Thread: Par Talk
View Single Post
  #3813  
Old 07-05-2019, 06:22 PM
gdub58 gdub58 is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cincinnati
Years Playing: 11.1
Courses Played: 133
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 494
Niced 58 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Iím re-thinking my cutoff percentage. I want to test it against the larger number of newer scoring distributions I have now.

My question to all is:

Whatís the best way to evaluate how well any method of setting par is doing its job? NOT what the definition should be, but how do we know par is doing what we want par to do?
As I said a few hundred pages ago, the question should not be focused on whether par is doing its job. The issue has always been whether the design of a hole creates a scoring distribution where a good par can be assigned. Your data simply shows that some holes can't have a good par because they are poorly designed.

As this thread has become little more than you displaying scoring data in a variety of ways, I would like to see you make suggestions as to how the hole design can be changed to make the scoring distribution more appropriate for a particular par. Those changes may be in conjunction with changing the par, or it can be a suggestion to make the hole harder or easier to bring scores in line with the current par. Doesn't matter either way. The goal should be to have a good scoring distribution around par.

So, I think the question is: "What is the range of scoring distributions that we would find acceptable?" Should we start with the notion that par should always be the most frequently achieved score, but no higher than 80%? Can we agree that the proportion of birdies should be at least 5%? 10%? And they should be no higher than say, 30%?

I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air, but I think those are the questions that we should focus on, and, once we come to a consensus on the distributions that make a well-designed hole, your analyses going forward should tell us how many holes fit the "well-designed" criteria.

Thoughts?

Reply With Quote