Worlds Par

[ERicJ]

Just throwing this out there for those that didn't know: Par+4 is not just for missing starting holes anymore (based on the current rulebook). You can spend some extra quality time in a port-a-potty in the middle of a round and card Par+4 for the holes you miss while taking care of business.

 

[araytx]

Just throwing this out there for those that didn't know: Par+4 is not just for missing starting holes anymore (based on the current rulebook). You can spend some extra quality time in a port-a-potty in the middle of a round and card Par+4 for the holes you miss while taking care of business.

And like, ERic discussed earlier, if I were playing intermediate or and age-protected Am division, it might be to my advantage to select the MPO Long par 3 hole to spend that quality p-o-p time. Even more so if it were changed to par +2.

 

[lyleoross]

I view potty time even more rigorously than arriving on time. If you can't do your business in a reasonable time frame, you deserve to play with John E.

We seem to be sliding between two, actually three extremes. DQ em all, because you know, nothing ever happens that couldn't have been controlled, and it's unfair, and someone will take advantage if it isn't harsh enough.

The rule as is wasn't meant to be perfect, it was meant to punish those who couldn't be timely, while not booting them. Yes, I know that is hard to believe/accept, but the PDGA actually thought someone might have a real accident and didn't want to be too punitive. It actually accomplishes it's goals. A rational change that still accomplishes those goals and brings equity across brackets is fine. Especially one that is easily managed bracket to bracket.

I ran cross country through Jr. High, High School, and club during college and grad school. Rule number one, dump before you run. I've managed to translate that to disc golf quite well.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I believe your first potty break just nets a warning for taking more than 30 seconds to tee on the next hole. Little known "loophole".

 

[lyleoross]

I believe your first potty break just nets a warning for taking more than 30 seconds to tee on the next hole. Little known "loophole".

Unless you watched John E melt at Memorial.

 

[Steve West]

Let's look at par for the Meri-Toppila DiscGolfPark during the European Disc Golf Championships.

Course par was 61, which was 4.9 throws (per player per round) distant from the scores of the money winners. A score of Even Course Par averaged a round rating of 975, vs. the average round rating of 1017 for Open prize winners.

Ideal par of 56 would have been just 1.5 throws distant. (Think of the improvement as eliminating 3.4 guesses as to which holes needed to be birdied in order to not lose ground against the field.) Also, the average round rating of Even Ideal Par would have been 1016, nearly equal to the average round rating of 1017 for Open prize winners.

At par 61, 95% of all throws made by 1000-rated players were good enough to get par. On courses that are not soft, generally about 90% of all throws by 1000-rated players are good enough to get par.

At par 56, 89% of throws by 1000-rated players would have been good enough to get par.

Setting par to 56 in the manner that most nearly equalizes the difficulty of getting par across holes, holes 2, 3, 6, 13, and 15 would be par 3s instead of par 4s. These would become the five toughest holes to par. The two remaining par 4s – holes 8 and 11 – would be ranked in the middle ground of toughness at 7th and 11th easiest to par.

There would be no par 2s.

 

[Karl]

Steve, what is the basis for your love for 'equating' par with payout? I see no reason to even talk about the two in the same sentence considering one should have nothing with the caliber of players playing and the other is a totally random guideline set (and could be 'reset) by a governing body. What gives?

 

[lyleoross]

Steve, what is the basis for your love for 'equating' par with payout? I see no reason to even talk about the two in the same sentence considering one should have nothing with the caliber of players playing and the other is a totally random guideline set (and could be 'reset) by a governing body. What gives?

Not agreeing with or disagreeing either; what is a measure of hole and course difficulty that could replace par? Par is by definition, the number of strokes a scratch player would need to complete a hole. It is by ball golf's definition, and several hundred years of experience, the easiest way to assess a hole.

Steve is going with convention. It is an easy methodology for looking at a hole.

From there he looks at par and how it is typically used by most TDs and makes the assessment that some are not as "honest" in their use as they might be. From that you have this analysis. I find no fault with his approach, given what is going on in the sport, and our relationship to ball golf. I'm happy to look at an alternative, but I don't see anything off the top of my head.

 

[lyleoross]

The association of par with payout is a minor part of Steve's comment. He uses it as a break point for looking at the player's relationship to par, but it feels like he did that for convenience not to make a statement. It is simply a point of reference. I might be wrong though.

 

[Steve West]

Steve, what is the basis for your love for 'equating' par with payout? I see no reason to even talk about the two in the same sentence considering one should have nothing with the caliber of players playing and the other is a totally random guideline set (and could be 'reset) by a governing body. What gives?

You are correct, payout and par are not really tied to each other.

However, a par that is in the fat part of the scores of the contending players serves best as an indicator of success or failure in the attempt to cash in Open at large tournaments. So why not set it at that level?

Because the rating of 1000 was set to be about the skill level needed to get last cash at a big Open tournament, and because errorless play is better than average play, Open par tends to be rated a little better than 1000, which puts it right in the fat part of the scores of contending players.

So, my method of setting par is to look at the scores of 1000-rated players. Looking at whether the resulting par is withing the range of payout is just a reasonableness check, not part of the method. Also, it is another argument for setting par according to this method.

 

[paulw]

If you're late, TD has already adjusted group sizes whether you show up or not. If you bail mid-round, your group might be down to 2 players who have to scramble to regroup.

I apologize for this late reply -- I disagree with this Chuck based on the assumption that the TD can catch everyone coming late/right at the start time. They can't and won't with shotgun starts.

I don't play in that many tournaments but I've seen this several times and I've even been lucky enough to be a group of 2 scrambling to regroup. We waited on the threesome behind us and made a five some, really wasn't much scrambling but I can see where it would be contentious in other circumstances.

If you're late or leave early you're DQ'd. Done.

 

[lyleoross]

I apologize for this late reply -- I disagree with this Chuck based on the assumption that the TD can catch everyone coming late/right at the start time. They can't and won't with shotgun starts.

I don't play in that many tournaments but I've seen this several times and I've even been lucky enough to be a group of 2 scrambling to regroup. We waited on the threesome behind us and made a five some, really wasn't much scrambling but I can see where it would be contentious in other circumstances.

If you're late or leave early you're DQ'd. Done.

So, you would have DQed Sarah H.?

 

[Karl]

So, you would have DQed Sarah H.?

Paulw may or may not have, but I would have. As I would have dq'd KC about a decade ago when he showed up late and the TD held up play for 20-30 min (in a 'famously-discussed' event). Unfortunate things happen; that's life. It's not the last spaceship off a dying planet, it's dg. Live with it.
Yeh, I know you think I'm an SOB thinking as I do but I'm ultra respectful of other people's time...like 71 other people (plus td, vols, etc).
Ps: I'd had her on my card in 2010 at the Yetter Cup; great lady...but I would expect ME to be dq'd for being late too (so I make no exceptions).

 

[Karl]

"So why not set it at that level"

Cashing at par level or par at cashing level?
The latter scenario is 'flawed' because if the PDGA where to ever change their payout percentages, par would have to change - silly (or worse).
The former scenario is somewhat "better" but I'd hate to have everything tied into the already-too-circuitous system that is ratings / par / ssa / etc.

 

[Steve West]

"So why not set it at that level"

Cashing at par level or par at cashing level?
The latter scenario is 'flawed' because if the PDGA where to ever change their payout percentages, par would have to change - silly (or worse).
The former scenario is somewhat "better" but I'd hate to have everything tied into the already-too-circuitous system that is ratings / par / ssa / etc.

All three things are kind of the same, but not tied together. Par is good play, it takes good play to win, play good and get a good rating. Like three moons in orbit around the same planet, they'll always be in the same neighborhood. But, changing one doesn't directly move the others.

My mission is to get TD's to set par in orbit around planet Open, not planet Tee Sign, or planet Advanced.

 

[Karl]

My mission is to get TD's to set par in orbit around planet Open, not planet Tee Sign, or planet Advanced.

IMO your planet Open is not nearly "strong enough" (to give justice to "par" and keep it sacred, like it is in bg) as even in "big tournaments" - unless some sort of 'invitational' - the average ability'd Open player is NOT that strong. And it could (and WILL) vary quite a bit event to event. To have a constant (such as par) dependent, even a wee bit, on an non-constant (as is player strength) is flawed.

 

[Steve West]

IMO your planet Open is not nearly "strong enough" (to give justice to "par" and keep it sacred, like it is in bg) as even in "big tournaments" - unless some sort of 'invitational' - the average ability'd Open player is NOT that strong. And it could (and WILL) vary quite a bit event to event. To have a constant (such as par) dependent, even a wee bit, on an non-constant (as is player strength) is flawed.

I agree, the average Open player should not be the basis for par. They'll let anybody play Open, not just experts.

My method is based on errorless play by a 1000-rated player. Ratings are the most constant thing we have right now. 1000 has several things going for it as a good choice for the expert in the definition.

With any mix of players at a tournament, we can get an estimate of what the prototypical 1000-rated player would have done. Therefore, the only thing that varies by player field strength is how closely par will come to the scores of whatever players show up. Or, more accurately: the weaker the field, the higher over par they will score. All the guessing about what score relative to par will be "good" will be based on guessing the strength of the field, not in guessing how par was set.

There is an upper limit to how strong a field can be. At very important tournaments it approaches this limit. There is no guessing about how strong the field will be, so with a standardized par there is no guessing about what will be a good score relative to par.

Using any physical measurement of a disc golf course to define par is hopeless. About one-third of all the differences in hole performance is due to causes we have not yet identified. Perhaps one day when all the midnight designers have finished removing every obstacle from every course - and rollers, spike hyzers, forehands, lefty throws, and thumbers are finally banned - we can set par like ball golf does.

 

[biscoe]

So, you would have DQed Sarah H.?

yessiree

 

[lyleoross]

Paulw may or may not have, but I would have. As I would have dq'd KC about a decade ago when he showed up late and the TD held up play for 20-30 min (in a 'famously-discussed' event). Unfortunate things happen; that's life. It's not the last spaceship off a dying planet, it's dg. Live with it.
Yeh, I know you think I'm an SOB thinking as I do but I'm ultra respectful of other people's time...like 71 other people (plus td, vols, etc).
Ps: I'd had her on my card in 2010 at the Yetter Cup; great lady...but I would expect ME to be dq'd for being late too (so I make no exceptions).

The two situations are presumably different. Don't remember why KC was late, but holding a start for any player is unacceptable. Sarah was involved in an accident, not even of her making. The rule as is punishes her for being late, but in a judicious fashion. In essence, it is presuming innocence. Sarah wasn't late because she was a careless git. What your proposing assumes guilt. Every person who is late was late because they didn't care about everyone else's time.

It takes a lot for me to think someone is an SOB, you're not even close.

 

[lyleoross]

As an aside, I'm in a tournament worth, oh say 10,000 to the winner, and 2,000 to second. I'm in second behind Ricky Wysocki. I need that 8,000, baby needs new shoes. I hit the breaker to Ricky's room, no alarm, and super glue his door shut. Just to make sure, a free the imprisoned air from his tires. Ricky should be DQed for arriving 10 min late?

Now, I'm not saying Paul is gonna do this at the DGPT final, but I will on the Conspiracy thread.