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
  #2131  
Old 12-17-2017, 10:08 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 535
Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Look for a future article in DiscGolfer magazine.
Is this a print only publication, or will it also be available on the web?

I'm curious to see how things played out. I've always firmly believed that the problem with DG par is the ease of putting, but have had my doubts that smaller baskets could fix it (given the whole problem that you can't attempt to make a putt and layup at the same time, as you can in ball golf).
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2132  
Old 12-17-2017, 10:11 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 535
Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Ah, c'mon, you have to envy golf a little bit. After all, they have a system of par that reflects how their game is played, and gives them a benchmark of whether a hole was played well or poorly. In short, par is what they say it is. I, for one, am envious of that, and wish we could have such a thing.
That's true for high end golf courses, not munies. High-end golf courses typically costs 500k-1M per hole to construct, if not more.

If we spent a fraction of that on disc golf courses, I'm sure we could achieve the same results.
Reply With Quote
  #2133  
Old 12-18-2017, 09:40 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.2
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,928
Niced 3,037 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
So it's OK to debate the merit of your position when the definition supports the other side, but now that it supports your side it's not OK for the other side to debate it?
The definition has always supported the concept of par being the score expected of an expert.

The dictionary definition, the PGA definition (for those who insist we emulate golf), and the PDGA definition.

Except that currently, and for two more weeks, the PDGA definition is muddied by the vague phrase, open to mis-interpretation that par is the expected score, except that it's not.

Fortunately, the PDGA is removing it, so we don't need to argue whether it's contradictory, or redundant. Or we will still be able to argue, but it'll be a past-tense argument.
Reply With Quote
  #2134  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:07 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 535
Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
The definition has always supported the concept of par being the score expected of an expert.

The dictionary definition, the PGA definition (for those who insist we emulate golf), and the PDGA definition.

Except that currently, and for two more weeks, the PDGA definition is muddied by the vague phrase, open to mis-interpretation that par is the expected score, except that it's not.

Fortunately, the PDGA is removing it, so we don't need to argue whether it's contradictory, or redundant. Or we will still be able to argue, but it'll be a past-tense argument.
It's not a past tense argument to discuss the merits of a purely score driven par system, whether or not the changed definition codifies that as the new standard.

As far as the PGA/USGA par standards, that's completely incorrect. Golf par guidelines are completely driven by skill appropriate distances to reach a green. The fact that oftentimes, although not always, it is a good reflection of errorless score is irrelevant. If you used golf standards to set disc golf par you wouldn't have par 2s, period, nor would you have unreachable 3s or 4s. To suggest otherwise is either being entirely disingenuous, or displaying a lack of ball golf knowledge.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2135  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:15 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.2
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,928
Niced 3,037 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
It's not a past tense argument to discuss the merits of a purely score driven par system, whether or not the changed definition codifies that as the new standard.

As far as the PGA/USGA par standards, that's completely incorrect. Golf par guidelines are completely driven by skill appropriate distances to reach a green. The fact that oftentimes, although not always, it is a good reflection of errorless score is irrelevant. If you used golf standards to set disc golf par you wouldn't have par 2s, period, nor would you have unreachable 3s or 4s. To suggest otherwise is either being entirely disingenuous, or displaying a lack of ball golf knowledge.
Past tense, for the "two throws from close range" part.

Sorry, I'm talking about definitions, not how they calculate par to meet that definition. From the PGA website:

Par: The score an accomplished player is expected to make on a hole, either a three, four or five.

Which, if you care to look for yourself, is at http://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/go...and-golf-terms

That's the definition to which I refer. As I've said, how we calculate it---how we define "expert", "expected", or "errorless" (unfortunately, still in the PDGA definition), or what methodology we use, is open to debate and quibbling.

But "two throws from close range" will be a past tense argument: What the PDGA meant by the old definition.
Reply With Quote
  #2136  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:28 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.2
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,928
Niced 3,037 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

At any rate, it does not matter that golf does not have Par 2s. We're not playing golf.

Golf defines par, in so many words, at the expert expected score. So do we. Even more clearly, now.

Golf calculates it based on how the game is played, by the method that best reflects that definition.

So should we, but since our game is played differently, our method should be different.

In golf, there is never an expert expected score of 2. In disc golf, there is. When there is, our method should result in Par 2.
Reply With Quote
  #2137  
Old 12-18-2017, 04:39 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,489
Niced 467 Times in 211 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
...
Golf defines par, in so many words, at the expert expected score. So do we. Even more clearly, now.

Golf calculates it based on how the game is played, by the method that best reflects that definition.

So should we, but since our game is played differently, our method should be different.
...
In ball golf, skill level is measured by handicap which is relative to par and slope (a measure of course difficulty). In disc golf, skill level is measured by rating which is relative to the skill level of other players.

Frankly, I think the PDGA should go all in on the rating system and define par as the hole score necessary to shoot a specific rating for a round. Essentially, this would combine ball golf's handicap & slope into a unified data-driven system for assessing both player skill level and course difficulty. Steve's efforts are well on the way to defining the methodology to accomplish this.
Reply With Quote
  #2138  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:09 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 340
Posts: 4,837
Niced 1,578 Times in 777 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
...
As far as the PGA/USGA par standards, that's completely incorrect. Golf par guidelines are completely driven by skill appropriate distances to reach a green. The fact that oftentimes, although not always, it is a good reflection of errorless score is irrelevant. If you used golf standards to set disc golf par you wouldn't have par 2s, period, nor would you have unreachable 3s or 4s. To suggest otherwise is either being entirely disingenuous, or displaying a lack of ball golf knowledge.

As it turns out, par is not defined at all in the Rules of Golf (at least not in the draft of the 2019 version).

It is in the USGA Handicap System Manual as:

Quote:
"Par" is the score that a scratch golfer would be expected to make for a typical hole. Par means expert play under ordinary conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green. Par is not a significant factor in either the USGA Handicap System or USGA Course Rating System. (See Section 16.)
Notice that it does not mention distance at all. Golf par is all defined by strokes. It’s a score with two putts in it.

So, ball golf and disc golf have always had definitions that are not just a good reflection of really good scores, but actually built upon the concept of scores, not distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
If you used golf standards to set disc golf par you wouldn't have par 2s, period, nor would you have unreachable 3s or 4s. ...
True, also irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #2139  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:39 PM
KniceZ's Avatar
KniceZ KniceZ is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA Northern Neck
Years Playing: 8.6
Courses Played: 100
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,276
Niced 40 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I find this chart fascinating. There is a lot to take in, so stare at it for a while, trace the lines with your fingers and all that.

What's the sample size? # of holes and rating of the players scores included? Is there anyway to separate the open fairway vs wooded holes?

Am I interpreting this correctly that about 15% of the 800ft holes played as par 3s and maybe 3-4 % of 1000ft holes that had event par 3 that effectively no one 3'd?

Don't know if the event pars were set using the rough par recommendations but it seems that the par distance ranges need to be bumped up about 100ft.
Reply With Quote
 

  #2140  
Old 12-18-2017, 07:09 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 340
Posts: 4,837
Niced 1,578 Times in 777 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KniceZ View Post
What's the sample size? # of holes and rating of the players scores included? Is there anyway to separate the open fairway vs wooded holes?

Am I interpreting this correctly that about 15% of the 800ft holes played as par 3s and maybe 3-4 % of 1000ft holes that had event par 3 that effectively no one 3'd?

Don't know if the event pars were set using the rough par recommendations but it seems that the par distance ranges need to be bumped up about 100ft.
Over 1,300 holes. Average rating was exactly 1000, based on weighted averages of the scoring distributions of players rated near (at, above, and below) 1000. For each hole, there were at least 7 player*rounds of data, with an average of 78 rounds of data per hole.

I had no data about the openness (or elevation or any other factor) that may affect the difficulty of the holes.

You are correct that about 15% of 800 foot holes played as par 3s.

As for the 1000-foot holes, 3% had par actually set at 3, while almost none of those holes would have been a 3 with errorless par. That does not mean zero players got 3, just that less than 42% got 3 or better.

The par distance ranges in the current PDGA guidelines would closely match the errorless par dotted lines on this chart. The guidelines were based on data in a previous version of this chart. Remember that holes that are unusually hard or easy fall outside the range of light to heavy foliage in the guidelines.

I don't know how the event pars were set.
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 09:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 10:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 08:37 AM
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 12:04 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 06:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.


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