Par Talk

[oldmandiscer]

Seeing too many scores lower than par is purely and only a symptom of setting par in a way that is different than the definition.



I know you skipped that quote, so go back and read it. Slowly. Aloud. Put an emphasis on all the words that being with "e". Mull it over.

Consider what happens when par is set according to the definition. There can't be too many scores under par because most players cannot play better than an expert who is making no errors.

You don't understand the problem. The problem isn't par. The problem is the easiness of putting. Sure by your definition we should have flat mostly open 600-700 foot par 3's. But that's a boring hole no matter what "par" you call it. Miss marked par is just a SYMPTOM of the real problem. If baskets were properly sized we wouldn't see 60% of players "birdieing" those holes.

I don't care about your par definition! I care about watching great, fair and challenging disc golf.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not Steve's definition of par, it's the definition of par. If you don't care about it, what are you doing in the Park Talk thread?

 

[oldmandiscer]

It's not Steve's definition of par, it's the definition of par. If you don't care about it, what are you doing in the Park Talk thread?

Because the solution isn't to change par it's to change the basket.

 

[DavidSauls]

This thread is about correctly applying par, regardless of basket.

 

[txmxer]

Because the solution isn't to change par it's to change the basket.

So the solution to your perceived problem of design gimmicks is to introduce your preferred gimmick?

BRILLIANT!

 

[wolfhaley]

That's his response to everything. Logic and common sense be damned!

 

[Steve West]

Because the solution isn't to change par it's to change the basket.

Nobody is changing par. We are trying to get more TDs to apply the actual definition.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Nobody is changing par. We are trying to get more TDs to apply the actual definition.

And you could if you changed the basket.

 

[Steve West]

And you could if you changed the basket.

And we can if we don't change the basket.

You'll find no support for changing the basket by bringing par into the mix. Nor will anyone else find any opposition. Whether you add a throw to each hole, or make every hole less than 25 feet, par will adapt and work just fine if the definition is used.

Whatever the basket, there will be a score expected of an expert with errorless play and that score will be a good score to get and if TDs set par to that score there will not be too many scores under par.

 

[teemkey]

Nobody is changing par. We are trying to get more TDs to apply the actual definition.

Since the actual definition has only three variables for the TD to consider when determining par, what do you think they're getting wrong?

 

[Steve West]

Since the actual definition has only three variables for the TD to consider when determining par, what do you think they're getting wrong?

They're not getting it wrong; they can't possibly be wrong: ", as determined by the Director" is very important.

They are not interpreting those parts of the definition differently, they are choosing to not use the definition.

Sometimes, they set aside the definition and set par according to some other rule of thumb, like "reach plus two", or "all par 3s must be ace-able", or "the whole field should expect to birdie", or "the longest hole on the course must have a higher par". That practice is actually getting pretty rare these days.

Sometimes, they are just using the tee sign pars. Tee sign pars are almost always set for the Recreational, Intermediate, or Advanced skill levels - to increase the popularity of the course. In other words, the TDs choose not bother to put more effort into the tournament by setting par for experts. (Which is quite understandable.)

Sometimes, they are holding events on such short courses there would be some par 2s, but they don't call them that because "the pros would kill me". (Again, understandable.)

Sometimes, they decide to pump up par with the intent of creating "lots of eagles!!!" or some similar BS-based hype. (OK, this one actually bothers me. Still, it's their choice to make.)

To sum up, there is fairly widespread agreement about what par should be, but less widespread discipline in implementing it. Which is probably OK for now. TDs have too much to do already. They need to be free to make the decisions which are right for them.

At some point we will reach a tipping point where it will become easier for TDs to set par according to the definition than to explain why they didn't.

We are getting nearer to (or maybe are already at) that tipping point because of more widespread awareness of the actual, real, official definition of par; thousands of people watching commentators on videos describe what score pros should really expect on mis-parred holes; and hole-by-hole scores being digitized for so many tournaments.

 

[teemkey]

I wonder if it might be more effective to convince the committee that awards PDGA Tour status to a tournament to favor venues that set par in accordance with the PDGA recommendation, all other considerations being equal. It should be easier to convince a smaller group of people, all of whom are known to care about the public's image of disc golf.

Perhaps you could come up with an easy to understand metric that demonstrates compliance?

 

[txmxer]

One of the reasons this is a discussion is Paul shot -18. Twice. And a few -16s or what have you.

I would certainly agree that if the majority throw birdie or better or it's all par and higher there is room for debate on the correct PAR for a hole.

In most of the charts presented we see one or two holes that don't align well with PAR. Of course some that is created by poor design but excess use of OB to create score diversity.

The stats are fascinating and interesting but most of this is unnecessary. The eye test can tell which holes need work or tweaked PAR.

As far as stats go, I think there are three key stats on par: below, above, and at par. Most double and triple bogeys are anomalies and should be weighed the same. If there are a lot of eagles, It's likely PAR is high.

And Billy is right—PAR is arbitrary. Least strokes wins.

 

[Steve West]

Bringing this into the right thread:

Thanks for response.

Besides I depth analysis, I do believe there should be a simpler, easily applied, universally recognized way to determine par based on performance versus the pdga distance/ foliage colorful chart or reach green plus two.

A simple system may not be perfect, but better is always better. Especially if using real performance numbers. I forsee it more of a litmus test using distances, averages (skill appropriate players), score distribution, special circumstances (water,dogleg, judgement) as factors towards determining par. Ideally plug in scores (maybe current player rating), spits out proposed par.

Something universally understood for practical application by average Joe. Just my thought.

I must point out that "Reach green plus two" is not disc golf par, and never was.

Most TDs, players and commentators who actually try to set par for Open players based on the definition get it right. It seems to be really easy to pick the score that would be expected of an expert. We might not need a prescribed method.

That doesn't mean I haven't made a litmus test to see whether they tried or not.

This is a standard for par based on the scoring distribution of 1000-rated players (more precisely, a group of players who are near 1000 and whose average rating is 1000).

If at least 77% of the 100-rated players score an ace, it's a par 1. Otherwise, if at least 59% of 1000-rated players score two or ace it, it's a par 2. Otherwise, 45% for par 3, 35% for par 4, and 26% for par 5, 20% for par 6, etc.

I call this "standard" because par would represent to the same skill level across all events and across all hole par values (2 to 6). The single parameter (23/30=77%) was optimized to maximize the information value of the difference between par and score, which also makes the value of a birdie equal to the cost of a bogey.

TDs are, of course, free to depart from the standard. And, there will always be holes that are on the bubble and could go either way.

There is another broad-brush test that is more easily applied. If par was set correctly, an even-par round should be rated between 990 and 1030, most commonly 1010. 1030 on the most punishing courses (more OB), 990 in the least punishing courses.

So, anytime a round rating for even par is lower than 990, par is suspect.

 

[adamgservo]

Steve - I played in a tournament last weekend and I grabbed all the hole-by-hole scoring data and arranged each hole into percentages for taking 2, 3, 4 , etc.. I know you had previously mentioned the preferred ranges for the scoring distributions, but I can't remember it.

I am interesting in categorizing which holes are good/bad at providing scoring distributions. Particularly those that had multiple pin positions.

Also what do you think of holes that give 40/40/20 scoring distributions? There were 2 of those. And another that was really close to that: 20/45/35

 

[Steve West]

Steve - I played in a tournament last weekend and I grabbed all the hole-by-hole scoring data and arranged each hole into percentages for taking 2, 3, 4 , etc.. I know you had previously mentioned the preferred ranges for the scoring distributions, but I can't remember it.

I am interesting in categorizing which holes are good/bad at providing scoring distributions. Particularly those that had multiple pin positions.

Also what do you think of holes that give 40/40/20 scoring distributions? There were 2 of those. And another that was really close to that: 20/45/35

The only really bad scoring distribution is a lot of one score. The two you mention are about as far from that as they can get.

I prefer a mix of scoring distributions rather than trying to get all holes to have any "ideal" one. The different splits are like chopping a cucumber at different spots. You get more slices that way.

Usually, multiple pin positions gives wider scoring spreads (when both are used in one tournament) because they're like two different holes. Just as playing two different courses will provide better scoring spreads than re-playing the same course. If you have the resources to switch, use both pin locations instead of picking the better location. (As long as both are palatable to the players.)

 

[adamgservo]

The only really bad scoring distribution is a lot of one score. The two you mention are about as far from that as they can get.

I prefer a mix of scoring distributions rather than trying to get all holes to have any "ideal" one. The different splits are like chopping a cucumber at different spots. You get more slices that way.

Usually, multiple pin positions gives wider scoring spreads (when both are used in one tournament) because they're like two different holes. Just as playing two different courses will provide better scoring spreads than re-playing the same course. If you have the resources to switch, use both pin locations instead of picking the better location. (As long as both are palatable to the players.)

I was actually analyzing the multi-pin holes as 2 different holes since the pin positions were really different. Sometimes even changing par on the hole.

What is the threshold for a lot of one score? Like 65-70%?

One hole that had the most scoring variance went 30/35/25/10. A par 4 with a specific landing zone, a mando, thick rough on one side, and OB road on the other side. That seems like a really good one.

 

[Steve West]

I was actually analyzing the multi-pin holes as 2 different holes since the pin positions were really different. Sometimes even changing par on the hole.

What is the threshold for a lot of one score? Like 65-70%?

One hole that had the most scoring variance went 30/35/25/10. A par 4 with a specific landing zone, a mando, thick rough on one side, and OB road on the other side. That seems like a really good one.

As two holes works, too.

Yeah, about 65-70% at the most. Depending on the group of players you are looking at. If it's a bunch rated 800 through 1050, there shouldn't be any particular score that a lot of people get.

In that 30/35/25/10 if the 35 is the 2s, 3s, or 4s, then that score should be par.

 

[PMantle]

Steve, it's refreshing to see that you still do not understand par, nor do you recognize the two issues that prevent disc golf from ever have a definition of par that makes you happy.

 

[adamgservo]

As two holes works, too.

Yeah, about 65-70% at the most. Depending on the group of players you are looking at. If it's a bunch rated 800 through 1050, there shouldn't be any particular score that a lot of people get.

In that 30/35/25/10 if the 35 is the 2s, 3s, or 4s, then that score should be par.

The 35 was a score of 4, and it was considered a par 4.

Thanks for the input.