Par Talk

[Steve West]

…

It's just my opinion, as is everything I post here, but if the PDGA wants to get rid of any valid arguments (ordinary people and statisticians will always think that they know better than the PDGA), all it has to do is specifically define par with some sort of definition as follows:

"Par for all holes at any A-tier tournament shall be determined by the rounding, to the nearest whole number, the mean score attained by players in the MPO division at the most recent A-tier tourment held on the same course."

Change it to reflect only 1000 rated players or players within n rating points of 1000 or whatever if that is what suits the PDGA. You would get no argument from me for following such a definition or railing against the TD's who failed to follow that standard. But without such a specific standard and with the current Par being entirely TD dependent, and permissibly variable from tournament to tournament, it just doesn't seem to be what the SOCMOBR disciples seem to think that it is.

I don't think a definition that constricting would be practical or a good idea.

You can't strict-rule your way to good tournaments (including good par). It's better to let TDs choose which ideas they want to adopt. They'll learn from their own and others' experience and do things the best practical way.

My method is just one way to get at good-enough pars. There are many methods to do so. Leave the definition as-is so TDs can decide which one they want to use.

 

[lyleoross]

Guilty.

Actually, I'm just reluctant to use the word "professional" in regards to pretty much anything in disc golf.

The Professional Disc Golf Association being an exception, and perhaps a handful of players and company owners.

Though the charge probably comes from my commenting on someone else's "professional looking" phrase, which I understand to connote something like more polished or better organized. Like a caddybook is "professional looking" (with that particular usage), though lack of one wouldn't be "unprofessional".

Having worked with professionals, and in professional environments for forty years I can say with great confidence that the amount of professional in the world is less than i was led to believe in my youth. I want a refund.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I have not called TDs unprofessional.

Is implying that the same? Or do you mean just "less professional?"

Beyond that, if par is defined as the expected score, it certainly looks more professional for it to be what the definition says it is.

This also implies that the TDs who could "[look] more professional" aren't following your version of the definition.

 

[DavidSauls]

Is implying that the same? Or do you mean just "less professional?"



This also implies that the TDs who could "[look] more professional" aren't following your version of the definition.

Not implied. Perhaps inferred by you.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's a huge leap from "a TD could do (whatever) and that (whatever) would look more professional"

to

"The TD is unprofessional."

I gave the example of a caddy book. A caddy book looks more professional (in the sense of making the event look more polished). Certainly, there's nothing unprofessional about not providing a caddy book.

I could give dozens more, but they shouldn't be necessary.

 

[teemkey]

C'mon guys. What the heck do you mean by "professional" when you refer to a TD? It appears you are talking about high v. low quality, but I can't determine the attribute you're using for measurement.

Moreover, in my limited experience the par used for a tournament is 90+% exactly what's on the tee sign. Temporary courses/holes are exceptions, but, really, how often does a TD reassign pars to existing holes?

 

[DavidSauls]

C'mon guys. What the heck do you mean by "professional" when you refer to a TD? It appears you are talking about high v. low quality, but I can't determine the attribute you're using for measurement.

Moreover, in my limited experience the par used for a tournament is 90+% exactly what's on the tee sign. Temporary courses/holes are exceptions, but, really, how often does a TD reassign pars to existing holes?

In the second case, true enough, though the main thrust of this thread from the beginning was top-level tournaments, not the local B- and C-tiers on courses with existing signs. It's an opportunity to think through and improve the application of par on those courses---where TDs just might vary from the tee signs.

As to the first, I don't refer to TDs as professional, or un-, at all.

 

[teemkey]

In the second case, true enough, though the main thrust of this thread from the beginning was top-level tournaments, not the local B- and C-tiers on courses with existing signs. It's an opportunity to think through and improve the application of par on those courses---where TDs just might vary from the tee signs.

As to the first, I don't refer to TDs as professional, or un-, at all.

(Forgive me -- I can't help myself ) Dress codes and tobacco restrictions specifically address the higher tournament tiers, whereas the PDGA definition of par (or, more properly, the assignment of par) has no such qualification.

 

[teemkey]

PS: my thought was that this thread's focus on high tier tournaments is due to the availability of hole scores for the tournament (via live scoring).

 

[Steve West]

(Forgive me -- I can't help myself ) Dress codes and tobacco restrictions specifically address the higher tournament tiers, whereas the PDGA definition of par (or, more properly, the assignment of par) has no such qualification.

Discussion was limited to top events at first because there could be a case made that par should reflect the field playing the event. Top tiers have all the best players, or at least a bunch of very good players. So at least we could say it should definitely be consistent across those events. The idea was to get to the very core of what everyone could agree on, and work out from there.

 

[DavidSauls]

Discussion was limited to top events at first because there could be a case made that par should reflect the field playing the event. Top tiers have all the best players, or at least a bunch of very good players. So at least we could say it should definitely be consistent across those events. The idea was to get to the very core of what everyone could agree on, and work out from there.

And more spectators, since some of the benefits of accurate par are geared toward spectators.

 

[roggenb3]

C'mon guys. What the heck do you mean by "professional" when you refer to a TD? It appears you are talking about high v. low quality, but I can't determine the attribute you're using for measurement.

Moreover, in my limited experience the par used for a tournament is 90+% exactly what's on the tee sign. Temporary courses/holes are exceptions, but, really, how often does a TD reassign pars to existing holes?

Ya'll must have way more accurate tee sign than we do here then. Around these parts its very common to see tee signs with Par 4's under 300'.

 

[teemkey]

...
I'm in the camp that thinks pars should not vary from event to event to fit the mix of registered players.
...

Discussion was limited to top events at first because there could be a case made that par should reflect the field playing the event....

I'm not clear on your position regarding whether par should fit the field. If you aren't either, that's fine.

It does seem that we need a firm definition of the *use* of par (as opposed to the *assignment* of par to a hole).

Do we stick to the PDGA's *only* use in the rule book (par +4)?

 

[teemkey]

Ya'll must have way more accurate tee sign than we do here then. Around these parts its very common to see tee signs with Par 4's under 300'.

We seem to. Some courses in Oregon just call everything a par 3 regardless of length or difficulty. That's changing for new courses though.

Do your local TD's change the par for those short holes for tournament play?

 

[roggenb3]

We seem to. Some courses in Oregon just call everything a par 3 regardless of length or difficulty. That's changing for new courses though.

Do your local TD's change the par for those short holes for tournament play?

Absolutely. Par would be 60+ at every course if they followed the signs.

 

[teemkey]

Absolutely. Par would be 60+ at every course if they followed the signs.

Does it seem like the TDs are using the PDGA definition? And, if so, are they using the standard 1000 rated pro expert? (i.e. even par for a round should be around 1010-1020 rated)

 

[Steve West]

I'm not clear on your position regarding whether par should fit the field. If you aren't either, that's fine.

It does seem that we need a firm definition of the *use* of par (as opposed to the *assignment* of par to a hole).

Do we stick to the PDGA's *only* use in the rule book (par +4)?

One "use" is to let players know if they are moving up or down against the other contenders. That use is tied to the field.

However, I think a more important use is to let players know if they are playing well compared to other performances (theirs or other players') on other courses, in other events, etc. For par to do this, it needs to be set at one level everywhere and everywhen.

So, since we can only set it to one level, I choose to set iit to the level where it is most useful at telling players at the biggest events whether they are moving up or down against the other contenders. For one thing, the field is more consistent across the range of big events (compared to small events), so this level can work well across more events. Also, since the big events have more players, we can give more players a good par with this level. Another reason is so that this one level of par will give the most viewers a good par.

That's one of the lines of reasoning that led me to use the 1000-rated player as the expert when translating the definition into a formula. That level usually puts par in the bottom half of the money winners at big events, where the most players are going to score closest to par. Get a birdie, move up from this pack, get a bogey and move down.

That doesn't mean par should be adjusted for smaller events. I would still base it on the 1000-rated player. That would tell the players who do show up how well they would have done at other events or at other courses.

 

[roggenb3]

Does it seem like the TDs are using the PDGA definition? And, if so, are they using the standard 1000 rated pro expert? (i.e. even par for a round should be around 1010-1020 rated)

Well according to Doof, there is no way for them to not be using the current definition, since the definition is that par is whatever the TD says it is.

Are TDs around here trying to set it according to a 1000 rated player? Probably? I'm not sure.

Greater Milwaukee Open pars were 67 (dretzka), 66 (brown deer), both 21 hole layouts. Shooting course pars in Open was 962, 977. So not quite, but not terribly far off. Dretzka has 2 holes that Steve would likely call par 2s, so that would get par up to ~980.

 

[teemkey]

Well according to Doof, there is no way for them to not be using the current definition, since the definition is that par is whatever the TD says it is.

Are TDs around here trying to set it according to a 1000 rated player? Probably? I'm not sure.

Greater Milwaukee Open pars were 67 (dretzka), 66 (brown deer), both 21 hole layouts. Shooting course pars in Open was 962, 977. So not quite, but not terribly far off. Dretzka has 2 holes that Steve would likely call par 2s, so that would get par up to ~980.

Actually, I agree that the terms "expert" and "errorless" can by interpreted in widely different ways. But if you say the score a 1000 rated player gets 51% or more of the time, it's something I can live with for MPO.

 

[teemkey]

One "use" is to let players know if they are moving up or down against the other contenders. That use is tied to the field. ..

I'm not sure how the information is any better using par vs. total score. Smaller numbers are easier to comprehend, but the information value is the same.

However, I think a more important use is to let players know if they are playing well compared to other performances (theirs or other players') on other courses, in other events, etc. For par to do this, it needs to be set at one level everywhere and everywhen.

We have player rating for that already. Everywhere & everywhen seems impractically difficult.

So, since we can only set it to one level, I choose to set iit to the level where it is most useful at telling players at the biggest events whether they are moving up or down against the other contenders. For one thing, the field is more consistent across the range of big events (compared to small events), so this level can work well across more events. Also, since the big events have more players, we can give more players a good par with this level. Another reason is so that this one level of par will give the most viewers a good par.

That's one of the lines of reasoning that led me to use the 1000-rated player as the expert when translating the definition into a formula. That level usually puts par in the bottom half of the money winners at big events, where the most players are going to score closest to par. Get a birdie, move up from this pack, get a bogey and move down.

That doesn't mean par should be adjusted for smaller events. I would still base it on the 1000-rated player. That would tell the players who do show up how well they would have done at other events or at other courses.

Again, total score has the same information value for comparison purposes. Divisions with lower skill levels playing the same course will lose the ease of comprehension of the smaller numbers.

I think the primary concern is how setting accurate pars impacts competition. Of course competition is only within a division, so making sure pars are set correctly for the division assures that in the event a player misses a hole, there is no competitive advantage accrued by which hole was missed.

While your first thought might be that this only matters for shotgun starts, given this year's rule change, bad seafood the night before might mean a player misses a hole or two in the middle of the round.