Par Talk

[Steve West]

First, read these short sections in the PDGA Par Guidelines:

Definition of Par​

​

Experts for Skill Levels and Divisions​

​

Undesirable Ways to Set Par​

Then you can use one of the Acceptable Ways, or choose not to. The Acceptable Ways to Set Par are aids, not restrictions.

Either way, always go back to the actual definition and apply your best judgement.

"[N]one of the methods will automatically set par correctly all the time. The Tournament Director or Course Designer should review the results and make adjustments as needed."



(Side note: Par cannot be changed after the event. "The pars set by the Tournament Director are final and not subject to appeal.")

 

[EllEstar]

Alright, so, the answer seems to be "no, that's not enough information to conclude that it's a par 5". I deliberately want to avoid talking about the design of the hole and the hole itself, because it's a bit of a mess overall, but there are no OBs, mandos or hazards and no weird rules in general.

Here are some stats, but a bit of context first. About 3/4 of the players are local players that have experience playing a slightly harder version of this hole before. Ratings in my country are low (about 20-25 rating points low) because of isolation and covid boom, this has played out consistently when we play abroad or foreigners play here. This was a considerably stronger field than is likely to play the hole any other time this year, we might get a similar field once per year, if that. These are all MPO stats, in addition to MPO, MP40, MA1 and FPO also played the same hole. 47/121 players that played the hole were MPO players. Last year the number of rounds played by 970+ rated players in competition on that hole was 8, in total, so I think it's fair to say that it's not designed for top tier pros.

Score distribution

3	4	5	6	7	8
4	37	50	29	10	7

Other stats

MPO average score	5.18
MPO score order by frequency	5 > 4 > 6> 7> 8 > 3
Average rating of those that got a 3	969
Average MPO rating	935.4
STDev of MPO rating	40.8
Median MPO rating	926

Only one of the top 5 highest rated players got a 3, and him only once.

 

[EllEstar]

First, read these short sections in the PDGA Par Guidelines:

Definition of Par

Experts for Skill Levels and Divisions

Undesirable Ways to Set Par​

Then you can use one of the Acceptable Ways, or choose not to. The Acceptable Ways to Set Par are aids, not restrictions.

Either way, always go back to the actual definition and apply your best judgement.

"[N]one of the methods will automatically set par correctly all the time. The Tournament Director or Course Designer should review the results and make adjustments as needed."



(Side note: Par cannot be changed after the event. "The pars set by the Tournament Director are final and not subject to appeal.")

Yes, thank you, I've read those a couple of times before but had a quick read through them again. The hole fits into either a par 4 or a par 5 depending on the way you use.

I did include statistics from the entire field to start out with, but that was because it was easy and I figured that the few top tier outliers would balance out the few bottom tier outliers somewhat, as most of the field was of a decent level for what the course is designed for.

Including only statistics from the MPO field would, in my opinion, be a decent representation of Experts for the expected future field, with maybe 1 or 2 players that might not be.

I was mostly interested in what your methods would say based on the statistics, or whether there's something else I should consider.

FWIW, I was not the TD or the course designer, though I've been involved in both on this course previously, and I'm not necessarily unhappy with decisions made about pars on this hole. It's just a bit of a weird design that's in a weird spot and when looking into the scoring for the tournament I got to thinking about the par for it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

...
Including only statistics from the MPO field would, in my opinion, be a decent representation of Experts for the expected future field, with maybe 1 or 2 players that might not be.

Players entering MPO, FPO and all Age based divisions whether Master or Junior are not clearly delineated "divisions" in terms of analyzing scoring data. It's more important to look at scoring data for players of any age/gender within a ratings range for analysis of scoring spread, score percentages and appropriate par. Whether there's really a difference between ratings of locals playing locally versus internationally doesn't matter. Holes and par should be designed for the ratings ranges you actually have locally since they're the ones playing most of the rounds on them.

Looking at your table above, it appears your midpoint rating for your MPO fields falls between white (MA2) and blue (MA1) rating ranges. Designing based on Blue level parameters makes the most sense to provide challenges and reasonable chances at birdies for your top "MPO" players and shooting par for those rated below your top players who also enter MPO or the other divisions.

 

[Steve West]

Yes, thank you, I've read those a couple of times before but had a quick read through them again. The hole fits into either a par 4 or a par 5 depending on the way you use.

I did include statistics from the entire field to start out with, but that was because it was easy and I figured that the few top tier outliers would balance out the few bottom tier outliers somewhat, as most of the field was of a decent level for what the course is designed for.

Including only statistics from the MPO field would, in my opinion, be a decent representation of Experts for the expected future field, with maybe 1 or 2 players that might not be.

I was mostly interested in what your methods would say based on the statistics, or whether there's something else I should consider.

FWIW, I was not the TD or the course designer, though I've been involved in both on this course previously, and I'm not necessarily unhappy with decisions made about pars on this hole. It's just a bit of a weird design that's in a weird spot and when looking into the scoring for the tournament I got to thinking about the par for it.

Some holes are highly resistant to any attempt to assign par.

At that point, the TD can look at other factors. Is the round rating for even par where the TD wants it? Does the course need a very tough or a very easy hole? Would players rebel against a hole that averages more than one over par?

Another thing to consider is that the Guidelines are there to allow for consistency across events. Using pars that can be directly compared to everything from Majors to C-tiers is a good thing, but not the only thing. Top events should always strive to use standardized par, but for other events the TD must consider whether standardized par is best for their event. For an event where almost no 1000-rated players show up, in a country with inflated ratings anyway, it may make sense to depart from the standard. Even so, it's good to be aware of where the pars were softened to make the event better.

Bottom line, I think par 5 would be acceptable here.

 

[Karl]

Steve,
I believe you stated (in a previous post):

"There are two reasons why golf has almost no (but not zero) unbirdiable holes".

Do you actually mean "unbirdiable" or do you mean "haven't been birdied"?
Karl

 

[PastorofMuppets]

This kind of relates to Karl's post above this one. On my home course we have a 395 Par 3 shaped like the Number 7 that has never been birdied in tournament play. The design of the hole forces you to throw through a late low ceiling gap 300 feet into the flight and immediately turn left. From tee to basket the hole is indeed 395 feet. To fly the intended line from tee through the late gap then left to the basket is 525. There is a mando (safety related to protect a softball field and playground area) on the left side of the fairway forcing you to throw through the gap. OB creek down the entire left side of the fairway, basket set on the edge of the bank of the creek less than 3 feet from OB. Outside of poor design, and possible mis-parring, this is the 2nd hardest hole on our course and no tournament birdies have ever been recorded. I've only birdied it twice, both with throw ins in heavy winds that got lucky and hit metal or otherwise would have been in the OB creek. Hole plays at 3.81 for 970+ rated players over the past 5 years of tournament data, 4.12 for 900-969 rated players, and 4.97 for sub 899 rated players over that span.

I consider it "unbirdiable" because a perfect "1000" rated play would still leave a person in circle 3 with a death putt/throw directly at an OB creek. Now if players could more routinely be expected to successfully land in circle 2 my stance might change. When I TD events there, I make it a Par 4. When the course designer holds events there, he leaves it a Par 3. But I just use this as an example.

My question is, are people OK having holes designed where Par is the best expected score with perfect play?

 

[Steve West]

Steve,
I believe you stated (in a previous post):

"There are two reasons why golf has almost no (but not zero) unbirdiable holes".

Do you actually mean "unbirdiable" or do you mean "haven't been birdied"?
Karl

Of course there is always a chance any hole could give up a birdie. During a windy day, for example. Or, an "unbirdieable" hole at an elementary school might get played by Simon in a video. Or a par 2 could be aced.

For design purposes, "unbirdieable" means a small enough chance that players at the intended skill level don't have reason to hope for, or play for, a birdie.

 

[Steve West]

My question is, are people OK having holes designed where Par is the best expected score with perfect play?

My take is that these are like other kinds of "bad design" holes. (Blind target, narrow OB creek on the fairway, high chance of lost discs, maybe include elevated baskets, most Mandos, Hazards, man-made obstacles, etc.)

A few can be tolerated and may even add variety or a unique mental challenge.

 

[Karl]

Of course there is always a chance any hole could give up a birdie. During a windy day, for example. Or, an "unbirdieable" hole at an elementary school might get played by Simon in a video. Or a par 2 could be aced.

For design purposes, "unbirdieable" means a small enough chance that players at the intended skill level don't have reason to hope for, or play for, a birdie.

Then I suggest you find another term for this. "Unbirdiable" means "cannot be birdied". There isn't a dictionary for 'design purposes' that is different than that for everything else.

 

[Karl]

My question is, are people OK having holes designed where Par is the best expected score with perfect play?

Some people might (the majority want a "feel good experience", so probably not...), but our present definition of par says the TD can assign just about anything s/he wants. And it has little to do with your "perfect play". Perfect play is an ace on ANY hole that is humanly reachable in 1 throw. Philo's infamous "albatross" was IMO a heck of a good eagle as it obviously was reachable by a human in 2 throws. But that's just me...other TDs' mileage will vary (as to what is par).

Ps: In golf, I don't believe in 'drivable 4pars' (they're just long 3pars) and most of the 5pars are just hard 4pars.

 

[Steve West]

Then I suggest you find another term for this. "Unbirdiable" means "cannot be birdied". There isn't a dictionary for 'design purposes' that is different than that for everything else.

...and people say I'm pedantic. Which I am, so I'll ask for the source of your definition.

Here's a reference in support of mine:

"At that point Jack stood three under par, thanks to an outgoing 34 and a birdie 3 on the eminently unbirdieable 10th."​

Alfred Wright, "THREE WAS A CROWD", 1966 Sports Illustrated [Baseball Issue].

 

[Karl]

Birdiable (while not a real word according to Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition - so you're already treading on thin ice) is 'understood' by golfers as something that is able to be birdied. "Un", as a prefex, means, "not". Not able to be birdied.

It's an absolute. No birdies. Period.

I believe you're intelligent enough to understand the above. Don't make yourself to be a CK #2 and try to muddy the waters. If you mean HARDLY EVER birdied, say so, but don't say "unbirdiable" unless you mean NEVER.

There's enough people slinging misinformation out there without one of the more intelligent persons on this forum saying incorrect things; it just misleads others. Be precise.

 

[Steve West]

Birdiable (while not a real word according to Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition - so you're already treading on thin ice) is 'understood' by golfers as something that is able to be birdied. "Un", as a prefex, means, "not". Not able to be birdied.

It's an absolute. No birdies. Period.

I believe you're intelligent enough to understand the above. Don't make yourself to be a CK #2 and try to muddy the waters. If you mean HARDLY EVER birdied, say so, but don't say "unbirdiable" unless you mean NEVER.

There's enough people slinging misinformation out there without one of the more intelligent persons on this forum saying incorrect things; it just misleads others. Be precise.

You may be thinking of "non", which is absolute.

As an example, we can call someone "uneducated" if they went to school for only one day.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I suppose no hole is unbirdieable when Par is set at 1 stroke higher than the lowest score players in a distance/skill level have thrown. Nothing muddy about that.

 

[EllEstar]

Players entering MPO, FPO and all Age based divisions whether Master or Junior are not clearly delineated "divisions" in terms of analyzing scoring data. It's more important to look at scoring data for players of any age/gender within a ratings range for analysis of scoring spread, score percentages and appropriate par. Whether there's really a difference between ratings of locals playing locally versus internationally doesn't matter. Holes and par should be designed for the ratings ranges you actually have locally since they're the ones playing most of the rounds on them.

Looking at your table above, it appears your midpoint rating for your MPO fields falls between white (MA2) and blue (MA1) rating ranges. Designing based on Blue level parameters makes the most sense to provide challenges and reasonable chances at birdies for your top "MPO" players and shooting par for those rated below your top players who also enter MPO or the other divisions.

MPO, in this case, gives the tightest range of rating spread, excepting a few outliers. It makes for the easiest comparison and that's why I gave the accompanying ratings breakdown.

Divisions are set up with the idea that people of certain skill ranges will gravitate towards them, whether it be because of social stigma or a longing to play with people of a similar skill level. In the par guidelines every level/tier has an accompanying list of divisions.

I don't disagree with you that designing with Blue level parameters in mind makes sense for most of the top players in my country, but that's not really relevant in any way to this discussion. To add to that, you seem to completely miss the point that a rating deflation has a significant effect on how you use the rating info design guidelines. If you have a pool of people rated 890-930 that you want to design a course for and you look at design guidelines and follow ones set out for 900 rated players written by people in area A, the players might be quite upset and lack challenge if they live in area B where ratings are deflated by 30 points and they are actually of a comparable skill level to 920-960 rated players in area A.

 

[Cgkdisc]

MPO, in this case, gives the tightest range of rating spread, excepting a few outliers. It makes for the easiest comparison and that's why I gave the accompanying ratings breakdown.

Divisions are set up with the idea that people of certain skill ranges will gravitate towards them, whether it be because of social stigma or a longing to play with people of a similar skill level. In the par guidelines every level/tier has an accompanying list of divisions.

I don't disagree with you that designing with Blue level parameters in mind makes sense for most of the top players in my country, but that's not really relevant in any way to this discussion. To add to that, you seem to completely miss the point that a rating deflation has a significant effect on how you use the rating info design guidelines. If you have a pool of people rated 890-930 that you want to design a course for and you look at design guidelines and follow ones set out for 900 rated players written by people in area A, the players might be quite upset and lack challenge if they live in area B where ratings are deflated by 30 points and they are actually of a comparable skill level to 920-960 rated players in area A.

Rating deflation, if it actually exists, doesn't matter as it pertains to picking an appropriate course design level. What's important is to consistently follow a specific set of guidelines for the full course layout. Whether a pool of players in a range 50 points higher plays a layout versus a pool that is actually or appears to be 50 points lower, their scores will be spread accordingly within their pool for good competition. Most courses played in competition by divisions below MPO have typically been set at a higher level than the divisions playing them with those who have the shortest distance being hurt the most. The Womens Global was held this past weekend and our lower women and junior rated divisions played a short purple level course and most boosted their ratings and ranked well in their global rankings because they finally played a layout at their distance level.

 

[Steve West]

I suppose no hole is unbirdieable when Par is set at 1 stroke higher than the lowest score players in a distance/skill level have thrown. Nothing muddy about that.

Tell that to the unfortunate guy who has to play the hole just after Calvin.

 

[Karl]

You may be thinking of "non", which is absolute.

As an example, we can call someone "uneducated" if they went to school for only one day.

So you actually think there's a difference (technically or in common parlance) between 'unbirdiable' and 'nonbirdiable'. If so, you're coming across as more stubborn and foolish than you need to be. Oh well....

 

[biscoe]

This kind of relates to Karl's post above this one. On my home course we have a 395 Par 3 shaped like the Number 7 that has never been birdied in tournament play. The design of the hole forces you to throw through a late low ceiling gap 300 feet into the flight and immediately turn left. From tee to basket the hole is indeed 395 feet. To fly the intended line from tee through the late gap then left to the basket is 525. There is a mando (safety related to protect a softball field and playground area) on the left side of the fairway forcing you to throw through the gap. OB creek down the entire left side of the fairway, basket set on the edge of the bank of the creek less than 3 feet from OB. Outside of poor design, and possible mis-parring, this is the 2nd hardest hole on our course and no tournament birdies have ever been recorded. I've only birdied it twice, both with throw ins in heavy winds that got lucky and hit metal or otherwise would have been in the OB creek. Hole plays at 3.81 for 970+ rated players over the past 5 years of tournament data, 4.12 for 900-969 rated players, and 4.97 for sub 899 rated players over that span.

Sounds like it is neither a par 3 nor a par 4 by my methods- that being said I would call the hole in question a par 4.

My question is, are people OK having holes designed where Par is the best expected score with perfect play?

In my work I try pretty hard to avoid them. There are plenty of them out there though.