- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
Is there really anything confusing about saying "par 3 means 3 is a good score on this hole"?
The correct answer is NO.
-
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)
Worlds Par
- Thread starter Steve West
- Start date
Is there really anything confusing about saying "par 3 means 3 is a good score on this hole"?
The correct answer is NO.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
Depends on who enters, but at large tournaments a little lower than halfway deep. Less well-attended, even par could win.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,873
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.
OK.
I'd have no problem with that existing side by side with par.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
One thing that I want to reiterate, disc golf isn't inherently "easier" than ball golf in the putting arena. It's that way because we want it that way. I could switch that metric quickly by making the ball golf hole two feet across and two feet deep.
We've chosen the baskets we use, and we keep working to make them "better." The question that gets left unanswered is, "does making it easier reflect well on our sport?" Many say "well it's just that we're that good." No, it's just that our baskets are that big and that sticky. Par 2 happens because in the only areas where we can control the difficulty of the sport, we are making it easy - putting and fairway design.
We've chosen the baskets we use, and we keep working to make them "better." The question that gets left unanswered is, "does making it easier reflect well on our sport?" Many say "well it's just that we're that good." No, it's just that our baskets are that big and that sticky. Par 2 happens because in the only areas where we can control the difficulty of the sport, we are making it easy - putting and fairway design.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
We could change putting to adjust the putting percentage but it's been discussed almost as long as the par discussion with little movement so far in that direction. A new metric like "goal" could happen now. For example, the Udisc guys could eventually include it as another metric in their arsenal of other metrics, several which are also "new" to players, without needing PDGA approval if they're monitoring this thread. Better to test it now with knowledgeable spectators to see how well it works before the future increase in casual followers. If par and/or putting are finally tweaked, goal will still work.
True. That also makes the "throws to green +2" approach to par weak sauce. We can make putting more difficult so the "+2" makes sense or we can make it "throws to green +1". The latter obviously means there are lots of Par 2 holes in existence, as there are lots that non-experts can reliably reach the green in one throw.
Disc golf's "problem" with putting (in reference to bg's putting) is that dg has 'taken away 1 axis of spacial worry' by having such a target / end point. If a bg'er putts too hard or too softly he won't make it. A dg'er can miss short but not long (not if they're on target anyway). If bg had a backstop on each hole (envision that ) scores would be a LOT lower...maybe akin to dg!
Not saying it's a great solution but if one had to 'loft' putts into a basket' (shooting for a top-loader sans lid ) a 10m green might make sense (and thus "shot to the green + 2"). As presently is, I, Biscoe, and others believe the "green" to be a 35m (+/-) radius around the basket.
) scores would be a LOT lower...maybe akin to dg! Not saying it's a great solution but if one had to 'loft' putts into a basket' (shooting for a top-loader sans lid
) a 10m green might make sense (and thus "shot to the green + 2"). As presently is, I, Biscoe, and others believe the "green" to be a 35m (+/-) radius around the basket.
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Why is there a problem? The top pros get a lot of birdies/eagles. What's wrong with that?
Only if any one hole has one and only one par! None of this silly 'par for blue players' and 'par for purple players', etc. Par is par...and for any combination of one tee and one basket there is only one 'par'. If you can agree to that then I agree with you; if not, then I think you're wrong...as "good" is debatable.
As for Chuck's 'goal', different people have different goals...but there is only one 'humanly possible'.
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
157 open players
79 players averaged -1 per round or better
78 players averaged worse than -1 per round
6.5 rounds
79 players averaged -1 per round or better
78 players averaged worse than -1 per round
6.5 rounds
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Although not everyone played 6.5 rounds…
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
157 open players
79 players averaged BETTER than -1 per round
78 players averaged -1 or WORSE per round
6 rounds
79 players averaged BETTER than -1 per round
78 players averaged -1 or WORSE per round
6 rounds
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Ok I lied its only 5.5 rounds max
92 @ -1 or better
65 @ worse than -1
yAy math
92 @ -1 or better
65 @ worse than -1
yAy math
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Why doesn't ball golf make the cup two feet wide and a foot deep? You'd get a lot more birdies! The question becomes credibility. If you go look at the round two spreadsheet there are significantly more birds than pars for the top thirty players. What good is par except as something we can say we beat.
Steve is rightly saying that we should call a par2 a par 2 etc.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Just as perplexing for many is how a 2-shot hole can still be a par 3. There may have been one or two more holes labeled as par 4s that were really gold 3s as there were par 3s that were gold par 2s.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
While nothing has changed, that isn't permanent. Hope springs eternal. Unlike some, I think the PDGA listens and is fairly rational. While clearly I don't know everything, I think if a solid argument is made that there is a problem, the PDGA will act. I also understand that throwing out everything is stupid. So lay out the arguments and be happy with that.
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Credibility? Who's questioning credibility? Credible to who?
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I suspect it is a testament to our biased opinion that higher par has meaning and is important. We want a par 64 course or higher for Worlds. That means you base par on whatever gives you the highest value. If a hole plays 2 for pros, but is played three locally, and realistically, then you go with three.
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
Why does Disc Golf have to be similar to ball golf? Why can't it be different?
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
If everyone is worried about birdies, why don't we limit discs from being past speed 7? TeeBirds for every drive will make those holes tougher.
Similar threads
