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
  #3391  
Old 12-11-2018, 05:04 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.7
Courses Played: 367
Posts: 5,054
Niced 1,754 Times in 861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
As long as dg’s putting is as easy as it presently is, the task of comparing dg par to bg par will be a futile one. The boat has long since sailed that would “equate” these two ‘pars’.
Unless one ignores both definitions, the two pars are almost exactly the same thing: basically the expected score of an expert. Use that, and everything works out fine. Plus, then it's the same as golf.

Even if we did make it so something like "two putts" was as accurate of a rule of thumb as it is for golf, disc golf holes are still so much different from each other than the "throws to get there" would not have much to do with distance anyway.

So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3392  
Old 12-11-2018, 05:21 PM
Putt for D'oh's Avatar
Putt for D'oh Putt for D'oh is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Years Playing: 4.7
Courses Played: 24
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,182
Niced 525 Times in 300 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.
So, expected score still means "expert golfer and error free" so Par would become essentially the SSE score?

I don't personally have an issue with that but does make a lot of Par 2's, which is back to that argument.
Reply With Quote
  #3393  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:37 AM
johnrhouck johnrhouck is offline
.:Master Course Designer:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin TX
Years Playing: 43.8
Posts: 616
Niced 244 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
Nothing groundbreaking going on here- Close Range with Close Range being 150. Hole is a par 3.

Thought process:
Is it longer than 150? Yes, Par>2
How constrained are the shots? Partially- Use legs of 300 feet.
How many legs of 300 to get into CR? One
Hole is a par 3.

From the scoring breakdown I was thinking it would be longer and more open than it is which would have led me to call it a 4. (Yes I am (at least mostly) of the belief that when dealing with holes which are on the cusp/not really an integral par you can have holes with the same scoring but different pars. I would love to hear John H's thoughts on that. )
John, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you men by "holes with the same scoring but different pars." Are you talking about two different holes that have the same scoring (as in, 30% threes, 60% percent fours, 10% five or worse), but one's a par three and one's a par four?

If so -- or even if not -- maybe you can give us some examples. Real examples are great when you have them, but hypothetical examples are OK, too.

As for the hole in question, it's a classic 'tweener and should absolutely be changed for Gold players. Shorter would be easy and effective; not sure if there's room to make it longer. I'd much rather argue about whether it's a duck or a goose or a sawhorse or a seahorse, but if we had to pick a par, I would say "Just fix the durn hole." Gun to my head? I guess I'd go with 3.
Reply With Quote
  #3394  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:16 AM
biscoe biscoe is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 24.7
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,812
Niced 2,338 Times in 952 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrhouck View Post
John, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you men by "holes with the same scoring but different pars." Are you talking about two different holes that have the same scoring (as in, 30% threes, 60% percent fours, 10% five or worse), but one's a par three and one's a par four?

If so -- or even if not -- maybe you can give us some examples. Real examples are great when you have them, but hypothetical examples are OK, too.
The rub is that all the examples are going to be tweeners- the ones that aren't we agree on par regardless of method used. For examples though we can use the hole which Steve brought up at Milo (where basically 80% of the scores are 3's and 20% 4's- roughly 450 feet and semi-obstructed) and the imaginary hole that scoring distribution brought to my mind which would be longer (say 600) and wide open. In my mind the former is a par 3 and the latter is a par 4 despite the scoring similarity.
Reply With Quote
  #3395  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:01 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.7
Courses Played: 367
Posts: 5,054
Niced 1,754 Times in 861 Posts
Default

Here are some examples of similar-scoring holes that were given different pars.

Code:
Course 
Hole Length Par Average 2 3 4 5 6

2016 Beaver State Fling Presented by KEEN/Milo East/N. Godbout 
08 395 3 2.98 6% 91% 4% 0% 0%
KCWO 2016/    Blue Valley DGC/ 
17 531 4 2.98 6% 90% 4% 0% 0%
         
The 20th Annual Brent Hambrick Memorial Open Presented by Discraft/Brent Hambrick Memorial DGC/Short Anchors 
27 250 3 3.17 4% 75% 20% 1% 0%
Legacy Discs Silver Cup XVI Pro Tour presented by Rollin' Ridge/Rollin' Ridge/Black to Pin C 
13 417 4 3.17 5% 75% 18% 2% 0%
         
31st Annual "Steady" Ed Memorial Masters Cup - Presented by DGA (Pro)/Dela DGC 24/Jon Baldwin Signature 
01 360 3 3.19 7% 70% 19% 4% 0%
Dynamic Discs Glass Blown Open - National Tour/Jones East/ 
05 477 4 3.19 6% 72% 20% 2% 0%
         
2007 Worlds/Granite/Only 
14 500 4 3.20 6% 74% 16% 3% 1%
31st Annual "Steady" Ed Memorial Masters Cup - Presented by DGA (Pro)/Dela DGC 24/Jon Baldwin Signature 
25 399 3 3.22 4% 75% 14% 6% 0%
In my view, it should be very rare for two holes to have the same scoring distributions but different pars for the same skill level. However, it could happen if a lot of the scores were errorful in one distribution. Say one hole is long enough to get mostly 4s with good throws, and a short hole has so much OB that most players get 4 with a penalty. The first would be a par 4, the second would be a par 3.

In the real-life examples above, I think the difference is from two causes: the TD used the course par which was not set for Gold, or the TD used a distance-based method with the parameters set too short (10m for "close range" or <400 feet for Gold driving distance).
Reply With Quote
  #3396  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:34 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.8
Courses Played: 692
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,342
Niced 1,729 Times in 791 Posts
Default

The pars for Granite (and Blueberry) in 2007 Worlds remained set for Blue level so the 3.20 scoring on a Blue Par 4 with a soft dogleg that could be "defeated" with accurate long power is not surprising. I remember hole 25 at Dela as a relatively open, uphill crunch that plays longer than 399 but certainly a par 3 for gold albeit one requiring a drive plus NAGS upshot for many.
Reply With Quote
  #3397  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:24 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.7
Courses Played: 367
Posts: 5,054
Niced 1,754 Times in 861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Putt for D'oh View Post
I’m still trying to figure all this pat stuff out but if I understand all the arguments correctly if a hole gives out 100% pars... on say a pat 3 that would mean a birdie is seemingly impossible... so shouldn’t that be a par 4 hole?
It also means a bogey is seemingly impossible... so shouldn't that be a par 2 hole?

(Spoiler, the answer is "No". To both questions.)

Quote:
811 F. 5. 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.
How does anyone get "birdies must be possible" from that?

Or, why does no one complain when bogeys are not possible?
Reply With Quote
  #3398  
Old 12-30-2018, 01:08 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.7
Courses Played: 367
Posts: 5,054
Niced 1,754 Times in 861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrhouck View Post
...So, if someone can show me a well-designed hole where par isn't clear, then that example could be instructive for all of us.
Watching Champs vs. Chumps 8 reminded me about this request and #14 at Hillcrest, where I calculate par for 950-rated players to be 6. See post #3324.

Here is the scoring distribution.



And the tee sign.

Attached Images
File Type: png HC14.png (10.3 KB, 102 views)
File Type: jpg HC14TS.jpg (66.2 KB, 102 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3399  
Old 12-30-2018, 11:13 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 557
Niced 162 Times in 108 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
So, we just go back to expected score. It works. It's only when people try to impose something other than expected score (i.e. other than the definition) that we get all tangled up in knots trying to work out a fix.
You mean like the other part of the definition: "with errorless play"?

Defining an expert is simple, you can just pick a rating appropriate to the skill level you're setting par for.

Errorless play is meaningless, just as "close range" was under the old definition. It's not defined and all it accomplishes is making you go through a bunch of unnecessary statistical rigamarole.

They got it half right when they were fixing it and got rid of "close range". Now they just need to get rid of "errorless play" and make it identical to the ball golf definition.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #3400  
Old 12-31-2018, 01:17 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.7
Courses Played: 367
Posts: 5,054
Niced 1,754 Times in 861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
You mean like the other part of the definition: "with errorless play"?

Defining an expert is simple, you can just pick a rating appropriate to the skill level you're setting par for.

Errorless play is meaningless, just as "close range" was under the old definition. It's not defined and all it accomplishes is making you go through a bunch of unnecessary statistical rigamarole.

They got it half right when they were fixing it and got rid of "close range". Now they just need to get rid of "errorless play" and make it identical to the ball golf definition.
I agree that "errorless" is the next part of the definition to target for improvement. So, let's explore that.

1. If "errorless" were not in there, what would you mean by "expected" and how do you get there without statistical rigamarole?

2. I think we may need something that golf does not have, to indicate that par is something other than average (inclusive of all bad throws). The reason we need it and golf doesn't is that disc golf has way more opportunities to tack on a whole extra throw to a player's score.

Bad tree kicks and OB penalties hardly ever happen in golf, so for golf, "expert play" is virtually the same thing as "errorless" - so they don't need to mention it.

In disc golf, even top-level experts expect to hit a few trees on wooded courses, or go OB a few times on the ropes courses. Thus, I think we need a qualifier that means something like: "but not including the scores that result from going OB or pitching out of the woods".

To me, having this type of qualifier that makes it more like golf's definition (than not having it) because golf doesn't include any bad strokes in their par.

Niced: (2)
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 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.