Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

https://www.espn.com/golf/stats/hole/_/tournament/401056507

Yes the scoring separation would stay the same. However, then these holes would play as some of the hardest holes on tour, which clearly isn't the desired experience as this tourney serves as a reward for players on tour who won an event. It is much more fun for fans/players to have them as par 5's, fans like to see eagle attempts, if even most are not holed. For the guys that used to walk to school four miles in blowing snow and below zero temps it would probably be par 4's. Much of this whole par talk is simply about personal set-up preferences vs. what the players/tourists/ spectators enjoy the most. Myself I like playing courses where if I perform decently, I have at least some good opportunities for birdies. If the baskets were tougher it would be even better. These golf holes have difficult greens as well. They are easy to play, but tough to conquer, as is evidence by the few eagles on holes that "should' play as "Par 4's".

We changed the par desgination on a few holes on our course.

They play exactly the same, regardless.

I guess it's fun for some to pretend that an average (expected) result is really a good (better-than-expected) result, but that doesn't make the holes any easier or more fun to me.

Par isn't important, of course; we determine winners by total strokes. But it's most useful if it consistently means the same thing -- the expected score.

 

[Jimb]

The DGPT should add a stop in Maine. There would probably be lots of "better then perfect" rounds there based upon the way they set par.

(OK, so I haven't played a ton of courses in ME but, in addition to personal experience, I've seen videos pointing out and read about the easy pars. Heck, I think I've gotten some :thmbdown: on reviews for pointing this out.)

 

[Steve West]

The DGPT should add a stop in Maine. There would probably be lots of "better then perfect" rounds there based upon the way they set par.

(OK, so I haven't played a ton of courses in ME but, in addition to personal experience, I've seen videos pointing out and read about the easy pars. Heck, I think I've gotten some :thmbdown: on reviews for pointing this out.)

The DGPT is real good at setting par. If they didn't change the course pars for the event, they would likely make the holes difficult enough to justify the par. At least after a year or two of having a Silver Series there.

 

[oldmandiscer]

You are fixing par, which is one feature of the hole.

We should correct the listed distances on mis-measured holes or change the map when a tee pad is moved, EVEN IF we don't also change the baskets or the design. It's the same with par.




The root - and only - cause of wrong par is setting par wrong.

No matter how well or poorly designed the hole, or how many (or how few) putts the baskets catch, there will be a score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.

That's par.

As you said, using the correct par will not fix any lack of scoring spread nor eliminate the features intended to pump up scoring spread.

But, using an incorrect par will ALSO not fix any lack of scoring spread nor eliminate the features intended to pump up scoring spread.

Because there are benefits to setting par to the expected score, we might as well get that part right.

Sure let's do it. We already have ropes everywhere and raised baskets on every other hole.

300 foot Par 2's. I'm on board. Why not?

 

[PMantle]

You are fixing par, which is one feature of the hole.

We should correct the listed distances on mis-measured holes or change the map when a tee pad is moved, EVEN IF we don't also change the baskets or the design. It's the same with par.




The root - and only - cause of wrong par is setting par wrong.

No matter how well or poorly designed the hole, or how many (or how few) putts the baskets catch, there will be a score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.

That's par.

As you said, using the correct par will not fix any lack of scoring spread nor eliminate the features intended to pump up scoring spread.

But, using an incorrect par will ALSO not fix any lack of scoring spread nor eliminate the features intended to pump up scoring spread.

Because there are benefits to setting par to the expected score, we might as well get that part right.

There is no such thing as incorrect par.

 

[txmxer]

There is no such thing as incorrect par.

do you have some logic behind this statement or are you just trolling Steve?

 

[PMantle]

do you have some logic behind this statement or are you just trolling Steve?

Par is set by either the course designer or TD. It cannot be incorrect.

 

[txmxer]

Par is set by either the course designer or TD. It cannot be incorrect.

I guess, but there is a definition of what PAR is supposed to represent. If the results don't align with the definition, how can it be correct?

 

[PMantle]

I guess, but there is a definition of what PAR is supposed to represent. If the results don't align with the definition, how can it be correct?

The definition includes, "as determined by the tournament director..."

Furthermore, par came from golf, and golf has never used anything other than designer's designation or that plus changed made by the governing body/sponsor.

If you haven't done so, I highly recommend reading the Houck article linked earlier in this thread. http://www.omagdigital.com/publicat...w=articleBrowser&article_id=3260666&ver=html5

 

[Steve West]

The definition includes, "as determined by the tournament director..."...

Not any more.

I will agree that "incorrect" was the wrong word.

"Incorrect" would be if one were looking at the wrong hole's par or something like that.

Instead, I should have said something like "not the most appropriate for the skill level" or "not set with the intent of being consistent with the definition". The specific description would depend on the reasoning behind the par that was set.

 

[txmxer]

The definition includes, "as determined by the tournament director..."

Furthermore, par came from golf, and golf has never used anything other than designer's designation or that plus changed made by the governing body/sponsor.

If you haven't done so, I highly recommend reading the Houck article linked earlier in this thread. http://www.omagdigital.com/publicat...w=articleBrowser&article_id=3260666&ver=html5

TBH, I consider PAR arbitrary and an aside since in competition, the only relevant outcome is the total score versus competitors.

However, that doesn't say that the TD is correct when setting PAR, it just says it is the TD's responsibility to set PAR in accordance with the definition.

 

[DavidSauls]

Somehow I get the feeling that if I, at tournament director, mark every hole as Par 2, some people will call that incorrect, and my position as director won't dissuade them from that judgment.

 

[Improbably]

There is no such thing as incorrect par.

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

 

[PMantle]

Not any more.

I will agree that "incorrect" was the wrong word.

"Incorrect" would be if one were looking at the wrong hole's par or something like that.

Instead, I should have said something like "not the most appropriate for the skill level" or "not set with the intent of being consistent with the definition". The specific description would depend on the reasoning behind the par that was set.

I cannot disagree with that, but then we get back to the main points you and I disagree with as highlighted by Houck's article. There aren't enough tee pads and putting is too easy. As long as this exists, there will never be a correct par in everyone's mind. But the PDGA still says,

Tournament Director's Role

The PDGA requires the Tournament Director to set par for each hole in every sanctioned event. The pars set by the Tournament Director are final and not subject to appeal.

 

[PMantle]

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Just because I think it's a terrible idea doesn't mean it's incorrect.

 

[DavidSauls]

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

That's opens up some possibilities for mischief, doesn't it.

Though calling everything Par 0 would leave us deciding winners by total strokes, which is....ah.....well nevermind.

I'm going to put some thought into some non-numerical pars, with the assurance that though they may be insane, they won't be incorrect.

 

[Monocacy]

Make people solve algebraic problems to decipher par for each hole. Probably need to switch up the equations from time to time to prevent cheating.

 

[DavidSauls]

I was going to set Par Pi, but that might mean solving the circle, and that's beyond my skill level.

 

[Steve West]

This statement opens the door to par 2's; which you have previously opposed.

Taken further par 1's, par 0's, negative pars, imaginary number pars, non-numerical pars...

"the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make"

Nothing but positive integers can be the score.

Par 1s, sure. They'd be about 25 feet long. It might happen at a putting league.

If a TD departs from the definition, there's nothing a player can do to fix it. I've played on holes with n.5 pars. I was tempted to be late just to get a hole score of 7.5 and make extra work adding up the paper scorecards.

 

[PMantle]

I was going to set Par Pi, but that might mean solving the circle, and that's beyond my skill level.

I always let other people keep score, so that's fine by me.