Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

"Par" - The score that is one stroke worse than a player would get if he played the hole well (excluding extraordinary shots such as aces).

 

[lyleoross]

"Par" - The score that is one stroke worse than a player would get if he played the hole well (excluding extraordinary shots such as aces).

Websters version vs the disc golfer's version:

r1
pär/
noun
1.
GOLF
the number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.
"the sixteenth is a par five"

Of course as we all know, all disc golfers, even the unskilled, are first-class!

 

[gdub58]

I agree that having "correct pars" for upper echelon disc golf is a good thing – those are the events that would be most likely to expose new people to the game, and most of those people will understand the concept from ball golf. That said, I think we need to be careful just how "correct" they are.

Ball golf has par threes, fours, and fives, and I think to keep that connection for new players/spectators we should do the same. If, for now, we have a few holes on a course that are so easy that most top-level players get a two, that's OK. I think most of us agree that we should try to eliminate those holes, but in the meantime I still think the optics of an easy birdie hole is preferable to having par twos.

As for creating more difficulty in the putting game with smaller targets, shields, or bars, I just don't understand the need. Sure, the very top players make 30 footers look automatic, but so what? The top PGA pros make getting up and down from the sand look automatic, but that doesn't mean we should step on their ball before they hit their shot to add difficulty. People who play know how hard it is to do what they are doing.

If you aren't watching one of the top five players in the world then there is still plenty of uncertainty putting from 30+, and if we really want more suspense increase the amount of hazards (real or artificial) around the basket. IMO the biggest issue with changing the basket itself is having something different for tournament play than regular players at their local course. That's akin to the PGA tour making the holes smaller for tournaments.

Back to the par issue, disc golf has evolved in a much different way than ball golf. Most ball golf courses are 'full size', with a fairly uniform par between 70 and 72. Hole pars are also fairly consistent based on length. I have yet to see a ball golf hole through the woods, but if there was one you might see a 200 yard par four or a 350 yard par 5. There are a few 'par 3' or 'executive' ball golf courses, but those are for the novice player or for a purely casual round – you would never hold a tournament on those, and to use Steve's terminology, while an "expert player with errorless play" would expect to get a two on the hazard-free 125 yard holes, they aren't called par twos.

Disc golf, however, started with these 'par 3' courses, and they are still the most common layouts we have, largely due to limited amounts of land and other constraints. And, because the PDGA sanctions dozens of tournaments every week, we can't help but hold tournaments on many of them. That said, I don't think that means we should force all TDs to spend their time worrying about having good pars – I maintain that most people don't care, and they already have too much to do. Besides, if they print scorecards with "correct" pars, chances are the course tee signs will not match, which partially defeats the purpose.

Look, it's going to be a really long time before we are at a place where we can establish correct pars on most courses (which means correct tee signs), never mind determining what level of player the pars would be set to or having multiple pars per hole based on skill. Until then, I think it's misguided to worry so much about par. I mean, if we focus a lot on it in an effort to make the game look "correct" to the new player, what are they supposed to think when they go to their local course and see a 250 foot par four?

 

[DavidSauls]

I generally agree, though I'm not sure the optics of calling a hole "Par 2" --- because that's what top players are expected to score --- are any worse than the optics of top players finishing with scores of -16 for a round.

Personally, I don't think either is much of a problem. We have few viewers from outside the disc golf world, if we do get any it's likely they can adjust to the difference between the sports, and making decisions about our sport based on them strikes me as odd.

I'm of the camp that a well-designed system of par isn't important, but can be useful; and that if we're going to have one, we might as well try to make it as good, and as useful, as possible.

 

[dtuba]

The solution is quite easy. Make the baskets so that they require some finesse to get the disc to stay in. Heck, you could even make them bigger, but have fewer chains. That means that a player with a subtle long distance shot could still drop his disc into the basket from 60 feet out, but that a player rocketing the disc in from 30 feet would likely pass through the chains or bounce off the pole. And of course, it makes shots in the wind tougher. The player has to read the wind and adjust his softer shot to fall in.

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea. I'm used to fewer chains anyway as I practice with a DGA Mach Lite. Make putting more of a finesse game than just going straight on to the pole/chains. I think this might eliminate the possibility of an ace run though.

 

[DavidSauls]

I remember the single-chain era. It wouldn't eliminate aces---just reduce them somewhat.

 

[lyleoross]

I remember the single-chain era. It wouldn't eliminate aces---just reduce them somewhat.

An ace is just a huge overthrow where the player got lucky and the basket got in the way.

The only real ace is a skip ace where the player threw the disc to land twenty or so feet out from the basket and it skipped in.

 

[DavidSauls]

Maybe so, but I'm keeping mine.

 

[dysmike]

An ace is just a huge overthrow where the player got lucky and the basket got in the way.

I've seen enough putts I can say the same about.

 

[TAFL]

An ace is just a huge overthrow where the player got lucky and the basket got in the way.

Some, not all.

The only real ace is a skip ace where the player threw the disc to land twenty or so feet out from the basket and it skipped in.

Nah. Them's just lucky bounces.

 

[Old Dog]

The object of the game is to complete the course using the fewest number of throws. So in my opinion Par is irrelevant to the casual player.

However par is the way in which we compare/rank the skill levels of professional players. Which brings us to the biggest problem in DG and that is there doesn't appear to be a set of standards used to determine par values for holes. So can we really glean any useful information from the PDGA scores? You can't really determine if pro A is better than pro B based on their PDGA scores unless they have played all the same courses in a given season.

For example; there are a few courses near me where I regularly score -3 or better for a round and others that I'm lucky to score +12 on. Logic would dictate that if par values were standardized my scores would be pretty consistent from course to course.
If I only played courses where the pars were overstated (where I always score -3 or better) and ignored the courses that kicked my butt I'ld have a much better ranking than someone with the same skill level who only played courses with realistic par ratings.

 

[dysmike]

Eh, it can also mean that one course is better suited to your shots. For example, open courses are totally different than tight courses that force shot shaping, especially if you've suddenly got to deal with turn overs or flicks.. and you don't have that shot in your bag. (or, for me.. suddenly throwing up hill any more since it's pretty flat here)

But, otherwise I agree... par is really quite an arbitrary number for most players.

 

[BrotherDave]

"Par" - The score that is one stroke worse than a player would get if he played the hole flawlessly (excluding extraordinary shots such as aces).

Fixed for me.

 

[Rockwell]

If we scale a ball golf green up so that the ball is the same size as our discs and the cup is the same size as our baskets, you would get a green that was roughly the size of our current Par Three Holes.

So I would put up for discussion that our tee shot is more like a long, rolling putt in ball golf that has to navigate the "break" and undulations of the golf green. And our current "putting circle" is akin to a ball golf tap in.

So as much as I hate the words Par 2, I think its a more accurate correlation to Ball Golf's two-putt.

 

[lyleoross]

Some, not all.




Nah. Them's just lucky bounces.

Some aces are designed? I'd love to see some convincing video. It would have to be Babe Ruthesque.

By that measure, every hole in one is a lucky bounce. But yes, that is correct. The idea is to put the disc close to the hole. And yes, every now and then you get a lucky bounce. That is the essence of a hole in one or an ace. For the most part, it is skill combined with luck.

A throw through ace has one skill set, and a huge luck set. The skill is that you threw the disc on a path aimed at the basket. But in terms of depth, you're batting zero. A skip ace involves two components of skill. Accuracy, you've aimed well, and distance or depth. You've gotten both pretty much right. And of course, there's the luck element.

 

[lyleoross]

If we scale a ball golf green up so that the ball is the same size as our discs and the cup is the same size as our baskets, you would get a green that was roughly the size of our current Par Three Holes.

So I would put up for discussion that our tee shot is more like a long, rolling putt in ball golf that has to navigate the "break" and undulations of the golf green. And our current "putting circle" is akin to a ball golf tap in.

So as much as I hate the words Par 2, I think its a more accurate correlation to Ball Golf's two-putt.

So, I'm on your side, but I want a better feel for what you've written. Relative sizes, disc to basket to hole, 9 inches to 2 feet to 300 feet? Ball to cup to green, 1.5 inches to 3 inches to 450 inches (or 37 feet). I realize that my numbers aren't correct, but I made them what they are so we could have a feel for the relative sizes. If I'm anywhere close to correct, you may be under. That is, our holes are smaller, relatively speaking than some greens. Hmmmm.

Nice observation. Let the hounds loose.

 

[DavidSauls]

If you want to descend into the world of ratios and golf comparisons, compare how far we drive, or how long the average ole is. Disc golf is, what, half the distance? A third? To make putting proportional, we'd make it where we hit 50% of our putts at a half or third of the distance that golfers make 50% of theirs.

That might take more extreme basket changes than anyone is suggesting here.

Which is meaningless, of course, except as a reminder that the desire to emulate golf, in our scoring or putting or many other facets, can be taken too far.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Some aces are designed? I'd love to see some convincing video. It would have to be Babe Ruthesque.

By that measure, every hole in one is a lucky bounce. But yes, that is correct. The idea is to put the disc close to the hole. And yes, every now and then you get a lucky bounce. That is the essence of a hole in one or an ace. For the most part, it is skill combined with luck.

A throw through ace has one skill set, and a huge luck set. The skill is that you threw the disc on a path aimed at the basket. But in terms of depth, you're batting zero. A skip ace involves two components of skill. Accuracy, you've aimed well, and distance or depth. You've gotten both pretty much right. And of course, there's the luck element.

I guess you've never played a hole with trees, bushes, hill, etc behind the basket that serves as a backstop? This whole "an ace is a bad shot" business is just ridiculous. Some people are really good at 20-40ft putts, which gives them the confidence to make a legit ace run and still have a better than average chance at a 2... Not to mention that people can throw mids and putters 300+, which gives you a chance to get an ace and not be overly far from the basket...

 

[lyleoross]

I guess you've never played a hole with trees, bushes, hill, etc behind the basket that serves as a backstop? This whole "an ace is a bad shot" business is just ridiculous. Some people are really good at 20-40ft putts, which gives them the confidence to make a legit ace run and still have a better than average chance at a 2... Not to mention that people can throw mids and putters 300+, which gives you a chance to get an ace and not be overly far from the basket...

You're talking about what people try. I'm talking about what actually happens.

How many aces did Paul have last year? Ricky? The notion that a player takes into account the structure of a hole, counting on the basket to stop his long shot from going by, is something that happens. We'll have to agree to disagree on the real skill that player is exhibiting.

Yes, players make runs at such things, the notion that it's a profitable strategy for winning games is silly. Beyond that give me the numbers? How many of those ace runs pay off vs the number that happen organically; where the player overthrew the basket and got lucky? Every ace I've never seen is of the second variety. I've never seen one of the variety you're describing. Not that it doesn't happen, I'm sure it does, I've just never seen or heard of one, suggesting that they are somewhat rare. So yeah, ace runs happen, but as I posted, until they become Babe Ruthesque, I'm going to question the existence of the, "I meant that," ace. I fully accept the, I meant that run at the basket. And I fully accept the,"I ran at that up shot or long putt," and it actually went in. But there is a difference between a 300 foot drive, and a 100 to 150 foot long putt or upshot.

Just because someone tries something, doesn't mean it happens, at least with any real frequency.

While there are players that make ace runs with the notion that they can make a 20 to 40 foot return putt, if you add OB or add some serious course design elements that will punish them fully if they do so, said ace runs go away. Indeed, such design elements change the nature of putting too. I guess I'd say that's part of what the discussion is.

This isn't directed at you Brutal. It's an attempt to turn this back to par.

If we're going to say that ace runs are a central part of the game, and should be taken into account in our development and thinking. Then I'm advocating for the cone basket. You add a ten foot wide cone behind the basket so that anything that hits it slides into the basket. How exciting will that be? Aces galore!

The point being that the game is a balance. If you make things look like they're easy, like calling a par 2 hole par 3, then you look like you've created an easy to play sport and are expecting people to take it seriously. We convince ourselves that things that are hard for a casual player are hard for a pro. It just isn't true. The pro game is different than the am game and should be treated differently IMO.

 

[TAFL]

Just because someone tries something, doesn't mean it happens, at least with any real frequency.

I don't recall anybody claiming it happens with frequency.

If we're going to say that ace runs are a central part of the game,

I don't recall anybody claiming this, either.