Par Talk

[DG_player]

I was taking about all three rounds. However, I now have looked at just the third round. It's not quite apples to apples because of the cut, but almost the exact same percent of strokes were good enough to get par in the third round as the other two. In fact, for the third round, hole 5 (which is a par 5 and had played on the bubble between par 4 and par 5) played as a par 4.

Par is a lot more robust than most people think. Because most people think it has something to do with average score. It doesn't. It has to do with errorless play. The score that results from errorless play will not change no matter how much punishment a course doles out to errors.

(As for whether a course can be too punishing, or the unfairness of different conditions at different times of day, those are subjects for other threads.)

I'm not sure if the data is available, but I would be willing to bet that if you were able to split the first half who went off in the morning and the 2nd half who played in the afternoon, that you would see a big difference.

As far as errorless play, I saw a lot of errorless shots that rolled 40 yards off the green.

 

[Steve West]

I reckon the problem in the third round was that conditions made far too many good shots turn into errors, so the players could hit errorless shots and have the course turn them into "errors" when considering par.

What problem? The point was that even under those conditions my method still came up with mostly the same pars as the USGA. The one hole where there was disagreement went the other way from where you would expect if difficult conditions could ruin my method.

I'm not sure if the data is available, but I would be willing to bet that if you were able to split the first half who went off in the morning and the 2nd half who played in the afternoon, that you would see a big difference.

I'm sure you would. Whether it was enough to change what my method spits out, I don't know. Even if it was, the method doesn't use only half a round of data from the most unusual conditions – it uses as much data as is available. Enough of it will be ordinary weather conditions to find what par should be.

As far as errorless play, I saw a lot of errorless shots that rolled 40 yards off the green.

Still, even using only the ones that didn't fall off the green, my method was able to figure out what par should be just by looking at the scores.

Which shouldn't be a surprise. Par is an expected, therefore common, score (if experts are playing).

 

[PMantle]

Taking another look at U.S. Open after 3 rounds, I find it interesting that even with all the grousing about the course being too hard, the par scores are still happening.

Par is a bad score though. That's why there is grousing. These guys HATE shooting par.

 

[Steve West]

Par is a bad score though. That's why there is grousing. These guys HATE shooting par.

No, par is not a bad score. Granted, it is a score that does not help the player win. It also does not help a player lose. That makes it a neutral score, not a bad score.

If the source of the complaints was that these guys HATE the score they are getting on the majority of holes, they would grouse about all other courses, too. More so, since other courses serve up more pars.

It seems much more plausible that the grousing is about the reduced number of pars. Specifically, the increase in the frequency of scores over par.

 

[PMantle]

No, par is not a bad score.

It's a very bad score.

 

[Steve West]

It's a very bad score.

Explain.

 

[PMantle]

Explain.

We went through this earlier in the thread. A PGA Tour player who shoots par loses his card(Exempt status) and must go through Q School to be able to even play the next season.

 

[biscoe]

No, par is not a bad score. Granted, it is a score that does not help the player win. It also does not help a player lose. That makes it a neutral score, not a bad score.

If the source of the complaints was that these guys HATE the score they are getting on the majority of holes, they would grouse about all other courses, too. More so, since other courses serve up more pars.

It seems much more plausible that the grousing is about the reduced number of pars. Specifically, the increase in the frequency of scores over par.

IMO the grousing has pretty much zero to do with par and a lot to do with the idea that what are otherwise good shots are being punished by extreme conditions. The grousing should also be taken with a grain of salt since stretching these guys to/near the breaking point is what the US Open is traditionally all about.

 

[Steve West]

We went through this earlier in the thread. A PGA Tour player who shoots par loses his card(Exempt status) and must go through Q School to be able to even play the next season.

He also wins $2 million at the US Open.

Here's how I'm looking at it. The top players in the word get par more often than any other score. Sure, players need some birdies over time to do well (especially since a lot of courses include the traditional two holes labelled par 5 that are really par 4s), but they don't need all that many birdies compared to how many pars they will get. Par will get you most of the way to being a successful player. So, on any given hole, that's not "very bad". That's not even bad. It's just meh.

 

[PMantle]

He also wins $2 million at the US Open.

Here's how I'm looking at it. The top players in the word get par more often than any other score. Sure, players need some birdies over time to do well (especially since a lot of courses include the traditional two holes labelled par 5 that are really par 4s), but they don't need all that many birdies compared to how many pars they will get. Par will get you most of the way to being a successful player. So, on any given hole, that's not "very bad". That's not even bad. It's just meh.

OK, so , one week a year in a tournament known for the governing body "Losing the course".

No, the ones labeled par 5 are not really par 4s. They are par 5s, period. This goes back to you really not understanding what par is, and trying to transform par into something it's not.

 

[Steve West]

OK, so , one week a year in a tournament known for the governing body "Losing the course".

No, the ones labeled par 5 are not really par 4s. They are par 5s, period. This goes back to you really not understanding what par is, and trying to transform par into something it's not.

I know, the US Open isn't a great counter-example, but it was fun to point out.

Yes, they ARE par 5s, because the Committee said so, but they should be par 4s if par was set according to the definition.

My understanding of what par is only comes from the official definitions that both sports use. Yours goes beyond that, I guess.

Wait, so which one of us is trying to change it into something it's not?

 

[lyleoross]

I'm sure there have been holes that have changed par, but I can't imagine doing so without a design change. I can see moving a tee up on a short par 4 and making it a par 3 - they wouldn't just change par and leave it as is. They do this at many US Open venues - they shorten a par 5 and make it a difficult par 4.


For the first two hundred years of the sport, they played in open fields and over hedgerows. There wasn't a formal club/course laid in until the 1700s. I guess I have trouble seeing how the sport could have avoided being more flexible than what is being suggested, for decades, if not hundreds of years?



In ball golf course design, it is easy to incorporate a fair challenge to a common par across skill levels by simply adding another set of tees. In disc golf, there are some courses that do this, but nearly all only have two tee positions (in ball golf there can be 4-5). And, given disc golf doesn't have an established course par target (like ball golf's 72), we're going to get all sorts of combinations. That's why we have and will probably always have such a mish-mash of course levels and pars.



Would you then say that disc golf is significantly different than ball golf then and should we consider doing things a little differently because of that?




At major tournaments, the designers/TDs seem to be doing a good job of assigning pars appropriate for the top-level players. A lot of that is by creating temp layouts on ball golf courses and by tightening up landing areas with OB.

Beyond those layouts, designers (if they have the luxury of space) have to decide what they want to be - a tournament-level course, one that is kid-friendly, or something in between? You can accommodate multiple skill levels with different tee/basket locations (if you have the space and can afford to do it), but if you have a wooded course that's going to be more difficult.

It comes down to resources - if designers have plenty of space, plenty of labor, and plenty of money they can put together a course with good pars for multiple skill levels. But, how often do those stars align?



I can, and have, pulled up several NTs that have several holes that birdie for the first twenty to thirty players. Steve regularly posts such data here. I see your point about labor and resources. Since we have limits on these things should we consider doing it differently than ball golf who has unlimited labor and resources?



Of course- in baseball throws are made all the time to very precise locations, but even in batting practice your control is limited compared to throwing accuracy.[/QUOTE]

If throwing a ball is so much easier than hitting one with a stick, and if the supposition is that throwing a disc is so much easier, such that mastery is easier, then why aren't there more world class pitchers, or even third basemen who can pick up a grounder and deliver it on target to first base? If mastery is so easy, I'd think this would be easy to get down quickly?

 

[PMantle]

I know, the US Open isn't a great counter-example, but it was fun to point out.

Yes, they ARE par 5s, because the Committee said so, but they should be par 4s if par was set according to the definition.

My understanding of what par is only comes from the official definitions that both sports use. Yours goes beyond that, I guess.

Wait, so which one of us is trying to change it into something it's not?

This is never,ever done. Yes, mine goes beyond the definition which is never used. You, Steve. You , man.

 

[teemkey]

Steve, do you have access to Udisc data; that is, will they give you access to a CSV (or TSV) download of their data for a tournament?

(assuming your analysis tools accept CVS/TSV input)

 

[Steve West]

Steve, do you have access to Udisc data; that is, will they give you access to a CSV (or TSV) download of their data for a tournament?

(assuming your analysis tools accept CVS/TSV input)

I get the scores from their website. Or from PDGA Live Scoring. We've talked about CSV, but there's no need for them to do extra work.

Why do you ask?

 

[teemkey]

I get the scores from their website. Or from PDGA Live Scoring. We've talked about CSV, but there's no need for them to do extra work.

Why do you ask?

It would allow you to make a data-based definition of "errorless" by using fairway hits, parked/C1/C2 in regulation, scrambles, C1/C2 putting, and OB penalties.

Not that such a definition would be accepted by all, but it would at least have a degree of external validity.

 

[lyleoross]

We went through this earlier in the thread. A PGA Tour player who shoots par loses his card(Exempt status) and must go through Q School to be able to even play the next season.

Can we get a reference that demonstrates this? What I read is that it is tournament dependent. A player in the top tournaments who shoots par is just fine. A player shooting par in minor tournaments is not. In other words, it depends. I've also read that you have to shoot between -2 and 3 to be in the range to keep it just fine. I'm assuming that is in top tournaments. That seems a lot like par. So a reference would be appreciated.

Also, why does this matter? We don't have cards, we have a very different structure. Golf has cards to limit and control the players they have on tour. We don't. The point seems irrelevant.

 

[Steve West]

It would allow you to make a data-based definition of "errorless" by using fairway hits, parked/C1/C2 in regulation, scrambles, C1/C2 putting, and OB penalties.

Not that such a definition would be accepted by all, but it would at least have a degree of external validity.

That would be a good idea - if par had anything to do with the actual, official, definition. If there is one thing I've learned from this thread, it is that the definition is the ONLY thing that par is not.

Seriously, though, before looking at that data, we should discuss what "would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions" means for each of those stats. Does an expert who is playing erorlessly make every C2 putt? Can an expert who misses the fairway ever expect the same score as an expert who doesn't? Is guaranteeing a 3 by throwing past the basket when it's 10 feet in front of OB on an island an errorless play?

 

[teemkey]

...
Seriously, though, before looking at that data, we should discuss what "would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions" means for each of those stats. Does an expert who is playing erorlessly make every C2 putt? Can an expert who misses the fairway ever expect the same score as an expert who doesn't? Is guaranteeing a 3 by throwing past the basket when it's 10 feet in front of OB on an island an errorless play?

Wouldn't running various combinations qualify as "fun" for a statistician?

My take is that a throw off the fairway indicates an error, as does a scramble and an OB. Where parked or C1 in regulation would be errorless, C2 in regulation is fuzzy. I'd also say not making the first putt from C2 is errorless, but 2 C2 putts (like 2 C1 putts) indicates an error. Essentially, using Udisc data enables you to throw out a player's hole data because an error is indicated.

What's often missed is that a player can exceed expectations and (I think) you need to consider that in your calculations. Hence a scramble for par, hitting a C2 putt, or a par in spite of an OB is exceeding expectations.

I think your biggest problem with players exceeding expectations is that you've chosen the 1000(ish) rated player as an "expert" and there are quite a few players with ratings indicating a 4+ throw per round advantage over the 1000 rated player. And those are the players we usually see on video (lead & chase cards), they have developed fan bases, and many of the arguments I've read on this forum that par is too easy is based on the play of these elite players.

 

[PMantle]

Can we get a reference that demonstrates this? What I read is that it is tournament dependent. A player in the top tournaments who shoots par is just fine. A player shooting par in minor tournaments is not. In other words, it depends. I've also read that you have to shoot between -2 and 3 to be in the range to keep it just fine. I'm assuming that is in top tournaments. That seems a lot like par. So a reference would be appreciated.

Also, why does this matter? We don't have cards, we have a very different structure. Golf has cards to limit and control the players they have on tour. We don't. The point seems irrelevant.

Par for every tournament in a year. Add up the money. That guy loses his card.

It matters in context of the discussion being had.