Par Talk

[Steve West]

..I see the longer range goal is to find symbology that becomes widely understood and useful ...

My suggested symbology provides the viewer with more useful and granular information on how the holes play than simple integer pars without violating the revised definition and using Par 2s.

It would hard to imagine something that is more widely understood than par -as a general concept. Everybody knows that par is pretty good score, whether they play any kind of golf or not.

Granted, par does not provide the most granular information on how the hole plays, but that's not its job. Avoiding that complication is one of its strengths. Trying to get par to do another job would hurt its ability to do its main job. Since this is football season, it would be like asking an offensive lineman to block two rushers. He won't do as good a job on either.

A simpler solution to avoid calling holes par 2 is just let the TD call them par 3. We can live with one or two pars on a course that maybe should be higher.

(Somewhere down the line, these TDs will start getting the suggestion that maybe that really short hole should be a par 2 because that's what everyone is getting. Then they can build a bamboo fence.)

 

[Cgkdisc]

We've all seen that integer Par has failed to do an adequate job for disc golf which has lead to the long string of posts on the merits of avoiding the par 2 label with no birdies possible versus our "padded' pars leading to total scores of top players seen as too far under par. Personally, I think figuring out a good way to increase scoring spread in pro putting is the way to go, but that won't happen any time soon.

In the interim and even into the future, this proposed enhanced integer version of par with the arrows seems a useful way to avoid par 2 labels, reduce net total scores under par and provide better information on how holes are expected to play for both players and spectators both during live scoring and upon later analysis. I don't see a downside on the surface, just fancier math required under the hood.

 

[DavidSauls]

The first downside is, the harder you make something to do, the less likely people are to do it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The first downside is, the harder you make something to do, the less likely people are to do it.

TDs have to set par on the holes anyway per the rules. If they don't use the arrows where appropriate, no biggie. The TDs who do care about setting good par values can provide more info with the arrows. Their incentive to use the arrows is to make their courses appear more challenging than before since players will not be shooting as far under par.

Here's another subtle benefit since many Blue level courses are used for A-tier events and above. Gold total par is typically about 5-6 shots lower than Blue par on the same course layout. With each arrow the equivalent of 0.5 shots lower, all the TD needs to do is select the 8-12 holes on the Blue level course likely to play under par and add the < in front of their pars. No need to change tee signs or the integer par values. But players will know which holes they should "birdie" and the total par for the layout will end up being at a more appropriate Gold par level 4-6 shots lower than the posted Blue par. Steady Ed is a great example where this would have made the total par and throws under par look better for the Hall of Fame NT

 

[PMantle]

So you agree by this definition that there are Par 2s. The establishment of your parameters for assigning par are all derived from evaluating scoring data at some time, correct? We're just saying the original data needs to be updated to re-establish your parameters.

No lol.

 

[Cgkdisc]

No lol.

Sorry but you talked yourself into it. Your parameters came from somewhere and counting shots for certain distances was the way it was originally done. In fact, the USGA handicapping system was initially based on the scores from the US Amateur in 1970.

 

[Steve West]

We've all seen that integer Par has failed to do an adequate job

When it has failed, it was not because it is integer par, but because we've used the wrong integers. Tournaments that do use the right integers have par that does its job just fine. Using integers is one of its strong points.

TDs have to set par on the holes anyway per the rules. If they don't use the arrows where appropriate, no biggie. The TDs who do care about setting good par values can provide more info with the arrows.

The TDs who do care about setting good par can just – hear me out – set good par.

The TDs who want to provide more info can offer something people understand and talk about all the time: average score.

…all the TD needs to do is select the 8-12 holes on the Blue level course likely to play under par and add the < in front of their pars. No need to change tee signs or the integer par values. But players will know which holes they should "birdie" and the total par for the layout will end up being at a more appropriate Gold par level 4-6 shots lower than the posted Blue par. Steady Ed is a great example where this would have made the total par and throws under par look better for the Hall of Fame NT

No, all the TD needs to do is use Gold par.

Do you know what would happen then? Players will know which holes they should birdie and the total par for the layout will end up being at a more appropriate Gold par level 4-6 shots lower than the posted Blue par. Steady Ed is a great example where this would have made the total par and throws under par look better for the Hall of Fame NT.

 

[Karl]

When I see a lot of golf scores WAY under par (ball, disc, foot, etc.), I don't automatically think the par is set wrong. In addition, and at the same time, I also think that it may just be an easy course. Either or both could be the reason. And I think that most people who know a bit about golf also think this. If Dustin Johnson goes to his local muni and shoots a 56 on a flat-greened 5800yd course (par 71), he still shot -15. One might question what he's doing there, but that's a totally different topic....
Note (not surprising) that I'm of the camp that there is only one par for any combination of tee / basket (for a hole) // holes / layout (for a course) and that is what can be accomplished by the best of what's humanly possible*
Karl
*Note: If some inhumanly human comes along and plays dg, all of our egos will suffer

 

[lyleoross]

When I see a lot of golf scores WAY under par (ball, disc, foot, etc.), I don't automatically think the par is set wrong. In addition, and at the same time, I also think that it may just be an easy course. Either or both could be the reason. And I think that most people who know a bit about golf also think this. If Dustin Johnson goes to his local muni and shoots a 56 on a flat-greened 5800yd course (par 71), he still shot -15. One might question what he's doing there, but that's a totally different topic....
Note (not surprising) that I'm of the camp that there is only one par for any combination of tee / basket (for a hole) // holes / layout (for a course) and that is what can be accomplished by the best of what's humanly possible*
Karl
*Note: If some inhumanly human comes along and plays dg, all of our egos will suffer

This is a good point. But no one takes Dustin Johnson playing on his local Muni course as anything other than Dustin Johnson playing on his local Muni course. We're getting those scores on our national and international majors and NT events. If Dustin shot that score in a major, along with two or three other guys, and on more than one round, people might view it differently.

 

[lyleoross]

I got quite a laugh out of that word.

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Nor is it rounded average. Throws made in error don't count in par, they count for a lot in average.

Par is expected score. If you want to communicate average score, just do it. Rather than add a symbol next to par, just show the average score next to par. Decimal points aren't that hard to understand. Trying to bastardize expected score into some supposedly "simple" representation of average score will ONLY accomplish complication and confusion.

I always find it amazing how we become sticklers for terminology. The reading I've done suggests that golf courses will use how an expert player shoots to assess and modify par (for fun let's say it's only ever happened once so this isn't a debate about frequency). I wonder how they did it? Since we can't use averages to obtain par and it's an integer, no matter what, what did they do? Seems like a conundrum to me.

Now, I know how the replies to this are going to go but that won't decrease my amusement.

 

[PMantle]

Sorry but you talked yourself into it. Your parameters came from somewhere and counting shots for certain distances was the way it was originally done. In fact, the USGA handicapping system was initially based on the scores from the US Amateur in 1970.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I mean shots are always counted. Putting still has to be accounted for though-golf or disc golf.

 

[PMantle]

The reading I've done suggests that golf courses will use how an expert player shoots to assess and modify par (for fun let's say it's only ever happened once so this isn't a debate about frequency).

Link?

 

[Steve West]

I always find it amazing how we become sticklers for terminology. The reading I've done suggests that golf courses will use how an expert player shoots to assess and modify par (for fun let's say it's only ever happened once so this isn't a debate about frequency). I wonder how they did it? Since we can't use averages to obtain par and it's an integer, no matter what, what did they do? Seems like a conundrum to me.

Now, I know how the replies to this are going to go but that won't decrease my amusement.

"How an expert player shoots" is not the same as average - not even the same as the average score of that player. That blow-up where they got an 8 on a hole should not figure into par, but it does figure into average.

Asking whether a particular score happened often enough to be expected is not the same question as asking whether the average score is near that particular score.

 

[Karl]

This is a good point. But no one takes Dustin Johnson playing on his local Muni course as anything other than Dustin Johnson playing on his local Muni course. We're getting those scores on our national and international majors and NT events. If Dustin shot that score in a major, along with two or three other guys, and on more than one round, people might view it differently.

Duh! Then don't ya think (and "your people might view..") the courses, or some holes within such, used for our 'majors' may be just a WEE too easy?????

16 trillion posts on 'par' and once again we circle around to "it's the hole / course, not the metric that might be wrong".

To paraphrase some judge talking about porn: "I know it (the hole's par) when I see it (the hole)"

 

[Steve West]

Duh! Then don't ya think (and "your people might view..") the courses, or some holes within such, used for our 'majors' may be just a WEE too easy?????...

Yeah, a lot of people think that. So why not set par on those courses, or some holes within such, just a WEE bit lower?????

 

[Karl]

Yeah, a lot of people think that. So why not set par on those courses, or some holes within such, just a WEE bit lower?????

No. That's not the solution (and you know it's not...although it DOES play right into your hand)! Don't use those holes / that course (at least not w/o some "tweaking" of them) is the PROPER solution.

You guys remind me of a bandaides salesman trying to sell bandaides to a doctor while he's trying to do an amputation.

 

[Steve West]

No. That's not the solution (and you know it's not...although it DOES play right into your hand)! Don't use those holes / that course (at least not w/o some "tweaking" of them) is the PROPER solution.

You guys remind me of a bandaides salesman trying to sell bandaides to a doctor while he's trying to do an amputation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was not aware we are only allowed ONE solution. Who decreed that?

And when (or if?) those holes eventually get fixed and the TDs raise par because those holes are harder, THEN can we start setting par right on all holes?

Wait, remind me again: What bad things happen if we start now?

 

[Karl]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was not aware we are only allowed ONE solution. Who decreed that?

And when (or if?) those holes eventually get fixed and the TDs raise par because those holes are harder, THEN can we start setting par right on all holes?

Wait, remind me again: What bad things happen if we start now?

Did I say "one"? No, I did not. So don't misquote me. I said PROPER. And it IS the best solution (but there are others).
And who said the TD will raise the par? Oh you did! Even though they may not. Hmm.
YOU are the one (I thought) that had this discussion bent toward 'high level events'...so I'm addressing that (not so worried about whether (or not) the trickle-down effect works for lesser events).
You bring up some 'decent' points but after any new ideas are posed, you still "defend the turf" in a way that tells me you're not REALLY open to new ideas.
But you ARE the OP so I guess I shouldn't expect anything else (they have a tendency to get defensive).
There are no 'bad things' that could happen by starting now if that's how you want to spend your time - but since you're not just some flippant fly-by-night dg'er talking a crappy game but are someone who has "weight" in the PDGA, I just don't want my organization going off like a hammer and seeing everything as a nail. For 34 years I've dealt with people who "use numbers" (statisticians, etc.) and they all fall back on their forte...hammering.
I don't mind new ideas but if they only (and always) come from the same small group of guys it's rarely good for the organization (...although it IS good for those 'insiders' I guess...)

 

[Steve West]

Did I say "one"? No, I did not. So don't misquote me. I said PROPER. And it IS the best solution (but there are others).
And who said the TD will raise the par? Oh you did! Even though they may not. Hmm.
YOU are the one (I thought) that had this discussion bent toward 'high level events'...so I'm addressing that (not so worried about whether (or not) the trickle-down effect works for lesser events).
You bring up some 'decent' points but after any new ideas are posed, you still "defend the turf" in a way that tells me you're not REALLY open to new ideas.
But you ARE the OP so I guess I shouldn't expect anything else (they have a tendency to get defensive).
There are no 'bad things' that could happen by starting now if that's how you want to spend your time - but since you're not just some flippant fly-by-night dg'er talking a crappy game but are someone who has "weight" in the PDGA, I just don't want my organization going off like a hammer and seeing everything as a nail. For 34 years I've dealt with people who "use numbers" (statisticians, etc.) and they all fall back on their forte...hammering.
I don't mind new ideas but if they only (and always) come from the same small group of guys it's rarely good for the organization (...although it IS good for those 'insiders' I guess...)

Let me see if I understand. You're not saying "don't fix par". Right?

And, since I would be opposed to any effort to substitute TD judgement with an "official" method to set par, we're actually not in disagreement, right?

 

[ejvogie]

I still think this is all a solution in search of a problem