Disc Golf Course Review Par Talk
 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

#3821
07-08-2019, 07:11 AM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 24.2 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,928 Niced 3,038 Times in 1,366 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West My question to all is: What’s the best way to evaluate how well any method of setting par is doing its job? NOT what the definition should be, but how do we know par is doing what we want par to do?
My own simplistic and somewhat vague answer would be, "Is it the expected score?"

If we expect players to get a score different than par, it's not doing it's job---at least, its job in producing many of the small benefits that it potentially could.

If a hole produces such a wide range of results that there is no expected score, then par is not going to be able to do its job, no matter how it's set.

My uncertainty is on holes that produce results like 40/30/20/10. The most likely result is the one 40% get; the expectation might be the score that 70% of players will get, or better.
#3822
07-08-2019, 10:23 AM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 535 Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West That's kind of the opposite of my obsession with par. I say just set the par to match the scores the hole generates. Most holes wouldn't need any change, a few would need a lower par, and even fewer would need a higher par. You can have ball golf like scoring (relative to par) on any kind of holes - good, bad, easy, difficult, boring, or exciting - by merely setting par according to the definition. Nothing about getting par correct requires roping or any other kind of extra punishment.
That may not be your intent, but what options does a TD have if a hole plays too easy and they care about accurate par? Often the only option is to rope it up or rope it up tighter.

It leads to boring holes, because the only smart play is the safe control shot to the narrow fairway. Personally I'm not tuning in to watch all the top players throw a couple midrange on every hole.
#3823
07-08-2019, 10:25 AM
 Doofenshmirtz Eagle Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Years Playing: 7.2 Courses Played: 94 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 972 Niced 308 Times in 154 Posts

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. . . . You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.
Of course you are familiar with the disingenuous nature of Steve's pronouncements about par.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West You can have ball golf like scoring (relative to par) on any kind of holes - good, bad, easy, difficult, boring, or exciting - by merely setting par according to the definition. Nothing about getting par correct requires roping or any other kind of extra punishment.
It's sort of a Steve Westism at this point: refusing to discuss the point you have raised by, in this case, refusing to acknowledge what you mean by "ball golf like scoring."

Another of his standard tactics is to refuse to recognize that when he talks about the definition of par, his is talking about his own, personal definition of par. This leads to acts of hubris such as claiming that TDs of tournaments are setting par "incorrectly" which, although not impossible, is not his place to determine according to the actual definition.

And then, once he has completely denied the above, he generally makes a statement that belies his denial.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West That's kind of the opposite of my obsession with par. I say just set the par to match the scores the hole generates.
Which is essentially his definition of par, but not THE definition as he knows and only occasionally acknowledges.

The idea that par isn't "doing its job" is merely another argument that subsumes an incorrect definition of par by essentially arguing that par set by the actual definition isn't conforming to Steve's definition. So you get statements like the following.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls If we expect players to get a score different than par, it's not doing it's job---at least, its job in producing many of the small benefits that it potentially could. If a hole produces such a wide range of results that there is no expected score, then par is not going to be able to do its job, no matter how it's set.
But Steve West will continue to stevewest about par. As noted earlier, this thread is really just a big ego stroking exercise for the OP who has no doubt, by now, convinced himself that par is what he wants it to be because most everyone else has grown so tired of this thread that they can't be bothered to open it anymore.

I suspect most understand that the only benefit of par is as a marker. Draw a line anywhere and you get to tell everyone how far they are from it. The mystique associated with a Tiger Woods record 15 down at Pebble Beach doesn't attach to par in disc golf, but its not because par is different in golf as opposed to disc golf. It's because disc golf is easier.

The apparent benefit of Steve's definition, to Steve, lies in the very fact that it is different from the actual definition. As a result, Steve and everyone else who knows that par is really different from what the masses understand it to be, can have a sense of pride in being smarter than the rest of us, and especially smarter than all the TD's out there who have better things to do in preparation for their tournament than to worry about how to set par so that they don't get publicly shamed in the Part Talk thread at DGCR.

 Niced: (2)
#3824
07-08-2019, 10:56 AM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.3 Courses Played: 340 Posts: 4,842 Niced 1,580 Times in 778 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player ...what options does a TD have if a hole plays too easy and they care about accurate par?...
They just set par lower.
#3825
07-08-2019, 11:22 AM
 PMantle * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Alexandria, La. Years Playing: 7.1 Courses Played: 48 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,970 Niced 787 Times in 536 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West You can have ball golf like scoring (relative to par) on any kind of holes - good, bad, easy, difficult, boring, or exciting - by merely setting par according to the definition. Nothing about getting par correct requires roping or any other kind of extra punishment.
No, no you can't. The reason? Putting is too easy, and there aren't enough tee boxes. You're either going to have lots of birdies, or virtually none at all.

 Niced: (2)
#3826
07-08-2019, 11:32 AM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 535 Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West They just set par lower.
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.

 Niced: (2)
#3827
07-08-2019, 11:35 AM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 535 Niced 145 Times in 98 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PMantle No, no you can't. The reason? Putting is too easy, and there aren't enough tee boxes. You're either going to have lots of birdies, or virtually none at all.
I'd agree with this, the sports are just too different to have similar scoring distributions.

It'd be like comparing hockey to lacrosse. Even though the sports have similar concepts, you're never going to have as many goals scored in hockey as lacrosse, and trying to change either so you did would be silly.

 Niced: (2)
#3828
07-08-2019, 12:10 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.3 Courses Played: 340 Posts: 4,842 Niced 1,580 Times in 778 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz It's sort of a Steve Westism at this point: refusing to discuss the point you have raised by, in this case, refusing to acknowledge what you mean by "ball golf like scoring."
Perhaps I did skip over that. I assumed what was meant was that par in golf is about equally difficult to achieve from course to course, that the winner of a tournament will usually have a score around 4 below par per round, that commentators rarely say things like “every single one of these players is expecting a birdie on this hole", and such.

But, if what was meant was that course pars are around 72, then that’s different. The only way to get that is make bigger courses. Ropes are not very effective at raising par, they mostly just raise the average. Par is not average.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz Another of his standard tactics is to refuse to recognize that when he talks about the definition of par, his is talking about his own, personal definition of par. This leads to acts of hubris such as claiming that TDs of tournaments are setting par "incorrectly" which, although not impossible, is not his place to determine according to the actual definition.

When I say definition, I’m always talking about the actual definition. The actual definition is in the rule book. “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.”

Because of the part after the comma, no TD can set par incorrectly. If I ever use the word "incorrectly", it is my mistake. I’m just trying to get the part after the comma to be equal to the part before the comma. That's what I mean by "properly" or "accurately".

There are a few methods to get there. Whether the TD gets the opinions of experts, or uses CRP, or the PDGA guidelines, or any formula applied to scores, as long as they truly try to set par according to the first part of the definition (and not some other way, like use the recreational tee sign pars) we will get good pars.

It’s understandable that the charts give another impression. I probably don’t say often enough that no one should use those figures as the final par without review by the TD. They just highlight holes where par could be re-examined.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz The idea that par isn't "doing its job" is merely another argument that subsumes an incorrect definition of par by essentially arguing that par set by the actual definition isn't conforming to Steve's definition.
"Doing it's job" has to do with being consistent across courses and all that. I'm asking for opinions on how to recognize that, in an effort to possibly change my method. That's the opposite of what you said.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz But Steve West will continue to stevewest about par. As noted earlier, this thread is really just a big ego stroking exercise for the OP who has no doubt, by now, convinced himself that par is what he wants it to be because most everyone else has grown so tired of this thread that they can't be bothered to open it anymore.
Maybe. Even if true, that doesn’t give anyone a reason to keep setting par poorly.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz I suspect most understand that the only benefit of par is as a marker. Draw a line anywhere and you get to tell everyone how far they are from it. The mystique associated with a Tiger Woods record 15 down at Pebble Beach doesn't attach to par in disc golf, but it’s not because par is different in golf as opposed to disc golf. It's because disc golf is easier.

I agree that par is a marker, and that disc golf is easier. I don’t buy that at some tournaments disc golf is not any easier than golf (relative to par) while at other tournaments disc golf is dozens of throws easier than golf (relative to par).

The mystique comes from knowing that 15 down actually means something, no matter which course it happened on. Disc golf can and will have that, too. More and more events are already getting there.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz The apparent benefit of Steve's definition, to Steve, lies in the very fact that it is different from the actual definition. As a result, Steve and everyone else who knows that par is really different from what the masses understand it to be, can have a sense of pride in being smarter than the rest of us, and especially smarter than all the TD's out there who have better things to do in preparation for their tournament than to worry about how to set par so that they don't get publicly shamed in the Part Talk thread at DGCR.
All the benefits of my method (actually, all methods) derive from that fact that it tries to replicate the definition before the comma.

All the other methods will also have most of those benefits. More importantly, all these methods are moving toward the par that the masses already understand intuitively.

Listen to the discussions among players and announcers. The masses know the holes where “a par feels like a bogey”, and all the other ways of saying that the official par is not the score an expert would expect with errorless play. The masses know winning scores should not be 76 under after four rounds. The masses know par should represent about the same level of difficulty across all courses. The masses know the under/over number should change slowly. The masses know over/under should be a good way to keep track of who is really doing well or poorly even compared to other players who haven't played all the same holes.

Yes, TD’s have better things to do than worry about how to set par. But, after they’ve done all those other more important things, worrying about par is still on the to-do list. We’re just providing tools to help them quickly set better pars.
#3829
07-08-2019, 12:15 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.3 Courses Played: 340 Posts: 4,842 Niced 1,580 Times in 778 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PMantle No, no you can't. The reason? Putting is too easy, and there aren't enough tee boxes. You're either going to have lots of birdies, or virtually none at all.
I don't understand. If we set par to be the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, how does that translate into lots of birdies or virtually none at all?

And what does the number of tee boxes have to do with it? Don't all the competitors in a division play from one set of tees? How does the presence or absence of a lot of other tee boxes they don't play from affect anything?

#3830
07-08-2019, 12:23 PM
 PMantle * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Alexandria, La. Years Playing: 7.1 Courses Played: 48 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,970 Niced 787 Times in 536 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West I don't understand. If we set par to be the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, how does that translate into lots of birdies or virtually none at all? And what does the number of tee boxes have to do with it? Don't all the competitors in a division play from one set of tees? How does the presence or absence of a lot of other tee boxes they don't play from affect anything?
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.

Tee boxes. Want to let me play golf from the lady's tees? Want to see me make lots of birdies? lol

On most courses, players of all levels are playing from the same tees. How in the hell is one supposed to set "accurate par"?

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.

 Niced: (2)