-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Par Talk
- Thread starter Steve West
- Start date
PMantle
* Ace Member *
If they use a putting stance/technique.
I've never seen anyone putt from that far. I probably stay in upshot mode from outside of 50, but I've never measured it.
Yes. At least the second part; I'm not clear about the first.
It's one of the many distinctions between golf and disc golf.
Disc golf will never have the distinction golf has between putting and other strokes---in equipment, style, and path of the disc/ball (flying vs. rolling). Nor, for that matter, the clear distinction of the course, between a green and the rest of the fairway.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Never say never.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,857
That's why I look at scores directly.
Choosing the score that experts get after eliminating the scores that included throws with errors is a direct application of the definition - if you define "close range" as the range at which the number of errorless throws it takes to complete the hole is expected to be 2 (and there is nothing official that says close range is defined any differently).
Given that some choices need to be made to precisely define the terms, that's as close to the Rulebook definition of par as a formula can get - except for the part where it says the Director determines par. That needs to be there because there will be borderline cases and some holes that wouldn't feel right.
All the formulas - whether based on hole characteristics or scores - are just tools to help the TD set par, not a substitute for the definition applied with human judgement.
PMantle
* Ace Member *
I get the using a putter part because many drive with them, but not following on the rest. What is a putt in disc golf to you?
Last edited:
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
Any throw within 10 meters of the basket.
Never say never.
Heaven forbid!
Though it crosses my mind that we could come closer by (1) changing the disc specs, reducing the minimum size to make minis legal and (2) playing on mini baskets, possibly on taller poles. Then we'd drive and approach with the longer-gliding, more controllable normal discs, but putt with minis so they'd fit.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
There is a definition of par, and an agreement amongst 99.9999% of the population as to how it should be used. Par is what a scratch golfer, an expert, shoots on a course. The .0001% of the population who doesn't agree with this definition plays disc golf and uses the definition, throws + 2, something golf uses as a rule of thumb to determine par before setting it as what an expert player shoots.
Steve is exactly using the definition of what golf uses to set par, what an expert player shoots. Golf has an advantage in this game of defining par. Finding a scratch player is easy. The sport has enough history and enough established courses that you can go out and find a player that shoots par on a well-defined course and know he is a scratch player with great confidence. Disc golf doesn't have that luxury so Steve has created an artificial definition of an "expert" player by saying you're an expert player if you shoot around 1,000. As in golf, Steve then uses his scratch player to determine what par is, based on that player's performance on the course in question.
This is a debate over how you set par. You have two sides. One wants to use math based on how an expert player performs, the other wants par to be a number that can be beaten by players to show skill. The second wants par to be either organic what the TD wants, or based on a calculation that doesn't fit how the sport actually plays. That side has used the following arguments to support their position:
1. Math doesn't matter as much as experience
2. A rule of thumb measurement from ball golf should be used to calculate par, despite the fact that the number it gives has no real meaning in terms of what happens on the ground
3. You will get par 2 on holes, and that is both bad, and not allowed
4. If players only break par occasionally, that is bad
5. Calculating par based on performance, as determined by math (again, exactly what golf does) isn 't really par, or isn't a definition of par, and is some random thing with no meaning
Let's discuss math for a moment. The argument against the math being used here is equivalent to telling a man with ten dollars, who has ten kids and wants to give each one a dollar, because 10/10 is one, that he doesn't know what he's doing. Steve isn't doing regression analysis, he's doing simple averages of expert players to determine how many throws they take to hole out on a given hole, rounding to the nearest number and calling that par. This is exactly what golf does to determine par.
The battle over math and its use in such things is as old as the hills. Galileo got put in an ivory tower because he used math to show that it was the earth that went around the sun and not vice versa.
I've written this before but here it is again. The point is moot. Expert TDs are increasingly adjusting par at the top events to give it meaning. They are adjusting their numbers so that they make sense, at least to those who use the classic definition of par. Smaller tournaments will continue to use inflated pars. That is actually appropriate since they are catering to lesser players, and that number fits the skill of those players.
Of all the posters on this topic, the one who is going to get a call to help a TD determine par will be Steve. Even over Chuck, who is quite an expert himself. Those who think it's the end of the world will be in a quandary when they wake in the morning and the tournament goes off without a hitch.
Steve is exactly using the definition of what golf uses to set par, what an expert player shoots. Golf has an advantage in this game of defining par. Finding a scratch player is easy. The sport has enough history and enough established courses that you can go out and find a player that shoots par on a well-defined course and know he is a scratch player with great confidence. Disc golf doesn't have that luxury so Steve has created an artificial definition of an "expert" player by saying you're an expert player if you shoot around 1,000. As in golf, Steve then uses his scratch player to determine what par is, based on that player's performance on the course in question.
This is a debate over how you set par. You have two sides. One wants to use math based on how an expert player performs, the other wants par to be a number that can be beaten by players to show skill. The second wants par to be either organic what the TD wants, or based on a calculation that doesn't fit how the sport actually plays. That side has used the following arguments to support their position:
1. Math doesn't matter as much as experience
2. A rule of thumb measurement from ball golf should be used to calculate par, despite the fact that the number it gives has no real meaning in terms of what happens on the ground
3. You will get par 2 on holes, and that is both bad, and not allowed
4. If players only break par occasionally, that is bad
5. Calculating par based on performance, as determined by math (again, exactly what golf does) isn 't really par, or isn't a definition of par, and is some random thing with no meaning
Let's discuss math for a moment. The argument against the math being used here is equivalent to telling a man with ten dollars, who has ten kids and wants to give each one a dollar, because 10/10 is one, that he doesn't know what he's doing. Steve isn't doing regression analysis, he's doing simple averages of expert players to determine how many throws they take to hole out on a given hole, rounding to the nearest number and calling that par. This is exactly what golf does to determine par.
The battle over math and its use in such things is as old as the hills. Galileo got put in an ivory tower because he used math to show that it was the earth that went around the sun and not vice versa.
I've written this before but here it is again. The point is moot. Expert TDs are increasingly adjusting par at the top events to give it meaning. They are adjusting their numbers so that they make sense, at least to those who use the classic definition of par. Smaller tournaments will continue to use inflated pars. That is actually appropriate since they are catering to lesser players, and that number fits the skill of those players.
Of all the posters on this topic, the one who is going to get a call to help a TD determine par will be Steve. Even over Chuck, who is quite an expert himself. Those who think it's the end of the world will be in a quandary when they wake in the morning and the tournament goes off without a hitch.
Last edited:
Excellent.
But in:
1. Math doesn't matter as much as experience
2. A rule of thumb measurement from ball golf should be used to calculate par, despite the fact that the number it gives has no real meaning in terms of what happens on the ground
3. You will get par 2 on holes, and that is both bad, and not allowed
4. If players only break par occasionally, that is bad
5. Calculating par based on performance, as determined by math (again, exactly what golf does) isn 't really par, or isn't a definition of par, and is some random thing with no meaning
You left out
6. Par is something else.
Apparently something different, something I'm not bright enough to discern, something everyone should know but is kept secret from me (because I keep asking, without answer).
And perhaps
7. The disc golf definition says 2 throws from close range, which means 2 putts, which means 2 putts in the 10-meter circle,
and we must read it this way, even if it results in nonsensical scores, or scores that aren't the expected scores of experts. Because, you know, the last part of the definition is the only important part, and it must be interpreted this way. The "expected score" part is to be ignored.
But in:
1. Math doesn't matter as much as experience
2. A rule of thumb measurement from ball golf should be used to calculate par, despite the fact that the number it gives has no real meaning in terms of what happens on the ground
3. You will get par 2 on holes, and that is both bad, and not allowed
4. If players only break par occasionally, that is bad
5. Calculating par based on performance, as determined by math (again, exactly what golf does) isn 't really par, or isn't a definition of par, and is some random thing with no meaning
You left out
6. Par is something else.
Apparently something different, something I'm not bright enough to discern, something everyone should know but is kept secret from me (because I keep asking, without answer).
And perhaps
7. The disc golf definition says 2 throws from close range, which means 2 putts, which means 2 putts in the 10-meter circle,
and we must read it this way, even if it results in nonsensical scores, or scores that aren't the expected scores of experts. Because, you know, the last part of the definition is the only important part, and it must be interpreted this way. The "expected score" part is to be ignored.
PMantle
* Ace Member *
Golf doesn't do this at all, ever.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Yes they do. Taking the scores that scratch players shoot on a hole, averaging that, and applying that number to the hole is math. And the sport does this. Always? No, I'm sure that isn't correct.
When you go looking, all commentators mention the rule of thumb measures of basic distance, and strokes plus two (although not always both). Then all of them tell you, those are only loose measures because a top-level player can knock 250 yards out of the park. They all discuss hole difficulty as impacting the final par. Commentators say par is all over the place even though courses aim for 72. But the one piece that I found that really seems to sum it up is this commentary:
Saying something never happens is a tough thing to defend. I have no doubt you can find a course that is based purely on distance, and one that is based purely on strokes plus 2.
The problem is that those courses aren't serious courses. They aren't played by serious pros and have limited utility. Everything I read suggests designers start with a formula but that courses get adjusted to attract players and to market the courses.
If your argument is that high pars that allow players to smash par attract lots of players, well, you're wrong. USDGC, Maple Hill, De La, most of the big events prove this isn't important.
Last edited:
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Of course, I suppose that the guy who wrote this knew that one day disc golfers would be having a heated discussion on how par should be set up and wrote it for a laugh...
I could be completely wrong, but I assume that even the golf rules of thumb were developed after some experience---that they had some results numbers, and created rules of thumb to easily replicate them. 2 shots on the green, for example.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
From the USGA handicapping manual:
The Rating Process
The rating process requires a study of each hole, including detailed data obtained at all landing zones for both the scratch and bogey golfer. The rating teams use the average shot lengths for both scratch and bogey golfers to determine landing zones. Length corrections and obstacle values are considered at each landing zone.
I can post more if you'd like?
The Rating Process
The rating process requires a study of each hole, including detailed data obtained at all landing zones for both the scratch and bogey golfer. The rating teams use the average shot lengths for both scratch and bogey golfers to determine landing zones. Length corrections and obstacle values are considered at each landing zone.
I can post more if you'd like?
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
That makes too much sense.
The notion that no math is involved and that they'd never do calculations or think about performance always seemed very strange to me. Once you start reading it's clear that they use numbers and averages on everything they do at every level. That's what I'd expect.Part of that I suspect is because it's such an exacting sport. Players using handicaps and playing to move up towards the pro circuit are likely to want to know every number they can so as to develop strategies.
I just find it hard to believe that golf started with distance, or shots to green plus 2, as a way to create par. They may have, for all I know
Just a tidbit from the USGA for those that continue to believe that ball golf par represents what a scratch player would shoot:
Essentially what Steve is calculating is the disc golf equivalent to ball golf course rating, not ball golf par.
Essentially what Steve is calculating is the disc golf equivalent to ball golf course rating, not ball golf par.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
While I am a big fan of data-driven par determination, there are several problems that rise from the underlying assumptions, the data set being used, and the domain the result is applied to.
If the underlying assumption is an expert, how is the expert defined?
(1) If the expert is 1000 rated player, then the data set should eliminate scores from players whose rating deviates too far above & below. Likewise if 1000 rounds are used in the data set. Either way, data that determines the player/round rating is removed, hence the criterion for selection is compromised. Essentially, using rating to determine the data set creates a tautology.
(2) When non-MPO divisions use different tees, they are playing different holes; hence a different course. If those divisions have no 1000 rated players or 1000 rated rounds, how can par be determined? Even if there are a few 1000 rated players/rounds, it is likely the number is insufficient for statistical significance. So how is par determined in this case?
(3) Disc golf has a large luck component. As we saw at Maple Hill, a throw that hits a thin tree a couple of inches off center can result in an OB penalty if on one side, or a end up short, but in the center of the fairway. A disc might hit a root of branch, stand up and roll down a hill, or it might skip over the root or branch and be parked. In one case it's a birdie, and in the other a bogie or worse. While we might consider the element of luck will be essentially random and average out over players over time, in assessing scores from a single round or tournament, good/bad luck introduces error variance in any data-driven calculation that has an underlying assumption of skill (note the tautology argument above).
(4) The underlying assumption of "errorless play" should never be used since it presumes how the player decides to play the hole. One player may decide to lay up, another player decides to take a risk. Both execute their plan perfectly and get different scores. Consider the video of Lizotte's eagle of hole one at Maple Hill -- that's an expert playing the hole without error. Even more extreme, an argument can be made that a hole a professional attempts to ace should be a par of one given an errorless throw (e.g. McBeth aced a hole at Idlewild twice in practice).
In summary, I think data-driven methods have too many inherent problems to be absolutely definitive, at least under the current assumptions and available data. Throw in the ever-changing tee pads, basket positions, OB lines, tree falls, and other tournament-to-tournament changes, add any divisional tee pad differences, and the effort to set an accurate par through statistical analysis is destined to be a moot exercise.
However, post-tournament analysis of scores becomes excellent guidance to TDs interested in assessing accurate pars for their tournament. It is by no means fruitless, it's just that the fruit isn't on par for a complete diet.
If the underlying assumption is an expert, how is the expert defined?
(1) If the expert is 1000 rated player, then the data set should eliminate scores from players whose rating deviates too far above & below. Likewise if 1000 rounds are used in the data set. Either way, data that determines the player/round rating is removed, hence the criterion for selection is compromised. Essentially, using rating to determine the data set creates a tautology.
(2) When non-MPO divisions use different tees, they are playing different holes; hence a different course. If those divisions have no 1000 rated players or 1000 rated rounds, how can par be determined? Even if there are a few 1000 rated players/rounds, it is likely the number is insufficient for statistical significance. So how is par determined in this case?
(3) Disc golf has a large luck component. As we saw at Maple Hill, a throw that hits a thin tree a couple of inches off center can result in an OB penalty if on one side, or a end up short, but in the center of the fairway. A disc might hit a root of branch, stand up and roll down a hill, or it might skip over the root or branch and be parked. In one case it's a birdie, and in the other a bogie or worse. While we might consider the element of luck will be essentially random and average out over players over time, in assessing scores from a single round or tournament, good/bad luck introduces error variance in any data-driven calculation that has an underlying assumption of skill (note the tautology argument above).
(4) The underlying assumption of "errorless play" should never be used since it presumes how the player decides to play the hole. One player may decide to lay up, another player decides to take a risk. Both execute their plan perfectly and get different scores. Consider the video of Lizotte's eagle of hole one at Maple Hill -- that's an expert playing the hole without error. Even more extreme, an argument can be made that a hole a professional attempts to ace should be a par of one given an errorless throw (e.g. McBeth aced a hole at Idlewild twice in practice).
In summary, I think data-driven methods have too many inherent problems to be absolutely definitive, at least under the current assumptions and available data. Throw in the ever-changing tee pads, basket positions, OB lines, tree falls, and other tournament-to-tournament changes, add any divisional tee pad differences, and the effort to set an accurate par through statistical analysis is destined to be a moot exercise.
However, post-tournament analysis of scores becomes excellent guidance to TDs interested in assessing accurate pars for their tournament. It is by no means fruitless, it's just that the fruit isn't on par for a complete diet.
Similar threads
