Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
The attached table compares the proposed GOLF Par method [...]
For any given scoring distribution, the score-based methods in the PDGA Par Guidelines will produce the same pars as are seen in golf. There is no reason disc golf NEEDs to have way-under winning scores.Trying to match our elite "strokes under par" with PGA ball golf has been a false goal for the following reason. Ball golf actually has two separate skill/power games within one > striking the ball primarily through the air to land on the green (target) and skillfully rolling the ball on the green into the cup (target). DG just has one skill/power game > throwing the disc primarily through the air to hit the target in a way that it stops in the basket. Our putting is an artificial term for short, accurate throws, not truly a different way to propel the disc near the basket like a putt along the surface in ball golf. Yes, our players putt with different stances but it's still a throw.
Getting birdie in ball golf requires good execution in both subgames. Getting birdie in disc golf on our reachable par 3s for a skill level usually requires just one good throw, either parking the drive or sinking a longer throw near the bucket. Note that players with ratings of 1030+, the average MPO rating for the top 25 at an elite event, are expected to average at least 4 below SSA just to shoot their rating on gold level courses and SSA is usually 3-5 strokes lower than the listed par. So, viewers should expect to see -8 in our sport in bogey free rounds as normal at the elite MPO level.
Players must shoot about half of their rounds better than their rating to maintain their rating, even more to increase it. Seeing a few or more rounds in the -12 to -15 range should be expected when these top players are on a heater.
If our sport's leaders and designers really felt it was important to reduce the birdie percentage in a more skillful way (not with penalty strokes), there are ways to add another subgame for putting, but I doubt players and viewers would like them. Some of those ways have been discussed in other threads on course design.
Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?Close Range Par is the most successful, being the most widely used by the best-run events.
I am obviously not Steve W. but Steve W, does contact the TD's for some par discussion after the fact. In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?
How do you know which PDGA Par Guideline that various events use? Is that just from your own personal networks and contacts?
Obviously, I have a vested personal interested in learning which events use CRP. I know that Steve Dodge is a proponent, so does the DGPT use CR Par?
Biscoe, that makes perfect sense.In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.
And as a corollary, follow up question... did the DGPT give you any input or feedback about the pars that you set? Or is the TD the final authority on par by default?In my experience (ran a Silver) DGPT uses whatever par the TD gives them.
I use CRP for the most part with Close Range varying a bit based on elevation and obstacles- for gold I carry it out to around 200.Biscoe, that makes perfect sense.
What PDGA par method did you use at the 2022 Lake Marshall Open?
Chuck, would you please define these key terms?The attached table compares the proposed GOLF Par method with the PDGA Par method for setting par for players within a specific drive distance/skill range as holes on relatively open terrain increase in length and their resulting scores.
No real input from them on par. Their input tends to lean towards dealing with the spectators and making the course idiot proof for the players as far as ground rules/markings go.And as a corollary, follow up question... did the DGPT give you any input or feedback about the pars that you set? Or is the TD the final authority on par by default?
You are using "effective length", as the explanation stipulates. This is obviously a common sense necessity.I use CRP for the most part with Close Range varying a bit based on elevation and obstacles- for gold I carry it out to around 200.
Course Level | Close Range |
Gold | 220 |
Blue | 190 |
White | 160 |
Red | 140 |
Green | 120 |
Purple | 100 |
I didn't keep a list of everyone who uses it.Steve, would you please elaborate on this statement?
How do you know which PDGA Par Guideline that various events use? Is that just from your own personal networks and contacts?
Obviously, I have a vested personal interested in learning which events use CRP. I know that Steve Dodge is a proponent, so does the DGPT use CR Par?
See my post 4543. The way golf par is set, it automatically provides the opportunity to score a birdie or better "against the hole" for a specific player distance range. Shooting "birdie and better" is the definition of "scoring" in ball golf. If we wish to emulate the scoring system in ball golf, which I believe has been our primary idea behind the discussions on how to set par in disc golf, then the appropriate par for each player distance range will allow the player to score birdie or better on every hole.Chuck, would you please define these key terms?
GOLF Par
PDGA Par (especially since there are various acceptable ways to determine par)
Setting par correctly will not reveal all bad designs. No one is saying it would.I remain mystified by the idea that setting par "correctly" will somehow reveal poor hole designs.
As an example, let's look at hole #13 at the KC Wide Open and how it played for FPO. It averaged 3.96 strokes and generated almost no 2s with the most common score on the hole a 4, but a lot of 3s. It looks like the appropriate par would be a 4.
It was a 364 foot hole. Uphill, but not excessively so. No real trees to speak of. The big issue was that the OB formed a fairly tight circle around the basket and was defined by tall grass. It just wasn't reachable from the tee for most of the players in that field, but it extended out quite far towards the tee, so most players were laying up short of it with essentially a short chip shot off the tee. But that field wasn't a particularly strong one, even for an FPO and wasn't particularly long off the tee. Holyn Handley went for it every day and only made it on once.
No matter whether the par is 3 or 4, you can tell that the design is poor for the FPO field, but you can tell that by watching the hole being played. The average to par tells you that the hole is poorly designed as well, something that would be obscured by setting the par at 4. Setting the par at 4 would have generated a good number of birdie 3s (perhaps too many, but not egregiously so) and a mix of pars and bogeys with very, very few eagles.
Setting par "correctly" in this case makes it more difficult to understand that the hole is poorly designed for the field.
And then you get to the issue that the average will change depending on the field size and composition. Make the field a very strong one, equivalent to an elite series event, and the average likely comes down quite a bit. That still wouldn't make the hole a good hole for the FPO field.