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
  #3811  
Old 07-03-2019, 08:07 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,983
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

Not a bad job setting par at 2019 PDGA Professional Masters Disc Golf World Championships Driven By Innova.

I'm especially pleased the the single par 5 was legit.

There was no Open division, but MP40 is good enough to use the Gold tees and gold pars.

Par for the gold courses was appropriate for a 975-rated player. At least the Gold courses weren’t using Blue, White or Red par. But still, being just two parlecules off adds up to 10 throws over 5 rounds.



Here are the histograms for the 6 holes I would like to see changed.

Attached Images
File Type: png SmugPMW2019.png (46.6 KB, 131 views)
File Type: png SmugFixers.png (74.6 KB, 131 views)
Sponsored Links

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
  #3812  
Old 07-05-2019, 01:49 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,983
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

I’m re-thinking my cutoff percentage. I want to test it against the larger number of newer scoring distributions I have now.

My question to all is:

What’s the best way to evaluate how well any method of setting par is doing its job? NOT what the definition should be, but how do we know par is doing what we want par to do?
Reply With Quote
  #3813  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:22 PM
gdub58 gdub58 is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cincinnati
Years Playing: 11.2
Courses Played: 133
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 494
Niced 58 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I’m re-thinking my cutoff percentage. I want to test it against the larger number of newer scoring distributions I have now.

My question to all is:

What’s the best way to evaluate how well any method of setting par is doing its job? NOT what the definition should be, but how do we know par is doing what we want par to do?
As I said a few hundred pages ago, the question should not be focused on whether par is doing its job. The issue has always been whether the design of a hole creates a scoring distribution where a good par can be assigned. Your data simply shows that some holes can't have a good par because they are poorly designed.

As this thread has become little more than you displaying scoring data in a variety of ways, I would like to see you make suggestions as to how the hole design can be changed to make the scoring distribution more appropriate for a particular par. Those changes may be in conjunction with changing the par, or it can be a suggestion to make the hole harder or easier to bring scores in line with the current par. Doesn't matter either way. The goal should be to have a good scoring distribution around par.

So, I think the question is: "What is the range of scoring distributions that we would find acceptable?" Should we start with the notion that par should always be the most frequently achieved score, but no higher than 80%? Can we agree that the proportion of birdies should be at least 5%? 10%? And they should be no higher than say, 30%?

I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air, but I think those are the questions that we should focus on, and, once we come to a consensus on the distributions that make a well-designed hole, your analyses going forward should tell us how many holes fit the "well-designed" criteria.

Thoughts?

Reply With Quote
  #3814  
Old 07-06-2019, 01:01 AM
TAFL's Avatar
TAFL TAFL is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Kansastan
Years Playing: 34.3
Courses Played: 30
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 680
Niced 126 Times in 83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdub58 View Post
As I said a few hundred pages ago, the question should not be focused on whether par is doing its job.
I think that should be one of the first questions. That doesn't preclude others. It's just that I very much want par to do the job expected of it, which is to indicate what an expert would expect to score with errorless play.

Quote:
Your data simply shows that some holes can't have a good par because they are poorly designed.
This is also a very good question--is a hole designed well?

Quote:
So, I think the question is: "What is the range of scoring distributions that we would find acceptable?" Should we start with the notion that par should always be the most frequently achieved score, but no higher than 80%? Can we agree that the proportion of birdies should be at least 5%? 10%? And they should be no higher than say, 30%?
...
Thoughts?
Well, I'd expect par to be the most frequently achieved score among experts who play the hole, sure. I don't think any particular percentage of par scores in play would be expected, in general use. For competition purposes, I'd expect designers/TDs to want holes that provide scoring spread, so an analysis for competitive play would include that.

I also don't think there should be a minimum percentage of birdies, nor a maximum percentage of bogies, in general. Again, I can see it being a concern for scoring spread in competitive play. I certainly don't have any problem with holes being designed with that in mind.

As for percentages with competition on mind, I reckon at least half of all experts should score par, with the rest of the scores being lower or higher in roughly equal percentages for a hole to be well-designed for competitive play. A hole playing 50-60% par, 20-25% under par, and 20-25% over par seems fine to me. I also wouldn't be offended by a hole that gave up only 2% under par scores and 38% over par. (I'm not a competitive player, though, so my ideas of suitable scoring spread may not match those of competitive pros.)
Reply With Quote
  #3815  
Old 07-06-2019, 01:04 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,983
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdub58 View Post
As I said a few hundred pages ago, the question should not be focused on whether par is doing its job. The issue has always been whether the design of a hole creates a scoring distribution where a good par can be assigned. Your data simply shows that some holes can't have a good par because they are poorly designed.

As this thread has become little more than you displaying scoring data in a variety of ways, I would like to see you make suggestions as to how the hole design can be changed to make the scoring distribution more appropriate for a particular par. Those changes may be in conjunction with changing the par, or it can be a suggestion to make the hole harder or easier to bring scores in line with the current par. Doesn't matter either way. The goal should be to have a good scoring distribution around par.

So, I think the question is: "What is the range of scoring distributions that we would find acceptable?" Should we start with the notion that par should always be the most frequently achieved score, but no higher than 80%? Can we agree that the proportion of birdies should be at least 5%? 10%? And they should be no higher than say, 30%?

I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air, but I think those are the questions that we should focus on, and, once we come to a consensus on the distributions that make a well-designed hole, your analyses going forward should tell us how many holes fit the "well-designed" criteria.

Thoughts?
There is no connection between “good” distributions and easy-to-set par.

For one thing, I’m only looking at the scores of exactly 1000-rated players. The perfectly performing hole would give a certain percent of 1000-rated players a lower score and the rest a score of one more. Either score could be the more frequent one. There is no need for a third score on the other side of the most frequent score.

Also, a hole that did give out a nice bell-shaped set of scores to the exactly 1000-rated players might give out the same bell shape to all players. That wouldn’t measure skill at all.

So, it is not possible to look at the scoring distributions I use to set par and see whether a hole is well-designed. Different kind of scoring distribution.

Even if we were to forget about par and look at scoring distributions across a range of ratings (or performances), there is no mathematical reason I know of which would tell us that a distribution of 10/60/30 is better than 60/30/10 or 30/10/60. They all chop the list of competitors into three ranked pieces of the same sizes. The number of different scores given across a range of skill levels matters, but not the ordering of the frequency of each score.

In fact, the interplay between various orderings of frequency will enhance the score-setting abilities of combinations of holes. Three perfect holes with 10/60/30 x 2, 3, 4 distributions will only give out 3 scores: 6, 9, and 12. But, three holes with the three different scoring distributions above would give out scores of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The diversity is good, not any one particular nice-looking distribution.

Even if you prefer the bell-shaped curve for scores, a good hole would generate a shifting bell curve with the peak moving to higher scores as player skills get worse. At some points along this continuum, there will be a double peak, and at some points the second-most common score will be lower than the most common, and at other points the second-most common score will be higher than the most common one. It’s just not possible for a hole that measures skill to give a nice bell-shaped curve with a prominent peak in the middle to every different skill level.

Having said all that, I will take your suggestion that a good par should have some scores below and above it. Take it one step further – there should be just as many scores above par as below – and we get back to the idea that a birdie should count for just as much as a bogey. So, one test will be how well the pars do this.

As for figuring out how to adjust the hole to get a desired scoring distribution, that’s a few steps harder than computing par, so I’d only do that for specific holes on request. Anyway, it is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread’s goal is to assign the most useful par to every possible hole.
Reply With Quote
  #3816  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:12 AM
Jukeshoe's Avatar
Jukeshoe Jukeshoe is offline
<------ [YOUR AD HERE]
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Ethersphere
Years Playing: 10.2
Courses Played: 220
Posts: 7,556
Niced 166 Times in 89 Posts
Default

Seriously, though, can't we just designate them all Par 3's and call it a day?


Niced: (4)
Reply With Quote
  #3817  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:18 AM
Jukeshoe's Avatar
Jukeshoe Jukeshoe is offline
<------ [YOUR AD HERE]
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Ethersphere
Years Playing: 10.2
Courses Played: 220
Posts: 7,556
Niced 166 Times in 89 Posts
Default

Also, with all due respect, what the **** is a "parlecule"?

Seriously.

Quit trying to make up new terms such as "heroic" throws and "parlecules" and figuring out "perfect" throws and just go toss some frisbees through the woods and relaaaax, man.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3818  
Old 07-08-2019, 12:16 AM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 556
Niced 160 Times in 107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdub58 View Post
As I said a few hundred pages ago, the question should not be focused on whether par is doing its job. The issue has always been whether the design of a hole creates a scoring distribution where a good par can be assigned. Your data simply shows that some holes can't have a good par because they are poorly designed.
I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged.

I'm convinced all this par obsession is bad for our sport. Tournaments on open courses have become almost impossible to watch. There's so much roping in an effort to make the scoring more difficult, that all you see the top arms do is throw control shot after control shot. Personally I want to watch the big arms throw big. How many people do you think would watch the PGA tour if the courses were set up so Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson hit an iron off every tee?

You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.
Reply With Quote
  #3819  
Old 07-08-2019, 12:25 AM
ChrisWoj's Avatar
ChrisWoj ChrisWoj is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Years Playing: 14.7
Courses Played: 144
Posts: 950
Niced 278 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged.
I think that should come from the opinions of the target group of players. If you're targeting 1000 rated players, it comes from their feels on it. If your target group is yourself, on your own property - that's where that comes from.

That can also be useful, it can help you understand, for example, what sort of hole metrics or combinations of metrics result in positive feedback from players. You can do propensity score matching when holes are changed to see if they're likely to result in positive or negative feedback from the target group of players.
Reply With Quote
 

  #3820  
Old 07-08-2019, 12:41 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.5
Courses Played: 365
Posts: 4,983
Niced 1,691 Times in 831 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged.

I'm convinced all this par obsession is bad for our sport. Tournaments on open courses have become almost impossible to watch. There's so much roping in an effort to make the scoring more difficult, that all you see the top arms do is throw control shot after control shot. Personally I want to watch the big arms throw big. How many people do you think would watch the PGA tour if the courses were set up so Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson hit an iron off every tee?

You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.
That's kind of the opposite of my obsession with par. I say just set the par to match the scores the hole generates. Most holes wouldn't need any change, a few would need a lower par, and even fewer would need a higher par.

You can have ball golf like scoring (relative to par) on any kind of holes - good, bad, easy, difficult, boring, or exciting - by merely setting par according to the definition. Nothing about getting par correct requires roping or any other kind of extra punishment.

Niced: (1)
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 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.