Legit Par 2's?

[Stardoggy]

I think what this thread has taught me is that I don't really care what par is, just the total shots to get in the basket. We do seem to be tripping over ourselves to explain semantics.

It's like trying to decide if aquamarine is blue or green. Everybody has an opinion, and just about nobody is wrong.

 

[iacas]

I think what this thread has taught me is that I don't really care what par is, just the total shots to get in the basket. We do seem to be tripping over ourselves to explain semantics.

I'm coming from a golf background so it may matter more to me, but par matters because people have a pretty good concept of what it is. Tell someone you shot 75 on a golf course and they'll know it's pretty good. Tell someone you shot 55 on a disc golf course and they don't how good it is at all (except that they might [likely incorrectly] think it's AWESOME because Jim Furyk just shot 59 on a golf course and that was big news).

 

[mashnut]

I'm coming from a golf background so it may matter more to me, but par matters because people have a pretty good concept of what it is. Tell someone you shot 75 on a golf course and they'll know it's pretty good. Tell someone you shot 55 on a disc golf course and they don't how good it is at all (except that they might [likely incorrectly] think it's AWESOME because Jim Furyk just shot 59 on a golf course and that was big news).

Sure, but golf courses are much more standardized than disc golf. Even if you did set and follow a good methodology for par in disc golf, a 55 still wouldn't tell you anything. If you're suggesting that disc golf shouldn't embrace the idea that it's ok to have everything from par 54 to par 72 courses, I disagree completely. If all you're saying is that you wish designers would apply a consistent par standard I agree.

 

[DavidSauls]

A universally agreed upon and applied par wouldn't make that "55" meaningful, but it would make "3 under par" at least somewhat translatable, at least within the sport. If the par definition were somehow relative to what top pros are likely to shoot, then it would be roughly translatable beyond our community.

No signs of any of that happening anytime soon, though.

 

[bikinjack]

A universally agreed upon and applied par wouldn't make that "55" meaningful, but it would make "3 under par" at least somewhat translatable, at least within the sport. If the par definition were somehow relative to what top pros are likely to shoot, then it would be roughly translatable beyond our community.

No signs of any of that happening anytime soon, though.

Interestingly, I disagree, at least with the emboldened part. PDGA ratings and more importantly, DGCR round ratings, because they are free and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, are a good step in that direction. I realize it doesn't translate beyond the disc golf community at all, but there was once a time when "3 under par" didn't translate at all beyond the ball golf community.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think PDGA ratings give a standard that sidesteps par.

 

[iacas]

Sure, but golf courses are much more standardized than disc golf. Even if you did set and follow a good methodology for par in disc golf, a 55 still wouldn't tell you anything.

Answered:

A universally agreed upon and applied par wouldn't make that "55" meaningful, but it would make "3 under par" at least somewhat translatable, at least within the sport.

This is what I was going to say.

If someone says they shot 75 playing golf, you know that's probably +3, maybe +4 or +5 (far less frequently). If someone tells you they shot 55 is that +1 or -10? You don't know on a disc golf course.

If all you're saying is that you wish designers would apply a consistent par standard I agree.

That's all I was saying, yes.

No signs of any of that happening anytime soon, though.

I agree, it doesn't appear to be moving there too quickly.

The sport is still young, but we're not in the 1800s either - hopefully all the discussions about "par" are done in about five years or so.

 

[bikinjack]

I guess what I'm trying to say is the ratings thing is a step in the direction of answering the question of "How'd you play today?" having an answer that's translatable across pretty much any course, and understandable by pretty much anyone (although that last part is a long ways away, if we ever get there at all).

So yes, I agree with you that ratings sidestep par. I also don't think par is all that important.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Why?

Regardless of what you call it, you'll still be playing it as if it were a Par-2, expecting to get a 2, disappointed and losing ground if you get more than a 2.

The only advantage to calling it a Par-3 is the chance to call an average shot a "birdie".

I understand where you are coming from. As a former Diehard Ball Golfer I felt the way you did. As I've got more and more into playing more Disc Golf then Ball Golf I've played a lot more courses and you really cant change the way things are. The meaning "Par" doesn't translate to Disc Golf. Par doesn't mean avg. score a scratch player will make. It's inherently much easier to shoot way under "Par" in Disc Golf.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'll start with the disclaimer of my personal feeling: that par isn't terribly important, though a consistent and logical standard would be nice.

That said, an idea from another thread might be the way to go. It was to create a separate standard, a "pro par" or something, to be applied in Majors and NTs. One that would be fairly similar to (ball) golf, and have leaders shooting slightly only a few strokes below par.

Perhaps if that were done, the idea would catch on down the line. Over time.

 

[BirdieMachine]

I'll start with the disclaimer of my personal feeling: that par isn't terribly important, though a consistent and logical standard would be nice.

That said, an idea from another thread might be the way to go. It was to create a separate standard, a "pro par" or something, to be applied in Majors and NTs. One that would be fairly similar to (ball) golf, and have leaders shooting slightly only a few strokes below par.

Perhaps if that were done, the idea would catch on down the line. Over time.

I like the idea of making a certain "Par" for tournament play. The fact that they shoot 60-70 under par in some events is sort of silly sounding. People that even remotely follow Ball Golf understand the meaning of Par. Let's say Paul McBeth shot 70 Under Par to win X Event, it makes it sound like it's not as serious of a sport honestly.

 

[Steve West]

...The meaning "Par" doesn't translate to Disc Golf. Par doesn't mean avg. score a scratch player will make. It's inherently much easier to shoot way under "Par" in Disc Golf.

A universally agreed upon and applied par wouldn't make that "55" meaningful, but it would make "3 under par" at least somewhat translatable, at least within the sport. If the par definition were somehow relative to what top pros are likely to shoot, then it would be roughly translatable beyond our community...

I like the idea of making a certain "Par" for tournament play. The fact that they shoot 60-70 under par in some events is sort of silly sounding. People that even remotely follow Ball Golf understand the meaning of Par. Let's say Paul McBeth shot 70 Under Par to win X Event, it makes it sound like it's not as serious of a sport honestly.

To all of the above, here is THE definition of par: Read it carefully and apply it everywhere, and we are done. No more need for discussion.

800.02 Definitions
Par
As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be
expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary 
weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

Take the definition of expert to mean 1000-rated player. (Now that we have ratings, we can use this more precise clarification of what is meant by "expert"). Recognize that the intent of "two close range throws" means the throw where you try to park it and the throw where you try to put it in the basket. (If it meant two putts, it would have said two putts.)

With those clarifications...

Disc golf par is not the average score a scratch player will make – it is lower than that.

It is errorless play by an expert. Shooting par would result in a round rating of about 1020 or so. That's between cashing and winning an Open field.

So, it is somehow relative to what top pros are likely to shoot. It is NOT inherently easy to shoot under that. No one would be shooting 70 under for a tournament or 18 under for a round.

Obviously, this is the par that should be used for tournament play, but it should also be the par that is used everywhere else.

It is already is universally agreed on (it's the only one in the rules). It is not universally applied, but that is the fault of people who set par in tournaments or make tee signs.

I'd make one extension: The "expert" player could be at another skill level if it is appropriate for the course or the tournament being played. However, if anything other than a 1000-rated player is the "expert", then there should be a modifier attached. For example, Blue Par would mean the score a 950-rated player would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play, etc.

 

[DavidSauls]

To all of the above, here is THE definition of par: Read it carefully and apply it everywhere, and we are done. No more need for discussion.

800.02 Definitions
Par
As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be
expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary 
weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

Take the definition of expert to mean 1000-rated player. (Now that we have ratings, we can use this more precise clarification of what is meant by "expert"). Recognize that the intent of "two close range throws" means the throw where you try to park it and the throw where you try to put it in the basket. (If it meant two putts, it would have said two putts.)

With those clarifications...

Disc golf par is not the average score a scratch player will make – it is lower than that.

It is errorless play by an expert. Shooting par would result in a round rating of about 1020 or so. That's between cashing and winning an Open field.

So, it is somehow relative to what top pros are likely to shoot. It is NOT inherently easy to shoot under that. No one would be shooting 70 under for a tournament or 18 under for a round.

Obviously, this is the par that should be used for tournament play, but it should also be the par that is used everywhere else.

It is already is universally agreed on (it's the only one in the rules). It is not universally applied, but that is the fault of people who set par in tournaments or make tee signs.

I'd make one extension: The "expert" player could be at another skill level if it is appropriate for the course or the tournament being played. However, if anything other than a 1000-rated player is the "expert", then there should be a modifier attached. For example, Blue Par would mean the score a 950-rated player would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play, etc.

Alas, this interpretation of "close range" is not clear in the rules, and certainly not universally agreed upon.

 

[bikinjack]

Alas, this interpretation of "close range" is not clear in the rules, and certainly not universally agreed upon.

I agree with you David.

Mr. West has a definition of "Close Range", but does the PDGA rulebook? I have no idea if it does or not. Hopefully it something that's based on what the par of a hole is.

 

[New013]

well if you're going by the pdga distance guidelines for par a par 2 would be a hole that is 200' or under if it was more wooded and around 260' or under if it's more open. so right there by their own guidelines they're saying for a gold skill level player close range throws constitute 260' / 200' or under depending on the foliage level. which is a little bit more than putting range.

 

[BirdieMachine]

@SteveWest, I know the definition of Par. The problem is we now have over 5000 Disc Golf courses in the World. Most of which have spent good money making tee markers stating Par for the hole and course. You simply cannot expect them all to change their Par ratings at this point. It is never going to happen.

You can however adjust Par for Tournament play according to the guidelines. So instead of Paul McBeth winning Worlds at 90 Under Par, it could be something more reasonable like 20-25. You would have to make many holes Par 2's and even stretch 3's out to 800'.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree with you David.

Mr. West has a definition of "Close Range", but does the PDGA rulebook? I have no idea if it does or not. Hopefully it something that's based on what the par of a hole is.

It's not. It just says "close range", and leaves us to argue about what that means. Steve argues that it doesn't mean the 10-meter circle, because if it meant that it would have said that.

I'm in favor of his interpretation.

 

[BrotherDave]

So does USDGC's hole 17 seem like a legit par 3? Is it only a 3 b/c they put hay bales around the front to make it an island? What's really the big difference between that hole and the 2 examples I posted earlier?

 

[Steve West]

@SteveWest, I know the definition of Par. The problem is we now have over 5000 Disc Golf courses in the World. Most of which have spent good money making tee markers stating Par for the hole and course. You simply cannot expect them all to change their Par ratings at this point. It is never going to happen.

That may be a problem, but it is not an argument against using the correct definition of par for tee signs from this point forward. IF all the signs out there had been based on a consistent definition, then that would be one reason to stick with what is out there. But, they didn't.

Using any reasonable projection of growth, you'll find that most disc golf courses haven't been installed yet. Even in the U.S. (not to mention South America, Asia, Africa...)

On the existing courses, the tee signs will wear out, be upgraded, or replaced for redesign long before never.

Also, as more and more courses use the correct definition of par, players will notice when a course has the "wrong" par on their signs, and that by itself will become a reason to replace the signs.

 

[Steve West]

So does USDGC's hole 17 seem like a legit par 3? Is it only a 3 b/c they put hay bales around the front to make it an island? What's really the big difference between that hole and the 2 examples I posted earlier?

Not a par 3 to me for the Championship flight. If 42% of the players are expected to get a 2, then obviously an expert disc golfer would be expecting to make 2 on that hole with errorless play. Everyone who doesn't get a 2 is either making errors, or is not an expert. Average score has no place in setting par.

For the Performance flight, maybe par 3. If there is to be a "performance par" and the prototypical expert in performance flight doesn't expect to make the green often enough to go for it from the tee, then it would be par 3. Maybe the smarter play is to toss it out in front of the tee to get close enough for the second shot to make the green. That's an extra throw, but not an error.