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
  #3851  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:05 AM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.4
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 994
Niced 323 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
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?)
And those for par 2's are apparently afraid of birdies, specifically, too many of them. The concern is that disc golf, which is much easier than real golf, will be perceived as easy if the scores in top tournaments are way below par: an embarrassment of birdies if you will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
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.

You can't change par 3's into par 2's by coming up with your own definition of par (which is all that you've done). It's a sort of delusional arrogance to think that you can. Your disingenuous and simultaneous decrying and lauding of a "stigma" that you seem to be on a one-man mission to assign leaves me with a sort of Hanlon's Razor inspired conclusion - because the adequate and innocent explanation just doesn't seem to be there.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3852  
Old 07-10-2019, 10:16 AM
PMantle's Avatar
PMantle PMantle is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alexandria, La.
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 48
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 5,037
Niced 821 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
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.
I could not possibly disagree with this more than I do.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3853  
Old 07-10-2019, 04:34 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
And those for par 2's are apparently afraid of birdies, specifically, too many of them. The concern is that disc golf, which is much easier than real golf, will be perceived as easy if the scores in top tournaments are way below par: an embarrassment of birdies if you will.
No, that’s not the main concern. The main concern is that par was being set according to a lot of different standards. If there had been one single standard which resulted in a lot of birdies then we could live with a sport that generated a lot of birdies.

By the way, the actual definition still results in a lot of birdies. And that's OK.

What we can’t live with is setting par according to a lot of different notions. Since we actually do have one single official definition, we’re past trying to decide on a single definition. Everything in this thread - by most other posters - is trying to get par to be set according to the definition.

Nothing has been about reducing the number of birdies as a goal in and of itself. It just so happens that almost all the reasons TDs had for setting par in a way that was not compatible with the before-the-comma part of the definition mostly resulted in pars that were higher than if they had set par according to the definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
You can't change par 3's into par 2's by coming up with your own definition of par (which is all that you've done). ...
As much as you would like everyone to think you are not attacking the actual definition of par, you actually are. So;

Do you agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma? If not, you have problems with the definition, not with me.

If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma, then explain why a three on hole 6 at the event below “is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions”.

https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament...&RoundID=94396

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3854  
Old 07-10-2019, 04:46 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
..

If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma, then explain why a three on hole 6 at the event below “is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions”.

https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament...&RoundID=94396
Typo. I meant the 195 foot hole 16.
Reply With Quote
  #3855  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:15 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.4
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 994
Niced 323 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma . . .
At this point, it's not even a nice try at a specious argument.

You are the one overly concerned with the comma, not me. Whose expectations are referred to in the par definition? They are the TD's expectations. You cannot separate the dependent clause after the comma from the part before the comma and claim that the TD isn't setting the "before the comma part" correctly because the "after the comma part" makes it the TD's job to make that determination. If you are not the TD, then you cannot make the determination and have your determination be consistent with the definition. And, by the way, just so we're on the same page; you're not the TD.

Who gets to determine who an "expert" is? Well, since you asked, it's the TD again. You cannot claim that an expert is to be defined by you for the purpose of claiming that the TD set par incorrectly, because the TD determines what "expert" means according to the definition. There are other aspects to the use of the word "expectation" that are problematic, but they aren't really pertinent to disposing of your silly comma arguments.

Do you refuse to acknowledge that the TD gets to determine what an "expert" is?
Do you refuse to acknowledge that the TD gets to determine what score is expected of that expert?
Do you refuse to acknowledge that par is what the TD determines it is?

So delusion, density or malice? You pick.

Incidentally, I would never dream of denying you your Monday morning quarterbacking of whether the TD made the right decision and petty attempts to shame TD's who undertake the sometimes herculean task of running a tournament. However, I utterly reject any claim that the definition of par lends your opinions any more weight than those of people who believe par is three.
Reply With Quote
  #3856  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:33 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.6
Courses Played: 692
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,188
Niced 1,542 Times in 697 Posts
Default

There's a difference between a generic TD and a TD who has signed on to run a sanctioned event under PDGA rules and guidelines. TDs are expected to follow the guidelines for setting par for an "expert" player at a skill level just as much as following division assignments and payout guidelines unless having applied for a waiver that was approved. They may not know the precise way to set par on holes that do not have scoring data but they do know how to do so when that hole is played in following years.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3857  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:16 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
...
However, I utterly reject any claim that the definition of par lends your opinions any more weight than those of people who believe par is three.
Well, at least you are now openly attacking the definition, and not just me.

Yes, par WAS three because the TD said so.

I'm asking you to pretend you were the TD and tell us how you would interpret "expert" and "expected" (for the Open division at an A-Tier) to decide to set par to 3. Give us the insights behind your equally weighted opinion.

Niced: (2)

Last edited by Steve West; 07-10-2019 at 07:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3858  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:09 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.4
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 994
Niced 323 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Well, at least you are now openly attacking the definition, and not just me.
Nope, I'm not attacking the definition; I'm just reading it - all of it - and giving meaning to all parts of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Yes, par WAS three because the TD said so.
See, the definition isn't so hard to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I'm asking you to pretend you were the TD and tell us how you would interpret "expert" and "expected" (for the Open division at an A-Tier) to decide to set par to 3. Give us the insights behind your equally weighted opinion.
I freely acknowledge that any such opinion that I would have about what you are asking would be similarly weighted. But, I will say this, I would not set par differently for a single division of a tournament than for other divisions, nor would I set par for a specific tier of tournament differently than I would for a different tier tournament or differently than I would set it when designing the course (assuming that I was only able to put in one set of tees).

What is expected of an expert on a hole doesn't change based on who is playing the hole.

Getting to your question, I notice that you haven't posted any photographs or much data about the hole: just distance and scores (and the par designation is a 4 vs the three you have alluded to). But, without looking at the hole, I can't really answer your question. Just on the basis of distance, a three would be a little eyebrow raising, but I've also played a ~1,300 ft. par 3 (and threw a 1,400 ft drive ), so it's not exactly what I would call extreme based on that one metric. Anyway, I can't answer because you haven't provided enough information for the WWYD on this one. Does that answer your question? And, I would not, under any circumstances, criticize the TD's par designation based on the scores, much less attempt to shame him/her on a public internet forum.
Reply With Quote
  #3859  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:45 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doofenshmirtz View Post
...And, I would not, under any circumstances, criticize the TD's par designation based on the scores, much less attempt to shame him/her on a public internet forum.
So, bottom line, par 2s are OK if the TD sets par to 2, right?

Reply With Quote
 

  #3860  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:08 AM
dreadlock86's Avatar
dreadlock86 dreadlock86 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DFW, tx
Years Playing: 12.5
Courses Played: 327
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,877
Niced 244 Times in 125 Posts
Default

HA!!
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 12:49 AM.


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