Par Talk

[PMantle]

I just stumbled across John Houck's article "The Hole Truth" from DiscGolfer magazine, Winter 2019. Excellent article comparing disc golf par to ball golf par. A really interesting and funny read!
I apologize if this was previously covered in this thread...it's definitely worth a repost.

(link to the text only article)
http://www.omagdigital.com/publicat...w=articleBrowser&article_id=3260666&ver=html5

(link to the actual magazine article)
http://www.omagdigital.com/publication/?m=15675&i=550074&p=60&pre=1

That was good and highlights the tee pad problem in disc golf nicely. Love the notion that there is no real problem with par-there are problem holes.

 

[foxdawg10]

I'm just leaving these here. Interpret as you please.

These are very cool graphs, and it is clear to see what the trends are for birdies, par and bogies.

I'm relatively new to this conversation, apologies if there is a legend or definitions of the data somewhere else in the thread. What do the data points represent? I understand the general terms you used to label the axes (spread and % of). Where they taken from one specific tournament, a series of tournaments?

 

[Steve West]

These are very cool graphs, and it is clear to see what the trends are for birdies, par and bogies.

I'm relatively new to this conversation, apologies if there is a legend or definitions of the data somewhere else in the thread. What do the data points represent? I understand the general terms you used to label the axes (spread and % of). Where they taken from one specific tournament, a series of tournaments?

From hundreds of holes of data, from B tiers and up. Since they were for many skill levels, par was standardized for each skill level. Each of the 1,651 dots is at least 12 rounds of data from one hole, one event, for one skill level (= ratings of 1000, 950, 930, 900, 850, 800, 750, 700).

The question being asked was whether a hole that allows zero or very few birdies is of necessity a bad hole. (Assuming "good" means they generate a lot of scoring spread).

As it turns out, the percent of birdies is the weakest predictor of whether a hole produces good scoring spread. The strongest predictor is whether there are too many par scores. Among these, the fatal flaw is almost always too many threes.

 

[Steve West]

Here is some data for a discussion that is going on.

This shows the impact on score of the under- or over-par scores. These are based on the scoring distribution of the prototypical "expert" and the standard par for that expert. All skill levels are shown together.

Examples: About 10% of par 3 holes do not offer any chance at birdies. The median par 3 holes allows about 15% birdies.

On the bad-score side (above zero), very few par 3 holes allow zero risk of scoring over par. The median par 3 hole costs the player about .23 extra throws from over-par scores.

Note that the under-par and over-par lines are sorted separately. A point on a line above zero is not from the same hole as the point directly below it on the line below zero. In general, holes that offer few birdies risk more bogeys and vice versa.

 

[Steve West]

I couldn't help my notice all the talk about huge under par holes at Kapalua this week. So, I ran my formula.

All the par 5s should have been par 4.

If that had been the case, instead of 95% of rounds being under par, it would have been 50%.

Instead of averaging 4.62 under par, they would have averaged 0.62 under.

Instead of a winning score of -34 (8.5 per round) it would have been -18 (4.5 per round).

And, instead of only 7% of scores being bogey, it would have been 13%.

 

[PMantle]

All the par 5s should have been par 4.

Nope.

 

[Steve West]

Nope.

Oh, well, I guess I've been educated. Thanks for your insight!

Now I know that MOST scores on these holes should be lower than par, "the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole." (per USGA's definition)

Now, if I could just figure out why the other 14 holes have such high pars that most of the scores are equal to par.

Can you help me with that?

 

[PMantle]

Oh, well, I guess I've been educated. Thanks for your insight!

Now I know that MOST scores on these holes should be lower than par, "the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole." (per USGA's definition)

Now, if I could just figure out why the other 14 holes have such high pars that most of the scores are equal to par.

Can you help me with that?

You're welcome!

Sure thing. The higher the par, the more likely an expert is going to break it. This is due to approach club. Most par 5s are reachable in two by these guys allowing for some eagles, and many, many birdies. Some par 4s are reachable in 1, with the same result. No par 3s are reachable in zero, and very few are scoring club holes anymore. So, there you have it.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I couldn't help my notice all the talk about huge under par holes at Kapalua this week. So, I ran my formula.

All the par 5s should have been par 4.

Wow. Are you now claiming that the PGA should be consulting you about how to set par?

Your ego is boundless.

 

[oldmandiscer]

I couldn't help my notice all the talk about huge under par holes at Kapalua this week. So, I ran my formula.

All the par 5s should have been par 4.

If that had been the case, instead of 95% of rounds being under par, it would have been 50%.

Instead of averaging 4.62 under par, they would have averaged 0.62 under.

Instead of a winning score of -34 (8.5 per round) it would have been -18 (4.5 per round).

And, instead of only 7% of scores being bogey, it would have been 13%.

Maybe they need to make the hole smaller. It was a record amount under par I heard.

The thing with Par 5's is that it's a scoring hole. You could make a 3, should make 4 and hope not to make 5 or worse.

I think disc golf could use more Par 5's but honestly I think it's very difficult to do one where a 3 is possible, you should make 4 but hope not to make 5 or worse.

Obviously making putting legitimate would be a start, but beyond that you would need to create a risk reward situation where two great or highest level shots gives you a putt at 3.

The preserve 18 I think is a decent hole. 12 at WR Jackson I remember being a pretty good one. We just don't have very many good Par 5's.

 

[Steve West]

..Most par 5s are reachable in two by these guys...

Again, you've enlightened me in ways I would not have thought possible.

You're telling me it's simple math. You take those two strokes you say it takes to reach the green, add the "two strokes on the putting green" (per the USGA definition of par) and

2 + 2 = 5.

I can't put my finger on it, but something doesn't seem to add up.

 

[Steve West]

Wow. Are you now claiming that the PGA should be consulting you about how to set par?

Your ego is boundless.

Actually, what triggered it was I had the Kapalua re-cap running in the background, so I listened to hours of talk about record-under par, etc. I eventually noticed that they never - not once - got anywhere close to suggesting the possibility that par of 73 (higher than most courses) might, just might, be the reason for all the way-under-par scores.

It amused me.

I do think they would be better off if they set par according to their own definition. Guess I'll have to start a thread on BGCourseReview. Or is it BASGCourseReview? GCourseReview?

 

[txmxer]

Wow. Are you now claiming that the PGA should be consulting you about how to set par?

Your ego is boundless.

Why? Is a data backed opinion now a corollary to an infinite ego?

You don't have to agree with him, but when did someone doing math equate arrogance?

 

[TAFL]

You're welcome!

Sure thing. The higher the par, the more likely an expert is going to break it.

Um...no. :doh:

 

[TAFL]

Why? Is a data backed opinion now a corollary to an infinite ego?

You don't have to agree with him, but when did someone doing math equate arrogance?

Well, we do now live in a world where lies--excuse me, alternative facts--are supposedly as good as real facts. And uninformed opinions are supposedly better than informed information from experts. :wall:

 

[DavidSauls]

If golf wants par to be The Expected Score of an Expert* (*-except when it's not), let them.

The crusade in disc golf to make par what we say it is, and of maximum usefulness, should be enough.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Why? Is a data backed opinion now a corollary to an infinite ego?

You don't have to agree with him, but when did someone doing math equate arrogance?

Do you have to duck for the point to fly over your head, or does it pretty much do that already?

BTW, you are using two separate logical fallacies in your argument above: begging the question (of whether the data is applicable to the opinion expressed, which was the basis for my comment), and using a straw man argument (because no one has asserted that "doing math [equates to] arrogance").

Please think better next time.

 

[Steve West]

You're welcome!

The higher the par, the more likely an expert is going to break it. This is due to approach club. Most par 5s are reachable in two by these guys allowing for some eagles, and many, many birdies. Some par 4s are reachable in 1, with the same result. No par 3s are reachable in zero, and very few are scoring club holes anymore. So, there you have it.

Um...no. :doh:

Actually, his statement is true, but the reasoning is bad.

It SHOULD be harder to break par 5 than par 3. Making four birdie-worthy strokes in a row is less likely than making two birdie-worthy strokes in a row.

Overall, about half of all throws are birdie-worthy. About one-fourth (1/2 x 1/2) of players will get birdies on a par 3 of medium difficulty, and about one-sixteenth (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) of players will get a birdies on a par 5 of medium difficulty.

Offsetting that is the greater number of chances to make a miraculous shot on a par 5 than a par 3. But, miraculous shots are even more rare than birdie-worthy shots.

Also offsetting the difficulty of making four in a row vs. two in a row is the fact that the higher the par, the softer par is likely to be. Part of this is legitimate, part is not.

A legit par 5 is likely to be just barely hard enough to qualify as a par 5. Maybe there wasn't enough room to make the toughest possible par 5, or it would have been a heartbreaking grind or some other reason. On these holes, the percent of throws that are birdie-worthy could go up to about 75%. So, about one-third of experts could get birdies on the easy end of par 5.

If par were set appropriately, here are the percent of birdies (and better) expert disc golfers would average (across all existing holes of each par):
2 = 0.1%
3 = 25%
4 = 23%
5 = 21%
6 = 19%.

The non-legitimate part of higher pars being easier for disc golf is that most tournaments are still played on courses designed for Advanced players. An expert has more chances to take advantage of their edge over Advanced players for higher-par holes.

Here are the actual percentages of birdies (and better) based on tournament pars:
3 = 35%
4 = 40%
5 = 41%.


For golf, the non-legitimate part is the unspoken agreement to pump up the "birdies" by calling some Par X holes a Reachable Par X+1. Hey, at least they put the qualifier on there so we know exactly which holes are being falsely labeled.

 

[Steve West]

If golf wants par to be The Expected Score of an Expert* (*-except when it's not), let them.

The crusade in disc golf to make par what we say it is, and of maximum usefulness, should be enough.

It's below zero, windy, and there's a foot of fresh snow on the ground.

 

[PMantle]

Actually, his statement is true, but the reasoning is bad.

It SHOULD be harder to break par 5 than par 3. Making four birdie-worthy strokes in a row is less likely than making two birdie-worthy strokes in a row.

For golf, the non-legitimate part is the unspoken agreement to pump up the "birdies" by calling some Par X holes a Reachable Par X+1. Hey, at least they put the qualifier on there so we know exactly which holes are being falsely labeled.

None of this is correct.