Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

If here is an unimpeded 200' from the basket on level ground... any open player that doesn't answer "Yes" has some agenda.

They'd probably say yes out to 300 ft.

We could have someone with math skills review the results, and get an idea how realistic their expectations were. Though that would probably set off some sort of internet firestorm.

 

[DavidSauls]

smh
Close range is where they only need one or two throws to hole out--that's up and down. And I hear comments about "s/he can get up and down from there" regularly, which tells me the lie is in close range for that player.
This really is simple.

Even if they don't actually use the word "close"?

 

[lyleoross]

Even if they don't actually use the word "close"?

I've sent a note to Webster's asking them to include Up and Down as a definition of close.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I've sent a note to Webster's asking them to include Up and Down as a definition of close.

As in:

Hey baby, let's get close enough for us to get up and down.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've sent a note to Webster's asking them to include Up and Down as a definition of close.

Good idea. They might clarify this quicker than the PDGA.

 

[lyleoross]

As in:

Hey baby, let's get close enough for us to get up and down.

You're talking to your disc, right?

BTW, that gets my vote for post of the year.
__________________

 

[Steve West]

So would a 200 ft, flat, open hole be a par 2?

Probably, unless it was on the coast of Scotland and subject to constant swirling high winds or something like that. I've seen par 3s as short as 165 feet and par 2s as long as 285 feet.

 

[Wasp]

I didn't read all posts so I could have missed something but the real question is...who says we ACTUALLY have a par problem?

There's some courses where the par is obviously off, but the PDGA par guide seems pretty spot on to me. I'm a low 900's rated player. If I play a very difficult course and my game is on point I usually shoot a couple over par. A good round for me is a 960-1000 rated round. Based on the responses I've been seeing for the "par is a problem" people, even if I shoot a great round I should never shoot even par.

Here's the kicker in this par talk. As an intermediate player I'm not considered a good player when it comes to tournament players, but I'm almost always the best player on a course at any given time during a rec round. I'm still in the top 8 percent of disc golfers out there.

PDGA considers a 1000 rated player to be a "scratch" player. How many 1000 rated or better players are there? Well if you play in enough big tournaments to be qualified for the top 100 players in the world list all you need to do is be rated 1001 and you're one of the best 100 players in the world. I looked up the stats on PDGA.com and 170 players are rated 1000 or better. That's actually inflated because the statistics page on the website has many players on there twice and sometimes three times so it's actually closer to 130. Sure, there's probably a few unicorn 1000 rated players out there that aren't pdga members but usually if you're that good you know it, and play in tournaments. If you're making a course par based on what a 1000 rated player would throw, on average, that's pretty asinine.

Also, I looked up the stats for regular golf. .68 percent of players are scratch players or better. Based on PDGA membership, there should be 680 1000 rated players or better for the comparison to be equal to regular golf but there's no where near that many. That's only looking at PDGA membership players as well, when most disc golf players aren't even members. The average scratch golfer shoots 5.5 strokes a round WORSE then a PGA level golfer. So for the comparison to be equal between disc golf and regular golf the average player on the PDGA tour should be a 1050 rated player, since it's commonly known that a difference in rating of 10 points is usually a stroke difference per round. How many players in the world are rated that high? Three. So when comparing PGA scratch golfers to what the PDGA considers "scratch" you're comparing apples to oranges. A much more accurate description would be that a 950-960 rated player is a true scratch player in disc golf. Therefor the PDGA length descriptions for par of a 950 rated player should be used on courses.

Disc golf doesn't have a par problem. We have a problem with people thinking there's allot of really good players out there. There's not. The reason why the top pro's shoot so far under par in a tournament is because they are just so much better then everyone else. Remember, that's only about 100 guys.

 

[DavidSauls]

I didn't read all posts so I could have missed something but the real question is...who says we ACTUALLY have a par problem?

.

Go back and read all the posts.

*

No, just kidding. But Steve's emphasis, and the emphasis here for the most part, has been on top-level events. Not everyday players on everyday courses.

I'm not sure we have a par problem---but it's something we could make better, with a clarification of what the definition means, and thus a more consistent application. Or, perhaps, a better definition.

It might be useful for top-level events, to the degree anyone is paying attention to them, for par to be the expected score, so that they know that a score that's better or worse than par, is gaining or losing ground on the field.

 

[lyleoross]

Go back and read all the posts.

*

No, just kidding. But Steve's emphasis, and the emphasis here for the most part, has been on top-level events. Not everyday players on everyday courses.

I'm not sure we have a par problem---but it's something we could make better, with a clarification of what the definition means, and thus a more consistent application. Or, perhaps, a better definition.

It might be useful for top-level events, to the degree anyone is paying attention to them, for par to be the expected score, so that they know that a score that's better or worse than par, is gaining or losing ground on the field.

Houston, we have a par problem... Maybe?

Somewhere in the bowels, Steve gave a list of the advantages of having accurate par. It's a nice summation.

 

[DG_player]

Since one of the hangups here is the "allow two throws at close range", I think that's how I'd ask it.

"If I allow you two throws from here, is that enough? Are you close enough for that?"

Why don't we ask: "If I allow 5 throws from here, are you close enough for that?" Then everything becomes a par 2. How about we ask if 1 throw is close enough? It's a silly, pointless exercise.

All you are doing is assigning meaning that is not there. The par definition does not make reference to any amount of shots in defining close range.

 

[DavidSauls]

It says that par is the expected score, and that we should allow 2 shots at close range. Doesn't say what close range is, other than it's the range we should allow 2 throws, to reach the expected score on that hole.

You offer your interpretation of "close"---when a player says throw landed close. I say that if you rephrase the question to match the definition---"are you close enough that allowing you 2 throws is enough"---they'll answer yes.

 

[DavidSauls]

Why don't we ask: "If I allow 5 throws from here, are you close enough for that?" .

We would, if the definition of par included "allowing 5 throws from close range.

 

[DavidSauls]

Houston, we have a par problem... Maybe?

Somewhere in the bowels, Steve gave a list of the advantages of having accurate par. It's a nice summation.

My feeling has always been that it's not a big deal.

But if we're going to have "par"---and, clearly, we are---we might as well make it the best, most useful par we can.

 

[DG_player]

We would, if the definition of par included "allowing 5 throws from close range.

I'm not going to get into the grammatical nuances, but there's a simple grammar trick to figure out if something is saying what you think it does. Swap one word out with a word of similar type.

So instead of "Allowing two throws from close range to hole out", let's go with "allowing two throws from the teepad to hole out", or alternatively "allowing two throws from inside of the circle to hole out". Do you still believe that the two throws are defining close range?

Close range is completely undefined. The only logical way to assign any special meaning to it beyond common usage, would be to look at the intent of authors of the rule. As far as I know, nobody knows what this is. The best guess I heard is from Steve, with his suggestion that it is a homage to ball golf par. Well if that's the case, it clearly means the green, or at the minimum, the distance from which someone would attempt a putt of some sort.

I'm all ears if someone has some other insight into their intent. So far all I've heard is, "it must be 2 shots because 2 shots was mentioned elsewhere in the same sentence", which doesn't make any logical sense that I can see. And then somehow, this 2 shots is being stretched to the maximum distance where up and down can be confidently made, in spite of the fact that a pro player is probably expecting to make no better than a 2 all the way into 100 feet or closer.

 

[DavidSauls]

Houston, we have a par problem... Maybe?

Somewhere in the bowels, Steve gave a list of the advantages of having accurate par. It's a nice summation.

Or Olorin will show up, and this will become a long thread.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm not going to get into the grammatical nuances, but there's a simple grammar trick to figure out if something is saying what you think it does. Swap one word out with a word of similar type.

So instead of "Allowing two throws from close range to hole out", let's go with "allowing two throws from the teepad to hole out", or alternatively "allowing two throws from inside of the circle to hole out". Do you still believe that the two throws are defining close range?

Close range is completely undefined. The only logical way to assign any special meaning to it beyond common usage, would be to look at the intent of authors of the rule. As far as I know, nobody knows what this is. The best guess I heard is from Steve, with his suggestion that it is a homage to ball golf par. Well if that's the case, it clearly means the green, or at the minimum, the distance from which someone would attempt a putt of some sort.

I'm all ears if someone has some other insight into their intent. So far all I've heard is, "it must be 2 shots because 2 shots was mentioned elsewhere in the same sentence", which doesn't make any logical sense that I can see. And then somehow, this 2 shots is being stretched to the maximum distance where up and down can be confidently made, in spite of the fact that a pro player is probably expecting to make no better than a 2 all the way into 100 feet or closer.

What does it mean when you say you're not going to get into grammatical nuances and then do?

The only reason there's a discussion around close and two strokes is because people don't like what using the definition of par gets them. That's the simple discussion. If you go with the dictionary definition then you have to define what an experienced player is and you're done.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Or Olorin will show up, and this will become a long thread.

Indeed... at just 160 pages this thread's just Rec level, and still has a way to go before it's full potential is realized.

 

[DG_player]

What does it mean when you say you're not going to get into grammatical nuances and then do?

The only reason there's a discussion around close and two strokes is because people don't like what using the definition of par gets them. That's the simple discussion. If you go with the dictionary definition then you have to define what an experienced player is and you're done.

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.

 

[DavidSauls]

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