Par Talk

[Steve West]

Let's clear a few things up:

1. There is only one definition of par for disc golf; it has been in the rulebook since 1997, with an update for 2018. It is here:

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.

Anyone claiming to be using any other "actual" definition needs to present the wording they are using, and the authoritative source for that wording.

2. Everyone agrees par should be set before it is used, no one is saying par should be set retroactively after a tournament. Most would say par can be adjusted after a course has been installed, but no one is forcing anyone to do that.

3. Some say that is it not valid to use past scores to set a par to be used in the future. If anyone has any support for that view, I'd like to see it. I don't remember any being offered.

4. My method for setting par has nothing at all to do with golf's course slope and rating. One proof of this is (per https://www.thoughtco.com/usga-course-and-slope-rating-1561294)

Course rating and slope rating are calculated for a golf course on the basis of a visit to the course by a USGA rating team.
The rating team spends time with the facility's staff going over the course, and spends a lot of time on the course itself taking measurements of various things.

My method is purely based on scores, not measurements of the course. It does not generate an effective playing length nor an obstacle stroke value, or anything other than a recommended par.

5. I have no idea what the "tee box" problem is, but I can't see how it would affect anything. Any combination of teeing area and target can be assigned a proper par.

6. No one is trying to prevent the TD from doing anything, or to force the TD to do anything. The most important part of the definition is "as determined by the Director". Everything else is just guidance for the TD. If it makes sense to them, and is worth the effort, they can do it.

7. The basis for all this is the following principles. If anyone wants to disagree with any of these, that's a valid discussion to have.

When par is set properly:

Players have a consistent standard to compare their performance:
o To other players during the tournament,
o On different courses,
o To the expected prize-winning scores,
o To their own performance at other tournaments.

Players can better plan their strategy:
o By knowing what score they want to shoot for on each hole,
o By knowing that each bogey costs about as much as each birdie saves.

Spectator interest is increased because:
o Fans can track favorite players even if they are in different groups
o Remarkable performances are revealed, relative to a consistent standard
o Commentators have a meaningful statistic to talk about

Tournament Directors benefit from:
o A more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par
o Increased player and spectator satisfaction
o Greater ease of noticing anomalies in scoring
o Comfort in knowing penalties for missed holes are fair no matter which holes are missed

8. There is still a lot to talk about regarding the par 2 problem, but it is not a valid reason to veto any discussion of improving par. They are two distinct, albeit overlapping, issues.

9. It is true that disc golfers don't often two-putt. The three choices for how to reflect that are:
a. Set par as if we do two-putt.
b. Change the game so we do two-putt.
c. Set par according to how we actually play.

Choosing to recommend c. (whether or not we do b.) is not a lack of recognition of the situation.

 

[lyleoross]

5. I have no idea what the "tee box" problem is, but I can't see how it would affect anything. Any combination of teeing area and target can be assigned a proper par.

- it's the rash you get when you remove your pants and sit on the teebox area. I hear Bourdeux's Butt Paste solves the problem.

 

[PMantle]

Let's clear a few things up:



5. I have no idea what the "tee box" problem is, but I can't see how it would affect anything. Any combination of teeing area and target can be assigned a proper par.

I don't believe you.

*


Par cannot be set improperly.

 

[lyleoross]

Par can be set improperly. Unless we accept that TDs are immutable gods. That is, I said it therefore it's correct. Oh great and wise TD, what is par? Tis three my child.

On the other hand, par is what a TD calls it, right or wrong.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Basically, PAR, by definition, is an estimate or TD dictate. Using stats will determine how accurate or useful were the PAR values stated, kind of a Par Rating. This Par feedback may be used by future event hosts and TDs to tweak the par values along with possible PDGA insistence to do so.

 

[denny ritner]

in no way does EMBR improve par. what (i believe) steve is doing is trying to is learn from previous rounds by statistical examination. you can then use those statistics and try to set par on a hole in the future.

OR and better in most cases tweak a hole to produce a more ideal scoring distribution for the intended skill level.

Ideal being:
Birdie or better - 10% to 35%
Par. - 50% to 75%
Bogey/worse. - 10% to 35%

 

[denny ritner]

9. It is true that disc golfers don't often two-putt. The three choices for how to reflect that are:
a. Set par as if we do two-putt.
b. Change the game so we do two-putt.
c. Set par according to how we actually play.

One of the best posts on this thread.

Regarding #9: IMO the solution to this dillema is to change the definition of putt and separate it from the 10m circle.

If an expert player is 20m from he basket, absent a drop-off, they will be attempting to make a "putt" 100% of the time, for example.

 

[RistoS]

When par is set properly:

Players have a consistent standard to compare their performance:
o To other players during the tournament,
o On different courses,
o To the expected prize-winning scores,
o To their own performance at other tournaments.

Players can better plan their strategy:
o By knowing what score they want to shoot for on each hole,
o By knowing that each bogey costs about as much as each birdie saves.

Spectator interest is increased because:
o Fans can track favorite players even if they are in different groups
o Remarkable performances are revealed, relative to a consistent standard
o Commentators have a meaningful statistic to talk about

The Beast in Nokia, Finland has a round rating standard; course par is roughly 1000 rated in decent conditions (European Open).

 

[roggenb3]

Par cannot be set improperly.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

 

[teemkey]

Basically, PAR, by definition, is an estimate or TD dictate...

Exactly. And I don't understand why the official definition is so wordy.

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.

The director decides
1) who is an expert;
2) what is errorless play;
3) what is ordinary weather.

There is no provision for external validation of the director's decisions; hence

Par is determined by the director.

says it all.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

It's when your opponents never say, or even indicate, that they are embarrassed by the number of birdies. But you restate their argument as if they were, and argue against that.

Nope, it is making up a flawed argument that no one has asserted for the purpose rhetorically dismantling it in an effort to prove that your position is a strong one, you know, like building a straw man then then beating the stuffing out of him to show how good of a fighter you are.

What I did was not to make up an argument, but to attribute a motive to the people arguing for ignoring the definition of par by touting SOCMOBR (and by "definition," I mean THE current and most recently promulgated definition - in full). After all, there must be a reason that birdies are bad and that any particular number of them is too many, right?

 

[PMantle]

teemkey

boom

 

[lyleoross]

Exactly. And I don't understand why the official definition is so wordy.



The director decides
1) who is an expert;
2) what is errorless play;
3) what is ordinary weather.

There is no provision for external validation of the director's decisions; hence



says it all.

Absolutely, until the director sets it in a way that "someone" doesn't like, then it's wrong, at least by the whining I hear. One only has to watch the ever-increasing load of videos out there to realize that players and player commentators whine about par, mainly because it's too low, but also because it's too high, all the time. Folks are only happy with par when it gives them what "they" want.

Par is what the TD determines.

 

[DavidSauls]

Nope, it is making up a flawed argument that no one has asserted for the purpose rhetorically dismantling it in an effort to prove that your position is a strong one, you know, like building a straw man then then beating the stuffing out of him to show how good of a fighter you are.

What I did was not to make up an argument, but to attribute a motive to the people arguing for ignoring the definition of par by touting SOCMOBR (and by "definition," I mean THE current and most recently promulgated definition - in full). After all, there must be a reason that birdies are bad and that any particular number of them is too many, right?

It's not the "too many birdies" I called a straw man---

It's the "embarrassed by too many birdies". Nobody made that claim that it's embarrassing, and should be changed for that reason. Or anything like it.

"Too many birdies"---as in, they make par less useful, for all the reasons previously given,---well, that is an argument that's been put forth. Argue against that, is not a straw man argument. Wrong, but admittedly not a straw man.

"There must be a reason"? Yes, it's been given over and over, and has nothing to do with embarrassment.

 

[DavidSauls]

Anyway, the argument has not been against "too many birdies"

Only against too many birdies of a particular kind, birdies which are the expected score of an expert, birdies which meet the definition of par. The rest of them, doesn't matter how many they are---they're at least a stroke better than the expected score.

 

[DavidSauls]

The TD Whim Loophole also strikes me as a bit weak.

Certainly, if a TD decides that for his event, every hole is Par-17, those holes will be Par-17s.

But the PDGA didn't define par as "Whatever the TD says it is" and leave it at that. They described what it represents, what it should be, and added at the end that the TD is the arbiter. They made it a bit vague, giving TDs some wiggle room.

But if a TD declares that a hole is a par-4---saying, in effect, that he expects experts to get a 4---and most players are getting 3s, we might question whether his expectations were realistic. If, based on prior experience or the hole's design, players expect to get a 3, and virtually all reasonable people expect them to get a 3, and the TD still expects them to get a 4, we might question his judgment there.

Sure, he can still set par as 4, but I'd say he's complying with the final clause of the definition, and not the bulk of it.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW - a point of clarity. When I write absolutely, I mean that the Director has the power to decide those things. He has been granted the power by the rules. That doesn't mean he is correct. The power to make a decision doesn't impart omnipotence. We see this every day in business, academics, government and religion. People who have the power to make decisions make the incorrect decisions all the time. Funny enough, the ones who make the fewest incorrect decisions are the ones who solicit the help of experts. The ones who do analysis, collect data, and use the data in their decision making getting it right the most often. The folks who don't do that, they get fired.

 

[DavidSauls]

Steve, that 9-point summary was excellent. You should probably keep it handy where you can cut-and-paste it back into this thread, every couple hundred posts or so, just to put it back on solid ground.

 

[Steve West]

The TD Whim Loophole also strikes me as a bit weak.

Certainly, if a TD decides that for his event, every hole is Par-17, those holes will be Par-17s.

Well....

I think the one thing that could overrule the TD is if PDGA's IT department says: "The computer system can't handle that". So, maybe no negative two-digit numbers.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It would be interesting to see if they only allow values of 3, 4 or 5.