Worlds Par

[Cgkdisc]

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.

This is the inconsistency with Close Range Par. The "reality" is the length part of the hole to get to the pin and then when you have thrown that far, how many throws it takes to hole out. That's the direct link with ball golf. Our stats resolve to that simple equation of length throws + putting throws = SSA. The lengths on those blue par 4s are still beyond the length of a max 375 gold drive with accuracy (design guideline). Close Range Par artificially forces the ball golf 2 putts formula by lengthening the distance for the first putt. Conceptually, a putt should be when the player is making a realistic attempt to sink the throw versus reach the basket or green.

 

[lyleoross]

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?

If you look at what Steve has written, just setting par where a set of ranked players are, you start making progress. Choosing the ratings becomes a battle, but it is a start.

 

[lyleoross]

One notion that often seems to stand in the way of setting par is the notion that it should accommodate lower players. A course that is too difficult is going to intimidate them or run them off. IMO this thinking should be set aside. Beyond the fact that in almost every community there are "soft" courses that can be played by newer players, there are many options that can be applied to a difficult course to allow less experienced players to play such courses and enjoy themselves. Humans are variable, but I've met more than a handful of mid-level players that will take on such courses just to say they played them and for the challenge. I think we spend way to much time worrying about this aspect of the issue, considering where we are as a sport today. No one would suggest that the top ball golf courses should be cut down to accommodate newer players, or that par should be set to fit the play of those players.

Part of my feeling here is based on what has happened locally. When I first joined the local club, most of the members were oriented towards tournament play. Today it is completely different. Most of the members are oriented towards local play and local events. In other words, the casual or league player has a support system that is robust and strong. They don't need the PDGA to build systems and structures to take care of them, they are carving their own niche.

It isn't a disservice to lower rated players to set realistic pars on such courses, it is reality. If a top level pro, say 980 or higher for fun, can hit a two on that hole, and the community thinks that is reasonable, then setting a par that fits the play of a 920 rated player isn't necessary. No ball golfer thinks less of him or herself because he or she can't play like a top level golfer. If they do, they likely have bigger problems than what they shot during a round. Even if we take Eric's comment above, that the penalty for a late arrival, or missing a hole becomes onerous for lower rated players, we've made a mistake. The rule is what it is, it is applied equally to all players, it only seems a burden for lower ranked players because they are lower ranked. A mistake in my opinion. As an aside, as adults, if we can't arrive on time, and know the course, well, we really can't complain about the punishment. Kind of like Paul not understanding the OB rules on a hole.

I understand the notion of growing the sport, I understand Steady Ed's notion of have fun, but as of now, we have moved beyond that if we are competing in tournament play. Good or bad, it is a competition. If that is more than we care for, then we need to lower our expectations and our level of play. That's why we have leagues, and why many communities are putting in smaller family oriented courses. It seems to me that for our top level play it is time to take an approach consistent with where we would want the sport to be as a competitive sport comparable with other competitive sports.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

I just don't get what a par 2 will help in a competitive aspect.

 

[lyleoross]

I just don't get what a par 2 will help in a competitive aspect.

I don't know all of Steve's intent, but first, it's accurate, but second, if you have developed a World's course, and it has a legitimate par 2 hole, how does that reflect? I can see the thread here now. That is, I suspect, without really knowing, that peer pressure not to do such a thing would be pretty high. People look at the low scores, and think wow! But if they look at low over all rounds and realize they are due to several par 2 holes, they may be less accommodating. Speculation on my part of course.

 

[lyleoross]

I just don't get what a par 2 will help in a competitive aspect.

I don't know all of Steve's intent, but first, it's accurate, but second, if you have developed a World's course, and it has a legitimate par 2 hole, how does that reflect. I can see the thread here now. That is, I suspect, without really knowing, that pear pressure not to do such a thing would be pretty high. People look at the low scores and think wow! But if they look at low over all rounds and realize they are due to several par 2 holes, they may be less accommodating. Speculation on my part of course.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW - for a perspective on how a TD goes about making a course "tough" enough, read this article posted on the Ledgestone site: http://lisopen.com/articles/northwood-eureka-course-design

It mentions Mr. Kennedy.

You can see how hard these guys are working to make the course challenging for the pros.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They tested the Lake Eureka redesign at an event in May. I didn't look at the numbers but apparently some holes still needed to be tweaked. So hopefully the course will now play more appropriately for the top players and still provide a fair challenge. Note that relatively open shorter holes under 300 may still be par 2s in disguise with average scores closer to 3 or above only due to penalties.

 

[biscoe]

Play it where it lies with penalty- :wall::wall::wall:

 

[Steve West]

This is the inconsistency with Close Range Par. The "reality" is the length part of the hole to get to the pin and then when you have thrown that far, how many throws it takes to hole out. That's the direct link with ball golf. Our stats resolve to that simple equation of length throws + putting throws = SSA. The lengths on those blue par 4s are still beyond the length of a max 375 gold drive with accuracy (design guideline). Close Range Par artificially forces the ball golf 2 putts formula by lengthening the distance for the first putt. Conceptually, a putt should be when the player is making a realistic attempt to sink the throw versus reach the basket or green.

There are no putts in par. (Or, maybe one.)

No Gold player needs to get to the pin to be able to expect to finish the hole in two more throws.

 

[Steve West]

I just don't get what a par 2 will help in a competitive aspect.

What if we had a tradition of not calling anything par 4 because the Chinese word for"4" sounds like the Chinese word for death? So all the par 4s in the world had been labeled par 5.

Every tournament, we would have to guess how many of the par 5s are real par 5s or really par 4s that we just don't want to say out loud. We would be talking about "must get", "birdie or die", etc. par 5s and all that crap.

Ending that tradition would have the same effect as ending the tradition of having all par 2s in the world labeled par 3.

 

[Steve West]

I don't want to step on your main notion that Open tournaments should be held on courses designed for Gold level players, using Gold level par. But, I'm nitpicky.

One notion that often seems to stand in the way of setting par is the notion that it should accommodate lower players.

That why the idea of other pars for other skill levels is around.

A course that is too difficult is going to intimidate them or run them off.

True, whatever the par is called. Getting a 9 on a par 10 hole is still not fun.

No one would suggest that the top ball golf courses should be cut down to accommodate newer players, or that par should be set to fit the play of those players.

I think every golf course has "forward tees". No one plays the PGA tees in daily play. Some have now added yellow markers for youth and seniors.

Golf's handicapping system adjusts par to fit the play of each individual across all skill levels.

 

[lyleoross]

I don't want to step on your main notion that Open tournaments should be held on courses designed for Gold level players, using Gold level par. But, I'm nitpicky.



That why the idea of other pars for other skill levels is around.



True, whatever the par is called. Getting a 9 on a par 10 hole is still not fun.



I think every golf course has "forward tees". No one plays the PGA tees in daily play. Some have now added yellow markers for youth and seniors.

Golf's handicapping system adjusts par to fit the play of each individual across all skill levels.

The items you mention are all good ones for allowing lesser mortals to play with the disc golf gods, Pauletes, Rickares, Valenus and Nikkollo.

 

[ERicJ]

One notion that often seems to stand in the way of setting par is the notion that it should accommodate lower players. [...]

It isn't a disservice to lower rated players to set realistic pars on such courses, it is reality. If a top level pro, say 980 or higher for fun, can hit a two on that hole, and the community thinks that is reasonable, then setting a par that fits the play of a 920 rated player isn't necessary. No ball golfer thinks less of him or herself because he or she can't play like a top level golfer. If they do, they likely have bigger problems than what they shot during a round. Even if we take Eric's comment above, that the penalty for a late arrival, or missing a hole becomes onerous for lower rated players, we've made a mistake. The rule is what it is, it is applied equally to all players, it only seems a burden for lower ranked players because they are lower ranked. A mistake in my opinion. As an aside, as adults, if we can't arrive on time, and know the course, well, we really can't complain about the punishment. Kind of like Paul not understanding the OB rules on a hole. [...]

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. It's not a "burden" on the penalized player, it's a disservice to the rest of the lower skilled division. And relatively (to skill) speaking it's not equally applied to all players.

If you're setting par based on MPO level play and have a difficult "Par 3" hole on which MPO's average a 3... then a penalized MPO player is carding 4 throws over the divisional average. But look at the MA4, FW3, or MJ4 divisions... they're probably averaging 5's on that same "Par 3" hole and penalized players are only carding 2 throws over the divisional average. You can probably find extreme examples where an FJ6 player scores better than the divisional average by taking a Par+4 penalty on the hole.

For tournament play by PDGA rules the only thing Par matters for is taking that Par+4 penalty. As long as that's the case there should be divisional par for tournament play.

 

[lyleoross]

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. It's not a "burden" on the penalized player, it's a disservice to the rest of the lower skilled division. And relatively (to skill) speaking it's not equally applied to all players.

If you're setting par based on MPO level play and have a difficult "Par 3" hole on which MPO's average a 3... then a penalized MPO player is carding 4 throws over the divisional average. But look at the MA4, FW3, or MJ4 divisions... they're probably averaging 5's on that same "Par 3" hole and penalized players are only carding 2 throws over the divisional average. You can probably find extreme examples where an FJ6 player scores better than the divisional average by taking a Par+4 penalty on the hole.

For tournament play by PDGA rules the only thing Par matters for is taking that Par+4 penalty. As long as that's the case there should be divisional par for tournament play.

To make sure I understand, you think the penalty should be, say, four strokes over what someone of the said players ability can score on the hole? That is, a pro on a par 2 would get six strokes, and a rec might get eight strokes since rec players average four on the hole.

If so, you're correct, I did misunderstand you. That said, I still disagree. 1) you are going with the supposition that a player, in theory, has little say in how they play a hole. Beyond the fact that isn't necessarily correct, as you've pointed out, a player has absolute say in whether they arrive on time, or if they play the course correctly. To me that is the mitigating factor. If you are talking about a situation where the player has absolutely no ability to impact the situation, and he is treated differently than the other player, then I agree. But that isn't the case here. 2) The imposition of par + 4 is equivalent across that player's division. It impacts that player as much as every other player in the same fashion. If the notion is that it is harder/easier for a pro to make up the difference, than a lower ranked player, well, that's not true. A pro has to make up that difference against other pros, who shoot at the same level he does. So does the am player. Relatively speaking the punishment is the same, steep, but not insurmountable.

On the other hand, setting par correctly has more meaning by what you've laid out. If the hole is set at par 3, and it is actually par 2, then the pro who misses it has been given an extra stroke that his competitors will never get. If that is part of your argument that I've missed, yes, I strongly support your position.

Last, honestly, I don't have a good enough feel for this to worry too much about it. It's easy for me to debate it, but the only way I'd really want to weigh in would be if someone had real numbers on the impact. Doing it the way you would like doesn't seem unfair, just cumbersome. If asked to vote on it, I would pass.

 

[lyleoross]

After rereading my post, I may be more in favor of what Eric is suggesting. The second to last paragraph sort of points out that a misset par punishes the pro player, and Eric's post says, well, yeah, for all practical puposes your doing that when players shoot differently. It does make more work though and I don't know if it's worth it.

Thanks for your reiteration of the point Eric.

 

[lyleoross]

After rereading my post, I may be more in favor of what Eric is suggesting. The second to last paragraph sort of points out that a misset par punishes the pro player, and Eric's post says, well, yeah, for all practical puposes you're doing that when players shoot differently. It does make more work though and I don't know if it's worth it.

Thanks for your reiteration of the point Eric.

 

[Disczealot]

After rereading my post, I may be more in favor of what Eric is suggesting. The second to last paragraph sort of points out that a misset par punishes the pro player, and Eric's post says, well, yeah, for all practical puposes your doing that when players shoot differently. It does make more work though and I don't know if it's worth it.

Thanks for your reiteration of the point Eric.

Pretty much, but I think he is saying it punishes the lower tier players that make it on time more because the player that missed could have scored worse than his penalty in an extreme case.

The extreme case he is making is; if there is a PAR 2 based on MPO play but a lower division averages 6 throws on that hole, by missing that hole you would card a 6 which could easily be better than what you would have scored if you played it.

On the other hand it works opposite if there is a par set too high for mpo players. The other extreme would be a par 6 that MPO players average a 2 on. The player that misses is essentially penalized 8 strokes from average.

I think he has a point, but par should definitely be set for MPO players based on the definition in the rule book. If you have different par set based on each division I would be okay with that, but it needs to be "correct" for the pro players.

 

[ERicJ]

Lyle: I believe the intent of the Par+4 penalty is to give the offending player a relatively stiff penalty. If you set Par based on MPO play, then that penalty for MPO players is about four throws vs. their division. But with MPO Par the effective penalty for lower divisions is probably closer to only one or two throws vs. their division. Punishment for the same offense should carry the same weight, but in this MPO-set-Par-for-everyone scenario it doesn't.

As someone pointed out upthread you can eliminate this problem by making missed holes a DQ instead. But I don't think the PDGA wants to be that strict, e.g. Sarah Hokom car crash at 2015 Worlds.

 

[paulw]

Lyle: I believe the intent of the Par+4 penalty is to give the offending player a relatively stiff penalty. If you set Par based on MPO play, then that penalty for MPO players is about four throws vs. their division. But with MPO Par the effective penalty for lower divisions is probably closer to only one or two throws vs. their division. Punishment for the same offense should carry the same weight, but in this MPO-set-Par-for-everyone scenario it doesn't.

As someone pointed out upthread you can eliminate this problem by making missed holes a DQ instead. But I don't think the PDGA wants to be that strict, e.g. Sarah Hokom car crash at 2015 Worlds.

Still a silly rule to me -- you get to arrive late but you can't leave early. Leave early -- DQ'd, come late, get to play!