Setting Par

I apologise if this repeats another thread about par. I did a search for 'par' and came up with half the **** forum. If you know of one, please direct me there.

As far as I'm aware, there's no official way to set par on a hole. It's all up to the discression of the course developer. Is that correct?

I know most of the people who've been disc golfing for a while use a par 3 on every hole, but taking into consideration the audience (which is pretty much anyone..men, women, kids, adults, beginners, experts), AND the varying distances (trying to par 3 a 700ft wooded hole is just a little on the crazy side) how would you establish par on your own course? Do you agree with a par system, be it per hole or for the whole course?

Just wanted to get some opinions from everyone out there. I'm developing a par system for our website, and I need a way to establish par for courses where it's not marked. We've come up with some ideas, but I thought I'd throw it up here and see what insight I can get.
:)

[ck34]

For Rec Par, Houck and I have discussed a reasonable approach is Par 3= <300, Par 4=300-500, Par 5=500+ as a replacement for the too generous older version: Par 3= <200, Par 4=200-265, Par 5=265+

[ck34]

World Class Par based on 1000 rated players can be set from the SSA values generated from events. The numbers are available online for tournaments that have been rated. In a pinch, the estimated SSA for 18 holes equals 30 + (course length / 285).

To set pars for each hole, the adjusted lengths including elevation changes can work reasonably well. Adjust the numbers to add up close to the total SSA. Or, if hole by hole stats are available, adjust the averages downward proportionately so they add up to about equal the SSA. Then round each number up or down to get the WCP value for each hole.

does it matter what par is?? a 54 is a 54 no matter if par was 54 or 64, you still shot 54. i think it's just a way to make all of us feel good, saying i shot a 10 down.

[ck34]

Perhaps, but I'd feel a lot better if I shot a "true" -10 rather than a fake -10. Heck, I'd be ecstatic with anything better than a true -2!

[slowmo_1]

part of why we need a system like this to set par is to become more standardized. Yes, 54 is still 54 no matter what, but an even par 54 isn't as good as a -10 54 on a par 64 course. Developing a set system like this will in the long run help the game of disc golf I believe. It would also be good for disc golf if there was an established par to shoot for when designing courses. In Ball golf courses aim to be par 72. I've never seen more than 72 and the lowest I've seen is 70 on coruses that just didn't have enough land space to have 4 par 5's instead of just 2 (By the way for the non ball golfers out there, ball golf courses usually have 4 par 3's 4 par 5's and the rest par 4 in a typical layout)

I apologise if this repeats another thread about par. I did a search for 'par' and came up with half the **** forum. If you know of one, please direct me there.




13 months ago, Ken Climo (member name zzeezz), Dave Dunipace, and John Houck all agreed on a definition of par. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=Miscellaneous&amp;Number=51175 &amp;Forum=Miscellaneous&amp;Words=mammoth&amp;Match=Entire%20 Phrase&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=allposts&amp;Main=511 71&amp;Search=true#Post51175) :)

There is much good stuff in that thread, and much bad stuff.

A good point raised was that if we didn't have so many poorly designed holes, we wouldn't have such trouble with defining par.

And as a minor follow-on, I'll say that in order to accept this definition, you must accept 2 putts per hole, and you must accept that putting is far easier in disc golf than ball golf, and therefore you must accept that our scores will always be more under par than ball golf.

Working Chuck's formula backwards, the average length for a hole:
SSA-3 hole is 380
SSA-4 = 660
SSA-5 = 950

If we think that par-3s should have SSAs between 2.5 and 3.5 the range should be 237.5' - 522.5'

Extrapolating that out,
par-4s would be 522.5' to 807.5,
par-5s 807.5' to 1092.5'

Perhaps, a range of 2.7 - 3.3 would be better:

Par-3s: 294.5 - 465.5
Par-4s: 579.5 - 750.5
Par-5s: 864.5 - 1035.5

That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Of course all those numbers would be adjusted for elevation, obstacles and OB.

[slo]

...so par five for 250' #5, and 280' #9 @Wildwood is pretty slack...maybe that's what's posted, but they look reachable.

Yeah, the wildwood course had par posted, so we'll always go by that first. The courses where you see all 4's are the courses that didn't have par posted.

Perhaps, a range of 2.7 - 3.3 would be better:

Par-3s: 294.5 - 465.5
Par-4s: 579.5 - 750.5
Par-5s: 864.5 - 1035.5

That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Of course all those numbers would be adjusted for elevation, obstacles and OB.



Jimg,
This is very similar to what we've come up with. What do you think about par's on holes <294 and >1035? Do you think it's suitable to have par 2's, or 6's, or more?

[dannyreeves]

This is a tough topic to comment on because each hole is not wide open. Those distances look good but there is no way to have a system to figure in obstacles and OB.

The most logical answer is taking the SSA and going off that. However that changes over time. For example, the 2003 Z-Boaz Open had a WCP of 56 (I think). I think that is rather high and the reason for it being that the course was so new. The final layout changes were being done the week before the event. I remember Barry (and maybe Avery too) shooting a 50 and that seemed ungodly. Now the course record is 46. I would guess that the WCP for it this year will be lower.

And as a minor follow-on, I'll say that in order to accept this definition, you must accept 2 putts per hole, and you must accept that putting is far easier in disc golf than ball golf, and therefore you must accept that our scores will always be more under par than ball golf.




That is a lot to accept. I do not think it is good for disc golf to accept that our scores will always be more under par than ball golf.
I also don't like any formulas for DG that include some # of throws + 2 putts (or 1 putt for that matter). Putting is not easy to define as it is in ball golf. In ball golf, defining a putt is a no brainer ... you are on the green or occassionally just off the border, you lightly stroke the ball and let it roll towards the hole.. We don't have defined greens. I may not be putting until I'm within 30'-40'. A good putter may be putting on the same hole when he is 60'-75' away. So, the green seems to be determined in DG by the ability of the player, not necessarily the course design.

How many holes does Tiger Woods 'hole out' without reaching the green first? I would guess something around 1 or 2 holes for every 72 holes played. Does that sound fair? He probably has many tournaments with 0 holes completed without reaching the green first. Now, how many holes does KC or Schultz hole out without reaching the 'green' first? I would guess the number is way higher than 1 or 2 out of 72 holes. I also don't think I would be going too far out on a limb by stating any 1000 rated players don't ever play a round without holing out from off the 'green'. Sorry for the ramble, I just don't think we can use a '# of throws + # of putts' formula in DG.

BTW - JimG's distances look pretty good to me, but of course, as Jim implied, we can't go by pure distance to determin par in DG either ... unless we want to make a rule that says fairways must be 'x' number of feet wide /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Just my buck and half :)

Par-3s: 294.5 - 465.5
Par-4s: 579.5 - 750.5
Par-5s: 864.5 - 1035.5




Jimg,
This is very similar to what we've come up with. What do you think about par's on holes <294 and >1035? Do you think it's suitable to have par 2's, or 6's, or more?



My personal belief is that we shouldn't have par-2 holes, or even holes with an SSA of less than ~2.7 (easy par-3s). Therfore eliminate holes that are shorter than 294'. I also don't see the need for par-6 holes, as a handful of par-5s on a course seems like plenty to me.

I'll emphasize again, that these distances are for holes with "average" obstacles/terrain. Adjust accordingly for OB, heavy woods, elevation, etc.. I have no problem with a 200' hole with an island green (risk/reward) being a par-3, or a 1300' hole that is wide open and slightly downhill being a par-5.

If we go by the philosophy that 2.7 - 3.3 is good for a par-3, and 3.7 - 4.3 for a par 4, that means 3.30001-3.699999 should not be used. Those would be "tweener" holes.

My personal belief is that we shouldn't have par-2 holes, or even holes with an SSA of less than ~2.7 (easy par-3s). Therfore eliminate holes that are shorter than 294'.



That said, if you insist on keeping holes that are wide open and 200' long, I don't care if you want to call it a par-2, or a very poorly designed, very easy par-3.

Personally, I'll call it a par-2, just cuz it annoys the people that insist there's no such thing.

[dannyreeves]

If we go by the philosophy that 2.7 - 3.3 is good for a par-3, and 3.7 - 4.3 for a par 4, that means 3.30001-3.699999 should not be used. Those would be "tweener" holes.



So, are you saying those "tweener" holes should be altered either easier or harder so they fit into a definite par 3 or 4?

I like the idea that the tweener holes have alternate pin placements for tournaments that make them harder, and easier pins for recreational use.

[james_mccaine]

I'm not sure I am comprehending the meaning of these numbers. Are these the computed 1000 rating for the hole?

Regardless, IMO, the measure or worthiness of a hole (whether it should exist) is not in its SSA average, but in its variant. As long as it's a hole with a decent variant (in simple terms, "a chance to pick up a stroke on alot of the field"), then it's a "good" hole, regardless of its SSA value/par value.

[ck34]

As long as it's a hole with a decent variant (in simple terms, "a chance to pick up a stroke on alot of the field"), then it's a "good" hole, regardless of its SSA value/par value.




Spreading scores is a good thing as long as the reason is based primarily on skill not luck. That's why Par 2 holes with scoring averages of 2.3 to 2.49 are perfectly fine.

Actually, a hole that has a scoring average from say 2.8 to 3.2 or 3.8 to 4.2 is potentially suspect as a good hole until the scoring distribution is also known. If 8 or more out of 10 players get the same score on the hole, it probably is the wrong length or needs additional challenges added for that skill level of player. However, a hole with a 3.0 scoring average with a distribution of three 2s, four 3s and three 4s is probably very good if the fours aren't based on flukey OB, for example.

I like the idea that the tweener holes have alternate pin placements for tournaments that make them harder, and easier pins for recreational use.



That may be fine. A tweener hole for Pros (say 500' wide open) may be a very good par-4 for the lower divisions.

A better solution (IMO) is to have different tees for different divisions. Make it a true par-4 for pros (600') and have a 500' (or whatever length it needs to be) tee pad for Intermediates.

i smell a long one coming from bill......

[dannyreeves]

Cong, what do you do, just watch the "Who's Online" page? :p

[neonnoodle]

We need a par that "IS", not one that "SHOULD BE".

The SSA of a hole, particularly over many rounds and in many different conditions, "IS" the best representation of par for that specific hole in that specific layout. Whether we have a hard time with the concept or not of a Par 2, has no effect on the fact that it has an SSA of 2.45.

Course Pros can change the hole to get the SSA over 2.45, but if they don't, saying it is a Par 3 still doesn't make it one.

Distance and Putt formulas do not work in disc golf for the simple fact that we do not propel a ball on a trajectory with very little lateral movement, we throw a disc that flys and is capable of far more extreme direction changes not to mention what it can do on the ground.

Scratch Scoring Average (SSA) is our best option right now. Folks that have a mental block concerning Par 2s just need to face reality. That or do as suggested and make their Par 2.45s a little harder.

[exczar]

does it matter what par is?? a 54 is a 54 no matter if par was 54 or 64, you still shot 54. i think it's just a way to make all of us feel good, saying i shot a 10 down.



It matters only when there is a penalty, such as Rule 802.04A, which calls for a score of PAR plus 4 to be recorded if a player does not tee off 30 sec after the start of that player's turn. Otherwise, you are correct. Par is just a standard.

Cong, what do you do, just watch the "Who's Online" page? :p




LMAO......just psychotic....

err...psychic....

Well, OK, both....

[exczar]

A better solution (IMO) is to have different tees for different divisions. Make it a true par-4 for pros (600') and have a 500' (or whatever length it needs to be) tee pad for Intermediates.



Exactly! BUT, the par should be the same for each alternate tee placement. If the "normal" tee makes it a 600ft par 4 from that tee, and that tee is considered the "Championship" tee, then the tee for other divisions should be placed such that it would be a par 4 for that div.

This is in line with ball golf, where you see different tees (colored balls) for different divs, but the target (hole) always stays in the same general location (the green). There ARE NO "alternate greens" on a golf course!

[dannyreeves]

The pin moves to different spots on the green, though.

[ck34]

The pin moves to different spots on the green, though.



What most people don't realize is that essentially all pins move at the same time in ball golf to keep the whole course at the same level of difficulty. When a course is designed, four pin placements are located on each green and ranked from toughest to easiest (1 to 4). Then, the total points for pin placements is maintained at 45 so there are the same number of 1, 2, 3 and 4 difficulty pin placements at all times (except perhaps tournies).

It's similar to the Par 61 league at Warwick where they play eight different sets of tee and pin combinations that all add up to par 61. So, the courses are always different but essentially provide the same challenge.

[slowmo_1]

The only real problem I have with the SSA is that it changes every time a sanctioned round is played at that course. Would there be a way to have a set rating (par) for a particular course that doesn't change over time? If we could come up with a way that a courses standard score isn't changing every tournament then people would have a better idea to rate themselves.

As for the holes with SSA of 2.4 why can't we do something to make them more difficult? I would love to start seeing courses designed with hay bales or nets set up in place to be ball golfs equivilant of sand traps and such.

[neonnoodle]

Would there be a way to have a set rating (par) for a particular course that doesn't change over time?



Yes, stop time.


As for the holes with SSA of 2.4 why can't we do something to make them more difficult?



Because we don't want to.

Not being a wise arse, just don't feel like giving a long PC answer to would essentially add up to the same thing.

[ck34]

The SSA is actually pretty stable for normal weather. The only reason we calculate it on the fly for events is many times there are temp setups and/or sufficiently high winds to affect it for some rounds. If you look at the SSA numbers for normal conditions even over several years, they should be within about 2. Averaging those numbers is fine for a 'fixed' SSA.

[slowmo_1]

ok, I juast went back and read a bunch of the posts on the other thread that someone pointed out earlier and I think I see the bigger reason to standardize par is for TV. If we really want disc golf to become a prominent television sport (which I see no real reason it couldn't) we need to have a par set for +/- scoring for viewer purposes. Ball golf wouldn't be a successful TV sport if they listed scores as 3 4 or 5. Saying player X is -5 relative to par it doesn't matter what hole they're on allows them to compare them to everyone else. However saying Player X on hole 15 is at 61 while Player Y is at 72 on hole 18 doesn't allow viewers to compare (or at the least makes it extremely difficult) At the end of the day on the official scoreboard at a PGA event they still list scores by total number of shots, but the +/- scoring keeps teh fans involved.

Just a thought.

I can't believe that no one is going to call Bill on his post.


It matters only when there is a penalty, such as Rule 802.04A, which calls for a score of PAR plus 4 to be recorded if a player does not tee off 30 sec after the start of that player's turn. Otherwise, you are correct. Par is just a standard.



The actual rule involved is 804.02(A), and only applies to the first hole of a round and subsequent holes missed by the same player.

All other throwing situations (including tee shots) are covered by 801.03(A) and are one stroke after a warning.

NOT a DGRZ, or i woudl have called hm on it earlier when i read it,.....

I think we need to strip the DGRZ titles form most of you, Gary now gets one for sure...

Could someone describe what SSA is, and how it's determined? Maybe direct me to some info?
Thanks.

[dannyreeves]

Squipple, can you send me the info. to submit a course to your site?

danny_boy78@hotmail.com

Seems like most people on here agree that there needs to be some sort of standard for par. So, how do we get one? Who do we contact to say "Choose a way to dertermine par, and put it in the rule book"? Are those very people reading our posts?

Seems like most people on here agree that there needs to be some sort of standard for par. So, how do we get one? Who do we contact to say "Choose a way to dertermine par, and put it in the rule book"? Are those very people reading our posts?



Nooo!!!

The rule book should not define par. The rule book, is for rules of play, and governs what a player can/can not do.

Par should be defined in a seperate document, like technical standards.

[rhett]

I don't think we will ever have a good definition of par. There are too many people stuck on the "plus 2 shots" thing to ever get anywhere. And as long as there are people that matter in the decision making process that will not allow themselves to say that a 180 foot wide open shot is a par-2, then we will continue to get nowhere.

Fact of the matter is that such holes do currently exist and to point out that they are possibly poorly designed and do not belong in champioship layouts does nothing to make them go away.

Well, ok, not the rule book, but somewhere official!
:D

[bruce_brakel]

According to the 30 + length/285 formula, Willow Brook is approximately par 77. I played best shot doubles out there today with another advanced level player and we shot 108 for 27 holes, averaging 4 per hole. The formula is pretty good but I still like to think of the course as being par 72 from the Championship tees.

I think our whacky concepts of par, and our preference for par 2 / par 3 courses hold us back more than anything else from gaining mainstream acceptance as a sport. What we play is like putt-putt compared to real golf with real pars. Professional putt-putt never did get any traction.

[chris]

I would guess that willow brook is rated at around 68

[ck34]

If Willowbrook is on a ball golf course, then it's likely the foliage adjustment could drop the estimated SSA about 5-7 shots.

I know I have little place to make any kind of comment in a thread like this...but I wanted to share just a couple of thoughts from a new player's perspective.


Therfore eliminate holes that are shorter than 294'



That would effectively eliminate about 95% of the holes on courses I play... :eek:

From my view...par should be determined, based on the conditions of the hole (length, elevation, etc.) on how many shots it would take an average thrower to get within 50' of the basket (I consider that putting range for an average player), and then add 2 putts (from 50 feet, I think almost anyone should be able to make it in the basket in 2 shots).

So do we eliminate super-short holes, or make them par 2's? I don't think so...you can't assume that the average player can always get a 160' shot within 20' of the hole (the outside of the distance I believe should be considered 'tap-in' range).

For tournament play, however, I see absolutely no problem with making 180' par 2 holes...in that case, the "average" player is going to be much better than the average player in the general public...

In my opinion, the concept of Par is far more important to the casual player than it is to the tournament level player anyway. To us, par is a goal to strive for...to you, par is a ceiling that you don't want to crash your head through :)

Sorry for the ramblings...ignore at will :)

I know I have little place to make any kind of comment in a thread like this...but I wanted to share just a couple of thoughts from a new player's perspective.



Your opinion definetly has it's place. Don't be shy.



Therfore eliminate holes that are shorter than 294'



That would effectively eliminate about 95% of the holes on courses I play... :eek:



I should have clarified. My opinions were intended to reflect the holes played by pro &amp; advanced players in tournament play. That should also reflect the "championship" tees for courses during casual play. Shorter holes should certainly be available for recreational play much like the red (ladies) tees on a ball golf course.


[/QUOTE]

Thanks for all your input guys!
I've posted our currently-developing system and a poll over at our site. Vote and comment if you wish.
Thanks!

playdg par poll thread (http://playdg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7)

I should have clarified. My opinions were intended to reflect the holes played by pro &amp; advanced players in tournament play



Makes sense...I guess I should expect that on the Professional Disc Golf website huh :p

I should have clarified. My opinions were intended to reflect the holes played by pro &amp; advanced players in tournament play



Makes sense...I guess I should expect that on the Professional Disc Golf website huh :p



Not necessariily, more than half the PDGA members are amateurs. But, yeah, this discussion from fairly early on was talking about par for pro-caliber players. Chuck laid out guidelines for recreational par earlier in the thread.

Working Chuck's formula backwards, the average length for a hole:
SSA-3 hole is 380
SSA-4 = 660
SSA-5 = 950



Okay.



If we think that par-3s should have SSAs between 2.5 and 3.5 the range should be 237.5' - 522.5'




Noooooooooo!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

In order for a hole to have an SSA of 3.0, a player rated 1000 would have to average 3 on the hole.

For a 1000 player to average 3 on a hole with "average" foliage, the hole would have to be pretty stupid. That is, it's so long that most 1000-rated players won't get a 2, but it's so short than none of them will get a 4. What you've shown is that 380 is the distance where this occurs. In order to be un-stupid, par 3 holes for 1000 rated players need to be less than 380. Otherwise, nearly all the players will be taking a 3. This is the ultimate definition of tweener or length-bias or unfair or gray or whatever the course design pros call it.

380 as a high end also meshes with the average drive statistics. Somebody showed that pros average about 380 (I think it was measurements taken at Worlds). That makes a 380 max par 3 about the same as the average drive. In ball golf, you pretty much never see a par 3 as long as the average drive. There's a reason for that. Of course, as I said before, putting is easier for us, so our scratch (1000) players will shoot less than par.

So in short, your midpoints aren't midpoints, they're actually closer to max points for the various par ranges, and they're closer to the beginning points for the tweener ranges. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

IMPORTANT: Using SSA as par is not an inherently bad thing. If you want to say SSA 2.5 to 3.5 is a par 3, that's fine, whatever, we all know "par" is meaningless. However, by using an analysis such as yours and relating it to hole length, it could lead to horrible hole design. The closer the average score on a hole (or the SSA for 1000 rated players) to 3.0 (or 4.0 or 5.0), the more likely it's a bad hole length and needs to be looked at.

For course design purposes, I submit that better SSA ranges are:
par 3 = 2.3 to 2.8
par 4 = 3.3 to 3.8
par 5 = 4.3 to 4.8

Working the formula backwards, as you have gives:
par 3 = 181 to 323
par 4 = 466 to 608
par 5 = 751 to 893.

Remember this is with average foliage, which is what the formula is based on.

I personally feel the formula is off a little, so the numbers would be just a little higher than those. I also feel the average drive of top pros is now a bit higher than 380, so the ranges again would be a little higher. But not much. :)

Remember Jim, this is average 1000-rated player with average foliage, not your guns in a desert. :D

[james_mccaine]

I agree with what you are saying, especially about the holes that all produce the same scores. However, if this thread is implying that hole design should be guided by notions of par, then something is amiss. Setting pars should be an afterthought, not a driver.

Designers should follow the principles outlined by Houck. In this manner, all holes will produce an decent variety of scores, not influenced by luck (for Chuck). Pars can then be applied after the hole is designed.

I long for the day when the PDGA is capable of reviewing course design to eliminate those asinine holes that populate our courses. You know, the holes where 5% of the people get 2s and 5% get 4s and everyone else gets a 3. Those holes drive me batty, they're a waste of good land and time. It also amazes me how few course pros and designers embrace this as a measure of a good course. :mad:

we all know "par" is meaningless.



The people that think par is meaningless are missing the big picture. Par is one of the most important components of golf.

Par: The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

Setting pars should be an afterthought, not a driver.




I agree. I felt the thread drifting into driving course design based on distances as relates to SSA, and that is bad. Maybe I was wrong. :confused:

Anyway, the "use SSA for par" camp will call a 540-foot hole with a 3.45 SSA a par 3. Whatever. We all know it takes 2 shots to get there, and then you have to putt. The "shots plus 2" camp will call it an easy par 4. Whatever. Either way, it's likely (not definitely) a good hole that produces a mix of scores.




I long for the day when the PDGA is capable of reviewing course design to eliminate those asinine holes that populate our courses. You know, the holes where 5% of the people get 2s and 5% get 4s and everyone else gets a 3. Those holes drive me batty, they're a waste of good land and time. It also amazes me how few course pros and designers embrace this as a measure of a good course. :mad:



Amen. :cool:

[slowmo_1]

here is another thought to add to the mix I guess. In Disc golf us fairly new players on an average course where most holes are between 250 and 450 shoot anywhere from even (par being 3 on everything) to about +8. In ball golf 90% of the people who play NEVER shoot below 90 (+18) and most beginner/recreational players shoot in the 110-120 range. Does this mean we should be making disc golf courses harder to have a larger spread between pros and ams? Or should we be happy that people can shoot close to 54 after playing for 3-4 months?

we all know "par" is meaningless.



The people that think par is meaningless are missing the big picture. Par is one of the most important components of golf.




Okay, now I have to defend that flippant remark. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'm well aware it's important. As someone always points out, it's meaningless as far as who wins and loses.

Truly, which definition of par is used doesn't really matter all that much. But having several different definitions (or concepts) is not a good thing.

[slowmo_1]

[QUOTE]


Anyway, the "use SSA for par" camp will call a 540-foot hole with a 3.45 SSA a par 3. Whatever. We all know it takes 2 shots to get there, and then you have to putt. The "shots plus 2" camp will call it an easy par 4. Whatever. Either way, it's likely (not definitely) a good hole that produces a mix of scores.


[QUOTE]


I don't think shot +2 should be the rule in disc golf because putting is so different. I think we should think more along the lines of how many shots does it take to get within 10meters? On a 540 foot hole I think (with the exception of the upper touring pros) that's going to be 3, so par 4 would be reasonable on a hole like that depending on layout of the hole. This will produce some birdies, lots of pars, and some bogies, just like a good hole should IMHO.

Setting pars should be an afterthought, not a driver.



Why? If I have a goal to create a par-72, or par-60, or par-47 course, I think it helps to know what kind of distances need to be involved up front. Yes, I live in an area with low foilage density, so distance is the primary factor on many courses. For you people that have trees where you can incorporate dog legs, it need not be the only factor.


Anyway, the "use SSA for par" camp will call a 540-foot hole with a 3.45 SSA a par 3. Whatever. We all know it takes 2 shots to get there, and then you have to putt. The "shots plus 2" camp will call it an easy par 4.



Actually, 540' works out to an SSA of 3.56, so both camps will call it an easy par-4. Yes, it will provide a mix of 3's and 4's, possibly a few 5's, and the extremely rare 2. However, I'd hate to see a course full of those holes, as we'll still have the top guys shooting 15-under (par-4) for the course. It would need to be balanced with a long par-4 with an SSA of 4.4 or so.

This, IMO, is exactly where we're at right now with the par-3 nonsense. Disc technology has advanced quicker than course design, such that the vast majority of holes average well under 3 for expert players. Throw in one or two legit par-4s, and good players will still shoot well under 54 on the course, so they just call everything a par-3, even when one hole plays a full stroke (or more) difficult than the rest of the course.


The closer the average score on a hole (or the SSA for 1000 rated players) to 3.0 (or 4.0 or 5.0), the more likely it's a bad hole length and needs to be looked at.



Not necessarily. A hole can have an SSA of 3.0, with an equal mix of 2's and 4's. I agree that a hole that only yields 2% 2's &amp; 4's, and 96% 3's is bad. But one that gets 20% 2's and 4's, and 60% 3's is not.


For course design purposes, I submit that better SSA ranges are:
par 3 = 2.3 to 2.8
par 4 = 3.3 to 3.8
par 5 = 4.3 to 4.8



Uggh. Welcome to the world of 15 under par.

[james_mccaine]

Wow, after rereading this thread, I saw the link for the earlier 17 page thread. I suspect it's probably the same for a lot of these topics.

Must arouse cynicism in Board Veterans to see that nothing ever gets solved. For a relative newcomer like me however, ignorance is bliss. ;)

Anyway, the "use SSA for par" camp will call a 540-foot hole with a 3.45 SSA a par 3. Whatever. We all know it takes 2 shots to get there, and then you have to putt. The "shots plus 2" camp will call it an easy par 4.



Actually, 540' works out to an SSA of 3.56, so both camps will call it an easy par-4.



I was saying if the actual SSA was 3.45. No biggie. :)



The closer the average score on a hole (or the SSA for 1000 rated players) to 3.0 (or 4.0 or 5.0), the more likely it's a bad hole length and needs to be looked at.



Not necessarily. A hole can have an SSA of 3.0, with an equal mix of 2's and 4's. I agree that a hole that only yields 2% 2's &amp; 4's, and 96% 3's is bad. But one that gets 20% 2's and 4's, and 60% 3's is not.



Of course not necessarily. But for average foliage, if the SSA is 3.0 and you're using a bunch of players around 1000, it is "more likely" (quoting myself) that it's a bad hole.



For course design purposes, I submit that better SSA ranges are:
par 3 = 2.3 to 2.8
par 4 = 3.3 to 3.8
par 5 = 4.3 to 4.8



Uggh. Welcome to the world of 15 under par.



What difference does it make? So call the ranges par 2,3,4. Welcome to 3 over par. I'm merely stating good ranges for holes. In general. With average foliage. I should've worded it differently. If you want to call an SSA 4.4 a par 4. That's fine. Whatever. It's still probably a good hole.

I'm not agreeing that 3.6 to 4.5 should be called a par 4. But if you want to, fine. I'm just saying avoid lengths between 3.8 and 4.2. Or look at them and their score distributions carefully.

[exczar]

I can't believe that no one is going to call Bill on his post.


It matters only when there is a penalty, such as Rule 802.04A, which calls for a score of PAR plus 4 to be recorded if a player does not tee off 30 sec after the start of that player's turn. Otherwise, you are correct. Par is just a standard.



The actual rule involved is 804.02(A), and only applies to the first hole of a round and subsequent holes missed by the same player.

All other throwing situations (including tee shots) are covered by 801.03(A) and are one stroke after a warning.



Gary,

Please forgive my lack of total recall of the Rule number. I had all of the numbers correct in my reference, just not all in the right places.

Anyway, I was just referring to a rule making use of PAR. I was not trying to make an interpretation of the rule.

For future reference, paduan , if you feel the need to correct the master, please do so under private correspondence, unless you no longer aspire to be a member of the order of the DGRZ...

For future reference, paduan , if you feel the need to correct the master, please do so under private correspondence, unless you no longer aspire to be a member of the order of the DGRZ...



LOL.....MASTER no Like being made look bad publicly....

BAD BAD PADUAN!!!

[james_mccaine]

Why? If I have a goal to create a par-72, or par-60, or par-47 course, I think it helps to know what kind of distances need to be involved up front.



Jim, in my mind, designing to achieve a specific par number is a very odd "goal." Setting out to design "a long, difficult course" makes sense, but setting out to design a "par 72" course should at most be a secondary consideration. There's nothing magic about par54 or 72 or whatever. In summary, I never remember what par a course is, only whether it is well-designed.

This topic interests me also. You stated that:


I agree that a hole that only yields 2% 2's &amp; 4's, and 96% 3's is bad. But one that gets 20% 2's and 4's, and 60% 3's is not.



I realize that these are only opinions, but 80% of the same score still seems too high for my tastes. I don't know if this has ever been discussed, but since I think score distribution is a far more important (and descriptive) statistic than a par number, I wonder what threshold people generally agree that the hole is poorly designed?

I realize that these are only opinions, but 80% of the same score still seems too high for my tastes.



60%, not 80%. I meant 20% birdies AND 20% bogies, not 20% total combined birds &amp; boges.

And I think that would be an interesting topic of discussion.

I apologize for my choice in venue, and should have allowed you to publish your own corrections. :o

However, I could not resist so rare an opportunity to catch you not paying attention. :cool:

[james_mccaine]

Jim, your post was not confusing. After rereading your post (which I quoted), it was clear.

Anyway, I feel that the 60% threshold is good. I'd probably drop it to around 50%. In my mind, an ideal fair hole would generally produce 50% pars, 25% bogeys, and 25% birdies. Alternatively, as long as the hole is fair, I'm OK with 50% birdies and 50% pars.

My "intolerable" threshold is around 80% to 90%. If 80% to 90% of the field is getting the same score on a hole, the hole should be banished from the earth, never to be played again. ;)

Interesting...

Maybe the ideal hole would get 33% birdies, 33% pars, and 33%bogies. DUnno, have to think about that for a while.

A mix of three scores is certainly better than two, so I don't think much of holes that are 50% birdies, and 50% pars (or 50% bogeys and 50% pars if you want to think of it that way). I guess a few of those on any course are ok, but an entire course of it is horrible. Believe me, that's what I play on all the time. Our league is run from the short tees, and yes, I absolutely expect to get a two on every hole. My best score is a +4 because in my mind they're all par-2s :). The course record is a 36, and Homburg believes that a 35 is out there.

Interesting...

Maybe the ideal hole would get 33% birdies, 33% pars, and 33%bogies. DUnno, have to think about that for a while.





James and Jim, here's some numbers to chew on. I don't think either of you have seen Winthrop Gold, so I'll add a couple comments at the end.

Entire Field:
<table border="1"><tr><td> </td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>34%</td><td>17%</td><td>29%</td><td>34%</td><td>13%</td><td>18%</td><td>40%</td><td>22%</td><td>19%</td><td>13%</td><td>1%</td><td>17%</td><td>5%</td><td>11%</td><td>11%</td><td>41%</td><td>61%</td><td>25%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>57%</td><td>65%</td><td>50%</td><td>42%</td><td>38%</td><td>69%</td><td>53%</td><td>56%</td><td>55%</td><td>54%</td><td>25%</td><td>33%</td><td>74%</td><td>36%</td><td>61%</td><td>50%</td><td>12%</td><td>39%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>9%</td><td>15%</td><td>19%</td><td>14%</td><td>32%</td><td>11%</td><td>7%</td><td>17%</td><td>17%</td><td>23%</td><td>29%</td><td>24%</td><td>12%</td><td>31%</td><td>26%</td><td>7%</td><td>14%</td><td>27%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>10%</td><td>17%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>9%</td><td>10%</td><td>45%</td><td>27%</td><td>9%</td><td>23%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td><td>13%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>


Top 20 Finishers:
<table border="1"><tr><td> </td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Eagle</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>Birdie</td><td>51%</td><td>39%</td><td>39%</td><td>46%</td><td>34%</td><td>39%</td><td>59%</td><td>51%</td><td>40%</td><td>33%</td><td>6%</td><td>33%</td><td>9%</td><td>19%</td><td>16%</td><td>70%</td><td>94%</td><td>53%
</td></tr><tr><td>Par</td><td>44%</td><td>54%</td><td>49%</td><td>38%</td><td>51%</td><td>54%</td><td>35%</td><td>39%</td><td>50%</td><td>56%</td><td>39%</td><td>28%</td><td>81%</td><td>35%</td><td>65%</td><td>28%</td><td>5%</td><td>33%
</td></tr><tr><td>Bogey</td><td>4%</td><td>8%</td><td>13%</td><td>10%</td><td>13%</td><td>8%</td><td>6%</td><td>8%</td><td>6%</td><td>11%</td><td>34%</td><td>15%</td><td>8%</td><td>38%</td><td>19%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>11%
</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>21%</td><td>25%</td><td>3%</td><td>9%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>4%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Comments:
- When talking about %birdies/%pars per hole, I think you need to define your "field" pretty well. The USDGC field is actually probably a little more spread out than your average NT Open field, but the top 20 are probably much tighter.
- I've always thought hole 13 was a bad hole, distance wise. Especially after you play a little safe to avoid the OB. It is 432 but a lot down hill. But it plays over OB almost the whole way, with a re-tee required if you don't make it. The safe bailout is shorter and lefter. The lefter you go, the shorter your shot to stay safe. Anyway, of the %bogies and %other on this hole, a LARGE number of those would be people who went OB. In other words, if you play reasonably safe and get in-bounds, you have a tiny chance of making 2, but it's also pretty tough to take a 4 (though I seemed to in the qualifier due to my inability to get up-and-down from 140 feet.) Having said all that, my standard disclaimer is that 1 (or 2) holes per course that favor a big-arm (especially with some risk built in) is not necessarily a bad thing.
- I've always thought 15 was close to bad. It is 401, and there is pinched-in artificial OB the closer you get to the basket. Again, the risk in going for it makes this a better hole. I think the OB was relaxed a little this year. Last year in 4 rounds of caddying, out of 16 attempts I saw 13 pars, 2 bogies, and 1 double. More telling, I saw only 3 out of 16 actually putt at the hole for birdie.
- An interesting hole is hole 6. It is flat, 370ish, and OB very close left of the pin. For the Field it was 69% par and only 18% birdies. But for the better players, it was 54% par and 39% birdies. So if you take out the top 20, you're up to 72% par on this hole.
- Hole 17 is apparently a bad hole for the top 20, as they made 94% birdies. Thought the guys who didn't make birdie probably wish they could've just written down a 2 (or even a 3!) and gone to the next hole.
- All this is a little different than normal due to the OB risk/reward that is built into nearly every hole.

[james_mccaine]

Thanks Rodney, those are very interesting numbers and in my mind, they portray an overall well designed course (even though I've never seen it.)

After reading Jim's post, I started contemplating your question of just what field we are discussing. I've thought about it and feel that the top 20 USDGC finishers is too limited. I would probably use a rating range of around 30 -40 points (or defer too y'alls statistical analysis).

At any rate, if I was a powerball winner and could travel around and hold my own tourneys, the type of table you posted would be the ideal info (for a first cut) to use in determining my tourney sites.

[ck34]

I did score distribution stats for the 2001 Pro Worlds courses for a few divisions. In Open, the top 52 players averaged 1000 rating so in essence, their average and distribution was for a scratch player SSA/WCP for each hole. I also calculated the standard deviation of the scores. My threshold for a questionable hole was/is that 75% or more of players shoot the same score AND the standard deviation drops below 0.50. Here are stats from Kaposia:

<table border="1"><tr><td> </td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Std Dev</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.40
</td></tr><tr><td>2s</td><td>55%</td><td>58%</td><td>47%</td><td>16%</td><td>3%</td><td>4%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>65%</td><td>50%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>48%</td><td>63%</td><td>0%</td><td>12%
</td></tr><tr><td>3s</td><td>41%</td><td>41%</td><td>49%</td><td>73%</td><td>46%</td><td>76%</td><td>53%</td><td>49%</td><td>73%</td><td>31%</td><td>40%</td><td>75%</td><td>61%</td><td>80%</td><td>39%</td><td>36%</td><td>5%</td><td>84%
</td></tr><tr><td>4s</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>11%</td><td>38%</td><td>15%</td><td>5%</td><td>47%</td><td>22%</td><td>4%</td><td>8%</td><td>17%</td><td>37%</td><td>18%</td><td>11%</td><td>1%</td><td>67%</td><td>5%
</td></tr><tr><td>5s</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>12%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>6s</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>> 6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

[ck34]

Here's the data for Oakwood. It's possible that the criteria just needs to be any hole with a standard deviation under 0.50 without needing to set a percentage for a score with more than X%. If both SD and % are used, no holes have stats problems. Without the % then 5, 11 and 14 fall (barely) in the doghouse.

<table border="1"><tr><td> </td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Std Dev</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.70
</td></tr><tr><td>2s</td><td>0%</td><td>37%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>69%</td><td>63%</td><td>44%</td><td>0%</td><td>51%</td><td>53%</td><td>0%</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>62%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>34%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>3s</td><td>59%</td><td>59%</td><td>75%</td><td>54%</td><td>31%</td><td>36%</td><td>52%</td><td>59%</td><td>45%</td><td>44%</td><td>69%</td><td>38%</td><td>53%</td><td>38%</td><td>23%</td><td>62%</td><td>63%</td><td>36%
</td></tr><tr><td>4s</td><td>38%</td><td>5%</td><td>17%</td><td>38%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>4%</td><td>37%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>30%</td><td>7%</td><td>25%</td><td>0%</td><td>64%</td><td>28%</td><td>3%</td><td>50%
</td></tr><tr><td>5s</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>8%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>13%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>13%
</td></tr><tr><td>6s</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

[james_mccaine]

Chuck, my memory of standard deviation is limited. Looking at #3 at Oakwood with a .58 SD, but the highest one-result percentage (75), and comparing it to #5 with a .46 SD but a lower one-result percentage (69), I guess the small # of 2s, 5s, and 6s on hole #3 greatly increased the SD. Is that kind of how it works? Anyway, one or both of your criteria seem like a good start to defining acceptable holes for PDGA competition.

While you and Rodney have given evidence of statistically well-designed courses, I suspect that a lot of PDGA TDs never think of this. A positive of this discussion would be if the PDGA simply included an "educational page" in the tourney sanctioning info. The page could encourage TDs to analyze their results and consider changes if certain criteria were exceeded. Many (or some) TDs might actually start thinking about their hole design (by talent level) and consider redesigns (at least for PDGA events).

Gotta start somewhere.

[ck34]

It takes extra work and some math skills for course designers to do this additional "design" effort. Our course designers group is starting to get more familiar with the concepts, and more importantly, buying in to the fact that it can make a difference. Houck has written about "dumb 3s" where everyone gets the same score so the root idea is out there.

We are starting with the Worlds courses, especially Iowa this coming year, to redesign holes so they spread the scores better. Unfortunately, if you do a good job for the Open division, several holes may end up "dumb" for other divisions. Where this effort can pay off is for NT course layouts since they are primarily for Open players.

I have developed a hole score forecaster which has done a good job weeding out potential length problems for different skill levels that is available to our DGCD members. I'm sure we'll be doing all we can make sure the designs and tee sets at the new NDGC in Augusta spread the scores as well as possible. It can then become a training center to demonstrate how these concepts can be used to help designers improve other courses. It will take a while but we're on the right track. We might even get to a Par definition as a result...

[neonnoodle]

So are you any closer to finally, at long last, coming up with a Disc Golf definition for Par? One that has general support and is easily understandable?

Is the sticking point still the concept of Par 2?

[ck34]

It will take a while but we're on the right track. We might even get to a Par definition as a result...



I think "a while" is years not months.

[neonnoodle]

Is it a matter of you brainwashing folks into believing that Par 2 is a reality?

I'd imagine that that, and the reality of so many 18 hole courses with WCPs below 54 (really same issue) are what is holding us back from just declaring disc golf par to be a courses WCP/SSA, or a number based on that.

I do think that it is a real sticking point in our sport's legitimacy that we don't have a commonly accepted definition for par.

I'm hoping for months rather than years... ;)

[ck34]

I think several things will bring resolution on some issues. The new NDGC will bring together a cadre of designers to discuss and resolve how the courses will be marked. The Course Eval Committee's results will also move the discussion forward. The NT scoring needs to deal with over/under par for presentation. The next rules update, possibly for 2005, might deal with it. All of these processes will push the issue.

[neonnoodle]

The next rules update, possibly for 2005, might deal with it. All of these processes will push the issue.



I was told 2006. I hope that we are ready to put something beyond:

"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

Though one could argue that an "expert disc golfer" is a 1000 rated golfer, or 950 (whichever) and that they are "expected to make" the SSA for each hole, making SSA par!

Then you'd have dreaded par 2s however. :p

Then you'd have dreaded par 2s however.



Only if the location of the tee pad falls under the definition of "two close range throws to hole-out"

[neonnoodle]

Then you'd have dreaded par 2s however.



Only if the location of the tee pad falls under the definition of "two close range throws to hole-out"



Define "two close range throws to hole-out"? Explain how this is a more accurate and useful method of determining par than using SSA?

Nick, I was just bringing the definitions that you used full circle.

Maybe for an "expert" 300' is "close range".

[rhett]

I'll give my definition of a par-2 hole again, since I haven't given it in a while:

A par-2 hole is a hole where you take a three and know you have just given up a stroke to most of the field.

We've all played them. We all know those holes exist. Call it what you want to call it, but you all know that feeling.

Excellent definition, Rhett. I crack up at people who insist that all holes are par-3, but get upset when they don't "birdie" the little doinker, and aren't upset when they "bogey" the monster hole.

[broken record mode]if you insist on keeping holes that are wide open and 200' long, I don't care if you want to call it a par-2, or a very poorly designed, very easy par-3.

Personally, I'll call it a par-2, just cuz it annoys the people that insist there's no such thing. [/broken record mode]

That said, I still agree that we should have short/rec/ladies/whatever-PC-term-you-want tees for those that prefer to play wimpy golf.

[neonnoodle]

Agreed. And you know it for the skill level in which you are competing moreover.

In a mixed group (many divisions*) you get a 3 on a hole and the new guy is praising you to high heaven as he drops his in for a well earned 5. Somehow you just know that a 3 is a bogie on that hole for your division.

But I think it would be helpful to have a standard that everyone can gauge how they are doing, as well as to help course pros create better suited challenges per skill level competing. As Chuck and John H have discussed, a good hole for Open players may be downright dumb for Am2s (Intermediates**).

*Something against our Rules of Play at PDGAs.
**We really need new names for the skill level divisions in the Prize Class. Folks are getting brainlock on the old names. "The Hell I'm an Intermediate Player! I've been donati... I mean playing in the Advanced division for 15 years!" ;)

[magilla]

I'll give my definition of a par-2 hole again, since I haven't given it in a while:

A par-2 hole is a hole where you take a three and know you have just given up a stroke to most of the field.

We've all played them. We all know those holes exist. Call it what you want to call it, but you all know that feeling.



I hate it when that happens :eek:

When our club does course design we use the following as a base for setting par.

Take the "best possible score +2" now sure this eliminates he possibility for a par 2 hole but I guess thats the only flaw...who needs par 2 anyway :confused:

Using this format..Stafford Lake in Novato, Ca has a few holes which par changes depending on Pin/Tee location

Holes 1,3,&amp; 13 can be par 3 or 4 and hole 9 is a par 5 (short pin could probably be 2'd, but its still never happened)
Still purely for scoring ease All holes are played as par3 in tournament. Realistically being +/- par is all relative. wheather its 4 under or 8 under, Its still the number, ie (50) that your shooting.

[neonnoodle]

So if you are saying that Par is 50 at an 18 hole course, then there has to be at least 4 holes that have a par of 2, right?

Unlike Jim, I don't think that par 2 holes are poorly designed holes. They can be fine if used in moderation (2 or 3 a course, and I like to see these holes involve a little more risk reward factors). It's when you have an entire course of them that the course can become unchallenging for higher level players. Which is also fine if your target demographic is beginner or intermediate players. Courses that are great for advanced skill level players can be quite uninspiring for beginners (even downright dumb).

So any definition of "par" might want to take into account the skill level of the group of players competing/playing on it.

If these color codes where standardized/utilized uniformly, each course layout could recieve a course color that everyone would know instantly which skill level the course was set up in. I should note that even though some courses have 3 or more tees and pins, all of them might fall into just one of the same skill level ranges (all the tees are in the beginner range or one of the others), so perhaps another color system would have to be used to know the skill level (besides the Red, White and Blue, or we could make an effort to not have course designers misuse those designations).

I like the idea of the metal colors:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Metal</td><td> Required skill range</td><td> Players rating range
</td></tr><tr><td><font color="yellow">GOLD </font> </td><td> SSA over 60</td><td> over 950
</td></tr><tr><td><font color="#666666"> SILVER </font> </td><td> SSA between 50 and 60</td><td> over 880 under 950
</td></tr><tr><td><font color="orange"> BRONZE </font></td><td> SSA under 50</td><td> under 880</tr></td></table>

Such a system would give folks an idea of which layout had them specifically in mind, as well as help to keep each skill level clearly in the minds of the course pros during the design process.


Then again, we could simply offer the SSA for each layout on each tee sign. Each skill level will know exactly what it means for them, so long as they have a PDGA Player Rating.

[magilla]

No where did I say par was 50. I only stated that "shooting a 50 is either -4 or -8, but is still a 50.

Your color coded rating system is out to lunch in my opinion. It will still take MANY years for the course ratings to balance out. MANY courses in Cali are not even close to what they should be. For example Stafford lake has an estimated SSA of 55 in the ALL long (from this years event)...Way out to lunch..I supposse the only way to get it to go up is to never play an event on my home course. With my rating, 958, when I shoot good it hurts the courses rating. Nothing is taken into account that I play it all the time and that I average under par...(less than 54)

I dont have anything against the ratings system. I just feel that there is no where enough data to have a true rating YET.
Just as when Stafford was first put in the rating was said to be about 48...which at the time was 1 less than the course record....
It was not until the board actually played the course that it was adjusted.................

We may have 1 hole that falls into your "par2" discription (Hole 10 averages 2.6) but that is it. Hole 9 averarages well over 5 (5.6)and 3 long well over 4 (4.76)

:p

[neonnoodle]

My mistake, I thought that we were talking about "Setting Par". And yes you are right, it doesn't really matter what par is on a course as far as score/competition goes, all that matters is the score.

What I was discussing are possible uses of a standardized definition of par as it affects our association (Course Tee Standards that would be more than just colors, actually representing something of use, etc.).

I do think, to use your phrase, that you are a little "out to lunch" as far as your understanding of PDGA Players Ratings is concerned. That's not surprising. It's not that easy to get, and a lot of effort will be needed before people grasp the basics of it. I've been working at it for 4 years now and still have to ask Chuck about specifics from time to time.

Certainly, as you say, there are some minor imperfections, that will need time to work out, but you are quite wrong that they are not extremely accurate and useful in their current form. You need to study up a little on it because you playing well or poorly (beyond a range - like really sucking or playing like Barry, which are thrown out anyway) has no significant effect on the course's SSA.

I'd encourage you to grill Chuck, Rodney and Jason about how it all works. And let's say that you have found the Titanic sized tear down the side of PDGA Ratings, I am quite sure that they would be interested in hearing about it (even if it is just about you and your course and not about the system as a whole).

They're a lot nicer than I am.

[magilla]

What I revert back to is how the SSA was originaly formulated....Back when it was called WCP, not SSA. At some point a number had to be set for each course. That number was achieved by using scores from players that had ratings.

In Stafford Lakes case, there were very few events for the formula to be all that accurate.
Yes now with a set SSA, a 54 is the same rating no matter who shoots it.
I feel that over time with more events and more scores to input it will eventually workitself out. :p

[ck34]

How does the SSA come out if you use the adjusted length and foliage factor calc for Stafford. SSA=30+(course length / 285). I believe the foliage is less than "average" so deduct 2 throws from the calc. Remember that elevation adjusts length up or down by a factor of 3 (i.e. 10 feet uphill adds 30 feet to the measured length).

[magilla]

Ill check numbers and get back to you on that one.
It is perhaps a bit more open than an Average course, but that is made up for in elevation, layout, and length :D

[magilla]

OK Chuck I did some calculations on the All Long and the Original for Stafford Lake as played by the Pros in March.

Using you formula, the numbers do come out really close to what the existing SSA is, IF you take away 2 strokes for "below average foiliage"

SSA Stafford Long - 55.02 your calc - 57.14 -2 strokes
SSA Stafford Original - 52.12 your calc - 54.175 -2 strokes

Personaly I feel that taking 2 strokes away for foliage is not so accurate. What is lost in foiliage is certianly made up for in shot selection and course management. 1 slight error in a throw could add 2 or more strokes on more than 1/2 the holes, just because of the way the elevation falls off toward the Lake.
What causes me to question the accuracy of the SSA is to look at the ratings of the rounds played at the Stafford LAke Open in March.
Only the Winner of the event had an average rating of over 1000. An average round rating at the cash point was 980. The average rating of the players in the cash was 995 if you leave me out at 958. This seems a quite a bit off of the national avg.
Typically the cash line is around 1000 rating or so. :confused:

[ck34]

The average round rating for an event should be about the same as the rating of those with established ratings used to rate the event (propagators). So, if that's not the case, then perhaps the ratings were not done correctly for that round(s). I think it's pretty telling that the rough cut formula came so close to the number you got from an event. The foliage factor is not some kind of penalty factor I made up. It's derived from the 1000s of results gathered so far. All it means is that a course will have a lower SSA per foot the less foliage it has, all other things equal.

[neonnoodle]

Not all events have 1000+ Rated players in attendance, and then again just because there are some it doesn't mean that they will shoot 1000+ golf. We have had several C Tiers in our Region that were won by a player with an Event Rating of less than 1000.

Then again at the Seneca National Tour Event 2 people shooting 1000+ golf didn't even make the cut!

[neonnoodle]

Mike,

In looking at the results, Avery shooting an Event Rating of 1025 is nothing to sneeze at. Looks like an average B Tier. It is noticable that they seemed to have not shot as well in the first round. S Happens! :cool:

[magilla]

Mike,

In looking at the results, Avery shooting an Event Rating of 1025 is nothing to sneeze at. Looks like an average B Tier. It is noticable that they seemed to have not shot as well in the first round. S Happens! :cool:



Yea well Avery's 1025 should be more like a 1050...and he won by 10 strokes :eek:
Is it that Everyone else shot bad, OR that he just shot that good ;)
His rounds are the Best ever put together in an event at that course.
The only 4's on his card were the 1049' hole 3 times and Long 3 the first time he played it...
The layouts of the course varied greatly from round to round so saying that they shot worse in the beginning isnt all that correct. The second round was easily 5-6 strokes easier than the first round and the last round is by far the Hardest...

Look at the average of what the other high rated players shot and the discrepency shows up better.

[neonnoodle]

Mom!

I mean Chuck!

Mike's picking on me. :D

Mike, I know that there is a compression factor, but it would be pretty minimal for a course with a rating of 55 or there abouts. Do you know what the SSA was for the course where he shot the 1038 Round Rating?

By the way, nice shooting at that event.

[neonnoodle]

Even if it is not perfect, we have got to be able to agree on a commonly acceptable definition of par other than the one in the rulebook glossary.

For a course, one that holds PDGA events on a regular basis, I say use the WCP.

For each hole on a course, I say use the WCP for each hole, which will add up to the course WCP.

The problem with formulas like “throws to green + 2” is that in disc golf we don’t have “greens” and putting is so much easier than in ball golf that 2 throws is often the Scratch Score Average for the entire hole (let alone just the putting).

Now if we want to maintain a universal standard, and alleviate the mental challenge some face in coming to terms with a par 2 hole even existing, we can choose to set the World Class Par to avoid any par twos by finding a skill level that would rarely if ever average below 3 on any hole. Say a player with a rating of 850. Other than this the math would stay the same.

A course with a current WCP of 44 for a 1000 golfer, would have a new WCP of 59 for the 850 golfer, and so on. You would only run into trouble if 850 golfers averaged below 3 on a hole or 54 on a course.

This is a little weak though. I'd prefer that we, dispite the logically challenged, just use WCP as it is.

A course with a current WCP of 44 for a 1000 golfer, would have a new WCP of 59 for the 850 golfer, and so on. You would only run into trouble if 850 golfers averaged below 3 on a hole or 54 on a course.




Actually wouldn't that be a WCP of about 54.5ish for an 850 golfer?

[magilla]

The problem with formulas like “throws to green + 2” is that in disc golf we don’t have “greens” and putting is so much easier than in ball golf that 2 throws is often the Scratch Score Average for the entire hole (let alone just the putting).

Now if we want to maintain a universal standard, and alleviate the mental challenge some face in coming to terms with a par 2 hole even existing, we can choose to set the World Class Par to avoid any par twos by finding a skill level that would rarely if ever average below 3 on any hole. Say a player with a rating of 850. Other than this the math would stay the same.

A course with a current WCP of 44 for a 1000 golfer, would have a new WCP of 59 for the 850 golfer, and so on. You would only run into trouble if 850 golfers averaged below 3 on a hole or 54 on a course.

This is a little weak though. I'd prefer that we, dispite the logically challenged, just use WCP as it is.




The formula was "best score possible" not "throws to green"
meaning that if its possible to get a 1 then it a par 3. If not possible to get a 1 but you can get a 2 then its a par 4, etc.....
Now sure it gets fouled up when you have holes that are too short. But then theres always something isnt there.. :o

The problem with formulas like “throws to green + 2” is that in disc golf we don’t have “greens” and putting is so much easier than in ball golf that 2 throws is often the Scratch Score Average for the entire hole (let alone just the putting).

Now if we want to maintain a universal standard, and alleviate the mental challenge some face in coming to terms with a par 2 hole even existing, we can choose to set the World Class Par to avoid any par twos by finding a skill level that would rarely if ever average below 3 on any hole. Say a player with a rating of 850. Other than this the math would stay the same.

A course with a current WCP of 44 for a 1000 golfer, would have a new WCP of 59 for the 850 golfer, and so on. You would only run into trouble if 850 golfers averaged below 3 on a hole or 54 on a course.

This is a little weak though. I'd prefer that we, dispite the logically challenged, just use WCP as it is.




The formula was "best score possible" not "throws to green"
meaning that if its possible to get a 1 then it a par 3. If not possible to get a 1 but you can get a 2 then its a par 4, etc.....
Now sure it gets fouled up when you have holes that are too short. But then theres always something isnt there.. :o



Who is to say what "Best Possible" is?

1 is best possible, on ANY hole....so everythign is par 3?

Isnt this where we already are?

Reasonably likely score, perhaps?

[slowmo_1]

Who is to say what "Best Possible" is?

1 is best possible, on ANY hole....so everythign is par 3?

Isnt this where we already are?

Reasonably likely score, perhaps?





So someone is going to make a 1 on some of those 700-1000ft holes on the Wilmont?

I agree, this is a tough subject to figure out. Ball golf does it based on distance. It's reasonable we should be able to do so also. Our biggest problem is that people at the very top of the chain will easily make a 3 on a 650 ft hole while the rest of us have to make some great throws to do so. Does this mean that such a hole should be a par 3? I would think such a hole would have an SSA of above 3.5 easily. How about an 800ft hole? The Klimo's and Shultze's of the world will make 4 on these, but few else will. Do we base par on the average pro or those few "super pros" (for lack of a better term)

Our biggest problem I think with using a distance formula to determine par for a whole is that with most existing courses most holes will still be par 3. Even future courses might be that way due to land constraints and lingering views of par being 3.

I do feel if one of the goals of the powers that be is to make disc golf a viable TV sport then there does need to be some sort of system to establish par.

[magilla]

Who is to say what "Best Possible" is?

1 is best possible, on ANY hole....so everythign is par 3?

Isnt this where we already are?

Reasonably likely score, perhaps?





So someone is going to make a 1 on some of those 700-1000ft holes on the Wilmont?

I agree, this is a tough subject to figure out. Ball golf does it based on distance. It's reasonable we should be able to do so also. Our biggest problem is that people at the very top of the chain will easily make a 3 on a 650 ft hole while the rest of us have to make some great throws to do so. Does this mean that such a hole should be a par 3? I would think such a hole would have an SSA of above 3.5 easily. How about an 800ft hole? The Klimo's and Shultze's of the world will make 4 on these, but few else will. Do we base par on the average pro or those few "super pros" (for lack of a better term)

Our biggest problem I think with using a distance formula to determine par for a whole is that with most existing courses most holes will still be par 3. Even future courses might be that way due to land constraints and lingering views of par being 3.

I do feel if one of the goals of the powers that be is to make disc golf a viable TV sport then there does need to be some sort of system to establish par.





I am sorry if this comes as shock, but if every hole youve ever played can be hit in 1 throw, then you need to climb out of the cellar and play some real disc golf courses :p

Seriously....our formula mostly deals with "when should a hole be a par 4 or par 5. It doesnt deal with "par2", the thought never entered our minds....
Disc Golf has evolved to the point where courses arnt just "a walk in the park"
John H in Texas, Dave Mac in Missouri, Paw PAw, WV..etc..

ALL of those courses have holes that you will NEVER get an ACE. Doesnt matter who you are, how hard the wind is blowing, how lucky you get and miss ALL the trees...still it will never be aced...That qualifies it to be a Par 4...The same criteria would be carried forward to determine if it should be a Par 5.
My home course has 3 holes that fall in this class...Holes 1, 3, &amp; 9

Holes 1 and 3 (From Original Tee)
Hole 1 453'up 81' in elev. - has only been dueced twice
Hole 3 639' up 37' in elev - has Never been dueced, but it is possible.

These are considered Par 4's

Hole 9 - 1049' down 32' in elev. This hole has been three'd twice..once in Doubles from 180'...once in casual play from 85'

This hole is a Par 5........I suppose that maybe someday someone will hit that 500' fairway ace for a 2, BUT until that happens its still a Par 5.

Those only apply to the Rec players who want to feel good about their score :D

In tournament we still play the course as a Par 54 :D

[neonnoodle]

Unfortunately we live in a reality that requires a standard of par that works universally, not just at courses with SSAs over 54 for 18 holes...

Unfortunately we live in a reality that requires a standard of par that works universally



Already have one. :) Here it is, from the glossary:
"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

There's nothing wrong with this definition.

If you really must dig deeper, you can try to define "two close range throws".

If we do like Jim G and work Chuck's formula backward, we can see that for average terrain and foliage, a scratch player (1000 rating, or what we'll call an "expert" for this definition) will average 2.0 on a hole of 95 feet. Therefore, 95 feet is "close range", because that's where we'd expect an expert golfer to take 2 throws from. That is, the number of 3's would be equal to the number of 1's, with everything else being a 2. Seems reasonable to me.

So for those of you who really must apply distances to this par thing, you can go with Chuck's driving distance data that says the top 1/3 of the pro field at Worlds averaged 380 feet on a wide-open hole. To adjust for average foliage and terrain, let's say 350 feet for the average expert drive. Finally, for 2nd and 3rd shot on a hole, we all know you can't throw as far as a drive because you're concentrating on foot placement, but let's say 90% (or 315 feet) for the expert 2nd and 3rd shots on average foliage and terrain.

That gives us:
Par 2 = < 95 feet = max of two close-range throws, anything longer is not a par 2 by definition /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Par 3 = 95 to 445 feet = max of one drive (up to 350) plus two close-range throws
Par 4 = 445 to 760 feet = max of one drive (350), one 2nd (up to 315), plus two close-range throws
Par 5 = 760 to 1075 feet = max of one drive (350), a 2nd (315), a 3rd (up to 315) plus two close-range throws

Seems reasonable to me.

Some course designers will tell you that there are bad hole lengths from ABOUT 400 to 500 and from ABOUT 700 to 800 (again for expert players and average foliage), but those bad ranges are covered above for completeness.

As an exercise, compare to Ken Climo's definition as linked above:
Reachable off the tee box = PAR 3. Reachable fairly easy in two good shots = PAR 4. Reachable in two mammoth shots or easily in three = PAR 5. This example based on a player of good level.

I don't see what all the commotion is about. :confused:

[slowmo_1]

Already have one. :) Here it is, from the glossary:
"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

There's nothing wrong with this definition.

If you really must dig deeper, you can try to define "two close range throws".

If we do like Jim G and work Chuck's formula backward, we can see that for average terrain and foliage, a scratch player (1000 rating, or what we'll call an "expert" for this definition) will average 2.0 on a hole of 95 feet. Therefore, 95 feet is "close range", because that's where we'd expect an expert golfer to take 2 throws from. That is, the number of 3's would be equal to the number of 1's, with everything else being a 2. Seems reasonable to me.

So for those of you who really must apply distances to this par thing, you can go with Chuck's driving distance data that says the top 1/3 of the pro field at Worlds averaged 380 feet on a wide-open hole. To adjust for average foliage and terrain, let's say 350 feet for the average expert drive. Finally, for 2nd and 3rd shot on a hole, we all know you can't throw as far as a drive because you're concentrating on foot placement, but let's say 90% (or 315 feet) for the expert 2nd and 3rd shots on average foliage and terrain.

That gives us:
Par 2 = < 95 feet = max of two close-range throws, anything longer is not a par 2 by definition /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Par 3 = 95 to 445 feet = max of one drive (up to 350) plus two close-range throws
Par 4 = 445 to 760 feet = max of one drive (350), one 2nd (up to 315), plus two close-range throws
Par 5 = 760 to 1075 feet = max of one drive (350), a 2nd (315), a 3rd (up to 315) plus two close-range throws

Seems reasonable to me.

Some course designers will tell you that there are bad hole lengths from ABOUT 400 to 500 and from ABOUT 700 to 800 (again for expert players and average foliage), but those bad ranges are covered above for completeness.

As an exercise, compare to Ken Climo's definition as linked above:
Reachable off the tee box = PAR 3. Reachable fairly easy in two good shots = PAR 4. Reachable in two mammoth shots or easily in three = PAR 5. This example based on a player of good level.

I don't see what all the commotion is about. :confused:




This seems perfectly reasonable to me and easy to understand. The hard part is getting rid of the conception that par is always 54 on every course. Until we can change this idea it's never going to progress. Yes, it makes adding your score up at the end of the round easier...whoopee. Disc golf will never work as a spectator/TV sport until this happens.

As for those inbetween distance holes, even in ball golf there are holes that even hackers feel they should make birdie on, even if they never do.

[neonnoodle]

So with this definition of par, what does it look like to the general public when Scratch Golfers (1000 Rated Players) finish 4 round events at 40 under and the winner at 52 under?

You don't think a normal person with a little knowledge about golf isn't going to say, "That's stupid!"

You're formula does not work on a course with a WCP below 54. It is not universal, and as the normal person would say, "... :D

[gang4010]

Is defining par intended for use by the general public? Or for perception of scratch golfer's scores by the general public?

[dscmn]

the general public would say, "wow, easy course." "why would they have an event on a course like that?"

[slo]

"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."


Maybe it would help if people stopped taking that literally, and look at what it literally says:

"...allowing two close range throws to hole-out."


...it doesn't say anything about the odds of the first one going in...that might be close to zero. It says you can get close enough after a drive to hole-out in two, not having two putts for bird.
...just something to think about...
...oh yeah, shouldn't it be: "close-range"?
Ops, wrong thread! :D

the general public would say, "wow, easy course." "why would they have an event on a course like that?"



Exactly. :)

Or, if they think it's stupid, you can just tell them that disc golf is easier than ball golf, which it is. At least given the free public land and resources we are given to work with. If you don't want people scoring double-digits under par, then create your course with its SSA close to (or above!) its par.

Besides, Nick, your argument is invalid. If you use any other definition of par, you would be redefining par, which the general public would find even MORE stupid. It's a well-known principle known as Occam's Hook: When given the choice between two things, choose the one that is less stupid.

[neonnoodle]

Hopefully you are less stupid,

I am fine with showing courses true SSAs or that averaged into a WCP. I was simply trying to illustrate something to the folks that don't believe in Par 2 holes. If we are going to base par on our expert disc golfers (that being represented well by 1000 Rated Golfers) and they are able to average less than 3 on a hole and less than 54 on an 18 hole course then par 2s do exist. It would be stupid to think otherwise.

Now if you can find some convenient mumbo jumbo like "one throw to green and 2 to hole out on the third friday of every fourth month", and it matches the statistical data, GREAT! Otherwise it is clearly more stupid to think that such a statistically and reality baseless formula is valid. :p

Disc Golf's idea of Par, can and should be superior to ball golf's. WCP provides that level of superiority.

[gang4010]

[QUOTE]


If we are going to base par on our expert disc golfers (that being represented well by 1000 Rated Golfers) and they are able to average less than 3 on a hole and less than 54 on an 18 hole course then par 2s do exist. It would be stupid to think otherwise.

So Nick, how should the ball golf community go about describing it's "par 3" courses? You know - the ones the scratch golfers don't play because they are so "easy"?

Seems to me the discussion here is stuck on the premise of DG and BG sharing terms - and the need for them to be perceived similarly by the public. There are only so many similarities between the two. Changing public perception about DG by how we define par sounds like a pretty fruitless effort if you ask me.

[neonnoodle]

BG use of par works for them. BG use of par doesn't work for us, particularly when we try to explain it in BG terms to newbies.

SSA and WCP do work, in every situation for every skill level, at every course. A "Par 3" course in DG would be a course with a WCP of 54. That's a pretty darn good course in DG, but like you say it would be nothing in BG.

[dscmn]

huh? all this time i thought par was the same for ball golf and disc golf. (i still think it is, i'm just amusing nick) let's not take the designer out of the equation. if one designs a par 4 and everyone threes it, it's an easy par 4, bad even. but, it's still a par 4 unless he or she changes the par for the hole or changes the hole. it's not that difficult. don't put the proverbial cart before the horse. what then is a hole with no statistical data? par 0? par infinity? is it a secret? must we rely so heavy on statistics for something so simple as par? it seems a tad over the top. what if everyone keeps their score secret on that hole, will it forever be disgraced and dishonored by not having a statistically derived number attached to it's tee sign. poor hole. "hold me," it whimpers sadly. on a more serious note, par is part of the art of design, not a statistical average of what scratch golfers actually score on the hole. par is not a constantly changing number.

[slo]

It is if you don't get it right the first time!

if one designs a par 4 and everyone threes it, it's an easy par 4, bad even. but, it's still a par 4 unless he or she changes the par for the hole or changes the hole.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'everybody', dscmn, but it sounds like the designer made a mistake here by assigning a '4' to a hole which is obviously a '3'. No judgment on good or bad hole design, just the par value assessment. That hole is a de facto three. This would appear to be an example of some course designer trying to "add" a stroke somewhere, to come up with an nice even number, like 60 or 68 or 72.
Now, if 49 golfers get 3, and 51 get 4 here, that might be different...

[johnbiscoe]

If we do like Jim G and work Chuck's formula backward, we can see that for average terrain and foliage, a scratch player (1000 rating, or what we'll call an "expert" for this definition) will average 2.0 on a hole of 95 feet. Therefore, 95 feet is "close range", because that's where we'd expect an expert golfer to take 2 throws from. That is, the number of 3's would be equal to the number of 1's, with everything else being a 2. Seems reasonable to me.

So for those of you who really must apply distances to this par thing, you can go with Chuck's driving distance data that says the top 1/3 of the pro field at Worlds averaged 380 feet on a wide-open hole. To adjust for average foliage and terrain, let's say 350 feet for the average expert drive. Finally, for 2nd and 3rd shot on a hole, we all know you can't throw as far as a drive because you're concentrating on foot placement, but let's say 90% (or 315 feet) for the expert 2nd and 3rd shots on average foliage and terrain.

That gives us:
Par 2 = < 95 feet = max of two close-range throws, anything longer is not a par 2 by definition /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Par 3 = 95 to 445 feet = max of one drive (up to 350) plus two close-range throws
Par 4 = 445 to 760 feet = max of one drive (350), one 2nd (up to 315), plus two close-range throws
Par 5 = 760 to 1075 feet = max of one drive (350), a 2nd (315), a 3rd (up to 315) plus two close-range throws

Seems reasonable to me.



if you work the formula backward using 2.5,3.5,4.5 as the cusp points rather than the integers you get:
par 2 (2.5 or less scoring avg)- 238 ft or less
par 3 (3.5 or less)- 239-523 ft
par 4 (4.5) or less- 524-808
par 5- 809 +

[flyboy]

FLY 18 the most par 4s and par 5s anywhere.Setting the par for disc golf and getting back to the game of golf .VP

[neonnoodle]

I'm still trying to figure out why we need some formula based on generalizations when we have one that is based on cold hard statistical data.

Distance is irrelevant, except on the most open and level of holes (and if there is no wind, rain, sleet, and the footing is good, and you ate a good breakfast, etc.). Foliage, elevation, significant fairway direction changes, vicinity to O.B./disc catching trees and bushes/and other stroke adding obstacles all would have to be factored in to come up with a somewhat verifiable par, and even then it would only be verifiable if WCP or SSA verified it.

But why do all of that when we already have a system that gives us an exact number based on all of these factors plus defines exactly what a Scratch Golfer is?

So that we can use it on courses that have not hosted a PDGA event yet? Fine, go for it. But why not just get 10 folks together with a PDGA Players Rating over 800 and play a couple of rounds. That will give you enough data to determine a statistically verifiable Course and Hole Par.

We need to accept WCP and SSA as the definitive Par in organized disc golf, and then, if we really want to, out of boredom or what, figure some ball golf-like definition of Par that helps courses way off in the boonies figure out a par because they don’t have enough PDGA Rated Players to determine their WCP or SSA then we can knock ourselves out.

[magilla]

I'm still trying to figure out why we need some formula based on generalizations when we have one that is based on cold hard statistical data.
Yes we have a system, But this system has flaws and does not acuately determine a courses SSA.
Distance is irrelevant, except on the most open and level of holes (and if there is no wind, rain, sleet, and the footing is good, and you ate a good breakfast, etc.). Foliage, elevation, significant fairway direction changes, vicinity to O.B./disc catching trees and bushes/and other stroke adding obstacles all would have to be factored in to come up with a somewhat verifiable par, and even then it would only be verifiable if WCP or SSA verified it.
Why would "WCP" be the only verifiable number...... In our case Chuck says to take off 2 strokes for lack of Foiliage...but nowhere does he say to add strokes for Elevation or Vicious fairways.. :D

But why do all of that when we already have a system that gives us an exact number based on all of these factors plus defines exactly what a Scratch Golfer is?

So that we can use it on courses that have not hosted a PDGA event yet? Fine, go for it. But why not just get 10 folks together with a PDGA Players Rating over 800 and play a couple of rounds. That will give you enough data to determine a statistically verifiable Course and Hole Par.

We need to accept WCP and SSA as the definitive Par in organized disc golf, and then, if we really want to, out of boredom or what, figure some ball golf-like definition of Par that helps courses way off in the boonies figure out a par because they don’t have enough PDGA Rated Players to determine their WCP or SSA then we can knock ourselves out.




Like I said earlier, eventually it will work itself out...until then if you play Stafford Lake the PAr is 54. If its all short then you can shoot under par...if its all long then good luck shooting par :D

[neonnoodle]

Great! In other words "Par" has no meaning at Stafford Lake.

[slowmo_1]

I think many of the problems with the SSA is that it never becomes established as a constant figure. Every tournament the course hosts it changes. Also, on a hole by hole basis it does not set something as a par 4, but a par 3.78. I think if once a course has hosted a few tournaments and the course would then establish a specific par, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each hole that never changes we'd be set.

[neonnoodle]

I can mostly agree with that. So long as the par is set based on the Scratch Scoring Average.

If players shot better or worse at the next event I would just average those numbers in (Say the original WCP was formulated from 10 rounds, the new round would be 1 out of 11), the difference is unlikely to change the overall par of the entire course. And even though one hole averages less than 2.5 there is room to get it to a par 3. These pars have verifiable meaning. Perhaps courses that can not maintain a WCP over 54 should get a special designation: "Classic" or "Ambassadorial"...

I could live with something like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Hole</td><td>WCP</td><td>Par
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>3.8</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3.1</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2.5</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>5.1</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>4.2</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>5.6</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>3.4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>3.8</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>4.3</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>2.9</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>5.4</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>2.4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>2.7</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>3.7</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>5.8</td><td>6
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>2.9</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>67.3</td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The only remaining challenge is for courses that have a WCP less than 54. In order for par to retain any validity, par 2 holes can't be avoided.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole</td><td>WCP</td><td>Par
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2.4</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>3.1</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2.7</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2.5</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3.3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2.1</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>3.2</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>2.4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>3.2</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>2.3</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>3.1</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>2.4</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>2.2</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>3.6</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>2.6</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>2.3</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>49</td><td>49
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

As a tournament player, personally, I'd find the WCP posted on the tee sign a lot more telling than a rounded par. It can tell me how hard or easy a 2, 3, 4, or 5 this hole is likely to be. It will also give me a clear sense of how I am playing hole by hole in relation to Scratch Disc Golfers EVERYWHERE! A nice piece of value added service...

[slo]

If I had a 980+ rating, I'd feel I lost a stroke to the field getting a "3" on a 238' hole, for sure.

[idahojon]

Nick,

Wouldn't hole #7 on your first example be a 6? (5.6)

[neonnoodle]

There's a little leeway at the top and bottom, so long as the WCP is posted the player will know that this is a very difficult par 5...

[dscmn]

"It will also give me a clear sense of how I am playing hole by hole in relation to Scratch Disc Golfers EVERYWHERE! A nice piece of value added service..."

sure. and if scratch golfers everywhere punched their scores into on-course computers, one could conceivably have a statistical average of that hole for scratch golfers, before you teed off. neato yes, added value yes, but not par.

[dscmn]

ok, i see, both a par and a wcp? well doesn't wcp change? or shouldn't it? also, in order to see how hard the hole plays try looking down the fairway. :D

I think it was suggested in a earlier thread that there actually be 3 numbers on each tee sign. The Rec par, the Pro par, and the WCP. A bit of overkill, but at least a Rec par and the WCP would be useful.

[neonnoodle]

I'm not a fan of "rec" par. I don't know too many folks that just borrow a bag of clubs and shoot anywhere near par at any bg course. Do you?

The WCP let's golfers with PDGA PRs know EXACTLY how they stack up to a Scratch Disc Golfer, and a point of reference for players without one. Paddiddling with it ain't going to make it any easier to understand.

WCP is always the average of Round Ratings for a specific course. If the course changes then it has a completely new WCP, the WCP does not change. Round Ratings are added to the WCP to make it even more accurate over time, if it jumps too far one way or the other the Round Ratings are not added to the WCP and the results checked for errors or the event for extreme weather or special layout variations. (This has no effect what so ever on the accuracy of Player Ratings.)

[dannyreeves]

I'm not a fan of "rec" par. I don't know too many folks that just borrow a bag of clubs and shoot anywhere near par at any bg course. Do you?



That is a great point. I agree!

I am not a fan of Rec par as the only number on the tee sign either, but competitive DGers do not need a "par" if the WCP is noted on the tee sign. The vast majority of recreational players that will use the course do need a "par" that makes sense to them.

They may even ask what the WCP number is for and start trying to play against that. We do need a number for the masses that they can relate to and Rec par is probably the best one for them to relate to.

Neon, I think that system would be perfect. This is a very good idea and I think really solves the problem.

I'm not a fan of "rec" par. I don't know too many folks that just borrow a bag of clubs and shoot anywhere near par at any bg course. Do you?





Nick. You genius. You can't in one breath shoot something down because it doesn't match ball golf, and then in the next breath completely redefine a term ("par") that has been a part of ball golf for centuries.

Game over dude. Go away.

[neonnoodle]

Anon, I'd tell you to get lost but you're already in hiding.

You want rec par, whoohoo! Go for it. What do you want it set for 875 Rated players, 850, 825? So long as it is based on reality and not some unvarifiable contrivance be my guest. But why? One standard of Scratch Golfer is all we need. Thankfully we already have it, and it is better than the one bg has, a player with a 1000 PDGA Player Rating.

It is not reinventing anything. It is adding validity to the notion that par is what an expert player is expected to shoot on average (on a hole or for the entire course).

[magilla]

Great! In other words "Par" has no meaning at Stafford Lake.


Id like to see you here and see just how many OVER PAR you can shoot :eek:

par is what an expert player is expected to shoot on average (on a hole or for the entire course).



Aha, you finally fell into the most important of traps.

Read this very carefully, as I'm certain it's at the limit of your comprehension.

Par is what an expert golfer should get, NOT what an expert golfer does get.

Go back and re-read that last sentence.

The whole problem with using statistical averages is that it includes many many mistakes by expert golfers. That's no good. Par means errorless play. It doesn't mean going OB. It doesn't mean hitting trees.

Therefore, the statistical analysis is not par.

On 99% of well designed holes, it is obvious how many throws it takes to get near the pin for an expert player that doesn't makes mistakes. From there, you could allow 1 putt, or you could allow 2. If you allow 1 (and thus re-define the world's meaning of par), our scratch golfers will shoot well over par. That's fine with me. If you allow 2 (and thus preserve the ball golf definition), our scratch golfers will shoot well under par. That's also fine with me. And better, since we don't have to redefine par.

Our current definition of par is fine. Putting is easier than ball golf. Therefore, scores will be more under par than ball golf. I still don't see all the commotion.

Besides, is there anyone that agrees with you other than you? Until proven so, the discussion is over.

[gnduke]

Until most courses with WCPs above 54, scratch golfers are going to be shooting under par on most courses.

Par by the general description is green plus 2. We do not need to redefine that. The PGA does not redefine par on a BG course just because most players scratch golfers birdie a hole. They don't change the par just because most golfers bogie a hole. Par is based on many things, but not on what a group of cashing scratch golfers score on that hole during tournament play.

Most of our courses are the equivalent of 2 executive 9 holers back to back. If you are a scratch bgolfer, you would expect to shoot about 5-7 under for a single 9 hole round on one of those.

[gnduke]

One other thing, Par on BG course is not what a touring pro that usually cashes (a 1000 rated DGer) would score, but what an expert player would score. Most scratch bgolfers would never cash in a PGA tournament. Why should DG be held to a higher standard when we are trying to attract more beginners to the sport. We need standards that they can readily understand and hopefully get close to in about a year of serious practice.

[lowe]

does it matter what par is?? a 54 is a 54 no matter if par was 54 or 64, you still shot 54. i think it's just a way to make all of us feel good, saying i shot a 10 down.



The biggest advantage of standard par is a way to compare courses. A 54 on an easy course is nowhere near as good as a 54 at a hard course. I'm sure you see the point, but For example, if you know NC courses a 54 at Kentwood would be a poor round but a 54 at Winthrop Gold would be extraoridnary!

[gnduke]

That's why we need to either have Par 2 holes, or list both the WCP and par for each hole and course. I don't have a real problem with Par 2 holes, I play courses that have them all of the time. The holes where even an average golfer expects to have a shot at a birdie.

Even stopping to look at it from a beginner's point of view, would a par 2 hole be all that confusing ? A shot that an expert player (950-970) player could make 9 out of 10 times to within 20 feet of the pin.

[magilla]

does it matter what par is?? a 54 is a 54 no matter if par was 54 or 64, you still shot 54. i think it's just a way to make all of us feel good, saying i shot a 10 down.



The biggest advantage of standard par is a way to compare courses. A 54 on an easy course is nowhere near as good as a 54 at a hard course. I'm sure you see the point, but For example, if you know NC courses a 54 at Kentwood would be a poor round but a 54 at Winthrop Gold would be extraoridnary!



I thought Winthrop was in SOUTH Carolina :D

[neonnoodle]

Read this very carefully, as I'm certain it's at the limit of your comprehension.



Actually it is not worth considering when prefaced by a stupid and insulting statement like that.

I'm thinking now that the PDGA needs to take the lead and set down a workable dfinition for par that will make sense in practice as well as to the uninitiated.

"Well why does this course have a par of only 47?"

A: "Because it is old and put in when disc technology was much less advanced?"

B: " The course is a pitch and putt course."

C: "The course was poorly designed."

D: "It's not really 47, everything is par 3 so it is really 54."

For answering "D" you deserve to be considered an idiot by all you tell that to. And it MOST DEFINITELY IS A BLACK EYE to disc golf (if disc golf has an eye yet to blacken.....)

[magilla]

Easy Nicky, That wasnt my quote :mad:

[magilla]

Read this very carefully, as I'm certain it's at the limit of your comprehension.



Actually it is not worth considering when prefaced by a stupid and insulting statement like that.

I'm thinking now that the PDGA needs to take the lead and set down a workable dfinition for par that will make sense in practice as well as to the uninitiated.

"Well why does this course have a par of only 47?"

A: "Because it is old and put in when disc technology was much less advanced?"

B: " The course is a pitch and putt course."

C: "The course was poorly designed."

D: "It's not really 47, everything is par 3 so it is really 54."

For answering "D" you deserve to be considered an idiot by all you tell that to. And it MOST DEFINITELY IS A BLACK EYE to disc golf (if disc golf has an eye yet to blacken.....)



Really, Who gives a crap what par is?

Who is it supposed to make feel good........?

I can see a validity in having a WCP for tracking tournament play. But that is the extent of it. Most rec players that I see on a course are not interested in how many over or under par they shot. They report in real numbers, ie 60, 66, 78..etc. not 6, 12, or 24 over.

Keep trying to convince me......Im not deaf..but I aint dumb either :D

[rhett]

Actually it is not worth considering when prefaced by a stupid and insulting statement like that.



Wow. Nick just stated that 75%+ of his posts are not worth considering.

[dscmn]

E) it's a par 54 course...all par 3s. However, it's pretty easy, you could shoot a 7 under if you get the easy birdies. :D

F) a par 47 for 18 holes? does that mean there are par 2s? "yup," answers the blind disc golfer. so you're telling me i have to ace--hole in one--to get a birdie? that's stupid! "yup," replies the blind disc golfer. :D

[dscmn]

idiot here again. when you realize that the number you're talking about isn't par but world class average then that question ceases to exist. "well why does this course have a (average by world class players) of only 47?" "well, that's because that's what they shot, *******."
;)

[dscmn]

assuming that all holes no matter the par run the gamut from easy to difficult, what would an easy par two look like, one that is often birdied? 40 feet, 50 feet? not much of a hole in my opinion.

Actually it is not worth considering when prefaced by a stupid and insulting statement like that.



Wow. Nick just stated that 75%+ of his posts are not worth considering.



Go Rhett, Go Rhett, Go Rhett, Go Rhett, ......

LMAO....

[neonnoodle]

Really, Who gives a crap what par is?



Seems obvious that you do not. May I suggest you avoid discussing it. It's not worth getting an ulcer over something you don't give a crap about, is it? :D

Rhett, do you have any point to make about this topic or is this just another example of your infatuation with me.

[rhett]

Nick, get over yourself. You turn every thread into a "a true am class as defined only by Nick Kight is the only thing anyone should be talking about" thread, and then you call me out flor thread drift??? Please....

When you break out a bull-crap line on someone that applies more to you than anyone else on this board, like the one used upthread, then yes I will point it out. And of course I expect you to not address that issue but to instead attack me from a different direction.

It's about time you called me a protected pro prize class bagger who can't lt go of current system, isn't it?

[neonnoodle]

Rhett, do you have any point to make about this topic or is this just another example of your infatuation with me?

Really...Do you?

Your last post just seems to crystalize the truth of your infatuation. Take a deep breath and either address what I am talking about or avoid me all together. You'll lead a less difficult existance.

And I am not yanking your chain here. I mean it.

[Chris Hysell]

Hey Flea-on-poodle, I have an infatuation but it's not with you. It's with myself.

[neonnoodle]

Thanks for the news flash chris, else I'd have never known that.

Rhett, do you have any point to make about this topic or is this just another example of your infatuation with me?

Really...Do you?

Your last post just seems to crystalize the truth of your infatuation. Take a deep breath and either address what I am talking about or avoid me all together. You'll lead a less difficult existance.

And I am not yanking your chain here. I mean it.

sounds like fight'n words....I should think the BOD wouldnt approve

[frizgolf]

Post:Wah! You called me names!
Reply:Wah! You started it!
P:No I didn't!
R:Yes you did!
P:Did so...
R:Did not...
P&amp;R:Hey, look at our post numbers shoot up! Yay! We win!
Meanwhile, I'm wondering just what this post was about... :confused:
Gads, you sound like me and my brothers when we were little. :mad:

[rhett]

Rhett, do you have any point to make about this topic or is this just another example of your infatuation with me?



My point is that you, to use your own words, are an idiot.

[paul]

Russel - (aka 'frizgolf'), Rhett and Nick won't whine at each other anymore!!

[paul]

I had to post just to show off my new signature. I can't wait to start trying out some of those cute 'emoticons' next. Somebody stop me!!!

------------------------------------------
Which one is the real signature? You decide!!
__________________________
Signatures are stupid and anyone that has one is a tool.

[neonnoodle]

when you realize that the number you're talking about isn't par but world class average then that question ceases to exist.



That would work other than the fact that we have not yet defined "par" in disc golf, that that is what we are trying to do here, and that I have proposed that WCP be used as disc golf's par. That or any wordy rationalization that can come close or to the same result as WCP.

Par is used to gauge how you are playing on a course. So long as the standard is as consistant as possible then it is a useful thing to have, for everyone. As it stands now it is next to pointless. WCP has the capability to be a rock solid standard that will enable folks to know exactly where they stand against every other player who has a PDGA Player Rating. That would be par, at least one possible, and probably best, definition of it.

[exczar]

Why is there so much discussion on here about what "par" is? It is only important in the rules of play when someone is late in starting a round.

I think there is a thought that there should not be a par of 2 on a hole, because that would be too discouraging for beginning players. Well, once again pointing to ball and stick, a par of 3 on a 170yd hole is something I will very rarely get, but it doesn't discourage me from playing.

I think someone has posted that par for a hole should be the most reasonable lowest score for that hole plus 2. If a hole has a reasonable chance of being aced, then the par is 3. If not, then how many throws would it take to get in a position to make a "fairway ace"? For most non-aceable holes that would be 2, making par of 4. An example of a par 5 that a lot of us here may know would be the old hole 4 or 5 at Setller's Park at Round Rock. I dare to say that that hole has never been shot in 2, or maybe once in the 10+ years it was there. When I have had a good tee shot there, I could see a fair chance of having my second shot get with putting range, but not going in, and that was in best shot doubles.

Of course, there is a correlation between length and par, but that should not be the only factor. Par for a hole is an individual measure, based on the playability of the hole.

This means that par can change! I gare-on-tee that I can birdie holes now with my CE Firebird that I couldn't get close to with my 40 Mold Midnight Flyer! Disc technology can also change the overall character of a course. The first course in Texas, in Skyline Park in Dallas proper, basically made a clockwise loop around areas of the park. This made for several holes where a left-to-right shot was needed. Now was this a "lefty" or a "righty" course? When it was installed, it was a righty course, because the Midnight Flyers, Super Puppies and Aeros were all what is now known as "unstable" discs, and for a right-handed thrower, would naturally turn from left to right. Now, after the advent of the severly stable high-tech discs (or as an old DG friend called them, "stress-tech"), lefty loved the course, since their hyzers would zero in on the baskets.

So, there are no par 3 1/2 holes. Now, there are some holes that are poorly designed, such as an open 400ft hole, but that has already been addressed on another thread.

[rhett]

So ball golf uses par and slope to judge a course's difficulty. I guess we should just have the generous "don't discourage the newbies" par and SSA.

When they are15 strokes different you can call it an easy course.


But then again those ball golfers who never shoot better than a 90 (vast vast majority) don't seem to be getting discouraged....

[neonnoodle]

Twas the day before Christmas, and Nick agreed with Rhett,
Something for which, one day he might come to regret... :o

Twas the day before Christmas, and Nick agreed with Rhett,
Something for which, one day he might come to regret... :o



:eek: OMG!!!! Alert the media!!!

:p

[dscmn]

it's funny that a bunch of you chose the "discouraging newbies" argument to attack. you misunderstand. when i play ball golf i'm happy to shoot in the 90s, i play a few times a year...bad for one's golf game. however, par is always attainable even with my limited skills. WCA would make it **** near impossible. most (all) top ball golfers would tear up the courses i play, the WCA for the par 5s would likely be between 3 and 4, what use is that to me as a recreational player? it's meaningless. par on the otherhand is meaningful.

in disc golf the same would apply. the WCA for hole 7 at nockamixon could easily be 2--only seasoned players will likely reach the green in one. so is it a par 2, absolutely not. most new players will be happy with a 4, and a three, while par for experienced players, would make the new player happy--and rightly so. a two for these players is impossible frankly. the WCA attempts to make par a **** near impossible number to attain. the top guys will birdie holes and lots of them. their scores should be under par, not par.

WCA is a number to compare courses, it's not a number for golfers to use as par. you can't be serious with this. in fact on second thought, go ahead and make the WCA par for disc golf courses. it would only likely lead to a meaningful par number to emerge after players recognize the inherent flaws in using WCA.

[ck34]

I think it's funny many of you are trying to emulate ball golf par when they would rather do it the way we can with SSA as a guide. Yes, it seems like sacrilege but I've had discussions with members of the USGA handicap committee and they are trying to figure out how they can be more accurate with handicaps and par calculations by using only tournament scores like we do. When they tried to use BG player handicaps, it was a disaster because they found out their handicaps were way off. Some players try to inflate their handicaps by entering bogus high scores. Other players cheat on the low side and only enter their best rounds. So they discovered their data is useless. The British handicap system only uses tournament rounds and works better for calculations.

More on topic, the par definition in BG may have been OK up to 25-30 years ago in terms of roughly matching the abilities of scratch players. But now it is trapped by technical advances in their sport. They don't have the flexibility to adjust to actual scoring conditions on their courses. Every PGA player looks at par 5s as moderately hard par 4s. A 5 is a bogey for them.

SSA does not set the potential par too low for our pro disc golfers. Almost every player who cashes will shoot below what the par would be on our courses if SSA was used as the par guide. In other words, you pretty much need to shoot at scratch score level or better to cash in a major, NT or A-tier now. At USDGC, par was 68 or 69 depending on whether you accept par 6s (#11). Barry was at least 20 under to win in four rounds, which is similar to ball golf events.

[dscmn]

i'm well aware of the par 5 dilemma and the role technology plays in it--these holes are par 4s for the pros, as you state. still firmly in the par 3,4,5 arena. will we be seeing par 2s on ball golf courses in the future? i doubt it. these technological changes usually mean more distance, not accuracy. no need to change par when these technological advances lead to lower scores...simply make the hole longer or more difficult.

[ck34]

The reason we have par 2s and ball golf does not is specifically related to differences in putting not distance. If people are worried about Par 2s then we need to make putting more difficult (smaller basket or target area) to match the challenge in BG. Then, our version of par could more closely match BG. This would also make sense economically because we would not need as much land to make higher par courses.

I don't see this happening, do you? Thus, we have to use length and more dense foliage sites to raise the par to avoid par 2s, if that goal is even worthwhile.

[dscmn]

or simply realize that putting is not necessarily easier than ball golf, we just have larger greens. yes a 30 ft. ball putt is more difficult than a 30 ft. disc putt. statistically :) speaking however, a 60 ft. disc putt might equal a 30 ft. ball putt. not easier, just larger greens. i would suggest that a disc golf green can be upward of 80-100 feet around the basket. i think disc golf has yet to reach it's natural size, everything is generally cramped on courses--thus the dreaded par 2 syndrome.

[ck34]

or simply realize that putting is not necessarily easier than ball golf



Nope, putting is easier in DG. The stats show the picture. The scoring formula for BG is: 41+(length/220) and for DG is: 30+(length/285). The 41 and 30 constants represent "shots around the green" in each sport which includes putts plus other shots near the green. The only way to emulate the BG balance (if we even want to) is to make putting tougher, most likely with a smaller target or perhaps with Dr. Fred directionals.

[dscmn]

so if a ball golfer hits a 10 foot putt 40% of the time and a disc golfer hits a 40 foot putt 40% of the time there's no correlation that can be reached? if the success rate is exactly the same, what would make it easier? i'm not concerned in the least with making putting more difficult, rather i would like disc golfers to be aware that the 120 foot upshot is really a long putt.

[neonnoodle]

I'm not 100% certain. But I think you guys agree. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[slo]

...I would like disc golfers to be aware that the 120 foot upshot is really a long putt.




...up to what, 228 feet or so, PAGES ago] is NOT a drive, but an upshot/long putt?
That's why some holes one can have 'two close-range attempts to hole out' right from the teeing area.
That's why IMO some holes are par two.

That's why some holes one can have 'two close-range attempts to hole out' right from the teeing area.
That's why IMO some holes are par two.




ding-ding-ding.

We have a winner!

[magilla]

That's why some holes one can have 'two close-range attempts to hole out' right from the teeing area.
That's why IMO some holes are par two.




ding-ding-ding.

We have a winner!



Now that makes sense..and from an ElDo guy too.. :D

[neonnoodle]

So can we agree that WCP is Par for Disc Golf. That or any word play formula that can closely approximate it?

And if you don't like 1000 Rated Scratch Golfers as the standard, then what do you want? And why?

900 so that Par is easier and there are fewer true par 2s?

There is no reason we shouldn't be able to nail this sucka down here and now...

So can we agree that WCP is Par for Disc Golf.



No.

So far nobody has agreed with you on this.

Par is already defined in our rule book. It's fine.

This is an incredible waste of a thread....par is 54 for 18 holes, unless the **** teebox/scorecard says otherwise, now go throw some plastic, and shut the hell up....

:eek:

[dannyreeves]

AMEN!

[spartan]

Come out to Circle R2. Par is clearly defined. :DI doubt you will be complaining about a hole less than 200 being a par three. Unless you just like watching your score get bigger and bigger. :D Thanks John Houck!! :D

yep, Shotgun Houck has some holes that are DEFINATELY not par 3.....few are the easy deuce holes, on either of his properties.....there ARE deucabel holes, but they arent "par 2" by any stretch.....the AVERAGE person, isnt 1000 rated, and never will be.....

[dannyreeves]

I agree. The day before Teams, I shot 58 on Strawbale and that did NOT feel like a 4 over. John Houck is the MAN!!!!!!!

[spartan]

I was thinking of hole 10 on Straw Bale. Less than 200 downhill with the creek right behind it. Punishment comes to mind. No dueces are given out there, they're earned.

[spartan]

.....few are the easy deuce holes, on either of his properties.....there ARE deucabel holes, but they arent "par 2" by any stretch.....



Shhhhh...John might be reading this right now. :D ;)

[neonnoodle]

I shot 58 on Strawbale and that did NOT feel like a 4 over.



Maybe because it wasn't 4 over, but 2 or 3 under. That is what a meaningful and usable "Par" can provide. An actual gauge of how we did, no matter what course. It would also help in showing which courses are moving in the direction of golf, and away from darts. It also would help in explaining disc golf in a fashion that does not beg an eye roll. It also helps in properly applying our rules. It also will help first time players at courses around the world. It will also help in setting up tees for varying skill levels.

If you guys feel this is a waste of time, then what the heck are you wasting your and my time here by posting bone head posts? And judging by your PRs you guys should stop concerning yourselves with this and get out and get a lot of practice in. I'll be on the course in 1.5 hours, will you?

[dannyreeves]

I agree Nick. I was commenting on someone saying the 54 is par and it works.

If I shoot 58 on a "everything is par 3" course, I don't feel too good about that round. The 58 there was pretty decent for me. I don't remember the exact par of that course. 61 or 63???

[spartan]

bone head posts? Smoke a ***** before you play today, neon. I am sure whatever crawled up your butt wants to get high.

hey neon. you aren't planning on moving to Texas anytime soon are ya? :eek: ;) Ya'll come back now, ya hear!!!

[LouMoreno]

Martin, I thought he was talking to me and my rating. :)

Wait a minute. I hadn't posted on this thread yet. Yeah, he was talking to you, Martin. You should be practicing instead of posting. :D

[neonnoodle]

You should feel good about that round, and given the ability to know just how good to really feel in comparison with the course and every other rated disc golfer on the planet.

I played a course 2 weeks ago, it was a temp course but kickin', I calculated the courses rating at 68 today along with the Event Ratings for the players (You can see the results at www.madisc.org. (http://www.madisc.org.)) and though at the course everyone was feeling completely beat to s, it turns out that we were actually shooting pretty well.

Having a valid and verifiable par can help in setting and shooting for realistic goals and expectations. It is a useful thing. If it's not for you, then ignore it, having a well defined and implemented par isn't going to harm you in any way...

[dannyreeves]

who says that you can't change the par to give yourself another goal? When I first started playing, there was no way I was gonna par (3) any hole at Veteran's Park. I started by playing everything as a par 5. After a couple weeks I could shoot -9 for that system, then I would start counting everything as par 4. Then I would add the 18 extra strokes at the end. It was too hard to keep track of a 20 over! Easier to play par 4's, shoot a +2 and add 18.

If 3 was my goal for every hole, I would have wanted to kill myself every time I played. Now, I pick a few holes to call par 2's, just to add some pressure.

Don't know why anyone would care about all that, just thought I would write it. :p

[neonnoodle]

who says that you can't change the par to give yourself another goal?



You're really changing your expectations not the par. With a par based on WCP you could still set your own expectations but in relation to every other disc golfer with a rating on the planet. You would have a "Standard" based on the average score of a Scratch Disc Golfer, rather than some guestimate.

And like I've said almost every post, if you don't care about this, then why keep talking about it...?

just to annoy you.....and besides, we are bored as hell, stuck at work!!!

[slo]

...nothing wrong with playing 'relative' par...but that's what it is, relative to yourself, or the people you play with.
...I get the feeling from a lot of 'rec' players that they want the par to reflect what THEY are capable of! Even though the SSA here is in the 45-46 range, guys snivel when #12 is set at 549', DESPITE lots of chances for deuces, especially on the front, which averages around 280'.

[dannyreeves]

I dont think the front averages 280'. With elevation change, it doesnt play 280'.

KR, he was referring to his course, not The Vet....

[dannyreeves]

oh ok. I was wondering about that 45-46 SSA. That is low for Vets.

At Moffitt in Houston, on the course map, it states recreational par is 4 on each hole, and 3 once you are a skilled player. I think its a low 40's WCP.....

[neonnoodle]

I get the feeling from a lot of 'rec' players that they want the par to reflect what THEY are capable of!



Well, if you have SSA it is simply a matter of deciding what a Rec Player's Average is (I believe the PDGA provides cutoffs and guidelines for divisions), and use that as the Rec Par. If SSA is 1000 and the WCP is 46, then if Rec Ave is 900 then the par could be set at 56 (you might want to check with Chuck Kennedy about compression factors though).

Furthermore, I'd love to see a meaningful Beginner Par be created for every course. Allowing them to have realistic goals to shoot for rather than even Rec or certainly Scratch pars as goals...

This is all based on the need for a verifiable standard though. I believe WCP fits the bill better than anything else available.

Annoy away! :D

[slowmo_1]

I do like the idea of WCP instead of SSA. At Texas states this year they said the SSA on the Wilmont was 49.something. That's a -6 and the course record is -9. I went back through the scored and there was only 1 round under 50 on the wilmont through the course of the tourmant...how was SSA a 49 then? On the guidepost at the beginning of the course it lists par as 59 I think (I don't remember right off hand) which seems a heck of a lot more reasonable.

I've said it before I like the WCP system because it doesn't change from tournament to tournament.

[neonnoodle]

WCP is the average of SSAs over the life of the course I believe. If the course changes significantly it will sho in the SSA right away. If the SSA was affected by weather it will not be used to update the WCP. Is this correct Chuck K?

[ck34]

WCP is essentially the rounded off average of SSA values that the TD/course pro feels reflect the "normal" conditions for a specific course layout. If the TD/course pro tracks individual hole scoring averages, then the SSA values can help determine the rounded off (WCP) pars appropriate for each hole.

[slo]

At my home course, El Dorado, SoCal, the latest figures are 44.53 short, and 49.95 stretched to the max. The directory lists the length as 5590 [but that was way before we started adding mostly longer pin positions], a 310' average, then. It's probably closer to 290' front, and 340' back, in a typical week.
The best I've ever managed is -6, so technically, I've never broken par.

[neonnoodle]

Steve,

From my records you have a PR of 853. That is in handicap terms nearly 15 strokes. That you are not able to approach par should not come as a surprise. Take a look at the players with ratings near or above 1000, those are the folks you would have to shoot like to have a reasonable chance of shooting par on that or any course.

I'm rated 973 and I hit par only rarely myself, maybe about 3 to 5 times last year.

You might be an excellent candidate for the Rec Par, set at or around 900, a challenge you could sink your teeth into and have a reasonable chance of hitting it and incrementally improving your overall game.

The whole reason for a standard definition of par for disc golf is to build a common relation of skill, expectations and goals among players with PDGA Player Ratings. Though there will be countless other benefits as well for both PDGA Members and Non-members alike.

But we first have to decide to get it done and then just do it. It is not as confusing or difficult as some would have you believe here.

Nick

[slo]

I like shooting "under par" on our "par" 54 course, but I'm not kidding myself I'm shooting "under par"!
...but relative to the gang I play with, I do alright. As an 853-rating player, I'd say I have the knowledge/potential of a 925 player...the problem is, I execute like a 750 player!
...I'm sorry, was I answering a question?
...I'm a big fan of the the course/player ratings...did I mention that, lately? :) Thanks, PDGA!!

Yep, as 884 myself, I dont want to see the pars drop.....

My game sucks bad enough, i dont need to be made feel even worse....LOL

There is no reason we shouldn't be able to nail this sucka down here and now...



Sure there are. Plenty.

1. "We" (who, the message board users???) have no authority to nail anything down. We're merely a vocal minority of disc golfers.

2. We can't agree on a standard. WCP/SSA is one standard, but it isn't accepted across the board.

3. Even if we do accept SSA as the standard, we haven't agreed where to draw the line for a par-3 vs. a par-4. Is it 3.5? 3.3? 3.6?

3a. Even those that agree with SSA refuse to accept the notion of par-2s. So even if a hole has an SSA of 2.2, not everyone accepts that it is a par-2.

Here's another issue we haven't even touched on (at least not in a while). Course par vs. hole-by-hole par:

Say we have a course full of holes that have an SSA of 2.7. They're all par-3s right? I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Well, what is 18 * 2.7? It's 48.6. So we have 18 par 3's, but course par is still 49. People will have an issue with that. In my mind, that is a reflection of poor course design. I have no problem with some easy par-3s, but they need to be balanced with some difficult par-3s. If you want a 250' hole, you need to balance it with a 390' hole. They're both par-3s, but one is considerable easier than the other.

[dscmn]

nick, who says it's confusing or difficult, it's an AVERAGE for crying out loud, what's so hard about that? as far as i'm concerned, an average does not reflect par, it has nothing to do with it whatsoever. it never will for me because i understand the definition of par. if you think there is such a thing as a par 2, you don't get the concept of par. how does one go about getting a birdie on a par 2 hole? i've been playing south mountain for years, are you saying i've only had one birdie there in my lifetime? that i've never shot under par there? right. common sense. the averages are nice, and are used all the time, no reason to redefine par. if i look at the scores for a particular course and see that the top guys are shooting an average of 48 on the course, that tells me something about the course, it doesn't tell me anything about par. are you saying, as a 980 rated player that you only shoot par a couple of times a year? please. while i enjoy the discussion, it seems that we still haven't gotten past a workable definition of par. when an ace becomes a birdie, your "average as par" definition falls apart. the averages are nice as information not as par.

[neonnoodle]

So let's look into doing what we can, within this limited medium, to resolve these issues and see if we can get those who could make a recommendation to the powers that could make it official to do so.

Across the board acceptance of a standard is not a starting point, it is a goal. Using our PDGA Ratings as a basis to verifiably set course and hole-by-hole pars is one of the only methods that can be certain of accomplishing a standardized level or accuracy around the world. And more importantly the mechanism to determine them is already in place and completed at an existing amount of effort.

We can work at a system to message hole-by-hole pars to come as close to the WCP as possible. Personally, I’d prefer the actual WCP posted on the signs. A 2.2 WCP for a hole has greater meaning than a 2. As a 4.7 WCP for a hole has greater meaning than a 5.

For Course Pros, and that is who we are talking about here, that cannot accept that they have a Par 2 or WCP 2.2 on their course, fine, they can slap a Par 3 on it. The holes WCP will still be listed at 2.2 and the courses WCP will still be 48.4. The courses users will just be deprived of the ability to know the WCP for the hole and the course. Unable to share in the understanding of their level of skill and the holes par as they relate to all other course and players worldwide who understand PDGA Ratings. (A lot of this has to do with Course Pros clinging to the idea that their course is on par with other courses with statistically proven higher WCPs. Too bad. )

There is no other case within organized disc golf so clearly delineated between knowledge and ignorance as our failure to embrace such a useful tool as PDGA Ratings. If folks cannot unglue themselves from the inferior definitions provide by ball and stick, oh well, it shouldn't hold us Disc Golfers back from utilizing such an awesome tool.

If folks cannot unglue themselves from the inferior definitions provide by ball and stick...



Like the ball and stick definition of "amateur"?

nick, who says it's confusing or difficult, it's an AVERAGE for crying out loud, what's so hard about that? as far as i'm concerned, an average does not reflect par, it has nothing to do with it whatsoever. it never will for me because i understand the definition of par.



par ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pär)
n.

1. An amount or level considered to be average; a standard: performing up to par; did not yet feel up to par.
2. An equality of status, level, or value; equal footing: a local product on a par with the best foreign makes.
3. The established value of a monetary unit expressed in terms of a monetary unit of another country using the same metal standard.
4. The face value of a stock, bond, or other negotiable instrument: sold the bond at par.
5. Sports. The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.


tr.v. Sports parred, par·ring, pars

To score par on (a hole or course) in golf.


adj.

1. Equal to the standard; normal: a solid, par performance.
2. Of or relating to monetary face value.


if you think there is such a thing as a par 2, you don't get the concept of par.



Fine, there are no par-2 holes. Just a whole boat load of poorly designed, too-easy, par-3s. Nothing wrong with a few of those on each course, as long as they are balanced with some very difficult par-3s. But a whole course full of those holes sucks. It's not golf when an average pro can shoot 12 under par with nothing but a putter.

So let's look into doing what we can, within this limited medium, to resolve these issues and see if we can get those who could make a recommendation to the powers that could make it official to do so.

Across the board acceptance of a standard is not a starting point, it is a goal. Using our PDGA Ratings as a basis to verifiably set course and hole-by-hole pars is one of the only methods that can be certain of accomplishing a standardized level or accuracy around the world. And more importantly the mechanism to determine them is already in place and completed at an existing amount of effort.

We can work at a system to message hole-by-hole pars to come as close to the WCP as possible. Personally, I’d prefer the actual WCP posted on the signs. A 2.2 WCP for a hole has greater meaning than a 2. As a 4.7 WCP for a hole has greater meaning than a 5.

For Course Pros, and that is who we are talking about here, that cannot accept that they have a Par 2 or WCP 2.2 on their course, fine, they can slap a Par 3 on it. The holes WCP will still be listed at 2.2 and the courses WCP will still be 48.4. The courses users will just be deprived of the ability to know the WCP for the hole and the course. Unable to share in the understanding of their level of skill and the holes par as they relate to all other course and players worldwide who understand PDGA Ratings. (A lot of this has to do with Course Pros clinging to the idea that their course is on par with other courses with statistically proven higher WCPs. Too bad. )

There is no other case within organized disc golf so clearly delineated between knowledge and ignorance as our failure to embrace such a useful tool as PDGA Ratings. If folks cannot unglue themselves from the inferior definitions provide by ball and stick, oh well, it shouldn't hold us Disc Golfers back from utilizing such an awesome tool.


http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/knick.gif



Happy New Year to all my message board compadres, even the ones that think I'm an ******. Enjoy life, time is precious, you'll wish you hadn't wasted it on the petty crap.

[neonnoodle]

Rodney, that wall looks like it's ready to fall down.

Annie, try ALL MAJOR amateur organizations, not just B&amp;S.

[dscmn]

absolutely correct jim, too many easy par 3s, but we're limited with room in most parks and many courses are old. regardless, they're fine and serve a purpose, if only to contrast with the long, multiple par courses and provide recreational players with a relaxing, amusing afternoon. let's say we have a relatively easy par 2 hole, 22 feet downhill. the 1000 rating golfers ace/birdie it everytime, is it a par 1? how does one birdie a par 1 hole then? my question about WCA is, when do we stop taking scores into the average and know that we've got enough information to have a score? how many rounds? what happens to this number over time? how do we know the numbers are accurate? the top guy, with a 70 stroke lead on the field starts gunning at the easy holes making ace runs, but misses and takes 3s, does that skew the results? i think i can look at a hole and tell you the par without gathering 10-1000 rated golfers together and averaging their scores, it seems like a waste of time for something that's relatively easy to figure out without much effort at all.

[dscmn]

providing players with a number that reflects the average score of a 1000-rated golfer is great fun and quite useful to some in gauging their abilities. however,this is done all the time, "climo shot a 4 on this hole at last year's worlds, i just got a 3 woohoo!" tell me, what in the world does that have to do with the par on a hole? and oh yeah, the ratings are flawless, let's base par partly on those holy grail numbers. please. how about par based on the scores of 10-800 rated golfers then? what do you say? it provides a meaningful number you can use to gauge your own performance just the same as the 1000 rated golfer, plus, they're alot more common and easy to find. ok? i like the average idea and propose we use 800 rated golfers instead. how about it?

[slo]

I have no qualms with the above dictionary definition of "par" connoted to 'average,' but let's remember that's average for an expert player, not an average player.
...as for using 800-rated players to determine par, I think that's part of the beauty of the SSA system...Chuck could answer the what/whys better than I, but it CAN be done, just remember those 800 ratings are NOT 1000 for SOME reason...so the par value for said course will be essentially the same using a pool of 800's vs. a pool of 1000's.
dscmn, you seem pretty set against par 2's, but you answered your own question...the way to 'birdie' a par 2 is to take only one shot!

[rhett]

how does one birdie a par 1 hole then?



What's up with this fascination of "every hole must be birdie-able"? What does a birdie mean?

My misguided understanding of golf holes: a good golf hole should provide the opportunity for separation of scores. Excellent play should allow the opportunity to gain a stroke on the field, while there should also be some danger where a mistake will cost you a stroke to the field.

The 22 foot hole and the 200 foot open hole do not provide the opportunity to gain a stroke on the field. You ace or deuce those two holes, respectively, to hold steady with the field. You have the opportunity to lose strokes, as always, but that isn't really pertinent to this discussion.

So since you can't gain a stroke on the field with these holes unless you ace the 200 foot hole, what is the point of calling anything a "birdie" on these holes? What is a birdie and what does it matter when most of the field shoots that score. Just call everything a par-4 so that you can feel good and birdie them all and really feel good by getting eagles.

[dscmn]

um, ok rhett, you got me...just trying to feel good about my scores. yeah. with par 3,4,5 a standard is set when designing a course...one makes a hole one of the above as best he or she can. open up the idea of par 2 and what standard does a course designer have? my argument is essentially none. i understand the purpose of WCA as being a band-aid treatment on poor course design or out-dated courses. just plunk down those baskets wherever you want, and then we'll determine the par after its played a few times. my suggestion earlier in the thread is to adjust these courses to be more competitive. WCA says leave them the way they are, we'll make the courses look harder by changing the par structure rather than the course...it's lame. it's a bad public relations move to make a course look harder rather than letting it stand as an easy course. i like them all, it doesn't matter to me. someone stated that's its embarrassing to the game when people are shooting 12 under for a round, i suggest it's more embarrassing to alter the definition of par to hide these courses. it probably would make more sense if you've had the experience of designing a course. i'm not sure if you have or haven't, but par starts there, not after the holes are in the ground. also, i design many par 4s, i like to think of them as the standard golf hole rather than the exception. all have the opportunity for an eagle and above...yes even a birdie, which is one less than par...so you know. i'm in the process of designing a course that emulates a ball golf course. i've always enjoyed the subtlety of ball golf par and attempt to bring that to disc golf...for better or worse. most people think better, but you're entitled to your opinion as well. and finally, your example is sorely lacking in substance. you must be an exceptional player having never missed a 22 foot putt or having never failed in getting a birdie (one less than par 3 or 2) on a 200 foot hole. kudos to you.

[neonnoodle]

Kevin,

I hate to break the news to you, but you apparently have no understanding of World Class Par (WCP by the way).

We're not the ones forcing an incorrect par on a hole, sounds like that is what you would like to do. If you take your time and design a par 4 hole but later it is discovered that it's WCP is 3.4, your intention to make a par 4 is admirable, but the hole is not a par 4 hole, it is a WCP 3.4. WCP for that hole can be moved up or down so long as the course as a whole hits on or very close to the course WCP. If you want the course to play like a WCP 4 or higher for Scratch Disc Golfers you will have to make it more challenging. This is a standard that works across the planet and for every single player exactly the same.

Course designers all walking around formulating their own ideas of par, and what a holes par should be, is worthless to the greater disc golf community. It lacks any varifiable criteria.

You want your course to have a WCP of 72 or greater? Then design it with Scratch Disc Golfers in mind. You have a rating of 960 or so. If you play a hole 10 times and you average 4.9, then you know with a mathematical certainty that you have a true WCP 4 hole on your hands. If you believe that you ARE THE STANDARD then you can slap "Par 5" on the tee sign and that sign will be meaningless as a tool of comparison to all other courses and players (unless they know that you are a 960 golfer and you used yourself as a standard for the par on that hole, in which case everyones understanding is still based on WCP and PDGA Player Ratings).

This stuff must be more difficult to figure out than I thought. Chuck! You need to get busy edumacating everyone and creating understandable tools for folks to use in determining these sorts of issues. I fear I am not being clear enough.

Regards,
Nick Kight

[dscmn]

your reliance on numbers is cute. they're so accurate in everything else in life, why not disc golf? right? keep dreaming. you can turn WCA into WCP all you want, it still doesn't change what it is... an average. nothing to do with par. whatsoever. i'm not saying i'm special, just accutely aware of the obvious. if you or anyone else can't reach the hole in one, it's not a par 3 or 2 for that matter, that's just par. if you're asking me to formulate a mathematical formula to prove this, don't hold your breath. i don't need that artificial reassurance. you discount the un-quantifiable. don't do that. or every course will be boring, sucky pieces of [*****].

[dscmn]

"we're not the ones forcing an incorrect par on a hole." no? what's a par two then? especially when you're on the record saying what an embarassment easy courses are to the disc golf world. you'd rather change the definition of par to suit your needs than live with the fact that disc golf courses haven't kept up with the changing times and technology. why not change the courses? no, let's just make it look like the courses are harder than they really are. nice. :confused:

[keldog]

Help the kids
2001 USDGC Innova CE ROC

[ck34]

it still doesn't change what it is... an average. nothing to do with par.



Wrong. The general definition of par in dictionaries uses the words "average" or expected" score or result. Ball golf happens to have discovered long ago that their specific characeristic was the number of shots to the green plus two shots on the green. Their narrowed definition of par WAS specific ONLY to ball golf and it's not correct anymore for them today (many par 5s averaging closer to 4 for expert players). The ball golf definition is not correct for any other activity that uses (or could use) par such as miniature golf, steeple chase, motocross and of course disc golf. Applying the sport-specific part of another sport's definition of par is not only incorrect, it's doing exactly what you don't want to do, redefine the meaning of par for that sport.

Every sport that has or could have a use for par starts with the fundamental definition of par which is average or expected performance for the players who are deemed "experts". We have defined our experts as scratch players with ratings of 1000 which is the equivalent of expert ball golfers who are those with zero handicaps. If a sport can discover more specific ways to define par further FOR THEIR SPORT, then that can be added to enhance their definition. However, the specific part had better produce an equivalent score to whatever average is for expert play or it becomes meaningless. The ball golf specific part of the par definition is now outdated. The disc golf specific part of the our par definition "two shots close to the hole" was slapped on there without any confirmation that it paralleled average scores for expert play. Nor is it useful without any agreement on what "close" means.

The bottom line is that the only thing we have that produces a number equivalent to average or expected performance for experts is the SSA for the course, which can be reduced to a value for each hole. No problem for simplicity's sake to round these numbers off to whole numbers which become WCP values for holes and courses.

[rhett]

you must be an exceptional player having never missed a 22 foot putt or having never failed in getting a birdie (one less than par 3 or 2) on a 200 foot hole. kudos to you.



I have no idea how you could possibly deduce such ridiculous things from my post. I have never said or implied that I am a scratch golfer, or even that I was good. Yet when my sad accurately rated 908 game shoots -5 at Morley in the shorts, I know I hacked that day and would have no chance in a tournament in the intermediate division with that score. So current disc golf par doesn't mean anything when a hacker can routinely shoot under it even when they are hacking.

Like I said, and you absolutely know it's true, you can't gain a stroke on the field on a 22 foot hole nor on a 200 foot open hole. Especially not in MPO. It doesn't matter if I take 4s on them that round or even if Climo takes 3s on them that round, you didn't make up any ground on the field. I don't see how holding to the status quo can be called a birdie. It is, by definition, par.

[dscmn]

in my opinion a meaningful number to list would be the course record. if we're talking about a course that would be considered a typical "pitch and putt" course that number would probably fall between 36 and 54...no surprise here. if it's 40-easy course, if it's 50-not as easy. if i walked up to any hole on this course and stood on the tee and glanced at the tee sign i might see a WCA for this hole of 2.2 or 2.5 or 2.7 or 2 or 3 right? after all the hard work and effort, sadly, the only real possibilities for a golfer are whole numbers. i'm shooting for the two, even if the sign says 2.7 or 3 so frankly who cares? now, i've no problem with par 6, 7, or 9 even, but par two does not allow for what rhett stated so eruditely in his post as a good competitive golf hole--where one can gain a stroke on the field with excellent play. the ball golf concept of par works just fine for disc golf, it has for years. i would love to have the problem of ball golf and have our par 5s (if we had more than a handful) turning into 4s, no real problem when it's within the realm of golf par. talk to me when ball golf's par 3s start becoming 2s and see what they do about that. i'd be willing to bet that they don't change the tee signs and pars, they change the hole. i appreciate the differences between the sports, but in my opinion, our courses haven't even come close to matching player abilities and it seems to me that any attempt for change that doesn't directly affect course design is merely a band-aid on a greater problem. oh, and rhett, my point was that strokes are most definitely won or lost on those easy holes for someone out there, maybe not the field, but some of the players...could even be the leader! my point is "that's why you play the game." a 22 footer can be a knee-knocker with something on the line, any other time it's a gimme. that's all i meant in a weird sarcastic manner.

[dscmn]

how come i've, on numerous occasions, played a round of golf with scratch golfers--0 handicap? there are many, many more scratch golfers than 1000 rated players in disc golf. what's the average pros rating? to use a ball golf comparison, (because it's obvious how much you love those) you're setting par based on the average scores of tiger, phil, etc...no?

[ck34]

Zero handicap golfers are barely good enough to tour. Guys like Tiger and Els would have handicaps closer to -3.5. We've checked the numbers and the number of ball golfers with zero to negative handicaps is a slightly smaller percentage of all golfers than our percentage of 1000 and higher rated players is among disc golfers to the best we can estimate. So, our scratch golfer definitions are pretty equivalent between BG and DG.

So, an "expert player" in BG is closer to the best top amateur player which is the basis for BG par, not Tiger. But their top amateurs are relatively better than ours because many don't cross over to pro.

[dscmn]

so we could base WCA on a lower rating level and reflect ball golf more accurately? mmm? why not? chuck, in ball golf, why aren't par 3s being forced down to 2s? it seems logical that if 5s are becoming 4s and some 4s (at least around here) are heading to par3land, why not 3s to 2s?

how come i've, on numerous occasions, played a round of golf with scratch golfers--0 handicap? there are many, many more scratch golfers than 1000 rated players in disc golf. what's the average pros rating? to use a ball golf comparison, (because it's obvious how much you love those) you're setting par based on the average scores of tiger, phil, etc...no?



Indeed, the scratch golfer in ball golf will be approximately the average of the top half of the field in the US Amateur Championships. That's because this is what the USGA Course Rating is based on, and what it is checked against.

On the other hand, the scratch golfer in disc golf is somewhere around the average of the top 100 disc golfers at the World Championships in 1997. Or something like that.

Doesn't really matter, though. What you understand is that par is a concept, not a number. Its specialized use for ball golf (as Chuck correctly identified) is so pervasive that it would be an enormous mistake to use a different definition for our game.

The concept of par is not statistically significant. That's why we have our own version of Course Rating, which is SSA. It's true that Course Rating in ball golf is static, and that SSA is not, but that's all the more reason that the disc version is superior.

The important thing for you is to just keep pushing "throws+2", as par is currently and correctly defined by our rule book, to everyone you know. Soon enough, it will become obvious that you are correct that 98% (or whatever) of our current courses are really just easy par-3 courses. And most often very easy par-3 courses at that. (We can even call really short holes par 2's, nothing hurt.) The SSA=par fanatics (both of them :D) will eventually fade away.

[neonnoodle]

Our rule book defines par as: Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out.

It is entirely possible for this definition, as it is written to in a general way, to be describing what PDGA World Class Par is.

As Chuck has clearly shown, our 1000 PDGA Rated Player (Scratch Disc Golfer) is very similar to ball golfs Scratch Golfer. The means by which we determine our Scratch Disc Golfers is superior, in its basis of reliable and direct application of data (Actual rounds for PDGA events). Once we have defined and verified that these 1000 PDGA Rated Players are the standard, that their average rounds represent scratch golf, which we have and more effectively than even in Ball Golf, there are an infinite number of uses for that standard. The most natural one is to use them in place of the very vaguely defined “expert disc golfer” in our definition of “Par” within our rule books. They are the standard for expert play. There average represents the standard for determining par on every hole and every course around the world. It is constant, and so long as everyone is aware of their relative position to it, it can serve a multitude of useful purposes within both recreational and competitive disc golf.

Kevin, you have suggested that we set it for a lower rating. Say 950. This does not change in any significant measure any of the benefits that are already available using 1000 as the standard. Everything is EXACTLY the same, we simply set our standard at a lower skill level. The only benefit I can see in this is that it may or may not make folks feel a little better about their games. That’s it, nothing more.

Annie, using a less standardized definition of par “throws+2” is to have no standard at all. Setting Par for courses with WCP below 54 is impossible without using WCP. So you could say “Throws+2”, the Par has to be at least 54, and I could say no, it’s really 58. Who’s right? How can you tell? Of what use is that idea of par to anyone? It’s not. How can it be a standard used to set par at every course around the world and render accurate and consistent results? It can’t.

I encourage you both to take a few minutes to learn a little more about PDGA Ratings. It should clear a great many things up for you.

[dscmn]

i would suggest that the albeit arbitrary numbers of 3, 4, and 5 are a more stable standard than the average of 1000 rated golfers.

also, with regard to ratings, i had to make sure that there were two arms coming out of c. hill's sleeves yesterday. his rating has led me to assume a terrible tragedy. nothing's perfect though right? :)

Announcer- " Welcome to our live coverage of the PDGA World Championships of Disc Golf!! We now join the lead group with Barry Shultz teeing off on the Par 2.333 hole #1"

Viewer- " Par 2.333!!!... WTF!... That's stupid!"

CLICK!


:)

[dscmn]

uh, oh. now you did it. i can hear them now, "unleash the hounds!" to be fair, that would be rounded to a par 2. thus a hole that can't feasibly be birdied. i have a problem with that, i can't help it. :)

[neonnoodle]

Hopefully Course Pros for a World Championships would never have a hole with a WCP of 2.33, they'd know better and give it more risk or make it harder. Any course that averages less than 54 is in hot water as far as being a World Class Course to begin with. WCP let's everyone know how far it is from being one. No more hiding behind the "Everything is par 3!" BS.

The announcer would say that the hole as a WCP of 2.33 (we only use 2 decimals), and it certainly would be more informative than saying "on a par 3 hole", then the first 6 groups by all "birdie" it. Click!

It's not a matter of like and dislike Kevin. It's a matter of useful and verifiable tools for the promotion and standardization of disc golf.

The main reasons for using a lower than 1000 rated average for determining par.

Where is the cash line for open in major tournaments now ?

Where is the cash line for PGA events for your average scratch ball golfer in a major PGA event ?

Why should the DG par be so much more difficult than the BG par ?

I don't know where the number is, but I think about a 950 DGer is at least equal to a scratch ball golfer. Par is what a scratch ball golfer is expected to score.

At 950 or 915, the course averages will remove most of the need for those controversial par 2 holes, and a little re-design could remove the rest.

If the WCA(1000 rated) is 46 or better the par rating should be 5-8 strokes higher (depending on the rating used 915-950) and there would be no need for Par 2 holes.

A top amateur ball golfer should be able to shoot par or below, a top amateur disc golfer would also be shooting par or below. Unless the course is toughened up for the pros, both DG and BG top pros will shoot well below par every round.

Nick you can pick apart what I say to draw attention away from my point, but just for you I will rewrite and maybe you can get the point. :)


Announcer- " Welcome to the PDGA World Championships of Disc Golf! We now join the lead group with Barry Schultz teeing off on the Par 5.23 hole #1"

Viewer- " Par 5.23!!! WTF!! That's stupid!!"

CLICK!


Looky there, two decimals and a world class hole. The point is the same.

[neonnoodle]

Oh I got it Scott. It just doesn't hold any water IMO.

You are arguing that you prefer a useless and meaningless idea of par rather than one that is consistent for every player and on every course. Round the dang thing if you find the difficulty decimals unfamiliar, no problem. Just make sure that the overall par for the course hits as close as possible to the WCP or your par will be as useless as the ones now posted at most courses.

Get it?

C'mon Nick, you seem alittle too touchy today, count down from 10 slowly, you will feel much better... :)

I don't recall endorsing any method of dertimining par. I was just showing what an outsider looking in may think. Get it!

[dscmn]

what kind of information does WCA give you that you can't get from just looking at the scores? if i know how many holes and the scores, i can tell you what the course is like difficulty wise no problem--and using the dreaded par 3 as the standard. also, throw in the course record and we're really getting information about a course. honestly, what will WCA be able to tell us that's any different? i'm not kidding, maybe i just don't get it, i'll just be mildly embarrassed is all, but tell me. also, address the "standard" of a contrived number with many variables not limited to weather, the relative health of a 1000-rated par-giver, what hand he uses, etc. compared to a stagnant whole number like for example...3? why is the former number better than the latter? if climo shoots a 44 ten under, isn't that giving you the same info? throw in the weather report too to help my hopeless argument. all i'm wondering is what's the difference? why go to the trouble? seriously. and also, while one hole may be tough on lefties it might be easier on righties. so who cares where you get the birdies on a course(using the old, useless standard of par 3 again) as long as you get them. and also again again, what's wrong with a hole that's 2.33, isn't that a tough par 2? :D

[dscmn]

nick, did you just admit that par 2s are bad? just wondering... :o

[steveganz]

Viewer- "Every hole in disc golf is a par 3? WTF!! That's stupid!!"

CLICK! ;)

Viewer- "Every hole in disc golf is a par 3? WTF!! That's stupid!!"

CLICK! ;)




I agree :)

[neonnoodle]

what kind of information does WCA give you that you can't get from just looking at the scores?

For answers, please read my last 10 posts on this topic and PLEASE read the material concerning PDGA Ratings.

Basically WCP puts all scores and courses in relation to all other scores and courses that have some knowledge of WCP. Just looking at the scores is somewhat less informative and 100% less useful.

With the knowledge of your own PDGA Player Rating and knowing what the courses PDGA WCP is you can shoot a round and know how well you played in comparison to every other player with a PDGA Player Rating and how you played compared to golfers shooting rounds on the other side of the country or world!

You can't do that just looking at the scores...

And yes, in most cases par 2 holes should be avoided in design and at World Class Events. That is different from putting your head in the sand and not wanting to admit that they don't even exist. They need to be identified for a variety of reasons.

[ck34]

Ok, here are 10 scores: 58, 65, 76, 69, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 60. What can you tell me about the course difficulty? Without knowing some numbers, you cannot. First, are those scores for 18, 21, 24 or 27 holes? If 18, what are the ratings of the players with those scores? Top Open in A-tier, new Juniors or Advanced? Then, if you know the course length and understand SSA, you can determine if the terrain is relatively open or tight.

I agree, you can always ask someone for those answers but knowing the numbers can help. Frankly, it helps designers more than players. Most just want to play. But designers are becoming more interested to set holes at the proper challenge level for each set of tees and these calculations are needed.

and there would be no need for Par 2 holes.




IMO, there is currently no need for par-2 holes. And if WCP helps us identify them, so that they can be redsesigned, I say great.

Viewer- " Par 5.23!!! WTF!! That's stupid!!"

CLICK!


Looky there, two decimals and a world class hole. The point is the same.



I've seen bolf holes described as a par 4.5 by the announcers. The official par was 5, but they were making the point that it was a very easy par-5, or, realisitally, for the top guys, a difficult par-4. And it's very useful information. In fact, it's information that is already used on bolf courses through a different number. The handicap on the score card indicates the difficulty of the hole relative to it's par.

Knowing a hole is a 2.7 is more useful than knowing it's the 2nd easiest par-3 on the course.

[dscmn]

ok sir snotty. however if you reread your last 10 posts and this last one, you still don't and haven't and seemingly won't tell me what this number provides you. if you are saying that you can compare your round in philadelphia against a round on a different course in siberia by a different player with all pertinent numbers attached i say sort of but who cares? there are too many variables to make any kind of meaningful comparison. and useful for what? what are you going to derive from these numbers and USE them for? yes, in a convoluted manner you can predict that igor played better by shooting a 7 under on his 47.654 rated (we LIKE extra decimals) course than your 12 under at sedgley, but so what? he might be lefty on a lefty friendly course, right? knowing the par for the course and the number of holes and the course record can get you to the same conclusion...remember these are rounds you are averaging...most of the rounds of these 1000 rated players will be awfully close to the average you get at the end, no? and since we can only shoot in whole numbers, the fractions are no more meaningful than whole numbers as a par, probably less. and taking par 2s out of the equation, we've now come to 3, 4, and 5 (even 6, 7 etc. if you like, but i believe disc golf should at least attempt 4s and 5s before these are tackled)...TA DA! thank you for making my argument!

now listen closely (head in the sand...my butt. by making them par 2, you make them SEEM more difficult and thus excuse them or legitimize them...is that sand i see in YOUR hair?), if you DECIDE that holes are 3s, 4s, 5s, then holes that WCAVERAGE close to 2 are EASY par 3s for the cam todds of the world. the fact that scratch golfers average 2 simply means these amazing golfers are good and shooting birdies, which i would suggest they do on many holes, not par. a WCAverage yes! bring them on! WCAs can be useful numbers in pushing for meaningful design changes as chuck states, but not as pars imo. EXTREMELY useful as courses become longer and designers make 4s and 5s as well as 3s. i'm dying for these numbers at nockamixon, they would be quite helpful, at the least in comfirming what i know already from the numbers i have.

earlier in the thread rhett asked "why birdie?" "what is the fascination with having to birdie?" or something to that effect. birdie defines par. in fact i would suggest that par is/can be defined as a birdie plus one. so, what's a birdie? a birdie is the flawless play of a hole, throwing a good drive, a good upshot and a good putt--birdie. that's a par 4 hole. it can't be reached in one, requires a technical upshot and the ability to hit a putt--flawless play of the hole...BIRDIE. now whether a person screws up a drive or leaves the upshot short or misses the 40 footer, they didn't play the hole perfectly, but not poorly, par. statistically, the birdies are the scores that are at the low end of the range, we all know that. a three on tinicum's 18--birdie.

please keep in mind that using your method of deriving par, you provide the course designer with no standards or guidelines, however i would assume that most would tend to the traditional 3, 4, 5 mindset, no matter how erroneous :) . but what else does one do when par doesn't exist until after the course in the ground and defiled by a certain number of variable-laden, statistically derived 1000 rated golfers? ok, so let's look at some holes we both know. hole 18 at tinicum is a par 4, no? hole 15c at tinicum is a par 4, no? 15b at tinicum? par 3 or par 4? 2c at tinicum a par 4? the course record at tinicum in the long layout i believe is 51 or 52. these guys are getting threes on many of these c positions, is that par or are they shooting birdies? if it's par, what kind of freak besides no one is going to birdie these holes? or do we just get rid of the concept of birdie in disc golf? pleasure is derived from birdies, people strive for birdies, is that a leather thong you're wearing and a whip in your hand?

par is also a guide. i've done well 1st and 2nd recently at nockamixon by shooting par 49 for 13 holes. when i reach hole 10 it says par 4. it could/might say 3.7 what's the difference? around here we throw in whole numbers, so i can get a 3 or i can get a 4 (i know other numbers are possible as well). what does 3.7 say to you that you don't get from 4 and looking at the hole with your eyes?

[dscmn]

yup. they refer to it as a 4.5 because that's the average score on the hole, or WCA if you like. useful yes, par no. how does 2.7 tell you more information than the second easiest par 3 on the course? does it change the way you play the hole? after you play the course once, does that information retain it's value? how's tucson? any new courses?

[neonnoodle]

WCA if you like. useful yes, par no.



What usefulness is it Kevin?

Guess you slipped up there. It is useful because it more precisely provides an accurate representation of "Par", that's why.

Similar to arguments with the Craiger, you are winding a path separate from mine due to your definition of par. Just compare the two definitions and we might get somewhere with this discussion. You want par to be set by every individual course pro using whatever idea they deem best for that day. "Two gum drops + 3 close range throws", whereas I want par to be based on the statistically verifiable average of our expert disc golfers (a uniform standard worldwide).

How you can continue to argue from such a weak position is incredible. The wheel has already been invented, now we just need to roll.

[dscmn]

slipped up. nope. just saying the same thing i've always said. wca is useful for course designers to determine if a hole is playing as it is supposed to play. also in comparing courses. but it ain't par bubba. two gum drops, what kind of shot is that? par is birdie plus one. simple. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[dscmn]

yeah, you're right. far superior this average of yours. good luck with it. just to clear it up, par is birdie plus one if you need a definition to expose as inferior to your average of scores. hopefully haupoj is right.

[neonnoodle]

So par is not the average score of an expert disc golfer, right?

Because if the possibility to birdie does not exist then it cannot be considered par, right? By that logic the only hole that could not exist is a par 1. A par 2 can still be birdied with an ace, can't it. But this is silly.

Par is the average score of an expert disc golfer. And does a better definition of expert disc golfer exist than "Scratch Disc Golfer" or a player with a 1000 rating? Not that I am aware of.

If you want to set different pars for different skill levels then go for it! Set it at 950 or 900. So long as it is posted everyone that knows there PDGA Player Rating will be able to do the math to figure out what the par is for an expert disc golfer.

Reminder, you are the one that questioned the usefulness of having a useful definition of par, then you turned right around and said, "useful yes". Do you prefer a par that is "useless"?