Par Talk

[lyleoross]

I've rolled this to Chuck before, but he doesn't care for it. We've spent the last twenty years trying to make baskets catch better. And to some extent, we've succeded. We've actually developed a whole conversation about flukey baskets in our effort to say they should catch better. When a player misses a putt, it isn't that he shot the disc in at supersonic speeds and it bounced off the pole, it's that the basket is flukey.

No one says, that when a player rams a basketball so hard off the backboard, that it can't fall into the hoop, that the hoop is flukey. They say, that moron blew it. Same for a putter in ball golf who hits the ball so hard that it bounces over the cup. Only in our sport is it considered the norm that no matter how hard you throw the disc at the basket, the basket should catch the disc.

The solution is quite easy. Make the baskets so that they require some finesse to get the disc to stay in. Heck, you could even make them bigger, but have fewer chains. That means that a player with a subtle long distance shot could still drop his disc into the basket from 60 feet out, but that a player rocketing the disc in from 30 feet would likely pass through the chains or bounce off the pole. And of course, it makes shots in the wind tougher. The player has to read the wind and adjust his softer shot to fall in.

BTW - look at footage from 10 or 20 years ago and today. Ken and Barry putt very differently than the young guys do today. Their putts, on those older style baskets, had to be laid in with finesse. More players rocket today, and then whine about how that flukey basket spit out their well placed putt.

 

[rdnckdisc]

Par is iffy subject for sure and after reading all comments their is alot of things that can be done to make scores look not so ridulous. Is it practical to do that idk.. But I do agree 39th make baskets harder to catch ive thought about adding chain's to my M14 but why it catches just fine when I put the disc were it needs to be.. When I don't I get spit outs blow thrus.. Make it were putting has to have alittle bit more finess and scores will separate some

 

[Cgkdisc]

Lyle, I don't disagree at all with increasing the finesse required for putting. It's just the way it's done. Usually, we see the suggestion to reduce the number of chains and return to something similar to the early Mach baskets with one set of chains. I just think that's a bit too fluky for high level play. There are some other ways to add finesse we plan to check out. For example, the three bar concept shown on the other thread is a way to replicate the intricacies of curved putting on ball golf greens.

 

[Steve West]

The skinny baskets have so far been shown to reduce spread among the highest rated players at those events.

That's not quite correct. They have been shown to increase the scores of the better players more than the scores of the worse players, thus decreasing the spread between the top and bottom.

There haven't been enough highest rated players in the data for us to come to any conclusion about the spread among only the highest rated players.

 

[thrembo]

I say we raise the par on all holes to five. That way when someone asks how my round went I can say that I had 4 Albatrosses and 10 eagles instead of saying I shot a 64.

 

[Muddyboots]

No par values. Less spectator interest. Less sponsor money. Pro tour doesn't survive long term. Imagine explaining to Adidas that we don't assign pars in our game because no one could figure out how to do it or decided to hide them because the scores made the sport look too easy?

Do you have data to support these statements?

 

[Steve West]

Again, to fix par we don't need to increase scores. We need to lower par.

This hole, for example, should be a par 4, not a par 5. When 70% of 1000-rated players get a 4 or better, five is not the score an expert would expect.

 

[Steve West]

Do you have data to support these statements?

What percent of videos don't ever mention par?

 

[Muddyboots]

Don't know. Haven't seen them all. Luckily, the total number of strokes is what determines the winner, which is important in videos, sponsorships, etc. Do you agree?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Don't know. Haven't seen them all. Luckily, the total number of strokes is what determines the winner, which is important in videos, sponsorships, etc. Do you agree?

Not at all. No need to watch the videos if you know the final score. Again, if the players who end up finishing 1 and 2 came from different groups, the viewer doesn't know how to track just the scores during the round. Do you think Philo's (double) eagle 2 would have made it on Sport Center if that was "just" birdie?

 

[ThrowBot]

Again, to fix par we don't need to increase scores. We need to lower par.

This hole, for example, should be a par 4, not a par 5. When 70% of 1000-rated players get a 4 or better, five is not the score an expert would expect.

Tough to read a graph without axis labels

 

[Steve West]

Tough to read a graph without axis labels

True. I wonder where they went? Anyway, this is frequency of each score as a function of player rating.

 

[SD86]

What percent of videos don't ever mention par?

Most every video I watch, from CCDG to Jomez to Matt Dollar, and most of the rest, show a graphic of each hole before the players tee off from it, showing the par of that hole. After the hole, most videos show how each player did, the relation to par for that hole (birdie, par, bogie, etc.) and their overall accumulated score in relation to par (not as a total). So whatever percentage of videos that don't mention par is.. it's very, very low if it's above zero at all.

 

[lyleoross]

Lyle, I don't disagree at all with increasing the finesse required for putting. It's just the way it's done. Usually, we see the suggestion to reduce the number of chains and return to something similar to the early Mach baskets with one set of chains. I just think that's a bit too fluky for high level play. There are some other ways to add finesse we plan to check out. For example, the three bar concept shown on the other thread is a way to replicate the intricacies of curved putting on ball golf greens.

Whats your measurement of fluke? Does it compensate for disc speed? Does it compensate for disc angle, front to back, and side to side. I have other variables if you'd like them?

By my measure, I think one can make a pretty solid argument that the three bar basket, yes, I saw your post, and quite possibly, the original too, will be... flukey. I do agree that it will make pros consider their short game more carefully. That might be good enough.

 

[lyleoross]

All other arguments aside, Steve's points on setting par make the most sense to me. It's easily implemented and makes a difference immediately.

Chuck, what's the biggest impediment to testing some of your ideas in terms of basket design. Time? Volunteers? Money? Just curious.

 

[Steve West]

Ah, and herein lies the crux of the problem: what is a legitimate par-3 to Paul, Ricky, Eagle, and other top-top pros is extremely difficult for the bulk of pro players in the Open section, and even more difficult for FPO, Masters Divisions, etc. And what's legitimate Par 3s for all them is easy-peasy for the top-top guys.

(And Par 2 doesn't make any of that better while still sounding gimmicky.)

…

And last but not least... while a -16 on an 18 hole course makes it look as if the course is too easy, I'd much rather have that for McBeth and Wisocky doing that and the majority of pros having legit par 3s, than have any Par 2s ever.

Legitimate par for the very top players is not what should be used for Open division. It's too low. What should be used is legitimate par for the bulk of the players that have a shot at cashing in a well-attended MPO.

If an expert (not super expert) MPO player can expect to get a 3, that hole is a par 3 even if they can't reach it with one drive. Whether the top guys can get a 2 doesn't really matter.

Masters can use MPO par, too. As for the other divisions, they can either understand that they cannot expect to get under MPO par very often, or the TD could set a division-appropriate par for them – and call it Advanced par or Grandmasters par or whatever.

Par 2s are only a small part of getting total par down to where it needs to be. There are fewer real par 2s than most people think. Most par 2s are nearly par 3 and would be the hardest-to-par holes on the course.

If you see a -16 score, it's mostly because too many par 3s were labelled par 4 and 4s labeled 5s, not because there were 16 par 2s.

I think the phrase is a lot less silly than saying we must never speak about which holes an MPO player really better get a 2 on.

 

[BrotherDave]

What is the origin of this notion that you should be able to birdie any given hole? Serious question for anyone.

To me, the hole that is most obviously par 3 is the hole where no one ever scores anything but a three. Yet, some would say that hole must be a par 4, because otherwise it could never be birdied.

I shouldn't be able to birdie any given hole but somebody (really good) should. If everyone never scored anything but a 3 on a hole than that hole is pointless regardless of PAR.

 

[SD86]

If an expert (not super expert) MPO player can expect to get a 3, that hole is a par 3 even if they can't reach it with one drive. Whether the top guys can get a 2 doesn't really matter.

Masters can use MPO par, too. As for the other divisions, they can either understand that they cannot expect to get under MPO par very often, or the TD could set a division-appropriate par for them – and call it Advanced par or Grandmasters par or whatever.

Yes, and we are agreeing here. And in DG, unlike Ball Golf, one putt from inside the circle (give or take) should be enough for an MPO pro, and the equivalent of two putts in golf ball golf.

Par 2s are only a small part of getting total par down to where it needs to be. There are fewer real par 2s than most people think. Most par 2s are nearly par 3 and would be the hardest-to-par holes on the course.

And here is where I say that, for the good of the game, make those Par 2s into Par 3s no matter what, as the damage/stigma of a "Par 2" label is far worse than any effort to bring par to where it should be.

If you see a -16 score, it's mostly because too many par 3s were labelled par 4 and 4s labeled 5s, not because there were 16 par 2s.

And it's because Paul McBeth, Ricky Wisocky, et. al. are so darn good. And like I said before, if one makes a course where they are working for pars, that course would destroy the MPO field, etc. Not unlike me playing Augusta National...

Also, I'm prepared to accept a -15 on an 18 hole DG course if the bulk of the MPO field is much closer to par, knowing that DG courses are not yet at that equalizing level. Over time, if consideration is given to adding technical holes to a course, some of that will work itself out. But in NO case do I think "Par 2" will be anything but badly harmful for the game of Disc Golf, so sorry.

 

[SD86]

By my measure, I think one can make a pretty solid argument that the three bar basket, yes, I saw your post, and quite possibly, the original too, will be... flukey. I do agree that it will make pros consider their short game more carefully. That might be good enough.

Less of a specific response and more of a general comment: IMHO the DG basket is just fine. Maybe it could be standardized, and shortened just a bit (top to bottom), but there's no need to massively change the basket on account of the pros. In standardizing the basket, make it where a bit of finesse is needed, and don't make it TOO easy for the chains to catch the discs. Just something nice and standard (like a Discatcher basket, maybe shortened just a wee tad).

Also, ball golf greens guard the hole (which is the same small size and no one complains) with undulations, putting the holes just over sandtraps or water, etc. So put some baskets on islands with real water around them, put those baskets in some trees with OB just behind the basket.

------------------------

And while we're on a discussion of Par... make OB a bit more costly. Go OB, and one should never actually be throwing from CLOSER to the basket. Just as in ball golf, there should be a drop zone or some penalty where the throw is "no closer to the hole/basket".

As an example, that long sideways green, maybe at La Mirada, where there's OB all around. McBeth would just throw clean over the backside, then be shooting from three feet away, and not really being cost anything because that extra stroke would come either from the OB or from laying up... so OB was being used strategically. Truly punishing OB would help with some of the below-par scores.

 

[lyleoross]

OMG, Terry just posted video from the Maricopa Open. Look see the basket on hole 2. That's using the foliage to take away the easy putt.