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
  #3621  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:03 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
.. we don't have a consistent metric for properly comparing exceptional rounds. ...
We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3622  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:18 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.8
Courses Played: 712
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,992
Niced 2,845 Times in 1,187 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.
One option but not the only one.
Reply With Quote
  #3623  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:26 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
We have one: Gold par. It would be more correct to say that not everyone uses it.
True, but since most of the comments about any hole, round, or course, include the word "par", we'd better get this most popular option correct.
Reply With Quote
  #3624  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:39 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyH View Post
...As for the -18, I am happier just calling it a 49. That's a number I and the people who have played the course can probably better relate to....
What about the people who have not played the course? There are tens of thousands of us out here. When you become part of the DGPT, you're on the international stage. The first thing people wanted to know was how does this -18 compare to that other -18. I don't recall anyone even mentioning 49.

Leaving par as is for the Am event and for daily play is fine. But, it would be better for your tournament and for the good of the sport to use tournament pars that are comparable to standardized pars for other Open tournaments around the world.

I'm kind of surprised the DGPT standards don't require this.
Reply With Quote
  #3625  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:04 PM
johnrhouck johnrhouck is offline
.:Master Course Designer:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin TX
Years Playing: 44.7
Posts: 650
Niced 308 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
(Technical note: we're discussing "FPO par", or "Pink par", not plain old unqualified par.)
Good point.

Quote:
The question of whether a hole is good or not is separate from what the par should be. Neither par 4 nor par 3 will make this hole any gooder by your definition of good.
Agreed. Gooder point.

Quote:
This hole just does not reward superior play. Getting a 3 that all your competitors are also getting - which will not move you ahead in the standings - is not the same as being rewarded. So, it should not be called birdie. It should be called par.
In this scenario, half the field is rewarded, no? What percentage needs to get a lower score for you to feel they are being rewarded?

Quote:
Sometimes, a hole will not give out any scores that are one less than par. Call them bad holes if you want, but don't ruin par just so the hole gives out meaningless "birdies".

Par is NOT defined as "one more than the score superior play will get". So, from the standpoint of setting par, there is no requirement that a hole give out any birdies.
That's why there is an option b) in my original question. We probably all figured you would say what you said, which is fine. Now, if the question were, "Does Steve love the current definition?" I'm not sure what the answer would be.

Quote:
On a related tangent, as (I think) you and Steve Dodge have pointed out, many holes the FPO play are not good for them. Watch any coverage and you will see a lot of drive (or drives), lay-up, drop-in. They are more accustomed to not being rewarded for superior play. In the hole description on that video, Val says something like "Your drive will get you to an easier upshot and hopefully you'll get your par 3".
All good and true. And sad, by the way. (At the same time, MPO plays a lot of holes that are not good for them, which is also sad.) One reason I thought this particular hole could make a good example is that Open plays it 100' longer, no?

I also want to point out that Joey makes a worthy point (as people with his initials often do). The TD is not responsible for wind shifts, and what tournament is prepared to make a change based on wind forecasts before play starts every day?
Reply With Quote
  #3626  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:14 PM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,659 Times in 937 Posts
Default

An additional point, Joey shows us that he gives a good deal of consideration to par, and how holes play. His comments show us just how hard it is to design a competitive open player course. It also shows that the notion that "anyone can put together a top-level course and event," might be a reach.
Reply With Quote
  #3627  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:21 PM
JoeyH JoeyH is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 9
Niced 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Steve West;3430290]What about the people who have not played the course?

I understand what you are saying. It is difficult even through video to get a real sense of depth and geometry of what you are seeing. That's all I meant by that comment.

The first thing people wanted to know was how does this -18 compare to that other -18.

I think the round ratings may be the best way to compare.

Leaving par as is for the Am event and for daily play is fine. But, it would be better for your tournament and for the good of the sport to use tournament pars that are comparable to standardized pars for other Open tournaments around the world.

It's really hard, I feel, to standardize the pars well enough to accomplish what you are wanting. In our case, much of the layout on the open holes is dictated by the man made structures in that area. I just don't have that little extra room I wish I had. I want the course to be played as close as possible to the normal setup. A couple of the par 4's on the open side need a little more length with the distance these guys and gals are throwing these days. Shortening those holes just takes away too much of the courses character IMO. It's a good case for those that like par 3.5. I do think in the past, the scoring separation for the Women was better. I'm guessing, if you looked back at the average Woman player's rating, it has increased and gotten closer. Thus, making scoring separation tighter. I am all for scoring separation if we can keep from using luck to a accomplish that. I will continue to tweak what I can moving forward. Hopefully I don't fall too far behind in keeping up with the talent increase.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3628  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:19 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyH View Post
...
It's really hard, I feel, to standardize the pars well enough to accomplish what you are wanting. In our case, much of the layout on the open holes is dictated by the man made structures in that area. I just don't have that little extra room I wish I had. I want the course to be played as close as possible to the normal setup. ...
I'm not talking about changing the physical holes. Just the number that indicates par on all tournament materials. It does not need to be the same number the Ams use. Specifically:

Code:
Hole  AmPar  ProPar
  1     3       3
  2     4       3
  3     3       3
  4     4       4
  5     3       3
  6     3       3
  7     4       3
  8     3       3
  9     5       4
 10     4       4
 11     3       3
 12     5       4
 13     4       4
 14     3       3
 15     4       4
 16     4       3
 17     4       4
 18     4       3
Reply With Quote
  #3629  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:36 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrhouck View Post
That's why there is an option b) in my original question. We probably all figured you would say what you said, which is fine. Now, if the question were, "Does Steve love the current definition?" I'm not sure what the answer would be.
Read way back. I started out with the intent of changing the definition, because it didn't seem to be working.

I set up my formula to faithfully reproduce the definition so that I could prove how bad it was for the hundreds of holes in my data base.

What I found out was that the problem was not the definition, the problem was that people were using a lot of non-definitions. That's what had made par mostly useless.

Add two putts...good score plus one...use the tees sign pars even if they are not made for Open...there's no such thing as a par 2...if the TD can't reach it, it's par 4...every hole must be birdieable...aceable = par 3...etc.

All those rules of thumb for setting par tend to make par too high. (Except, sometimes, "all holes are par 3".) They also create many different total pars for the same course.
Reply With Quote
 

  #3630  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:58 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.7
Courses Played: 431
Posts: 5,539
Niced 2,362 Times in 1,117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrhouck View Post
I also want to point out that Joey makes a worthy point (as people with his initials often do). The TD is not responsible for wind shifts, and what tournament is prepared to make a change based on wind forecasts before play starts every day?
The TD shouldn't make a change based on wind forecasts. Par is based on ordinary weather conditions. If there is usually a headwind, expected scores with a headwind should be used to set par. That's why the raw results of the formula need to be reviewed by the TD.

Last year, the formula spit out a "4" for FPO par on this hole.
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
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 34 06-24-2020 04:02 AM
Par 4s - multiple in a row or sprinkle par 3s into them? ToddL Course Design 9 02-23-2018 10:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 11:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 09:37 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 07:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.