Par Talk

[Steve West]

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.

Nah, more fun to make it up again. Besides, apparently I already need to correct #6 to say "No one (except maybe Chuck)...

 

[Steve West]

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

They don't even store hole pars in tournament results do they?

 

[Steve West]

The power to make a decision doesn't impart omnipotence.

It might grant omnipotence, but I think you meant omniscience.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They don't even store hole pars in tournament results do they?

They do eliminate the over/under par values once the results go official. But it looks like the PDGA has retained the par values for events that activated hole by hole scoring, (not using Udisc).

 

[Steve West]

They do eliminate the over/under par values once the results go official. But it looks like the PDGA has retained the par values for events that activated hole by hole scoring, (not using Udisc).

Oh yeah, forgot about those. Now they need to add hole lengths to that.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Absolutely, until the director sets it in a way that "Steve West" doesn't like, then it's wrong, at least by the whining I hear.

FIFY.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

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

Let's clear a few things up: . . .

Tournament Directors benefit from:
o A more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par

. . .

There's a reason why I attribute the too-many-birdie argument to embarrassment. I expect no one to admit it, but it creeps in all the time. I see in in conjunction with the refusal to refer to golf as "golf" the refusal in some to even to acknowledge that disc golf is easier than golf, a patently untenable position by people who either never played the latter or just have an inferiority complex about it.

Conversely, the counter-attack about me wanting my birdies completely misses the point that I don't care if I ever throw under par again. I played golf for 30 years and never shot under par and thoroughly enjoyed the game. I like disc golf better, but mostly because of the ease associated with getting to play it, i.e., no tee times, less time to play, less expensive, easier to accommodate different skill levels and the more informal nature overall.

What I've tried to point out is that SOCMOBR, which ignores the definition, isn't any more "useful" than EMBR, which also ignores the definition (or, if you believe that SOCMOBR doesn't ignore the definition, then neither does EMBR). Steve has admitted to gaming it to achieve a certain number, one that aligns with a 1000 rated player (and not any better or worse), and once you've done that you may as well just adjust the par after the tournament to get whatever number you want. Do you think that's not useful? You can then set par accordingly for next years tournament using the previous number if you want. And, you don't need Steve's analysis or a degree in math to do it.

There are many of Steve's other assertions about par that I think are silly, so I take them as fluff designed to make SOCMOBR sound like more than what it is, which is just a mathematical formula to reduce birdies. You don't need any stinking formula to reduce birdies, just a TD who knows how to say/write numbers.

 

[DavidSauls]

There's a reason why I attribute the too-many-birdie argument to embarrassment. I expect no one to admit it, but it creeps in all the time. I see in in conjunction with the refusal to refer to golf as "golf" the refusal in some to even to acknowledge that disc golf is easier than golf, a patently untenable position by people who either never played the latter or just have an inferiority complex about it.

I can't speak for others but, in my case, you're a poor mind-reader.

I mostly refer to golf as "golf". Occasionally, in a paragraph full of references to both sports, I might refer to it as "ball golf" or, more often, "(ball) golf", for clarity.

I've never denied that disc golf is easier than golf. It's a lot easier.

"Too many birdies" only means that our results, in scores given relative to par, don't inform us at to how the competition has gone. Nothing embarrassing about that---just nothing useful, either. And it's not strictly because there are "too many birdies", but too many holes in which a birdie means nothing, in regards to the competition.

I'm not speaking for others, but I haven't seen Steve or Chuck or Lyle or anyone else in this thread, on the side of better par, state any of those things, either. You're free to imagine that's our motivation, but imaging it won't make it so.

(I'll agree that I've seen those sentiments expressed elsewhere, in other threads. I regard them as silly. But they have nothing to do with the desire to make par more useful, and to better conform with the definition.)

 

[DavidSauls]

Conversely, the counter-attack about me wanting my birdies completely misses the point that I don't care if I ever throw under par again.

I agree. I stated earlier that such an assumption about your motives would be as false as assuming our motives are "embarrassment."

 

[Steve West]

What I've tried to point out is that SOCMOBR, which ignores the definition

Specify what definition are you referring to, please.

 

[lyleoross]

It might grant omnipotence, but I think you meant omniscience.

While I like your thinking, I did indeed mean omnipotence. Knowing all is fine, but being all powerful is better.

 

[lyleoross]

That ball golf is harder to play, in the current environment, is a given. That it has to be, is not. However, who cares? That difficulty of play has anything to do with par and obtaining birdies is a debate tactic that has no basis in reality.

If the argument is that because disc golf is easier than golf, we should allow for more birdies, meh.

Birdies are an artificial construct determined by par. Par can be adjusted to give more or less. The question becomes, is it valuable? Does it help the sport? If the argument is that more people will play because it makes them feel better to get birdies, maybe. But that has to be balanced against the outloud laughs by non-players who understand that we're inflating birdies to make ourselves feel better.

Nothing that Steve has proposed says lower birdies. What he has proposed is a methodology that brings consistency. You can use his methodology to increase birdies, if you so desire, by defining an expert player as a 900 rated player. Of couse the way par is currently used, we already do that, just not very consistently. And no, I haven't forgotten that Steve has proposed using 1000 rated players as expert, I'm just pointing out that it isn't necessary.

As for embarrassment, if I were easily embarrassed by name calling I'd of either left this thread or posted numerous belligerent comments with direct personal attacks, a long time ago.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Specify what definition are you referring to, please.

The same one you are.

It has changed recently, but SOCMOBR ignored the previous definition as well.

 

[PMantle]

on the side of better par,

This never fails to crack me up.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yeah, I've been laughing a lot at some things in this thread, myself.

 

[Steve West]

What I've tried to point out is that SOCMOBR, which ignores the definition

That's not just wrong, it's the opposite of the truth.

I originally set out to prove that the definition was the problem. To do that, I needed to automatically generate the definitional par for hundreds of holes. So I set out to come up with a formula that followed the definition as closely as possible.

Whether I came as close as possible or not is open to debate, but the method certainly does not ignore the definition.

(As it turns out, the definition isn't the problem. All the problems with par stem from TDs NOT following the definition.)

But, you don't really care about all that do you? Isn't your point that we simply shouldn't reduce the number of birdies? If so, let's bring forth the merits of that idea directly.

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, perhaps, why par should sometimes be the score experts are not expected to get---and how that does not ignore the definition.

 

[DG_player]

But, you don't really care about all that do you? Isn't your point that we simply shouldn't reduce the number of birdies? If so, let's bring forth the merits of that idea directly.

Can we drop this line of argument already? All it is is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Most of the people that are anti-pure scoring based par, have a golf background and recognize the aesthetic beauty of golf par. Given our golf background, certainly the last thing we expect or want are more birdies.

 

[roggenb3]

What? Par in golf isn't "scoring based"? Now you've really lost me.

 

[DavidSauls]

Can we drop this line of argument already? All it is is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Most of the people that are anti-pure scoring based par, have a golf background and recognize the aesthetic beauty of golf par. Given our golf background, certainly the last thing we expect or want are more birdies.

I didn't see it as ad hominem. Doofenschmirtz has repeatedly described Steve (and others) as trying to reduce the number of birdies. Presumably, Doof doesn't want to reduce the number of birdies. Steve is asking why that is important.

I didn't read it as the "You just want a bunch of birdies to feel good..." counterpunch, that would be unfair and unproductive.

Just a request for an opponent to state his position, not just his opposition. I'm curious, myself.