#2101  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:10 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 28.8
Courses Played: 654
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,132
Niced 402 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post
I always enjoy dropping in on this thread; I may be a masochist.

I think setting a Par 2 would be silly and stupid, and just as embarrassing to explain to these mythical future money sponsors as our inconsistent Pars are now.

But still not as embarrassing as flatout banning specific types of throws from tournaments (no overhands), that was eagerly accepted and championed by our resident PDGA man here on these boards.

Was that a Par problem that necessitated outlawing a throw type? Or was it a course design problem? Or was it a TD problem? (Couldn't have been the TD, because it was Yeti, and he is one of the old guard, PDGA approved people, right? I wonder what Chuck's reaction would be if Nate tried to ban overhands at the Ledgestone?)

Spoiler: It was a course design problem. And if Par or the optics of Par are so upsetting to the PDGA and these mythical future money sponsors, maybe the PDGA should assert itself when sactioning Majors, A Tiers, and DGPT events, and demand a review and readjustment of Par before the tournaments finalize and publish their layouts. Balance an easy Par 3 (a Par 2 by this threads standards) by making sure that borderline Par 4 is set as a Par 3 as well. Because that's how it is in ball golf, too. They have tweener holes, too. They have layouts and holes that piss off their players, too.

And don't give that "it's in the rule book" cop out. Work with your TDs. Set expectations. Explain thought processes. Ask for design tweaks. Etc

But I understand the PDGA is very busy trying to push out the latest edition of Disc Golfer Magazine (talk about embarrassing), so any extra involvement in what they claim is so important to the game would inevitably tax resources they don't have.

Pleae note, some TDs have attacked course design and the ascendancy of the modern player/equipment by using ropes and stroke and distance, but those attempts were met with a chop of the hand due to them messing with that other nonsensical statistic in our game, the player rating.

It's fun to demand changes and offer no solutions. It's fun to demand change then complain or strike down what doesn't fit your model. It's fun to crunch numbers and then force the real world to match the data. I guess.
If you're referring to me in regard to "eagerly accepting and championing", that was not the case. I was asked by PDGA HQ/Yeti if there was a problem rating an event with no overhands off the tee allowed. I didn't see a problem other than how you would write the rules to control it. However, if I was asked what I thought of the overhand restriction as a designer, I wouldn't have been in favor although I understood the reason pertaining to Texas terrain with few trees. I don't see throw type restrictions ever getting much traction for future rules.

With regard to Ledgestone and USDGC ratings, it's not that those rounds can't be rated but the game itself is different on courses with penalty rules like they use extensively. Those rounds simply require separate ratings that shouldn't be blended with current player ratings but we're not set up to do that just yet. We currently use propagators whose ratings have been produced by primarily from playing traditional disc golf to produce ratings on mostly traditional disc golf course setups with few or no penalties. We need to use props whose ratings were produced on those types of Elite courses to properly produce new ratings for those Elite courses.

I see the possibility to eventually produce separate ratings for these Elite course setups. Props with ratings produced on these courses would be used to propagate those ratings. For example, Cali/Mulligan and Doubles could also be rated but these are also different DG variants and would need separate ratings. Cali/Mulligan format ratings would likely track closer to current player ratings even more than the proposed Elite Course ratings. There's an additional skill set required (mental) to handle all of the risk/reward challenges and frustration with penalty challenges everywhere on those Elite courses.
Sponsored Links

Last edited by Cgkdisc; 12-14-2017 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2102  
Old 12-15-2017, 10:04 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.1
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,527
Niced 541 Times in 346 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post

Spoiler: It was a course design problem. And if Par or the optics of Par are so upsetting to the PDGA and these mythical future money sponsors, maybe the PDGA should assert itself when sactioning Majors, A Tiers, and DGPT events, and demand a review and readjustment of Par before the tournaments finalize and publish their layouts. Balance an easy Par 3 (a Par 2 by this threads standards) by making sure that borderline Par 4 is set as a Par 3 as well. Because that's how it is in ball golf, too. They have tweener holes, too. They have layouts and holes that piss off their players, too.
.
I agree, the PDGA should set a standard.

As to comments about hypothetical sponsors, well I wrote something similar almost twenty years ago. Now the money coming in from non disc golf sponsors includes, Adidas, Spartan Mower, food companies (see CCDG sponsors) and others. Like you seem to be, I laughed at such things twenty years ago. I was wrong. Do we have million dollar sponsors? No, but I will no longer laugh at the notion.
Reply With Quote
  #2103  
Old 12-15-2017, 10:19 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.1
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,527
Niced 541 Times in 346 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post

Pleae note, some TDs have attacked course design and the ascendancy of the modern player/equipment by using ropes and stroke and distance, but those attempts were met with a chop of the hand due to them messing with that other nonsensical statistic in our game, the player rating.

It's fun to demand changes and offer no solutions. It's fun to demand change then complain or strike down what doesn't fit your model. It's fun to crunch numbers and then force the real world to match the data. I guess.
I always find it interesting when some writes critically of a solution being tried by TDs to address a problem in one paragraph, then follows it up with a second paragraph where they write that someone is demanding changes but offering no solutions. Is it that no one is offering solutions, or just not the ones you want? That's okay but it would be nice to have some clarity.

Little story. The Astros won the world series this year. The way they did it was with numbers. An example, they had one pitcher where they counted the numbers of each pitch type he threw. They knew exactly which pitches gave what results. They changed his pitches to match those numbers. He want from a has been to the guy who won the final game.

Numbers matter in sports. You may not think so but in everything I've seen, from management to fan participation, they are used very heavily.
Reply With Quote
  #2104  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:35 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 43.7
Courses Played: 296
Posts: 3,542
Niced 538 Times in 304 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post
…Was that a Par problem that necessitated outlawing a throw type? ….
No. And this is the Par Talk thread. Take it elsewhere.

I respect your opinion that that par 2 may be sillier than scores of 73 under. So, let's set par correctly for all the par 3s, 4s, and 5s. Then, if par 2s are really silly, we can stop having tournaments on courses that have too many of them. (At least the highly visible tournaments.) That way, even if we mislabel the par 2s as par 3s, total par will be a lot closer to where it should be.

(And we can still whisper to each other that one some holes, you "must get" a birdie 2.)

I would not go so far as to tell TDs they cannot set any hole to par 2. I lean toward letting TDs figure out what's best. They're doing the work and taking the risk and have the most incentive to do it right.
Reply With Quote
  #2105  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:51 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.6
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 13,130
Niced 913 Times in 462 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
(And we can still whisper to each other that one some holes, you "must get" a birdie 2.)
Or whisper that we "expect" players to get a 2 on those holes.

But with the rulebook closed, of course, lest anyone accuse us that of whispering about par.
Reply With Quote
  #2106  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:01 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.6
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 13,130
Niced 913 Times in 462 Posts
Default

Man, I hate to do it, but I have to admit that I was dead wrong.

Way back when, I laid the blame on the ambiguous phrase "close range"---and the troublesome "two throws from close range" that included it. Abolish that, I proclaimed, and the issue is resolved. Par can finally be what the definition says it is.

Well, perhaps it will be, eventually, but I guess not without opposition from
* The "Inevitable Right to Birdie" faction
* The "Par is what you get when you don't play a hole well" faction
* The "Par is disc golf slang for a number" faction ("Par means 3, Birdie means 2, Bogey means 4, etc)
* The "Golf doesn't have Par 2" faction
* The "Just Because" faction

How foolish of me to overlook them all.

Reply With Quote
  #2107  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:13 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 723
Niced 38 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alobar View Post
I always enjoy dropping in on this thread; I may be a masochist.

I think setting a Par 2 would be silly and stupid, and just as embarrassing to explain to these mythical future money sponsors as our inconsistent Pars are now.

But still not as embarrassing as flatout banning specific types of throws from tournaments (no overhands), that was eagerly accepted and championed by our resident PDGA man here on these boards.

Was that a Par problem that necessitated outlawing a throw type? Or was it a course design problem? Or was it a TD problem? (Couldn't have been the TD, because it was Yeti, and he is one of the old guard, PDGA approved people, right? I wonder what Chuck's reaction would be if Nate tried to ban overhands at the Ledgestone?)

Spoiler: It was a course design problem. And if Par or the optics of Par are so upsetting to the PDGA and these mythical future money sponsors, maybe the PDGA should assert itself when sactioning Majors, A Tiers, and DGPT events, and demand a review and readjustment of Par before the tournaments finalize and publish their layouts. Balance an easy Par 3 (a Par 2 by this threads standards) by making sure that borderline Par 4 is set as a Par 3 as well. Because that's how it is in ball golf, too. They have tweener holes, too. They have layouts and holes that piss off their players, too.

And don't give that "it's in the rule book" cop out. Work with your TDs. Set expectations. Explain thought processes. Ask for design tweaks. Etc

But I understand the PDGA is very busy trying to push out the latest edition of Disc Golfer Magazine (talk about embarrassing), so any extra involvement in what they claim is so important to the game would inevitably tax resources they don't have.

Pleae note, some TDs have attacked course design and the ascendancy of the modern player/equipment by using ropes and stroke and distance, but those attempts were met with a chop of the hand due to them messing with that other nonsensical statistic in our game, the player rating.

It's fun to demand changes and offer no solutions. It's fun to demand change then complain or strike down what doesn't fit your model. It's fun to crunch numbers and then force the real world to match the data. I guess.
I don't 'nice' people same as I don't 'rate' courses, so I'll just say it's good to see some people not always buying the Kool-Aid.
Reply With Quote
  #2108  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:26 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 22.1
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 3,527
Niced 541 Times in 346 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
I don't 'nice' people same as I don't 'rate' courses, so I'll just say it's good to see some people not always buying the Kool-Aid.
Really, a topic that's been debated hotly over the last year, at least, is Kool-Aid? You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2109  
Old 12-15-2017, 03:49 PM
slowplastic slowplastic is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,391
Niced 737 Times in 504 Posts
Default

I just want to say that it's still a useful skill to test pro's on 230-300ish shots in the woods, shaping lines like turnovers or touch putter or forehands, etc. There is a place for these holes. And if I expect to birdie the hole most of the time, there's no reason to me that in an open event you can't call it a par 2.

How many people complaining about par 2 also play at a world class level?
Reply With Quote
 

  #2110  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:06 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 43.7
Courses Played: 296
Posts: 3,542
Niced 538 Times in 304 Posts
Default

OK, forget post #2093. Here are the correct figures:
Code:
Event Errorless Holes Change
    3       2     118   -118
    3       3     828      0
    3       4      19     19
    4       3     150   -150
    4       4     247      0
    4       5       1      1
    5       4      41    -41
    5       5      26      0
    6       5       1     -1
4,828   4,538   1,431   -290
So, if we were to change hole pars to match my method, more of the decrease in total par would come from changing 4s to 3s than from changing 3s to 2s. “Fixing” the par 3, 4, and 5 holes would get us about 60% of the way there.

Interestingly, All-par-3 would come closer to the errorless par totals than the actual event pars did. All-par-3 would result in total par on these hole of 4,293 which is 245 too low, but that’s closer than the 290 too high from actual event pars.

About one out of twelve holes are par 2, or each course might have one or two.



P.S. the hole that had no scores other than 2 for 1000-rated players was not an error.
Attached Images
File Type: png EvPvErP.png (13.0 KB, 55 views)
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.