Par Talk

[Monkeypaws]

All I can say is playing a course with generous par ratings is like taking a course with the teacher with easy grades. Grateful to exceed expectations, even if they are low....

 

[Casey 1988]

All I can say is playing a course with generous par ratings is like taking a course with the teacher with easy grades. Grateful to exceed expectations, even if they are low....

That would be the out of Town Local Course Powerhouse Ally in Pierre SD, has what I feel is too easy of par ratings, though the Alternate hole Tee Pads were made harder in 2006 with same par as main holes. The other 10-17 made in 2007, 18 is old 9 were made a bit harder for the par allotment simply due to how much better the players are. We even had to modify a hole For car safety (was over a road cars go 35 mph) on that was until 2007 the one of the most aced hole in South Dakota, even as a beginner within first year I aced the hole in 2004. Now with a few newer shorter courses in South Dakota they may have a hole that is % aced more then that old hole 3. The hole 3 and a new hole 5 made in 2007 were made to be harder holes at that point as players had gotten better due to some new technology since 2003 like some discs having more speed or some fairway drivers and long midrange discs flying straighter and the making of the quad disc golf straps for the bags for less body fatigue.

 

[F.Luke]

At least all this "par talk" isn't the most misunderstood subject here on dgcoursereview. :\

 

[Steve West]

With all the news of the high scores at the U.S. Open (golf), I wondered what pars my method ("Errorless" in this chart) would come up with. As I suspected, there are still enough good scores to determine par.

Course par matches my method except for Hole #2 which is playing right on the bubble between par 3 and par 4. I would think after more rounds come in, this one will move toward the par 3 side of the bubble.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not surprising that a toughened up, 252 yard, par 3, unless downhill, would be a tweener since it's beyond the typical accurate distance for shorter irons off the tee.

 

[PMantle]

As I suspected, there are still enough good scores to determine par.

Par has been determined there for a long time. Possibly as long ago as 1896.

 

[Steve West]

Par has been determined there for a long time. Possibly as long ago as 1896.

Yeah, yeah, I know the drill: The fundamental immutable laws of the universe don't allow par to be changed after a golf hole is first conceived in the mind of the designer.

Good thing we're not golf.

Anyway, this was a test of how stable my method is in the face of changing conditions, not a criticism of the pars they set.

 

[PMantle]

Yeah, yeah, I know the drill: The fundamental immutable laws of the universe don't allow par to be changed after a golf hole is first conceived in the mind of the designer.

Good thing we're not golf.

Anyway, this was a test of how stable my method is in the face of changing conditions, not a criticism of the pars they set.

There was no cause for that comment. I mean, pars do not change outside of the USGA coming in and doing it for their one and only tournament of the year. So, determining par is not a thing. Did they change anything this year? I haven't paid attention.

 

[Steve West]

There was no cause for that comment. I mean, pars do not change outside of the USGA coming in and doing it for their one and only tournament of the year. So, determining par is not a thing. Did they change anything this year? I haven't paid attention.

Looking again, I guess you meant I should not have used the word "determine". OK, fair enough. Sorry for going off on the wrong thing.

Instead of "determine", let's say it shows the method can take scores as input and put out a number that would be a good par, even if conditions are harsher.

 

[biscoe]

Steve- do you in theory believe that a hole's par can change due to playing conditions?

 

[PMantle]

Instead of "determine", let's say it shows the method can take scores as input and put out a number that would be a good par, even if conditions are harsher.

Well, except for the whole par 72 thing. A "number that would be a good par" is on paper before anyone touches a shovel.

 

[Steve West]

Steve- do you in theory believe that a hole's par can change due to playing conditions?

Generally no. For one thing only the TD can change par.

For another, by definition it should not change for (at least weather) conditions.

That's why one test any method for setting par should pass is that it gives the same result under a wide range of conditions. That was the purpose of looking at the U.S. Open stats.

Now, since there are no absolutes, I think conditions could theoretically change enough to make the TD want to change par. For example, if the fairway is flooded or a lot of trees have fallen and a hole needs to be played by going around, perhaps par would be higher.

Or if the peephole on a dogleg par 4 is opened up by a tornado, then maybe par should be lower.

But, whether the course is played in a hurricane or on a bluebird day, par should be the same.

 

[lyleoross]

Hey look, we're back.

Question:

Has golf, at any time over its 500-year history, ever changed par on a course to accommodate changes in play or conditions, or once they've set par they try not too? I know gdub answered this question, but his answer had a modern tone to it, I would like some historical perspective from our experts.

Second Question:

Since the par set by the designer is what you aim at, if we are trying to be like golf, how do we determine where the breakpoints are, such that the hole design has to be changed to make the hole play closer to what the designer intended?


Third Question:

Do we think it is a problem that so many designers in our sport don't seem to be able to choose a par for a hole, then make a hole that plays to that par, if we use the traditional definition?

Different topic:

Since our golf experts tell me that hitting a ball with a stick is harder than throwing a frisbee, is throwing a ball easier than hitting a ball with a stick?

 

[teemkey]

Steve- do you in theory believe that a hole's par can change due to playing conditions?

Generally no. For one thing only the TD can change par.

For another, by definition it should not change for (at least weather) conditions.
...

If the TD sets par, then that par setting is for a tournament.

Since the PDGA definition of par is

Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director.

clearly "ordinary weather conditions" for a tournament in August would be different than February, and hence the TD's assessment of par on a given hole could change.

 

[gdub58]

Hey look, we're back.

Question:

Has golf, at any time over its 500-year history, ever changed par on a course to accommodate changes in play or conditions, or once they've set par they try not too? I know gdub answered this question, but his answer had a modern tone to it, I would like some historical perspective from our experts.

I'm sure there have been holes that have changed par, but I can't imagine doing so without a design change. I can see moving a tee up on a short par 4 and making it a par 3 - they wouldn't just change par and leave it as is. They do this at many US Open venues - they shorten a par 5 and make it a difficult par 4.

Second Question:

Since the par set by the designer is what you aim at, if we are trying to be like golf, how do we determine where the breakpoints are, such that the hole design has to be changed to make the hole play closer to what the designer intended?

In ball golf course design, it is easy to incorporate a fair challenge to a common par across skill levels by simply adding another set of tees. In disc golf, there are some courses that do this, but nearly all only have two tee positions (in ball golf there can be 4-5). And, given disc golf doesn't have an established course par target (like ball golf's 72), we're going to get all sorts of combinations. That's why we have and will probably always have such a mish-mash of course levels and pars.

Third Question:

Do we think it is a problem that so many designers in our sport don't seem to be able to choose a par for a hole, then make a hole that plays to that par, if we use the traditional definition?

At major tournaments, the designers/TDs seem to be doing a good job of assigning pars appropriate for the top-level players. A lot of that is by creating temp layouts on ball golf courses and by tightening up landing areas with OB.

Beyond those layouts, designers (if they have the luxury of space) have to decide what they want to be - a tournament-level course, one that is kid-friendly, or something in between? You can accommodate multiple skill levels with different tee/basket locations (if you have the space and can afford to do it), but if you have a wooded course that's going to be more difficult.

It comes down to resources - if designers have plenty of space, plenty of labor, and plenty of money they can put together a course with good pars for multiple skill levels. But, how often do those stars align?

Different topic:

Since our golf experts tell me that hitting a ball with a stick is harder than throwing a frisbee, is throwing a ball easier than hitting a ball with a stick?

Of course- in baseball throws are made all the time to very precise locations, but even in batting practice your control is limited compared to throwing accuracy.

 

[beereakfast]

Hey look, we're back.

Question:

Has golf, at any time over its 500-year history, ever changed par on a course to accommodate changes in play or conditions, or once they've set par they try not too? I know gdub answered this question, but his answer had a modern tone to it, I would like some historical perspective from our experts.

Second Question:

Since the par set by the designer is what you aim at, if we are trying to be like golf, how do we determine where the breakpoints are, such that the hole design has to be changed to make the hole play closer to what the designer intended?


Third Question:

Do we think it is a problem that so many designers in our sport don't seem to be able to choose a par for a hole, then make a hole that plays to that par, if we use the traditional definition?

Different topic:

Since our golf experts tell me that hitting a ball with a stick is harder than throwing a frisbee, is throwing a ball easier than hitting a ball with a stick?

It seems to me that our sport is far more heavily impacted in a hole by hole way than stick golf, by the loss of one or two trees. Courses that were designed with a specific line in mind change every couple of years. Stick golf has distance rather than one tree preventing shortcut lines. The comparison of difficulty change over time really doesn't compare at all. Revamping par on our courses seems obviously necessary.

 

[Steve West]

Taking another look at U.S. Open after 3 rounds, I find it interesting that even with all the grousing about the course being too hard, the par scores are still happening. What's happening is the extra strokes above par are being magnified.

For example, they said the cost of being in the rough is greater than a full stroke in some places. But, that doesn't mean more players are going into the rough.

The toughness of the holes ranges from an 81.4% chance of each stroke in a series being good enough for par on #2 (the toughest hole) up to a 97.6% chance on #5.

 

[DG_player]

Taking another look at U.S. Open after 3 rounds, I find it interesting that even with all the grousing about the course being too hard, the par scores are still happening. What's happening is the extra strokes above par are being magnified.

For example, they said the cost of being in the rough is greater than a full stroke in some places. But, that doesn't mean more players are going into the rough.

The toughness of the holes ranges from an 81.4% chance of each stroke in a series being good enough for par on #2 (the toughest hole) up to a 97.6% chance on #5.

Are you talking about the third round specifically, or the combined scores of all 3 rounds? If you're talking about just the third round and your method is saying it is parred correctly there's something seriously wrong with your method. The setup was utterly ridiculous for the 3rd round.

A couple of the holes were so bad they were the disc golf equivalent of an island green, except the artificial roping being set at the bullseye distance!

The whole affair was quite embarrassing for golf as sport. I sincerely hope disc golf never goes to such extremes in the desire to make a course "tough". When you have 2 guys go from the cut line to the lead in one day, simply because they played early in the day, there is something seriously wrong and unfair about the setup.

 

[Steve West]

Are you talking about the third round specifically, or the combined scores of all 3 rounds? If you're talking about just the third round and your method is saying it is parred correctly there's something seriously wrong with your method. The setup was utterly ridiculous for the 3rd round.

...

I was taking about all three rounds. However, I now have looked at just the third round. It's not quite apples to apples because of the cut, but almost the exact same percent of strokes were good enough to get par in the third round as the other two. In fact, for the third round, hole 5 (which is a par 5 and had played on the bubble between par 4 and par 5) played as a par 4.

Par is a lot more robust than most people think. Because most people think it has something to do with average score. It doesn't. It has to do with errorless play. The score that results from errorless play will not change no matter how much punishment a course doles out to errors.

(As for whether a course can be too punishing, or the unfairness of different conditions at different times of day, those are subjects for other threads.)

 

[TAFL]

I reckon the problem in the third round was that conditions made far too many good shots turn into errors, so the players could hit errorless shots and have the course turn them into "errors" when considering par.