Par Talk

[Steve West]

.. we don't have a consistent metric for properly comparing exceptional rounds. ...

We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.

One option but not the only one.

 

[Steve West]

We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.

True, but since most of the comments about any hole, round, or course, include the word "par", we'd better get this most popular option correct.

 

[Steve West]

...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....

What about the people who have not played the course? There are tens of thousands of us out here. When you become part of the DGPT, you're on the international stage. The first thing people wanted to know was how does this -18 compare to that other -18. I don't recall anyone even mentioning 49.

Leaving par as is for the Am event and for daily play is fine. But, it would be better for your tournament and for the good of the sport to use tournament pars that are comparable to standardized pars for other Open tournaments around the world.

I'm kind of surprised the DGPT standards don't require this.

 

[johnrhouck]

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

Good point.

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.

Agreed. Gooder point.

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.

In this scenario, half the field is rewarded, no? What percentage needs to get a lower score for you to feel they are being rewarded?

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.

That's why there is an option b) in my original question. We probably all figured you would say what you said, which is fine. Now, if the question were, "Does Steve love the current definition?" I'm not sure what the answer would be.

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".

All good and true. And sad, by the way. (At the same time, MPO plays a lot of holes that are not good for them, which is also sad.) One reason I thought this particular hole could make a good example is that Open plays it 100' longer, no?

I also want to point out that Joey makes a worthy point (as people with his initials often do). The TD is not responsible for wind shifts, and what tournament is prepared to make a change based on wind forecasts before play starts every day?

 

[lyleoross]

An additional point, Joey shows us that he gives a good deal of consideration to par, and how holes play. His comments show us just how hard it is to design a competitive open player course. It also shows that the notion that "anyone can put together a top-level course and event," might be a reach.

 

[JoeyH]

What about the people who have not played the course?

I understand what you are saying. It is difficult even through video to get a real sense of depth and geometry of what you are seeing. That's all I meant by that comment.

The first thing people wanted to know was how does this -18 compare to that other -18.

I think the round ratings may be the best way to compare.

Leaving par as is for the Am event and for daily play is fine. But, it would be better for your tournament and for the good of the sport to use tournament pars that are comparable to standardized pars for other Open tournaments around the world.

It's really hard, I feel, to standardize the pars well enough to accomplish what you are wanting. In our case, much of the layout on the open holes is dictated by the man made structures in that area. I just don't have that little extra room I wish I had. I want the course to be played as close as possible to the normal setup. A couple of the par 4's on the open side need a little more length with the distance these guys and gals are throwing these days. Shortening those holes just takes away too much of the courses character IMO. It's a good case for those that like par 3.5. I do think in the past, the scoring separation for the Women was better. I'm guessing, if you looked back at the average Woman player's rating, it has increased and gotten closer. Thus, making scoring separation tighter. I am all for scoring separation if we can keep from using luck to a accomplish that. I will continue to tweak what I can moving forward. Hopefully I don't fall too far behind in keeping up with the talent increase.

 

[Steve West]

...
It's really hard, I feel, to standardize the pars well enough to accomplish what you are wanting. In our case, much of the layout on the open holes is dictated by the man made structures in that area. I just don't have that little extra room I wish I had. I want the course to be played as close as possible to the normal setup. ...

I'm not talking about changing the physical holes. Just the number that indicates par on all tournament materials. It does not need to be the same number the Ams use. Specifically:

Hole  AmPar  ProPar
  1     3       3
  2     4       3
  3     3       3
  4     4       4
  5     3       3
  6     3       3
  7     4       3
  8     3       3
  9     5       4
 10     4       4
 11     3       3
 12     5       4
 13     4       4
 14     3       3
 15     4       4
 16     4       3
 17     4       4
 18     4       3

 

[Steve West]

That's why there is an option b) in my original question. We probably all figured you would say what you said, which is fine. Now, if the question were, "Does Steve love the current definition?" I'm not sure what the answer would be.

Read way back. I started out with the intent of changing the definition, because it didn't seem to be working.

I set up my formula to faithfully reproduce the definition so that I could prove how bad it was for the hundreds of holes in my data base.

What I found out was that the problem was not the definition, the problem was that people were using a lot of non-definitions. That's what had made par mostly useless.

Add two putts...good score plus one...use the tees sign pars even if they are not made for Open...there's no such thing as a par 2...if the TD can't reach it, it's par 4...every hole must be birdieable...aceable = par 3...etc.

All those rules of thumb for setting par tend to make par too high. (Except, sometimes, "all holes are par 3".) They also create many different total pars for the same course.

 

[Steve West]

I also want to point out that Joey makes a worthy point (as people with his initials often do). The TD is not responsible for wind shifts, and what tournament is prepared to make a change based on wind forecasts before play starts every day?

The TD shouldn't make a change based on wind forecasts. Par is based on ordinary weather conditions. If there is usually a headwind, expected scores with a headwind should be used to set par. That's why the raw results of the formula need to be reviewed by the TD.

Last year, the formula spit out a "4" for FPO par on this hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

Count me in the "c" minority.

Well, probably, having not seen this hole; it could be an "a".

But I like dangerous holes---holes where you have to play well to keep pace, but there's significant danger of screwing up and losing a stroke or two. Tough pars, I call them. I'm not bothered by the lack of birdies.

I wouldn't want to play an whole course of them, but a scattering of them, to offset the ones that give up a birdies a bit too easily, give some balance.

This is how the Par 2s play. Of course, they're not called Par 2; they're called "must birdie". But it's the same thing: get it to keep pace, or fall behind.

 

[zontar]

I say "C". make me earn the par with great shots. some nice risk/reward should be involved.....

 

[johnrhouck]

The TD shouldn't make a change based on wind forecasts. Par is based on ordinary weather conditions. If there is usually a headwind, expected scores with a headwind should be used to set par.

Steve, forgive me if I wasn't clear. I was talking about the TD changing the hole — not par — based on daily conditions.

Last year, the formula spit out a "4" for FPO par on this hole.

So Joey says last year had more ordinary conditions and that this year's conditions were aberrant. Then what is par for this hole?

 

[johnrhouck]

In this scenario, half the field is rewarded, no? What percentage needs to get a lower score for you to feel they are being rewarded?

Steve, I don't think I saw an answer to this one. And it's a question for everyone. What birdie percentage are we happy with on any given hole?

Is 50% too high?

Is 20% too low?

What's the happy range?

 

[Steve West]

So Joey says last year had more ordinary conditions and that this year's conditions were aberrant. Then what is par for this hole?

Whatever Joey says it is. Some holes are on the cusp.

 

[Steve West]

Steve, I don't think I saw an answer to this one. And it's a question for everyone. What birdie percentage are we happy with on any given hole?

Is 50% too high?

Is 20% too low?

What's the happy range?

I'll tell you what percentages my formula uses for assigning a recommended par.

Par is the lowest value for which at least 75% of a sequence of experts throws are good enough to get par. That means if 75% of the players get an ace, par is 1. If 56% of players get a 2 or lower, par is 2. If 42% of players get a 3 or lower, par is 3. Etc.

This puts an upper cap on how many birdies are possible.

The lower end is that it is possible for a hole to have zero birdies.

Whether we're happy with those percentages is another question.

Too many birdies simply means par should be lower. That doesn't reflect poorly on the hole.

Within the limits of how many birdies a hole can have and still have the correct par, the most possible birdies will still give good scoring spreads.

At the lower end, a hole with zero birdies can also give good scoring spread. A par 3 with 50% 3s, 30% 4s and 20% 5s works just fine.

So, the question of how many birdies we should be happy with is not the right way to judge a hole's quality. The only bad number of birdies are so many that the hole should have a lower par.

 

[PMantle]

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.

I bolded what I feel to be a huge problem with Steve's method of course rating that h thinks is par.

What seems righ tto me is a modified b. Just as golf does not follow the definition of par, disc golf should not either. Par is what the designer says it is.

 

[Cgkdisc]

PMantle - What seems right to me is a modified b. Just as golf does not follow the definition of par, disc golf should not either. Par is what the designer says it is.

Unless you have a consistent mechanical method for setting par on every tournament course, any comparisons between scores over/under par become meaningless such as discussions about -18 rounds along with related stats like number and percentage of birdies.

 

[PMantle]

Unless you have a consistent mechanical method for setting par on every tournament course, any comparisons between scores over/under par become meaningless such as discussions about -18 rounds along with related stats like number and percentage of birdies.

The PDGA guidelines are 1000 X better than the definition of par.

 

[Steve West]

..Just as golf does not follow the definition of par, disc golf should not either. Par is what the designer says it is.

I hear my mother asking: "If golf jumped off a cliff..."

The trouble with "not following the definition" as the guidance for how we should proceed is that it does not rule out anything, and does not standardize par in any way.

Calling all holes par negative 13 and a half does not follow the definition. Therefore, that's a good way to do it?

Or, did you mean we should change the definition to "Par is what the designer says it is."? That would be a defensible position to take.

Or is this simply another plea to let you keep calling a lot of pedestrian scores eagles and birdies?