Par Talk

[Steve West]

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.

Those are likely Blue/Advanced level pars. Since par is errorless play, and since there are generally more errors that cost a throw (or more) than lucky throws that save a throw, par will generally be rated above the rating of the targeted skill level. The lower the targeted skill level, the wider the gap between average play (i.e. the score that is rated 950 for Blue) and errorless play (par).

Generally, Gold par is about 5 lower than Blue Par. Maybe 6 for 21 holes.

 

[Steve West]

...Again, total score has the same information value for comparison purposes. ...

Really? When they've played different holes? Or a different number of holes? Or another course in a split pool?

How does total score help there?

 

[F.Luke]

...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 shot a 39 from sherando shorts, 46 from Rockland Park shorts, and a 63 on the Whipping post. Which one is the best round?

 

[teemkey]

Really? When they've played different holes? Or a different number of holes? Or another course in a split pool?

How does total score help there?

If you grant that the players know the courses and the skill of their competition, then yes.

The player can estimate the skill of their competition and difficulty of the competition's remaining holes. The player might estimate a score on a specific sets of holes, rather than hole-by-hole -- i.e. holes 14-18 are pretty tough, with player X's skill set it will probably take 20 throws (could be 3,4,5,4,4 or 4,3,4,4,5 or 3,3,6,4,4) unless his/her putting is on, then maybe 18.

You could say the player is estimating the expected total score based on the competition's real time performance without summoning the terms "expert," "errorless," or "par."

 

[teemkey]

I shot a 39 from sherando shorts, 46 from Rockland Park shorts, and a 63 on the Whipping post. Which one is the best round?

I shot -9 on Highland, -4 on Canyon, and +2 on Meadow. Which one is the best round?

The best answer would be to look up PDGA tournaments on those courses and see which is the highest rated round. And that's easier with total score.

 

[DavidSauls]

I shot -9 on Highland, -4 on Canyon, and +2 on Meadow. Which one is the best round?

The best answer would be to look up PDGA tournaments on those courses and see which is the highest rated round. And that's easier with total score.

If par were set to a consistent system, you wouldn't need to. Yes, the ratings would be a more precise comparison, but the score related to par would give a better idea than it does now.

But much of the concept of an accurate, consistent par doesn't involve tournament results. It involves mid-round play.

"I just got a 4 on Hole 11. Does that mean I did well, and gained a stroke on the field, or screwed up and lost a stroke?" If you knew what par was for hole 11, and par were set to the expected score, you'd know.


"I birded holes 14 through 16. Was I on a hot streak, or are those holes that most people birdie, and was I just keeping pace?" If a birdie is a stroke better than the expected score, you'd know.

"I'm 6 over through 15, you're 3 over through 11." Who's doing better?

"We were in different pools, on different courses, for the first day of the same event. I shot 2 over. You shot 11 over. Who's leading whom?"

I wrote those in the first person, but in the third person---spectators, and those simply checking live scoring---they have even more value. And thus, more useful at top tier events than lower-tier events.

Again, it's not terribly important. The game has survived and thrived with par being highly variable. There aren't a great many spectators, and they're far from the most important part of the game.

But I come back to the principle: If we're going to have par, and we clearly are, why not make it as accurate (expected score) and useful as possible? And it seems to me that par that is consistent, that matches the definition, that describes the expected score, is more accurate and useful than par that is highly variable, that is simply whatever the TD or original signmakers, without regard to the expected score, declare.

And if we're going to define par the way we do, with the clear aim being the expected score of an expert, why not make it so?

 

[Steve West]

If you grant that the players know the courses and the skill of their competition, then yes.

The player can estimate the skill of their competition and difficulty of the competition's remaining holes. The player might estimate a score on a specific sets of holes, rather than hole-by-hole -- i.e. holes 14-18 are pretty tough, with player X's skill set it will probably take 20 throws (could be 3,4,5,4,4 or 4,3,4,4,5 or 3,3,6,4,4) unless his/her putting is on, then maybe 18.

You could say the player is estimating the expected total score based on the competition's real time performance without summoning the terms "expert," "errorless," or "par."

Protopar.

 

[teemkey]

If par were set to a consistent system, you wouldn't need to. Yes, the ratings would be a more precise comparison, but the score related to par would give a better idea than it does now.

But much of the concept of an accurate, consistent par doesn't involve tournament results. It involves mid-round play.

"I just got a 4 on Hole 11. Does that mean I did well, and gained a stroke on the field, or screwed up and lost a stroke?" If you knew what par was for hole 11, and par were set to the expected score, you'd know.


"I birded holes 14 through 16. Was I on a hot streak, or are those holes that most people birdie, and was I just keeping pace?" If a birdie is a stroke better than the expected score, you'd know.

"I'm 6 over through 15, you're 3 over through 11." Who's doing better?

"We were in different pools, on different courses, for the first day of the same event. I shot 2 over. You shot 11 over. Who's leading whom?"

I wrote those in the first person, but in the third person---spectators, and those simply checking live scoring---they have even more value. And thus, more useful at top tier events than lower-tier events.

Again, it's not terribly important. The game has survived and thrived with par being highly variable. There aren't a great many spectators, and they're far from the most important part of the game.

But I come back to the principle: If we're going to have par, and we clearly are, why not make it as accurate (expected score) and useful as possible? And it seems to me that par that is consistent, that matches the definition, that describes the expected score, is more accurate and useful than par that is highly variable, that is simply whatever the TD or original signmakers, without regard to the expected score, declare.

And if we're going to define par the way we do, with the clear aim being the expected score of an expert, why not make it so?

I'm not sure pars can be consistent between holes (much less courses) until a perfect player emerges, an unlikely event. Moreover, that player would be rated far above 1000.

DG holes vary in length, obstacles, and optimal lanes to the target. Some holes set up for distance, left-to-right or right-to-left hyzers, flex shots, skips, etc., etc. So any one player may have the optimal skill set for one hole, but not another. Even then you'll get tweeners, which is good, because competition is more about scoring spread than par.

Par was invented in ball golf for convenience. And I do agree it's convenient in many ways, but I do not agree it's a necessity -- except when the rules require a hole to have a par to assess penalties (811.F.5).

So, yes, I agree that since pars are required by the rule book, they should be as accurate as possible -- but by division since competition is only within a division.

 

[teemkey]

Protopar.

More accurate par?

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure pars can be consistent between holes (much less courses) until a perfect player emerges, an unlikely event. Moreover, that player would be rated far above 1000.

DG holes vary in length, obstacles, and optimal lanes to the target. Some holes set up for distance, left-to-right or right-to-left hyzers, flex shots, skips, etc., etc. So any one player may have the optimal skill set for one hole, but not another. Even then you'll get tweeners, which is good, because competition is more about scoring spread than par.

Par was invented in ball golf for convenience. And I do agree it's convenient in many ways, but I do not agree it's a necessity -- except when the rules require a hole to have a par to assess penalties (811.F.5).

So, yes, I agree that since pars are required by the rule book, they should be as accurate as possible -- but by division since competition is only within a division.

Perhaps it can't be perfect.

But it can be better.

If 70% of the open field is getting a certain score, and we're saying some other score is the expected score, then we have a par that's not very useful on that hole.

 

[Steve West]

More accurate par?

Early step in the development of par.

 

[teemkey]

Perhaps it can't be perfect.

But it can be better.

If 70% of the open field is getting a certain score, and we're saying some other score is the expected score, then we have a par that's not very useful on that hole.

Dave, you do realize Steve that Steve is not analyzing the scores of the entire open field, right? He's focused on the (near) 1000 rated players -- only those players he thinks represent the definition of "expert." (Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong).

I think most people are dissatisfied with the scores relative to par that they see on video, and notice at the top of the PDGA tournament summaries. Actually these are generally the elite (1020+ rated) touring players. Note that Steve isn't looking at those players either -- I'm assuming he thinks they are too skilled to fit the definition of expert, a somewhat odd conclusion IMHO; though I understand they shouldn't be considered representative of the ideal 1000 rated player, it does make the definition of "expert" somewhat tenuous.

I'm not sure we've seen aggregate statistics on the entire open field.

 

[teemkey]

Early step in the development of par.

Maybe, because of tweeners, less granularity is warranted -- just saying .

 

[Steve West]

Dave, you do realize Steve that Steve is not analyzing the scores of the entire open field, right? He's focused on the (near) 1000 rated players -- only those players he thinks represent the definition of "expert." (Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong).
...

He knows that. Since most Open fields contain a lot of players who are not really competing in Open (I mean under 970, per PDGA guidelines), if 70% of the whole field is getting birdies, it's even more too easy than my method would indicate. An extreme example of a par that is too low, to make his point that there are some pars that should change.

As for the idea of using 1020 rated players, there often aren't enough of them to do the stats. Using the 1000-rated player results in a par rated around 1020 a lot of the time anyway. If I used 1020 rated players, par would not be much lower because 1020 rated players don't make many errors, so their par would be rated close to their rating.

Bottom line using 1020 rated players would set par below the optimal information point (a little, sometimes), so why buck the trend of comparing the 1000-rated player to the scratch golfer?

 

[Steve West]

Maybe, because of tweeners, less granularity is warranted -- just saying .

Less than only using the numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5?


That's what "long" and "short" are for.

 

[DavidSauls]

Dave, you do realize Steve that Steve is not analyzing the scores of the entire open field, right? He's focused on the (near) 1000 rated players -- only those players he thinks represent the definition of "expert." (Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong).

.

Yes, I do.

But it's the open field, or much of it, where we may see players expected to get a score different than par. And it's hard to see how that meets the definition.

I'm not sold on Steve's method. I just want something that reasonably reflects the expected score of an expert. I realize that "expected" is vague, but in can't include that which happens infrequently; "expert" is undefined, though most ways people would reasonably define it would produce substantially the same results.

Steve has made an excellent attempt at refining and defining both terms. I'd do it differently, but that's just quibbling over details. Either way would be an improvement on the status quo, in my opinion.

 

[teemkey]

Yes, I do.

But it's the open field, or much of it, where we may see players expected to get a score different than par. And it's hard to see how that meets the definition.

Well, another way to look at it is that the definition, as written, is misguided (or does not provide appropriate guidance). As stated above, I'm more concerned with the fact that par is used in the PDGA rule book. If it weren't for that, I'd be happily throwing out methods to make par assignment more accurate for the pros.

I'm not sold on Steve's method. I just want something that reasonably reflects the expected score of an expert. I realize that "expected" is vague, but in can't include that which happens infrequently; "expert" is undefined, though most ways people would reasonably define it would produce substantially the same results.

Yeah. I have a friend with a 3-digit PDGA number. I consider him a DG expert, although he's not a 1000 rated player.

How do you feel about "errorless?"

Steve has made an excellent attempt at refining and defining both terms. I'd do it differently, but that's just quibbling over details. Either way would be an improvement on the status quo, in my opinion.

I'm in awe of the effort Steve's put into this; but I don't agree that he's directing his effort toward defining the terms. His work, if I understand him correctly, is directed at giving more precise guidance to TDs assigning pars for MPO & FPO at major events. And that's a laudable goal.

I think his work would be more accepted by us "errorless expert" doubters if he'd step away from the PDGA definition and simply say that a 1000 rated MPO and 925(?) rated FPO player, performing at their rating, are the standards he's using.

 

[teemkey]

Less than only using the numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5?

That's what "long" and "short" are for.

No. I'm talking about expected scores over a stretch of several holes as less granularity than hole by hole.

For example, at DeLa you might expect an expert to take 22 throws for holes 1-6. Since you are not predicting hole-by-hole, you aren't dependent on a specific combination of hole scores and thus increase your (apparent) accuracy.

 

[DavidSauls]

How do you feel about "errorless?"

Even vaguer and more useless than other terms in the definition.

It's led some people to read it as "perfect". But errors and excellence fall all along the spectrum; I know when I play I make throws that aren't quite good, not quite where I want them, but I wouldn't call them errors. Though weak, they're still much better than my true errors.

I believe that, way back in the beginning, Steve tried to quantify errorless, and that's baked into his formula. Interesting, but I wouldn't take that route myself.

I'd leave "expert" in there; though not defined, most people would reach conclusions similar enough to yield similar results: 1000-rated average, or above 1000, or open division, or something along those lines. It would be rare for a hole to have different results based on different expectations for these groups. (Golf, though a poor comparison, uses the term, and manages).

I'd take a shorter route on "expected"---the mean, or most common score (for that group on that hole), or a particular percentile, or something. Initially, in course design or a first tournament, it's what the designer/director expects those to be; afterwards, and after reviewing results, it can be decided that those expectations weren't realistic, and changed for the future.

With the goal of par being more useful (in the ways previously described), as well as better matching its definition.

(In the meantime, wouldn't it be nice if the PDGA offered a little guidance on what they mean, better than the extremely vague chart with "light foliage" and "heavy foliage" and no doglegs?)

 

[Steve West]

(In the meantime, wouldn't it be nice if the PDGA offered a little guidance on what they mean, better than the extremely vague chart with "light foliage" and "heavy foliage" and no doglegs?)

Write it up. Or, just describe something that would be better. There would be no reason not to have another guide alongside it.