2017 Aussie Open DGWT Event Discussion

[ejvogie]

Everyone seems to think we need to change everything else to get scores to par. We don't. We just need to honestly apply the actual, current, official definition.

Whatever the course is like, there is a correct level of par: "As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out."

Subtract penalties and other errors from an Expert's score, and an even par round should be rated pretty high, not 977.

Even more basic: as a way of keeping track of performance, it's less complicated if a birdie fully offsets a bogey. For that to happen even par has to be among the scores that pay out.

That's where par needs to be, no matter how hard or easy or open or wooded the course, and no matter how small the baskets.

And that's enough about the theory of par for this thread.

That said, if you follow the rules, you're gonna get par 2 holes. And I suspect peer pressure means par 2 holes would get modified post haste.

I get that they're professionals, but 280' does not fit my definition of "close range". Makes both 13 and 18 a par 3 by the above definition.

 

[Flick Maniac]

18 is 2 or 4 easily, so good separation hole because of the OB. Especially as a last hole of the round (or tournament as we saw)
13 not so much, but what I like about it is that is follows the hardest hole on the course. First struggle to get par and then a must get. They also said in the video that you are throwing a lot of longrange shots before that so even though its short and easy, it is a change in rhythm and hard to gauge the shot after going full out for a while. Of course for pros it should be automatic.

 

[Smigles]

We could avoid so much of this par discussion if we just left that ball-golf concept with ball-golf.

The winner is the person with least throws at the end of the event. Lets just count throws.

 

[Steve West]

I get that they're professionals, but 280' does not fit my definition of "close range". Makes both 13 and 18 a par 3 by the above definition.

If it's not close range how come so many experts are getting 2s?

280 is pushing the envelope of what could be called close range, and I wouldn't assign a par of 2 to holes that length unless I had many rounds of scores that show that enough 2s are happening to become as nearly as possible to being equally as expected as the 3s and 4s on holes with those pars.

For 13, the hole is a shape that is known to lower scores because it fits a RHBH hyzer. So it's easier than a typical hole of that length and elevation.

18 has barely enough 2s to qualify for par 2 status, but the next-best candidate for par on that hole is 4 (because more 1000-rated players got 4 than 3). Is any expert stepping up and saying "i expect a 4 on this hole with errorless play"? No. Likewise, I don't see how any expert could step up to that hole and think "I expect a 3 with errorless play" - because so few experts actually get a 3. So I would call it a par 2.

Like a lot of par 2s, it would be one of the toughest holes to par, but I think that mental pressure might help make a short hole more exciting.

Anyway, I'm not too worried about the TDs that don't want to call a par 2 a par 2. The bigger problem with par being too high results from the tendency to bump up par on the holes that are nearly par 4 or 5, but not quite.

 

[Consult20]

Has the idea of specifically defining "close range" ever been considered?

 

[lyleoross]

We could avoid so much of this par discussion if we just left that ball-golf concept with ball-golf.

The winner is the person with least throws at the end of the event. Lets just count throws.

You have to have some measure of the difficulty of a hole, for players and especially for potential fans. Par is well established and the norm. If you created something else, casual observers, like the Adidas rep who's gonna be at Gentleman's will ask, why not use par?

To be clear, the PDGA, Innova, Discraft, Latitude etc. have worked really hard to get non disc golf sponsors. And now Innova and Paul McB have done that. Our presentation as a sport needs to be as digestible, that is, friendly, as possible.

 

[lyleoross]

I get that they're professionals, but 280' does not fit my definition of "close range". Makes both 13 and 18 a par 3 by the above definition.

I'm gonna be dumb and try and add to what Steve said. 280 is long for me, and even for most advance players. At gentleman's next week, there will be thirty 1,000 or higher rated pros. For them, 280 in the open is a warm up. At what point to we start thinking about tailoring our majors to that quality of player? That's what every other sport does.

 

[Smigles]

You have to have some measure of the difficulty of a hole, for players and especially for potential fans. Par is well established and the norm. If you created something else, casual observers, like the Adidas rep who's gonna be at Gentleman's will ask, why not use par?

Par in disc golf is not normed and not well established. Par is pretty much whatever the course designer wants it to be. It is unfortunately not at all a measure for difficulty. That's why we keep having these discussions.

 

[Steve West]

Par in disc golf is not normed and not well established. Par is pretty much whatever the course designer wants it to be. It is unfortunately not at all a measure for difficulty. That's why we keep having these discussions.

For tournaments, especially larger tournaments, par is getting to be more and more standardized. Give it a couple of more years before abandoning the whole idea.

Course signs will take longer, as physical changes need to be made. Targeting different skill levels at different courses or different tees explains the wide variation in pars you are seeing. At some point most courses you play will indicate the skill level of the par on the tee signs. Then you'll be glad you weren't able to kill par.

Par as a concept will always be useful and important. But we do need to leave the golf ball golf particular definition of par (strokes to the green plus two) behind to get disc golf par.

 

[Smigles]

For tournaments, especially larger tournaments, par is getting to be more and more standardized. Give it a couple of more years before abandoning the whole idea.

Course signs will take longer, as physical changes need to be made. Targeting different skill levels at different courses or different tees explains the wide variation in pars you are seeing. At some point most courses you play will indicate the skill level of the par on the tee signs. Then you'll be glad you weren't able to kill par.

Par as a concept will always be useful and important. But we do need to leave the golf ball golf particular definition of par (strokes to the green plus two) behind to get disc golf par.

Funny I wanted to add that I agree with the pars that Jussi sets up for his high calibre tournaments.

The "strokes to the green + 2" mentality is 100% from ball golf where putting is much harder. In ball golf you also have hardly anyone who plays under par for a whole event.

To put that in context, if we go for "strokes to the green +1" instead of +2, Paul McBeths best rated round ever in disc golf history (-17) would still be a +1 round... Gonna be hard to sell that to players.

 

[Flick Maniac]

Oh my god I seem to be wading into a par discussion... Trouble is with numbers having to be even (and not 2,8 for example which would be horrible), but they got to be something. To me par 2 does not exist really. Our local course has a downhill about 200ft hole (with a tricky sloped green though) and the next is a almost 400ft tunnel shot rising to the right at the end. Both are par 3. Yet no one would expect the scores to be same for both. Its just that the first isnt quite a 2 and the next not quite a 4. Both are good holes though and are in no need to be changed just to better hit a whole number for par.

 

[lyleoross]

Par in disc golf is not normed and not well established. Par is pretty much whatever the course designer wants it to be. It is unfortunately not at all a measure for difficulty. That's why we keep having these discussions.

Instead of pointing out that you both ignored the point I made and misconstrued the argument, I'll address the alternate points you've now raised.

Par is the norm, so much so that there has never been an event in our sport without it. The real issue is that TDs use par correctly in all instances but one. Par 2. They work hard using strategies laid out many times by Chuck And Steve to get par 5, par 4 and real par 3 holes correct. The one place they don't is on par 2 holes. For some reason those holes always end up as par 3s. Can't figure out why? Hmm, maybe because our culture as a whole would view them as... sub-par?

You are correct. There is no formal rule for establishing par. That is the real debate here. Should there be?

 

[JTacoma03]

Nice work overall The SpinTV and the event organizers. Just finished watching the final round. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Well edited, and nicely called. Total of one hour time investment is totally doable. I enjoyed watching the players navigate this course and seeing the shots it required.

Crazy how easy those guys make it look.


Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but is Jamie commenting already having known what happens? Must be right?

Cheers

...and the honest answer is "sometimes" - this time around I didn't know. I didn't go down under, and I stayed off social media. If I'm working the event itself, and I'm not filming (i.e. I've hired Jomez or CCDG) then I will obviously have learned the scores, but I don't know how they happen. If I'm filming...you get the picture.

My commentary is a big experiment. It always has been, I slightly tweak or change up what I do almost every event, then try to gauge reactions.

I know that the closer I get to my goals with SpinTV, the less I'll be in front of the camera/mic. I'm totally content with that, because it means we're bringing in professionals for every role. I'm just trying to build the foundation for longterm success so all of my media people can make a living doing this full time.

Sorry...bit tangential there.

 

[DavidSauls]

It would be interesting to me if someone, for one of these high-level tours only, implemented their own standard for "par" that more closely reflects that the top players are actually scoring. Rather than dealing with the entire range of disc golf events and courses, just DGPT or DGWT or NT Par.

 

[Steve West]

Funny I wanted to add that I agree with the pars that Jussi sets up for his high calibre tournaments.

The "strokes to the green + 2" mentality is 100% from ball golf where putting is much harder. In ball golf you also have hardly anyone who plays under par for a whole event.

To put that in context, if we go for "strokes to the green +1" instead of +2, Paul McBeths best rated round ever in disc golf history (-17) would still be a +1 round... Gonna be hard to sell that to players.

Jussi does a pretty good job of setting par. Even the holes where I would set like to set par lower are on the bubble (except #13, but I can forgive any TD who wants to avoid the par 2 controversy for now). Any of the other holes could justifiably be the par Jussi set. I would just like him to step back and take a big picture look and ask if the total par of 65 really makes sense, then choose the lower par on some holes where a lower par could be justified, instead of always going for the higher par.

"Strokes to the green +1" would not be the best way to set par either, and not what I'm advocating. Again, refer to the definition in the rulebook.

Oh my god I seem to be wading into a par discussion...

Par is the next-to-last step in the de-evolution of a disc golf discussion, right before comparing someone to Hitler.

Trouble is with numbers having to be even (and not 2,8 for example which would be horrible), but they got to be something. To me par 2 does not exist really. Our local course has a downhill about 200ft hole (with a tricky sloped green though) and the next is a almost 400ft tunnel shot rising to the right at the end. Both are par 3. Yet no one would expect the scores to be same for both. Its just that the first isnt quite a 2 and the next not quite a 4. Both are good holes though and are in no need to be changed just to better hit a whole number for par.

Sure, there will be scoring variation between two holes with the same par. But, if no one expects the scores to be the same for both, should they have the same par?

Unless that tricky sloped green is so tough that an expert would lay up to avoid it, or is not able to stick the green often enough to expect it, why shouldn't that 200 foot downhill hole be a par 2?

Instead of pointing out that you both ignored the point I made and misconstrued the argument, I'll address the alternate points you've now raised.

Par is the norm, so much so that there has never been an event in our sport without it. The real issue is that TDs use par correctly in all instances but one. Par 2. They work hard using strategies laid out many times by Chuck And Steve to get par 5, par 4 and real par 3 holes correct. The one place they don't is on par 2 holes. For some reason those holes always end up as par 3s. Can't figure out why? Hmm, maybe because our culture as a whole would view them as... sub-par?

You are correct. There is no formal rule for establishing par. That is the real debate here. Should there be?

Actually, inflated pars are more a result of puffing up tough par 3s into par 4s, (and to a lesser extent, 4s to 5s) than the refusal to set par as 2 on any hole.

The formal rule for establishing par is the definition in the rules. It is based on the expected score of an expert player. Disc golf holes are too variable to have anything more formulaic or mechanical than that. And, on any course there will be a few holes where two different pars are nearly equally valid under any method.

I do think TDs should get feedback when the total par on a course used for Open play is rated less than 1000, or no one in the money was at or over par.

It would be interesting to me if someone, for one of these high-level tours only, implemented their own standard for "par" that more closely reflects that the top players are actually scoring. Rather than dealing with the entire range of disc golf events and courses, just DGPT or DGWT or NT Par.

I do think Steve Dodge and Jussi are working toward using par that more closely reflects what the top players are actually scoring. But, they haven't moved quite far enough to even get to the current definition of par yet. And that's where every tournament should be.

 

[SD86]

We could avoid so much of this par discussion if we just left that ball-golf concept with ball-golf.
The winner is the person with least throws at the end of the event. Lets just count throws.

This was discussed earlier. Relation-to-par is important because it lets people know how players are doing in relation to each other no matter what hole they're playing at the time.

If you tell me "Paul McBeth is at 40 right now."... that means absolutely nothing to me. 40 after how many holes? 10? 13? 15? And Ricky is at 36... what hole is HE on? And how is he doing relative to Paul? I *must* know more information.

But if you tell me Paul is -6 to par and Ricky is -4 to par... I can understand that even if I don't know what holes they're on. It'd be nice to know what holes they're on, but I don't have to know.

This is why Augusta National began reporting ball golf scores in relation to par, and why everyone else followed. Because it's a good idea that worked and still works.

 

[ejvogie]

If it's not close range how come so many experts are getting 2s?

I think you answered your own question there, champ.

 

[Somebody Else]

Jamie

The live scoring page for the events are great, player info and videos. I was however wondering if hole information could be added to the page. Click on the hole number and get a caddy book image of the hole. Your thoughts?

 

[Flick Maniac]

That short par 3 hole I was talking about does not have enough 2s on it in tournament setting even to merit par 2. It actually produces good variation, with even 4s if you go OB long (very long) or hit the cage on your putt and roll away again.

There are I believe 6 par 2 holes (3 different courses) in Finland I know of and they are always hotly contended. If for no other reason to avoid par 2, then to steer clear of "that reputation" for our club/course.

 

[JTacoma03]

Jamie

The live scoring page for the events are great, player info and videos. I was however wondering if hole information could be added to the page. Click on the hole number and get a caddy book image of the hole. Your thoughts?

I think it's a great idea - you mean similar to how you click on the players name and get the profile pop up? That would help both me and you!

If you're on Facebook, send it to them in a message. They're pretty responsive.