Another Way to Quantify “Score-ability”

[Cgkdisc]

You want 18 under to be possible? Fix the holes, don't break par.

Eighteen under only means something if it is truly eighteen throws better than expected.

As Ben Franklin might have said: "Those who would give up meaningful par, to purchase a little artificial excitement, will have neither."

The lowest score that players of a specific distance/skill level can reasonably shoot should be considered "scoring", and in the case of golf, that score is called a birdie. Par in disc golf should be defined as Birdie plus one which is parallel to ball golf. Even though they state their scoring rule in how par is set, the result of their definition is par on every hole is also birdie plus one. That definition equivalency does not currently exist in disc golf.

If the rules definition for disc golf par does not provide the ability for players of a specific distance/skill level to score/birdie on every hole, then the par definition is flawed. Simple as that.

In basketball, their implied "par" on every shot is 0 pts. "Scoring" is 1, 2 or 3 pts for a make. Even though most free throw shooters score 1 pt on more than 50% of their shots up to 90+%, the "par" on free throws is still essentially zero. Applying the current disc golf par definition to free throws, their par should technically be set at 1 pt because free throws are "so easy". Of course, this kind of statistical manipulation would make no sense to their players or fans just like the current par definition doesn't consistently support scoring on every hole.

 

[denny ritner]

If the rules definition for disc golf par does not provide the ability for players of a specific distance/skill level to score/birdie on every hole, then the par definition is flawed. Simple as that.

If you're only looking at birdies, then you're missing half the story.

Two holes:
1) 25% birdies, 75% pars
2) 25% birdies, 50% pars, 25% bogeys

Under the birdie-able test, the two holes are equally score-able, but #2 obviously offers greater opportunity to gain/lose strokes.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you're only looking at birdies, then you're missing half the story.

Two holes:
1) 25% birdies, 75% pars
2) 25% birdies, 50% pars, 25% bogeys

Under the birdie-able test, the two holes are equally score-able, but #2 obviously offers greater opportunity to gain/lose strokes.

Both holes are reasonably birdieable and par should be the same number on each one. The second one has a better scoring distribution IF it was based on skill, not longer distance and/or penalties for the player distance/skill level.

I'm not overlooking the bogey side, just that it's not relevant as it pertains to whether players at a specific distance/skill can "score". For example, a hole where the score distribution is 60% 3s and 40% 4s and called a par 4 is still better from a scoring standpoint than a hole with 60% 3s, 30% 4s and 10% 5s that's called a par 3.

 

[denny ritner]

I'm not overlooking the bogey side, just that it's not relevant as it pertains to whether players at a specific distance/skill can "score".

That's only true if you define scoring as birdying, but that throws out whether or not a two-shot swing is possible. Again, par has NOTHING to do with scoring. Scoring is beating opponents by one or more strokes on any particular hole.

 

[Steve West]

That's only true if you define scoring as birdying, but that throws out whether or not a two-shot swing is possible. Again, par has NOTHING to do with scoring. Scoring is beating opponents by one or more strokes on any particular hole.

If par is set right, beating the opponents is nearly the same as beating par, because "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."

 

[Cgkdisc]

That's only true if you define scoring as birdying, but that throws out whether or not a two-shot swing is possible. Again, par has NOTHING to do with scoring. Scoring is beating opponents by one or more strokes on any particular hole.

Birdie or better is about the number of shots it takes to "score" against the course. Has nothing to do with scoring versus other players.

 

[denny ritner]

Birdie or better is about the number of shots it takes to "score" against the course. Has nothing to do with scoring versus other players.

1) Bogeys DO matter when "scoring against the course."

2) If scoring against other players didn't matter then there would be no need for tournaments.

 

[txmxer]

The words birdie/par/bogey are just descriptions. The idea is to make those descriptions have meaning. Birdie SHOULD mean scoring against the field.

If par is set right and the hole is properly designed, the majority of players at the intended skill set score par. Some are able to score below par and thus birdie.

 

[denny ritner]

The words birdie/par/bogey are just descriptions. The idea is to make those descriptions have meaning. Birdie SHOULD mean scoring against the field.

And it does. It just is a very hazy view of score-ability.

Zooming into a more targeted data set and using standard deviations shows a much clearer picture. Resolution matters.

 

[Steve West]

See post #144 in the WACO Charity Open presented by Prodigy thread.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

We hear the term "scoreable" used by many disc golf commentators in both live and post-production formats. I'm going to argue . . .

I argue that trying to come up with a new meaning for "score" in golf or disc golf makes no sense. The score is the total number of throws for a hole or round. You have a "score" on every hole. Trying to turn it into a metaphoric verb may seem to make sense, but it really doesn't. Birdying a hole doesn't earn you a point against another player any more than bogeying a hole does so when the opposing player makes a double bogey. In each case you have gained an advantage, move ahead or whatever you want to call it, but you didn't "score" against the other player or the course. If you think of it that way, did that "score" get taken away when you shot a birdie on the next hole but your opponent eagled it? Is that still a score, even though you lost ground?

It's just words of course, but when you then start arguing about the "true" meaning of such a metaphor, the whole thing devolves into a dumb thread like this one. The next thing we'll probably see is people calling golf "ball golf," calling a the MP50 champion (or some other restricted division's champion) the "best player in the world," coming up with their own definition of par (and insulting TD's who "don't set par right") or something equally as silly.

 

[denny ritner]

Doof: thanks for your dumb contribution to the dumb thread.

 

[DavidSauls]

The birdies being a "score" derives from the fact that that's what our scoreboard reads. More or less, since it shows the number of strokes below par, and a player's score on the scoreboard improves when he or she gets a birdie.

Doesn't affect the final score, of course, but the score-in-progress, which is what we're talking about.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Doesn't affect the final score, of course, but the score-in-progress, which is what we're talking about.

So a short-hand way of posting the score is now the score itself? Check.

Like calling chicken fried steak fried chicken, "chicken fried chicken."

 

[DavidSauls]

So a short-hand way of posting the score is now the score itself? Check.

Like calling chicken fried steak fried chicken, "chicken fried chicken."

Alternatively, you can jump up and down and scream that the mid-round graphic, or physical board being carried around the course, showing players' standing relative to each other and par, is not a "scoreboard", because it doesn't show a running total of throws, and that anyone who refers to it as a "scoreboard' is wrong.

But I think you'll look foolish in your protests.

Yes, ultimately, at the end of the event, total throws is how we determine a winner. But total throws, or throws relative to par, or relative to "100", are easily convertible. Like fahrenheit and celsius, they are ways of saying describing the exact same result.

I'm not saying a "birdie" is a "score". Just observing that the characterization of score as throws relative to par, is where that concept comes from.

 

[uncle pennybags]

Alternatively, you can jump up and down and scream that the mid-round graphic, or physical board being carried around the course, showing players' standing relative to each other and par, is not a "scoreboard", because it doesn't show a running total of throws, and that anyone who refers to it as a "scoreboard' is wrong.

This makes me imagine a gigantic chalk board following the card and everybody has to put a mark down with every stroke. Just like counting days in prison. And the more I think about it, the more I want to see it.

*Matrix kid* There is no par */Matrix kid*

 

[DavidSauls]

This makes me imagine a gigantic chalk board following the card and everybody has to put a mark down with every stroke. Just like counting days in prison. And the more I think about it, the more I want to see it.

*Matrix kid* There is no par */Matrix kid*

How big would it have to be, by Round 4?

 

[uncle pennybags]

How big would it have to be, by Round 4?

I never said it would be practical, just awesome!

 

[DavidSauls]

Indeed!

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Alternatively, you can jump up and down and scream that the mid-round graphic, or physical board being carried around the course, showing players' standing relative to each other and par, is not a "scoreboard", because it doesn't show a running total of throws, and that anyone who refers to it as a "scoreboard' is wrong.

But I think you'll look foolish in your protests.

Yes, ultimately, at the end of the event, total throws is how we determine a winner. But total throws, or throws relative to par, or relative to "100", are easily convertible. Like fahrenheit and celsius, they are ways of saying describing the exact same result.

I'm not saying a "birdie" is a "score". Just observing that the characterization of score as throws relative to par, is where that concept comes from.

Right, it's a shorthand way of referring to the score. No one is complaining about the other things (mid-round graphics and such), but you beat the stuffing out of that anyway. Maybe you think that looks foolish?

Are you ignoring the foregoing discussion about scoring being not about a number of throws, but a comparative number of throws to either par or your competitor?