Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

Thanks. Maybe what I'm looking for is a way to choose among the possible numbers we could select for par for those holes where the expected score isn't obvious. For those, if the definition doesn't provide an single answer, perhaps we are free to set a secondary set of selection rules. Like, perhaps, choose the one that is closest to average.

However, talking about a possible rule like that is getting a little ahead of where I'm at. I want to step back and see if there is any way to look at par on a meta basis to see if it's good or not.

Sometimes when we can't define how to make something better, it is easier to define how to make it worse and then do the opposite.

We all knew par was not as useful as it should have been 5 years ago. We didn't need to look at individual holes to know that. (Although some individual holes provided more evidence.) How did we know par was not fully useful? What was bad about it? How could it have been worse?

It seems to me that you're trying to apply some mathematical certainty and precision to some imprecise terms. In particular, "errorless". I respect the effort. But it's more than I wish to make.

For myself, with a hole without clear expectation, I tend to look at a range of results---average, most common score, median (or something a bit higher, maybe 60th percentile), and then take a stab at it. With a hope that such holes are few enough to have only a minor effect, in the grand scheme.

*

I guess there are a couple of ways to judge whether par is good.

One would be, if it reflects the expected score, it's useful in all the ways previously discussed. Spectators following results, portability, etc.

The other would be, if it matches golf, at least in certain ways, then it's useful aesthetically to those who think it should.

 

[Jukeshoe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

. . . and there'd no longer be any confusion about them.

I suspect that there is far less confusion than the stevewesters are willing to acknowledge.

 

[SD86]

How about we abolish par and just count strokes?

It's not a bad idea, and of course this is how the tournaments are ultimately decided; not by relation to par but total score.

However, there are a couple of problems with abolishing par, and they have to do with viewing on the the various media outlets we have today. First, a viewer would not have any way of knowing how well or poorly a player was doing unless the viewer knew very well what each hole was like.

For example: "Paul McBeth is at 120 throws after hole 9 of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is at 127 throws after hole 11." So... who's winning? And is hole 10 a 1087-foot hole that would be a 'par 5'? Or is hole 10 a 325-foot hole that is a very birdie-able 'par 3' (and by SOME people's desires, should be labeled a Par 2?) If you don't know, it's very hard to follow along.

The second reason is similar to (maybe the same as) the first. The Masters ball golf tournament went to relation-to-par to facilitate TV viewing. "Paul McBeth is -21 after the ninth hole of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is -19 after the 11th hole of the 3d round" tells us that Paul is in the lead by two, though with two more holes to play. You don't need to know if the next 6 or 7 holes are par 5s, 4s, or 3s; you know where the players are relative to each other relative to par.

Ergo, relation to par is good for viewers, regardless of whether or not the TD set par correctly. For the players, it's still all about the fewest throws from the tee box to the chains...

 

[Hampstead]

Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play.

Disc golfers would understand.


We really need to get away from the fantasy of sports fans who don't play casually watching a tournament.

 

[SD86]

I think the best way to set par is to have Paul McBeth play the course and then add one to his score on every hole.

Taking this seriously for a second, I've said before and I'll say again: no matter what you (plural) do to set up a course, either the super-elite players like McBeth, Wysocki, etc. will shred it, or the rest of the field will be destroyed by it. So if Paul McBeth is throwing par, then the vast majority of the field is being crushed by many strokes over par. There is just too much disparity in the MPO field, talent-wise, and ditto that for the FPO field. Some players are just TOO good relative to the others.

I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged.

I'm convinced all this par obsession is bad for our sport. Tournaments on open courses have become almost impossible to watch. There's so much roping in an effort to make the scoring more difficult, that all you see the top arms do is throw control shot after control shot. Personally I want to watch the big arms throw big. How many people do you think would watch the PGA tour if the courses were set up so Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson hit an iron off every tee?

You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.

What I said just above applies here, also.

I don't think anyone other than you sees this as appropriate.

If we did there would be holes labeled par 2 and I don't believe I've ever seen a tournament label a hole a par 2.

I can't believe you're asking this. If we do as you say, we end up with a ton of par 2s. So, you only have a birdie if you ace. We also end up with ridiculously long par 3s and 4s where the only birdies are fairway aces.

I really don't think you are even trying to be honest at this point. I am also suspicious that there may be something wrong with you.

And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.

 

[Cgkdisc]

And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.

There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. They may have less scoring spread at times but the holes play faster. We've officially used them in 2001 and 2002 Worlds. The sky didn't fall. Players don't shoot as far under par. Those against par 2s are apparently scared that if we don't emulate ball golf in the area of par that we'll never get credibility with mainstream media. (Are you really that scared for the sport or are you projecting your own dislike of not being able to birdie?)

There are so many other things where DG can never emulate ball golf's path and the jury is STILL out on our potential to ever get enough eyeballs for a financially sustainable pro tour. The case can be made that avoiding par 2s actually undermines our credibility even more by disguising the true scoring challenge for our top pros when we have the mathematical and computational ability to match and even surpass the quality and usefulness of statistics within DG versus BG with the side benefit to help improve both our temp and permanent holes and courses.

The idea that pros may not like par 2s is mostly irrelevant in our march toward administrative professionalism in our sport. Pros are expected to perform under pressure and are getting significantly more resources spent on their behalf than their numbers. Par 2s add more pressure, especially if it bugs them. I suspect that pros in BG grumble a bit when a daily par 5 is changed to a par 4 in tour events but accept it's an appropriate par change for their skill level. Par 2 is just a number, not some tricky hole design element like an elevated basket. Par 2s would certainly be a much milder annoyance than the trend to add temporary OB everywhere that actually costs strokes and actually makes the sport look less refined when played on temp venues.

 

[Steve West]

And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.

First, thank you.

Second, I would not mind if there were no par 2s at any sanctioned tournament. Just as I wouldn't mind if there were no par 6s. While they both may have something to contribute, they're both not necessary, and I'm not opposing anyone who thinks they are a bad thing to have. However, just like we can't get rid of the par 6s by calling them par 5s, we can't get rid of par 2s by calling them par 3s.

All I want to do is identify them. Those who run the tournaments on courses that have Par 2s can decide if the stigma is worse than setting par too high; and whether avoiding either problem is worth changing the hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play.

Disc golfers would understand.
.

Not quite as simple if the players are in different groups, and have a different number of holes to play.

It can be done, of course. "Player A leads by 7 but has 5 holes to play; player B trails but only has 3 holes to play." Doesn't really tell you who's in a better position. So you can add something about those holes, what the average scores are or how long they are or something, and then the listener has an idea.

But if you give scores relative to par, and particularly if the par is well-set, it immediately conveys the relative standings.

 

[SD86]

There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. .....

Again, I believe 'Par 2' would cause the total loss of any respect DG needs to become a legitimate sport, and DG would be relegated to the likes of Putt-Putt, especially if there was 'Par 2' on the course of a professional tournament. JMHO, YMMV. opcorn:

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Those against par 2s are apparently scared that if we don't emulate ball golf in the area of par that we'll never get credibility with mainstream media. (Are you really that scared for the sport or are you projecting your own dislike of not being able to birdie?)

And those for par 2's are apparently afraid of birdies, specifically, too many of them. The concern is that disc golf, which is much easier than real golf, will be perceived as easy if the scores in top tournaments are way below par: an embarrassment of birdies if you will.

Second, I would not mind if there were no par 2s at any sanctioned tournament. Just as I wouldn't mind if there were no par 6s. While they both may have something to contribute, they're both not necessary, and I'm not opposing anyone who thinks they are a bad thing to have. However, just like we can't get rid of the par 6s by calling them par 5s, we can't get rid of par 2s by calling them par 3s.

All I want to do is identify them. Those who run the tournaments on courses that have Par 2s can decide if the stigma is worse than setting par too high; and whether avoiding either problem is worth changing the hole.

You can't change par 3's into par 2's by coming up with your own definition of par (which is all that you've done). It's a sort of delusional arrogance to think that you can. Your disingenuous and simultaneous decrying and lauding of a "stigma" that you seem to be on a one-man mission to assign leaves me with a sort of Hanlon's Razor inspired conclusion - because the adequate and innocent explanation just doesn't seem to be there.

 

[PMantle]

There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. They may have less scoring spread at times but the holes play faster. We've officially used them in 2001 and 2002 Worlds. The sky didn't fall. Players don't shoot as far under par. Those against par 2s are apparently scared that if we don't emulate ball golf in the area of par that we'll never get credibility with mainstream media. (Are you really that scared for the sport or are you projecting your own dislike of not being able to birdie?)

There are so many other things where DG can never emulate ball golf's path and the jury is STILL out on our potential to ever get enough eyeballs for a financially sustainable pro tour. The case can be made that avoiding par 2s actually undermines our credibility even more by disguising the true scoring challenge for our top pros when we have the mathematical and computational ability to match and even surpass the quality and usefulness of statistics within DG versus BG with the side benefit to help improve both our temp and permanent holes and courses.

The idea that pros may not like par 2s is mostly irrelevant in our march toward administrative professionalism in our sport. Pros are expected to perform under pressure and are getting significantly more resources spent on their behalf than their numbers. Par 2s add more pressure, especially if it bugs them. I suspect that pros in BG grumble a bit when a daily par 5 is changed to a par 4 in tour events but accept it's an appropriate par change for their skill level. Par 2 is just a number, not some tricky hole design element like an elevated basket. Par 2s would certainly be a much milder annoyance than the trend to add temporary OB everywhere that actually costs strokes and actually makes the sport look less refined when played on temp venues.

I could not possibly disagree with this more than I do.

 

[Steve West]

And those for par 2's are apparently afraid of birdies, specifically, too many of them. The concern is that disc golf, which is much easier than real golf, will be perceived as easy if the scores in top tournaments are way below par: an embarrassment of birdies if you will.

No, that's not the main concern. The main concern is that par was being set according to a lot of different standards. If there had been one single standard which resulted in a lot of birdies then we could live with a sport that generated a lot of birdies.

By the way, the actual definition still results in a lot of birdies. And that's OK.

What we can't live with is setting par according to a lot of different notions. Since we actually do have one single official definition, we're past trying to decide on a single definition. Everything in this thread - by most other posters - is trying to get par to be set according to the definition.

Nothing has been about reducing the number of birdies as a goal in and of itself. It just so happens that almost all the reasons TDs had for setting par in a way that was not compatible with the before-the-comma part of the definition mostly resulted in pars that were higher than if they had set par according to the definition.

You can't change par 3's into par 2's by coming up with your own definition of par (which is all that you've done). ...

As much as you would like everyone to think you are not attacking the actual definition of par, you actually are. So;

Do you agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma? If not, you have problems with the definition, not with me.

If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma, then explain why a three on hole 6 at the event below "is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions".

https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament/live/?TournID=38632&RoundID=94396

 

[Steve West]

..

If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma, then explain why a three on hole 6 at the event below "is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions".

https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament/live/?TournID=38632&RoundID=94396

Typo. I meant the 195 foot hole 16.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If you do agree that TDs should set par according to the part of the definition before the comma . . .

At this point, it's not even a nice try at a specious argument.

You are the one overly concerned with the comma, not me. Whose expectations are referred to in the par definition? They are the TD's expectations. You cannot separate the dependent clause after the comma from the part before the comma and claim that the TD isn't setting the "before the comma part" correctly because the "after the comma part" makes it the TD's job to make that determination. If you are not the TD, then you cannot make the determination and have your determination be consistent with the definition. And, by the way, just so we're on the same page; you're not the TD.

Who gets to determine who an "expert" is? Well, since you asked, it's the TD again. You cannot claim that an expert is to be defined by you for the purpose of claiming that the TD set par incorrectly, because the TD determines what "expert" means according to the definition. There are other aspects to the use of the word "expectation" that are problematic, but they aren't really pertinent to disposing of your silly comma arguments.

Do you refuse to acknowledge that the TD gets to determine what an "expert" is?
Do you refuse to acknowledge that the TD gets to determine what score is expected of that expert?
Do you refuse to acknowledge that par is what the TD determines it is?

So delusion, density or malice? You pick.

Incidentally, I would never dream of denying you your Monday morning quarterbacking of whether the TD made the right decision and petty attempts to shame TD's who undertake the sometimes herculean task of running a tournament. However, I utterly reject any claim that the definition of par lends your opinions any more weight than those of people who believe par is three.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's a difference between a generic TD and a TD who has signed on to run a sanctioned event under PDGA rules and guidelines. TDs are expected to follow the guidelines for setting par for an "expert" player at a skill level just as much as following division assignments and payout guidelines unless having applied for a waiver that was approved. They may not know the precise way to set par on holes that do not have scoring data but they do know how to do so when that hole is played in following years.

 

[Steve West]

...
However, I utterly reject any claim that the definition of par lends your opinions any more weight than those of people who believe par is three.

Well, at least you are now openly attacking the definition, and not just me.

Yes, par WAS three because the TD said so.

I'm asking you to pretend you were the TD and tell us how you would interpret "expert" and "expected" (for the Open division at an A-Tier) to decide to set par to 3. Give us the insights behind your equally weighted opinion.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Well, at least you are now openly attacking the definition, and not just me.

Nope, I'm not attacking the definition; I'm just reading it - all of it - and giving meaning to all parts of it.

Yes, par WAS three because the TD said so.

See, the definition isn't so hard to understand.

I'm asking you to pretend you were the TD and tell us how you would interpret "expert" and "expected" (for the Open division at an A-Tier) to decide to set par to 3. Give us the insights behind your equally weighted opinion.

I freely acknowledge that any such opinion that I would have about what you are asking would be similarly weighted. But, I will say this, I would not set par differently for a single division of a tournament than for other divisions, nor would I set par for a specific tier of tournament differently than I would for a different tier tournament or differently than I would set it when designing the course (assuming that I was only able to put in one set of tees).

What is expected of an expert on a hole doesn't change based on who is playing the hole.

Getting to your question, I notice that you haven't posted any photographs or much data about the hole: just distance and scores (and the par designation is a 4 vs the three you have alluded to). But, without looking at the hole, I can't really answer your question. Just on the basis of distance, a three would be a little eyebrow raising, but I've also played a ~1,300 ft. par 3 (and threw a 1,400 ft drive ), so it's not exactly what I would call extreme based on that one metric. Anyway, I can't answer because you haven't provided enough information for the WWYD on this one. Does that answer your question? And, I would not, under any circumstances, criticize the TD's par designation based on the scores, much less attempt to shame him/her on a public internet forum.

 

[Steve West]

...And, I would not, under any circumstances, criticize the TD's par designation based on the scores, much less attempt to shame him/her on a public internet forum.

So, bottom line, par 2s are OK if the TD sets par to 2, right?

 

[dreadlock86]

HA!!