Worlds Par

[SD86]

However, for live scoring and tournament play, the scores would be tracked in reference to goal. So when someone gets a 2 on goal 2 hole, it's just a zero relative to goal. A player gets a 3, it's +1, etc. I think it would provide a better indication to those following the round or event where players are currently ranked, it would differentiate DG from ball golf, avoid the mental block of "par 2" and cumulative scores as displayed during the event would virtually always be positive other than a player starting with an ace or "eagle".

Sort of like the Stableford system in golf ball golf?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sort of like the Stableford system in golf ball golf?

Not at all. The goal on each hole would mostly be one less than the correct par. But in the case of a handful of legit par 2s on a course, the goal would still be a 2.

 

[Steve West]

Not at all. The goal on each hole would mostly be one less than the correct par. But in the case of a handful of legit par 2s on a course, the goal would still be a 2.

I don't see how Goal would be any easier to establish than Par. Or, less subject to TD error. It would certainly be less informative, simply because instead of four choices (2, 3, 4, and 5) you would only have three (2,3 and 4). Seems less granular.

While always copying golf should not be a goal, I don't see how differentiating ourselves from golf just for the sake of being different would be a good thing. Especially if we do it by using something that will forever and always be explained as "mostly one less than par".

If the whole point of "goal" is just to avoid the phrase "par 2" (OH MY GOSH, I SAID IT! THE GAME WILL NEVER BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY EVERYONE WHO HAS NEVER HEARD OF DISC GOLF! WE'LL HAVE TO STOP PLAYING IMMEDIATELY! A TOP PRO TOLD ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN!), then just set par correctly for all the 3s, 4s, and 5s and let the few real par 2s be called 3s. Close enough. There aren't that many of them, really. Or lengthen those holes.

 

[teemkey]

I do think data-driven par is the best method of setting par. Whenever I say par "should" have been this or that, my statement is backed up by a lot of scores from a lot of players at the target skill level.

But, this is just one of a few good methods that can also produce acceptable par, if they are applied right.

Whatever method is used, it should result in a par that is good for telling players how well they are doing during a round, compared to other rounds, and compared to other courses. It should do this by making the cost of a bogey about equal to the value of a birdie. To put it another way, after each hole we should be able to say whether the player moved toward a score that would win a big tournament, moved toward a score that would not cash in a major tournament, or held ground; simply looking at how they scored relative to par.

A few years ago, when it became apparent that the pars being assigned were not doing the job as described above. I set out to come up with a whole new definition of par that would work better. To do that, I needed to examine the existing definition. By examine, I mean I needed to apply it to a lot of tournaments to see how well it performed and where it was wrong. So, I encoded the actual definition into my data-driven method (as best I could). I then ran a bunch of calculations, and found out the current definition works just fine.

I'm fine with any method, as long as it produces pars that work well. See here.

I read your paper, and thanks for the link and your work, One thing that bothers me is why you're choosing to analyze players and not rounds rated at the course rating target. By course rating target, I mean the rating a scratch (even par) round would receive.

Your reasoning that 1011 should be the course rating target (CRT) is compelling, so taking only rounds (say) +/- 2 throws from the CRT, you should see hole-by-hole scores that indicate where par is inappropriately set to make a 1011(ish) rated round's score = course par. It would be interesting to compare hole-by-hole data for the rounds rated in the next stratum above and the one below as well, particularly when assessing the impact of birdies and bogies.

Though this may result in a small data set, it could be enlarged if other tournament data is available from the same course with the same layout and a similar SSA. (Cause Chuck will vouch that round ratings are not dependent on anything else, right? )

 

[DavidSauls]

Something I've been pondering that might solve this issue is to use a different reference and terminology than par more suited to our sport and probably provides more information to players and spectators. In bowling, there's a perfect score or goal to throw a strike in each frame. What if we established the score a 1000-rated player should be striving to achieve on each hole and call it the "goal" instead of "par"? Holes could have goals ranging from 2 to 4.

Players would still write down their actual scores on each hole and add them up the same way. They can even use the "every hole is par 3" to add up their scores. The goal or par probably shouldn't be on the scorecard anyway based on experience.

However, for live scoring and tournament play, the scores would be tracked in reference to goal. So when someone gets a 2 on goal 2 hole, it's just a zero relative to goal. A player gets a 3, it's +1, etc. I think it would provide a better indication to those following the round or event where players are currently ranked, it would differentiate DG from ball golf, avoid the mental block of "par 2" and cumulative scores as displayed during the event would virtually always be positive other than a player starting with an ace or "eagle".

Not bad, as a way to sidestep the entrenched "par" we're now using.

Perhaps at future Pro Worlds, the tournament can set a "Tournament Par", separate from whatever's on the signs, that will effectively represent what the players should be shooting. It could be set by whichever formula will work (a number of them come pretty close).

This will be much easier in the future, as we'll only have the Open division, and only 2 courses involved. At the smaller scale, perhaps someone consistent from the PDGA (You, Steve, anyone) could do it to eliminate local TD effect.

Once demonstrated, perhaps it could spread to other Majors, NTs, and eventually further down the chain.

 

[Steve West]

I read your paper, and thanks for the link and your work, One thing that bothers me is why you're choosing to analyze players and not rounds rated at the course rating target. By course rating target, I mean the rating a scratch (even par) round would receive.

Your reasoning that 1011 should be the course rating target (CRT) is compelling, so taking only rounds (say) +/- 2 throws from the CRT, you should see hole-by-hole scores that indicate where par is inappropriately set to make a 1011(ish) rated round's score = course par. It would be interesting to compare hole-by-hole data for the rounds rated in the next stratum above and the one below as well, particularly when assessing the impact of birdies and bogies.

Though this may result in a small data set, it could be enlarged if other tournament data is available from the same course with the same layout and a similar SSA. (Cause Chuck will vouch that round ratings are not dependent on anything else, right? )

I did not do it that way for two reasons. 1. I didn't think of it, and 2. I was trying to formulize the definition. The definition doesn't say "the scores on each hole that would go into a good round". One thing I required of my method is that it can come up woth hole pars without reference to a target total par. (It does this by setting a cut-off point for the percent of throws that are good enough to make par on the toughest-to-par hole).

I think you're on your way to inventing another method. You just need to work how the scores indicate where par is inappropriately set.

Your method needs a target course par, right? If you want to use the score that is nearest to a rating of 1011, that should work OK. Note note that the 1011 is not an input into my method. That was just an illustration of why par that is lower than SSA works better.

For round-rating based choices of total par, anything from just under 1000 up to 1025 could work OK. You'll find total par is kind of squishy, where two or three different choices (like 62, 63, or 64) would all work well enough. However, all three of the good-enough choices are lower than where total par usually is set.

Write up a recipe for applying your method, and I'll add it.

 

[Steve West]

Determining par shouldn't be that complicated.

Why can't par just be the most common score for MPO players on that hole? This can be explained easily to anyone who is not familiar with how disc golf scoring differs from ball golf and will also give an idea for how well a player is doing during competition compared to the "average" MPO player.

Also, I agree that there must be separation (not from luck) on a hole for it to be good for tournament play. Give me 18 separation holes and you have the perfect tournament course.

Is that easier than explaining that par is a good score?

Like most methods of setting par, that would work OK, most of the time. However, the mix of MPO players changes from tournament to tournament, so "Par" would depend on who plays. Someone who scores 6 under at a small local tournament might be shocked to finish 5 over when a larger tournament is held on the same layout. You'd still have everyone guessing "What will be a good score here today?"

 

[biscoe]

Using scoring to set par is coming at it after the fact. Par is most important (and only truly relevant) when used in the design process. I'm sure Chuck can walk onto pretty much any given hole anywhere and say "this is a par 3, a par 4,etc", I know I can. Design dictates par prior to scoring existing on a hole.

Holes where this is not the case (tweeners) are poorly designed and do often need par to be informed by scoring.

I still feel that from a design perspective the way to set par is "x" legs of "y" feet (with the y based on the level you are designing for and the physical constraints on the shot) plus 2 from "short range" where short range is likely up to as much as 200 feet based on level of player and constraints upon the shot (trees, landing zone,etc). In my opinion there can theoretically be an easy par 4 hole (500 feet wide open flat for blue for instance) where the scoring average is less than that of a difficult par 3 (300 feet with a 10 foot wide tunnel fairway and hideous rough).

 

[Steve West]

Using scoring to set par is coming at it after the fact. Par is most important (and only truly relevant) when used in the design process. I'm sure Chuck can walk onto pretty much any given hole anywhere and say "this is a par 3, a par 4,etc", I know I can. Design dictates par prior to scoring existing on a hole.

Holes where this is not the case (tweeners) are poorly designed and do often need par to be informed by scoring.

I still feel that from a design perspective the way to set par is "x" legs of "y" feet (with the y based on the level you are designing for and the physical constraints on the shot) plus 2 from "short range" where short range is likely up to as much as 200 feet based on level of player and constraints upon the shot (trees, landing zone,etc). In my opinion there can theoretically be an easy par 4 hole (500 feet wide open flat for blue for instance) where the scoring average is less than that of a difficult par 3 (300 feet with a 10 foot wide tunnel fairway and hideous rough).

I agree with most of that. I think most designers would say the second (and beyond) leg would be somewhat less than "y' feet due to the lack of a tee pad to throw from. Also, for any leg, if a player of the targeted skill level could not expect (hopes and wishes don't count) to go "x" or "y" feet with a good throw, then that leg is however far the player can expect to get.

Also, 500 feet flat open for Blue would be par 3 under PDGA Guidelines.

 

[Steve West]

What tees and targets did FPO play at Country Club? Was it the same as CC Gold or CC Sliver, or something else?

 

[Karl]

Thanks for the kudos Chuck.
As I posted 4 days ago in the Harder Courses for Worlds thread (see post # 194 there) a "different term" - akin to a Sabermetric-like OPS vs. the old BA - is very relevant and probably needed. I personally use TOP, or throws over perfection. If a hole COULD potentially be aced then except for god, the best one can REALLY hope for is a 2. If a hole "could be gotten" in 2 fantastic throws, then a 3 is a wonderful score. I don't care about any 'colored tees' or 'ability' of any player...just what is POSSIBLE...and how much I'm off of that.

 

[Disczealot]

Is that easier than explaining that par is a good score?

Like most methods of setting par, that would work OK, most of the time. However, the mix of MPO players changes from tournament to tournament, so "Par" would depend on who plays. Someone who scores 6 under at a small local tournament might be shocked to finish 5 over when a larger tournament is held on the same layout. You'd still have everyone guessing "What will be a good score here today?"

It is easier to explain to someone not familiar with disc golf, yes. When someone shoots a -10 round, you have an explanation and reference without a complicated formula. This round was 10 strokes better than the "average" professional round on this course. I feel like having different par for different ratings over-complicates things.

I agree if we have a small sample size it wouldn't be that accurate. I made the suggestion based on having reliable historical data.

I would propose a rolling 3 year period of the previous years scores in order to set par for that course/hole during this season. This would allow for modifications based on changes in player skill and/or equipment.

I know this wouldn't be possible for every course we have, though. Maybe we could have a PDGA par (proposed above), and/or a designer par if the "PDGA par" has not been established.

Par could be defined as "the most common score for mpo players". Very easy to explain and also gives reference.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What tees and targets did FPO play at Country Club? Was it the same as CC Gold or CC Sliver, or something else?

Gold, with two silver tees on 16 & 18, rather than all of the silver tees.

 

[Steve West]

Gold, with two silver tees on 16 & 18, rather than all of the silver tees.

Thanks.

 

[Steve West]

It is easier to explain to someone not familiar with disc golf, yes. When someone shoots a -10 round, you have an explanation and reference without a complicated formula. This round was 10 strokes better than the "average" professional round on this course. I feel like having different par for different ratings over-complicates things.

I agree if we have a small sample size it wouldn't be that accurate. I made the suggestion based on having reliable historical data.

I would propose a rolling 3 year period of the previous years scores in order to set par for that course/hole during this season. This would allow for modifications based on changes in player skill and/or equipment.

I know this wouldn't be possible for every course we have, though. Maybe we could have a PDGA par (proposed above), and/or a designer par if the "PDGA par" has not been established.

Par could be defined as "the most common score for mpo players". Very easy to explain and also gives reference.

We don't need a new definition of par. We just need TDs and CDs to adhere to the current one.

 

[Disczealot]

We don't need a new definition of par. We just need TDs and CDs to adhere to the current one.

I guess, but I have a problem with this part of the definition - "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". In my opinion that part should just be left out. As an example, a wide open 300 foot hole should be a par 2. If 90% of players score a 2, it should be a par 2. This would give you a better idea of how well you are doing based on where you are compared to par, and not having to know how many easy par 3s there are on the course.

For fun, I changed the pars for this years worlds (5 rounds) to reflect the most common score on each hole, here are the results.

Jones East was changed from 61 to 51, and Country Club was changed from 63 to 58.

Total par changed from 309 to 274.

Wysocki would have been -20. Last place to cash would have been +21. If you were to shoot even par you would have placed 9th.

With the current definition, an expert player should be able to shoot even par and expect to shoot very well, since that would mean "errorless play". That just isn't the case with the way things are currently.

This year at worlds if you shot even par you would have finished 103rd place with current par settings. How can TDs and CDs be that far off?

 

[lyleoross]

Par vs another metric. If you choose another metric, you are essentially starting from scratch, you are redefining the sport by that metric, there has been a good bit written about such an approach here, and frankly, I think that is a good way to go. Honestly, it fits our egos to do it differently than ball golf does it.

The inherent problem with par is one that we skirt around. Golf, not ball golf is a several hundred year old sport, no, I didn't go look. Disc golf wasn't invented by some really smart cool guys in the 60s or 70s, it was directly ripped off from Golf. Because of that, par comes with ball golf baggage. Some say it shouldn't matter, or this is us, and we can be different, but that is incorrect. In surveys of players, universally they say, "grow the sport!" If we work in a par world, growing the sport and increasing the fan base means meeting the expectations of the golf world. All of the education and enthusiasm in the world isn't going to convince someone versed in the golf world that par 2 is good, and that a spread sheet of player scores that is mostly birdies is a serious sport. We can dicker about it endlessly, but perception is perception. If we run with the handful of people who sincerely believe that those birdies, and par 2 holes are great and fun, then we are outside a norm and we will be judged, not in the "you guys are evil" fashion, but even worse, "you guys are throwing frisbees around at trees, of course that's easy," judged.

Going to a course metric solves that. It leaves behind the par metric for something that is uniquely disc golf. That, will fit our vanities (sorry, we all have them) and it makes a unique talking and teaching point about the sport. Then par doesn't matter. You begin by talking about the course metric, and end with a winner who best conquered that course metric.

Then a green column due to a lot of 2s, might be bad, but the impact is significantly less. A column that is all green with a lot of 3s (ie par 4 hole) is just a hole that needs to be adjusted.

Thanks for starting this thread Steve.

 

[araytx]

I guess, but I have a problem with this part of the definition - "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". In my opinion that part should just be left out. As an example, a wide open 300 foot hole should be a par 2. If 90% of players score a 2, it should be a par 2. This would give you a better idea of how well you are doing based on where you are compared to par, and not having to know how many easy par 3s there are on the course.

For fun, I changed the pars for this years worlds (5 rounds) to reflect the most common score on each hole, here are the results.

Jones East was changed from 61 to 51, and Country Club was changed from 63 to 58.

Total par changed from 309 to 274.

Wysocki would have been -20. Last place to cash would have been +21. If you were to shoot even par you would have placed 9th.

With the current definition, an expert player should be able to shoot even par and expect to shoot very well, since that would mean "errorless play". That just isn't the case with the way things are currently.

This year at worlds if you shot even par you would have finished 103rd place with current par settings. How can TDs and CDs be that far off?

First of all they are not that far off. I also think our sport has changed dramaticallyover the last 10 years, even in the last 5 years. One of the reasons a course designed in 2003 looks different today (in terms of its design) is the change in equipment. In the Kansas wind in 2016 hole #2 does look like a "par 2" for top pros, because of the proliferation of high speed OS discs. Now anyone with any distance at all can park it on a Hyzer with no problem. That hasn't alway been the case and certainly wasn't when the course was first designed. And there are many holes where it's like that -- not just at Jones but everywhere.


Seriously, Jones East a "51"?? That means you are saying Jones has no par 4s and three par 2s. Or perhaps you're calling either #9 or #13 a par 4 and four par 2s, or maybe both with five par 2s. I've played the course many times and I don't see it. I'm sorry guys, watching on TV and saying this that and the other, vs. getting out to the course and playing it with tournament pressure are two different animals. A famous radio broadcaster in my area has a saying to his callers whenever they speculated based on what they saw in TV. It was "watch the (darned) games! Not on TV get out to the stadium and watch the games!" So I say get out to Jones East and see if those holes that these guys made look "easy" were really par 2s and par 3s. Also, a real problem we have in our sport is the separation between a "good pro" male (the 1020+ guys) and other "good pros", including females. These top guys are just flat out good, especially with the way putting is today. Without a change in how putting is for top tier tournaments, we will continue to have the issue. I'd much favor we just get over the fact that some guys are just gonna put up a -15 or -13 once or twice a tourney.

I can buy Steve's metrics that Jones East might be a 55 or 56. But 51 -- no way. Sorry. When did the "mode" performance (as opposed to median or mean) become the most valuable metric in a statistical analysis? The mode makes no account for the punishment for OBs by taking certain risky lines that only the top pro males can consistently make. Everyone below maybe a 1010 rating has no shot at the kind of consistency on certain holes that those 1020+ guys do. Take hole #15 for example, the vast majority of top pros will choose the high BH spike Hyzer over the top to get them to the circle. On a regular card of 4 players, two get to the circle and deuce the hole, one gets hung up in the bushy tree short and can only layup for his 3, the other guy's throw hits past the basket skips OB. He runs his putt by the basket then misses the comebacker for a 5p. And because there are more 2s than anything else your metric is this is a par 2 hole? Despite the fact that the average score is 3.0, and the median is 3.5? The stats one chooses can and will say whatever you want them to say.

 

[Disczealot]

First of all they are not that far off. I also think our sport has changed dramaticallyover the last 10 years, even in the last 5 years. One of the reasons a course designed in 2003 looks different today (in terms of its design) is the change in equipment. In the Kansas wind in 2016 hole #2 does look like a "par 2" for top pros, because of the proliferation of high speed OS discs. Now anyone with any distance at all can park it on a Hyzer with no problem. That hasn't alway been the case and certainly wasn't when the course was first designed. And there are many holes where it's like that -- not just at Jones but everywhere.


Seriously, Jones East a "51"?? That means you are saying Jones has no par 4s and three par 2s. Or perhaps you're calling either #9 or #13 a par 4 and four par 2s, or maybe both with five par 2s. I've played the course many times and I don't see it. I'm sorry guys, watching on TV and saying this that and the other, vs. getting out to the course and playing it with tournament pressure are two different animals. A famous radio broadcaster in my area has a saying to his callers whenever they speculated based on what they saw in TV. It was "watch the (darned) games! Not on TV get out to the stadium and watch the games!" So I say get out to Jones East and see if those holes that these guys made look "easy" were really par 2s and par 3s. Also, a real problem we have in our sport is the separation between a "good pro" male (the 1020+ guys) and other "good pros", including females. These top guys are just flat out good, especially with the way putting is today. Without a change in how putting is for top tier tournaments, we will continue to have the issue. I'd much favor we just get over the fact that some guys are just gonna put up a -15 or -13 once or twice a tourney.

I can buy Steve's metrics that Jones East might be a 55 or 56. But 51 -- no way. Sorry. When did the "mode" performance (as opposed to median or mean) become the most valuable metric in a statistical analysis? The mode makes no account for the punishment for OBs by taking certain risky lines that only the top pro males can consistently make. Everyone below maybe a 1010 rating has no shot at the kind of consistency on certain holes that those 1020+ guys do. Take hole #15 for example, the vast majority of top pros will choose the high BH spike Hyzer over the top to get them to the circle. On a regular card of 4 players, two get to the circle and deuce the hole, one gets hung up in the bushy tree short and can only layup for his 3, the other guy's throw hits past the basket skips OB. He runs his putt by the basket then misses the comebacker for a 5p. And because there are more 2s than anything else your metric is this is a par 2 hole? Despite the fact that the average score is 3.0, and the median is 3.5? The stats one chooses can and will say whatever you want them to say.

I wasn't knocking the TDs at all, just making a point that the definition of par in the rules does not match up with what is happening on the courses. The way it is now, par means absolutely nothing. If there is a par that relates to player performance, it will be a good indicator of how well you are doing.

Shooting par would actually mean "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play". I agree it is a drastic change, but it would mean that having a birdie/par/bogey actually tells you how well you did.

I used the most common score on each hole for this tournament. FWIW There were four par 2s and one par 4.

Holes 2,8,11 and 15 were par 2s, and hole 9 was a par 4.

In other words, the most common score in this tournament for the entire field, was a 2 on holes two,eight,eleven and fifteen. The most common score on hole nine was a 4, and on the rest of the holes it was a 3.

I didn't just randomly choose what I thought par should be after watching the top pros.

 

[Steve West]

I guess, but I have a problem with this part of the definition - "allowing two throws from close range to hole out". In my opinion that part should just be left out. As an example, a wide open 300 foot hole should be a par 2. If 90% of players score a 2, it should be a par 2. This would give you a better idea of how well you are doing based on where you are compared to par, and not having to know how many easy par 3s there are on the course.

The "close range" part is somewhat problematic. I think the rest of your message proves that the more problematic part is sometimes "As determined by the Director".

Here's how I convinced myself to live with both parts. Obviously, the Director needs to have the final say on almost everything involved in a tournament. If not, there would just be endless squabbling. An unarguable inaccurate par is better than a perfectly set par that anyone and everyone can argue about. Similarly, a ready-made inaccurate par that a TD can pull of the shelf might be better than a par that takes the TDs time away from getting one more sponsor. The TD needs to choose where to put effort among all aspects of running a good tournament. I'm just hoping to put out easy to use, calibrated tools and spread the idea that par does matter.

As for the close range part, one effect it has is to prevent par from including long throw-ins. When the subject of expert expectations comes up, it usually leans toward overly optimistic expectations. Perhaps allowing two throws is meant to say "don't count on a fairway ace" – in an attempt to keep pars from being as low as a top player's dreams. In other words, to keep par from being the "perfect" score – the lowest humanly obtainable.

People have interpreted the close range phrase to mean "add two putts to the number of throws it takes to reach the target", but it can't mean that. "Putt" is defined in the rules. If the rule meant add two putts, it could have said add two putts.

The fact that close range is not defined means that it is not inconsistent with the range where an expert player would expect to finish the hole with two more throws. One might even say it is redundant.

So, in my view, two throws from close range might not really change anything in the definition, (unless it prevents pars from being too low), but it certainly doesn't prevent the tee pad from being within close range, or dictate that all holes must be birdieable.