Disc Golf Course Review Par Talk
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 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

#3841
07-08-2019, 08:35 PM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 25.1 Courses Played: 127 Posts: 15,684 Niced 4,638 Times in 1,858 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West Thanks. Maybe what I'm looking for is a way to choose among the possible numbers we could select for par for those holes where the expected score isn't obvious. For those, if the definition doesn't provide an single answer, perhaps we are free to set a secondary set of selection rules. Like, perhaps, choose the one that is closest to average. However, talking about a possible rule like that is getting a little ahead of where I'm at. I want to step back and see if there is any way to look at par on a meta basis to see if it's good or not. Sometimes when we can't define how to make something better, it is easier to define how to make it worse and then do the opposite. We all knew par was not as useful as it should have been 5 years ago. We didn't need to look at individual holes to know that. (Although some individual holes provided more evidence.) How did we know par was not fully useful? What was bad about it? How could it have been worse?
It seems to me that you're trying to apply some mathematical certainty and precision to some imprecise terms. In particular, "errorless". I respect the effort. But it's more than I wish to make.

For myself, with a hole without clear expectation, I tend to look at a range of results---average, most common score, median (or something a bit higher, maybe 60th percentile), and then take a stab at it. With a hope that such holes are few enough to have only a minor effect, in the grand scheme.

*

I guess there are a couple of ways to judge whether par is good.

One would be, if it reflects the expected score, it's useful in all the ways previously discussed. Spectators following results, portability, etc.

The other would be, if it matches golf, at least in certain ways, then it's useful aesthetically to those who think it should.
#3842
07-08-2019, 08:44 PM
 Jukeshoe <------ [YOUR AD HERE] Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: The Ethersphere Years Playing: 10.9 Courses Played: 223 Posts: 7,609 Niced 240 Times in 122 Posts

#3843
07-08-2019, 09:28 PM
 Doofenshmirtz Double Eagle Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Years Playing: 8.2 Courses Played: 96 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 1,032 Niced 345 Times in 173 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls . . . and there'd no longer be any confusion about them.
I suspect that there is far less confusion than the stevewesters are willing to acknowledge.

 Niced: (2)
#3844
07-09-2019, 10:37 PM
 SD86 Banned Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Atlanta, GA Courses Played: 8 Posts: 9,430 Niced 2,377 Times in 1,731 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hampstead How about we abolish par and just count strokes?
It's not a bad idea, and of course this is how the tournaments are ultimately decided; not by relation to par but total score.

However, there are a couple of problems with abolishing par, and they have to do with viewing on the the various media outlets we have today. First, a viewer would not have any way of knowing how well or poorly a player was doing unless the viewer knew very well what each hole was like.

For example: "Paul McBeth is at 120 throws after hole 9 of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is at 127 throws after hole 11." So... who's winning? And is hole 10 a 1087-foot hole that would be a 'par 5'? Or is hole 10 a 325-foot hole that is a very birdie-able 'par 3' (and by SOME people's desires, should be labeled a Par 2?) If you don't know, it's very hard to follow along.

The second reason is similar to (maybe the same as) the first. The Masters ball golf tournament went to relation-to-par to facilitate TV viewing. "Paul McBeth is -21 after the ninth hole of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is -19 after the 11th hole of the 3d round" tells us that Paul is in the lead by two, though with two more holes to play. You don't need to know if the next 6 or 7 holes are par 5s, 4s, or 3s; you know where the players are relative to each other relative to par.

Ergo, relation to par is good for viewers, regardless of whether or not the TD set par correctly. For the players, it's still all about the fewest throws from the tee box to the chains...

 Niced: (1)
#3845
07-09-2019, 10:51 PM
 Hampstead * Ace Member * Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Spaceship Earth Years Playing: 30.3 Courses Played: 67 Throwing Style: LHBH Posts: 3,750 Niced 2,644 Times in 845 Posts

Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play.

Disc golfers would understand.

We really need to get away from the fantasy of sports fans who don't play casually watching a tournament.

 Niced: (2)
#3846
07-09-2019, 10:52 PM
 SD86 Banned Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Atlanta, GA Courses Played: 8 Posts: 9,430 Niced 2,377 Times in 1,731 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by krupicka I think the best way to set par is to have Paul McBeth play the course and then add one to his score on every hole.
Taking this seriously for a second, I've said before and I'll say again: no matter what you (plural) do to set up a course, either the super-elite players like McBeth, Wysocki, etc. will shred it, or the rest of the field will be destroyed by it. So if Paul McBeth is throwing par, then the vast majority of the field is being crushed by many strokes over par. There is just too much disparity in the MPO field, talent-wise, and ditto that for the FPO field. Some players are just TOO good relative to the others.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged. I'm convinced all this par obsession is bad for our sport. Tournaments on open courses have become almost impossible to watch. There's so much roping in an effort to make the scoring more difficult, that all you see the top arms do is throw control shot after control shot. Personally I want to watch the big arms throw big. How many people do you think would watch the PGA tour if the courses were set up so Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson hit an iron off every tee? You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.
What I said just above applies here, also.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player I don't think anyone other than you sees this as appropriate. If we did there would be holes labeled par 2 and I don't believe I've ever seen a tournament label a hole a par 2.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PMantle I can't believe you're asking this. If we do as you say, we end up with a ton of par 2s. So, you only have a birdie if you ace. We also end up with ridiculously long par 3s and 4s where the only birdies are fairway aces. I really don't think you are even trying to be honest at this point. I am also suspicious that there may be something wrong with you.
And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
#3847
07-10-2019, 12:09 AM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31.4 Courses Played: 706 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,639 Niced 2,206 Times in 954 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SD86 And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. They may have less scoring spread at times but the holes play faster. We've officially used them in 2001 and 2002 Worlds. The sky didn't fall. Players don't shoot as far under par. Those against par 2s are apparently scared that if we don't emulate ball golf in the area of par that we'll never get credibility with mainstream media. (Are you really that scared for the sport or are you projecting your own dislike of not being able to birdie?)

There are so many other things where DG can never emulate ball golf's path and the jury is STILL out on our potential to ever get enough eyeballs for a financially sustainable pro tour. The case can be made that avoiding par 2s actually undermines our credibility even more by disguising the true scoring challenge for our top pros when we have the mathematical and computational ability to match and even surpass the quality and usefulness of statistics within DG versus BG with the side benefit to help improve both our temp and permanent holes and courses.

The idea that pros may not like par 2s is mostly irrelevant in our march toward administrative professionalism in our sport. Pros are expected to perform under pressure and are getting significantly more resources spent on their behalf than their numbers. Par 2s add more pressure, especially if it bugs them. I suspect that pros in BG grumble a bit when a daily par 5 is changed to a par 4 in tour events but accept it's an appropriate par change for their skill level. Par 2 is just a number, not some tricky hole design element like an elevated basket. Par 2s would certainly be a much milder annoyance than the trend to add temporary OB everywhere that actually costs strokes and actually makes the sport look less refined when played on temp venues.

 Niced: (5)
#3848
07-10-2019, 01:05 AM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 46.2 Courses Played: 393 Posts: 5,283 Niced 2,013 Times in 985 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SD86 And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
First, thank you.

Second, I would not mind if there were no par 2s at any sanctioned tournament. Just as I wouldn't mind if there were no par 6s. While they both may have something to contribute, they're both not necessary, and I'm not opposing anyone who thinks they are a bad thing to have. However, just like we can't get rid of the par 6s by calling them par 5s, we can't get rid of par 2s by calling them par 3s.

All I want to do is identify them. Those who run the tournaments on courses that have Par 2s can decide if the stigma is worse than setting par too high; and whether avoiding either problem is worth changing the hole.

 Niced: (2)
#3849
07-10-2019, 06:41 AM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 25.1 Courses Played: 127 Posts: 15,684 Niced 4,638 Times in 1,858 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hampstead Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play. Disc golfers would understand. .
Not quite as simple if the players are in different groups, and have a different number of holes to play.

It can be done, of course. "Player A leads by 7 but has 5 holes to play; player B trails but only has 3 holes to play." Doesn't really tell you who's in a better position. So you can add something about those holes, what the average scores are or how long they are or something, and then the listener has an idea.

But if you give scores relative to par, and particularly if the par is well-set, it immediately conveys the relative standings.

 Niced: (2)

#3850
07-10-2019, 08:00 AM
 SD86 Banned Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Atlanta, GA Courses Played: 8 Posts: 9,430 Niced 2,377 Times in 1,731 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. .....
Again, I believe 'Par 2' would cause the total loss of any respect DG needs to become a legitimate sport, and DG would be relegated to the likes of Putt-Putt, especially if there was 'Par 2' on the course of a professional tournament. JMHO, YMMV.