Par Talk

[txmxer]

Originally Posted by PMantle

The definition includes, "as determined by the tournament director..."

Furthermore, par came from golf, and golf has never used anything other than designer's designation or that plus changed made by the governing body/sponsor.

If you haven't done so, I highly recommend reading the Houck article linked earlier in this thread. http://www.omagdigital.com/publicati...0666&ver=html5

TBH, I consider PAR arbitrary and an aside since in competition, the only relevant outcome is the total score versus competitors.

However, that doesn't say that the TD is correct when setting PAR, it just says it is the TD's responsibility to set PAR in accordance with the definition.

[DavidSauls]

Somehow I get the feeling that if I, at tournament director, mark every hole as Par 2, some people will call that incorrect, and my position as director won't dissuade them from that judgment.

[Improbably]

Originally Posted by PMantle

There is no such thing as incorrect par.

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

[PMantle]

Originally Posted by Steve West

Not any more.

I will agree that "incorrect" was the wrong word.

"Incorrect" would be if one were looking at the wrong hole's par or something like that.

Instead, I should have said something like "not the most appropriate for the skill level" or "not set with the intent of being consistent with the definition". The specific description would depend on the reasoning behind the par that was set.

I cannot disagree with that, but then we get back to the main points you and I disagree with as highlighted by Houck's article. There aren't enough tee pads and putting is too easy. As long as this exists, there will never be a correct par in everyone's mind. But the PDGA still says,

Tournament Director's Role

The PDGA requires the Tournament Director to set par for each hole in every sanctioned event. The pars set by the Tournament Director are final and not subject to appeal.

[PMantle]

Originally Posted by Improbably

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Just because I think it's a terrible idea doesn't mean it's incorrect.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by Improbably

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

That's opens up some possibilities for mischief, doesn't it.

Though calling everything Par 0 would leave us deciding winners by total strokes, which is....ah.....well nevermind.

I'm going to put some thought into some non-numerical pars, with the assurance that though they may be insane, they won't be incorrect.

[Monocacy]

Make people solve algebraic problems to decipher par for each hole. Probably need to switch up the equations from time to time to prevent cheating.

[DavidSauls]

I was going to set Par Pi, but that might mean solving the circle, and that's beyond my skill level.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by Improbably

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

"the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make"

Nothing but positive integers can be the score.

Par 1s, sure. They'd be about 25 feet long. It might happen at a putting league.

If a TD departs from the definition, there's nothing a player can do to fix it. I've played on holes with n.5 pars. I was tempted to be late just to get a hole score of 7.5 and make extra work adding up the paper scorecards.

[PMantle]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

I was going to set Par Pi, but that might mean solving the circle, and that's beyond my skill level.

I always let other people keep score, so that's fine by me.