The Open @ Belmont Mar 19-21

[Ryan P.]

Guess par is a one way street?

Your posts are too short and unclear for me to understand what you mean. I'd love some clarity so I can interact with you without feeling like we're heaving cannonballs over a fence at one another. Or maybe my original post wasn't as clear as I thought.

Do you mean to say that people who can throw for distance should have the same opportunity to get pars as people who can putt well? If so, I never suggested as much. I didn't say "A birdie should not include a putt," I said "an albatross should not include a putt."

If you meant to say something else, can you clarify?

To clarify my original post, my opinion is that, if someone can reach the putting area in X number of strokes, par should not be X + 4. I don't ascribe to the "strokes to reach the green + 2" rule, but I've never heard of anyone suggesting "strokes to reach the green + 3." "Strokes to reach the green + 4" is one step past absurd. An albatross should require two long distance throws (on a par 5) or one (on a par 4). It should not allow the opportunity for a putt.

To abstract from that, I was attempting to connote that par was set incorrectly on hole 13 no matter how you look at it. I'm not sure who set it, but I'm sure they had some reason behind making it a par 5. However, I don't think that reason was sufficiently critiqued (by them or by others). If we want to start talking about par in general though, that's a topic for another thread.

 

[sidewinder22]

Your posts are too short and unclear for me to understand what you mean. I'd love some clarity so I can interact with you without feeling like we're heaving cannonballs over a fence at one another. Or maybe my original post wasn't as clear as I thought.

Do you mean to say that people who can throw for distance should have the same opportunity to get pars as people who can putt well? If so, I never suggested as much. I didn't say "A birdie should not include a putt," I said "an albatross should not include a putt."

If you meant to say something else, can you clarify?

To clarify my original post, my opinion is that, if someone can reach the putting area in X number of strokes, par should not be X + 4. I don't ascribe to the "strokes to reach the green + 2" rule, but I've never heard of anyone suggesting "strokes to reach the green + 3." "Strokes to reach the green + 4" is one step past absurd. An albatross should require two long distance throws (on a par 5) or one (on a par 4). It should not allow the opportunity for a putt.

To abstract from that, I was attempting to connote that par was set incorrectly on hole 13 no matter how you look at it. I'm not sure who set it, but I'm sure they had some reason behind making it a par 5. However, I don't think that reason was sufficiently critiqued (by them or by others). If we want to start talking about par in general though, that's a topic for another thread.

I was referring to hole 18. GG got the only birdie. I understand your argument about hole 13 par being easy, but you didn't seem to care that hole 18 par might be too hard? Do these offset each other? Or maybe not being that SSA was -4 relative to par. In the end par really doesn't matter in regard to scoring, except it seems to matter to some for the optics.

 

[Ryan P.]

I was referring to hole 18. GG got the only birdie. I understand your argument about hole 13 par being easy, but you didn't seem to care that hole 18 par might be too hard? Do these offset each other? Or maybe not being that SSA was -4 relative to par. In the end par really doesn't matter in regard to scoring, except it seems to matter to some for the optics.

I wasn't concerned with 18, but even if I were, my thoughts on 13 still hold true. My last post tried to connote a crucial point about my thoughts. My gripe with hole 13 isn't that par is set higher than I think it should; it's that par was set higher than any logical argument would allow. Both the length of the hole and the scores indicate that it is this way. 18% of the field got an eagle. By any argument for par that I've seen (the common three are strokes to green + 2, "birdies are more enjoyable", and par should be the result of expert play), the par on hole 13 should be 4. One could make an argument that 18 should be a par 4. I don't think it is, but there's an argument to make for it. I'd even say that it's an argument worth making because it'd help people get a better understanding of what par should be. But there's no argument worth making that 13 is a par 5. At least, I don't see it.

Not to disagree with you on every point (I'm stating my thoughts in hopes of more thought and conversation), but I disagree that it doesn't matter for scoring. Par plays psychological games with players, whether they admit it or not. I don't think it affects all players equally, but it affects everyone in some way. It doesn't change how the hole is designed. This is a very minor point though.

Along with the psychological effects, par does matter for the optics. However, far more important than that, discussing and analyzing par helps designers do their job well. If a championship level course had a 200' wide open hole, that's pretty bad design. But why? It's because a championship course should test every aspect of a players skill level, and a 200' open upshot isn't a good test of a pro's skill (again, maybe the psychological aspects, but those are small). Par indicates that it isn't a good test of skill, as virtually the entire field will score a 2 on it. It's not a test if everyone deuces it.

From what I've seen, you're pretty good. Let's say you walked up to hole 18 on this course on a DGPT event. It's going to be incredibly rare for you (and obviously even the top pros) to get a 2. People generally don't like the hole because of the lack of scoring separation (1 birdie and a lot of pars). It's not a great hole, and the scores according to par indicate that.

Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Ryan P.]

Also, after reading my post, I don't think I connected the idea of par to hole design as well as I thought. I don't function well when I'm tired. I'll try and clarify later.

 

[ToddL]

Ezra A has three bogeys and a double thru 5

1008 rated round, 20 points below his rating. I'm sure he'll bounce back.

 

[Steve West]

Guess par is a one way street?

In a way, yes.


It is possible for a hole to develop so many "bogeys" that the bogey score becomes expected, so it should really be par.

It is not possible for a hole to develop so few bogeys that par becomes unexpected enough that it should be changed.


It is possible for a hole to develop so many "birdies" that the birdie score becomes expected, so it should really be par.

It is not possible for a hole to develop so few birdies that par becomes unexpected enough that it should be changed.

 

[sidewinder22]

I wasn't concerned with 18, but even if I were, my thoughts on 13 still hold true. My last post tried to connote a crucial point about my thoughts. My gripe with hole 13 isn't that par is set higher than I think it should; it's that par was set higher than any logical argument would allow. Both the length of the hole and the scores indicate that it is this way. 18% of the field got an eagle. By any argument for par that I've seen (the common three are strokes to green + 2, "birdies are more enjoyable", and par should be the result of expert play), the par on hole 13 should be 4. One could make an argument that 18 should be a par 4. I don't think it is, but there's an argument to make for it. I'd even say that it's an argument worth making because it'd help people get a better understanding of what par should be. But there's no argument worth making that 13 is a par 5. At least, I don't see it.

Not to disagree with you on every point (I'm stating my thoughts in hopes of more thought and conversation), but I disagree that it doesn't matter for scoring. Par plays psychological games with players, whether they admit it or not. I don't think it affects all players equally, but it affects everyone in some way. It doesn't change how the hole is designed. This is a very minor point though.

Along with the psychological effects, par does matter for the optics. However, far more important than that, discussing and analyzing par helps designers do their job well. If a championship level course had a 200' wide open hole, that's pretty bad design. But why? It's because a championship course should test every aspect of a players skill level, and a 200' open upshot isn't a good test of a pro's skill (again, maybe the psychological aspects, but those are small). Par indicates that it isn't a good test of skill, as virtually the entire field will score a 2 on it. It's not a test if everyone deuces it.

From what I've seen, you're pretty good. Let's say you walked up to hole 18 on this course on a DGPT event. It's going to be incredibly rare for you (and obviously even the top pros) to get a 2. People generally don't like the hole because of the lack of scoring separation (1 birdie and a lot of pars). It's not a great hole, and the scores according to par indicate that.

Sorry for the wall of text.

I never disagreed with you on hole 13.

IMO "(Birdie) or Deuce or Die" or the "ones you got to get" might have a higher fear factor pressure on players than a "tough par" where you might be more relaxed if everyone is getting or settling for par, and possibly create more tension and drama for the viewers. I think it really depends on the hole itself, not the par. Just because a player expects to birdie, doesn't guarantee it.

How would Par indicate test of skill?

Hole 18 had almost 25% bogey or worse, Dickerson double bogeyed. I have yet to see this hole or any hole of this course, but from the numbers it doesn't sound like just a walk in the park.

If you are thinking about a hole you are playing and you don't like it for par or scoring separation or you might lose a disc or whatever reason, then you have already lost mentally as a player or competitor especially at the top pro level. You planned ahead and play it to the best of your ability one shot a time, unless it's the end of the tourney and you know you gotta make a move.

 

[sidewinder22]

In a way, yes.


It is possible for a hole to develop so many "bogeys" that the bogey score becomes expected, so it should really be par.

It is not possible for a hole to develop so few bogeys that par becomes unexpected enough that it should be changed.


It is possible for a hole to develop so many "birdies" that the birdie score becomes expected, so it should really be par.

It is not possible for a hole to develop so few birdies that par becomes unexpected enough that it should be changed.

It is possible that the hole needs to be redesigned.

It is not possible that par is the problem.

 

[bwgort]

1008 rated round, 20 points below his rating. I'm sure he'll bounce back.

Wrong Ezra

 

[ToddL]

Wrong Ezra

Oh I assumed we were talking about the highest rated Ezra in the world.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

ADHD is fun sometimes...:doh:

There's a course near here called Belmont and between ADHD, dyslexia and the green stuff, my brain does weird things like that sometimes.

I've played Belmont in Dayton, and while it's a decent course, I was thinking, "ain't no way in hell that course is suitable for touring pros."

Lulz.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I was referring to hole 18. GG got the only birdie. I understand your argument about hole 13 par being easy, but you didn't seem to care that hole 18 par might be too hard? Do these offset each other? Or maybe not being that SSA was -4 relative to par. In the end par really doesn't matter in regard to scoring, except it seems to matter to some for the optics.

Par was definitely not correct on 13, it doesn't take Steve West to figure that one out. With an SSA at -4 and Macbeth at 1050 rating, which equates to 8 shots better than the expert line cutoff (970), it looks like par is set pretty correctly overall.

 

[peabody]

I've played Belmont in Dayton, and while it's a decent course, I was thinking, "ain't no way in hell that course is suitable for touring pros."

Lulz.

Yeah I first read thread title and was like "hmm, 12 furlongs, a mile and 1/2, piles of horse dung and alcohol sales in the grandstand".

 

[Jolt]

Fun Innova vs Discraft lead card today

 

[brutalbrutus]

 

[Steve West]

...With an SSA at -4 and Macbeth at 1050 rating, which equates to 8 shots better than the expert line cutoff (970), it looks like par is set pretty correctly overall.

No, total par was set smack dab at the level appropriate for Advanced players, not Open. Remember, par is the score expected with errorless play. Par is NOT average. If a 950-rated player avoids the couple of errors per round they usually make (in other words, play in a way so that they should get par), you would expect their round rating to be about 968; which is where par was set.

Or, to look at it another way, 85 of the 117 scores were below par. So, every time a player got par on a hole, they were moving toward 86th place: farther from any chance of cashing - let alone winning. That's not what par is supposed to do. Getting par is supposed to indicate an expert player is holding their own against the competition.

 

[Hampstead]

I've played Belmont in Dayton, and while it's a decent course, I was thinking, "ain't no way in hell that course is suitable for touring pros."

Lulz.

I agree and yet it happened

(Nikko, Philo, Barsby and Nate Perkins played the year before)

 

[brutalbrutus]

They are doing a "premiere" for this starting at 3:30 est. If you click on it before its finished, it will take you straight to where it is at the moment, not the beginning.

 

[brutalbrutus]

 

[brutalbrutus]

They are doing a "premiere" for this starting at 3:30 est. If you click on it before its finished, it will take you straight to where it is at the moment, not the beginning.

Here's the link for the b9. Starts at 4:30...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM7xjigjI2A