, Val says something like "Your drive will get you to an easier upshot and hopefully you'll get your par 3".

 

[_MTL_]

Actually in this particular case i would say the designer was spot on considering the hole was designed for 950 players- the problem is that doesn't translate well to 1050 play.

Agreed and thanks for the needed clarification.