Disc Golf Course Review TAP or DOP instead of Par?
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#1
08-15-2013, 10:25 AM
 Dave242 * Ace Member * Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lake Forest, IL Years Playing: 23.4 Courses Played: 383 Throwing Style: LHBH Posts: 4,505 Niced 6 Times in 5 Posts
TAP or DOP instead of Par?

All the talk of scores like -90 at Worlds got me thinking that we need to just ditch the term Par in our game……and I was going to jump in and suggest that. But that is a losing battle even if it is needed. That will never happen.....nor will coming up with a standard universally agreed upon and applied definition.

So, instead of ditching Par, I think we need another measure to communicate to DGers what Par essentially communicates to BGers.

What we are essentially interested in when looking at a score is knowing 1) how many Drives the course designer intended for an expert to get into the 10M circle (and if they player achieved that), and 2) if they made their Putt.
So, we should measure that. Let’s have a term/stat that measures that.

Here are the terms I thought of (exact term is up for grabs):
DOP – Drives and One Putt
TAP – Throws And one Putt
POT – Putt Once and Throws
POD – Putt Once and Drives

If we only count “Drives” that might be confusing on some holes where the designer has intended an expert to land say 100’ short of the basket…..then is the upshot a Drive? Doesn’t feel like a Drive! That hole would be a DOP-2. Course DOP very would rarely be achieved and basically never broken (to go under DOP you would need all Birdies and at least one legit Eagle - in today’s terms).

So, TAP would count the Drive, the Upshot, and one Putt. That hole would be a TAP-3 hole. TAP measures perfect play as intended by the designer.

I prefer TAP to DOP……but POT is the best term in that is specifies ONE putt (the clear differentiator to most people’s concept of Par). But, DG already has more POT than is needed. TOP would also work, but just does not sound right to me.
#2
08-15-2013, 10:34 AM
 DeadEye Double Eagle Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: On the course Courses Played: 43 Posts: 1,628 Niced 1 Time in 1 Post

This thread isn't up to par.

Cwutididthere?
#3
08-15-2013, 10:38 AM
 UTTERBACK Eagle Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Omaha, NE Years Playing: 7.5 Courses Played: 41 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 512 Niced 2 Times in 2 Posts

This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd like to see a course par established without individual hole pars. Say a course is par 60 and leave it at that. If this type of thing were established, you wouldn't have people arguing about what par is for certain holes. There is a course in Omaha (Hummel Park) that is listed as a par 60. I feel that it should be closer to a 57 because there are some holes (hole #10) that are called par fours even though a well executed drive can leave a drop in deuce. To me, that is a par 3, but because it's one of the longer holes on the course and rarely two'd, people say it's a par 4. If hole pars were dropped, we could combine some strokes on those tweener holes everyone argues about and simply apply one number to all 18 holes. For example, say there are four holes like the one I mentioned that are arguably a par 3.5. If we put them into a single course par, we could say that those four holes should take 14 strokes. Odds are you're going to three a couple and four a couple. This is a horrible mess of ideas I've rambled out, but I think it kind of gets the point across.
#4
08-15-2013, 10:40 AM
 sneakytiki Birdie Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Central CT Years Playing: 15.5 Courses Played: 15 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 442 Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts

Why not keep the term par but define it as you are defining it? I think those acronyms sound silly.
#5
08-15-2013, 10:40 AM
 BogeyNoMore * Ace Member * Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Walled Lake, MI Years Playing: 13.4 Courses Played: 242 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 8,313 Niced 460 Times in 287 Posts

DOP: no - too close to dope, and not all shots are drives.
POD: no - that's a group of whales
POT: no - too much of that on the course already
TAP: makes sense, but honestly: isn't that how we should define PAR, since it's deeply ingrained in the lexicon of the game and not going away?

I see no problem with PAR = number of good shots needed to reach the circle + 1 putt.
Issue: by that definition, a lot of holes would actually be Par 2's.

Those are my thoughts. Sorry if they don't add much.

Last edited by BogeyNoMore; 08-15-2013 at 10:44 AM.
#6
08-15-2013, 10:47 AM
 Rockwell Birdie Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Years Playing: 11.5 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 294 Niced 11 Times in 7 Posts

Do we want perfect play to be -18 or Even? The -90 turns heads and raises questions, but it was the best player in the world over 135 holes.
#7
08-15-2013, 10:48 AM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 22.3 Courses Played: 124 Posts: 12,826 Niced 556 Times in 324 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by UTTERBACK This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd like to see a course par established without individual hole pars.
SSA serves this purpose on courses that don't change much for tournaments, or week-to-week.
#8
08-15-2013, 10:48 AM
 _MTL_ I think I'm important Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Raleigh, NC Years Playing: 24.4 Courses Played: 125 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 2,485 Niced 221 Times in 147 Posts

The more we get away from mainstream golf terms, the more difficult it is for our sport to go mainstream.
#9
08-15-2013, 10:50 AM
 tarel Double Eagle Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lehigh Valley Years Playing: 8.4 Courses Played: 53 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 1,286 Niced 1 Time in 1 Post

Can we use A2M or DVDA in DG please?

#10
08-15-2013, 10:52 AM
 bnbanbury Eagle Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: richmond,va/ north east, md Courses Played: 62 Posts: 724 Niced 140 Times in 49 Posts

I think one of the problems with the scores that are silly under par is that people are looking at par the way it is laid out in the op, that is to say they look at how many shots it takes to get to the circle. The problem is that few of the expert players miss anything from in the circle. Many people have suggested smaller targets as a way to protect par, as 25' putts are automatic for many expert players. I think another thing to consider is expanding the definition of where the "putting green" is. For expert players i think a par 4 can be a hole in which 2 good shots leaves you a 40'-60' look for a birdie instead of two good shots getting you inside the circle.

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home General Disc Golf Discussions     DGCR Announcements & News     General Disc Golf Chat     Newbie Intros and Q&A     Disc Golf Courses         Course Design         Course Development         Course Maint. & Equipment     Tournaments & Leagues         TD's Corner         LC's Corner     Rules Questions & Discussion     Hole of the Day Improve Your Game     Technique & Strategy     Form Analysis/Critique     Bag Suggestions & Feedback Equipment     Bags / Carts / Straps / Tags     Discs     Other Gear     Disc Dyeing Travel & Meets     Vacations & Road Trips     DGCR Meets     DGCR Travel Tags DGCR Commerce     The Marketplace     The Flea Market DGCR Sponsors & Vendors     DGCR Sponsors & Vendors     Commercial Marketplace Pro Blogs     Back on the Road Again w/ Dave Feldberg

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 PM.

 -- Default Style -- Mobile Style Contact Us - Archive - Top