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
  #1711  
Old 09-20-2017, 05:09 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 499
Niced 128 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
BTW, now the argument is that the USGA would calculate ratings based on the numbers and how scratch players play, but they wouldn't calculate par based on that. Boy, those golf guys are an interesting bunch...
Just to be fair, you're the ones that changed the argument from how the PDGA defines par to how ball golf defines par. I personally don't see how any of it is very relevant.

The real argument should be: Is the current PDGA definition of "errorless play allowing 2 shots from close range" stupid for disc golf? (assuming people have gotten over the surprisingly difficult hurdle of accepting that's actually what it says)
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #1712  
Old 09-20-2017, 05:10 PM
PMantle's Avatar
PMantle PMantle is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alexandria, La.
Years Playing: 6.3
Courses Played: 48
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,676
Niced 592 Times in 419 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
The real argument should be: Is the current PDGA definition of "errorless play allowing 2 shots from close range" stupid for disc golf? (assuming people have gotten over the surprisingly difficult hurdle of accepting that's actually what it says)
Reply With Quote
  #1713  
Old 09-20-2017, 05:30 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,242
Niced 2,058 Times in 981 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
The real argument should be: Is the current PDGA definition of "errorless play allowing 2 shots from close range" stupid for disc golf? (assuming people have gotten over the surprisingly difficult hurdle of accepting that's actually what it says)
I think so and said so, a thousand or so posts back.

The lack of definition of "expert", "errorless play", and most particularly "close range" causes much grief.

Though I note that you're not citing the PDGA definition---just part of it. Conspicuously missing is the "expected score" part. Many of us think that's what the definition should say. Some think that's what it does (with the implication that "close range" is the range from which 2 throws are expected).
Reply With Quote
  #1714  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:36 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.5
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,309
Niced 1,074 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
…Steve isn't doing regression analysis, he's doing simple averages of expert players to determine how many throws they take to hole out on a given hole, rounding to the nearest number and calling that par.
No, that’s not what I’m doing at all. Par is not average.

As for all that stuff about ball golf: don't know, don't care. We have a definition, it doesn't matter what they do.
Reply With Quote
  #1715  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:37 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.5
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,309
Niced 1,074 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
…Essentially what Steve is calculating is the disc golf equivalent to ball golf course rating, not ball golf par.
No, that’s not what I’m doing either. That might be true if I were using the average, but I don’t.

To illustrate, I’m finding that an Even Par round (when based on the data of 1000-rated players) can be rated from 987 to 1038.

The course where a par round is rated 1038 has a lot of punishment for, and opportunities to make, errors. Those average-boosting features don't factor into par.
Reply With Quote
  #1716  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:45 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.5
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,309
Niced 1,074 Times in 561 Posts
Default

teemkey Nice post #1700, I’ll address each point. I have to leave out your quotes, it was causing an error.

I did have to make a pick out of thin air for “expert”, but I like my choice.
My method does “eliminate” scores from players whose ratings are far from 1000. A simple way to do this is just restrict the range of players that go into the calculations. Only use players from 985 to 1030 (if that averages out to a 1000 rating), for example. For most tournaments, using all the top players and go as far down into the ratings as you need to in order to get an average of 1000 is a practical way to do it.

The way my spreadsheet does it is to assign weights to players, with bigger weights given to players rated near 1000. It’s easier to automate the process that way. Also, if a 1031 rated player gets a 2, then that indicates that there is at least the possibility that a 1000-rated player could get a 2 – but maybe not likely.

However, because I am looking at the frequency of getting each different score, any method of selecting a group of players with an average rating of 1000 will work just fine.

The part after “Either way” is not a concern. If I understand what you are saying, you think that I am missing the data that would go into the player rating if the player rating was updated after each round. So? I also don’t have data on the rounds they’ve played since the last ratings update. I define the Expert as a player who is rated 1000 going into the tournament, so I don’t need that data anyway.

Besides, player ratings won’t change much, and the average ratings of the players in the mix will really not change much. Even if I did define the expert as someone who will be rated 1000 after the round is over, the chance that I would miss hitting the right number (2, 3, 4, or 5) because of that missing data is really, really, really small.

This is why what I do is one method of setting par, not a replacement for the definition. I think it is the method that stays closest to the definition, but it can’t become the definition for this very reason.

When there are no 1000-rated players in the data, they shouldn’t use Gold Par, and they shouldn’t be playing in a division that is for the top players. There’s a list of appropriately rated “experts” for each division. 925 for FPO, for example.

(What happens a lot is that a tournament will offer an MPO division with no players above 970. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not a par problem, it’s a result of the nonsensical division between so-called Pro and so-called Am. If we’re going to keep pretending 823 rated 39-year old players are Pros, we should at least offer different levels of Pro divisions.)

But, I digress. When there isn’t enough data, you can use any of the other methods of setting par (like the PDGA Chart). Or, it is possible to extrapolate what the scoring distribution would be for 1000-rated players from what it actually was for lower-rated players.


True, but true for all statistics everywhere. I do calculate confidence intervals around the results, but for a big tournament they hardly ever overlap into a different par. Most common is for holes to be “maybe 2” as a result of less data.

Besides, since the results are just a tool for TDs to look at, human judgement can catch any holes that produced weird results as a result of random variation.

Again, though, the results of the current round and the par do not go into the calculation of player rating, so the tautology thing doesn’t apply.


It’s not just “errorless play”, it’s “would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play”.

If a player plays the hole errorlessly, sure, they might get a 1 every now and then, but they don’t expect it.

As for the laying up vs. going for it, presumably there is an optimal strategy which predominates, especially for such a narrow range of skill. If not, this could be a good example of where TD judgement comes into play. If the TD set up a hole to encourage safe play to guaranteed a 3, but all the players go for it and get mostly 4s, the TD could still say “It’s a par 3 dammit – everybody is just playing it wrong”.


I agree, not absolutely definitive. But, a lot closer to absolutely definitive than what I’m guessing you mean by “moot”.


Yep.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #1717  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:19 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 499
Niced 128 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
I think so and said so, a thousand or so posts back.

The lack of definition of "expert", "errorless play", and most particularly "close range" causes much grief.

Though I note that you're not citing the PDGA definition---just part of it. Conspicuously missing is the "expected score" part. Many of us think that's what the definition should say. Some think that's what it does (with the implication that "close range" is the range from which 2 throws are expected).
I'm not going to argue the definition, it's been done ad nauseum.

I will just say that by not considering both "close range par" and "steve's par" you legitimize garbage holes. Aside from the iconic dela par 3 (shoutout to lyle for pointing it out), I can think of no holes that can't meet the close range definition as well as scoring within +/- a half stroke of steve's calculation that aren't garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #1718  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:32 PM
Olorin's Avatar
Olorin Olorin is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fleetwood, NC
Years Playing: 39.5
Courses Played: 400
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,126
Niced 108 Times in 64 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
So what is par?
I've always wondered the same thing!

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #1719  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:52 AM
tbonesocrul tbonesocrul is offline
Bogey Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Detroit, MI
Courses Played: 63
Posts: 73
Niced 36 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
Aside from the iconic dela par 3 (shoutout to lyle for pointing it out)
I looked up some info about it. I would consider it a lightly wooded hole and its 225 ft (from Santa Cruz Masters Cup caddy book). If you factor in the elevation drop it probably plays like a 150-175 ft hole and the PDGA guidelines say its in the red zone.
Reply With Quote
 

  #1720  
Old 09-21-2017, 01:05 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.5
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,309
Niced 1,074 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonesocrul View Post
I looked up some info about it. I would consider it a lightly wooded hole and its 225 ft (from Santa Cruz Masters Cup caddy book). If you factor in the elevation drop it probably plays like a 150-175 ft hole and the PDGA guidelines say its in the red zone.
There aren't enough scores of 2 on that hole for me to call it a par 2. This case shows that there isn't that much to worry about from allowing par 2s to be labeled right. There just aren't many that can actually qualify for that label. (Hole 8a came closer, but still not par 2.)

This hole is in the fuzzy area of the guidelines, so no one should say that means it must be labeled par 2. A TD could, if they wanted.
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 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
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 01:04 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 01:33 AM.


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