Worlds Par

[Steve West]

...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.

You know our hole is two feet wide, and has a backstop, right? Of course it's easy. There are no numbers you can come up with that will make it not look easy. Especially to golfers.

But that's a feature, not bug. I think we would draw in more people by saying it's a style of golf that is so easy there are a few par 2 holes.

I'm interested in what your "course metric" would be. My prediction is that if you think it through long enough, after first considering everything you want that course metric to accomplish, you will either come up with Score, or something that looks so much like Par that you can't describe it without referring to Par.

 

[Disczealot]

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.

I agree with most of your post, but the 2 throws does prevent par 2s on short/easy holes. I get that people don't want par 2s for general perception, and it doesn't allow for birdies, but I think having -50, -60, -70 scores is worse.

 

[Steve West]

Here are the numbers from Jones East. For each total course par (across the top) the chart shows the percentage of all throws by a 1000-rated player that were good enough to score par (or better), and the difference between par and score per round for all players that cashed, and the hole par for each hole.

My choice would be the 55 column. At 55 the winner would have been 18 under for the three rounds, and the highest scoring cashing player would have been 10 over. That's an average of one-half a throw under par per round for the all the players who cashed.

 

[araytx]

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.

I get that it was "the most common score" on a hole, but that statistical metric is called the "mode." Outside of merchandising the mode is hardly used, and for good reason. Statistically the median or mean are better measures. I guess I am trying to get you to understand that that measure doesn't make any sense in this context. As Steve said there are things it doesn't take into account. By this measure a hole in tourney with 75 players all rated over 1000 that has 38 deuces and 37 threes is a par 2; and if there were 37 threes, 35 deuces, and 3 aces, then it's a par 3. See -- when you extrapolate that out all scenarios don't support it -- not when human vision (aka watching the game) is taken into account. It also doesn't take into account scrambling ability, or long throw-ins. Another example is going back to hole #15 -- only reason the MPOs had more deuces than anything else is that most of them (particularly 1010+) have an accurate shot in their arsenal that most other disc golfers don't have, including top women and some 980+ pros. There's no way that hole is a par 2 for the World. Not if you watch the game.

The idea of using a "most common score" metric, or "mode" should be disregarded.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

. . . Disc golf wasn't invented by some really smart cool guys in the 60s or 70s, it was directly ripped off from Golf. . . . Going to a course metric solves that. . . .

I find it difficult to buy into a claim that "par" is the problem when the very name, disc golf, is just a modification of the name of the sport that it "ripped off." As long as "golf" is in the name, people will compare it, favorably or unfavorably to real golf.

 

[lyleoross]

You know our hole is two feet wide, and has a backstop, right? Of course it's easy. There are no numbers you can come up with that will make it not look easy. Especially to golfers.

But that's a feature, not bug. I think we would draw in more people by saying it's a style of golf that is so easy there are a few par 2 holes.

I'm interested in what your "course metric" would be. My prediction is that if you think it through long enough, after first considering everything you want that course metric to accomplish, you will either come up with Score, or something that looks so much like Par that you can't describe it without referring to Par.

Is it that you think I'm mentally deficient? Of course I know what our target is. What I also understand is public perception. And yes, you can make it not look easy, please see De La. That course redefines what a putt is for us. The trade off between making it, and missing the putt becomes much larger and the risk grows. And yes, even in my mentally deficient state, I realize that De La is unique.

I don't mind par, I mind a) how par is currently being used, as is being discussed quite a bit here, and b) par 2 holes. So, I looked at what people were writing and found the course meteric discussion very interesting. The metrics proposed here included simple ones, Gold Blue Red courses, Courses based on player ratings and other measurements. Your point that an adequate metric might be impossible I acknowledge. BTW - I didn't say eliminate par, simply approach play from a different perspective. That might fail as you've pointed out.

Taking into account, those Yuge baskets, IMO what should define our holes as difficult is the fairway. In ball golf, the putt does. Sloping greens, fast greens etc. That makes the putt difficult, but the drive in ball golf, by necessity, will never match what can be done in disc golf. IMO we should differentiate our sport by that, and often enough do.

In the other thread you asked a question, what is wrong with a par 2 350 foot hole. I didn't go into much detail, but this is exactly what is wrong with it. For a 350 hole to be par 2 it has to pretty much be wide open, allowing for a hyzer shot that is reliable no matter what. Even for pro players it has to be that way. As soon as you start adding anything to the hole to make it interesting, that par 2 starts to go away. BTW - this is what is done at USDGC.

In summary, you focused on the putt and it's ease in defending par 2, I think the more relevant point is the fairway and how we build them to force the player to make better choices before they get to the putt. Yep, I, in my mentally deficient fashion, acknowledge that our putting game is significantly easier than that of ball golf. IMO if we are to say our sport has value, we should be able to say there is something dynamic and difficult about it. If we are not going to remake the basket, or limit it's catching ability, then we should really work with the fairway.

Last, back handed comments like, "you do realize" that are meant to undercut the person being written to, have become the bane of on line public discourse. Such things are never said face to face, we are more tactful. Personally, I'd like them to be lumped with par 2 holes and put in the bin.

 

[Disczealot]

I get that it was "the most common score" on a hole, but that statistical metric is called the "mode." Outside of merchandising the mode is hardly used, and for good reason. Statistically the median or mean are better measures. I guess I am trying to get you to understand that that measure doesn't make any sense in this context. As Steve said there are things it doesn't take into account. By this measure a hole in tourney with 75 players all rated over 1000 that has 38 deuces and 37 threes is a par 2; and if there were 37 threes, 35 deuces, and 3 aces, then it's a par 3. See -- when you extrapolate that out all scenarios don't support it -- not when human vision (aka watching the game) is taken into account. It also doesn't take into account scrambling ability, or long throw-ins. Another example is going back to hole #15 -- only reason the MPOs had more deuces than anything else is that most of them (particularly 1010+) have an accurate shot in their arsenal that most other disc golfers don't have, including top women and some 980+ pros. There's no way that hole is a par 2 for the World. Not if you watch the game.

The idea of using a "most common score" metric, or "mode" should be disregarded.

I recognized that you understood, but it was too late to edit my post.

I feel like using the mode is the best fit for the current definition of par in the rulebook. IE what an expert player would expect with errorless play. Using the mode takes away the errors that you spoke of or would be used in the formula when using the median or mean.

I agree it isnt a good par for most players, but it gives everyone a standard to shoot for. I wouldnt expect anyone except a pro to shoot par for a course with the current definition.

 

[ScottyLove]

I agree with most of your post, but the 2 throws does prevent par 2s on short/easy holes. I get that people don't want par 2s for general perception, and it doesn't allow for birdies, but I think having -50, -60, -70 scores is worse.

Worse?? I am now dumber after reading all of this. So what if the winner is -62? Our game is by far EASIER than ball golf. No need to compare them at all.

And for the record, I hate the term "strokes" more than anything I hear about our game. I won this weekend by 3 THROWS... not STOKES!!! We don't use clubs to stroke anything. We should use the term THROWS 'cause that's what we do.

 

[Steve West]

...
Last, back handed comments like, "you do realize" that are meant to undercut the person being written to, have become the bane of on line public discourse. Such things are never said face to face, we are more tactful. Personally, I'd like them to be lumped with par 2 holes and put in the bin.

I apologize, I didn't mean it to come across that way. And I do say such things face to face, but have been told I shouldn't. I know it's worse on a forum.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Worse?? I am now dumber after reading all of this. So what if the winner is -62? Our game is by far EASIER than ball golf. No need to compare them at all.

And for the record, I hate the term "strokes" more than anything I hear about our game. I won this weekend by 3 THROWS... not STOKES!!! We don't use clubs to stroke anything. We should use the term THROWS 'cause that's what we do.

Throws vs Strokes is also one of my soapbox issues. However, it's possible the term came not from stroking the club but how many strokes were originally "stroked" on the scorecard as in: III or IIII or with the diagonal slash to make a gate for a 5. In which case, maybe stroke isn't incorrect, but more archaic than arabic numerals. Maybe it should be how many arabics on that hole?

 

[Steve West]

...

I don't mind par, I mind a) how par is currently being used, as is being discussed quite a bit here, and b) par 2 holes.
...
In the other thread you asked a question, what is wrong with a par 2 350 foot hole. I didn't go into much detail, but this is exactly what is wrong with it. For a 350 hole to be par 2 it has to pretty much be wide open, allowing for a hyzer shot that is reliable no matter what. Even for pro players it has to be that way. As soon as you start adding anything to the hole to make it interesting, that par 2 starts to go away. BTW - this is what is done at USDGC.

I think it is important to make the distinction between two thoughts:

A. Par 2 holes are bad and should not be designed or built or used in tournaments.

B. Par 2 holes are bad, so we should never assign a par of 2 to any hole, no matter how easy it is.

Both of these are lumped together under the anti-par 2 banner. However, they are not the same.

When I say some holes should be labeled par 2, that is not an argument against A. In fact, for those whose goal is to eliminate all par 2 holes, the first step is to identify them.

You can't get rid of all the buckthorn on your course by calling it cherry trees.

A 350 foot steeply downhill hole that feeds into a funnel-shaped green where most players get a 2 may be a bad hole. But, if it exists, it should be labeled par 2. Sure, it could use more trees or something. But we shouldn't assign a par by how difficult the hole should be after it is fixed.

I recognize that there is a perception that the very label "par 2" makes disc golf look bad. (Interestingly, this is always presented as "other people" will think a par 2 label will make disc golf look bad. No one has said "My opinion of disc golf will go down if any hole is labeled par 2".) I think that the bad effects of hiding the few par 2s are worse than any reduction in the perception of disc golf by other people.

Two of these effects are to allow par 2s to continue to exist by flying under the radar, and reducing the perception of disc golf by allowing for too-far under par scores to happen.

However, because there are so few par 2s, I would not hold the entire movement to get more accurate pars hostage to the par 2 issue. If we just stop calling too many holes par 4 and par 5, we'll be much better off. Even if we let the occasional par 2 put on a par 3 hat and pretend to be grown-up.

 

[Steve West]

Throws vs Strokes is also one of my soapbox issues. However, it's possible the term came not from stroking the club but how many strokes were originally "stroked" on the scorecard as in: III or IIII or with the diagonal slash to make a gate for a 5. In which case, maybe stroke isn't incorrect, but more archaic than arabic numerals. Maybe it should be how many arabics on that hole?

0 for 2 today.

From the rules of golf: A 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball...

There are no strokes in disc golf. We got rid of the term a rules revision or two ago. There are no longer any "shots" either.

 

[Cgkdisc]

0 for 2 today.

From the rules of golf: A 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball...

There are no strokes in disc golf. We got rid of the term a rules revision or two ago. There are no longer any "shots" either.

That's what golf says now. But it doesn't mean it didn't come about from an early developer stroking his chin pondering what to call it, he says tongue firmly in cheek (again). "Stroke" has never been a term in our rules from the beginning. The word accidentally showed up once in the notes to one revision but that's the only incidence when I searched all the texts going back to 1982.

 

[Steve West]

Worse?? I am now dumber after reading all of this. So what if the winner is -62? Our game is by far EASIER than ball golf. No need to compare them at all.

Without comparing to golf:

A par that is nearest to the scores the cashing players will get is the most informative.

Everyone start out at even par. If a final score of even par can be assured of cashing, it is easier to track player performance from hole to hole and round to round. Any movement away from even par would indicate the players chance of cashing is getting better or worse. Even par would stay good no matter how high or low the total scores, or how many rounds are in the tournament.

On the other hand, if the winning score is -62 after fours rounds, then players need to do more math. -62 is winning after 4, what it good after 1? What is good 7 holes into the second round?

If some tournaments have winning scores of just a few under par, and others have winning scores of many under par, players need to guess "how many under will it take"? If par is set right, the answer is always "even par is sure to cash".

 

[Improbably]

Without comparing to golf:

A par that is nearest to the scores the cashing players will get is the most informative.

Everyone start out at even par. If a final score of even par can be assured of cashing, it is easier to track player performance from hole to hole and round to round. Any movement away from even par would indicate the players chance of cashing is getting better or worse. Even par would stay good no matter how high or low the total scores, or how many rounds are in the tournament.

On the other hand, if the winning score is -62 after fours rounds, then players need to do more math. -62 is winning after 4, what it good after 1? What is good 7 holes into the second round?

If some tournaments have winning scores of just a few under par, and others have winning scores of many under par, players need to guess "how many under will it take"? If par is set right, the answer is always "even par is sure to cash".

Well how deep in the payout?

 

[Karl]

I'm interested in what your "course metric" would be. My prediction is that if you think it through long enough, after first considering everything you want that course metric to accomplish, you will either come up with Score, or something that looks so much like Par that you can't describe it without referring to Par.

I disagree with the second part of this second sentence.

People rarely use "scientific convention" (starting at either / both ends to see if any of those work first - hypothetically) and just "come up with something rather random in the middle" that they like and defend that.

Let's start from one end. Perfection. GOD aces EVERYTHING. OK, we're not worried about GOD . Next step is what is "perfect" for humans? Yes, score IS really what counts but there CAN be something VERY relevant that is NOT references (in any way) to "par". How far off one is (for a hole or for a round or for a tournament, etc.) from perfection! Steve, reread my post earlier in this thread. A "perfect" example of a metric that is both relevant, simple, and doesn't use / refer to par.

 

[lyleoross]

I think it is important to make the distinction between two thoughts:

A. Par 2 holes are bad and should not be designed or built or used in tournaments.

B. Par 2 holes are bad, so we should never assign a par of 2 to any hole, no matter how easy it is.

Both of these are lumped together under the anti-par 2 banner. However, they are not the same.

When I say some holes should be labeled par 2, that is not an argument against A. In fact, for those whose goal is to eliminate all par 2 holes, the first step is to identify them.

You can't get rid of all the buckthorn on your course by calling it cherry trees.

A 350 foot steeply downhill hole that feeds into a funnel-shaped green where most players get a 2 may be a bad hole. But, if it exists, it should be labeled par 2. Sure, it could use more trees or something. But we shouldn't assign a par by how difficult the hole should be after it is fixed.

I recognize that there is a perception that the very label "par 2" makes disc golf look bad. (Interestingly, this is always presented as "other people" will think a par 2 label will make disc golf look bad. No one has said "My opinion of disc golf will go down if any hole is labeled par 2".) I think that the bad effects of hiding the few par 2s are worse than any reduction in the perception of disc golf by other people.

Two of these effects are to allow par 2s to continue to exist by flying under the radar, and reducing the perception of disc golf by allowing for too-far under par scores to happen.

However, because there are so few par 2s, I would not hold the entire movement to get more accurate pars hostage to the par 2 issue. If we just stop calling too many holes par 4 and par 5, we'll be much better off. Even if we let the occasional par 2 put on a par 3 hat and pretend to be grown-up.

Thanks for laying out the differences in this way. To be clear, I never had the impression that anyone was trying to make par 2 holes, and certainly agree that calling a fish a fish is a good idea. What I would say is that if you are producing Worlds, and you have a par 2 hole, you might ask if there is something you can do about that hole. When there are three par 2 holes on one course at Worlds, that seems excessive. That is, I politely disagree with the notion that there are only a few. In all fairness, I've not gone back and looked at Pittsburgh, but if recollection serves, the courses were tougher.

As you've pointed out, getting caught in the par 2 trap is a mistake. But I think that forcing a par 2 to be called a par 2 will solve the problem in a hurry and admit, had never quite thought about it like that till your post. That is, who wants to be known as the TD running Worlds with par 2 holes?

 

[lyleoross]

I apologize, I didn't mean it to come across that way. And I do say such things face to face, but have been told I shouldn't. I know it's worse on a forum.

Thank you, I wouldn't have commented except I find you to be one of the regular adults here and appreciate that.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Stepping back and looking at all of the wrangling over the years regarding how DG par should be set, it's clear that people would like it to mean the same as it does in ball golf where the par on each hole has a simple, and pretty accurate indication of its expected expert scoring average by determining "shots to the green + 2". It works.

By now most agree that the simplistic "shots to the green +2" does not work as well for DG primarily because our current putting stats are about a half shot easier per hole than BG. If there were a way to score 0.5 on certain throws (cut-thru?) or use 1/2 pars like ball golf did a century ago, then problem solved. But we're stuck with scoring only integers and assigning integer pars which only sometimes match the real world results.

In top ball golf events, shooting par may not win, but it's unlikely to lose in terms of failing to cash. Shooting par is a reasonable goal with the idea that birdies are a bonus. However, in disc golf, the half shot differential mentioned above makes shooting par a "failure" the way it's currently set. So assigning par 2s, even if accurate, is essentially subjecting players to failure before they start unless they can ace.

I know from experience talking to pros and as a designer, that we determine the best reachable score on each hole independent of what the TD or designer has set for par. Par, even if set correctly by any of the means Steve, I and others propose doesn't tell pros whose money is on the line, what score they should try to get on a hole. You have to look at it, walk it, play it. As Biscoe pointed out elsewhere, those with experience can walk a hole and come up with the same number for par, but that's likely using the "shots+2" method which we know doesn't always match the actual stats when determined in competition. However, Biscoe and most other pros (except the very top) would come up with the same "best reasonable score" (BRS) on each hole, essentially what gold level players would think of as birdies.

We also know that on the many holes where a 2 is the BRS, that some would be par 2s and some would be par 3s. We can determine the par 2s without looking at the math from the words the pros will say when they humorously call out their score as "bogey" when shooting a 3 on a hole.

The point I'm getting to is that BRS is an integer value that players understand, can estimate well and will be easier to explain to casual fans than using par for our top level events. No matter what way our par is determined, it will unfortunately be a more abstract, less reliable and potentially confusing number than par in ball golf. BSR which I've proposed to be called "goal" avoids any par 2 controversy while allowing those types of shorter holes to be sparingly legitimate just like a sprinkling of par 5s in top level courses.

Of course, the sum of the gold level 18 Goals could become the Goald Rating for the course. The equivalent Blue, White, Red and Green Course ratings could easily be numbers just added onto the Goald value. Note, I'm not talking about eliminating par for recreational courses, tee signs and lower tier events. But I think our pro tour, primarily A-tiers and above is striving for better ways to present stats and information. We are in a process to determine how to make the pro tour more financially sustainable and this might just another incremental step in that direction.

 

[Steve West]

Chuck,

1. That sounds like a lot of words that say "we don't like 'par 2', so let's change the 'p' word because we all know the 2 is correct".

2. How is the score an expert expects with errorless play different than the "goal" for an expert?

The only difference I can see is the super-experts may expect to get 4 or 5 birdies per round, but so what? Non-experts all have their own goal, too (which is something over par). The point is, when par is consistent, all players will know how to set their own goal relative to par for any course.

Par, when it is set for errorless play for 1000-rated players, is the most useful goal for the largest share of the contending players.

3. If there is another stat for perfect play, or what a super expert is shooting for, fine. That in no way implies that par should be scrapped or replaced, or set for only super-experts.