Worlds Par

[Steve West]

I'm starting this new thread because I feel guilty about polluting the discussions about on the other two Worlds thread with par talk, but I just can't stop myself.

So, this is my World's par methadone thread.

...

If your looking for a way to measure a courses difficulty then you should look at ratings like player ratings but based on the course not the individual player. Then you could say this course is a 1050 course for 18 or this course is a 880 course or even a 960 course. Then you could assign a difficulty value to the course and even give a rating to each individual hole in relation to par of that hole by its self.

You have a good idea, but there is one more step. If there is a course where par is rated 880, that's a par that was set for Red-level players. This would be good for events where any of the following divisions are competing: Recreational MA3, Senior Legend MPE, Grand Legend MPR, Advanced Women FA1, Advanced Master Women FM1, Grandmaster Women FPG, Senior Grandmaster Women FPS, Junior Female I - 18 & Under FJ1

The par used for Gold RPA, Open MPO, and Master MPM divisions during a tournament should be the score a 1000-rated player playing errorlessly under ordinary weather conditions would get - no matter the difficulty of the course or what the tee signs say. An easy course might be par 42, a very difficult one might be par 66. Most will be right around par 54 or a little lower.

So, to implement your idea, we just need to label all the course pars with the skill level they represent. That way, when a tournament is held there, the TD will know whether or not the course pars are appropriate for the competitors that day. And adjust them as needed.

 

[Steve West]

As a point, round three and round four are better. There is an even mix of green and white across the round, with significantly more bogies. I still looks rich to me, (rich in birdies) but not so much so that it is ridiculous, by my measure.

The stats back you up on that, I'm getting par of 60 for Country Club Gold (vs. the 63 being used), with holes 8, 11, and 17 being one too high.

 

[chris deitzel]

Pittsburgh designs par to skill level

Gold tees 1000 rated
Blue 950
White 900


Par has come in within +\- 20 ratings points in 20+ events held at Moraine State Park.
Didn't stop Paul from shooting 15 under though.

I think the new golds or black should be about 1025 level.

 

[Steve West]

Pittsburgh designs par to skill level

Gold tees 1000 rated
Blue 950
White 900


Par has come in within +\- 20 ratings points in 20+ events held at Moraine State Park.

That puts you ahead of most, and caught up to state-of-the-art for a couple of years ago.

One further refinement is that par is not the average score of the 1000-rated player, it is errorless play under ordinary weather conditions. That is usually lower than average, because there are usually more errors than miracles. So, even par should be rated higher than the rating of the target skill level.

I get par of 63 as the ideal for Moraine Gold in the 2015 Pro Worlds layout. There are a few ways to look at it.

First, at 2015 Pro Worlds, 63 is the score that would have minimized the differences between par and the actual score for the prize-winners. It maximizes the information available to the players by coming as close as possible to making each birdie count as gaining a throw and each bogey count as losing a throw.

Second, the prototypical 1000-rated player averaged 64.2. Looking at just their highest scores on each hole (5s and above on most holes), we could say they made 1.1 errors per round, with some of those being multiple-throw errors, so errorless play would have been 62.9.

Third, we can think of errorless play in terms of the percent of all throws that are good enough to get par. For most courses, this comes in around 90%, and about half of all throws are good enough to get birdie. At par 63, the numbers are 92% of throws are good enough to get par, and 48% are good enough to get birdie. At par 66, 95% of all throws are good enough to get par, and 61% are good enough to get birdie. That's just a little soft.

This third way of thinking about par can be used to set pars that are both the right level in total, and pars that are as consistently tough from hole to hole as possible. (Holes 2, 4, and 16 are 1 too high.)

Didn't stop Paul from shooting 15 under though.

Should have been 12 under, but no matter. An all-green row in Live Scoring is not a problem. An all-green column is.

I think the new golds or black should be about 1025 level.

Your instinct that the par you've set as Gold is not low enough for Open tournaments is correct. However, the cause is not because you are using the wrong skill level to set par, it is because you are using average score to set par. Par based on errorless play of 1000-rated players is what you're looking for.

 

[SD86]

So, to implement your idea, we just need to label all the course pars with the skill level they represent. That way, when a tournament is held there, the TD will know whether or not the course pars are appropriate for the competitors that day. And adjust them as needed.

Exactly. I'll bring up the golf ball golf course Bethpage Black. There are actually several courses there, but Bethpage Black was created for top level golfers, it has a sign telling us it's for top-level players, and it's pars are set for... you guessed it... top level players. The other courses are (relatively) easier.

Augusta National did not lower the pars when Phil Mickelson blasted a drive on Hole #3 to within yards of the green (and that, not Tiger, was when the gentlemen in the green jackets knew a change was needed), they adjusted the course so that the pars befitted the top players. (And they did a good job).

So the question for DG is what kind and degree-of-difficulty courses to play the top tournaments on...

 

[Finny]

This is what disc golf is "missing" (if you think something's missing) that ball golf has. The courses the ball golf pros play bear no resemblance to the courses the masses play.

I hate the idea of par 2s. But it seems clear that the concept of "close enough to get down in 2 shots" needs to be rethought for modern disc golf pros.

 

[BionicRib]

How would Milo east and west do?

Iron hill?

Usdgc?

Centralia?

Squaw creek gold?

Big brother?

Jackson?

West lake?

Just to name a few...

 

[SD86]

Just to name a few...

IMHO there are courses out there suitable for the top pros (we're talking mostly MPOs). And going forward, more can be considered and constructed. I would imagine some courses can be lengthened with further-back tees. Some can be reconstructed or modified. And I think more technical courses (read: courses through the woods) should be brought into play.

Yes, there's some money needing to be spent, but if a Worlds is coming to a course or courses, a bit of money can be spent. Point being... start thinking about it now, and it will start getting (even) better going forward...

 

[BionicRib]

Par based on errorless play of 1000-rated players is what you're looking for.

I agree with this statement to some degree, however I think the only way you achieve this is by making a difficult course full of 500ft tweeners (based on how much easier putting in disc golf is vs ball golf)

 

[DavidSauls]

Bearing in the mind that the courses are just one of the elements needed for Worlds. You also need a community that wants to host them. At this point the latter is more important. After all, a hosting community with merely suitable courses can host worlds; perfect courses with no hosting community cannot.

But keep in mind that, with 2017, the PDGA is separating out the Open division for their own worlds, which will only require 2 courses and otherwise, perhaps, be less of a task to take on. My understanding is that 2017 Pro (Open) Worlds will be on Jackson, and a course to be constructed especially for it.

So perhaps we'll be seeing tougher courses, and even more appropriate par settings (for those who care), going forward.

 

[teemkey]

...
One further refinement is that par is not the average score of the 1000-rated player, it is errorless play under ordinary weather conditions. That is usually lower than average, because there are usually more errors than miracles. So, even par should be rated higher than the rating of the target skill level.
...
First, at 2015 Pro Worlds, 63 is the score that would have minimized the differences between par and the actual score for the prize-winners. It maximizes the information available to the players by coming as close as possible to making each birdie count as gaining a throw and each bogey count as losing a throw.

Second, the prototypical 1000-rated player averaged 64.2. Looking at just their highest scores on each hole (5s and above on most holes), we could say they made 1.1 errors per round, with some of those being multiple-throw errors, so errorless play would have been 62.9.

Third, we can think of errorless play in terms of the percent of all throws that are good enough to get par. For most courses, this comes in around 90%, and about half of all throws are good enough to get birdie. At par 63, the numbers are 92% of throws are good enough to get par, and 48% are good enough to get birdie. At par 66, 95% of all throws are good enough to get par, and 61% are good enough to get birdie. That's just a little soft.
...

Steve, here's what I can't understand: the PDGA has a ton of data for sanctioned tournament play at many courses. And certainly for the vast majority of courses used in Worlds.

There is also data on rated players, and divisions, and so on. Adverse weather should show as an elevated SSA relative to other tournaments.

So why not set hole pars based on that accumulated data? More to the point, why aren't you arguing for a data-driven method (as opposed to using the theoretical/mythological flawless 1000 rated player)?

 

[slowplastic]

This isn't regular golf. It's way easier.

I don't want to get into the math of assigning pars (I've read some of the very thorough posts though)...but do people just have a problem with rounds looking "too good" or "too easy"? Like a -10 or -15 is embarrassing compared to golf scores?

This won't change unless there are such things as par 2 holes, or else there are no such thing as short/easy par 3 holes. In golf a par 3 is still a challenge, but short enough that a good tee shot and good putt have to be made, or a great tee shot and easy putt. In disc golf, it just takes one good shot...a good tee shot and it's an easy putt. A great tee shot and it's a drop in. An ok tee shot and a good putt. Whatever combination. It's very easy to get 2's.

Really what I think is more important is score separation in a course. The courses that are mostly easy par 3's and easy par 4's (more often to get a 3 than a 4, but a 2 is essentially as hard as an ace on a par 3) likely have less separation in scores between top players?

Is there good data on score separation vs. course length or par of a course (the shorter the course, the less separation between top players)?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's amazing that they were able to determine World Champions in the 80s and 90s with all those par 2 holes Champions like Climo crushed.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't want to get into the math of assigning pars (I've read some of the very thorough posts though)...but do people just have a problem with rounds looking "too good" or "too easy"? Like a -10 or -15 is embarrassing compared to golf scores?

Doesn't bother me, but it clearly bothers some folks.

But there are other reasons a better system and application of par would be desirable. When players are on different courses at an event, their scores would be more relatable to each other. When players are on different parts of the same course, their relative scores would still have some meaning.

It could even be an easily portable system between courses.

None of which matters a great deal to me. But, I'm in agreement with the notion that, if we're going to have "par", we ought to do it better.

 

[slowplastic]

But there are other reasons a better system and application of par would be desirable. When players are on different courses at an event, their scores would be more relatable to each other. When players are on different parts of the same course, their relative scores would still have some meaning.

That makes sense. I like the idea of the 1000 rating relativity, and how course difficulty ratings adjust according to weather conditions...as that has major implications on disc flight, grip, footing, and groundplay. But it's way more challenging to know during a tournament, not to even mention mid-round.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Something I've been pondering that might solve this issue is to use a different reference and terminology than par more suited to our sport and probably provides more information to players and spectators. In bowling, there's a perfect score or goal to throw a strike in each frame. What if we established the score a 1000-rated player should be striving to achieve on each hole and call it the "goal" instead of "par"? Holes could have goals ranging from 2 to 4.

Players would still write down their actual scores on each hole and add them up the same way. They can even use the "every hole is par 3" to add up their scores. The goal or par probably shouldn't be on the scorecard anyway based on experience.

However, for live scoring and tournament play, the scores would be tracked in reference to goal. So when someone gets a 2 on goal 2 hole, it's just a zero relative to goal. A player gets a 3, it's +1, etc. I think it would provide a better indication to those following the round or event where players are currently ranked, it would differentiate DG from ball golf, avoid the mental block of "par 2" and cumulative scores as displayed during the event would virtually always be positive other than a player starting with an ace or "eagle".

 

[Steve West]

Steve, here's what I can't understand: the PDGA has a ton of data for sanctioned tournament play at many courses. And certainly for the vast majority of courses used in Worlds.

There is also data on rated players, and divisions, and so on. Adverse weather should show as an elevated SSA relative to other tournaments.

So why not set hole pars based on that accumulated data? More to the point, why aren't you arguing for a data-driven method (as opposed to using the theoretical/mythological flawless 1000 rated player)?

I do think data-driven par is the best method of setting par. Whenever I say par "should" have been this or that, my statement is backed up by a lot of scores from a lot of players at the target skill level.

But, this is just one of a few good methods that can also produce acceptable par, if they are applied right.

Whatever method is used, it should result in a par that is good for telling players how well they are doing during a round, compared to other rounds, and compared to other courses. It should do this by making the cost of a bogey about equal to the value of a birdie. To put it another way, after each hole we should be able to say whether the player moved toward a score that would win a big tournament, moved toward a score that would not cash in a major tournament, or held ground; simply looking at how they scored relative to par.

A few years ago, when it became apparent that the pars being assigned were not doing the job as described above. I set out to come up with a whole new definition of par that would work better. To do that, I needed to examine the existing definition. By examine, I mean I needed to apply it to a lot of tournaments to see how well it performed and where it was wrong. So, I encoded the actual definition into my data-driven method (as best I could). I then ran a bunch of calculations, and found out the current definition works just fine.

I'm fine with any method, as long as it produces pars that work well. See here.

 

[Steve West]

This isn't regular golf. It's way easier.

I don't want to get into the math of assigning pars (I've read some of the very thorough posts though)...but do people just have a problem with rounds looking "too good" or "too easy"? Like a -10 or -15 is embarrassing compared to golf scores?

I don't have a problem with that. My problem is that we don't know whether it was -15 because that player actually gained 15 throws on the field, or because the TD took the pars off the rec-level tee signs.

Really what I think is more important is score separation in a course. The courses that are mostly easy par 3's and easy par 4's (more often to get a 3 than a 4, but a 2 is essentially as hard as an ace on a par 3) likely have less separation in scores between top players?

True, but there is no law against working to improve something that is not the most important thing. Although most people seem to think there is.

Is there good data on score separation vs. course length or par of a course (the shorter the course, the less separation between top players)?

That's s tough one, because good scoring separation can be produced by having a wide range of player skill play the course. Any little course which is played by all the local men and women with a visiting top-level player or two will produce better scoring separation than the USDGC, where all the players are very very good.

Another question is whether scoring separation is always a good thing. If two or more players are evenly matched in skill, the best course will give them all the same score.

We're just now getting to the point where there are enough players that play the same multiple events that we can think about doing this. For the first attempt, see the Ultiworld Disc Golf article "A Statistical Breakdown of Blue Ribbon Pines".

 

[slowplastic]

That's s tough one, because good scoring separation can be produced by having a wide range of player skill play the course. Any little course which is played by all the local men and women with a visiting top-level player or two will produce better scoring separation than the USDGC, where all the players are very very good.

Another question is whether scoring separation is always a good thing. If two or more players are evenly matched in skill, the best course will give them all the same score.

We're just now getting to the point where there are enough players that play the same multiple events that we can think about doing this. For the first attempt, see the Ultiworld Disc Golf article "A Statistical Breakdown of Blue Ribbon Pines".

Interesting. And I agree it depends on player skill...I am meaning for Open...or generally for the competitive portion of the Open for that tournament.

It was interesting to see the "luck" factor try to calculate into the distribution. It's so hard with integer values, with only a few values to give out as well.

 

[loki the trickster]

Something I've been pondering that might solve this issue is to use a different reference and terminology than par more suited to our sport and probably provides more information to players and spectators. In bowling, there's a perfect score or goal to throw a strike in each frame. What if we established the score a 1000-rated player should be striving to achieve on each hole and call it the "goal" instead of "par"? Holes could have goals ranging from 2 to 4.

Players would still write down their actual scores on each hole and add them up the same way. They can even use the "every hole is par 3" to add up their scores. The goal or par probably shouldn't be on the scorecard anyway based on experience.

However, for live scoring and tournament play, the scores would be tracked in reference to goal. So when someone gets a 2 on goal 2 hole, it's just a zero relative to goal. A player gets a 3, it's +1, etc. I think it would provide a better indication to those following the round or event where players are currently ranked, it would differentiate DG from ball golf, avoid the mental block of "par 2" and cumulative scores as displayed during the event would virtually always be positive other than a player starting with an ace or "eagle".

You just gave me some ammunition against the par 2 crowd. Par is not so much a goal but a should or worse case scenario score if the object is kept in play (free from ob or penalties). Kinda the expert golfer should do with 2 putts and such. Most know that when talking about competition its not about "par" but how you play relative to the rest of the competition. A player could still win the tournament with a +10 score if the person in second takes +11 to finish.


On serious note.... if a number rating was to be ised what kind of math equation should be used? Ots the one thing that i in roughly 10 years cant figure out. If its baised like a player rating it could cause confusion.