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
  #3871  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:17 PM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,455
Niced 1,717 Times in 749 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
A large question I'm left with after cogitating on this a bit is:

When statistical data does not back up assigned par, is it an issue with the methodology of determining par or an issue with substandard/poor hole design?
Could be either.

IMO TD's have about as much business determining par as waitresses do cooking creme brulee. I realize that it is a necessity from the PDGA's perspective but designers determine par if they are doing it right.
Sponsored Links

Reply With Quote
  #3872  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:20 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.5
Courses Played: 681
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,133
Niced 1,493 Times in 676 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
A large question I'm left with after cogitating on this a bit is:

When statistical data does not back up assigned par, is it an issue with the methodology of determining par or an issue with substandard/poor hole design?
A statistically appropriate par value has little to do with hole design quality except for people who aesthetically prefer to avoid Pars of 2 or 6. Scoring distribution and correlation with ratings of those shooting the scores can provide good information for designers to evaluate the statistical merits of a hole's effectiveness for competition.
Reply With Quote
  #3873  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:40 PM
Jukeshoe's Avatar
Jukeshoe Jukeshoe is offline
<------ [YOUR AD HERE]
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Ethersphere
Years Playing: 10
Courses Played: 220
Posts: 7,555
Niced 163 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
Could be either.
That was my thought, too.
Reply With Quote
  #3874  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:28 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 355
Posts: 4,876
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

I’ve settled on a cutoff percentage for my method. I looked at 2,538 different holes for which there was plenty of scoring data, and for which I had both length and tournament par. I found that a cutoff of 76.7% (23/30ths) generated the same probability of getting a birdie (or better) as getting a bogey (or worse) in total across all holes.

Specifically, at a cutoff of 76.7%, if a 1000-rated player plays all 2,538 holes, they would score under par 22.4% of the time, over par 22.4% of the time, and get par 55.2% of the time.

On any given hole, that 1000-rated player would have anywhere from 0% to 59% chance of a birdie or better, and anywhere from a 0% to 71% chance of a bogey or worse, and anywhere from a 9% to 95% chance of a par.

With this cutoff, the chance that any given throw by a 1000-rated player will be good enough to get par or better is 91.9%.

The resulting cutoffs for the % of players who need to get a certain score or better for that score to be par are: 59% for par 2, 45% for par 3, 35% for par 4, and 26% for par 5.

This cutoff value fits within the range I thought was appropriate - based on the idea that par should generate a round rating near 1000. I like that this cutoff value is a specific, optimal point where neither higher nor lower is as “good”.

I expect I’ll stick with this as the cutoff percentage. Not much will change as a result, except I will no longer need to wonder about this parameter.
Reply With Quote
  #3875  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:42 PM
PMantle's Avatar
PMantle PMantle is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alexandria, La.
Years Playing: 7.1
Courses Played: 48
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,992
Niced 795 Times in 541 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I’ve settled on a cutoff percentage for my method.
I expect I’ll stick with this as the cutoff percentage.
Why are you doing this again?
Reply With Quote
  #3876  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:49 PM
ChrisWoj's Avatar
ChrisWoj ChrisWoj is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Years Playing: 14.6
Courses Played: 144
Posts: 895
Niced 252 Times in 149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMantle View Post
Why are you doing this again?
Glory. Power. Riches.

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
  #3877  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:11 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 355
Posts: 4,876
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWoj View Post
Glory. Power. Riches.
... and the women.


Last edited by Steve West; 07-12-2019 at 08:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3878  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:42 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 355
Posts: 4,876
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Pretty nice job by DGPT - 2019 Great Lakes Open presented by DISCRAFT. A couple of notes.

This shows a course can have accurate Gold pars and still be birdie-heavy.

FPO, while getting pars appropriate for them, isn’t getting the same experience as MPO, as the FPO scores are not as birdie rich.

Attached Images
File Type: png GLO2019Bars.png (26.7 KB, 52 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3879  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:19 AM
ChrisWoj's Avatar
ChrisWoj ChrisWoj is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Years Playing: 14.6
Courses Played: 144
Posts: 895
Niced 252 Times in 149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Pretty nice job by DGPT - 2019 Great Lakes Open presented by DISCRAFT. A couple of notes.

This shows a course can have accurate Gold pars and still be birdie-heavy.

FPO, while getting pars appropriate for them, isn’t getting the same experience as MPO, as the FPO scores are not as birdie rich.

15 makes COMPLETE sense. I don't expect that hole to consistently challenge gold players. Did the new OB make the hole harder or easier? I feel like it could have made it easier, by eliminating players really pushing the fairway leaving guys playing like the blue level players do at AmNats, where it's still one of the must-get par 4s.
Reply With Quote
 

  #3880  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:24 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 355
Posts: 4,876
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
Questions of definition:
I'll throw out some thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
Expert disc golfer: as I understand it, this is typically taken to be a 1000-rated player, correct?
“Correct” might be too strong of a term, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of resistance to getting on board with a 1000-rated player being a useful and commonly understood interpretation of expert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
Errorless play: this is where things get odd and tricky, in my opinion. First, what is an "error"? Does it consider an "error" a throw that hits an obstacle? A missed putt? How about a poor shot placement-wise, that doesn't give a reasonably open look for the next shot? Is that an error? This is, again in my opinion, where the PDGA rule for establishing par could benefit greatly from a reworking.
It would be extremely difficult to pin down which particular throws are errorless. However, I think it is a lot easier to identify the score the player expects with errorless play.

When players come back after a round and say “I left four throws out there today”, that means errorless play would have been four throws better. They might think it was the four putts they missed on those holes, but it might actually have been the result of bad upshots, or being a tiny bit off on three throws in a row, or any combination of full or partial errors.

They might not identify which throws had errors, but they know the score they should have gotten on those holes.

Fortunately, there is no need to look at or define anything at a more detailed level than the score.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukeshoe View Post
Ordinary weather conditions: It would probably be useful to have a good definition for this as well. My main question concerns whether (no pun intended) or not "ordinary weather conditions" refer to ordinary conditions ON THAT COURSE SPECIFICALLY, or is there one generic, across-the-board "ordinary condition," such as sunny, 70-degrees, with no wind, and a certain choice degree of humidity? In other words, is this a course-specific "ordinary weather conditions" or is there a general weather condition considered "ordinary" across all courses? I'm assuming it's course-specific, but I'm not certain of how this is interpreted and implemented in practice.
Course-specific. On the windward coast of Hawaii, calm would be non-ordinary, as would winds from the other direction.

I’d say ordinary is anything that didn’t noticeably mess with the scores normally seen on the course. If you can't tell if it's extra-ordinary, it's ordinary.

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 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 06:08 AM.


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