Par Talk

[Steve West]

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

Is that a problem with par or with the hole? Or neither?

What if everyone always gets a 3? What's par then? Does everyone get par, or everyone get birdie, or everyone get bogey? Only one of these makes any sense at all. Outside of Lake Wobegon.

(And, just to dispose of it so you don't need to keep trying to make it true by repeating it, this is not a course rating method. Par on this hole - or any hole - does not depend on the rest of the holes on the course. Therefore it is impossible for it to be a course rating method. You will have more credibility if you drop it.)

 

[PMantle]

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?

First paragraph: Steve, that's just stupid.

Second paragraph: No real definition is needed. Golf sure doesn't need one, and the PDGA guidelines are great.

Third paragraph: stop making things up. It's not my fault putting is so easy. I'd rather see more birdies than you are comfortable with than holes where basically no one ever birdies with a putt.

And finally, I think I have come up with the perfect definition of par: Steve's par result + 1.

 

[PMantle]

What if everyone always gets a 3? What's par then? Does everyone get par, or everyone get birdie, or everyone get bogey?
(And, just to dispose of it so you don't need to keep trying to make it true by repeating it, this is not a course rating method. Par on this hole - or any hole - does not depend on the rest of the holes on the course. Therefore it is impossible for it to be a course rating method. You will have more credibility if you drop it.)

It doesn't matter

Yes, you are rating the difficulty of holes/course.

 

[Steve West]

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

And yet the guidelines are derived from the definition.

How did that derivation make them 1000 X better?

I guess it doesn't matter. If everyone used the PDGA guidelines, and used Gold for Open players, par would not have any problems. I'm glad you are on board.

 

[PMantle]

And yet the guidelines are derived from the definition.

How did that derivation make them 1000 X better?

I guess it doesn't matter. If everyone used the PDGA guidelines, and used Gold for Open players, par would not have any problems. I'm glad you are on board.

Nope. Distance, vegetation etc. It doesn't matter what anyone scores.

 

[Cgkdisc]

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

Steve collaborated with me to make those charts. One of Steve's issues with which I agree is that unless par is set based on the same standard, presumably gold level 1000 rated play, at every event, then any media discussion on players' scores over/under par, birdie percentage has less meaning. Since some courses being used are limited in their options for tournament changes, there will sometimes be a few legit gold par 2s. None at Waco but 6 par 4s and 5s that should have been one shot lower par. Do we lie to the public by touting big under par rounds when the pars are set at blue level shown on the tee signs roughly 5-6 shots above gold, or clean up our stats for consistency moving forward?

 

[Steve West]

Nope. Distance, vegetation etc. It doesn't matter what anyone scores.

OK. I have no problem with you or anyone setting par according the the PDGA guidelines.

The difficulties with par are mostly due to who the par is set for, and only a little due to how it is set.

 

[PMantle]

OK. I have no problem with you or anyone setting par according the the PDGA guidelines.

The difficulties with par are mostly due to who the par is set for, and only a little due to how it is set.

i.e. the multiple tee pad problem.

Look, we can go to 4 brazillion pages if you really want. It all boils down to two things, and two things only: 1. the tee pad problem; and 2. putting is too easy.

So, par is not the problem. The sport itself and how it's implemented is/are the problem.

 

[araytx]

Steve collaborated with me to make those charts. One of Steve's issues with which I agree is that unless par is set based on the same standard, presumably gold level 1000 rated play, at every event, then any media discussion on players' scores over/under par, birdie percentage has less meaning. Since some courses being used are limited in their options for tournament changes, there will sometimes be a few legit gold par 2s. None at Waco but 6 par 4s and 5s that should have been one shot lower par. Do we lie to the public by touting big under par rounds when the pars are set at blue level shown on the tee signs roughly 5-6 shots above gold, or clean up our stats for consistency moving forward?

My issue with the red part is that there may have been six par 4/5s that could have been a stroke lower this year, but not every year. Last year hole #18 played at 4.38 avg round 1. And you'd say a hole that averaged 4.38 is NOT a legit par 4??? Explain.

 

[Steve West]

My issue with the red part is that there may have been six par 4/5s that could have been a stroke lower this year, but not every year. Last year hole #18 played at 4.38 avg round 1. And you'd say a hole that averaged 4.38 is NOT a legit par 4??? Explain.

Who averaged 4.38? The consistent standard of 1000-rated players, or the whole field? Not all the field are experts. And, par is not average, it is errorless play.

One round? It could have been terribly windy, so not many were playing errorlessly. Par is not set by unusual weather conditions.

Data from all the rounds in all the years that hole has been played should be used to calculate par. Even better, throw out the rounds during extraordinary weather if you know which ones they are.

The big picture is to try to set par according to a consistent standard. The obvious choice for that standard is a 1000-rated player.

If we do that, instead of using Advanced par for Open players, most of the problems go away. Whether one hole "plays" way above par occasionally is not a concern.

 

[F.Luke]

...putting is too easy...

This is only true if you compare putting from the same distance in the two sports. Yes an 8' putt is easier in disc golf than ball golf. Let's look at putting proportionally:

Golf hole 4.25" on a green roughly 7500 square feet. (I averaged the minimum and maximum green size recommended by the USGA to arrive at 7500)

Disc Golf target is roughly 22" in diameter. This puts the disc golf green at roughly 38,824 square feet. This, assuming we have a circular green, puts the edge of the green over 110' from the basket.

Frankly, that doesn't sound so easy to me.

 

[PMantle]

This is only true if you compare putting from the same distance in the two sports. Yes an 8' putt is easier in disc golf than ball golf. Let's look at putting proportionally:

Golf hole 4.25" on a green roughly 7500 square feet. (I averaged the minimum and maximum green size recommended by the USGA to arrive at 7500)

Disc Golf target is roughly 22" in diameter. This puts the disc golf green at roughly 38,824 square feet. This, assuming we have a circular green, puts the edge of the green over 110' from the basket.

Frankly, that doesn't sound so easy to me.

No, not really. It is in fact easy. It's why we are having this discussion and why golf never has this discussion. That comparison is worthless. BTW.

 

[DavidSauls]

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?

Unlike Steve, I just hang on to "expect". Which is a bit vague, I know. But if more than 50% of plays are getting the same score, that's the one I expect. That's par.

So 50% is too high. Or maybe 60%, giving a margin of error.

Nothing's too low to me. Get par right, and whatever birdies happen, happen.

(A trouble I have with "expect" is holes with enough scoring spread that no one score is expected. I guess I'm hedging, there, and looking at the score "or better" that I'd expect.)

 

[F.Luke]

No, not really. It is in fact easy. It's why we are having this discussion and why golf never has this discussion. That comparison is worthless. BTW.

How so?

 

[Steve West]

No, not really. It is in fact easy. It's why we are having this discussion and why golf never has this discussion. That comparison is worthless. BTW.

Yes, it is easy. Par should reflect how easy it is. Using "two putts" as any part of setting par is worthless.

 

[DiscFifty]

After reading through the Waco thread and most of this one, I personally feel we should never have any par 2s but imop if there is ever a decision between "harder par or easier bird" it should always be the harder par.

 

[PMantle]

How so?

Do you really call a 110 foot shot a putt?

 

[F.Luke]

Do you really call a 110 foot shot a putt?

Ahh. Quibbling. I do not use my putting stance in general from that distance but, depending on obstacles, I AM trying to put the disc in or very close to the basket. This seems similar to long putts on a golf green to me.

 

[araytx]

Who averaged 4.38? The consistent standard of 1000-rated players, or the whole field? Not all the field are experts. And, par is not average, it is errorless play.

One round? It could have been terribly windy, so not many were playing errorlessly. Par is not set by unusual weather conditions.

Data from all the rounds in all the years that hole has been played should be used to calculate par. Even better, throw out the rounds during extraordinary weather if you know which ones they are.

The big picture is to try to set par according to a consistent standard. The obvious choice for that standard is a 1000-rated player.

If we do that, instead of using Advanced par for Open players, most of the problems go away. Whether one hole "plays" way above par occasionally is not a concern.

OK, Fair points. Some very fair points. I was saying the HOLE (course stats) averaged 4.38 one round and 3.72 the other round when the wind was normal, but back to your points.... One of those fair points plays in my favor in regards to hole #18; the one where you state we should throw out the rounds during extraordinary weather. If that's the case then the data for hole #18 (and the whole course I guess you're telling me, but maybe not the tightly wooded parts???) at the W.A.C.O. was only this year's first round. So different argument imho.

That being said, let's go to your second points. You're gonna have to refresh me on what you mean by "error-less" play. Clearly we watched the round on Jomez. I saw Paul make at least three errors I can recall just off the top of my head as I type this. Clearly he's a 1050 player, maybe you're talking error-less for a 1000-rated player. Whatever it is, please refresh me.

That being said, then I'll go back and look at the play of just the 1000+-rated players and those data that I examined and posted on the other thread.

There were 56 such players, so 168 total rounds.
The average rating was 1018, the median rating was 1016. Based upon what I've read over the years that means these guys should play, on average, a little better than 1 1/2 throws better than the 1000-rating for a course with an SSA around 54. We can make our own adjustments for this course was I estimate to be around 62.5 SSA for the weekend...

so what actually happened was (if my counts are correct)
11 rounds, or 6.5% were -14 or better; more than half by three players with two each.
15 rounds or 8.9% were -13 or better
34 rounds, or 20.2% were between -10 to -13
and 83 rounds, or 49.4% were -5 to -9
The rest threw higher rounds than that.

So I am guessing, reading between the lines, if you will, that your stats are saying that par should be around what is currently -8? Am I assessing what you're saying correctly? The big group, nearly 50% of them were between -5 to -9 (-7 is right in the middle) and they SHOULD average a stroke better since they average better than 1000 so I give it one more throw better. So, if I come up with "you're saying that Brazos East should be a par 59," please tell me what I am missing or what is a faulty assessment in my conclusion there?

 

[lyleoross]

Do you really call a 110 foot shot a putt?

If it's Ricky Wysocki holding the disc.

I always define a putt as a type of throw. I don't use a putting motion on 110 foot throws, but guys like Ricky seem too.