Par Talk

[Karl]

How so?

A PGA touring pro has a miss/make of 50% at about 6ft (fact).
A PDGA touring pro has a miss/make of 50% at about 30ft (an educated guess).
That's a 1:5 ratio (b to d). Combine that with that bg courses are about triple the length of dg courses and you have a 15:1 (d to b) ratio - length-wise.
Not even close (as to which is 'harder').

 

[F.Luke]

A PGA touring pro has a miss/make of 50% at about 6ft (fact).
A PDGA touring pro has a miss/make of 50% at about 30ft (an educated guess).
That's a 1:5 ratio (b to d). Combine that with that bg courses are about triple the length of dg courses and you have a 15:1 (d to b) ratio - length-wise.
Not even close (as to which is 'harder').

The average PGA driving distance is 295.3 yards. What's your "educated guess" for PDGA pros?

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out. From there we should be able to extrapolate a par which mimics BG and does not include 2 shots from 10m which (since the PDGA makes rules constraining throws from that distance) seems to be a sticking point for those hung up on defining the green in DG as the 10m circle.

 

[lyleoross]

The average PGA driving distance is 295.3 yards. What's your "educated guess" for PDGA pros?

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out. From there we should be able to extrapolate a par which mimics BG and does not include 2 shots from 10m which (since the PDGA makes rules constraining throws from that distance) seems to be a sticking point for those hung up on defining the green in DG as the 10m circle.

I like this approach. Tis going to make some mad though.

 

[F.Luke]

I like this approach. Tis going to make some mad though.

That's fine with me. My cursory analysis seems to suggest that 100 to 115 feet should be our "green." Ie: this is where our expectation of two throws to hole out begins. Where that ends and the expectation of one throw to hole out begins doesn't matter very much.

No, I am not suggesting we need a refinement of the rules to define 100' (or 33m) as a putt requiring demonstration of balance, rather we accept that when the PDGA defines a "putt" as 10m, we don't expect 2 throws to hole out.

 

[Steve West]

The average PGA driving distance is 295.3 yards. What's your "educated guess" for PDGA pros?

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out. From there we should be able to extrapolate a par which mimics BG and does not include 2 shots from 10m which (since the PDGA makes rules constraining throws from that distance) seems to be a sticking point for those hung up on defining the green in DG as the 10m circle.

That's a good "approach" to setting par. Hahahaha!

Oh crap, I'm turning into Chuck.

Seriously, the distance varies by hole, but the farthest we can expect only 2 more throws is 165 feet on tough holes (trees+uphill) to 285 feet (no trees and flat or slightly downhill).

 

[Karl]

The average PGA driving distance is 295.3 yards. What's your "educated guess" for PDGA pros?

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out. From there we should be able to extrapolate a par which mimics BG and does not include 2 shots from 10m which (since the PDGA makes rules constraining throws from that distance) seems to be a sticking point for those hung up on defining the green in DG as the 10m circle.

You were talking about the hardness of putting (to which PMantle stated 'bg', etc.); I'm just adding to his statement(s) about your stats.

 

[F.Luke]

You were talking about the hardness of putting (to which PMantle stated 'bg', etc.); I'm just adding to his statement(s) about your stats.

That's fine. I still fail to see that one is "harder" than the other. They are different skills involved in different sports.

Your anecdotal evidence (educated guess) doesn't support a conclusion in that regard.

 

[Steve West]

OK, Fair points. …
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?

The phrase is "the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play". I choose a 1000-rated player as the expert. Not the whole group of 1000+ rated players, and not Paul.

If the wind was backwards and slower than ordinary, then I wouldn't set par based solely on that round. Unless there was no other data. However, we have nine rounds of data now. If the winds were extraordinary for only one of those rounds, the other rounds will have the most influence on those rounds anyway. If the winds were backwards for 3 of those rounds, we have to start to question whether that's not just part of the range of ordinary.

This is, I think, the first time I've been able to look at so many comparable rounds to see how weather conditions and just random chance might affect the results.

Note that with just one round of data, about 10% of the holes are questionable. With three rounds, about one hole per course per year may be questionable. Which is about what I would expect. Some holes are just going to be near an edge condition and bounce back and forth between two suggested pars.

Combining all the rounds, we have almost 600 player-rounds of data. Based on that, if I were setting par, I would set it to 59. Unless someone knows for sure that the data in one or two of these rounds were under extraordinary weather conditions and should be thrown out.

(I'm not sure we got there the same way, but that's how I go there.)

 

[araytx]

The phrase is "the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play". I choose a 1000-rated player as the expert. Not the whole group of 1000+ rated players, and not Paul.

If the wind was backwards and slower than ordinary, then I wouldn't set par based solely on that round. Unless there was no other data. However, we have nine rounds of data now. If the winds were extraordinary for only one of those rounds, the other rounds will have the most influence on those rounds anyway. If the winds were backwards for 3 of those rounds, we have to start to question whether that's not just part of the range of ordinary.

This is, I think, the first time I've been able to look at so many comparable rounds to see how weather conditions and just random chance might affect the results.

Note that with just one round of data, about 10% of the holes are questionable. With three rounds, about one hole per course per year may be questionable. Which is about what I would expect. Some holes are just going to be near an edge condition and bounce back and forth between two suggested pars.

Combining all the rounds, we have almost 600 player-rounds of data. Based on that, if I were setting par, I would set it to 59. Unless someone knows for sure that the data in one or two of these rounds were under extraordinary weather conditions and should be thrown out.

(I'm not sure we got there the same way, but that's how I go there.)

I am excited about one thing. I think I've explained it differently -- likely because I had to do it the way it processes in my head. But I DID get ultimately what you were saying the par should be given your utilization of the data. I got it! Yay!

 

[cheesethin]

...

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out...

I'm repeating someone else's clever thoughts, probably from earlier in this thread.

I don't think the '2 putts from the green/close range/etc' rule of thumb translates well to disc golf. An 'expert' disc golfer will get tee shots into the 50% putt zone (60' diameter) far more frequently than an 'expert' golfer will get their tee shots into their 50% putt zone (10' diameter). Two putts from the green reflects the mechanics (?) of ball golf much better than it does the mechanics of disc golf.

I don't have any clever alternatives to suggest.

Aah... just found the previous post. It was Karl post #3169. He fleshes out the point.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[biscoe]

Do you really call a 110 foot shot a putt?

No but i call it close range.

 

[biscoe]

The average PGA driving distance is 295.3 yards. What's your "educated guess" for PDGA pros?

All want to establish is at what distance from the target do we expect 2 shots to hole out. From there we should be able to extrapolate a par which mimics BG and does not include 2 shots from 10m which (since the PDGA makes rules constraining throws from that distance) seems to be a sticking point for those hung up on defining the green in DG as the 10m circle.

Welcome to the world of close range par (which in the vast majority of cases lines up with Steve's scoring based par verification methodology).

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm repeating someone else's clever thoughts, probably from earlier in this thread.

I don't think the '2 putts from the green/close range/etc' rule of thumb translates well to disc golf. An 'expert' disc golfer will get tee shots into the 50% putt zone (60' diameter) far more frequently than an 'expert' golfer will get their tee shots into their 50% putt zone (10' diameter). Two putts from the green reflects the mechanics (?) of ball golf much better than it does the mechanics of disc golf.

I don't have any clever alternatives to suggest.

Aah... just found the previous post. It was Karl post #3169. He fleshes out the point.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

What, you don't feel duty-bound to read 3600 posts, first?

Yeah, when this thread began, the PDGA rulebook included the phrase, "two throws from close range", and this was kicked around a bit. It no longer includes that, and never included mention of a "green". A clever alternative might be to dispense with greens in the discussion of disc golf par.

Outside of "par", comparing putting in disc golf vs. putting in golf means cherry-picking which measures to use. For example, in golf, putting almost always involves using a putter, and a putter is rarely used outside of putting. What if we define putting by when we use a putter? That'll expand the green quite a bit. If we use the same distances, putting is vastly easier in disc golf. If we adjust distances to match made-putt percentages, they're identical. If we use the distance at which we choose to roll discs instead of flying them, it becomes meaningless; golf does this, disc golf doesn't. Ratios based on target size, give us other answers, and raise questions of whether we just consider width, or area, or both, since golf's target is effectively 2-dimensional, while disc golf's is 3-dimensional. And I suspect there are a lot more ways to define "putting" that will give different results in a comparison.

 

[lyleoross]

What, you don't feel duty-bound to read 3600 posts, first?

Yeah, when this thread began, the PDGA rulebook included the phrase, "two throws from close range", and this was kicked around a bit. It no longer includes that, and never included mention of a "green". A clever alternative might be to dispense with greens in the discussion of disc golf par.

Outside of "par", comparing putting in disc golf vs. putting in golf means cherry-picking which measures to use. For example, in golf, putting almost always involves using a putter, and a putter is rarely used outside of putting. What if we define putting by when we use a putter? That'll expand the green quite a bit. If we use the same distances, putting is vastly easier in disc golf. If we adjust distances to match made-putt percentages, they're identical. If we use the distance at which we choose to roll discs instead of flying them, it becomes meaningless; golf does this, disc golf doesn't. Ratios based on target size, give us other answers, and raise questions of whether we just consider width, or area, or both, since golf's target is effectively 2-dimensional, while disc golf's is 3-dimensional. And I suspect there are a lot more ways to define "putting" that will give different results in a comparison.

I'm curious, I use a putter for an upshot, but it's not what I putt with. So I make a distinction. That's why I stick with putting motion. I also equate a 110 foot putt to a golf player using a putter on the rough at the edge of the green. Neither player is likely to put the ball/disc in the hole, but both are putting.

 

[Steve West]

I am excited about one thing. I think I've explained it differently -- likely because I had to do it the way it processes in my head. But I DID get ultimately what you were saying the par should be given your utilization of the data. I got it! Yay!

Good! To reinforce your new understanding, I'll let you explain what this shows:

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm curious, I use a putter for an upshot, but it's not what I putt with. So I make a distinction. That's why I stick with putting motion. I also equate a 110 foot putt to a golf player using a putter on the rough at the edge of the green. Neither player is likely to put the ball/disc in the hole, but both are putting.

I threw it in just to further muddy the waters. Of course, some of us carry multiple putters for different shots; I doubt any golfers do. If some of our pros throw a putter at 300', is that a putt?

Maybe, just maybe, in our different game, there is nothing that is exactly equivalent to putting in golf.

 

[Hyzflip10]

What, you don't feel duty-bound to read 3600 posts, first?

Yeah, when this thread began, the PDGA rulebook included the phrase, "two throws from close range", and this was kicked around a bit. It no longer includes that, and never included mention of a "green". A clever alternative might be to dispense with greens in the discussion of disc golf par.

Outside of "par", comparing putting in disc golf vs. putting in golf means cherry-picking which measures to use. For example, in golf, putting almost always involves using a putter, and a putter is rarely used outside of putting. What if we define putting by when we use a putter? That'll expand the green quite a bit. If we use the same distances, putting is vastly easier in disc golf. If we adjust distances to match made-putt percentages, they're identical. If we use the distance at which we choose to roll discs instead of flying them, it becomes meaningless; golf does this, disc golf doesn't. Ratios based on target size, give us other answers, and raise questions of whether we just consider width, or area, or both, since golf's target is effectively 2-dimensional, while disc golf's is 3-dimensional. And I suspect there are a lot more ways to define "putting" that will give different results in a comparison.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the bolded section. My take is since alot of people approach with their putters, this distance can go out to 275 feet or so, and we can't legislate that people only use their putters in close range.

 

[Karl]

What, you don't feel duty-bound to read 3600 posts, first?

Yeah, when this thread began, the PDGA rulebook included the phrase, "two throws from close range", and this was kicked around a bit. It no longer includes that, and never included mention of a "green". A clever alternative might be to dispense with greens in the discussion of disc golf par.

Outside of "par", comparing putting in disc golf vs. putting in golf means cherry-picking which measures to use. For example, in golf, putting almost always involves using a putter, and a putter is rarely used outside of putting. What if we define putting by when we use a putter? That'll expand the green quite a bit. If we use the same distances, putting is vastly easier in disc golf. If we adjust distances to match made-putt percentages, they're identical. If we use the distance at which we choose to roll discs instead of flying them, it becomes meaningless; golf does this, disc golf doesn't. Ratios based on target size, give us other answers, and raise questions of whether we just consider width, or area, or both, since golf's target is effectively 2-dimensional, while disc golf's is 3-dimensional. And I suspect there are a lot more ways to define "putting" that will give different results in a comparison.

Don't think of it as "putting"; distill it down further to one of the unquestionable aspects that both golfs have in common. That of 'shots per hole are counted in whole integers only - low number wins'. With that premise in mind - and the fact that so many of our holes normally take only 2 to 4 shots to complete - it IS very important to consider where one ends up a. After their 1st shot, b. What "shot they're on" when they have a 50%+ chance to hole out their next one, and c. How intertwined a. and b. are.
If we played a game where 8 - 12 shots per hole were the norm, "putting" (or any sort of penultimate shot) would be much less important...but we don't. Thus the frequency in which we place ourselves in a position to make that kill shot is important (as it makes up a BIG percentage of our whole game).

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the bolded section. My take is since alot of people approach with their putters, this distance can go out to 275 feet or so, and we can't legislate that people only use their putters in close range.

I'm not talking about legislating when people use putters, at all.

I'm saying that people use all sorts of definitions for "putting", when arguing that putting in disc golf is easier than in golf, or not.

If we say putting is any shot where a putter is thrown, the made percentage goes way down. It's not a good definition, not one that I would use, but it's about as valid as any of the others.

Putting can be defined as inside the 10-meter circle, or where a certain percentage of shots should be made, or where we'd expect to hole out in 2 shots, or where putters or thrown, or some arbitrary line (20-meters, etc.), or God knows how else. None are definitive.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm not talking about legislating when people use putters, at all.

I'm saying that people use all sorts of definitions for "putting", when arguing that putting in disc golf is easier than in golf, or not.

If we say putting is any shot where a putter is thrown, the made percentage goes way down. It's not a good definition, not one that I would use, but it's about as valid as any of the others.

Putting can be defined as inside the 10-meter circle, or where a certain percentage of shots should be made, or where we'd expect to hole out in 2 shots, or where putters or thrown, or some arbitrary line (20-meters, etc.), or God knows how else. None are definitive.

Im gonna assume you don't like the putting motion definition?

I don't think there can be any clear demarcation. Even in golf I see players use putters out in the rough.