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
  #2971  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:15 AM
brutalbrutus's Avatar
brutalbrutus brutalbrutus is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the nati
Years Playing: 8.7
Courses Played: 52
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 8,647
Niced 3,111 Times in 1,664 Posts
Default

I am pretty sure that 99.9% of the time Paul McBeth is standing on a tee, he is expecting to at least birdie that hole, whatever hole it is. So, should that mean that they should just knock one number off of par on every hole in the world? Hell no it doesn't.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2972  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:55 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.7
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,603
Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
I am pretty sure that 99.9% of the time Paul McBeth is standing on a tee, he is expecting to at least birdie that hole, whatever hole it is. So, should that mean that they should just knock one number off of par on every hole in the world? Hell no it doesn't.
That would make his expectation a little optimistic, in light of experience.

He's not birdieing 99.9% of the holes. Maybe 50%? My cursory glance at a few events says even less, though that could be a sampling error.

At any rate, the definition doesn't say par is what the players expect, but what would be expected of the players by others---specifically, the TD, by extension the course designer, and perhaps more broadly, the general expectation (when evaluating how reasonable the TD's expectations were).

I don't know how to define a reasonable expectation. Though I'm inclined to think that, if most of the time, what you expect to happen doesn't happen, you might have doubts about it.

Footnote: I don't know how to define "expert", either. But if you define it by McBeth---if only the very best of the best are experts---then that would probably change quite a few pars.
Reply With Quote
  #2973  
Old 07-04-2018, 08:40 AM
brutalbrutus's Avatar
brutalbrutus brutalbrutus is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the nati
Years Playing: 8.7
Courses Played: 52
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 8,647
Niced 3,111 Times in 1,664 Posts
Default

I just said he expects to birdie not that he actually does. Steve's always going on about how if you expect to birdie a hole then the par is wrong. The reason he has those crazy swings in rounds scores is because he expects to be able to birdie any hole he tries too, and he doesn't layup off the tee very often. That's why he is who he is. But I seriously doubt he is the only one. I would imagine most players rated above 975ish, expect to birdie on any hole they try for.

I just don't see why we cant agree to disagree and leave this "discussion" to die once and for all. These guys are really freaking good. They're going to get a lot of birdies. Who cares?
Reply With Quote
  #2974  
Old 07-04-2018, 08:52 AM
DoWork DoWork is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Courses Played: 8
Posts: 490
Niced 363 Times in 168 Posts
Default

Our course has the Par Bar set really high. Our course record right now is +1 and we have some strong players. We wanted it to be a hard course to par even for experienced players and it is. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I want the back 9 to hurt peoples egos personally, but that’s just me.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2975  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:42 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.7
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,603
Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
I just don't see why we cant agree to disagree and leave this "discussion" to die once and for all. These guys are really freaking good. They're going to get a lot of birdies. Who cares?
We can agree to disagree.

I find it an interesting discussion. To some degrees theoretical, to some philosophical, to some practical. There's no obligation for anyone else who doesn't find it interesting, to stay in it, though.

But it's never been about the fact that they're really good and getting too many birdies. And certainly not about what the 1040+ guys are doing.

It's about saying that par is the expected score, a standard, a score that keeps pace with the field. We can recognize the shots that are better than that as birdies, and applaud those very good players for getting them, as many as they can.
Reply With Quote
  #2976  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:46 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.7
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,603
Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
I just said he expects to birdie not that he actually does. Steve's always going on about how if you expect to birdie a hole then the par is wrong. The reason he has those crazy swings in rounds scores is because he expects to be able to birdie any hole he tries too, and he doesn't layup off the tee very often. That's why he is who he is. But I seriously doubt he is the only one. I would imagine most players rated above 975ish, expect to birdie on any hole they try for.
But it's not about what the player expects to get. Or is trying to get.

It's about what someone else expects them to get.

If I expect players to get a 3 or better, and 80% of them get a 3 or better, my expectation was justified.

If I expect players to get a 3 or better, and 20% of them get a 3 or better, I might think my expectation was a little out of line.

Now, if a player expects to get a 3 on, say, some hole #14, and he only does so 20% of the time, he can go on expecting to get a 3 and not getting it. That's in his own head. It doesn't relate to the definition of par, or the practical use of it.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2977  
Old 07-04-2018, 10:58 AM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.8
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,068
Niced 1,104 Times in 525 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Our course has the Par Bar set really high. Our course record right now is +1 and we have some strong players. We wanted it to be a hard course to par even for experienced players and it is. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I want the back 9 to hurt peoples egos personally, but that’s just me.
what course is this?
Reply With Quote
  #2978  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:20 AM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 524
Niced 137 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
That would make his expectation a little optimistic, in light of experience.

He's not birdieing 99.9% of the holes. Maybe 50%? My cursory glance at a few events says even less, though that could be a sampling error.

At any rate, the definition doesn't say par is what the players expect, but what would be expected of the players by others---specifically, the TD, by extension the course designer, and perhaps more broadly, the general expectation (when evaluating how reasonable the TD's expectations were).

I don't know how to define a reasonable expectation. Though I'm inclined to think that, if most of the time, what you expect to happen doesn't happen, you might have doubts about it.

Footnote: I don't know how to define "expert", either. But if you define it by McBeth---if only the very best of the best are experts---then that would probably change quite a few pars.
"Expectation" isn't really a factor. The definition isn't "expected score for an expert". How often a 1000 player is expected to execute an errorless shot is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what score he should get by executing all errorless shots. The only important thing to define is an errorless throw. As far as defining "errorless" I think a reasonable or even conservative definition would be hitting a circle sized target from 450' (with adjustments for difficult shot shaping requirements), as well as making a putt from circle's edge.

That's why I stand by my contention that the new definition should shave 1 off of the par of most holes. Given, there probably are a handful of holes on any given top tier course where even McBeth isn't expecting to reach anything better than circle 2 or 3 with errorless throws. These types of holes would be the few where both close range and the current definition would yield the same par, since either way you would have to allow 2 throws from close range. But for the most part, the circle should be reachable with errorless play and then one putt should be all that is needed, hence par would be one less stroke.

All Steve's system is doing is measuring difficulty, by determining how often a given string of shots is "expected" to be properly executed by a 1000 rated player. But expected score has never been part of the definition, old or new. It's always been the score an expert should get given errorless player, with or without an allowance for 2 shots from close range. That's why I think it's a great method for evaluating hole difficulty, and as a corollary hole quality to some degree, but rather poor at determining par.
Reply With Quote
  #2979  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:49 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.7
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,603
Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
"Expectation" isn't really a factor. The definition isn't "expected score for an expert". How often a 1000 player is expected to execute an errorless shot is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what score he should get by executing all errorless shots. The only important thing to define is an errorless throw. As far as defining "errorless" I think a reasonable or even conservative definition would be hitting a circle sized target from 450' (with adjustments for difficult shot shaping requirements), as well as making a putt from circle's edge.

That's why I stand by my contention that the new definition should shave 1 off of the par of most holes. Given, there probably are a handful of holes on any given top tier course where even McBeth isn't expecting to reach anything better than circle 2 or 3 with errorless throws. These types of holes would be the few where both close range and the current definition would yield the same par, since either way you would have to allow 2 throws from close range. But for the most part, the circle should be reachable with errorless play and then one putt should be all that is needed, hence par would be one less stroke.

All Steve's system is doing is measuring difficulty, by determining how often a given string of shots is "expected" to be properly executed by a 1000 rated player. But expected score has never been part of the definition, old or new. It's always been the score an expert should get given errorless player, with or without an allowance for 2 shots from close range. That's why I think it's a great method for evaluating hole difficulty, and as a corollary hole quality to some degree, but rather poor at determining par.

Now I'm confused (which isn't rare). Are we talking about the same definition?:


Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director


Expert is not defined, and subject to debate. Errorless is not defined, and subject to debate, particularly as to whether it's redundant. The "after the comma" part is subject to the debate, as to whether it merely defines who makes the call, or invalidates everything before the comma.

But "expected" seems to be part of the definition. In my opinion, the crucial part.
Reply With Quote
 

  #2980  
Old 07-04-2018, 01:56 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,374
Niced 368 Times in 168 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
...
Expert is not defined, and subject to debate....
And ...

Is the expert right or left handed? Does the expert have a reliable forehand? Is the expert expected to play the hole conservatively or aggressively?

Does the TD choose different experts depending on the skills needed for each hole?

The PDGA definition of par really isn't a definition. It's a set of items for the TD to consider. It's loose because the PDGA cannot pretend to know the design of a specific hole.

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 06:40 AM.


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