#201  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:04 PM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.2
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 5,742
Niced 721 Times in 359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I haven't found any problems with using ratings to select the group of players I use to calculate par. But, I'd like to hear about any other non-ratings, player-score-based numbers we could use to make sure par at one course is about as hard as par at all other courses.
Hole measurement based metrics are completely transportable from one hole/course to the next. Scoring averages inform slope, not par. All holes of the same par are not of the same difficulty.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 10-28-2016, 07:44 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.6
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,097
Niced 890 Times in 541 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
IMO - as someone already said - "that's the tail wagging the dog". Ratings (while not being statistically valid over the entire range of scoring / courses) should definitely NOT be the determining factor of such things as "par". Par, or whatever 'critical parameter' we decide to use, should come first; something like 'rating' down the line some. Money, ratings, etc. are secondary things; score, par, etc. are the really important ones (and the former set be determined off of these, not the other way around).
I don't necessarily agree it's tail wagging mutt. Ratings are a measure of the skill of a player. Again, you can twitch it, you can argue that it isn't perfect, but you can't argue that it isn't a reasonably viable measure of relative skill. Unless we are saying that a 1000 rated player isn't for the most part better than a 950 rated player? That 1050 isn't better than 1000? If so we have a problem, but that isn't the case.

No measure of skill is perfect, but for those versed in statistics, the more 1000 rated players that play a hole, the more par samples, the more accurate the measure. That is, if I took one player and had him play the hole once, my measure is weak. If I have 100 1000 rated players play the hole, now I can say with high confidence that my par has meaning. This is the basis of all statistical sampling and any scientist will tell you that it's more than close, it's highly accurate.

This is exactly what ball golf does. Par is set relative to player skill. Steve is saying, set par relative to a highly skilled player. Ratings are easy and universal. I'm not against using some other measure of skill, it just seems like a lot of work given something is already in place.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 10-28-2016, 09:02 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tx
Years Playing: 7.4
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,158
Niced 327 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGPT View Post
As was pointed out earlier, this works after the round, but during the round we would like to be able to compare scores easily. Par works well for that. We are presuming people are watching.
hmmm..I would think to the casual sport enthusiast a simple number score vs score would be easier to grasp then a negative/positive numbers?
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 10-28-2016, 10:07 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,211
Niced 185 Times in 99 Posts
Default

I put it down to the lobbying efforts of the powerful LBCU (Leader Board Carriers Union). They intimidated the PDGA into supporting a system that maximizes numbers from the set (-1,0,+1) 90% of the time -- or better.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 10-29-2016, 12:03 PM
justin's Avatar
justin justin is offline
*Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 12.2
Courses Played: 390
Posts: 1,242
Niced 17 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Disc golf and other forms of golf are not so different than ball golf that I think our par should be calculated in the same fashion. We don't have a scratch/0-handicap rating but we do have the 1,000 rating as a good benchmark. Like ball golf, just take the number of throws it would take for a 1,000-rated player to reach the green (within the circle or similar distance) and add 2. This way the minimum par on any hole would be 3. That said, par is a silly thing to lose sleep over because if you're trying to compare your performance to someone else's it doesn't matter if you're under or over par. It only matters how you compare to the other player(s).

Without strict rules about it then you have the case you find in Maine where private course owners want players to feel better about their scores so you will often see a par of 4 or 5 on a wide open 300' hole.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 10-29-2016, 05:01 PM
ejvogie's Avatar
ejvogie ejvogie is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
Years Playing: 10
Courses Played: 125
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,292
Niced 247 Times in 145 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin View Post
Disc golf and other forms of golf are not so different than ball golf that I think our par should be calculated in the same fashion. We don't have a scratch/0-handicap rating but we do have the 1,000 rating as a good benchmark. Like ball golf, just take the number of throws it would take for a 1,000-rated player to reach the green (within the circle or similar distance) and add 2. This way the minimum par on any hole would be 3. That said, par is a silly thing to lose sleep over because if you're trying to compare your performance to someone else's it doesn't matter if you're under or over par. It only matters how you compare to the other player(s).

Without strict rules about it then you have the case you find in Maine where private course owners want players to feel better about their scores so you will often see a par of 4 or 5 on a wide open 300' hole.
Define "green".

If it's 10 Meters, a 1000 rated player should make that putt 99 times out of 100. So Par would equal throws to get to green +1.

Assuming a flat open windless area, any pro should get up and down from at least 200' out. If we use that to define green, I would agree with 'throws to green +1'. Obviously, that hole is very rare in disc golf, accounting for trees, elevation, etc., so the green may be significantly smaller. And possibly impossible to define.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 10-29-2016, 09:54 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,144
Niced 940 Times in 497 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin View Post
Disc golf and other forms of golf are not so different than ball golf that I think our par should be calculated in the same fashion. We don't have a scratch/0-handicap rating but we do have the 1,000 rating as a good benchmark. Like ball golf, just take the number of throws it would take for a 1,000-rated player to reach the green (within the circle or similar distance) and add 2. This way the minimum par on any hole would be 3. That said, par is a silly thing to lose sleep over because if you're trying to compare your performance to someone else's it doesn't matter if you're under or over par. It only matters how you compare to the other player(s).

Without strict rules about it then you have the case you find in Maine where private course owners want players to feel better about their scores so you will often see a par of 4 or 5 on a wide open 300' hole.
There seems to be a lot of agreement that our 1000-rated player is like a scratch golfer.

The putting is one area that is a lot different. I stole a chart from

Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA TOUR
Mark Broadie
Graduate School of Business
Columbia University
mnb2@columbia.edu
Original version: April 27, 2010
This version: April 8, 2011

And added the comparable numbers for disc golf. I'll let you figure out which line is ours.



{Note: the disc golf line is based on pros who averaged 980.}

Interestingly, in another chart in that paper, the distance from which the average number of golf putts is 2 is right at our 10 meters. (I wonder if that's the history of the 10 meter circle?)

Obviously, a 1000-rated player can finish the hole in an average of two more throws from a lot farther than 10 meters. However, it is more difficult for disc golf to pin a precise value for the exact number of feet, because our holes don't finish at a place where huge amounts of resources are spent trying to make all putts as standardized as possible (with limited, carefully controlled, and predictable variations).

From here you can see that our equivalent to golf's two more strokes ranges from 177 feet to 308 feet, depending on how hard the hole is. The median is about 250 feet.

So, it you really want to be like golf, take the number of throws it takes to get within 177 feet for the hardest holes or 308 feet for the easiest holes, and add 2. That would be a good way to set par. (You'll need to use some judgement for deciding which holes offer easier putting).

I've found that a good way to get pars that way is use the parameters and methods of Close Range par, except change the number for Close Range. If you have to pick just one number for close range, 215 feet seems to work best.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg vsBAllGolf copy.jpg (113.7 KB, 145 views)
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 10-30-2016, 11:36 AM
filobedo's Avatar
filobedo filobedo is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Born, bred and shaped in the 843
Years Playing: 13.1
Courses Played: 257
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,105
Niced 38 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
There seems to be a lot of agreement that our 1000-rated player is like a scratch golfer.

The putting is one area that is a lot different. I stole a chart from

Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA TOUR
Mark Broadie
Graduate School of Business
Columbia University
mnb2@columbia.edu
Original version: April 27, 2010
This version: April 8, 2011

And added the comparable numbers for disc golf. I'll let you figure out which line is ours.



{Note: the disc golf line is based on pros who averaged 980.}

Interestingly, in another chart in that paper, the distance from which the average number of golf putts is 2 is right at our 10 meters. (I wonder if that's the history of the 10 meter circle?)

Obviously, a 1000-rated player can finish the hole in an average of two more throws from a lot farther than 10 meters. However, it is more difficult for disc golf to pin a precise value for the exact number of feet, because our holes don't finish at a place where huge amounts of resources are spent trying to make all putts as standardized as possible (with limited, carefully controlled, and predictable variations).

From here you can see that our equivalent to golf's two more strokes ranges from 177 feet to 308 feet, depending on how hard the hole is. The median is about 250 feet.

So, it you really want to be like golf, take the number of throws it takes to get within 177 feet for the hardest holes or 308 feet for the easiest holes, and add 2. That would be a good way to set par. (You'll need to use some judgement for deciding which holes offer easier putting).

I've found that a good way to get pars that way is use the parameters and methods of Close Range par, except change the number for Close Range. If you have to pick just one number for close range, 215 feet seems to work best.
Thank you for posting this. Many dg'ers I know really have no background to gauge golf vs. disc golf. Also, there are lots of scratch golfers on the PGA Tour, Web.com and Mini tours but the main reason Web.com and Mini tours players never have a full career on the PGA tour is putting in addition to mental game.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 10-30-2016, 10:56 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 492
Niced 125 Times in 84 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
So, it you really want to be like golf, take the number of throws it takes to get within 177 feet for the hardest holes or 308 feet for the easiest holes, and add 2. That would be a good way to set par. (You'll need to use some judgement for deciding which holes offer easier putting).
It still doesn't make it like golf. In golf of you hit a really good shot, even on a difficult hole, you get a look at birdie, and if you hit an amazing shot you get a tap in. Under your scenario a great shot disc golf is only going to earn you an easy layup to make your par. The only way you'll get birdie is if you get lucky and hole a 200 footer.
Reply With Quote
 

  #210  
Old 10-31-2016, 11:13 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.1
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 13,938
Niced 1,717 Times in 829 Posts
Default

I don't think the point is to make play look like golf.

(Though I don't know what the odds are on, say, a top disc golfer being 200' out, or a golfer being on the edge of the green, furthest from the hole).

I think the point is to make par look more like it does in golf---more like a number that imparts some information as to what a high-level player is expected to get, or whether the score you just witnessed likely gained or lost ground on the field.
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.