Par Talk

[SD86]

I think all of gdub's comments are just a sophisticated way of whining about no longer getting something for nothing - free birdies.

Disagree completely. gdub's comments have been cogent and on-point. I think you're calling him "whining" because his views are not in lockstep with yours.

He's making good points about why there should never be "Par 2" on a disc golf course much less in a tournament.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

Disc golf par is easier than ball golf par. I honestly don't see the problem, and I'm definitely not in favor of par 2 as a concept. Can someone smarter than me please create a poll? I'd be curious to see what the general DCGR public would vote. Something like "are you in favor of easy par 3s being changed to par 2s? Yes or No"

Even though this conversation is pretty much pure semantics I can't resist reading and chiming in. I really don't think there is a right or wrong answer, since par is arbitrary and people can tell what is a good performance without par=expert for every course. There is more variety in disc golf than ball golf, and that's a good thing.

 

[biscoe]

When you use scoring data, do you use a very narrow ratings range around 1000 in order to see what happens to "typical experts?" And, if you are using a system where you have to look at what has already happened to determine par going forward, what do you rely upon for tournaments being played on courses that don't have that data (or new holes for that matter)? This is one of the reasons I just can't buy in to your system.

this. Par should be set based on the characteristics of a hole (primarily effective length)- scoring averages tell you if a hole is an easy or difficult par.

 

[DavidSauls]

Steve, I agree with you about par---except the clarity you see in the PDGA definition---but disagree with your assessment of gdub's arguments, or the rest of the "No Par 2" faction.

In my opinion, the arguments for labeling certain holes "Par 2" are better than the arguments against it---but I understand their position, and see some merit in their arguments. Just not enough. No need to disparage them or their motives.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Easy/ free birdies make a hole feel lame.

Tough par's make you feel like a champ.

But really only matters with courses you dont play very often. A lot of us play the same courses so we know what score is good or bad regardless of said course par.

There are a few courses around town i can see some players thinking that they truly are better vs reality due to overrated distance/par.

I mean how many times do we hear around this bitch oh i can throw '375 and birdie a lot of holes at my home course... And really the home course holes are 275' par 4s lol.

Apply the same concept to being professional and having a legit idea of scores that are good or bad.

 

[Lazerface]

Side 1: Disc golf is easier, but we should adjust our PAR to fit the actual definition of PAR.

Side 2: Disc golf is easier, and we should leave PAR as it is, but continue to develop more challenging courses for professional players

Side 3: Side 2, plus change the baskets, at least for the pros.

No side is wrong. I don't think the crux of the argument has anything to do with PAR itself or what a scratch disc golfer is.

The argument is really about the implications of PAR and weather or not it would be beneficial to players and outsiders to change disc golf PAR based on historical scoring statistics so it is more in line with it's definition set by ball golf. That includes the Par 2 argument, because Par 3s are obviously a lot easier to birdie in disc golf.

Like I have said I just think the PAR changers are taking the cart before the horse. We have had too many changes in disc technology, course design, and player ability (which correlates with disc technology). We have hundreds of courses designed in the flippy/lid age that are affectively disc golf putt-putt courses. So what do we do when the pros come to down - throw some rope on it.

We don't buy land and build courses from the ground up. We find land, beg to put in a course and compromise as little as possible, which is often a lot due to the settings our courses are in and the limitations designers have.

I just think we need to let the game evolve and talent pool deepen before we go changing PAR.

Remember the entire premise of changing PAR is because we are not using the term as it was defined, but that is not a reason to change anything, or at least it's not a good one. If you want to change it you have to provide the upside. I don't think the majority are convinced that scores relative to PAR have any measurable affect on outside interest whether it's potential sponsors, new players, or anyone else. Steve, can you do a quick list of the potential benefits to changing PAR and introducing a PAR 2?

Here are the ones I know of

* It's common ground. The general public understands PAR in terms of ball golf and it benefits disc golf to keep that definition.

* Standardization. Using statistical analysis it's possible to set a standard so PAR is not so subjective across various holes/events

* Having our top players finish 10+ under PAR per round at our premiere events sends a message to outsiders our sport is not legit

 

[Cgkdisc]

Note: Going back to Steady Ed and eventually the PDGA, there has always been an "official" guideline for setting par which includes par 2s up to 6s AND the rules have always specified that par on each hole be set, primarily for potential late penalties and more recently for live scoring. The issue at hand is whether TDs should follow the official standards or protest by not following them.

Those opposing the advice in the guidelines are in essence saying the PDGA should change the existing guidelines that are based on rational principles for more emotional perceptions that it doesn't look good and is a potential reason the broader media and less knowledgeable future spectators will think the sport is too easy. It's a bit like ignoring jump putt faults - benefit of the doubt to player, benefit of the doubt to TD that their short holes are close enough to call them par 3s to minimize player complaints which most would agree is a rational goal TDs try to achieve in their events.

 

[Steve West]

Remember the entire premise of changing PAR is because we are not using the term as it was defined, but that is not a reason to change anything, or at least it's not a good one. If you want to change it you have to provide the upside. I don't think the majority are convinced that scores relative to PAR have any measurable affect on outside interest whether it's potential sponsors, new players, or anyone else. Steve, can you do a quick list of the potential benefits to changing PAR and introducing a PAR 2?

If we are simply getting better at setting par according to the definition, is that really a change? I suppose, but it's like the kind of change that lets you get better at throwing.

We were so sloppy in setting par in the past that there would be no way to tell whether good par would have an impact. (I never use that car in my front yard that is up on blocks, therefore cars are worthless and there is no advantage to getting it running.) However, now there are some TDs who are using more accurate pars, and we are starting to see the benefits. The big tours are all moving toward more accurate (usually lower) pars. They wouldn't do that if they didn't see an advantage.

Par 2 is not a goal in and of itself, just one of the steps to get all the way to accurate par. I'm fine with anyone who doesn't want to cross that threshold, but that's not a reason to avoid setting pars on all the other holes accurately.

And, it doesn't need to be based on statistical analysis.

Here's a list of benefits from http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par.pdf


When par is set properly:
Players have a consistent standard to compare their performance:
o To other players during the tournament,
o On different courses,
o To the expected prize-winning scores,
o To their own performance at other tournaments.
Players can better plan their strategy:
o By knowing what score they want to shoot for on each hole,
o By knowing that each bogey costs about as much as each birdie saves.
Spectator interest is increased because:
o Fans can track favorite players even if they are in different groups
o Remarkable performances are revealed, relative to a consistent standard
o Commentators have a meaningful statistic to talk about
Tournament Directors benefit from:
o A more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par
o Increased player and spectator satisfaction
o Greater ease of noticing anomalies in scoring
o Comfort in knowing penalties for missed holes are fair no matter which holes are missed

 

[Lazerface]

If we are simply getting better at setting par according to the definition, is that really a change? I suppose, but it's like the kind of change that lets you get better at throwing.

We were so sloppy in setting par in the past that there would be no way to tell whether good par would have an impact. (I never use that car in my front yard that is up on blocks, therefore cars are worthless and there is no advantage to getting it running.) However, now there are some TDs who are using more accurate pars, and we are starting to see the benefits. The big tours are all moving toward more accurate (usually lower) pars. They wouldn't do that if they didn't see an advantage.

Par 2 is not a goal in and of itself, just one of the steps to get all the way to accurate par. I'm fine with anyone who doesn't want to cross that threshold, but that's not a reason to avoid setting pars on all the other holes accurately.

And, it doesn't need to be based on statistical analysis.

Here's a list of benefits from http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par.pdf


When par is set properly:
Players have a consistent standard to compare their performance:
o To other players during the tournament,
o On different courses,
o To the expected prize-winning scores,
o To their own performance at other tournaments.
Players can better plan their strategy:
o By knowing what score they want to shoot for on each hole,
o By knowing that each bogey costs about as much as each birdie saves.
Spectator interest is increased because:
o Fans can track favorite players even if they are in different groups
o Remarkable performances are revealed, relative to a consistent standard
o Commentators have a meaningful statistic to talk about
Tournament Directors benefit from:
o A more professional appearance resulting from taking care to set useful par
o Increased player and spectator satisfaction
o Greater ease of noticing anomalies in scoring
o Comfort in knowing penalties for missed holes are fair no matter which holes are missed

Well, that's just your opinion. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :clap:

Just kidding, thanks for the comprehensive response.

 

[DG_player]

If we are simply getting better at setting par according to the definition, is that really a change?

When did the definition of par become stroke average for the hole?

It's always been defined as errorless play, in traditional golf, that is shots to reach plus 2 putts. You can make the argument that errorless play in disc golf should be shots to reach plus 1 putt. However changing it to closest whole number to stroke average is changing the definition.

If you're calling a 250 wide open hole a par 2, then #17 at USDGC is a par 2. An expert shot to the green and 1 putt results in a 2. It shouldn't matter that punishment for a misplay is much higher and that the actual stroke average is higher because of it. Errorless play would still be hitting the green and making the putt.

 

[KniceZ]

I like to play a variety of courses, especially when I'm traveling. But I'm just traveling through not going to participate in the tournament. Since DG hasn't gone to a standard Par for a course (doesn't have to be 72), there's a huge variation in course scores. If par isn't consistently defined how do I know if my score is good or bad? I'd have to go to PDGA look up some tournament scores or rely on a scoring app that estimates a rating or SSE. Even then the tournament could have used different tee/basket combinations and rating estimates aren't very good.

Yes I realize the actual score (and having fun) is what matters but without standardization it's difficult to compare courses and scores.

 

[Steve West]

When did the definition of par become stroke average for the hole?

It's always been defined as errorless play, in traditional golf, that is shots to reach plus 2 putts. You can make the argument that errorless play in disc golf should be shots to reach plus 1 putt. However changing it to closest whole number to stroke average is changing the definition.

If you're calling a 250 wide open hole a par 2, then #17 at USDGC is a par 2. An expert shot to the green and 1 putt results in a 2. It shouldn't matter that punishment for a misplay is much higher and that the actual stroke average is higher because of it. Errorless play would still be hitting the green and making the putt.

You are right, par is not average, nor is it based on averages. It's all about the lowest score an expert can get often enough to expect. Higher scores don't matter.

In addition to being errrorless play it also has to be expected. While the OB penalties of #17 don't affect par, the way an expert plays to avoid those penalties can affect par. If the smart (and most common) play is to throw to the fat part of the island to avoid getting a score higher than 3, then the expert is reducing the chance of getting a 2 in exchange for avoiding all those extra throws the expert might get by trying for 2. That's not an error, it's a smart choice.

It seems that enough experts do that so that 2 is not the expected score on that hole.

 

[lyleoross]

Well, that's just your opinion. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :clap:

Just kidding, thanks for the comprehensive response.

You know when you do that you make me laugh in my office. It's an evil plot to get me fired isn't it?

 

[lyleoross]

When did the definition of par become stroke average for the hole?

It's always been defined as errorless play, in traditional golf, that is shots to reach plus 2 putts. You can make the argument that errorless play in disc golf should be shots to reach plus 1 putt. However changing it to closest whole number to stroke average is changing the definition.

If you're calling a 250 wide open hole a par 2, then #17 at USDGC is a par 2. An expert shot to the green and 1 putt results in a 2. It shouldn't matter that punishment for a misplay is much higher and that the actual stroke average is higher because of it. Errorless play would still be hitting the green and making the putt.

You are right, par is not average, nor is it based on averages. It's all about the lowest score an expert can get often enough to expect. Higher scores don't matter.

In addition to being errrorless play it also has to be expected. While the OB penalties of #17 don't affect par, the way an expert plays to avoid those penalties can affect par. If the smart (and most common) play is to throw to the fat part of the island to avoid getting a score higher than 3, then the expert is reducing the chance of getting a 2 in exchange for avoiding all those extra throws the expert might get by trying for 2. That's not an error, it's a smart choice.

It seems that enough experts do that so that 2 is not the expected score on that hole.

As an aside, this hole has been discussed ad nauseam because players don't do the logical thing. Strange as heck. The one exception is the lead player who has two strokes on the pack. I realize that par is not 2 on the hole, and I've actually seen players go at it both ways, but the number that take the risky shot is way higher than I'd have thought it would be. I debated this hole with someone who thought it was a great hole and everyone would do the smart thing. Then the tournament happened last year and he came back amazed at how poorly players had done on the hole because they went for it repeatedly. In some ways I now admire the hole. It's a test of the player's mental approach to the game.

 

[lyleoross]

Why discuss par continually? A post I made yesterday has gone unchallenged so I wanted to bring it up again. It's the post concerning the number of birdies at Worlds. Again, approximately the top 30 players all had significantly more birdies than pars and only a few bogies at this event. What does this serve? Why is it good? Does it have value? We get stuck in the par 2 discussion, me as much as anyone, but the results of Worlds goes more directly to the issue being raised by Steve and Chuck. TDs are over-paring holes, all of them, for pro players. At least, if you accept that par has a definition and all your top players are birdying most of your holes, then you have to assume that TDs are over-setting par on their courses.

So, why? Why do this? I'm asking this question because I feel fundamentally there is a reason and if we understand that reason we can see that maybe it isn't a valid reason to miss-set par.

 

[Lazerface]

Why discuss par continually? A post I made yesterday has gone unchallenged so I wanted to bring it up again. It's the post concerning the number of birdies at Worlds. Again, approximately the top 30 players all had significantly more birdies than pars and only a few bogies at this event. What does this serve? Why is it good? Does it have value? We get stuck in the par 2 discussion, me as much as anyone, but the results of Worlds goes more directly to the issue being raised by Steve and Chuck. TDs are over-paring holes, all of them, for pro players. At least, if you accept that par has a definition and all your top players are birdying most of your holes, then you have to assume that TDs are over-setting par on their courses.

So, why? Why do this? I'm asking this question because I feel fundamentally there is a reason and if we understand that reason we can see that maybe it isn't a valid reason to miss-set par.

I think it is because most players tend to define PAR as the amount of shots it takes to get a "putt". They don't think of it in the context of scratch, or what a player is expected to score on a given hole.

That is why the overall score relative to PAR is not a concern. What myself and others (assumption) can't seem to accept is holes in which players are no longer putting for birdie, since that is literally the only way to "fix it" if we are just talking about adjusting PAR and leaving aside course design elements.

It's not a great answer when you consider the multiple points made by Steve, but it's an honest one.

 

[lyleoross]

I think it is because most players tend to define PAR as the amount of shots it takes to get a "putt". They don't think of it in the context of scratch, or what a player is expected to score on a given hole.

That is why the overall score relative to PAR is not a concern. What myself and others (assumption) can't seem to accept is holes in which players are no longer putting for birdie, since that is literally the only way to "fix it" if we are just talking about adjusting PAR and leaving aside course design elements.

It's not a great answer when you consider the multiple points made by Steve, but it's an honest one.

I never would have guessed that, but I see no flaw in what you're thinking. I have my own opinion, and I suspect it's off base. Let's see if any more comments come up and what people say.

 

[lyleoross]

BTW Lazer, clearly there are some TDs who go just the opposite. Pool to name one, Steve Dodge seems of the same ilk. The guys who do De La (betting Steve or Chuck know who that is). These guys work at setting par differently than other events. Or at least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The "alternate facts" on par are based on the "inalienable right to birdie" and "reduce player complaints" principles.

 

[Steve West]

..TDs are over-paring holes, all of them, for pro players. At least, if you accept that par has a definition and all your top players are birdying most of your holes, then you have to assume that TDs are over-setting par on their courses...

No, not all the holes. Not even most. Any method of setting par will get most holes right, because there just aren't many numbers to choose from, and a lot of them are 3s.

I think the Worlds pars may have just been taken from the course pars. However they were set, Country Club Gold only had three holes where I would have definitely set par lower, plus two that were on the bubble. Jones East had six, plus one on the bubble. Peter Pan had just one, plus five that were on the bubble.

So, par for most of the holes was set correctly no matter who you talk to. The point is, you will still see most of those birdies for the top players at the top events.

Like people say: those guys are good. Just not as good as a solid wall of birdies would indicate, only as good as a wall of birdies with some patches of pars.

(And, for what it's worth, only one definite par ruin-the-game, plus three on the bubble.)