Par Talk

[gdub58]

Okay, so ball golf has never or very rarely adjusted it's holes or par for any reason.

Has golf ever adjusted any of its elements to accommodate advancing or changing play in any way?

Private courses will make changes mostly based upon the wishes of their boards. When I was 14 I worked for a greenskeeper who had to cut down a perfectly healthy tree because too many members were hitting it.

Daily fee courses are in decline and are the least likely to make changes. The ones that survive have either great designs that don't need changes or have lower greens fees and can't afford to make them.

Tournament courses (public and private) will make adjustments based on results, often mid-tournament. There are many options available - changing pin positions, mowing (or not), moving tees - to adjust the difficulty between rounds. More significant changes like adding bunkers, altering green complexes, etc. to impact play does happen as well but not all that often. There are a few cases I'm aware of (including one at Augusta) where large trees have been planted specifically to prevent pros from taking shortcuts (a la Simon Lizotte).

These changes are often made to get scores closer to par. That's what we are trying to do in disc golf, and tools like Steve's method are a great resource to identify holes that should have some changes in design to be more in alignment with their assigned par.

So, perhaps my divergence with Steve is largely semantic - I reject the notion that par is incorrect. Par is what the TD sets - full stop. I prefer to think of the design as incorrect for the assigned par. When Steve uses his method to say that a hole's par was incorrect, that's results oriented thinking - not the best way to achieve the end goal.

If the TD sets a par on a hole and the data shows too many non-par results, what changes would we recommend to the hole to make it play closer to par? This is the discussion I want to have the next time Steve posts results at the end of a tournament.

 

[TAFL]

...make every hole a 200 foot long island hole with a tiny skippy green?

And alligators. Don't forget the alligators.

 

[TAFL]

...
So, perhaps my divergence with Steve is largely semantic - I reject the notion that par is incorrect. Par is what the TD sets - full stop. I prefer to think of the design as incorrect for the assigned par. When Steve uses his method to say that a hole's par was incorrect, that's results oriented thinking - not the best way to achieve the end goal.

If the TD sets a par on a hole and the data shows too many non-par results, what changes would we recommend to the hole to make it play closer to par? This is the discussion I want to have the next time Steve posts results at the end of a tournament.

We can assign par ratings based on what the hole should be or we can assign par ratings on how the hole actually plays. The former is useless for most any purpose while the latter is actually useful.

I'm thinking again of a local course that is quite short. If you were to tell me you shot a round with three deuces (9-hole course), I'd offer my condolences for such a bad round. There's only one pin placement on one hole that can be argued to warrant a par of 3--every other pin placement on the course is par 2, if par ratings are to be accurate.

Now, you can speak to the design of the holes and wonder how to change them to actually play with pars of 3. I doubt it's possible in the small area given to the course, so the discussion would be moot. The only real solution to align par assignments with the play is to call every hole a par 2--a definitive pitch & putt.

We can make par assignments useful or we may just as well return to every hole being par 3 and be done with it.

 

[gdub58]

That one has more pars than any other score. So, I guess it's boring?

I detect just a slight whiff of sarcasm, but I'll play along...

Quite the contrary based on this year's data - 36% of the time there was something other than a par, and birdies outnumbered bogeys by a 2-1 margin. There was even an ace. I'd say it was an exciting, well designed hole.
They tweaked the difficulty by changing the tees (it ranged from 123 to 147 yards) and the pin placements. Its difficulty ranking by round was 14th, 7th, 6th, and 13th.

 

[Steve West]

So, perhaps my divergence with Steve is largely semantic - I reject the notion that par is incorrect. Par is what the TD sets - full stop.

We agree on that. I've tried to avoid using the term "incorrect", and if I ever did say par as set by the TD was incorrect, I was wrong.

I'm only offering one opinion on which number for par might work better in the future, if the TD wants to change the par instead of change the hole.

 

[gdub58]

We can assign par ratings based on what the hole should be or we can assign par ratings on how the hole actually plays. The former is useless for most any purpose while the latter is actually useful.

I'm thinking again of a local course that is quite short. If you were to tell me you shot a round with three deuces (9-hole course), I'd offer my condolences for such a bad round. There's only one pin placement on one hole that can be argued to warrant a par of 3--every other pin placement on the course is par 2, if par ratings are to be accurate.

Now, you can speak to the design of the holes and wonder how to change them to actually play with pars of 3. I doubt it's possible in the small area given to the course, so the discussion would be moot. The only real solution to align par assignments with the play is to call every hole a par 2--a definitive pitch & putt.

We can make par assignments useful or we may just as well return to every hole being par 3 and be done with it.

I thought our discussion was focused on pars for high level tournament play. I don't think anyone cares what pars you assign at the local pitch & putt.

 

[gdub58]

We agree on that. I've tried to avoid using the term "incorrect", and if I ever did say par as set by the TD was incorrect, I was wrong.

I'm only offering one opinion on which number for par might work better in the future, if the TD wants to change the par instead of change the hole.

That's all well and good, but I think it's rare for the data to show that a hole that was assigned a par of four would play as a good par three. Let's start with "this hole played too easy/too hard", look at other numbers you may have, and go from there. Who says we are stuck with the hole as designed?

 

[DavidSauls]

We agree on that. I've tried to avoid using the term "incorrect", and if I ever did say par as set by the TD was incorrect, I was wrong.

I'm only offering one opinion on which number for par might work better in the future, if the TD wants to change the par instead of change the hole.

I never thought the "incorrect" sounded critical or condescending, myself. I always read it as "If I had been TD and set pars for this tournament and then analyzed the results using my methodology, I would have concluded that this par I set was incorrect". But shorter.

It's like having to start every sentence with IMHO. It should go without saying, in a forum like this.

 

[DavidSauls]

I thought our discussion was focused on pars for high level tournament play. I don't think anyone cares what pars you assign at the local pitch & putt.

It is.

Some of us hope that, as the pars set for top-tier events more accurately reflects expected scores, the acceptance of that will filter down.

Many of the useful aspects of an accurate par don't apply to lower-tier events, and even less to casual play. No spectators, nobody following live scoring or comparing mid-round scores of players on different parts of the course, or different courses. Though it might still be nice to have "par" mean something.

But for now, the top-tier events, with their pools of experts (by most reasonable definitions), and small audiences which they're trying to increase, are where it's most useful, and easiest to judge. As the PDGA's flagship events, they should be where the PDGA's rules and definitions are best exhibited.

 

[Steve West]

...I think it's rare for the data to show that a hole that was assigned a par of four would play as a good par three. ...

Wouldn't it play as well whatever the par? Or, does calling a par 3 or 4 make it play better or worse?

(I'm not opposed to changing the hole.)

 

[lyleoross]

Private courses will make changes mostly based upon the wishes of their boards. When I was 14 I worked for a greenskeeper who had to cut down a perfectly healthy tree because too many members were hitting it.

Daily fee courses are in decline and are the least likely to make changes. The ones that survive have either great designs that don't need changes or have lower greens fees and can't afford to make them.

Tournament courses (public and private) will make adjustments based on results, often mid-tournament. There are many options available - changing pin positions, mowing (or not), moving tees - to adjust the difficulty between rounds. More significant changes like adding bunkers, altering green complexes, etc. to impact play does happen as well but not all that often. There are a few cases I'm aware of (including one at Augusta) where large trees have been planted specifically to prevent pros from taking shortcuts (a la Simon Lizotte).

These changes are often made to get scores closer to par. That's what we are trying to do in disc golf, and tools like Steve's method are a great resource to identify holes that should have some changes in design to be more in alignment with their assigned par.

So, perhaps my divergence with Steve is largely semantic - I reject the notion that par is incorrect. Par is what the TD sets - full stop. I prefer to think of the design as incorrect for the assigned par. When Steve uses his method to say that a hole's par was incorrect, that's results oriented thinking - not the best way to achieve the end goal.

If the TD sets a par on a hole and the data shows too many non-par results, what changes would we recommend to the hole to make it play closer to par? This is the discussion I want to have the next time Steve posts results at the end of a tournament.

Nice reply, thanks. While I'm less worried about the results-oriented approach, I do think your approach is better and really good, if you can do that. What Steve's method allows is less investment. What your proposing gives a better course. Typically, I'd rather have the better course. Providing I understand.

 

[lyleoross]

To make sure, what gdub is saying, by my interpretation, is that the designer has an intent. Anything that is done should be towards achieving that intent. The only problem I have with that approach is that it is excellent for a well-established sport where every venue takes substantial thought and development. It is important to keep the original intent intact. I don't know we are there, although we have courses where one should take that approach. See DeLa, USDGC, Georgia and others. I like the thinking, for me, but I'd want to carefully consider whether the designer had a real intent. We know that some do, but a fair few were a little too hodge podge by my limited knowledge.

 

[gdub58]

To make sure, what gdub is saying, by my interpretation, is that the designer has an intent. Anything that is done should be towards achieving that intent. The only problem I have with that approach is that it is excellent for a well-established sport where every venue takes substantial thought and development. It is important to keep the original intent intact. I don't know we are there, although we have courses where one should take that approach. See DeLa, USDGC, Georgia and others. I like the thinking, for me, but I'd want to carefully consider whether the designer had a real intent. We know that some do, but a fair few were a little too hodge podge by my limited knowledge.

Top level tournaments are more frequently being held on temp courses, which allows course design to be better aligned with an intended par. These layouts make changes much easier, and as such I wonder if/when we will start to see different tees/basket placements for different rounds (if we haven't already).

As for the permanent courses being used on the tour, I'm sure some have holes that were designed based on available space rather than a specific intent. In those cases, adjustments may need be considered to make them play to a good par.

For example, it seems like some tweaking is done every year at Winthrop - it would be interesting to have a list of changes made from year to year and look at the corresponding scoring data to see the impact.

 

[Steve West]

It's not that hard. Here are my predictions for the San Francisco Open based on distance alone- this takes no elevation into account since I don't have easy access to those numbers. I bet Steve winds up with the same thing on at least 16 holes after the fact.
Par 4's: 1,6,8,9,18
Par 5's: 5, 10
Par 3's: the rest

It appears they call Hole 5 a Par 4 so there may be a lot of elevation involved. 36 feet of elevation would make it a Par 4 by distance as I figure it. (350 per shot plus 2 within 150)

Course par was:
Par 4's: 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 18
Par 5: 10
Par 3's: the rest

My method agrees with course par except for hole 9, which came out as a 3.

 

[Steve West]

San Francisco Open 2018 at Gleneagles Golf Course FPO

 

[Steve West]

Closer look.

 

[Steve West]

2018 PDGA United States Amateur Disc Golf Championship on The Toboggan

Par was more of a Baby Blue than Blue Level; what a 920 rated player would expect. Quite consistent at that level, though.

 

[Steve West]

Beaver State Fling presented by KEEN - National Tour 2018 Milo McIver West

 

[Steve West]

Beaver State Fling presented by KEEN - National Tour 2018 Milo McIver East

 

[Steve West]

Beaver State Fling presented by KEEN - National Tour 2018 Milo McIver West & East FPO