Par Talk

[Steve West]

If par is set according to the definition, we will not have the problems of too-far under scores. If par is set so that birdies are always possible - or worse, expected - we will continue to have the problem; no matter the size of the basket nor the amount of OB.

Whatever the target is, if par is set correctly there will always be holes where no player scores lower than the expected score with errorless play. Partly because par is a good score: it is tough to beat errorless play by an expert. Partly because some events will not have any experts playing.

So, there is no minimum percentage of birdies that should cause par to ratchet up.

There is a maximum percentage of birdies where par should be bumped down. If there were so many birdies that birdie became expected, then par should be lower. Par is the expected score, not birdie. It's in the rules.

Whether a hole offers no chance at birdie is a good hole or not is another question. Not for this thread.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Billyray

My issue is that making birdies isn't the goal of the game. The goal is to shoot the least amount of shots. No matter the size of the baskets, where ob is, how easy or hard the holes are.....end of the day we see who's best because they took less shots.

If viewership or popularity were going down this conversation makes sense. However disc golf is in a massive boom, so why change anything? Please answer without using "I like", "I prefer", etc. Give me a real answer using facts to prove why disc golf needs to be changed.

The polls indicate that the vast majority (83%) prefer to not see or play on artificial OB or raised basket layouts. So the current trend is not the popular trend. I'm sure ball golf was growing in the 1700's too. Just because a sport is growing doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made to keep up with the progression of discs and player skill.

We use the same size basket from the 70's. In fact it's bigger and catches more off center putts. Which directly correlates to too easy holes that are in the open and too hard holes in the woods because designers realize that having a decent percentage land in circle 1 will result in a hole thats also too easy. So it goes the other way.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Steve West

If par is set according to the definition, we will not have the problems of too-far under scores. If par is set so that birdies are always possible - or worse, expected - we will continue to have the problem; no matter the size of the basket nor the amount of OB.

Whatever the target is, if par is set correctly there will always be holes where no player scores lower than the expected score with errorless play. Partly because par is a good score: it is tough to beat errorless play by an expert. Partly because some events will not have any experts playing.

So, there is no minimum percentage of birdies that should cause par to ratchet up.

There is a maximum percentage of birdies where par should be bumped down. If there were so many birdies that birdie became expected, then par should be lower. Par is the expected score, not birdie. It's in the rules.

Whether a hole offers no chance at birdie is a good hole or not is another question. Not for this thread.

Par is just a symptom of the problem. Putting is too easy so thus par is too easy. It's really that simple.

[txmxer]

Originally Posted by Jay Dub

My issue is the fact you admitted in public (these forums) you do not know the meaning of the word mistake. Spin it anyway you want that's all I was replying to.

No, I am trying to understand the definition of PAR as given previously. It is dependent on the word errorless which then needs to be defined. You then used the word mistake.

So, you keep offering words that have no inherent definition themselves.

All I’m trying to get to something meaningful and you apparently have nothing substantive to offer. Not sure why you replied at all, but obviously any further comment is likely to equally meaningless as you have chosen to focus on me rather than the meaning of PAR.

[Jay Dub]

Originally Posted by txmxer

No, I am trying to understand the definition of PAR as given previously. It is dependent on the word errorless which then needs to be defined. You then used the word mistake.

So, you keep offering words that have no inherent definition themselves.

All I’m trying to get to something meaningful and you apparently have nothing substantive to offer. Not sure why you replied at all, but obviously any further comment is likely to equally meaningless as you have chosen to focus on me rather than the meaning of PAR.

Are all you Texas people a holes?

I know the meaning of par and think this discussion is nuts. But keep acting like your solving some huge issue inside of disc golf, it'll keep you occupied and out of trouble.

[txmxer]

Originally Posted by Jay Dub

Are all you Texas people a holes?

I know the meaning of par and think this discussion is nuts. But keep acting like your solving some huge issue inside of disc golf, it'll keep you occupied and out of trouble.

I don’t think there is a huge problem. I was reading back a few pages and saw all Steve’s stats and charts and got a little dizzy. (That’s a joke BTW).

As a novice to DG, and particularly the formal/rules side, of m amazed at how poorly the rules are written which results in so many of these discussions/debates. In all my years of playing sports, I’ve never experienced so many making so much out of so little.

Anyway Mr. Pot, everyone on the internet has the potential to seem like an a hole to someone else.
Signed, Mr. kettle

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

Par is just a symptom of the problem. Putting is too easy so thus par is too easy. It's really that simple.

Seeing too many scores lower than par is purely and only a symptom of setting par in a way that is different than the definition.

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.

I know you skipped that quote, so go back and read it. Slowly. Aloud. Put an emphasis on all the words that being with "e". Mull it over.

Consider what happens when par is set according to the definition. There can't be too many scores under par because most players cannot play better than an expert who is making no errors.

[Karl]

That IS the definition, but perhaps it has so many words in it that are "open to interpretation" (my thoughts...perhaps not yours) that a different definition is in order.

[teemkey]

The phrase "as determined by the director" means there's only one interpretation for any one tournament.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by Karl

That IS the definition, but perhaps it has so many words in it that are "open to interpretation" (my thoughts...perhaps not yours) that a different definition is in order.

Par is not very precise, nor is it rare. It is a big target. It is a multiple-choice question. We can hit the right par almost all the time with just about any reasonable interpretation of those terms.

I've talked to many TD's about pars on individual holes. I can't recall a single discussion where differing interpretations of those terms has been the cause of disagreement. Usually, the TD made a rational decision to depart from the part before the comma.

Which is OK; TDs can make whatever decisions they want to make an event better or easier to run. The price of those departures is par problems, but sometimes that's a lower price than whatever else would need to happen to set par according to the definition.

I wouldn't mind if a more precise definition came along, but the current wording is working just fine whenever TDs decide to use the part before the comma.