Par Talk

[lyleoross]

What's the dictionary definition have to do with anything? The PDGA defined par, that's the definition as far as disc golf is concerned.

Excuse me, I need to go check out the ADGT thread. Dwelling on a PDGA error makes my head hurt right now.

 

[Steve West]

Excuse me, folks, I have to leave this discussion to go talk about the ADGT. I'll be back in a few weeks.

We'll juuuust about have it figured out by then.

 

[New013]

That might allow New013 to get an eagle on every hole, but it wouldn't be enough for me.

No I'd still be taking par on some of the holes in your yard

 

[Disczealot]

The definition is fighting itself.

Allowing 2 throws from close range goes against the concept of the expected score. It reduces the accuracy of "expected score" by throwing another variable in.

The most important part of the definition is "expected score", that is the core of what par means.

The only reason to have the 2 throw part is to allow for more birdies, I don't see any other logical reason to include it in the definition.

So, I would conclude that the people that are against using Steve's method are the ones that want errorless play to mean birdie, not par.

Maybe we should discuss why the 2 throws should stay in the definition.

 

[trifocal]

Fire and Fury

Trump flame war with N. Korea sparks discussion of the Economics of Par. msnbc

U.S. stocks fell, with the S&P 500 at a session low after Trump's comment, while a widely followed measure of stock market anxiety spiked hyzered and was on track to close at a one-month high. The U.S. dollar index slightly pared gains as the safe-haven yen strengthened against the U.S. currency.

 

[PMantle]

The most important part of the definition is "expected score", that is the core of what par means.

And since birdies are expected...

 

[zjones9]

And since birdies are expected...

Wrong.

The meaning of "expected" in this context is more in line with the mathematical/statistical definition.

A 1000 rated player may step up to a hole and think "I should be able to complete this hole in X amount of shots. Therefore, I EXPECT to get a X on this hole."

However, when considering how the term "expected" fits into the definition of par, you would have to consider the average score that player would score on the hole.

 

[Steve West]

Eureka Temp had very well set pars; unfortunately shying away from the par 2 label.

Event par would have gotten an average round rating of 1011, which is acceptable, but for a course with so many chances to make an error, the rating of a par round should be at the upper end of the acceptable range. If the two holes that everyone knew were par 2s (because they kept calling them "must gets" all week) had actually been labelled par 2s, then par would have had an average round rating of 1025, which better reflects the amount of rope and water.

 

[PMantle]

Wrong.

The meaning of "expected" in this context is more in line with the mathematical/statistical definition.

A 1000 rated player may step up to a hole and think "I should be able to complete this hole in X amount of shots. Therefore, I EXPECT to get a X on this hole."

However, when considering how the term "expected" fits into the definition of par, you would have to consider the average score that player would score on the hole.

Wow lol

 

[BogeyNoMore]

After 13 years of observing human behavior on and around DG courses, my conclusion is that many DG'ers would rather partake than Par Talk.

 

[NegaSnapples]

Eureka Temp had very well set pars; unfortunately shying away from the par 2 label.

Event par would have gotten an average round rating of 1011, which is acceptable, but for a course with so many chances to make an error, the rating of a par round should be at the upper end of the acceptable range. If the two holes that everyone knew were par 2s (because they kept calling them "must gets" all week) had actually been labelled par 2s, then par would have had an average round rating of 1025, which better reflects the amount of rope and water.

I'm a little confused here. Par is supposed to reflect the amount of OB and water? I thought par was just supposed to be the "expected" score, regardless of any other factors? I enjoy your methodology for finding an accurate par. I just don't understand exactly what you're saying here.

 

[Steve West]

I'm a little confused here. Par is supposed to reflect the amount of OB and water? ...

No, but ratings do. Errors are a big part of the difference between a 1000-rated round and par for a 1000-rated player.

If you avoid a lot of potential errors, you get a higher rating because some players will make those errors and bring the average score up.

Par is avoiding all the errors. So, a par round on a course with a lot of potential errors should be rated higher than a par round on a course with few potential errors.

 

[NegaSnapples]

No, but ratings do. Errors are a big part of the difference between a 1000-rated round and par for a 1000-rated player.

If you avoid a lot of potential errors, you get a higher rating because some players will make those errors and bring the average score up.

Par is avoiding all the errors. So, a par round on a course with a lot of potential errors should be rated higher than a par round on a course with few potential errors.

Ah, yes, I understand what you mean now. Good work on the calculations as always :thmbup:

 

[DG_player]

The definition is fighting itself.

Allowing 2 throws from close range goes against the concept of the expected score. It reduces the accuracy of "expected score" by throwing another variable in.

The most important part of the definition is "expected score", that is the core of what par means.

The only reason to have the 2 throw part is to allow for more birdies, I don't see any other logical reason to include it in the definition.

So, I would conclude that the people that are against using Steve's method are the ones that want errorless play to mean birdie, not par.

Maybe we should discuss why the 2 throws should stay in the definition.

I think that is a gross over simplification. I don't think anyone that supports 2 shots from close range just wants easy birdies per se.

There are essentially 3 types of holes out there:

1. Sufficiently challenging holes that require at least 1 superb shot to get a birdie, either a superb approach, or failing that a superb long range putt. Errorless play will simply net you a par.

2. Less challenging holes where errorless play generally results in a birdie.

3. Easy holes where errorless play isn't even required, where everything but an egregious misthrow will result in a birdie.

You can support close range par and still have the stance that #3 does not belong in high level play, and #2 should at the minimum be limited.

 

[Steve West]

I think that is a gross over simplification. I don't think anyone that supports 2 shots from close range just wants easy birdies per se.

There are essentially 3 types of holes out there:

1. Sufficiently challenging holes that require at least 1 superb shot to get a birdie, either a superb approach, or failing that a superb long range putt. Errorless play will simply net you a par.

2. Less challenging holes where errorless play generally results in a birdie.

3. Easy holes where errorless play isn't even required, where everything but an egregious misthrow will result in a birdie.

You can support close range par and still have the stance that #3 does not belong in high level play, and #2 should at the minimum be limited.

Did you use "birdie" for "two"?

 

[DG_player]

Did you use "birdie" for "two"?

You know what I mean. Birdie by traditional parring.

Is it really necessary to continue the snarkiness?

 

[lyleoross]

You know what I mean. Birdie by traditional parring.

Is it really necessary to continue the snarkiness?

Steve is many things, but snarky isn't one of them. He does have sense of humor though. Now me on the other hand....

 

[PMantle]

Steve is many things, but snarky isn't one of them. He does have sense of humor though. Now me on the other hand....

Uh, you're quite wrong.

 

[Steve West]

You know what I mean. Birdie by traditional parring.

Is it really necessary to continue the snarkiness?

Thanks, I just wanted clarification. Snarkiness was not intended. Sorry.

I was reading it over and over in the context of untraditional parring and trying to make sense of it. Then, I thought "What if it actually means 3s and 2s?" Then, it made sense, so I fired off a quick note to make sure that's how you were thinking.

 

[Steve West]

Steve is many things, but snarky isn't one of them. He does have sense of humor though. Now me on the other hand....

Snarky is my default setting. I try to suppress it, but don't always even recognize it. I really try not to let snarkiness get through to the final draft.