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
  #2091  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:36 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.2
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 14,046
Niced 1,821 Times in 883 Posts
Default

It's irrelevant, but it matters?
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #2092  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:09 PM
Alexplz's Avatar
Alexplz Alexplz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 952
Niced 252 Times in 173 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
Par is only really needed for 2 things. Setting the penalty for being late, and making it easier to follow a tournament and for people in those tournaments knowing where they stand. Total stroke count is what really matters.
I have actually wondered this very thing when it comes to setting par. Assuming top levels of competition, are there any other rules that cause a par # to directly impact strokes?

For example, isn't there a rule where you can skip a hole and take a double bogey or something? In that case, par # would be vital to balancing that rule.

You mention the penalty for being late, which I gather is based on the par of one whole or another. Do you or anyone else have any other concrete examples?
Reply With Quote
  #2093  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:29 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.3
Courses Played: 320
Posts: 4,231
Niced 1,001 Times in 525 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Par 2 is the smallest part of it....
Based on new data, I need to back off from that statement.

I have enough data on 870 holes to compute what par would be under my method and compare it to what par was reported.

I found:

There were 90 par 3's that I would have called par 2.
There were 50 par 4's that I would have called par 3.

There were 493 par 3's that I would have called par 3.
There were 201 par 4's that I would have called par 4.

There were 24 par 3's that I would have called par 4.
There were 10 par 4's that I would have called par 5.

There was 1 par 3 that I would have called par 5.

So, as it turns out, mislabeled par 2s are a bigger contributor to the problem than I thought.

Note that the holes that I call par 2 are where at least 56.25% of 1000-rated players score either 2 or an ace. One hole had all 2s. I would find it hard to agree with anyone who thinks that none of these holes should be labeled par 2.

I wouldn't argue with anyone who said these holes shouldn't be used for Open players, or should be changed so that they are no longer par 2s. But, until that happens, I'd say we are better off coming clean and accurately labeling these holes as par 2s.

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
  #2094  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:35 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.3
Courses Played: 320
Posts: 4,231
Niced 1,001 Times in 525 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexplz View Post
I have actually wondered this very thing when it comes to setting par. Assuming top levels of competition, are there any other rules that cause a par # to directly impact strokes?

For example, isn't there a rule where you can skip a hole and take a double bogey or something? In that case, par # would be vital to balancing that rule.

You mention the penalty for being late, which I gather is based on the par of one whole or another. Do you or anyone else have any other concrete examples?
You can't just skip a hole. That would get you DQed. If you are late or absent when it's your turn to tee off, you get par plus 4. That's the only rule where par comes into play.

One other way par could possibly impact the actual score is if a player took par seriously and changed the way they play the hole because of it. But, that could result in either a higher or lower score.

Another thing that has happened is that when par is not 3 on every hole, players make more arithmetic errors and get penalized for that.
Reply With Quote
  #2095  
Old 12-14-2017, 03:20 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 29.5
Courses Played: 662
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,661
Niced 812 Times in 434 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Based on new data, I need to back off from that statement.

I have enough data on 870 holes to compute what par would be under my method and compare it to what par was reported.

I found:

There were 90 par 3's that I would have called par 2.
There were 50 par 4's that I would have called par 3.

There were 493 par 3's that I would have called par 3.
There were 201 par 4's that I would have called par 4.

There were 24 par 3's that I would have called par 4.
There were 10 par 4's that I would have called par 5.

There was 1 par 3 that I would have called par 5.

So, as it turns out, mislabeled par 2s are a bigger contributor to the problem than I thought.

Note that the holes that I call par 2 are where at least 56.25% of 1000-rated players score either 2 or an ace. One hole had all 2s. I would find it hard to agree with anyone who thinks that none of these holes should be labeled par 2.

I wouldn't argue with anyone who said these holes shouldn't be used for Open players, or should be changed so that they are no longer par 2s. But, until that happens, I'd say we are better off coming clean and accurately labeling these holes as par 2s.
No par 5s at all in your data set that you would label par 4 or would all remain par 5?
Reply With Quote
  #2096  
Old 12-14-2017, 03:42 PM
Olorin's Avatar
Olorin Olorin is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fleetwood, NC
Years Playing: 39.3
Courses Played: 393
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,126
Niced 107 Times in 64 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
Par is only really needed for 2 things. Setting the penalty for being late, and making it easier to follow a tournament and for people in those tournaments knowing where they stand. Total stroke count is what really matters.
Personally, I think that par is useful for several other reasons as well. I would encourage anyone with an open mind to check out "Why disc golf needs consistent par standards".

And while I'm at it I will also point out other resources about par:

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #2097  
Old 12-14-2017, 04:04 PM
Lazerface Lazerface is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Courses Played: 4
Posts: 678
Niced 283 Times in 155 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidewinder22 View Post
Horse hockey. You must be talking about some really dinky holes if there is no scoring separation above and below "par".

In ball golf, par is determined by the reasonably expected number of strokes for an accomplished golfer to get to the green plus 2 putts. In disc golf our accomplished players just putt on easier greens and have better motor control without having to interface with a club.

The only thing that "par 2" really does other than inflating birdie is help out players that miss holes in tournaments.
I don't know, I think you are conflating. Yes, in ball golf par HAPPENS to be determined by the reasonably expected number of strokes for an accomplished golfer to get to the green plus 2 putts. Just because our game plays differently does not mean you get to change the definition/purpose of PAR. We have PAR 2s, by definition.

It's funny because if you look really far back in this thread I had the exact same opinion as you. From my personal understanding of PAR, and IMO along with the majority of players and spectators I thought it was a ridiculous idea to have to explain to someone that an hole in one is a "birdie", or a throw in from 150 on an easy PAR 4 was not an "eagle". I thought how PAR related to game play in disc golf (Green + 1 putt) was more important than the actual definition. But at some point Steve/Lyle/David (freaking PAR purist) got me convinced that it is much more valuable to have PAR mean something. As it stands in disc golf it means nothing. I won't get into the why since there is plenty of that in the thread.


But her I go again imagining I'm standing next to some non disc-golfer and having to explain a PAR 2 and him looking at me like I'm a moron. I don't know maybe SW is right.....

Mr. Decisive
Reply With Quote
  #2098  
Old 12-14-2017, 04:15 PM
brutalbrutus's Avatar
brutalbrutus brutalbrutus is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the nati
Years Playing: 8.1
Courses Played: 52
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,483
Niced 1,992 Times in 1,140 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
It's irrelevant, but it matters?
Yes. Its irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and yes it matters because you are trying to change it.

BTW, If you go look at the PDGA event list a lot of the events don't even have an under/over score listed when they go official.


I'm done, you guys can go on with your experiment. It is a hollow pursuit that means nothing. I'm gonna have fun playing everything as par3 and feel good when I get a bird. I will also feel good about getting pars on some holes, and feel bad about not getting birds on others. Its part of the game. Par2 is not.

Good day.
Reply With Quote
  #2099  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:34 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.3
Courses Played: 320
Posts: 4,231
Niced 1,001 Times in 525 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
No par 5s at all in your data set that you would label par 4 or would all remain par 5?
I have data on 90 holes labeled par 5 (and one par 6). None of them came through the computations with enough rounds of data, which doesn't sound right. Perhaps I was too anxious to post after days of calculations.

The ones that came through looked OK, but stay tuned. If there was an error, it could mean par 2s are as rare as I thought.
Reply With Quote
 

  #2100  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:24 PM
Alobar Alobar is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE PA
Years Playing: 6.2
Courses Played: 46
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 124
Niced 35 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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.
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 05:13 PM.


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