Worlds Par

[lyleoross]

Credibility? Who's questioning credibility? Credible to who?

Clearly to us. Otherwise we wouldn't jack up par, talk endlessly about higher par having value etc. We keep acting like we don't think it matters, but our actions and discussions are counter to that. Also, if you read up thread you will see how the public might just compare us to our father sport and make judgements based on that.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

I suspect it is a testament to our biased opinion that higher par has meaning and is important.

Like your opinion that the top pros getting a lot of birdies makes the sport not credible?

 

[Cgkdisc]

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.

I'm not sure par is seen as a "problem" or at least enough of a priority to take action now. So something like "goal" will need to be tested in the open marketplace to see if it has any traction just like the other innovations being tried by some manufacturers (night play products) or tournament formats, stats and coverage (DGWT/DGPT).

 

[biscoe]

Just as perplexing for many is how a 2-shot hole can still be a par 3.

count me among the perplexed.

 

[Cgkdisc]

count me among the perplexed.

Holes that are short par 4s for blue level like a handful on Jones East turn out to be tough gold 3s. I think hole 5 was a good example where the blue level play was to throw to landing zone and then hop to the green. Paul and few others could reach the green. But the safer play was to make the two short shots to the green and drop in. Definitely a gold 3 with scoring average 3.3-3.5 but too risky and long as a one shot par 3.

Another one was hole 6 maybe 450 uphill. Decent blue level par 4, just out of reach for most gold players being uphill and low ceiling. But possible to consistently get in range for an 80-100 ft upshot versus a putt. Thus, 2-shot gold par 3.

 

[lyleoross]

Like your opinion that the top pros getting a lot of birdies makes the sport not credible?[/QUOTE

Read up thread, this point of discussion, that is, this tactic, has already occurred several times.

But to have some fun, I think we should set par at 180. Pros will smash it. We can invent new terms, a goonie is three under par, a blue footed boobie is four under par, a five under is a dodo, fans will go wild! I mean since the only credibility that matters is what we think.

So, who gets to determine what is credible? Ball golf doesn't do it the way they do it for fun. They set credible pars because it means something to players, fans, sponsors and presumably their mothers.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm not sure par is seen as a "problem" or at least enough of a priority to take action now. So something like "goal" will need to be tested in the open marketplace to see if it has any traction just like the other innovations being tried by some manufacturers (night play products) or tournament formats, stats and coverage (DGWT/DGPT).

I'm gonna need to go back and reread your definition of goal again, but I'd suggest a different terminology, football, or soccer has that one locked up.

I agree with your assessment in general. This topic only has merit because of Jones East. Most top events have avoided the "misuse of par" error. My notion, no one else's, send all hatemails to me alone. I suspect it won't happen here again either. DD and DBerj are to smart.

 

[Cgkdisc]

target > goal?

 

[Disczealot]

target > goal?

Maybe I'm not following your posts, but it sounds like you have the same thing in mind as Steve, myself and others, but just want to call it something different than par.?

If so, I'm on board. I don't care what you call it, I just want something to measure performance accurately for each hole/round/tournament somewhat consistently and from event to event.

 

[Steve West]

...But to have some fun, I think we should set par at 180. Pros will smash it. We can invent new terms, a goonie is three under par, a blue footed boobie is four under par, a five under is a dodo, fans will go wild! I mean since the only credibility that matters is what we think

180 is too high to make it easy to compare performances across rounds and courses. You'd need another parameter for how many under par is good on each hole or course.

Let's go other way and set par to zero. We can come up with a different name for over par, like "the score". No wait, that's too low. You'd need another parameter to know how many over zero is good on each hole.

Let's go back up to the number of throws to get to the target plus 2. Or, maybe better, set par so every hole is guaranteed to be birdieable. No wait, that's too high. Then you'd need another parameter for how many birdies you really need to keep up with the field.

OK, back down the other way to set par to be the lowest score humanly possible, or maybe the score players hope - but not really expect - to get. No wait, that's too low. You'd need another parameter for how many bogeys you can suffer and still keep up with the field.

Oh, if only there was something right in the sweet spot: the score an expert player would expect to get with errorless play. Then, the players could simply look at whether they were above or below that to know whether they were keeping up with the field. If only that were encoded into the rules. If only more and more people, especially the Directors for those two new big tours were actually using this mythical par. If only there were methods developed and calibrated to make it easy for anyone to find what this par would be for any course, whether it has held a tournament or not, and published here.

That would be cool.

 

[Allurex]

Holes that are short par 4s for blue level like a handful on Jones East turn out to be tough gold 3s. I think hole 5 was a good example where the blue level play was to throw to landing zone and then hop to the green. Paul and few others could reach the green. But the safer play was to make the two short shots to the green and drop in. Definitely a gold 3 with scoring average 3.3-3.5 but too risky and long as a one shot par 3.

Another one was hole 6 maybe 450 uphill. Decent blue level par 4, just out of reach for most gold players being uphill and low ceiling. But possible to consistently get in range for an 80-100 ft upshot versus a putt. Thus, 2-shot gold par 3.

Yeah the more I thought about it, the more I could see holes like #4, #5, and even #18 as 'Gold 3s' like you describe.

They're among the easier Par 4s out there, but they still are Par 4s. I don't get all the fuss about the top players being too far under Par, but someone who does could make those changes.

I especially don't get people who think courses like Jones East and Country Club are too easy. I don't see those people shooting double-digits under par. They're hard courses, the top players just make them look easy.

 

[ERicJ]

I realize this thread is titled "Worlds Par" but it's evolved into a general Par discussion. As long as the PDGA Rulebook specifies a penalty of Par+4 for Omitted Holes or Missed Holes Due to Late Arrival... setting one Par for all divisions (based on MPO level play) does a disservice to competitors in lower skilled divisions.

803.03.G.5: Missed Hole Due To Late Arrival. The player has failed to play a hole due to late arrival. The player receives a score of par plus four for the hole. See Section 1.5 B of the Competition Manual.
803.03.G.6: Omitted Hole. The round has been completed, and the player has neglected to play a hole. The hole is scored the same as a hole missed due to late arrival.

--http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/803-the-lie/80303-misplay

 

[loki the trickster]

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.

I definitely agree with the green size. Making it larger will mean jump putting will happen at a much farther distance. I dont know about 35m but even a 20m circle would increase the challenge.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

So how far under par will make disc golf credible? -2, -6? Obviously -10 is too much. Maybe if they all played OVER par?

Or maybe have more tourneys like the Euro Masters & the Majestic where one throw ended up deciding the outcome.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

At last year's Worlds, Moraine (par 66) produced ratings of 1000 @ -2, 64. Is that acceptable?

No?? So let's say you change 2 holes to make "par" equal 1000 rated round. That better??

McBeth shot a 51… still -13 to this new par. A 1091 rated round. Still not credible?

 

[biscoe]

Holes that are short par 4s for blue level like a handful on Jones East turn out to be tough gold 3s. I think hole 5 was a good example where the blue level play was to throw to landing zone and then hop to the green. Paul and few others could reach the green. But the safer play was to make the two short shots to the green and drop in. Definitely a gold 3 with scoring average 3.3-3.5 but too risky and long as a one shot par 3.

Another one was hole 6 maybe 450 uphill. Decent blue level par 4, just out of reach for most gold players being uphill and low ceiling. But possible to consistently get in range for an 80-100 ft upshot versus a putt. Thus, 2-shot gold par 3.

You are mixing apples and oranges (blue and gold). Examples of a gold 2 shot hole that is a gold par 3?

 

[biscoe]

I realize this thread is titled "Worlds Par" but it's evolved into a general Par discussion. As long as the PDGA Rulebook specifies a penalty of Par+4 for Omitted Holes or Missed Holes Due to Late Arrival... setting one Par for all divisions (based on MPO level play) does a disservice to competitors in lower skilled divisions.

--http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/803-the-lie/80303-misplay

True. That can easily be remedied by making it a disqualification as it ought to be however.

 

[Steve West]

At last year's Worlds, Moraine (par 66) produced ratings of 1000 @ -2, 64. Is that acceptable?

Pretty close.

No?? So let's say you change 2 holes to make "par" equal 1000 rated round. That better??

Better. One less would be ideal.

McBeth shot a 51… still -13 to this new par. A 1091 rated round. Still not credible?

I have no problem with incredible performances coming in way under par. -13 or -12 accurately reflects just how great his round was. Even -15 for that round is not the problem.

The problem is when someone playing in Open at another tournament gets -15 without a great performance because some TD thought his 41.5 SSA course needed a par of 62 because there were 8 holes the local players couldn't reach in one throw.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You are mixing apples and oranges (blue and gold). Examples of a gold 2 shot hole that is a gold par 3?

The holes I just discussed are 2-shot gold par 3s and also 2-shot blue par 4s. The most common score (mode) or average, however you wish to set par was clearly a 3 for gold players and clearly a 4 for blue. The scoring average for gold is always about 0.2-0.4 lower than the blue scoring average on most holes. So when the blue scoring average is about 3.6-3.8 (easy blue par 4) the gold average will run about 3.2-3.4 (tough gold par 3). The second shot is simply a short gold level shot that's really easy for Gold. Houck calls them NAGS (Not A Golf Shot).

 

[biscoe]

The holes I just discussed are 2-shot gold par 3s and also 2-shot blue par 4s. The most common score (mode) or average, however you wish to set par was clearly a 3 for gold players and clearly a 4 for blue. The scoring average for gold is always about 0.2-0.4 lower than the blue scoring average on most holes. So when the blue scoring average is about 3.6-3.8 (easy blue par 4) the gold average will run about 3.2-3.4 (tough gold par 3). The second shot is simply a short gold level shot that's really easy for Gold. Houck calls them NAGS (Not A Golf Shot).

I would say that those are not actually 2 shot holes for gold as the first shot is bringing them within my definition (which does not agree with Houck's) of Close Range.