Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > General Disc Golf Chat

View Poll Results: Which of these best describes Hole 18 at the Utah Open?
A par 2 where 38% of throws are errors, and 1% of throws are hero throws. 6 25.00%
A par 3 where 24% of throws are errors, and 33% of throws are hero throws. 16 66.67%
A par 4 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 23% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
A par 5 where 37% of throws are hero throws, and 21% are double heroes. 0 0%
A par 6 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 62% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3361  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:38 AM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Just about any method, when applied to a 1000-rated player, will work fine for most holes. However, that doesn't qualify any method to become the new definition. A definition has to work for all kinds of holes. The only true commonality possible to all holes is the score expected of an expert.

I understand your point, but would suggest most people have a sense of what par means based on experiences with golf. I don’t believe disc golf should attempt to change that perception. Rather, we should have a method that aligns to that definition.

So, shots to green +2. But in current definition of disc golf putting, 1-putts are more expected, not 2-putts. There will always be oddities due to course design.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3362  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:54 AM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Or just:

par = expected shots
Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. Par has a very standard definition that goes WAY back... maybe not all the way to 1457, but a long way all the same. Shots to green + 2. Some holes are designed to play to par, others are designed to play below and above par but not at par (e.g. small island hole), but par stays the same. I think disc golf should simply have a method to implement this consensus view of par.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3363  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:06 AM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajo1125 View Post
Do you always put with a glove on?

Noticed a few wobbly puts maybe grip has something to do with it.

I don’t see many putting with a stack of putters in their hand.

Very informative videos so far just a few things I noticed. Gives me the same vibe as the old Discraft videos I really do think it’s great.
Were you watching my Variables of Putting video? On some of those I was trying to force more wobble to make it very visible. However, I do have some wobble for sure. I have a hypothesis that wobble actually helps accuracy on longer putts by breaking up the influence of the wind. A little wobble, that is. Take a look at this video that measure Drew Brees' accuracy to see where I got the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6EguTZFK5s

At about 7:20 they say, "Surprisingly, a little wobble is necessary to keep the ball on target." and then they explain why. Doesn't have anything to do with disc golf per se, but got me thinking about the topic.

I probably don't need the glove to putt, but I have a neurological disorder that falls under the MDA diseases. I don't have reflexes and my muscles at the extremities atrophy. Too many foot surgeries to count. I have issues with grip fatigue through a round, so the glove helps even out my grip to keep my throws consistent. I prefer to leave it on when putting, so I practice with it when putting as well.

And yes, I've moved to putting my putters on a stool most of the time. However, look up McBeth's 50+1 putting video and he's holding a stack. Thanks for taking a look at my channel!
Reply With Quote
  #3364  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:57 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,172
Niced 3,432 Times in 1,502 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disc.golf.jay View Post
Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. Par has a very standard definition that goes WAY back... maybe not all the way to 1457, but a long way all the same. Shots to green + 2. Some holes are designed to play to par, others are designed to play below and above par but not at par (e.g. small island hole), but par stays the same. I think disc golf should simply have a method to implement this consensus view of par.
To dredge up issues from way back in this thread, golf's definition does not say shots to the green +2. At least, not the definition I could find on the PGA website, nor any definition anyone else cited. It is simply the expected score of an expert (in so many words).

It happens that in golf, shots to the green +2 is a method producing results that match that definition, in almost all cases. In disc golf, the same method doesn't.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3365  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:50 PM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
To dredge up issues from way back in this thread, golf's definition does not say shots to the green +2. At least, not the definition I could find on the PGA website, nor any definition anyone else cited. It is simply the expected score of an expert (in so many words).

It happens that in golf, shots to the green +2 is a method producing results that match that definition, in almost all cases. In disc golf, the same method doesn't.
That's fair. I should have said "par has a very standard ASSUMED definition." In other words, that's what most people think of with the word, and that method describes the majority of the situations. I think the goal is to create an approach that uses the simplest definition/method possible to account for the most situations. Shots to green + 2, with a properly defined putting area for disc golf (20m and in?), is remarkable for its simplicity and the breadth of situations it can cover.

There will be courses with holes designed to yield non-par results with this definition. For instance, a tiny island green might yield mainly birdies and bogies+, with very few pars. That's okay in my mind, and doesn't undermine the beauty of a very simple definition/method that covers most other situations.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3366  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:52 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,984
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disc.golf.jay View Post
Sure, but then you'd have to re-educate everyone who starts playing disc golf. ...
I'd bet more new players would know that "par is a good score" than would know the commonly used unofficial method for calculating par in golf.

Re-educating only applies to the minority of players who had a background in golf and didn't really know golf's definition in the first place and mistakenly applied that method to disc golf. Plus the designers and players who listened to them.

That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?
Reply With Quote
  #3367  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:54 PM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?
Too true.
Reply With Quote
  #3368  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:58 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,984
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disc.golf.jay View Post
...I think the goal is to create an approach that uses the simplest definition/method possible to account for the most situations. Shots to green + 2, with a properly defined putting area for disc golf (20m and in?), is remarkable for its simplicity and the breadth of situations it can cover. ...
There are a lot of methods that account for most situations. "All holes are par 3" does remarkably. But, the definition needs to apply to all situations.

What you've described is Close Range Par, except the real CRP uses 100 feet instead of 20m. A better version of CRP would use 200 feet or more. If everyone used that as applied to a 1000-rated player, par would be really well set almost all the time.

Every method will fail on some exceptional holes. For example, I still would not like to apply par 3 to a hole where almost no one gets a 3. For this and other exceptional holes, we need to abandon the method and revert to the definition.
Reply With Quote
  #3369  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:13 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,172
Niced 3,432 Times in 1,502 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I'd bet more new players would know that "par is a good score" than would know the commonly used unofficial method for calculating par in golf.

Re-educating only applies to the minority of players who had a background in golf and didn't really know golf's definition in the first place and mistakenly applied that method to disc golf. Plus the designers and players who listened to them.

That shouldn't be impossible. People always believe the latest thing posted on the internet, right?
I think there's a broader audience to re-educate; many of us came up in disc golf being told by mentors that it was "shots to green + 2"; played many courses where it was set that way; and inferred from the old definition in the rulebook.

But we're on our way.

In our favor is the other notion of par: a standard score, neither good nor bad in the competition. That, too, is in a lot of people's minds.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #3370  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:21 PM
disc.golf.jay disc.golf.jay is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 18
Niced 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
What you've described is Close Range Par, except the real CRP uses 100 feet instead of 20m. A better version of CRP would use 200 feet or more. If everyone used that as applied to a 1000-rated player, par would be really well set almost all the time.

Every method will fail on some exceptional holes. For example, I still would not like to apply par 3 to a hole where almost no one gets a 3. For this and other exceptional holes, we need to abandon the method and revert to the definition.
Good thoughts. I was thinking more of an inverted CRP. Instead of asking, how close before two shots will get it done, ask, how far out when 2 shots is needed on average? Haven't really thought through why I prefer that approach... probably because I don't like par under 3. I'm biased toward every hole having a chance for birdies without an ace.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Par 4s - multiple in a row or sprinkle par 3s into them? ToddL Course Design 9 02-23-2018 10:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 11:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 09:37 AM
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 01:04 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 07:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.