I disagree.

I know I am not alone. There are many of us out here going through the course design process and need as much information and direction from the people who have experience and knowledge about course layout



Dan,

I think you're basically right. What I said was too broad. There are all kinds of people who read these boards. I'm even hoping to someday help design a course in my town and this stuff is invaluable. It will certainly affect any course that I have input on. Also, if my course rating information ever gets disseminated to others there may also be an eventual effect on course design.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there who do lots. And also lots who just read here for entertainment. That's the main reason I don't do more. Reading here is recreation, doing stuff is more like work.

Chuck, that's an incredible amount of work you did! Good job.

Man, wouldn't it be awesome if these standards were universally applied? Of course there is the daunting problem of retrofitting 1500+ existing courses! But if you could walk onto a new course and know that Gold, Blue, White, and Red tees had a consistent meaning it would make playing new courses even funner.

Next, when standards are determined how do they get consistently implemented?

Next, when standards are determined how do they get consistently implemented?



That data is from one of the courses at the new Highbridge Hills complex in northern WI http://www.highbridgehillssc.com where all four new courses follow these guidelines. One course has Gold & White tees, two have Blue & Red and one 9-hole is just Red. The next two will be a White only, then a Gold & Blue. We're trying to do this at the new National Center in Augusta so we have some high profile locations for designers to learn. Several designers are following these guidelines for new courses and at least some older courses are being updated.

One avenue that can be used to move things forward on older courses will be the new course evaluation process being developed by a committee which Nick and I are on. It will be unveiled sometime this winter.

As your data points out, there is almost no way to have the total of the hole pars equal the target course scoring average without painful tweaking of the hole pars.

What would happen if we raised the round up point to .7 instead of .5 and let the hole pars fall where will.

It would mean that getting a birdie is the result of above average play, and would keep the total a little closer to the scoring average.

...Then, an additional problem occurs when you mix the pins...



This is one of my pet peeves. I know it makes it interesting for the locals to have lots of variety, and they do all the work so they can do whatever they want. But I love to play new courses and them evaluate the layout. I can't really evaluate the layout when it's all mixed up. In most cases this is the only chance I'll ever have to play a certain course, so I'll never know what the "A" of "B" layout is really like. To complicate it I rate every hole with 10 criteria and I like to have that data for a specific layout. I know it's picky, but I just want to vent.

If I was Course Czar of the world I would decree that all baskets must always be in a set layout( A, B, Long, short, whatever). That would also make par and SSA calculations much more consistent.

While I'm raving since we try so hard to be like "Big Brother ball golf" let me ask why we even have alternate basket positions at all. OK, I know one reason is to emulate different flag positions on a green. If the baskets are close together that's an acceptable reason.

The other reason is to make different course layouts. This is the reason that I question. On some holes the baskets are over 100 ft away and it even changes the hole's par. (It also peeves me when par changes solely because of basket location.) I understand how this adds variety and capitalizes on limited space. Maybe it there was consistency so only specific layouts were always in the ground. Cedarock in Burlington is a model in this respect. With 2 tees and 2 basket positions they've created 4 courses, but they never mix the baskets up so you don't know what you're playing. The problem comes in when people confuse reasons 1 & 2. Are there any guidelines for how to differentiate between basket positions that create different "green" effects and those that constitute a new hole layout?

I guess this ties back in to the par issue because it's a pain to compare your score to par when it's tedious just to figure out what par is for each hole.

Hey, maybe when I'm traveling to play a new course I can just call the course pro and ask him to put all the baskets in a standard layout for me. ;)

I have 2 pet peeves. The first is people who spell paid "payed", esp. when they have a collij duhgree.

The second is when baskets that are movable, don't move. Any Seneca homey knows I'm just as whacked with my opinion on moving baskets as you are for not wanting baskets moved. I wanna see baskets move on the order of 2-3 per week. Variety is the spice of life.

If you came to Seneca when everything was in all A, you could make a very consistent evaluation. The problem is, you'd walk away with an evaluation that ISN'T Seneca. Because rarely are there ever more than 4 or 5 baskets in the A-pins. So the Seneca you're evaluating isn't the Seneca that is played very often. The same could be said if everything was in all C-pins, another very rare occurrence. What exactly are you evaluating? A course that's almost never played.

What's more fun, playing a new course or evaluating it? All A-pins would make for a consistent evalutation, but it's a heck of a boring round. A mix of A, B, and C would make for a much better round, and would be much more indicative of what disc golf is like at Seneca.

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't multiple pin placements be for 1. to help stop erosion, 2. provide variety to the hole (not change par).

Multiple tees should be the driving force in multiple par layouts. As Chucks guidelines provide.

While multiple pin placements certainly helps with erosion... what's so wrong with a C-pin that's 100 feet from the A-pin? Okay, it changes par. I guess that's bad because someone trying to make a standard put in writing that it's bad?

Courses are built to be played and have fun on. The terrain should dictate where baskets go, not some standard for consistency. I think it would be a travesty for a course desinger to say, "You know, this would be a really great place for a C-pin, but we better not do it as it might create a discrepancy in the hole's par." I know at Seneca, some of the holes have multiple par numbers for the same tee pad because the B-pin and C-pin is much longer. It's on the tee sign and it's on the score card. And of course, it's completely ignored because as we all know... they're all 3s!

In 16 years of playing, from the 3000 ft course to the 9000 ft course, I continually hear all the locals say the same thing, "Yeah, we play 'em all 3s".

25 years ago I was told that in the "near future" everything would be in meters and kilograms. 25 years from now, I expect to hear, "Yeah, we play 'em all 3s."

Multiple tees should be the driving force in multiple par layouts. As Chucks guidelines provide.



I disagree. Different tees should be designed for different skill levels, but the "par" (tailored to the targeted skill level) should be the same.

i.e. A 1000' hole from the Blue or Gold tee is probably a par-5. The Red tee should be around 600' which would be a par-5 for rec players.

While I agree that basket moving can and does change par (and does not emulate BG pin moving), I think it's a good thing for many reasons.

Given a choice, multiple tees are much more important than multiple pins because players have more than one course layout they can play at any time. However, extra pins are cheaper than extra tees so that�s the reason you�re more likely to see that. Reducing erosion is the �rational� reason for additional pins but I feel it�s primarily a convenient way to persuade Park Directors to fund more pins. The real reason is that designers and players just like the variety, especially when you can usually see more than one cool pin location during the design phase.

There are also other reasons for alternate pins on terrain where one placement is a little too challenging so you also have a more conservative position for daily play and use the other one for events. Maybe it�s near water or a ravine and don�t want beginners having to deal with that for rec play. Course flow is another reason. With multiple tees, someone usually has to walk longer distances from pin to tee. If you can, it�s nice to spread that walking around. So, additional pins can mix it up.

Another emerging reason for alternate pin placements is to allow a course designed for Blue skill level to be set for Gold or White level players for events. Let�s say a par 4 hole has two pin placements where the second shot to the short pin is at the short end of the design range for blue level, and the second shot to the long pin is at the long end of that design range. So both pins are good for Blue level players. For top level events, the analysis shows that the short pin is too short for a good Gold hole, but the long pin is also a legitimate two shot hole for Gold with the second shot being near the shorter end of their design range, but still good. So, with two tees and two or more pin options, a course can theoretically be set in the best way for challenging multiple player skill levels at events.

I�m not a big fan of randomly mixed pin placements. Vista del Camino in Phoenix has up to 5 placements on a hole. It�s hard to track course records, lengths and ratings with all of those options let alone even know which length on the tee sign matches what physical position on mostly open terrain. I advocate coming up with several pin combinations other than �all short� and �all long� and give each configuration a name. On Blueberry Hill, we haven�t done it yet because all alternate pins aren�t installed yet. But we might have thematic configurations named Berry Special, Blue Bomber, EZ as Pie, Jammin� and The Blues, Brother! These would be known combinations with SSAs, pars and course records.

Since there are several courses at Highbridge, next year we plan to rotate the pins on at least two of the four courses every Sunday morning. That way, players who visit over a weekend will get two looks at a course if they wish to play it more than once. The named configurations and rotation schedule will be posted on the internet so players can plan their visits based on how the courses will be set.

I believe you are assuming that the Rec player will always play the shorter tee and the Pro player will always play the longer tee. The way I see it a 1000' tee has a different par than a 600' tee for a given player. What I am saying is that you should (as a guideline) try to design a hole where the multiple pin placements do not effect the hole par. Doing so should make the par for the course as static as possible, even with multiple pin configurations. Which IMO will make for a more useful and meaningful par.

My point is if the pars for each pin are set properly for that tee, it doesn't make any difference whether a longer pin is a different par. It's an information management issue and unfortunately, it isn't always managed that well for tee signs, scorecards, information boards and internet to know what pins are currently being played.

Don't necessarily disagree w/you CK.

To provide an explanation for Hector's experience. As designer at Seneca - we felt it important to maintain the integrity of "course records" for the all A, B, or C pin layouts, by not making them available for play other than during tournament play. That way there's never an argument like - "but the other day I shot -12 Long to A". If it's not in a a tourney - it's not a record - if that's the only times the pins are there - there's no question.

I always though that par should be the same for a given hole, different tees should be used for different skil levels, and different pin placements change the character of the hole, but not the par.

If it is a par 3, it should be par 3 for rec players from the red tees, par 3 for the am players from the whites, par 3 for the advanced/pro(<1000 rated) players from the blues, and a hard 3 for 1000+ players from the Golds.

Moving the pins around should change the types of shots required, but not the number of shots required.

Just my opinion, and I do see the good on both sides, just that the administrative side has a tougher time dealing with pars changing than players have with pars remaining the same.

The players still have 3 sets of tees and multiple pins, just that they should still get the same score. The more open shots would be longer, the tighter lines would be shorter. The hole doesn't stay the same length in all pin positions, just some pin positions are harder to get to than others.

What I am saying is that you should (as a guideline) try to design a hole where the multiple pin placements do not effect the hole par. Doing so should make the par for the course as static as possible, even with multiple pin configurations. Which IMO will make for a more useful and meaningful par.



I couldn't agree more. HOTR is right about Seneca when he says that if you played all pins in the A position, it would be boring and wouldn't show the real Seneca. This is why I think some of the A pins should be moved back closer to the B & C pins. We all like variety in our course layouts, but I think a hole's par should not change, no matter which pin placement is being played. Seneca's signature hole #11 is a par 2 from short tee to A pin and becomes a legit par 5 from long tee to C pin. Should there be this much variance within one hole? Personally, I would sacrifice the spice of dramatically different hole layouts to gain some consistency.

I understand the theory that an easier course layout is good for beginners and may attract new players, but I thoroughly disagree. Ball golf doesn't have any problem building a player base when all newbies are shooting 30+ strokes over par. I think it is the challenge of golf that is addicting, not shooting low scores.

BTW - I applaud anyone that is trying to change the old way of thinking that everything is par 3...

The way ball golf does it is each hole has four primary pin positions on each green that are ranked from easiest(1) to hardest(4). The course is always set so the total pin points equals 45. That way, the overall course rating/par stays the same, even though the rating of each hole might vary as much as 1.0 from one placement to another if a green has a particularly tough position like Augusta #16.

For disc golf to have similar variance on a hole, we need to use distance more than anything else to change the scoring average on a hole. I know of several course designs being developed where playing all of the longest pins on a course would not be fun. At both Augusta and Highbridge, one course will have only 2 or 3 reachable holes when all pins are long. Even Winthrop Gold has 6 or 7 reachable holes on a par 68. The design intent is to never set all pins long, but move several pins in combinations to maintain an equal par in each "standard" layout similar to the BG pin scheme mentioned above.

Patapsco does something like this by always having 6 pins in the A position, 6 in the B and 6 in the C. That keeps the course par approximately the same each month they rotate. Warwick with two tees and two baskets on each hole has defined 8 different par 61 combinations so leagues can play different layouts but keep the scoring similar. One layout might be Blue-Silver on hole 1 then Silver-Silver on hole 2. Another layout might be Blue-Blue on hole 1 and Silver-Blue on 2. But all tee/pin combinations add up to Par 61 for the course.

There will always be some players who want the easy layouts, but for course ratings and tourneys, I think we should be looking at the most difficult Ts and pins i.e. layouts available. The quesion is where are we going? Are we thinking about easier shorter holes or are we thinking about the growth of the game. It seems to me that the short versions aren't where we should be going unless we want to be putt-putt.


One of the things you lose with movable tees and pins are those signature courses and holes. Ball Golf has courses that everyone is dying to play. They don't want to play a putt-putt version at St. Andrews, they want the holes the pros play. We see that some in disc golf. The signature hole at the Wilmont in Houston is #9, a really tough tree strewn 450 foot hole that starts by driving through what is essentially a tunnel. The pin is on a rise that drops off steeply into a shallow gorge on two sides. It takes three really good throws to get a three on what is essentially a par 4 hole. Moving the T or the basket ruins this hole. I wouldn't want to play it any other way.

As we develop more and more of these great holes there will be less and less interest in bushwacking (playing holes from different Ts to different pins) to make them interesting. Everyone will want to play the challenging version of the hole.

There is nothing like posting at the same time as Chuck and then realizing that his post makes yours look stupid after you've put it up.

As a point of reference, all ball golf tees on a hole don't necessarily have the same par. There are par 5s from forward tees that are par 4s from the back tees.

Just to mess with people who feel the short tees are the wimp tees, I have a few courses where the longer tee is the Red Par 4 Rec tee and the shorter tee is the Blue tee with Par 3. When designing Highbridge in the winter, I had a tricky steep uphill hole where I set the preliminary flags for the Red tee about 60-70 feet shorter than the Blue tee. When we actually played them, something wasn't right. That's when we realized the back tee made a better 2-shot hole for Red level and the forward tee was a tough reachable hole for Blue level. So that's how it's set now.

I agree Lyle. If you traveled to Washington, DC and rented a car to drive out to Seneca and found #11 on the A pin, you would be robbed of experiencing one of the best signature holes in the country.

I respect Craig's decision to keep Seneca out of all A, all B, or all C pins except in tournaments to validate course records, but it is a shame for a player such as myself that plays Seneca somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 times a year and never gets a chance to make a run at the record - or at least see how close I can come to what the top pros shoot (my ridiculously busy life prevents me from freeing up entire weekends to play tournaments). As it is now, I can shoot what feels like a really hot round at Seneca, but I have no idea how it compares to what a 1000 rated player shoots on the same layout.

It's an administrative issue at Seneca. Nothing prevents Craig or other volunteer from calculating the SSA values of each tee and pin combination like Lagrassa (or Haas?) did for Warwick. That way, the SSA for any layout is available for players to see how well any round would be rated.

That was kind of my point earlier. It is not the distance, but the shot requirements that determine par for a hole. Changing the pin placement shouldn't dramatically change the par, just the type(s) of shot(s) required to complete the hole.

Trying to remember #9 on the Wilmont. The last one by the creek that ends uphill with a drop off right behind ?

Take the pin to the right about 200', put it close to the ditch, and you still have the same stroke count. Plus, You have a very different second and third shots. There should be a Rec Tee (ahead of the ditch on the left), not a Rec pin location.

I think it would be a much more challenging design effort to design multiple pin placements that are not just longer, but change the character of the hole without changing the difficulty (much).

Chuck, please forward me any documents that will help me do that. I have been trying to do it on my own for some time now ... you should see the different spreadsheets I have come up with I have been able to do it (at least I think so) for any layout from the long tees, but I think I am missing necessary info to calculate from the short tees. I don't think there is a round from the short tees to each layout logged into the database. I will double check the lower tier tourneys again, but they only play short to C at the Soiree and the rest are from the long tees.

I still think a hole's par should not change /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Craig has access to the Hole Forecaster as a member of the DGCD and Nick has the materials for doing hole-by-hole another way.

[Thread drift on]

Hey, it's great to see all of you Seneca guys on here. Seneca is one of my top 5 favorite courses. I'm trying to finish collecting info on the course.

Can one of you please give me the hole lengths forhole 2 from the new teepads? I'd like all 6 please.
Red-A, Red-B, Red-C, Blue-A, Blue-B, Blue-C

And while your at it, can someone give me the hole names for holes 13 and 15. Those names are great. "Daddy's Little Girl" is one of my favorites.

[Thread drift off] We now resume our regularly scheduled program...

What would happen if we raised the round up point to .7 instead of .5 and let the hole pars fall where will.

It would mean that getting a birdie is the result of above average play, and would keep the total a little closer to the scoring average.



I didn't see any response addressing this specific comment from gnduke. Looks like a good idea to me...

Seems like setting the round up point to 0.7 would generate a lot more par 2s not only for Gold but for Blue and White. The table for White currently only has par 2s on wide open 125 ft holes which are rare. If the rounding changed to 2.7, relatively open holes under 225 could become White par 2s. For Blue, current par 2s are only some open holes under 200. Changing it to 2.7 brings many more holes under 300 into the par 2 range.

But does it bring the total of hole pars more in line with course pars ?

why is everyone so fascinated with PAR?
total number of strokes = score !!! :D

why is everyone so fascinated with PAR?


<ul type="square"> Course comparisons
Hole comparisons
hole-by-hole handicapping
Comparing scores of players on different places on the course at the same time[/list]

Seems like setting the round up point to 0.7 would generate a lot more par 2s not only for Gold but for Blue and White. The table for White currently only has par 2s on wide open 125 ft holes which are rare. If the rounding changed to 2.7, relatively open holes under 225 could become White par 2s. For Blue, current par 2s are only some open holes under 200. Changing it to 2.7 brings many more holes under 300 into the par 2 range.



You know, I think that would be okay. Course designers also need feedback to show where a hole might not be a legtimate par 3. If we don't face the true par of a hole, then we're going to have a hard time solving this par setting issue, and we're going to continue to have courses designed that will have weak par 3s.

If par 2s are so abhorrent, then the round up point can be as follows:

less than 3.6 ==> par 3
in the range 3.7 to 4.6 ==> par 4
in the range 4.7 to 5.6 ==> par 5
in the range 5.7 to 6.6 ==> par 6
etc.

I think designers are becoming more savvy with regard to designing new courses such that Par 2s are avoided for the player skill level holes are designed for.



Who said we have to avoid Par 2s? And by your own standard of using �existing courses and the amount of work involved in updating course signs and tee color assignments� as representing an impractical task, what do you consider the avoiding or redesigning of Par 2 holes around the world, Chuck? Chopped liver!?!


However, there are problems in real world application of Nick's proposal. I don't see course pros changing pars on existing tee signs unless the course is getting upgraded. But more importantly, if a set of tees was designed for expert players and are marked Blue, I don't see the course pro changing either the tee colors or listing the pars on a White or even Red standard, just to make the math work out. This is especially a problem when there is already another set of shorter tees marked either White or Red. It might not be such a problem if only a few existing courses had SSAs below 54. However, I believe the average SSA for events in 2003 was around 50, so massive readjustment is required for our exisiting courses.



Chuck, you are not making any sense friend. No matter the solution it will involve updating erroneously designated tee colors, hole by hole and course pars. There simply is NO WAY AROUND IT. Do all courses currently comply with the document about par and tee color designations that you created for the PDGA? Hail no, of course they don�t. Did it stop you from creating the document or getting PDGA Board of Directors approval for it? Those really are non-arguments. If they were �problems in the real world application of Nick�s proposal� then they are equally so for your document or any proposal; they are not specific to my proposal. And perhaps more importantly to this discussion they are not even a substantial challenge to solving this problem any more than abolition stopped the legalization of alcohol.

It is simply a matter of setting a standard and courses, at their own pace, falling into compliance.


Another issue is the loss of meaningful par information on individual holes to make the course par work out to a minimum of 54. From what I understand in Nick's proposal, a layout with multiple pins, where the SSA ranges from 46 to 52, would be called a White Par layout when the pins were set shorter with SSAs under 49, and be called a Blue Par layout when the pins combination exceeds SSA 49. What color are the tees (light blue)? The designer intended the course for Blue level players based on hole lengths, distances to doglegs and carries over water. I'll show an actual example from a new design for Blue level players a little later.



Yes, this is an issue, but it is not a �Game Over� issue, it is a �How Do We Deal With It� issue.

Specifically, if different pin positions exist for certain individual holes designated one color and one pin position averages an entire stroke different (which I would imagine would be pretty rare, but possible) then how do we deal with it so as to avoid losing hole by hole or course pars or color tee sets accuracy?

The contingency would have to include for such situations. The one that comes immediately to mind is that the tees color designation would change as would the hole by hole and course par when the pin is in that position.

Keep in mind though that the tee pad color designations should be in full sets and that individual hole pars may well fall below minimum standards to keep them from hitting the �dreaded� Par 2. If it is mathematically impossible to avoid a Par 2 on a hole because it would make the total course par less than the minimum for that tee color designation then that course must be marked (if it wants to be in compliance with standards) in the next lowest designation, which should provide plenty of room to provide accurate hole by hole and course pars.

For example, the one you bring up where the SSA ranges between 46 and 52:
The layout that has an SSA of 46 would be designated White Tees, where the minimum SSA (based on 1000) is 44 and PRSS (based on 900) is 54. That gives you 8 strokes with which to hit accurate hole by hole and course pars based on 900 golf.

When the pins are set up so that the SSA is 52, the course would be designated as Blue Tees, where the minimum SSA (based on 1000) is 49 and PRSS (based on 950) is 54. That gives you 2 strokes with which to hit accurate hole by hole and course pars based on 900 golf.

Now, if the 8 or 2 strokes were not enough to provide for no par 2s on any hole and remain within one whole stroke of the correct course par, then the course would need to drop down a color designation to allow enough strokes to get them both correct.

So what does all this mean for existing courses? Do the course pros need to go out and redesign every hole to hit any of these benchmarks?

A) No more than they need to to hit the standards you have provided in your proposal Chuck.
B) The system is set up in such a way that all existing courses can fit within it. It may not be the color designation the course pro was hoping for, but when a player shows up at a course and sees the longest tees are designated White, it will have meaning for them in that they know that the hole by hole pars and course par are based on 900 golf.
C) Now if the course pro does want to have their course hit the standard for Gold Tees then they know that they have a ways to go (actually they know �exactly� how far their course has to go).

I do not pretend that this proposal can possibly provide answers to all contingencies; I can judge that it is solid enough to be modified superficially to answer them though on an as needed basis.

The alternative is just to tell the folks that �can not� or �will not� accept the reality of p2s in disc golf that they are plum out of luck and institute Rounded to Whole Number Course SSAs as the basis for hole by hole and course pars as well as Tee Designations.

One standard based on disc golf�s Scratch Score Average. I greatly prefer this option, but have come face to face with the thickness of anti Par 2 resolve and so I proposed this so that the standard could remain SSA but with adjustments for major skill level breaks to avoid P2s.

I am waiting for an argument that makes my proposal an �impossibility�, but in the mean time I�ll accept contingency objections like yours Chuck. If you find a dead end I will join you immediately in saying it is not possible, we have not reached that crossroads yet.





<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color 18 Holes</td><td>PR Scratch Standard (PRSS)</td><td>Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf</td><td>Par Based on PRSS</td><td>Strokes Below 1000 Based SSA Allowed</td><td>Standards in Review - Courses below these standards fall to the next Tee Color Designation.
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>Gold Layout is based on 1000 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 54 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Gold Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>950</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>Blue Layout is based on 950 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 49 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Blue Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>900</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>10</td><td>White Layout is based on 900 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 44 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA White Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>850</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>Red Layout is based on 850 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 39 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Red Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>800</td><td><34</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>Green Layout is based on 800 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds <34 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Green Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Nick and Gary,

When you get the time would you please reply to my post #238218 - 09/17/04 07:00 AM ? I'd appreciate it.

Nick, as many times as you re-post that chart I still don't understand how it works on a course that's already in place. Maybe you could use Calvert in the Red-A position as an example. Or, of more interest to me, Burke Lake Red layout.

P.S.- Here's the Burke Lake score card http://www.geocities.com/burkelakevirginia/scoreblcard.htm

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole </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>Front </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><td>Back </td><td>Total </td><td>PRSS Adjustment
</td></tr><tr><td>Red Par </td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>30</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>30</td><td>60</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Red Distance</td><td>144</td><td>155</td><td>192</td><td>149</td><td>144</td><td>160</td><td>225</td><td>209</td><td>259</td><td>1637</td><td>198</td><td>260</td><td>200</td><td>185</td><td>272</td><td>265</td><td>182</td><td>192</td><td>272</td><td>2026</td><td>3663</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA 1000 Golf</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>21</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>21</td><td>42</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>PRSS 850 Golf Red</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>28</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>29</td><td>57</td><td>15
</td></tr><tr><td>White Distance </td><td>162</td><td>175</td><td>224</td><td>197</td><td>144</td><td>218</td><td>225</td><td>236</td><td>300</td><td>1881</td><td>275</td><td>320</td><td>230</td><td>213</td><td>279</td><td>275</td><td>230</td><td>225</td><td>302</td><td>2349</td><td>4230</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA 1000 Golf</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>48</td><td>White
</td></tr><tr><td>PRSS 900 Golf White</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>29</td><td>58</td><td>10 </tr></td></table>

Now Lowe, this is fairly hypothetical because I do not have the SSAs or the holes or the course, but in looking at the results at the web site I guesstimated that what the SSAs were for each course Red (42) and White (48). Also the hole by hole SSAs and Pars are both shown in nice round numbers which is unlikely for the SSAs, but the course pro would have to round them at some point, and the key in my proposal is that the total course par be within one whole stroke of the courses actual SSA. Hope you are with me so far.

Because the SSA is 42 on what is currently called Red Tees and the Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf for Red is 39, it is according to my proposal correctly designated (as are the White Tees).

This is were the math needs a little work. 15 strokes are allowed to bring all scores up to a minimum par 3 from an SSA of 39. Since the SSA is 42 that brings it to 57 as the Red Tees Par, because 42 is 3 greater than 39, giving you 3 strokes above 54 to designate holes as par 4s.

Similarly for the White Tees the minimum SSA is 44, 10 strokes are allowed, and the course SSA is 48, so that is 54 plus 4 additional strokes making a White Tees course par of 58. Allowing 4 holes to have a par above 3.

The challenge is that Ratings Compression would likely change these numbers slightly, but that is doable. The key is that any player who knows their own rating, whether PDGA, DGU or Locally Generated, and understands the skill breaks that these Tee Color Designations are based on, can have a pretty clear idea of how they are shooting in relation to Scratch Golf (1000 Golf). AND THERE ARE NO PAR 2S! :)

In this example, if I am a 1000 golfer I know that on the White Tees at this course, with a White Par of 58, that I need to shoot a 48 to be playing 1000 golf. Or on the Red Tees with a Red Par of 57 that I need to shoot a 42 to shoot 1000 golf.

Questions and comments very welcomed.

A player shooting 53 on a course with an SSA of 42.3 has a round rating of 850 which is the Red standard. So, there's either a par 2 in there (there are none for Red unless a hole is open and under 100 feet) or you drop to the Green course rating which would be about 56.5 for an 800 rating on an SSA 42.3 course. Of course, we have no guidelines for Green design and wouldn't expect to.

A player shooting 57 on an SSA 48 course has a round rating at White level of 900. The other thing to consider is this only has tenuous connection to the actual design intent of the holes. The guidelines might as well be thrown out because this system tells you who each hole was designed for strictly based on the calculation for the whole course, not the realities of the hole.

At the center of this is whether there's such a thing as an acceptably designed course with a Par less than 54 for a specific player skill level. I'm not necessarily against having this minimum guideline for future courses, if you have the property. But there are existing courses with suitable challenges, even for tournament play among Blue level players, where the Blue par would be under 54. And, there could be some holes too challenging or impossible (water carries) to play for players at the White or Red skill levels.

The guidelines might as well be thrown out because this system tells you who each hole was designed for strictly based on the calculation for the whole course, not the realities of the hole.



Yes, that is correct. Par strangely has everything to do with scores and scratch golf and little to do with design. It is far more important to have the entire courses par be correct than have individual holes. The point is to have their scores inform them about par.

The best plan is to seperate your design guidelines from disc golf par standard.

OR to work the design guidlines into courses whenever the opportunity presents itself, but to get something that is workable for the hundreds of courses that have only one set of pins and baskets and an SSA well below 54.

The guidelines are great for re-working or designing a course, but the pressing need is to get some universal type of scale that allows the existing courses to be rated so a new player can judge his performance by his scores on those courses.

The way to handle older courses is there. It just means a lot of par 2s. You don't need to warp the design/par interaction to do it. Newer courses can just avoid par 2s by following the newer guidelines.

Let me re-phrase then. We need a method that can include all of the older existing courses that avoids the dreaded Par-2. These are courses that largely aren't used for tournaments, and signage should be aimed largely at casual and new players.

The way to handle older courses is there. It just means a lot of par 2s. You don't need to warp the design/par interaction to do it. Newer courses can just avoid par 2s by following the newer guidelines.



The truth of the matter is that P2s do exist on these courses for 1000 Rated Players, but this proposal provides room based on significant skill range breaks to never need to put a Par 2 on any holes tee signs.

I do understand, Chuck, that you would prefer this to fit nicely into your design proposal for Tee Color Assignments, but unless we can get folks to accept P2s that just isn't going to happen. Furthermore, there will always need to be a system similar to this, due to the reality that not "every hole" within a Tee Color Assignment set will also fit within the appropriate skill level range (there will be holes that do not meet the GOLD design standard on a GOLD course, and really that is not a tragedy).

And so we are left to create a par that:
A) Presents a meaningful relationship between SSA and player performance.
B) Presents a meaningful relationship between different courses SSAs.
C) Avoids Par 2s.
D) Allows complete sets of tee color assignments.(18 holes all Blue or Gold, etc.)
E) Allows all existing and future courses to create meaningful course and more meaningful than current hole by hole pars.

This is what my proposal accomplishes.

The alternative is to have a wholly hole by hole based par that has no relation with the course SSA or Par, and designates each tee based on design concepts that would not easily allow a complete set of any color assignment, which would:
A) Eliminate the possibility of presenting a meaningful relationship between SSA and player performance.
B) Eliminate the possibility of presenting a meaningful relationship between different courses SSAs.
C) Require Par 2s.
D) Not allow complete sets of tee color assignments.
E) Prohibit most existing courses and many future courses from creating meaningful course pars.

Sometimes design considerations must take a back seat to providing a Universal Standard Par. This is such an occasion.

Perhaps in the future a course built from scratch that is in full possession of these proposed par standards AND design standards having to do with appropriate challenge for major skill breaks could be created where hole by hole and course pars hit the SSA AND every hole within the specified tee color assignment also present an appropriate challenge for that skill level, however, I am not holding my breath for that day.

If it happens, GREAT! But we can�t stand around waiting for that before we create a workable, value added, meaningful universal standard for par. It is doable now, and we should do it. If we can improve it later then by all means let�s do so, but that shouldn�t stop us from doing what we can right now.

Nick,

Thanks for the lengthy reply to some of my questions.

I'm still wrestling with how this works out in real life.

Now I have a question about SSA. You said �the key in my proposal is that the total course par be within one whole stroke of the courses actual SSA.� That makes it sound like there only one actual SSA for each layout of a course. But that is just not the case.

As an aside, the first problem is that many courses don't even have an official SSA established.

But another problem is that courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs. How does the average person come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout?

Then when you add different layouts it really complicates things. Figuring out how to compare your round to the SSA at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could an average person ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particlula SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would have to have to know the SSA for every hole in every layout and then very tediously compare your particular round hole by hole. At Calvert there are almost 9 complete layouts! In the case of Seneca Craig said that the standard layouts (e.g. Red-A) are only played in tournaments, and every other layout has a mixture of basket positions. So no casual round you ever play at Seneca will ever match the SSA that it recorded. You could only compare your score to SSA if you played a tournament round. The vast majority of us don�t play PDGA tournaments. The only conceivable way to compare a casual round to a tournament SSA would be to get access to the hole SSA data for every layout. (And how do you get that?) Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.

Nick, you and Chuck may have access to all kind of fancy tools that allow you to compute the SSA for every hole, and in various layouts, but the average golfer doesn't have any of that. How is a person like me supposed to come up with an SSA for a course they play? I'm not trying to pick an argument or criticize your work; I'm genuinely trying to figure this out for the new courses I play.

Or to go back to the course I'm currently working on evaluating: Burke Lake in Fairfax Station VA. Here are the SSA values from the PDGA: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=306
All of the SSAs for 27 holes are thrown out because there is no way to get an accurate 18 hole SSA. Then they have one SSA of 51.23 but that must've been a special long layout because there's no way that 1000 rated players could shoot so high. So I throw out that one too. That leaves one value of 48.5 for the whites, but there's no red tee SSA. I played the red tees, so I'm left with nothing.

Nick and Chuck, if you guys can shed some light on this I'd be grateful.

You can take a known SSA for a course and determine the challenge factor (CF) for the course to calculate very accurate SSAs for all other layouts. However, you must know an accurate length of the course that matches that SSA. Let's say a course of 6200 feet has an SSA of 52. Since SSA = 30 + (course length / CF) then CF = (course length) / (52 - 30). In this case, CF = 282 for this course. The CF is mostly based on the amount of foliage on the course. The average CF for all courses runs about 285 so this course is roughly average in foliage.

Now, all you need to do to find the SSA for other pin placement combinations on this course is: SSA = (course length / 282). The assumption is that the CF is constant for all layouts meaning the foliage density is relatively the same all over disc golf site.

This formula is set for 18-hole courses and needs to be adjusted for other hole counts.

Can someone else help me figure out how to use player ratings. (I don't even have a PR because I don't play tournaments. Would a Disc Golf United handicap do the same thing?)
Anyway, Adobe reader isn't working on my computer right now, so I can't read all the ratings documents and figure it out.

My question is: Hhow does a person with a rating other than 1000 compare their score to SSA?

Lets use and example of a 913 rated player. Doesn't his 913 rating mean that on average he shoots 9 throws over SSA? If he shoots a 54 on a course with an SSA of 50 how does he evaluate his round?

Is the following correct?
A 913 player usually shoots 9 throws over SSA.
His 54 was only 4 throws over SSA,
so his round was 5 throws better than his usual game.

Am I understanding this correctly or have I missed something?

My goal is to figure out how to evaluate the new courses that I play. I think that if I can figure out my player rating, then compare it to known SSAs that's about the best I can hope for at the present time.

Would a Disc Golf United handicap do the same thing?)



Yes. It's based on the same SSA reference but primarily uses your personal rounds instead of PDGA rounds.

Rodney posted the chart somewhere on here that shows what rating your round is rated at for each SSA. The downloadable graph is a PDF file which is also available when you get Adobe working.

Nick I completely disagree with you. I have made a counter-proposal that is simpler, and more flexible than your proposal with the same or similar benefits.

Post hole-by-hole and position-by-position SSA (and Red/white/blue Par whatever those names are) with one or two decimal places (not whole-number par). While the initial data collection (and tweaking over time) will be more work, the results are better in that course par can easily be calculated by summing the individual hole pars. It also allows complete flexibility in courses with multiple tee pads and/or pin positions.

This allows courses with multiple tees to go ahead and call label them Red/White & Blue even if by your system they'd be Red/Red/White.

The course can be set/played in any configuration and Par is meaningful, and easily determined.

Course par can still be less than 54, but we don't have to call any hole a par-2. 18 holes of SSA 2.7 == 48.6. But they're all par 3s since 2.7 rounds up to 3.

Tee color assignments are still meaningful relative to other colors on the same course. But they don't have to be the same between courses, that's what the total par is for.

Course par can still be less than 54, but we don't have to call any hole a par-2. 18 holes of SSA 2.7 == 48.6. But they're all par 3s since 2.7 rounds up to 3.



This is where your proposal falls to pieces Jim. Every course with a Par of less than 54 for 18 holes is meaningless (unless it actually has an SSA above 53.

I too made the proposal that hole by hole SSAs be placed on tee signs, but it just is not a popular idea and there would be way too many 2.1 through 2.6 holes. By allowing par to be set by larger skill based ranges, we provide the room to create meaningful hole by hole and course pars that still hold true to WCP (World Class Par - which I define as averaged calculated SSAs).

I agree that tee signs should provide pars for each pin placement if needed (if different), and I have no objection to listing WCPs, but I have concluded that nice round numbers will be more useful and better received.

Lowe, I am looking over your concerns and will get back to you. Your interest and consideration is much appreciated.

This is where your proposal falls to pieces Jim. Every course with a Par of less than 54 for 18 holes is meaningless (unless it actually has an SSA above 53.




Why does it fall to pieces?

It gives us a basis of comparison that just about all current PDGA members already understand.

Why is SSA less than 54 meaningless?

About 90% of our current courses have a WCP less than 54. It's a number everyone is familiar with, and is the defacto current basis of comparison. Check the tournament results section.

This is where your proposal falls to pieces Jim. Every course with a Par of less than 54 for 18 holes is meaningless (unless it actually has an SSA above 53.




Why does it fall to pieces?

It gives us a basis of comparison that just about all current PDGA members already understand.

Why is SSA less than 54 meaningless?

About 90% of our current courses have a WCP less than 54. It's a number everyone is familiar with, and is the defacto current basis of comparison. Check the tournament results section.



SSA is not meaningless. But if you want to provide a "Par" and that is what we are talking about here, and you don't want to have P2s, then every course with an SSA below 54 will have all holes marked Par 3 which provides no information to the golfer, making them useless.

I would be open to seeing SSAs on tee signs, but what I'd really like to see, and the purpose of this entire discussion is to see the PDGA set a standard for Par, we already have one for SSA; but not for Par.

Towards that end (Creating a Standard for Par) I am willing to:
A) Forgo hole by hole accuracy to WCP in favor of course accuracy to WCP. In fact I do not think that it is even possible to include them.
B) Forgo design considerations in favor of scoring considerations to remain in line with WCP. In fact I do not think that it is even possible to include them.
C) Forgo "Appropriate Skill Level Design" designations for tee color considerations in favor of remaining in line with WCP. In fact I do not think that it is even possible to include them.

Because the benefits of having a universal standard of par within disc golf that adheres to the PDGA Ratings System's definition of "Scratch Golf" is more than enough.

Now, I would prefer SSA to no standard, but I don't think it is as marketable a concept as round numbers defined as Par. Remember we are not just doing this for current members but to make our sport more accessible to everyone.

Because par in the common vocabulary is a round number greater than or equal to 3 (unless it's putt putt).

Disc golfers will learn and deal with whatever we decide. Everything is a three survives when everyone knows it's not real. We need to have a system that lets the new players know how they are doing and be understandable to the general public as well.

If you are scoring close to par on a red course you know about where you stand, even if some of the holes on the course are white or blue level holes.

Gary,

I suspect that this is a war of attrition. Chuck already has his tee assignment plan approved by the PDGA. Perhaps if we provide our idea of par for 3 or 4 of the courses in our areas we can show more clearly the advantages of our proposal and how it is possible to have Relational Course Pars based on adjusted skill level SSAs at any course we can generate interest and understanding. What do you think?

Nick

SSA is not meaningless. But if you want to provide a "Par" and that is what we are talking about here, and you don't want to have P2s, then every course with an SSA below 54 will have all holes marked Par 3 which provides no information to the golfer, making them useless.



Not true. As I said provide a non-integer number for each hole's SSA. 2.7, 2.9, 2.6, etc. That tells the the player that yeah, they're all par-3s, but some are easier than others. And if the total is less than 54, that's fine. In fact, it's exactly what we have now.

I will agree that it doesn't exactly match the standards set by Ball Golf, but it seems like a rational compromise. Actually, my understanding is that it is similar to Golf's "Course Rating" being different than "Par". Par is typically 71 or 72, but the rating might be 68-69 which (I think, but this is where I'm a little fuzzy on that) is the equivalent to our SSA.


...what I'd really like to see, and the purpose of this entire discussion is to see the PDGA set a standard for Par, we already have one for SSA; but not for Par.



What's wrong with SSA as the standard for (pro) Par?



Towards that end (Creating a Standard for Par) I am willing to:
A) Forgo hole by hole accuracy to WCP in favor of course accuracy to WCP. In fact I do not think that it is even possible to include them.




I completely disagree. In courses with different configurations, it's impossible to have course accuracy without hole-by-hole accuracy, unless you're only shooting for course accuracy in certain standardized configurations. On a course with as few as 3 pin positions per hole, there are 18*18*18 possible configurations. Obviously you're not going to calculte SSA for every possible configuration. However, with some work you can do it for every possible pin position, as that's only 18*3. Then the course SSA can be calculated simply by summing the individual hole SSAs.

There may be five or six possible ways mentioned here for establishing par, but I don't understand how they will be workable if they rely solely on statistics.

Statistics on a course come after the fact, after a course has been played for a while. Don't we want pars set for a course from day one, before statistics have been generated?

Is the argument that course designers will actually go through the trouble to change the par of a hole if statistics show that a hole actually throws differently than marked?

And as disc technology changes, will someone be continually evaluating/updating the pars for all the holes of every course?

Look, all this talk is interesting, but I think we've got the cart before the horse here. Par is an indicator, not a measurement (while SSA is essentially a measurement, not an indicator). Can we have a discussion about what par should be from that perspective?

Perhaps surprisingly Paul, designers now have tools to accurately forecast the scoring average on a hole for pools of different player rating levels. That's why individual hole design for a specific player skill level is becoming more important It's not exact but good enough for setting par.

Jim.

We are actually on the same page here. Hole by Hole and Course Scratch Score Averages are the foundation upon which my system is based. The system essentially provides a shell to the underlying SSA that prevents P2 and standardizes par for all possible courses, old and new.

Everything you detail works completely within my system, the only difference is that in order to avoid P2s yet still provide meaningful whole numbers for par I have created skill level brakes upon which hole pars can be set.

If I included exact hole by hole SSAs and course SSAs on the scorecards and tee signs along with the Pars based on them and the system to create tee color par standards, would you consider merging the systems?

In both cases, the course SSA will be within one whole stroke of the other.

Nick,

Am I correct that the core reason driving all of the mathematical calculations in your system is the perceived necessity of avoiding par 2 holes? You seem to keep coming back to this.

If that is the case, then if we allowed par 2 holes could we just use SSA of WCP to determine par?

Thanks for your input.

Lowe

P.S.- I still hope to hear your thoughts about my other questions about SSA :D

If you manage to avoid par 2 holes (based on SSA), then you are in the Gold course range, and use the 1000 PR based SSA to determine par. It is only those courses that fall below a 54 SSA that have to worry about using an offset from SSA to determine par.

If Nick's system gets implemented, it's still going to be ugly at the hole level. Lowe seems to be happy because the White Par on the course is 58 which he can shoot with a good round. He pulls out his conversion table (which players will need) that says the SSA on a par 58 White course is about 49 so he knows what Beav would consider a good round.

Of course, on holes 2 and 14, the scoring averages even for white players are mathematically about 3.6. But to make the total par work out, they had to be set as par 3s. That hole 2 requires a minimum 265' tee shot over water deep enough to lose your disc because the hole was actually designed for Gold level players, but now has a white par of 3 deemed suitable for 900 rated players. Lowe and others ask, "How is that hole a par 3?" Well, the PDGA wanted to make sure the par on each course was over 54 and could be directly converted to an SSA value. And Lowe and those players perhaps say, "That's no par 3. Most of us can barely cross the water. And forget it when the wind kicks up."

We are actually on the same page here.



Well, we're in the same book, but I'm not sure if we're on the same page. There are some similarities, but there are differences too.

My primary goal is to correctly identify what we currently have. A secondary goal would be design "ideals" for future course design. For instantce, your standards for color designations fall apart for these scenarios.

Scenario 1:
My course has 4 sets of tees, and the pins are not moveable.

The obvious & simple thing to do is color code the tees to Red, White, Blue & Gold. However, the SSAs from my 4 sets of tees are 44, 47, 49 & 53.

According to your chart, I'd have to code these tees as White(1), White(2), Blue(1), Blue(2).

Personally, I would prefer to let the course designer go ahead and label these tees Red, White, Blue, & Gold, and designate pars (per your chart) such that the Red tees are par-59, White are 57, Red are 54, and Gold are 53. This is a realistic description of what we have. And if someone wants to get their panties in a bunch over par-2,

Scenario 2:
A course with moveable pins:
From the Gold Tees, with the pins in an average configuration SSA is 54. All long SSA is 60. Everyone is happy. What if the designer decides to put the baskets all short for some reason. Is he not allowed to have Gold tees with the course in this config? In my system, he'd just tell it like it is. Gold Par is what it is. The sum of the hole-by-hole SSAs, and if that's less than 54, so be it.


would you consider merging the systems?



Yes, If you relax your stringent requirements for Par falling below 54. Make it a goal.


[/QUOTE]

Perhaps surprisingly Paul, designers now have tools to accurately forecast the scoring average on a hole for pools of different player rating levels.



Well, don't keep me in suspense. What are they?


That's why individual hole design for a specific player skill level is becoming more important It's not exact but good enough for setting par.



Because the tools are available (whatever they are), it's now important to design holes for a specific player skill level? Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all. Maybe what you're saying is that the goal has always been to design a course for various skill levels, but tools are now making it possible to achieve that goal.

What are those tools again?

I'm still stuck on the idea that everybody is talking about SSA with regard to par, when SSA is a measurement, and par is about a design intent. Why can't this be the process for setting par?

1) A designer calls a hole par 3 (or par 4 or whatever), because that's his or her intent for that hole.

2) A designer sends his course design to the PDGA, and the PDGA agrees (or doesn't agree) that the par designations fit within established par guidelines. From that point on, the par for the hole is set.

3) Later, SSA statistics are generated which give people a sense of how the hole plays (an easy par 3 or a tough par 4, etc).

Why is it more difficult than this?

... Lowe seems to be happy because the White Par on the course is 58 which he can shoot with a good round. ...



Hey! Why pick on me? ...even if I do have a weenie arm.
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

We first developed the formulas for the ratings system with player ratings, SSA, etc. We gathered data from thousands of rounds on hundreds of courses. This data was distilled to determine what holes of what lengths with what foliage with what elevation change played by certain skill level of players would generate what average hole scores.

Then, I developed a spreadsheet model that works backwards to forecast what score players of a specific skill level will shoot on a hole with various characteristics like length, elevation, foliage and hazards. If it was done right, the hole scores forecast in the model will actually be thrown on those holes when players throw it. The model is looking pretty good and members of the DGCD designers group are testing/using it. It still needs more testing. But in the first demonstration at the Memorial in 2003, I forecast the total SSA for the course within 0.2 throws, which was encouraging.

Many designers lean more toward aesthetic aspects than numerical aspects to design courses. However, most agree that having a hole spread scores, among players of the skill level the hole is designed for, is a good thing. In other words, if over 80% at the same skill level player gets the same score on a hole, it probably needs to be redesigned to spread the scores better. This model helps guide the designer to make adjustments, typically length, before installation.

So, course design is getting some numerical help to go with the innate creative process to design a course. If a designer wants the hole to have a 3.7 scoring average, which should be a par 4, the model can provide the combination of design elements that should get there.

If you manage to avoid par 2 holes (based on SSA), then you are in the Gold course range, and use the 1000 PR based SSA to determine par. It is only those courses that fall below a 54 SSA that have to worry about using an offset from SSA to determine par.



Lowe,

Gary is correct and yes, this is mainly to avoid having to put a P2 on a tee sign or scorecard.

Clarification: Though I keep saying "my proposal" the proposal was not created solely by me, many other folks input and ideas went into it. Probably at least 50% of it came from discussions with Gary.

I haven't forgotten your questions Lowe, I just need to give it more thought and time than most. I'll try to get to it today.

We first developed the formulas for the ratings system with player ratings, SSA, etc. We gathered data from thousands of rounds on hundreds of courses. This data was distilled to determine what holes of what lengths with what foliage with what elevation change played by certain skill level of players would generate what average hole scores.

Then, I developed a spreadsheet model that works backwards to forecast what score players of a specific skill level will shoot on a hole with various characteristics like length, elevation, foliage and hazards. If it was done right, the hole scores forecast in the model will actually be thrown on those holes when players throw it. The model is looking pretty good and members of the DGCD designers group are testing/using it. It still needs more testing. But in the first demonstration at the Memorial in 2003, I forecast the total SSA for the course within 0.2 throws, which was encouraging.

Many designers lean more toward aesthetic aspects than numerical aspects to design courses. However, most agree that having a hole spread scores, among players of the skill level the hole is designed for, is a good thing. In other words, if over 80% at the same skill level player gets the same score on a hole, it probably needs to be redesigned to spread the scores better. This model helps guide the designer to make adjustments, typically length, before installation.

So, course design is getting some numerical help to go with the innate creative process to design a course. If a designer wants the hole to have a 3.7 scoring average, which should be a par 4, the model can provide the combination of design elements that should get there.



From the above, it sounds like you're not just interested in the average score but also the distribution of scores, or standard deviation. That's interesting.

Does this tool you've developed also factor in weather and how that affects the scoring on a hole?

Does this tool you've developed also factor in weather and how that affects the scoring on a hole?



Not really. If actual results are being entered into the model to crosscheck the forecast, it needs to be from a round in 'normal' conditions which is assumed to not be windy. In the case where a course has steady winds, the designer will need to adjust accordingly and make the holes shorter or longer than the guide indicates.

With all due respect, I think most of you are making this too hard. Please hear me out. I don't really expect to change many (or any) minds with this, but I guess you never know.

First of all, we already have a definition of par. It's in the glossary in the rule book. And this definition of par works (and works pretty well) for every "need" that has been mentioned on this thread. Also, and this has been mentioned before, this definition has been endorsed by Dave Dunipace, John Houck, and Ken Climo; certainly 3 of the biggest and most influential names in the game. However, having said that, there is still room for improvement for any sticking points you may have.

I think the main concept, and PaulM has touched on this, is that "par" is a DESIGN CONCEPT. And really it is little, if anything, more than that.

In design, for the vast majority of holes, you want the intended skill level to:
- Reach the hole in 1 shot, or
- Reach the hole in 2 shots, or
- Reach the hole in 3 shots (or 2 great and heroic shots).

The term "par" is just a standard and familiar way of referring to these types of holes. They are, respectively, par-3's, par-4's, and par-5's.


So now back to the glossary definition, and some problems you may have with it.

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.

Q: What is an "expert disc golfer"?

A: Whatever you want it to be. If you are designing for Gold players, it would be a gold player. If you are designing for Blue players, it would be a blue player. Once you've chosen your intended skill level, you just have to decide how far that skill level can/should be expected to throw. These values can be approximated fairly well.

Improvement: Instead of saying "an expert disc golfer", the defintion could say "the intended skill level". This would make the definition more design-centric instead of tournament-centric as it is today.


Q: What are "close range throws"?

A: It doesn't really matter. If you have a reasonably flat and reasonably open hole intended for Gold level players, and it is 400 feet long, then nearly everyone would agree this is a 1-shot, or par-3, hole. Likewise, if it is 600 feet, nearly everyone would agree it is a 2-shot, or par-4, hole. It is the tweener holes that are the problem, and it is those holes where your particular definition of "close range" will matter. If a hole is 470, and your "close range" is "30 feet", then you will call that 470 hole a par-4. If somebody else's definition is "200 feet", they will call it a par-3. One point here, though, is that this is very likely a BAD/DUMB/STUPID HOLE anyway.

Improvement: In order to get some consensus on the tweener holes, the definition could include a guideline of "50 feet" (or whatever) to define "close range".


Okay, so now we have the definition out of the way. What about other issues?


Q: What about par-2's?

A: Depending on the definition of "close range", they may or may not exist on most courses. If "close range" is chosen to be 50 feet, then there probably aren't any par-2's. If "close range" is chosen to be 200 feet, then there are a few scattered here and there. If a person has a particular hang-up with par-2's, that person should lobby for the small side of "close range".


Q: What about hole-by-hole SSA?

A: SSA is a very cool way to measure a hole versus its intended design. If you have a hole with an SSA of 3.21, you don't know too much about it, except that it takes Gold level players 3.21 strokes on average. However, if you know that this is a par-3 (1-shot) hole, then you know that this hole was designed to be reached in one shot, but it must be pretty darn long, or really tight, or have some significant hazards. On the other hand, if this is a par-4 (2-shot) hole, you know that you have little chance of reaching this hole in 1 shot, but given a reasonable drive, you shouldn't have too
much trouble getting up-and-down for a 3. In fact, with that low of an SSA, it's probably a little too easy/short for the intended skill level.


Q: What about course SSA?

A: Again, it provides a great measure against par. If I have two courses and each is a par-54, I know that each hole can be reached in 1 shot. If the SSA for one course is 46 and the other is 50, I know that the 50 has, on average, "harder" holes. It must be longer, or tighter, or have more trouble. Similarly, suppose I have two courses and each is an SSA 50, but one is a par-54 and the other is a par-58. The par-58 probably has 4 holes that are 2-shot holes (unless it has a par-5). But it must be more open and/or have less trouble and/or be shorter on average than the par-54 that has the same SSA.


Q: But if we use the glossary definition, players will average well under par, and the top players will average -10 or -12. That looks stupid to some people.

A: Well, this is a tough one. Chuck has already explained that due to putting being easier in disc golf, the "throws around the green" are much lower than in ball golf. This amounts to about 0.3 strokes per hole. For 18 holes, that would be more than 5 strokes. So already, with nothing else taken into consideration, the standard disc golfer will be 5 strokes more under par than the standard ball golfer. We have some options about how to address this, covered next.

Aa: Just deal with it. You can pretty much fully explain it by saying "putting is easier than ball golf; and our courses are at the mercy of the terrain, unlike ball golf which can use bulldozers to make whatever kind of course they want". The problem: It still looks a little stupid to some people.

Ab: We could make putting more difficult. The problem: Tens of thousands of existing baskets. Not to mention the revolt of hundreds or thousands of players.

Ac: We could use a very large definition of "close range". For instance, if you extend "close range" to be 250 feet, then many short holes become par-2, and most tweeners become par-3's (instead of par-4's). This could lower the overall par by, what, 3 to 5 strokes on many of the existing courses today. Problem1: We'd have to deal with a lot more par-2's. Problem2: Calling a tweener hole (that 90%-100% of the field can't reach) a par-3 looks pretty stupid to some people.

Ad: We could change the definition to be one close range throw instead of two. Problem: This would decrease course par by 18 shots, and the top pros would be averaging +6 to +8, which probably looks equally stupid to some people. Problem2: This is not consistent with the ball golf definition, which would look stupid to some people.


Q: So what about the stated reasons that we need a good definition of par?

A: The following were listed earlier in the thread:

Course comparisons

This is handled, especially if the "close range" issue is more standardized, and especially when you have both the Par and SSA to use in your comparison. Perhaps the canonical example is the Renaissance course. The Original course has a Glossary Par of 58 and an SSA of about 57. The Gold course has a Glossary Par of 70 and an SSA of 67. The Original (shorter) course is "harder" (to shoot par) than the Gold course!

Hole comparisons

Very similar to Course comparisons above.

Hole-by-hole handicapping

This can easily be done with the glossary definition. The "number 1 handicap" hole, which is the "hardest" hole, is the hole that has the SSA highest compared to the par. So if the highest par-4 is an SSA 4.13 and the highest par-3 is an SSA 3.17, the par-3 is the number 1 handicap. And in this case, if you're just handicapping your own holes without regard to other courses, it doesn't matter which definition of "close range" you use.

Comparing scores of players on different places on the course at the same time

This isn't perfect, but it's obviously better than "all par 3's". There will always be "hard par-3's" and "easy par-3's" no matter what you might propose for a defintion for par. Watch any ball golf on TV, they'll always say "Well, he's 2 strokes behind, but he's got the easy par-4 17th left to play. Or "He's still a stroke up, but he's got the difficult par-4 finishing hole looming".


Q: What about multiple pins?

A: Not really a problem. If a course manager chooses to have multiple pins that significantly change the hole, then that course manager will have to deal with the possibility of different pars depending on pin position. Though in reality, I would guess it is a small percentage of alternate pins that actually change the number of shots required to reach the pin. This is actually an advantage that the glossary definition has over any proposed statistical method. Namely, a different pin could change the average score enough to move the so-called statistical par, even though design-wise it still takes the same number of shots to reach the hole.


Q: What about multiple tees?

A1: If you want to have multiple tees, you can design them specifically for different skill levels. A particular par-4 hole may have three tees, and label them Gold, Blue, White; and it is expected that each skill level will require 2 shots to reach the hole from their appropriate tee. It's also possible that a fairly long Gold par-4 may have a shorter (or rarely longer) Red tee that is actually a par-5. (Or as Chuck described, there may be a Gold par-3 hole that has a slightly longer White tee that is a par-4.)

A2: Some course managers may choose to assign par to all tees based on a single skill level. Just as an example, I know a guy who put in a course in a small town that had never had a disc golf course. He designed very nice Long tees that were appropriate to a 950 level golfer, and he labeled the par as such (including 3's, 4's, and 5's). Then, since the sport was so new to the town, he created much shorter tees on each hole. But rather than try to figure out the appropriate distances and pars for people who have never really played before and are improving rapidly, he just labeled all the short tees according to the 950 skill level as well. So his Long tees play as a par-65, but the Short tees play as par-54. In this case, the tee color doesn't necessarily match an intended skill level of player; rather, a short tee is provided for new players, and the par is assigned according to a known constant skill level. In my opinion, this is quite an acceptable solution for this type of scenario, where it is a new sport and there are few opportunities for tournaments or for play by experienced players across skill levels. (He did actually label the tees Blue and Red, but this was just for identification.)


Q: Is there a summary?

A: Par is a design concept. The current definition in the glossary of the Official Rule Book works, and works pretty well. With just a couple clarifications to build consensus among designers/managers, it can work quite well.


Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

Nice synopsis. However, since you used the word "biggest" in your description of Houck, I have to discount everything you say. ;)

With all due respect, I think most of you are making this too hard...

..."par" is a DESIGN CONCEPT. And really it is little, if anything, more than that.

In design, for the vast majority of holes, you want the intended skill level to:
- Reach the hole in 1 shot, or
- Reach the hole in 2 shots, or
- Reach the hole in 3 shots (or 2 great and heroic shots).

The term "par" is just a standard and familiar way of referring to these types of holes. They are, respectively, par-3's, par-4's, and par-5's...



Sounds good to me. From my point of view, the only problem we're trying to solve is the "every hole is called par 3" problem, regardless of the fact that many are truly par 4s or 5s. We're sort of going after that gnat with a machine gun here.

I can't disagree with the rest of Pete's post -- I'm thinking this is close to everyone else's understanding of par, as well.

What I'm still wondering is: with what *process* are we considering implementing these par assignments? I'm still thinking in terms of step 1, step 2, step 3... Because without that, this all sounds very academic, and no one does anything.

Rehashing my earlier post:

step 1) Designer sets individual par for holes and total par for course per his or her intent (using whatever tools he has at his disposal, including the one Chuck developed.)

step 2) Designer submits design to PDGA for comment or approval of par designations. (Adding on to this, an SSA expectation may be generated from the tool Chuck developed.) Responding to this feedback, designer may go back to step 1 and tweak the design, or leave the design as is.

step 3) As course is played, SSA statistics are generated, and the course is evaluated as Gold, Blue, Red, etc. (Preliminary evaluations using Chuck's tool may have already set the course level to Gold, Blue, Red, which SSA results will only later confirm.)

Is this a suitable, simple enough process, or are we going to turn people off course design and PDGA involvement by making it more complicated than it needs to be?

Not bad Pete,

The truth of it is, that it is basically what my proposal does:

Differences:
1) Hole by hole par is based on strokes to green and some number of close range throws vs. rounded/adjusted SSAs.
2) Course par is based on total of strokes to green and some number of close range throws vs within 1 stroke of course SSA.
3) No provision for avoiding Par 2s.

Similarities:
1) Tee Color Assignments and par are set according to major skill level breaks.
2) SSA is the underlying verification and informed aspect of Par.
3) Design aspects are informed by consideration of Par, SSA, and Major Skill Level Breaks.

Basically, my proposal is a labelling structure that can encompass all of these concepts.

Let's say a course designer is getting ready to put in a new course:

A) They decide to design the course, let's say for Blue Tees.
B) They set par according to the Glossary definition. Throws to green plus two.
C) They run a PDGA and obtain hole by hole and course SSAs and find that the course is actually more like White Tees than Blue, meaning the SSAs are lower than expected.
D) In consideration of Chuck's design considerations and still wanting to present an appropriate skill challenge for Blue Players decides to try to raise the SSA and Challenge of their course to Blue.

or

Da) In order to maintain continuity with every other course with a known SSA they relabel their course as a White.

The key is to have a tool that encompasses all of these methods and provides valid information for players to gauge their games and tools for course designers to improve their courses.

All three concepts are really part of the other, what we need is something that can provide an envelope that unites them all while providing uniform benefits to all courses participating in this Standardization of Par.

Pete,

Nice long essay for a lurker! You made some excellent points which I seem to have heard somewhere before.

Where'd you get your name?

...Q: What about multiple tees?

A1: If you want to have multiple tees, you can design them specifically for different skill levels.



Pete and Chuck,

I'd like to pursue this one issue of multiple tees a little further.

I think that this issue get to the crux of the solution. Of course it's easiest to design new courses so that the tees fit an intended skill level. This is what Chuck is doing at the complex in WI.

I think we need to get it clearly in mind how Ball golf has multiple tees on a course. With 3 different tees - Blue, White, Red - a "scratch" player should be able to shoot par from that tee. The key is that each type of tee has a different level of "scratch" player. A scratch White player is better than red and blue scratch player is better than white.

The difficulty comes in with the 1500+ existing courses that we already have. I think several issues are muddying up our thinking.

1) Most courses were poorly designed because there were no real standards to follow. Therefore most tees were mislabeled. With new disc technology probably many tees should be red no matter how they're listed by the course Pro.

2) Existing courses with mutiple tee pads probably don't follow the par design guidleines because they didn't have them when the course was built.

...Hey, you know what? I'm going to pause here and gather my thoughts some more because it's pretty late. More later...

I would like to close by asking for information. I'm trying to put together some length guidelines for par for each of the 4 color levels. This would include effective lengths for par 2, 3, 4, 5 holes for each of the levels of Gold, Blue, White, Red. Effective length includes adjustments for elevation and foliage. Does such a table already exist? If so, where can I get it? Pete, can you send me one?

Thanks so much for your insight guys.

Respectfully submitted,
Lowe

I posted the chart for scoring average expected for different lengths and foliage density for different player skill levels on this thread:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=213098&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=10&vc=1

In response to Lowe and PaulM:

Q: By what process do we apply our definition of par to existing courses?

A:

Though I may have painted a lovely picture of par and its usefulness, trying to turn it into some kind of formula to aid in its widespread use is far from trivial.

You need to know:
- About how far your target skill level can throw
- How does elevation impact distance
- How does foliage impact distance
- How does OB and other obstacles impact distance
- What is an acceptable range of lengths (as a percentage of driving length) for a given par
- What is the length of each hole
- What is the elevation of each hole
- What is the foliage and OB of each hole

Wow, that's a lot of stuff.

Chuck's chart (that he linked to previously) makes assumptions for several of these items. Presumably Chuck made these up or they were the consensus of a group that he has had discussions with.

Some of these variables are left up to the par-setter (course designer, course pro, local volunteer, etc.) such as actual length and elevation and foliage of each hole.


Okay, so now that I've scared you, I think I can backtrack a little and say that there are lots of people that fully understand par as I've explained it, and they can pretty easily tell you the par of a given existing hole, and it will be in good agreement with what others would say.

However, for those who are new to the world of par, a table like the following can be constructed fairly easily. Again, I would recommend a group of World-Renowed Course Designers come up with the best guesses for the factors that they can control ( I have used sample numbers below). Then it's up to the par-setter to get the data for the individual holes and look up the par in the table.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Average Drive:</td><td>400</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Amt of Trouble</td><td>Par 3 Lo</td><td>Par 3 Hi</td><td>Par 4 Lo</td><td>Par 4 Hi</td><td>Par 5 Lo</td><td>Par 5 Hi
</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>240</td><td>400</td><td>560</td><td>760</td><td>880</td><td>1080
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>234</td><td>390</td><td>546</td><td>741</td><td>858</td><td>1053
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>228</td><td>380</td><td>532</td><td>722</td><td>836</td><td>1026
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>222</td><td>370</td><td>518</td><td>703</td><td>814</td><td>999
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>216</td><td>360</td><td>504</td><td>684</td><td>792</td><td>972
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>210</td><td>350</td><td>490</td><td>665</td><td>770</td><td>945
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>204</td><td>340</td><td>476</td><td>646</td><td>748</td><td>918
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>198</td><td>330</td><td>462</td><td>627</td><td>726</td><td>891
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>192</td><td>320</td><td>448</td><td>608</td><td>704</td><td>864
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>186</td><td>310</td><td>434</td><td>589</td><td>682</td><td>837
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>180</td><td>300</td><td>420</td><td>570</td><td>660</td><td>810
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This would just be a rough guide, but it would work reasonably well. You'll note there are "tweener" distances between these pars. Presumably a recommendation would be made as to whether to round up or round down if a hole fell in one of these gaps (as was discussed in my original post).


But here's an important question:

Q: We have tons of existing courses that were just designed in general, and not for a specific skill level. What skill level do we use when setting pars on all our existing courses?

A:

This is a matter of opinion, but I'm sure the PDGA could offer a helpful guideline.

In my opinion, if you have an existing course, and you want to put true and meaninful pars on the holes, I would label them according to a Gold, or Scratch, golfer. This is simple and easy to understand.

However, some might think that you should assign pars based on the typical person that will be playing the course. In this case, you would want to use a Blue or White or even Red standard. My only problem with this is that if you label a course with White or Red pars, you end up with a bunch of new players talking about how they "birdied this hole" or "eagled that hole", similar to today's existing courses that have used some kind of Rec Par formula for labeling the holes. There's nothing really overly wrong with that, it just doesn't paint that player a very true picture if they don't understand that the "par" they're talking about was set according to a skill level other than a Scratch golfer.

Of course, maybe the best answer is to label each tee with multiple colors, thus showing different pars for a given tee, based on the skill level of the person playing it. So for a 360 foot hole, you might label it as Gold Par 3, Blue Par 3, White Par 4, Red Par 4. Note that this hole is almost certainly a tweener for one or more of those skill levels, but that's not a huge deal. Unfortunately, labeling with multiple skill level pars is probably needlessly complicated and confusing to the vast majority of players.


Q: But if we use a Gold skill level to label all of our existing courses, won't we end up with hundreds of courses that are par-54 to par-57 ((nearly) all par 3's)?

A:

Yes, that's probably true.

But the good thing is, for many of those courses, we can have a real-live SSA from a tournament, or at least an estimated SSA from Chuck's handy-dandy distance formula.

So if the Gold Standard of par is used to set true and meaningful par on our existing courses, then we can make great comparisons between courses by looking at Par vs. SSA for those courses. (As was discussed in my original post.)


Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

Pete,

What are the advantages to this over just using SSA as the basis for par? Sorry if this makes you repeat yourself, it just seems like this is a lot of guesswork and weak math just in order to get something that is essentially useless once the SSA is known.

Is it some philosophical delema or the like with Par 2 or over dependence on "the way ball golf does it"?

Seriously,
Nick

i don't know if this is what you're talking about but i'll take a stab at it. the problem is that ssa is an average and it pretty much eliminates the definition of par as we know it (including the terms: birdie, bogey, etc.)it might be an accurate number but it doesn't include such notions as birdie or bogey, etc...concepts that are valuable to the game of golf in my estimation.

What are the advantages to this over just using SSA as the basis for par? Sorry if this makes you repeat yourself, it just seems like this is a lot of guesswork and weak math just in order to get something that is essentially useless once the SSA is known.



The SSA is never known, except as a snapshot in time. It's a statistical measurement that by definition continues to change in value as the condition of the course changes. This would include the amount of tree and brush growth, the changes in disc technology, the effects of weather, even the condition of the people playing for that particular tournament (is a 1000 rated player ill that day and throwing poorly? or is a 900 rated player improving quickly but his rating hasn't caught up with him?).

SSA is a measurement of tournament performance, while par is an assignment given to the course, an indicator, a "design concept", as Pete calls it. I keep hammering this point, but no one except Pete seems to address this key issue.

As an SSA becomes known, we can use that to rate the course -- courses with SSAs near par can be called Gold level, while those with SSAs far below par may be Blue level courses or whatever -- but no one with a life is going to continually update a course's par assignments as the SSA measurements change over time -- why should they?

<table border="1"><tr><td>Comparison of Par Standards - Blue Tees </td><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>F9 Tot</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><td>B9 Tot</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Tees</td><td>Distance</td><td>180</td><td>190</td><td>200</td><td>210</td><td>220</td><td>230</td><td>240</td><td>250</td><td>260</td><td>1980</td><td>270</td><td>280</td><td>290</td><td>300</td><td>310</td><td>435</td><td>450</td><td>750</td><td>800</td><td>3885</td><td>5865
</td></tr><tr><td>Rodney\'s</td><td>Average Foliage</td><td>SSA</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>23.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>4.8</td><td>5</td><td>31.6</td><td>55.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Chuck\'s</td><td>?</td><td>Par</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>25</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>33</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>Glossary</td><td>Drive 300\'</td><td>Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>34</td><td>61
</td></tr><tr><td>Nick\'s</td><td>Drive 300\'</td><td>Par</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>33</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Here is a comparison of the 3 systems under discussion. The disparity between Chuck's an mine is that his is based on 924 for Blue Tees and mine is based on 950, otherwise they'd likely be closer. The strange thing is that his system appears to actually offer less score forgiveness for 924 players than mine does for 950 golfers.

I used Chuck's standards from the "PDGA Course Design Guidelines for each Player Skill Level" sheet for distances (these would increase for my proposed standard for Blue Tees slightly) and Rodney's "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages" sheets for the SSAs.

The glossary assumes a 300 foot maximum throw over average foliage. The challenge with the glossary definition is that any course where expert golfer is defined as 1000 or "Scratch Golfer", it is going to be tough to accommidate them without beind way off as far as par to ssa.

I'm not saying any of them is without merit. I'd like to see them all work, but at this stage they seem to need some revision.

Part of our challenge here, I am guessing, is that we are approaching this from a fundamentally different concept of "Par".

What do folks here think should be the main purpose or purposes of Par in disc golf? What do you want it to accomplish?

Again, Nick, you're presenting SSAs as some unchangeable quantity. It's not. It's a measurement. As such, it changes over time. Par for a hole, since it's an assignment, does not change over time. Please see my prior post.

Q: We have tons of existing courses that were just designed in general, and not for a specific skill level. What skill level do we use when setting pars on all our existing courses?



Bingo! I think this is a key point in this discussion.

Again, Nick, you're presenting SSAs as some unchangeable quantity. It's not. It's a measurement. As such, it changes over time. ...



Excellent point about SSA. It's in line with some of the difficulties I asked about earlier in using it. (Still waiting for your response Nick. {...drumming fingers on table...}) Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone please tell me a little more about WCP? What is the official definition of WCP? I read somewhere that it is the average of SSA data. Is that accurate? Is WCP used much? If so, where can I find out the WCP for the courses I play?

Pete,

For your chart with lengths and amount of trouble what skill level are those pars for? Gold?

P.S.- I sent you 2 emails about 10 days ago. Did you get them?

Here's an easy way to justify par 2 holes. ...

There's no way around having par 2s on our current courses without continuing the inaccurate inflated par 54 system. If we continue to move toward using the Player Rating/WCP technology, the WCP is intertwined with the equivalent of a 1000 rated player. We can poke our heads in the sand, avoid individual pars on holes and just stay with the overall WCP values for courses. In other words, when the WCP is less than 54 (which is currently most courses), we recognize that there are par 2s out there but just avoid identifying them. Or, we can move forward to identify these tough 2s so the hole pars are integrated with the overall World Class Par for a course.



Chuck et al,
These words from post 62902 on p. 1 make perfect sense to me. Why don't we just do it? If we accept the reality of Par 2s that will remove one big obstacle. Then we won't even need all of Nick's mathematical gymnastics.

...However, once you analyze the situation, the reality is there are bona fide par 2s out there with the current state of our hole designs. ...



Chuck,
This was your post #62724 on 4/11/01. Have you changed your mind on this? I think that on existing courses Par 2 is a reality that we have to deal with.

and again-- Chuck on #62930


...Frankly, I like the chance to get an occasional ace and would like to see par 2s continue into the future as a unique aspect of our sport.

What do folks here think should be the main purpose or purposes of Par in disc golf? What do you want it to accomplish?



Personally, the only thing I want from par is an acknowledgement that not all holes and not all courses are the same. Calling every hole on a course par 3 when some are 200 feet long and others are 500 feet long seems silly to me. I think resolving that problem is the number one issue.

Doing more than that is a matter of fine-tuning to me. But if you want par not only to differentiate between a long hole and a short one, then I think par 2s will need to be accepted, as Lowe points out. Going further still, it may even be necessary to accept fractional pars, such as calling a hole par 3.5, so that when all the hole pars are tallied, a more accurate course par is obtained.

But my problem with such fine-tuning is that we're aiming for accuracy that is short-lived, since the SSA goal we're aiming to hit will change over a course's lifetime. Who doubts that 10 years from now, a course's SSA will change by one, two, perhaps three strokes (throws)? 20 years from now, what will that same course's SSA be? What's the point of making par hit an SSA target, when the SSA target develops its own error over time?

So aiming for a par that always matches a course's SSA seems like a fool's errand to me. I think defining a more *descriptive* par for holes and courses is a better goal.

I say that we use recreational par on course signage. That way the new-comers that we are trying to woo will feel good about themselves.

Then on course websites and on tournament scorecards list Pro Par/WCP as well as per-hole SSA. That way the real info is available to those who really care at the locations where those who really care look for information.

I think that Par should be separate from SSA/WCP. Par should be a (somewhat) fixed number while SSA frequently changes. par should be somewhat close to SSA, though, for each of the 4 skill levels. SSA is a good measure of course difficulty. This is similar to par and course rating in BG. Most BG courses are par 72 but some are easier and some are harder. The course rating shows a better indication of how hard the course really is.

I used ... Rodney's "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages" sheets for the SSAs.



Nick, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what these sheets are that you reference.

By labeling the SSA line in your chart as "Rodney's", I think you're giving me 'credit' for something that is not mine. There are ways to estimate SSA from a hole length and average foliage, but those ways aren't mine.

And just so it's clear, even if I have posted something about estimating SSA for holes, it had nothing at all to do with par.

Part of our challenge here, I am guessing, is that we are approaching this from a fundamentally different concept of "Par".




I think you nailed it right there Nick.

You seem to be trying to apply some kind of "par is average" or "par is expected score" type of definition. I am saying that par is a design concept.

Obviously, the SSA is going to provide a very good representation of your par concept, since it is indeed the scratch average.

In fact, what I think I am, and others are, saying is that par has its own meaning in ball golf and in disc golf. Average is average. Indeed, expert average is SSA. But par is a design concept, and it is a completely different animal.

In my opinion, as I said, you're making it too difficult. There's no need to use a "par is average" definition of par, because we've already got SSA. As I've said, having the design par of the hole and the SSA together give you a ton of information. Either one, by itself, is not nearly as meaningful.

For your chart with lengths and amount of trouble what skill level are those pars for? Gold?




Lowe, this chart was just a fictional example of what COULD be provided to course managers in order to help them provide a "par" number that is more consistent with the glossary definition.

I guess in the dream world, for people who see great importance in par, the PDGA would create a large campaign to go back and correctly label our existing courses with a real par. For course managers who don't really understand the glossary par definition, such a chart could be provided to help out.

Of course, multiple charts for multiple skill levels could also be provided. So if a course manager wanted to list pars for Experts and pars for Rec golfers, they could do that as well. (And in answer to Dave Marchant: I understand the desire to provide a Rec Par by default, but I respectfully disagree. Without a full disclosure and explanation that a given par is for a "less than expert" skill level, I just feel we'd be better off in the long run to label everything according to Expert level par by default. But this is all a matter of opinion, and one where both sides have compelling arguments.)

Anyway, back to the chart. As I said, there are several variables in the chart that would best be decided by some sort of a consensus from a SuperDesigner group of individuals. For my chart, I assumed:
- the target group had an average drive of 400 feet
- the appropriate length for a wide open 2-shot (par-4) hole would be 140% to 190% of an average drive. In other words, a short par-4 would be a 100% drive plus a 40% approach. Similarly, a long par-4 would be a 100% drive and a 90% approach.
- each level of "trouble" would decrease accurate shot length by 2.5%. In other words, a full length wide-open shot would be 400 feet, but a full length "trouble factor 10" shot would be 25% (2.5% x 10) shorter, or 300 feet.
- etc.

Each of these variables and more would be up for discussion by the SuperDesigners group, and all those would go toward making a helpful chart for assignment of par. Again, the mythical chart would just be an AID, as hole variety creates exceptions, and there's really no substitute for a designer actually seeing and evaluating the hole in person.

Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

As perhaps you can tell, I, and many other folks here and out there, have given this �par thing� some careful thought. This weekend, playing Tyler State Park in PA, a course with perhaps the widest variety of pars in the world, I did a little rethinking and this is where I came out.

Both "Strokes To Green And" and "Scratch Score Average" are likely to change over time, this does not invalidate either however (That would be like saying, "Why make my bed? I'm just going to mess it up again tonight!"). Providing value to your courses playing experience is always a good thing, and meaningful pars on your tee signs have inherent value (to top players as well as beginners).

What I would advise at this point is this (and it attempts to follow the K.I.S.S. philosophy. Judge for yourself):

My criteria for providing a Standardized Par is as follows:

1) To provide a standard of par that is as accurate as possible not only across holes at a given course but across courses around the world that employ the standard. Whether some folks �like or dislike� the standard is a matter for ongoing debate, but similar to rules, we still �need� them even though we can hotly debate whether they are any good or not on an ongoing basis (the key is to have one).
2) To provide a standard of par that can be equally accurate and useful to �all skill levels�. Towards this end, I believe ball golf�s standard provides a useful example: where par is set at �Scratch Golf�.
3) Luckily for disc golf we happen to have a �superior� and �more statistically valid� �Scratch Golf� than even ball golf has. It is the score a PDGA 1000 Rated Golfer is expected on average to shoot on a specific layout. This in my opinion, if available should be the predominant tool (starting point), whether using Strokes To Green And� or �Scratch Score Average� methodology to determine �Par�.

Method without statistical data (New course or one which has never had an event with PDGA Members playing in it) using a slightly modified glossary definition of par (Based on the average characteristics of a PDGA 1000 Rated (Scratch) Golfer as the standard for "Expert Golfer"):
- 350 Foot Drive Range (Increase or Decrease in consideration of foliage density and elevation)
- 300 Foot Approach Shot Range(Increase or Decrease in consideration of foliage density and elevation)
- 30 Foot Green Range(Increase or Decrease in consideration of obstacles near pin and speed of green)
(I am more than open to adjusting these standard distances.)
Examples:
>A 300 foot hole with average foliage density, elevation and green difficulty would be a Par 2.
>A 500 foot hole with above average foliage density and elevation requiring 1 significant direction change with a difficult green would be a Par 3 or Par 4, whichever in the opinion of the course pro most closely matches what a Scratch Golfer would be expected to shoot.
>A 750 foot hole with above average foliage density and requiring 2 significant direction changes would be a Par 5 or Par 6 (though I would recommend limiting Par to a maximum of 5), whichever in the opinion of the course pro most closely matches what a Scratch Golfer would be expected to shoot.

Method with strong statistical data (Course that have had multiple PDGA Rated Rounds, or rounds which use calculators based on PDGA Ratings to determine Scratch Score Averages, Round Ratings, and Hole By Hole SSAs:
- In �full and complete� consideration of the �Glossary Method� (above), �utilize� course and hole by hole SSAs �as a tool� to �add statistical accuracy� to your courses hole by hole �posted tee sign pars�. These can be as much as 3 or 4 full strokes plus or minus the total course SSA (meaning a course with an SSA of 64.85 may be adjust the par to 60 if in the course pros opinion the course is actually easier than the SSA indicates, or 70 if they feel that it is far more difficult. My guess is that they will rarely ever be more than 2 or 3 strokes different.)
- Place the actual hole SSA (not rounded) and Par for the �hardest hole� (of multiple options) on the tee sign. No need to provide the others. Once folks become familiar with the judging (a standardized) par for the hardest holes at their course they should be comfortable estimating the pars for the shorter/easier layouts. (Note: ambitious course pros may want to provide this for all tees to each pin, but at courses where there are 3 tees and 3 pins there tee signs may become unintelligible, that�s why I recommend only doing long to longs).
Having the actual, not rounded, SSA next to the Par of the hardest tee to pin configurations on the tee signs of each hole will tell a golfer exactly what a PDGA 1000 Rated Golfer averages on each hole along with the added value of the Course Pros evaluation of the difficulty of the hole in relation to Scratch Golf. It will also tell the golfer whether it is a difficult or easy par 4 if the SSA is 3.92 or 4.44. And if they are familiar with their own Player Rating they can adjust these pars to give themselves an even greater understanding of the difficulty of the hole.

To summarize: The course pro using �ONE� standard (not multiple standards) of �Glossary Par� informed by their direct knowledge of the course create par for the most difficult hole and course layout. If hole by hole and course SSAs are available for the most difficult hole and course layout, adjust (as needed) the pars and post the not rounded SSAs next to the pars.

I believe that this is a fairly elegant solution that can only increase in validity as more direct course knowledge from course pros, education about design factors by design experts and an increasingly solid statistical data analysis are brought to bare on this standard of disc golf par.

PS: I know that I borrowed heavily from many folks here (Jim, Pete, Chuck, Gary, etc), I make no apologies, this is a discussion after all, right?

The chart is called: "Estimated Hole Score Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length". Though "foliage" is a stated factor as well in the chart.

I guess it was Chuck that create the chart. Whoever did it is pretty cool.

I have a story.

I've been involved in so many threads about par that it makes my head spin (check the archives), so I'm reluctant to be involved in this one.

No, that wasn't the story. This is:

For Worlds in Des Moines, the Pickard Park course had a few new holes added to replace some weak ones on the original design.

The designer of the new holes (a 985-rated player who throws 400 and understands glossary par and hole design) created hole #10. This is an 825' hole that goes up and down some hills, has an OB fence left, has a couple-three very large and bushy trees in the fairway (but plenty of space to go around them), a non-OB creek about 50 feet short of the pin, and some woods and more big trees blocking easy hyzer routes into the pin.

This looked to be a really nice 3-shot hole (par-5). With 3 well-executed shots, you could putt for birdie 4. Mess up any one of those 3, and you're left having to work a lot harder for that 4. It appeared to be short enough to tempt big throwers into going for it in 2 shots, possibly ending up over the fence (or in the woods) for their greed.

In the Worlds Warm-Up tournament, the MPO division had:
11 (46%) 4's
8 (33%) 5's
5 (21%) 6's
Average = 4.75

Looks pretty nice. Good spread of scores. Nothing to be alarmed at. Or is there? In hindsight, perhaps 46% 4's is a little too high for a non-World-Class MPO field, as you will see.

So what happened at Worlds? When the A-Pool played it for the Semi-Final round (which is about as close to a Gold pool as you will ever get (average rating right around 1000)), it came out like this:
4 (6%) 3's
58 (81%) 4's
8 (11%) 5's
2 (3%) 6's
Average = 4.11

Does this make this a par 4? In my opinion, no.

What it makes it is a bad hole (for this skill level).

It wasn't really easy to get there in 2, because there were only 4 3's. But it was obviously too easy to get there in 3, because there were 58 (81%!) 4's.

Sure, you could call it a hard par 4. Or you could call it a way-too-easy par 5. But the truth is, it's probably just a bad hole (for this skill level).

So given this, what's the right thing to do? Label the hole a par 4? Not in my opinion. To me, the right thing to do is change the hole (if at all possible, and if you expect this skill level to play here again).

The cement pad has been poured, so what else can they do?
- Move the pin (either shorter or longer or tougher to get at)
- Make the creek OB
- Pour a new tee pad (either shorter or longer)

Note that if they make one or more of those changes, you could see this same pool of players go:
1 (1%) 3's
42 (58%) 4's
25 (35%) 5's
4 (6%) 6's
Average = 4.44

Would this be a par 4? Not in my mind. It would be a pretty darn good, but relatively easy, par 5. It would provide good separation, rewarding those who execute good shots with a 4. It would provide the opportunity for a heroic 2-shot eagle 3 while flirting with the OB fence and OB creek. And perhaps the best thing is, it would probably still be a good hole (though harder par 5) for your average B-tier or C-tier MPO field, and also an A-tier or B-tier M1O field. Thus, it's a nice hole for a wide range of players.

As some have said on this thread, the "par 5" is just a label to indicate that the design of the hole is to take 3 shots to get to the basket.

This may be related to (supporting or opposing) what Nick is talking about when he says (paraphrasing) "use SSA, when available, to tweak glossary par". Or it might not be.

I'm going to go out on a limb and state my opinion, and then shrink back away from this discussion. I think Nick is right that SSA, when available, is a valuable tool when combined with glossary par, as shown in this story. I would disagree with anyone that says calling this hole a par 4 (solely on the basis of the 4.11 or 4.44 average) is a good thing to do. I also still disagree with Nick's latest description of how he would implement glossary par on courses with no data, but it looks like he's coming around.

I know I may be a complete hack as compared to some of the people on this thread, but I don't get the idea of a par 2. I mean in ball golf (yes I know its a totally different animal) it is possible to shoot under par on all the holes without holing out from the fairway. I am not saying we should copy ball golf exactly, but I don't like the idea of playing a great drive and nailing a putt and only getting par. I don't see any problem with the great golfers shooting well under par on an average round. It may make more "sense" to make par what a pro should shoot, but is it so wrong to have normal courses be playable under par? I mean ball golf pros can easily destroy par on any mortal course and its only on the pro caliber courses where the rough is grown up to their knees and the greens are like frying pans that they struggle to hit it. Psychologically I like the thought that I can shoot par from the easy tees and that I get beat by birdies. Not that I lose because I only had a few pars and shot 13 over.

Sure, you could call it a hard par 4. Or you could call it a way-too-easy par 5. But the truth is, it's probably just a bad hole (for this skill level).




This quote sums up my feelings very well. The only thing I ever care about is fair holes that offer a spread. In other words, I want one thing from the next hole: "a chance to gain a stroke or two on the field." If it meets that criteria, I'm happy.

We already have a good system for measuring performance. So, other than communicating a general description of a hole, what is "par" really good for. _______ _______ :D

ps. Nick, might KISS also mean "keep it SHORT ------" ;)

Rodney,

What it makes it is a bad hole for 1000+ players, but the par is still somewhere between 4 and 5.

The par has nothing to do with the design or appropriateness of challenge for various skill levels. Fixing the design so that it is an excellent Gold hole with lots of score variation wouldn't necessarily change the par or SSA.

What it makes it is a bad hole for 1000+ players, but the par is still somewhere between 4 and 5.

The par has nothing to do with the design . . .



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

Thanks for the hearty, albeit incredulous, laugh Nick.

Sure, you could call it a hard par 4. Or you could call it a way-too-easy par 5. But the truth is, it's probably just a bad hole (for this skill level).

So given this, what's the right thing to do? Label the hole a par 4? Not in my opinion. To me, the right thing to do is change the hole (if at all possible, and if you expect this skill level to play here again).



Are you kidding? I played that hole 4 times during the warmup rounds and during competition. How can you call that hole bad?

From the tee you must throw min. 400-425 to have a chance at getting there in 3. Your first throw had to negotiate around the large oaks in the middle of the fairway. If you made it around them, you had rough fairway on the right to give your runup trouble and if you missed it on the left, the second large tree in middle gave you trouble getting around to setup a shot over the vally to the tee. Once close to the tee, which was on the upside of a hill, you had all kinds of problems. Approach too far, risk a down hill putt, too short, in the creek with an uphill putt.

This was one of my favorite holes. Put your calculator away and go play that one with a head wind, and then tell me that was a bad hole :confused:

What it makes it is a bad hole for 1000+ players, but the par is still somewhere between 4 and 5.

The par has nothing to do with the design . . .



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

Thanks for the hearty, albeit incredulous, laugh Nick.



Sounds like we really need to agree on a definition for par. With Nick saying par for a hole is between 4 and 5, there's obviously a disconnect. Here's the definition I would use:

"Par represents errorless play by an expert, equaling the number of whole throws from the tee to the basket that an expert can be expected to make if he makes no mistakes."

Is that a good definition?

Whoever did it is pretty cool.



Well we can all assume Rodney didn't create it then. :D

If you were in the Open A pool and 80 whatever percent of the people got the same score, why even play the hole? Just move on to the next hole where some actual movement will occur. That's my thinking at least.

If you have 18 holes like that, then you probably end up with very little spread by the end of the round.

Disclaimer: I'm not ragging on the designers here. I think designing three-shot-holes is sort of a new art form for course designers and their skills are still being honed. I have played a lot of these holes where they seem good and challenging, but at the end of the hole almost everyone gets the same score.

What it makes it is a bad hole for 1000+ players, but the par is still somewhere between 4 and 5.

The par has nothing to do with the design . . .



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

Thanks for the hearty, albeit incredulous, laugh Nick.



What a surprise! A non-response from Rodney.

If you have a point to make then make it Rodney.

Can you make a correlation between your conclusion about bad hole design with par? I can find none.

I am leaning more toward the design side of the equation, but there needs also to be more information if that is used.

If Par is a design issue, what level of play is the course/hole designed for, Gold, Blue, White, Red, or other.

There would also need to be a DB somewhere that showed the slope (par/WCP) for the course since the vast majority of the existing holes will end up as Par 3's.

For instance, take a fairly open hole with three pins from 350' to 450'. All of these pin locations will likely be considered par 3, one easy, one hard, and one with very little scoring sepration. How should the three different pins locations be labled on the tee sign in relation to par ?

go play that one with a head wind, and then tell me that was a bad hole :confused:



Thanks for the reminder, Dan.

In fairness, there was no wind for the semi-final round. I'll be interested to see what the stats from the other rounds say.

But the story was for illustrative purposes anyway. If a hole gives up the same score to 80% of the field, it's very likely a bad hole.

What a surprise! A non-response from Rodney.



He has been responding, but he's just banging his head on the wall because you're not listening, Nick. So what response can he make, can any of us make, that will make you hear?

We're speaking of par as the number of good throws a single player must make to complete a hole. You're speaking of it as the running average of throws made by a group of players to complete a hole.

*Then* you're asking what's the difference between SSA and par? Well, from your perspective, none. But from ours, par is something a player should shoot for, while SSA is something that a group of players has been able to achieve over time (scaled to the 1000 rating).

With that distinction made, think of tennis, with shots that are winners and others that are errors. Par is errorless play. SSA is likely to be better than par because while it may include a couple ordinary throwing errors, it probably includes several more winners, or shots that were better than expected for several holes.

Do you see the distinction we're making, or should I've just posted the banging-the-head-on-the-wall icon, too?

If you were in the Open A pool and 80 whatever percent of the people got the same score, why even play the hole? Just move on to the next hole where some actual movement will occur. That's my thinking at least.

If you have 18 holes like that, then you probably end up with very little spread by the end of the round.

Disclaimer: I'm not ragging on the designers here. I think designing three-shot-holes is sort of a new art form for course designers and their skills are still being honed. I have played a lot of these holes where they seem good and challenging, but at the end of the hole almost everyone gets the same score.



You play the hole because it is a test of your disc golf skills. What you failed to understand is that 2 people out of 10 did not perform as well as the other 8 out of 10. How do we know if these players would do the same the next time they play. My bet is they would not. Furthermore, the 2 players not performing well on this hole could be the "better players" and just so happens they do not do well on this hole this one time.

Golf is not a single throw, or hole, or even round (tournament play) but the culmination of many throws, holes and rounds. IMO what makes a good hole is not the "spread" of scores but the overall test of disc golf shots, hole management and the enjoyment one gets from playing the hole. :)

Sure, you can analyze the scores and conclude this is a "bad" hole. But please don't judge a hole/course on scores alone. You may someday play the "bad" hole, and it might remember you. :D

BTW Pickard was my favorite course at Worlds!!

You guys are talking about hypothetical/theory based/best estimate par as determined by design factors.
vs
I am talking about statistically verified scratch golf.

What a golfer of a certain skill range is expected to shoot on a given hole or course.
vs
What golfers of various skill ranges actually shoot on a given hole or course.

The par you guys are talking about serves to inform designers on better hole design.
vs
The par I am talking about serves to inform players about how well they are playing on existing hole designs.

One is a design tool.
vs
One is a competitive tool.

One can help design better courses in the future and improve existing ones.
Vs
One can produce pars players can actually use on all past, current and future courses

If this is wrong, tell us how exactly.

Hole 10 @ Pickard was a good hole. If you want to make it tougher you would have to move the tee pad closer to the first set of trees so you have to throw through the woods instead of throwing a big right handed hyzer around them.

I played the hole twice and luckily 4'd it twice. This was only because I pinned both of my 300+ ft. upshots.

Pickard was also my favorite course for the Worlds.

I also got 4's on hole #11 both times...go figure!

The par I am talking about serves to inform players about how well they are playing on existing hole designs.




I just chose this one on the thought that if I can kill one, the rest will follow. Like I said, I haven't followed this thread closely, but I remember someone (Chuck, I think) providing an example of two different ideas of par vs SSA. The obvious conclusion was that a player could shoot 1000 rated on both courses, but -10 on one course and even on the other. That example seems to refute the notion that par is "serving to inform players about how well they are playing on existing hole designs."

Atually, that quote underscores the need for a more meaningful Par and is what is driving Nick's quest.

I would argue that it is a driving force for better hole design. If all courses were designed well, the concept of "par" would become more meaningful. However, there are no circumstances that will ever make "par" an accurate measure of performance between courses or on the same course with different conditions.

Similar to what a previous poster already mentioned, ball golf has a centuries old head start and I bet a -5 on course A is considered by the top pros to be worlds better than a -5 on course B. Kind of makes a mockery of the idea that "par" is an accurate measure of performance.

What a golfer of a certain skill range is expected to shoot on a given hole or course.
vs
What golfers of various skill ranges actually shoot on a given hole or course.



I'd mostly agree with this, except it seems to suggest both quantities are constant values. Only the former is a constant, the designer's expectation, called par. The latter, a measurement akin to SSA, is a variable that will change over time, as players change, as the course matures, as disc technology changes, etc. You can't present the latter as if it will always be the same. That's the chief problem I have with SSA-as-par, since it means a constant reevaluation of a course's par and a neverending discussion of what par actually is (i.e., this thread).


One can help design better courses in the future and improve existing ones.
Vs
One can produce pars players can actually use on all past, current and future courses.



I don't see why these statements are mutually exclusive. I'm sure SSAs can be used as pars, but the work to update course pars never ends, and there will always be mini-controversies as variables affecting SSA are brought into question. Leave par as par, a designer's expectation only, and use SSA as an evaluation of a course's condition (is it Gold Level or Blue? -- and note that over decades, a course may actually drift from Gold Level to Blue, or from Blue to Gold, and this could be shown by changes in SSA results), and I think you have a solution. I think we need a solution that has longevity in mind, not something that just works for the next several years until we have to revisit it again.

The par you guys are talking about serves to inform designers on better hole design.
vs
The par I am talking about serves to inform players about how well they are playing on existing hole designs.

One is a design tool.
vs
One is a competitive tool.



Nick,
Why does par have to be one or the other? It seems to me that par is designated by the designer of the course and is posted accordingly. Players are either under, at or over par.

Tell me if I am missing something here. Am I being too simplistic? I tend to see things black or white.

My interest is to define a standardized par. Thereby giving course designers a starting point and some commonality between courses (much like Bgolf - 72). But, more importantly it would also be a more meaningful comparative tool.

Does it have to be so convoluted?

i'm with you dan. keep it simple. some tourneys are won with 5-down and some take 25-down. the funny thing is that basically the same names rise to the top of the leaderboard. the emerging SSA's are useful also, but there isnt much wrong with "par" as it is currently and commonly understood.

some people would like to recast discgolf in their image, and thats their perogative. if nothing else, the thought process is useful. as in most endeavours, both sanity and centuries of experience will prevail in the end.

Dan,

My reservations about using a purely "design based" par is that in 25 years of disc golf, and even today, none has been found that provides the "absolute" and "applicable" definition as Scratch Score Average has. But far more than that is that "design based" par has, quite apparently and utterly failed to provide a standard of par that is understandable, accurate or, most importantly utilized.

I can't speak for other regions, but in my region, the pars posted on tee signs are completely disregarded by competitive players. Whether accurate or not, disc golf has no confidence in our par standard. This is something that is easily correctable in my opinion.

Consider the elements that confuse or convolute par:
What is an "expert player"?
What is the absolute average of an "expert players" drive?
What is the absolute average of an "expert players" approach shot?
What is the absolute average distance of an "expert players" makable putt?
How does foliage effect each of the above shots?
How does elevation effect each of the above shots?
How do weather conditions effect each of the above shots?
How does disc technology effect each of the above shots?
How do you measure any of the above objectively?

All of the above are valid concerns for designers attempting to "approximate what par will be in the future".

Scratch Score Average, particularly averaged over many rounds on the same layout, takes all of those factors into account and then "everything else" and provides you with a nice, neat, accurate and ready to use immediately number for par.

These are 2 seperate "though related" topics:

1) Projected Design Par
2) Actual Par

One takes a lot of work and careful consideration to determine correctly, the other is as easy as dropping numbers in a spread sheet.

And it will ALWAYS be this way.

Nick, I think a coupling of the concepts can be acheived.

If there couple of additional bits of information added to the course directory where the WCP or Course target (red-gold) and course par is added to the directory listing. The pars can then be assigned by the course pro as he/she sees fit, and the level the course par is designed to challenge will also be indicated in the directory.

GnDuke, you ask good questions.


There would also need to be a DB somewhere that showed the slope (par/WCP) for the course since the vast majority of the existing holes will end up as Par 3's.



Yes, in a perfect world, par would be standardized (to the glossary definition), and we could have the Par and the SSA for any course we want, preferably from an online database. I'm not sure I'd call it "slope", but you're right in that the relationship between Par and SSA would be helpful and useful information.



If Par is a design issue, what level of play is the course/hole designed for, Gold, Blue, White, Red, or other.
. . .
For instance, take a fairly open hole with three pins from 350' to 450'. All of these pin locations will likely be considered par 3, one easy, one hard, and one with very little scoring sepration. How should the three different pins locations be labled on the tee sign in relation to par ?



This is a good question, and is a point of discussion.

It's kind of a "design" versus "labeling" question.

In some cases, a course installer has the knowledge and luxury to design a course with a certain skill level in mind. Chuck has said that he is doing this at the complex in Wisconsin. There will be tees for, perhaps, Gold and White players on one course, while on another course, there might be tees for Blue and Red players.

Since the tees/pins/courses are being designed with a certain skill level in mind, I'm assuming they'll label the tees with the appropriate color. With education, hopefully players will come to understand what those tee colors mean. Namely, if you're a 940-rated player, the Blue tees will be most appropriate to your skill. You can still play the course that only has Gold and White tees, but just understand that each of those courses may have holes that don't make sense for your skill level.

But more often, the topic of par is more just a labeling issue.

In your example, you have a fairly open hole with pins at 350, 400, and 450. So how do we label them? There are at least a couple schools of thought here. If the PDGA ever had this mythical campaign to actually use par, then one of these schools would probably need to be promoted over the others.

For each school of thought, you have to estimate the throwing capabilities of various skill levels. This is not trivial. Chuck has presented some average driving distances for various divisions in the past. This is a good starting spot. For the rest of this discussion, we'll assume that this throwing capabilities issue has been sorted out.

Also for each school of thought, you have to decide what to do with the tweener holes. See my original post on this thread for some discussion about this. In short, if a hole falls in between the design standards for two pars, which one should be used by default? The ball golf parallel would say to use the higher par. In other words, if most of your field can't reach the hole in 1 shot, call it a par 4. Some people have reasons for wanting to go the other way and call it a par 3. Again, this is something that would best be recommended and standardized by some recommending body. It's worth noting that one nice benefit of this par exercise would be some education of course managers, especially along the lines of tweener holes, i.e., hole lengths that aren't appropriate for a certain skill level. These exist all over the place, depending on the skill level you are talking about. They don't much matter for casual play, but they are nice to avoid for competitive situations.

For the examples below, we'll assume that Gold/Blue/White/Red throws drives of 400/350/300/250, and we'll also assume that we've made a decision to move up in par if a hole length is beyond the driving length of the skill level. Again, this is just for the sake of discussion.

Anyway, on to the labeling issue:

School of Thought 1: Label everything according to Gold (Scratch) (1000-rating) golfer. For your hypothetical hole, this would make the 350 pin a par 3. It would probably make the 400 pin a par 3 as well. And based on our assumptions for driving length and tweener holes, we'll call the 450 pin a par 4. Advantage: Closely mimics how most people assume ball golf pars are labeled, namely, according to a Scratch golfer. Disadvantage: May turn off new golfers that can't fathom how par can be so low.

School of Thought 2: Label everything for the Rec player. If we use a Red player as a Rec player, and your hypothetical Red player throws 250 on average, then all three pins are probably par 4's (easy, mid, hard). A true Rec player probably drives less than 250, so some discussion would be necessary to set what this "Rec" level really is. Advantage: Applies to a large number of casual players, and makes new golfers feel good. Distadvantage: Pars would not be meaningful to more advanced skill levels, like Advanced/Pro players that play the course.

School of Thought 3: Label each pin with multiple pars, for multiple skill levels. In this case, the pins might be Gold 3,3,4t; Blue 3,4t,4t; White 4t,4t,4; Red 4,4,4. For those, I put a "t" on the pars that might be tweeners where the distance is not appropriate for that skill level (obviously highly dependent on what the recommending body decides are the throwing capabilities of each skill level). Advantage: Shows a Par for various skill levels, thus achieving the advantages of the other Schools. Distadvantage: Too much information or too confusing, and may not matter to a large percentage of players.

A similarly long post can be made when discussing how to label various tees on the same hole. First assuming only one pin, and then assuming multiple pins. Yikes.

Did I mention this is all just my opinion? Nobody appointed me any kind of par expert, that's for sure.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add. For that hypothetical hole with pins at 350/400/450 labeled par 3/3/4(or 3), the tee sign could certainly also list the approximate SSA (probably to one decimal, such as 2.7/2.9/3.1) for each pin. That would be cool and useful information for some people.

Nick,

I understand your point. I think the reason par is not utilized by competative golfers is that the posted par has been diluted by the recreational players par. I have seen many par postings that list two pars, pro and rec. :confused:

Also, I think the many, many disc golf courses created when XD's and Areos (and even before that) were the distance discs, and the disc golf course design philosophy had not evolved to what it is today, has also diluted the utility of par.

What I am searching for is a design standard for par (for future design). Do you think disc golf courses should be designed to a standardized par, say 62? (12 par 3, 4 par 4 and 2 par 5) Or should we just design the best golf holes we can and let the par fall where it may?

IMO if we can design to a standard total par for all new designs (or as close as possible). The problems you listed above will take care of themselves.

If a designer uses common sense and assigns a par to a hole that is going to be an average score of an "expert" player (pr 1000) then a course total par will be usable. This par can be analogous to par in bgolf, which by the way is very hard to get for the common golfer. I never understood the need to put higher pars for rec players. So they are 20 over, so what.
Set the par and let it be what it is. Some holes/courses will be harder than others to attain par, so what. Not all courses are created equal. But the par should be. ;)

Dan,

1) Yes, standards for designing courses would be good to have.
2) No, designers should make the best course possible for the skill range they are targetting.
3) Yes, par should have one standard, "Scratch Golf". To have more than one is to convolute and confuse it. I play ball golf every so often and no matter where I go I judge my success on "one standard". Disc golf would do well to follow that standard that way everyone from total duffer to world class pro will know exactly where they stand as far as skill level and performance.

Agreed, set the standard and then let existing courses fall where they will and new courses shoot for a recommended standard.

Does anyone have an opinion on what the standard course par should be?

I'm bowing out of this discussion with this post since apparently Nick, whose lengthy diatribes I'm trying desperately to understand, is not reading anything I've written nor is he trying to understand me.

I think perhaps he read a post of mine a couple weeks ago where I said I wasn't in the PDGA yet, and since then, he's been ignoring me. I've been following this discussion board for months, participated in a few of discussions as well, and I've learned a lot. But now that I'm in the PDGA (as of 9/14), it's ironic that now I'm being ignored. And if Nick has a strong input on defining par, that worries me. I wish he had more engineering sense.

You simply shouldn't have a variable par, that shifts with the wind (so to speak and literally). Par is whatever the designer says it is. Presumably, the designer has set par to represent errorless play on his course. From the designer's point of view, people shoot over par are making mistakes. People who shoot under par are scoring winners that are above and beyond what the designer expected from the expert player. It does NOT matter if SSA is better (or worse) than par -- that just shows how likely mistakes are or how often winners are thrown for that course. If the course doesn't generate a lot of mistakes but it does allow for a lot of winners, then you get a very low SSA with respect to par.

That's it, I'm done.

I'm still trying to figure out why a hole is a bad hole if it doesn't have a big range of scores on it? If 80% of the people make the same score and 20% make it in a shot better then those 20% just picked up a shot on the field. If 50% make "par" 25% make "birdie" and 25% make "bogie" to me this is a bad hole.

Remember, if par is the score that "an expert golfer is expected to make" then there shouldn't be a huge varience when you're looking at golfers from a rating of about 975 - 1000. If I understand the ratings system correctly, then 8-10 points of ratings equals a shot a round. So that means the 1000 golfer should only beat the 975 guy by 3 shots roughly. This would indicate that they should make the same score on 83% of the holes in a round.

A good hole should yield a "birdie" now and then, a lot of pars, and a bogie now and then.

Stastically speaking 68.268% of the golfers should shoot within one standard deviation of the mean score on a hole (SSA?) Lets call this part of the population those that score "par". Those who make birdie are only 13.6% and bogie is the same % of the score distribution. Eagle and double represent only 2.5% each of the population on a hole.

These figures would be considering taking ALL golfers into consideration. Therefore if we wanted to use actual scores for settings pars we could follow a formula something like....

Mean score +/- 1 standard deviation == par
or we could say that "par" are those who score within 1 SD better of the mean. Those who score 1SD worse than the mean are the bogies.

Could the standard bell curve be a factor in deciding par? Or are we considering our "expert golfers" to be that 2.5% of the population who will always score 2 standard deviations better than the mean?

By the way, this only halfway makes sense to me so keep that in mind! :p

I'm bowing out of this discussion with this post since apparently Nick, whose lengthy diatribes I'm trying desperately to understand, is not reading anything I've written nor is he trying to understand me.



I am sorry that you feel that I am responsible for your bowing out of this discussion. I assure you that I am in fact both reading and trying to understand opposing viewpoints. If expressing my opinion as clearly as I can is a diatribe then I am guilty as charged.


I think perhaps he read a post of mine a couple weeks ago where I said I wasn't in the PDGA yet, and since then, he's been ignoring me.



Untrue. If you ask me a direct question I will do my best to address it directly. That being said I have no obligation or intention of answering every post. Even I have time constraints.


I've been following this discussion board for months, participated in a few of discussions as well, and I've learned a lot. But now that I'm in the PDGA (as of 9/14), it's ironic that now I'm being ignored. And if Nick has a strong input on defining par, that worries me.



I have no more say than you do Paul; though I may have more resolve.


I wish he had more engineering sense.



And I wish that you had more common sense. Engineers deal with abstractions of reality, you need to focus more intently on naked reality (what par the course designer has designed their course to be and what it actually ends up being are naturally going to be different in most cases; which is a better indicator, the idea of what is should be, or what it actually �is�.


You simply shouldn't have a variable par, that shifts with the wind (so to speak and literally).



�Shouldn�t� is an expression of �preference� or �wish�, as in �I simply wish par wasn�t variable.�. Well, that is entirely dependent on how we define par.

Do we define it according to abstract design doctrine that changes from day to day and person to person?
Or do we define it using objective score averages of defined and statistically verifiable �Scratch Disc Golfers�?

Personally I believe, and have recently proposed that both be used as tools for defining par; and in the end �reality� requires both be used because there is no way to know the SSA prior to the course going in and being played, and once it is in and being played there is no way of avoiding the fact that �Scratch Disc Golfers� average a certain score on the course.



Par is whatever the designer says it is.



If that is the case then it is as ethereal as a fart at Brandywine, and equally useless, to say nothing of being devoid of standardization.


Presumably, the designer has set par to represent errorless play on his course. From the designer's point of view, people shoot over par are making mistakes. People who shoot under par are scoring winners that are above and beyond what the designer expected from the expert player. It does NOT matter if SSA is better (or worse) than par -- that just shows how likely mistakes are or how often winners are thrown for that course. If the course doesn't generate a lot of mistakes but it does allow for a lot of winners, then you get a very low SSA with respect to par.



I have probably lost you already, but in good faith that you press on, this paragraph illustrates clearly that you have neither a basic grasp of �par� nor of �Scratch Score Average�. Briefly, par is the score an expert golfer is expected to shoot on average. While Scratch Score Average is the score an expert golfer actually shoots on average. These are so similar in definition that I see no discernable difference other than SSAs decimal form and Pars need to be round numbers.


That's it, I'm done.



That is entirely on you. But I think you have mistaken �read and understand� with �agree�. I read and understood your posts, I just do not agree with them.

Risk/Reward - The higher the variation in score, generally speaking, the higher the holes risk vs reward factor is. Holes that have a low risk vs reward factor are (again generally) viewed as inferior (if not boring).

Hope that helped.

I realize this is off topic, but that never stops me. :p

I guess it is a matter of preference, but why would you want to play a hole where everyone got the same score. Furthermore, assume you were in the gallery at a big disc golf tourney, would it be exciting to see everyone get the same score?

I suppose one could argue what is an acceptable variability, but without variability, it gets a little tedious.

I could also frame my response a little differently. If I were a course designer, I am trying to create a fair and challenging test for the golfers. Right? If I create a test where everyone gets the same score, is it really much of a test at all?


If I understand the ratings system correctly, then 8-10 points of ratings equals a shot a round. So that means the 1000 golfer should only beat the 975 guy by 3 shots roughly. This would indicate that they should make the same score on 83% of the holes in a round.



I'm not sure that second sentence follows from the first. The golfers in your example may generally (really last 20 rounds with 15% dropped) finish aproximately 3 strokes apart over a round, but they could achieve that three stroke difference in a multitude of different ways.

but they could achieve that three stroke difference in a multitude of different ways.



I know I do. :( ;)

I know this goes completely against the entire argument in the thread... but it occurred to me while I still played ball golf that Par didn't mean anything. Look at any results of any tournament in ball or disc golf and you won't see any reference to par. The winner is based on the fewest number of throws or shots... PERIOD. It doesn't matter if that score is 45 under or 6 over... if that person did it in less throws... he wins. Par is intended only as a way of making scoring easier... we find it easier to keep track of one up or one down and ending up with something like 3 under rather than adding 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3... so on... its a tool to help with mental math. An example is looking at the US Open in ball golf... they take courses that play par 72 for 51 weeks of the year and lengthen them and call them par 70. All this does is make the final score APPEAR to be 8 strokes worse than it would have before. If you shot a 288 according to the original par you would be even, if you shoot the same thing during the Open its a +8... but its STILL a 288. The same thing holds for our game... par is just a benchmark to keep score easy. So why not just call everything a par 3 so that the tool is easier to use???

Phil,

Using all par 3s is what we already do, and you are right the advantage of having posted pars would not be significant at PDGA competitions, but that does not negate the value it could have for our sport as a whole, particularly for rec golfers deciding if they want to travel to a course or not (perhaps for competitive disc golfers too).

This is not a make or break policy for the PDGA, it is just a costless way to add value to users of our courses and to strengthen our standards as an organized sport.

Isn't the SSA designed to distinguish courses?

From: 2004 PDGA Tour Player Ratings (http://www.pdga.com/documents/04RatingsGuide.pdf) :


The first calculation is to determine the Scratch Scoring Average (SSA) for each round. That score is what a
scratch world class player with a rating of 1000 would be expected to average on that course. For example, let
us say that SSA is calculated to be exactly 50 for an 18 hole course. Any player who shot a 50 that round would
receive a rating of 1000 for that round. Each throw is in fact worth about 10 rating points for courses with this
level of difficulty. So, if you shot a 60, your rating for that round would be 900 because you were 10 throws
worse than scratch times 10 points per throw. If you shot really well and scored 48, your rating would be 1020
for that round which is 2 throws or 20 ratings points better than SSA.
The more common term you may have heard for SSA is World Class Par (WCP) which can be used
interchangeably for the course rating. WCP is a rounded off average usually based on several rounds of SSA
values that some course pros will use to determine the pars for each hole on that course layout. For example, if
the SSA values for three rounds were: 53.7, 54.3 and 54.1, the course pro might set the WCP for that course
layout as 54 using round numbers for par values.

You guys are getting into some interesting stuff. I actually just wrote an article about a lot of this for DGWN.

One key point is that poor score variety pretty much always indicates a dumb hole. But a good spread of scores does not necessarily indicate a "smart" hole. Some holes yield a range of scores precisely because they involve too much luck; beacuse they tempt players to go for crazy shots when the alternative is no fun; or they offer "poke and hope" instead of risk/reward.


Risk/Reward - The higher the variation in score, generally speaking, the higher the holes risk vs reward factor is. Holes that have a low risk vs reward factor are (again generally) viewed as inferior (if not boring).




I'm not sure I'd agree with that exactly. Lots of good holes are "do or die" without much consideration of risk or reward, especially one-shot holes.

I love a hole that you look at and think, "I should get this every time," but then you only hit it 50% of the time.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add. For that hypothetical hole with pins at 350/400/450 labeled par 3/3/4(or 3), the tee sign could certainly also list the approximate SSA (probably to one decimal, such as 2.7/2.9/3.1) for each pin. That would be cool and useful information for some people.



Pete, you're in my corner. We're not entirely opposed to Nick, but we're not entirely in agreement either.

I am leaning more toward the design side of the equation, but there needs also to be more information if that is used.



Until there are more stringent standards on course designers this will be problem. I tried to design par-4 holes back in the day, but fortunately, we had Steve Wisecup to show me the error of my ways. No, my holes weren't duecable, but he could roll to within 150' 90% of the time, and have an easy up shot for three. I've learned what a par-4 hole is (at least I think I have), most course designers haven't figure that out yet.

All you needed to do was add a ditch crossing the fairway :D

I argue that holes where PDGA 1000 Rated Golfers average 3.6 to 4.5 "are" par 4s for expert golfers.

I understand that better design concepts require at least 1 and preferably 2 major direction changes, making mandatory 2 to 3 fairway drives or approach shots just to have a chance at getting to the green in 2 or 3 throws, to create a superior Par 4 hole. There is more to it than that, but that is the basic concept of it.

Again, I would point out that even if a hole is designed and installed to the "T", with all design considerations properly applied, and the hole still averages 2.9 to 3.5, it is still a par 3 for expert golfers.

Furthermore, that whether the scoring spread is wide or narrow, and the hole considered good or bad, for an expert golfer to shoot par on it, they still need to shoot the holes SSA.

This is where the divergence of par from course design is most apparent.

Because you've invited me back, Nick, I'm going to try again. Your last post made me think of another way to explain myself. And I'm beginning to wonder if we're just saying the same thing, coming from totally different directions.

For example, take Kentwood Park in Raleigh (http://www.radl.biz/Courses/KENTWOOD/main.htm) . As designed, it's par-3 on every hole. But it's SSA is probably around 41 or 42. It's a very easy course.

If Kentwood's pars were re-marked to be accurate with SSA, that would still not make it a Gold Level course. But with a par displayed as 42, it would seem that's exactly what you're saying it is: Kentwood is Gold Level Par 42.

My suggestion is to leave the par as is, which is as it was designed to be. Then use SSA to show what grade of course it is. (What would it be, Red level maybe?)

But perhaps what you're saying, Nick, is that the par doesn't necessarily need to be re-marked for SSA-gold. It could be re-marked for SSA-red. For Red level courses, of course, that will leave the pars as they are already marked (unless someone had already marked them for Gold level play).

In the end, we have Gold level courses with SSA-gold marks for par, Blue level courses with SSA-blue marks for par, White level courses with SSA-white marks for par, and Red level courses with SSA-red marks for par.

So is this what you're saying, Nick? (Please, anyone else join in if you think I'm getting this wrong.) I'm still concerned about constantly tweaking pars to match with SSA, but if all courses re-mark themselves against SSA just once, and then choose only one of the following to match with: SSA-gold, SSA-blue, SSA-white, or SSA-red -- except for the work involved, I don't see anything wrong with that. But if the end result is always to justify the current par designations, keeping pars as is and just re-naming them SSA-red or SSA-blue, then I don't understand why we can't simply leave the pars alone to begin with and just demonstrate how they rank against SSA-gold/blue/white/red. Seems to me we're saying the same thing, just from a different angle.

Now if designers call holes par-4 or par-5, and yet scorecards on PDGA websites show all par 3s, I do have a problem with that. I thought that was the problem people were trying to fix when this thread started, but it doesn't seem we're talking about that here. If anything, I've seen talk about marking everything with Gold level par, which would bring several par-4 and par-5 holes on courses designed for Blue and Red level players down to par 3. I think if a course has enough variety, then par designations on the holes should reflect that. Even Kentwood could conceivably mark hole 14 as a Red level par 4. I wonder if that was the Kentwood designer's original intent.

Paul, you and Nick are saying the same thing.

I have been following these discussions for years now and I have to say that I beleive this approach is the best possible approach also. I like this approach so much that whether it is approved or not I am going to use this method during our redesign of one of our local courses. If this method is the method that gets backed by the PDGA then great, if not then as the designer of this course i feel this is the best way to go about setting pars and will use it anyway.

I will let you all know how it is turning out.

That is what I am pushing for. The only real problem with it is courses that have multiple tees/pins and how those get marked. The multiple tees shouldn't be that much of a problem, but matching multiple tee/pin combinations gets kinda hairy.

But those are the minority of courses.

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

Here's the definition I would use:

"Par represents errorless play by an expert, equaling the number of whole throws from the tee to the basket that an expert can be expected to make if he makes no mistakes."



Personally I would add the words "of a specific skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red)"... so that the definition reads:

"Par represents errorless play by an expert of a specific skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red), equaling the number of whole throws from the tee to the basket that an expert of that skill level can be expected to make if he makes no mistakes."

Ball golf makes challenges for different skill levels by having at least 3 sets of tees. In DG, though, the vast majority of existing courses have only one set of tees. Even if there are 2 (or even 3) tees they were not added with the new design criteria of different skill levels in mind. They were just put in somewhere.

We can make up for this in one of 2 ways:
1) Label the tees according to their skill level according to SSA. Many would be red, lots white, some blue, and a rare few gold.

OR

2) Give each hole layout 4 pars for Gold, Blue, White, Red according to the design standards and taking into account length, foliage, elevation, and obstacles.

If Par is a design issue, what level of play is the course/hole designed for, Gold, Blue, White, Red, or other.



Most existing courses were not designed for any level of play that matches the current design standards even if there was a vague idea like "Pro" or "Am". To be more precise we need to ask "Using SSA what level (Gold to Red) does this course play to?"


of Thought 1: Label everything according to Gold (Scratch)... pars are labeled, namely, according to a Scratch golfer. Disadvantage: May turn off new golfers that can't fathom how par can be so low.



There's so much confusion on this point. Ball golf has different standards for Blue scratch, White scratch, and Red scratch. Unless we have 3-4 appropriate designed sets of tees to match this we need to evaluate what kind of scratch player the course is actually for - red, white, blue, or gold.

There's also another school of thought you left out. Use a White level standard (or some may prefer blue). I prefer white because it mimics BG and is the level of the majority of players. This needs a factor to convert Gold SSA to white SSA. It would also mean making a Score/SSA/Rating table based on a 900 level defined as scratch. Not impossible.

For example, take Kentwood Park in Raleigh But it's SSA is probably around 41 or 42.



I think I've figured out a way to read the Rating/ SSA/ Score table backward and convert a Gold SSA to the SSA for another level. For example, if Kentwood is SSA 42 then it's Red SSA is approx. 53, which is close to actual stated par. Make hole 6 a par 2 and you're there.

This would mean that an 850 rated "scratch" player would shoot 53.

For SSA 42 White SSA = ~49 and Blue SSA= ~45.5

Paul,

I, too, am in agreement with your asessment.

I've played and rated over 120 courses (including all but 3 in NC) and here is where I'm currently at:

1) Use SSA to determine a coure's level (Gold, Blue, White, Red).

2) Convert the Gold SSA to the equivalent for a scratch golfer of that level. Ex. Gold SSA of 42 =~ Red SSA of 52.7

3) When I play a course determine par for all courses based on White tee design standards taking into account elevation, foliage, and obstacles. I use a standard of White so that I can make consistent par comparisons between the courses I play.

4) For courses I play often (like Kentwood) I'll probably also determine Red par according to design standards and variables.

5) Compare converted SSA to par to for an estimation of course difficulty.

[Ball golf makes challenges for different skill levels by having at least 3 sets of tees. In DG, though, the vast majority of existing courses have only one set of tees. Even if there are 2 (or even 3) tees they were not added with the new design criteria of different skill levels in mind. They were just put in somewhere.




Lowe,
I disagree with this statement. Yes, some courses have multiple tee placements which do not increase or decrease the par for the hole for a specific skill level, but IMO most multiple tee courses are designed to A) shorten the hole or B) provide an easier throw to the basket or landing area. or visa versa.

I contend that the PAR Nick is professing is the actual par for the round of golf for a number of players at a given time. (Which is very interesting and useful, BTW) What I am more interested in is a PAR for design. One that should be standardized for all new courses and one that can be used for comparing courses and players alike. I have yet to hear from anyone as to what they think the standard par for new course design should be. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

In Bgolf, as we all know, the standardized par is 70-72. If I told someone I shot a 90 last week, most everyone who know golf can compare my score with par. But if I told someone I shot a 60 on a disc golf course?? Only people who know the course and the level of difficulty would be able to understand if 60 was good or bad.

My suggestion is Par 62, (12 par 3, 4 par 4, 2 par 5) This is what should be designed to and posted. (or something similar) Then let scores be what they may, and you number crunchers can call it what you want.

Par should be Par, no matter what skill level the player is.

Dan,

Before I comment on the other terrific (IMO) ideas flying around here, I'd like to address your contention that we need to settle on a Standard Course Par Range for all future disc golf courses to try and hit. I think that it is a worthy idea, one that we definitely should look into, but after we have settled on how to set "Design Par Standards" and "Actual Par Standards".

Design Par Standards - A standard method of predetermining par for adjusting and creating holes to hit certain par goals.

Actual Par Standards - A standard method of determining what par actually is on existing holes.

Once the standards for these are defined, then we start in earnest on the task of figuring out what is the best spread of pars for disc golf courses.

Fair enough,

Okay horse get back in front of the cart :D

I would like to get some opinions. I am in the process of designing a course and can't wait forever. At some point I have to make a decision and would like to comform to some standard normalization of course par.

Paul,

Before we can take another step in our understanding of each others positions on setting standards for �Par� in disc golf, we must first find a common language and define that language. Here is my language and the definition of each term:

�Expert Golfer� = PDGA Ratings �Scratch Golfer� (player with a PDGA 1000 Rating)

Actual Par Standards
These I believe are the only terms and concepts we need to understand Actual Par Standards: (Not included are all of the terms, concepts and formulae of the PDGA Ratings System � there are plenty of places to read full detail concerning them)
1) SSA - Scratch Scoring Average - The SSA for a course is the average score expected on a course configuration by players rated 1000. It is normally shown to one decimal place for the course and two decimals for each hole.
2) WCP - World Class Par - is the par for each hole based on rounding off the SSA values to the nearest whole number for each hole. The hole-by-hole WCP values are adjusted where needed so that the total of all hole WCP values is no more than the total SSA value rounded up to the next whole number (i.e. if SSA = 51.1 then make WCP = 52).

If we do not agree to this, then we are using different languages and approaching par from very different positions.

Design Par Standards
I leave all of these in the worthy hands of our PDGA Design Committee Members. These have to do with �projecting� or �estimating� the SSA or WCP prior to the actual configuration and play of an actual hole. This would include theories concerning �expert throws

Skill Adjusted Par Standards
Based on how the course actually plays, projected design aspects and significant skill range breaks this provides standards by which course and hole by hole pars may be set according to agreed upon major skill range breaks. This will be used to set target standards for projected Design Par and to provide a uniform method of designating existing course layouts. In my opinion, using the existing PDGA divisional skill ranges is �ready-made� (1000, 950, 900, 850, 800), but I am open to other ideas. The key is that it be a fundamental standard.

Certified Par Standards
These are standards which a course designer or course pro must meet in order to have their course be �certified� as having met the standards of PDGA Par. These need to be set by the PDGA Design Committee and approved by the PDGA Board of Directors. They would include things such as: Setting the Primary Course Layout � A complete set of tees and pins that are considered the �main� or �primary� layout for the course; the layout can be any designated skill level, but that is the layout for which the Design Par is set as a goal and the Actual Par is subsequently set. Other sets of tees and pins may be added, targeting either higher or lower skill ranges, but the Primary Course Layout is the only one where full compliance to PDGA Par Standards is required in order for the par to be officially certified.

To address the topics in your post:


Because you've invited me back, Nick, I'm going to try again. Your last post made me think of another way to explain myself. And I'm beginning to wonder if we're just saying the same thing, coming from totally different directions.



I have been wondering the same thing for some time, and for more posts than just yours; that�s why I hope that we can �nail down� the terminology and basic concepts so that we can avoid circular miscommunications.


For example, take Kentwood Park in Raleigh (http://www.radl.biz/Courses/KENTWOOD/main.htm) . As designed, it's par-3 on every hole. But it's SSA is probably around 41 or 42. It's a very easy course.



This depends on how you define �As designed�, �Par� and whom you are talking about (which skill level range) is it �a very easy course� for Paul. I have played Kentwood and I believe I shot a 14 down at the 1990 Dogwood Xtown. Certainly I would say it is �a very easy course� for Scratch Golfers, but it could present a �decent� challenge for 900 or 850 skill range players. I have to wonder if an �Standard of Par� was employed what so ever on most courses already in the ground prior to modern concepts (which have also yet to be standardized), so saying that it was �designed� to be par-3 on every hole is difficult to say or determine.


If Kentwood's pars were re-marked to be accurate with SSA, that would still not make it a Gold Level course. But with a par displayed as 42, it would seem that's exactly what you're saying it is: Kentwood is Gold Level Par 42.



Actually, what I have been saying is that if Kentwood Park�s Primary Course Layout�s SSA is 42, that we have a standardized method by which we can set it�s Certified Par according to a major skill range level which avoids the possibility of �Par 2s� but maintains the holes relationship in a standardized way to the holes Actual Par (SSA).

Example: Kentwood � Course SSA is 42.1, WCP is 43, by setting the skill range to Red (850 Golf) rather than Gold (1000 Golf), we can then calculate 1000 � 850 = 150 or 15 strokes plus 43 (WCP) = a Certified Par of Red 58 (15 + 43 = 58). This creates room to differentiate the 4 more challenging holes on the course from the others while (most importantly) maintaining the direct relationship between Certified Par and Course SSA and WCP; which in return maintains the direct relationship between Kentwood�s Certified Par and every other courses Certified Par anywhere in the World, hence the term PDGA Par Standard.


My suggestion is to leave the par as is, which is as it was designed to be. Then use SSA to show what grade of course it is. (What would it be, Red level maybe?)



This may well be how it would turn out in the end (as illustrated in the example above) but the Certified Par would not be just �any old thing� the course designer or pro thought up, it would be based on the SSA and WCP and adjusted in a standardized way to reflect the par for a major standardized skill range.


But perhaps what you're saying, Nick, is that the par doesn't necessarily need to be re-marked for SSA-gold. It could be re-marked for SSA-red. For Red level courses, of course, that will leave the pars as they are already marked (unless someone had already marked them for Gold level play).



Very close to what I am saying, however, again, �SSA-Red� would be Skill Adjusted Par as described in the example above. Skill Adjusted Par�s relationship to SSA and WCP would remain constant (though possibly adjusted due to PDGA Ratings �Compression and Expansion Factors�, but don�t worry about these for now, the important thing to keep in mind is that even Skill Adjusted Par�s will be in 100% correct and direct relation to PDGA SSA and WCP).


In the end, we have Gold level courses with SSA-gold marks for par, Blue level courses with SSA-blue marks for par, White level courses with SSA-white marks for par, and Red level courses with SSA-red marks for par.



Correct. All Certified Pars will be based on SSA and WCP but adjusted to major skill range breaks.


So is this what you're saying, Nick?



Yes, Paul, it is.


I'm still concerned about constantly tweaking pars to match with SSA, but if all courses re-mark themselves against SSA just once, and then choose only one of the following to match with: SSA-gold, SSA-blue, SSA-white, or SSA-red -- except for the work involved, I don't see anything wrong with that.



Having a PDGA Certified Par on the Primary Layout of your course would be a value added service to all who play it and to all those considering traveling to it to play a casual round or event. I think that folks are �over-stating� how often a courses� SSA or WCP would change. Extreme weather in one round would necessarily disqualify that rounds SSA from being included in the calculation of the WCP, and in order for an SSA to vary more than 2 or 3 whole strokes from round to round you are generally talking about making 2 to 4 holes significantly more difficult to hole out in fewer strokes, so the course and hole by hole par really should be adjusted anyway to remain Certified.

In general, you�ve got it though Paul. But instead of calling it �SSA-Gold� or �SSA-Red� I�d call it �Certified Gold Par� or �Certified Red Par�.


But if the end result is always to justify the current par designations, keeping pars as is and just re-naming them SSA-red or SSA-blue, then I don't understand why we can't simply leave the pars alone to begin with and just demonstrate how they rank against SSA-gold/blue/white/red. Seems to me we're saying the same thing, just from a different angle.



We are not �just justifying the current par designations� though. Some may well remain the same as now, but even those will be now statistically substantiated by a PDGA Standard Par system that puts them in direct relationship to every other course around the world with a PDGA Certified Par.


Now if designers call holes par-4 or par-5, and yet scorecards on PDGA websites show all par 3s, I do have a problem with that. I thought that was the problem people were trying to fix when this thread started, but it doesn't seem we're talking about that here. If anything, I've seen talk about marking everything with Gold level par, which would bring several par-4 and par-5 holes on courses designed for Blue and Red level players down to par 3. I think if a course has enough variety, then par designations on the holes should reflect that. Even Kentwood could conceivably mark hole 14 as a Red level par 4. I wonder if that was the Kentwood designer's original intent.



We are, or at least I have, been talking about this. As shown in the example above, by using Skill Adjusted Par there would be room for differentiating hole by hole scoring average. However, in my opinion, in order for a standard to be a REAL standard it is vital that it function on every course and maintain a valid statistical relationship between every course. In this regard maintaining Course Par�s relationship to SSA and WCP is far more important than maintaining Hole by Hole Par�s relationship to hole by hole SSA or WCP. (Rounding the total course par maintains the accuracy many times more than rounding individual hole pars.)

Well, Paul, I really appreciate your interest in this. Hopefully we are understanding each other more clearly, and even if we don�t agree on everything at least we now will have the opportunity to agree to disagree or meaningfully agree.

My apologies to all the �sound bite� folks out there with attention deficit disorder, this stuff is not easily explained or understood in 3 word sentences or 10 second sound bites.

Pardon the typos, this due to it�s length, was not proof-read.

Here again is the proposed table:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color 18 Holes</td><td>PR Scratch Standard (PRSS)</td><td>Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf</td><td>Par Based on PRSS</td><td>Strokes Below 1000 Based SSA Allowed</td><td>Standards in Review - Courses below these standards fall to the next Tee Color Designation.
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>Gold Layout is based on 1000 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 54 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Gold Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>950</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>Blue Layout is based on 950 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 49 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Blue Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>900</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>10</td><td>White Layout is based on 900 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 44 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA White Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>850</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>Red Layout is based on 850 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 39 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Red Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>800</td><td><34</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>Green Layout is based on 800 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds <34 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Green Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Dan,

You should contact Chuck Kennedy concerning "Design Par Standards". He should have some useful guidelines to assist you in designing appropriate challenges for your intended skill level of users.

I believe, in his study of comparing BG to DGs tee, approach and putting averages he could give you an informed idea of what overall par should be the goal (i.e. 10 3s, 5 4s, 3 5s).

If not, do what course designers have been doing for years, go on gut and see how it turns out when it's actually played. I always think it is a good idea to get experienced players and designers to give you suggestions, but don't let them dominate you. You have to take the blame if the course doesn't pan out, so you deserve the final say on how it goes in.

Dan, 62 sounds like a good number.

I really like 62 as a target goal for pars on new courses.

Why can we not use par as a design concept and them some other figure to give a course a difficulty rating? Ball golf has it's course par, then also listed is "handicap index" and "slope rating"

The way I understand it our SSA is similar to handicap index. BD courses with a handicap index of 68.3 are obviously pretty easy courses.

Slope rating as I understand it is the spread of scores. I'm not sure how it's calculated but I'm sure people like Chuck have checked into it.

Using such things allows us to not try to change the par on existing courses, just add the SSA and slope rating to a course map or scorecard to inform people of the difficulty of the course.

The problem with a "red" vs "gold" par is that then the TD's have to have differen't scorecards for each level of player. They have to determine what divisions in a tournament are rates at what level of par. They have to have consideribly longer player meetings to tell people "advanced players will need to get BLUE scorecards so their pars will be correct" Having multiple values of par makes it WAY to hard on our TD's.

In my view, hole pars should not be put on tournament scorecards. For some reason, many players get brain lock and can't add their scores if a number other than 3 is in the par row on the card.

SSA is the equivalent of what's called the Course Rating (CR) in BG which might range from 68 to 76 for a course listed as par 72. Slope, in theory, is how much tougher a course with a specific CR plays for bogey golfers with an 18 handicap (roughly). Our Compression Factor (CF) used in the calculations is similar in concept to Slope. However, so far it appears all courses with the same SSA have the same CF, unlike golf. So, I believe ball golf needs to do more work on their calculations to actually prove that slope really does change for courses with the same CR. Since their CR and Slope values are based on pencil exercises and not actual score results like DG, they have some work to do.

I still say its a simple game... least number of throws to complete the course wins... maybe that's just me though...

In my view, hole pars should not be put on tournament scorecards. For some reason, many players get brain lock and can't add their scores if a number other than 3 is in the par row on the card.



From my cursory following of this thread, that defeats the only real reason that I have seen discussed for having par - at least that is applicable to DG. That is, adding penalty strokes for being late.

I would love to see hole-by-hole SSA listed on score cards as well as "Pro Par" (not rec. par).

In my view, hole pars should not be put on tournament scorecards. For some reason, many players get brain lock and can't add their scores if a number other than 3 is in the par row on the card.

SSA is the equivalent of what's called the Course Rating (CR) in BG which might range from 68 to 76 for a course listed as par 72. Slope, in theory, is how much tougher a course with a specific CR plays for bogey golfers with an 18 handicap (roughly). Our Compression Factor (CF) used in the calculations is similar in concept to Slope. However, so far it appears all courses with the same SSA have the same CF, unlike golf. So, I believe ball golf needs to do more work on their calculations to actually prove that slope really does change for courses with the same CR. Since their CR and Slope values are based on pencil exercises and not actual score results like DG, they have some work to do.



So Chuck, then what if any benefits does "Par" provide for ball golfers? Or for BG Course Designers for that matter? Is there no equivalent need for disc golfers and DG Course Designers?

Your statement above leads me to believe that you want "Par" to be merely a factor of some sort for abstract course designer tool with no real meaning for players or tournament competitors.

(If players can't add up single digit numbers then they need to go back to elementary school, not expect our sport to have to "dumb down" for their convenience.)

So Chuck, then what if any benefits does "Par" provide for ball golfers? Or for BG Course Designers for that matter? Is there no equivalent need for disc golfers and DG Course Designers?




The historical origins of par are about 100 years old. It was primarily a tool to help in handicapping for gambling purposes. Check out this link for a look at what the 'discussion board' of 1907 was like:

http://www.popeofslope.com/history/calkins.html

This website has some interesting background articles on the orgins of statistics in ball golf. Dean Knuth is the one who developed the Slope system for BG and he was dubbed the "Pope of Slope"
(Hmmm, let's see now, "Sultan of SSA" or "Regent of Ratings". Have to think more about that /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Today's hole handicaps are based on actual average hole scores in reference to par to rank holes from hardest to easiest on this basis. Par is also needed for the over/under process to report scores to the public. Handicapping and public score tracking have limited application for disc golf at this point if you want to compare BG and DG on their need for par.

Hold on a second Chuck. You are telling me that Par has nothing to do with providing the player/competitor with a reasonable expectation of difficulty on a hole?

That it does not indicate what an expert golfer is expected to average on the hole?

Hold on a second Chuck. You are telling me that Par has nothing to do with providing the player/competitor with a reasonable expectation of difficulty on a hole?




It does exactly that. It's a reasonable expectation not an exact expectation. IN BG the numbers are rounded off to whole number pars and are related to the hole scoring averages. But if the total hole scoring averages for the course add up to 68.4 and the hole pars add up to 72, they don't change the pars on some holes so the total par adds up to 68.



That it does not indicate what an expert golfer is expected to average on the hole?



Yes and its historical value was to level the odds to facilitate gambling more 'fairly'

From Encarta Dictionary:

par [ paar ]

noun (plural pars)

1. average level: a level or standard considered to be average or normal


2. finance accepted value of currency: the accepted value of one country�s currency in terms of the currency of another country that uses the same metal standard


3. commerce See par value


4. golf allocated standard score: the standard score assigned to each hole on a golf course, or to the sum total of these holes



adjective

average: average or normal



transitive verb (past parred, past participle parred, present participle par�ring, 3rd person present singular pars)

golf score par on: to score the equivalent of the par on a hole or course


[Late 16th century. From Latin, �equal� (source of English pair and umpire).]


be on (a) par (with somebody or something) to be on the same level as somebody or something, or generally have the same status or value


be par for the course to be usual or to be expected under the circumstances (informal)





Let us not forget the meaning of the word...... STANDARD SCORE.....

Shouldn't there be a set standard score before all the ratings and analyzing convolution. It seems obvious to me that setting a standard score for a new course can be done utilizing the designer�s discretion, and is not reliant upon data analysis.

Yes, the SSA, WCP and the like, are interesting and useful, AFTER a course is installed and played, and maybe there needs to be another discussion about course design standards.

Also, keep this in mind; we only have 1300 or so courses. If the growth of new courses stays the same, it will take no time at all for the 1300 to become obsolete, and the hundreds or thousands of new courses can and will be the new standards. The time is now, to set design standards for new courses. The PDGA can set certification standards so that new courses, or even existing courses, can be PDGA certified.

Though not outside the topic of "Defining Par" for me, World Class Par as defined by Chuck Kennedy is the best way to generate pars for hole by hole and courses I have found. Better than anything ball golf has come up with.

Here for your consideration is the WCP for:
PDGA HOLE BY HOLE WORLD CLASS PAR CALCULATOR
Course: Tyler State Park State: PA
Layout: Long Tees to C Pins Date: 9/25/2004

<table border="1"><tr><td> Actual Hole #</td><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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout</td><td></td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>C</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole Distance</td><td></td><td>241</td><td>434</td><td>356</td><td>224</td><td>797</td><td>424</td><td>339</td><td>490</td><td>271</td><td>273</td><td>551</td><td>400</td><td>456</td><td>328</td><td>269</td><td>296</td><td>635</td><td>578</td><td>7362
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole #</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><td>WCP
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole WCP</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole SSAs</td><td></td><td>2.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>5.2</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>63.9
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Of special note is how little hole distance has to do with SSA and WCP. Elevation and Foliage seem to be far more important in Tyler's case, though I do not have data on them.

The calculator was created using guidelines provided by Chuck. If you are interested in calculating the WCP of your home course contact me and I will be glad to do it for you if you supply the necessary data.

You are again mismatching definitions.

WCP is the best way to demonstrate past performance on a given course.

If you are trying to develop a system that at least relates to BG par, they are not related. I think the system of leaving par as designed, and rating the course overall as challenging to a certain level of player is more appropriate and easier.

The only place that the WCP->Par comparisons needs to be maintained is online where the people that care about that kind of stuff can find it.

If the PDGA course locator lists the course par, design rating (red, white, blue, gold), and WCP to par comparisons, what more is needed?

You are again mismatching definitions.

WCP is the best way to demonstrate past performance on a given course.

If you are trying to develop a system that at least relates to BG par, they are not related. I think the system of leaving par as designed, and rating the course overall as challenging to a certain level of player is more appropriate and easier.

The only place that the WCP->Par comparisons needs to be maintained is online where the people that care about that kind of stuff can find it.

If the PDGA course locator lists the course par, design rating (red, white, blue, gold), and WCP to par comparisons, what more is needed?



Having WCP on the tee signs?

Why are we limited to BGs understanding and use of "Par" when we clearly have a superior one screaming to be utilized? It just shows how tough it really is to change entrench thinking...

Not entrenched thinking, a universally recognized concept.

And anything that will require parks depts or clubs to spend money won't happen everywhere. It has always been an option for designers to put as much information as hey want on the tee signs, and some places may put WCPs on the tee signs. The point is that the listed course par, the level player the listed par is appropriate for, and the WCP can all be listed in the course directory for all that want that information without the expense of redoing all the tee signs on 1300 courses.

Not entrenched thinking, a universally recognized concept.

And anything that will require parks depts or clubs to spend money won't happen everywhere. It has always been an option for designers to put as much information as hey want on the tee signs, and some places may put WCPs on the tee signs. The point is that the listed course par, the level player the listed par is appropriate for, and the WCP can all be listed in the course directory for all that want that information without the expense of redoing all the tee signs on 1300 courses.



Gary, that is a non-argument. We no more have to redo our tee signs for WCP then we do for nonsensical BG par. It is an option. It is a standard, by which course pros and local clubs can provide "value-added" experience for those who play their course, rather than a willy nilly number that has little statistical validity concerning "what an expert golfer is expected to shoot on average on a certain hole".

Providing WCP on your tee signs is not an obligation required by the PDGA, no more than slapping some non-standardized par on, it is up to the course pro to decide what best serves the needs of their courses users. (Something that has uniform, statistically relevant information or something that is based on the loose feelings of the course pro. It's a choice.)

Almost every course I have been to has a par listed on the tee signs already. No consistent reasoning behind the par that is already there, but a par is listed anyway.

By placing the information online for those that are interested, the tee signs do not have to be changed at all. The relative comparisons will all be online, nothing on the course need be touched.

It need not, yet remains an option for course pros and TDs looking to provide value added service for golfers who visit their course.

I'm not making it mandatory, but if you are going to post a par at your course, why not have it be based upon a verifiable universal standard rather than on an inkling or wish?

...if you are going to post a par at your course, why not have it be based upon a verifiable universal standard rather than on an inkling or wish?




So if I understand Nick's point, without the WCP or SSA calculation, the stated par has no validity. It's just a made-up number.

But I don't think it's either/or. There's not just two options: 1) SSA and valid, or 2) not SSA and therefore wrong. I think there's a third option, and Pete and Lowe and GnDuke and a number of others have been talking about it. The third option is a par based on the design of the course, one that has to do with how the discs were expected to be thrown.

I may be wrong about this, but I think that when a designer figures par for a hole, he's figuring out the disc throws from A to B to C to D (for par 3). So first he's figuring out where the disc should be thrown from the tee -- say this is the A-to-B throw. Then he's figuring out the approach shot: throw B-to-C. Then he finishes the hole design with the putt shot C-to-D.

And if it's an interesting hole, all these shots are designed to carry some risk. But let's say carrying even more risk would be throw A-to-B2, which starts a more ambitious path to the hole, one that 1000-rated players may attempt. 1000-rated players may also attempt putt B2-to-D -- and in spite of the potential risk, frequently make it. So is this hole a par-3 or a par-2?

If the designer considers the hole a par-3, then SSA and WCP would in the end show the relative success of taking path A-to-B2-to-D over path A-to-B-to-C-to-D to complete the hole. SSA/WCP would then give players a sense of the risk/reward ratio on that hole. If both par and SSA are posted at the hole or on a website, a player could consider the hole a par-3 with a considerable birdie opportunity for 1000-rated players.

But if the designer thinks that the two-shot path (A-to-B2-to D) is actually the only "correct" path to take on that hole, he may say from the beginning that the hole is par 2, and every other path taken is a mistake on the player's part. This is why I stated in one of my past posts that par is whatever the designer thinks it is. His perspective has a lot to do with the setting of par. Is he designing the course for Gold level players? For Red level players? For Junior players?

Whether the par is 2 or 3 for that hole, I think there's validity to either par assignment. The SSA/WCP approach is not "clearly superior" -- it's just one of the options. And I wouldn't dismiss the non-SSA approach out-of-hand and call it just an "inkling or wish" on the designer's part. I'm assuming that designing a course is not a trivial thing, and that the designer has put some serious thought into it. He may have in mind what throws he expects his target players to take.

So if the attempt here is to apply a universal standard, I don't understand how this can be done unless all designers share the same viewpoint. Even the few of us on this thread don't share a common viewpoint.

But a commonly applied measurement, as defined by SSA, can be made on any hole or course, no matter the designer's viewpoint. And that SSA result can be made available online or posted on the hole signs, and the PDGA could even bestow a course rating. With that information, designers can choose to do what they will. They can use SSA as feedback either to improve their courses, they can choose to leave them as is, saying, "Yep, that's just what I was trying for."

It need not, yet remains an option for course pros and TDs looking to provide value added service for golfers who visit their course.

I'm not making it mandatory, but if you are going to post a par at your course, why not have it be based upon a verifiable universal standard rather than on an inkling or wish?



I want to add that I am perfectly fine with using some (yet to be finalized) design standard for par on courses yet to be played. But when data does come in that provides, with statistical certanty, what an expert golfer "actually does average" on the holes and course, that any revision to the course and hole pars at least attempt to utilize that information, so that "Disc Golf Par" can once and for all enter the realm of understandable logic and utility.

I want to add that I am perfectly fine with using some (yet to be finalized) design standard for par on courses yet to be played. But when data does come in that provides, with statistical certanty, what an expert golfer "actually does average" on the holes and course, that any revision to the course and hole pars at least attempt to utilize that information, so that "Disc Golf Par" can once and for all enter the realm of understandable logic and utility.



As I said in my last post, I think that's a valid point of view. I also think it's valid not to do this and instead use SSA as only a measurement of past performance on the course, leaving the course par as is. I'm just not sure imposing SSA as the new course par will get universal acceptance from those who have their own ideas about what par is for their courses. But I bet rating their courses using SSA, and leaving designers to react accordingly, will not ruffle as many feathers -- and they may do exactly what you hope they will do and change the par.

Paul, I can accept the reluctance of some course pros and designers in adopting WCP as Par for their courses. It is their course after all. That being said, we can not put off formalizing a logical and useful standardization of what "par" is in disc golf. I have outlined above what I think is a holistic concept of disc golf par, from design to resultant scoring. It will work, it will make sense, it will be useful, and it will happen. The only question is whether we will get it started now or put off this relatively simple and effortless task until later.

Obviously, my vote is for now.

"It will happen" ?

If I owned the course, and I figured out what Par was by my designs, your version of par that wanted to change my ideas of pars would never go in on my course. Especially if I am told I have no choice in the matter.

Why must you insist in forcing your definition of Par upon a world that is resisting the change when a perfectly functional option is available that requires only a few changes to a couple of databases and web pages. One that can be implemented in months instead of years and will still provide the same information to all of the players that really care to see it. And one that requires no one to go out and modify or replace any tee sign on any course ?

I had to laugh, too, when I read "it will happen". I thought at first that Nick was saying designers will be forced to accept his defined standard for par.

On second reading, maybe Nick was saying that some improved standardization of par will happen. I can see that -- I think any guidance that the PDGA can provide will be beneficial.

But it should be approached in that manner -- providing guidance, as opposed to enforcing guidelines. Although we cannot all agree on what par is, I think we can at least agree on that, right?

I think there's a third option, and Pete and Lowe and GnDuke and a number of others have been talking about it. The third option is a par based on the design of the course, one that has to do with how the discs were expected to be thrown.



Paul, not that my opinion really matters for anything, but I would like to clarfy one thing in the hope that it may persuade others. I actually don't agree that par should be based on the designers intention for existing courses.

There are 2 categories of courses and not differentiating them is adding to the confusion. There are 1) existing courses that were established from 1976-2004, 2) there are future courses that can use the recently established standards for par by skill level (Gols, Blue, White, Red).

For future coursee is the PDGA can certify some standards such as the definition of par, the method for calculating par, and design standards then there will be some objective standards that designers must adhere to. If they do, then par will be consistent. The "PDGA Course Design Guidelines for each Player Skill Level" are a significant step in the right direction. Chuck's work on the new WI DG complex seems to be using these standards to design courses for different skill levels. He may be the first person to intentionally do so.

But then there are 2) All of the existing courses. Except for very newest courses it will not even be possible to find out the designers original intent. Then there are the 20-28 year old courses that have become obsolete because of huge changes in disc technology. Those guys never designed a course for a "White Level" player because there was no SSA and no standards. Most courses were never even designed with any consistent standard for par, much less for a specific skill level.

So I think that the only solution is to determine not the designers intent, but what level the course actually plays to. This can theoretically be done using SSA. (Although I still have a bunch of unanswered questions about using SSA. ...still waiting Nick!) Anyway, I think it's concievable to use Gold SSA to determine if a course plays to a Red, White, Blue, or Gold level. Existing SSA can be converted to an equivalent SSA for each player level.

So in summary, I propose:
1) Determining the Playing level of a course (Gold, Blue, White, Red)using SSA.
2) Converting Gold SSA to equivalent SSA in Blue, White, or Red.
3) Determining par based on what a scratch player for the level would shoot.

As a corollary I also see absolutely no problem with having par 2s which is just one of the realities of our sitution. So what if a coures is par 52 or even 50? Although, if you determine that a course is Red level then there will be far fewer par 2s than if you held it to a Gols standard.

P.S.- Rodney recently told me that using the terminology "World Class Par" (WCP) is dying. Because of all the ambiguity and lots of problems with using that term I agree that it needs to die. Long live SSA!

It's no biggie either way. WCP is just the rounded SSA values for each hole which is equivalent to the Gold Par. So, Gold Par can replace WCP to be consistent with using Blue Par, Red Par, etc.

As far as evaluating existing courses, the numbers for each hole can be plugged into the Hole Forecaster. Each tee color can be toggled in it to see which player skill level seems to be the best fit. Nick would prefer the highest color that would have par over 54 to avoid Par 2s but that color might not be the best fit for the existing hole lengths.

Except for very newest courses it will not even be possible to find out the designers original intent. Then there are the 20-28 year old courses that have become obsolete because of huge changes in disc technology.



Somebody is probably maintaining those courses, if not the designer. The point is, to change the par, you'll have to get buy-in from somebody. Dictating a change in par standards may not win over those with an independent streak (i.e., disc golfers). Providing SSA as a recommended par standard for those designers (or maintainers) struggling with this issue may work better.

By the way, even the Rules Q&A (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) says this in answer to the question "Par 3 for every hole?":

"Par is whatever is assigned to a hole by the designer."

"...par is useful in that it provides a general reference point."

I think these are helpful points of view to consider when we're talking about telling a designer what he can or can't do. Also, it begs the question regarding the necessity of establishing absolute accuracy in a par assignment versus simply providing a "practical par... so that newer players have a reasonable goal" (another quote from the Q&A).


So in summary, I propose:
1) Determining the Playing level of a course (Gold, Blue, White, Red)using SSA.
2) Converting Gold SSA to equivalent SSA in Blue, White, or Red.
3) Determining par based on what a scratch player for the level would shoot.



Sounds good, but then what? Would you recommend putting this info on a website or do you want to see the tee signs altered?


As a corollary I also see absolutely no problem with having par 2s which is just one of the realities of our sitution. So what if a coures is par 52 or even 50? Although, if you determine that a course is Red level then there will be far fewer par 2s than if you held it to a Gols standard.



I think that's consistent reasoning. Avoiding par-2s doesn't make much sense if you're striving first and foremost for an accurate par.


P.S.- Rodney recently told me that using the terminology "World Class Par" (WCP) is dying. Because of all the ambiguity and lots of problems with using that term I agree that it needs to die. Long live SSA!



I like Chuck's response to this -- I much prefer "Gold Par" to "World Class Par".

I don't have a big problem with SSA, but it takes me a while to realize it means Scratch Score Average. (Right?) I'm also not savvy enough to know what a scratch score is, actually -- is that a ball golf term that we're borrowing, or did we coin it? How did a "scratch score" come to be equated with 1000-rated golf? Why does SSA remind me of a baseball stat? As well as the Social Security Administration? (No, I'm not that old.)

Questions, questions...

As far as evaluating existing courses, the numbers for each hole can be plugged into the Hole Forecaster. Each tee color can be toggled in it to see which player skill level seems to be the best fit. Nick would prefer the highest color that would have par over 54 to avoid Par 2s but that color might not be the best fit for the existing hole lengths.



I thought Nick's proposal attempted to eliminate par-2s only to squelch possible objections to it, not because Nick himself had a personal problem with par-2s.

Also, just because a course has a total par over 54 doesn't mean that a single hole won't be rated a par 2, because many other holes may compensate by being par 4 or greater. For some courses, you may have to elevate a course par to 60 or higher to ensure no hole is rated a par 2.

In BG, scratch golfers have about a zero handicap. Scratch disc golfers are those who shoot the course rating on average in DG. In our case, they are 1000-rated players by a circular definition. They shoot SSA and those who shoot SSA get 1000 rating for that round.

The very first SSAs were determined at the 1998 Cincinnati Pro Worlds by averaging the 100 best scores by 100 different players on each course. The decision was that a hypothetical 50th best player would shoot just well enough to cash and would define what a world class scratch player would be for disc golf. It's held up pretty well since even today, players pretty much have to shoot at a 1000-rated level to snag last cash at an A-tier.

hnh-heh, he said the logic is; ' sickuler'! http://chat.pups.ru/img/beavis.gif...that rocks!!

WCP is just the rounded SSA values for each hole which is equivalent to the Gold Par.



Chuck,

To me, that's why using the word par connected with a number derived from SSA is misleading. Isn't a number tied to SSA that is called par what Nick is advocating? and isn't this idea what you are arguing against?

Don't SSAs change while par should be constant?
Isn't par a design standard while SSA is statistical measurement? (I'm rehashing earlier arguments from this thread.)

It seems to me that Par should be based on specific design criteria, but SSA is a measure of the course's difficulty. Par does not need to be the same as SSA. In fact, I think they SHOULD be different so that you can tell which course is harder. If you have two par 54 courses but one has an SSA of 53 and an SSA of 52 then the lower number is harder. It's just the same reality as in BG; some courses are harder and some are easier.


So, Gold Par can replace WCP to be consistent with using Blue Par, Red Par, etc.



Chuck, et al,
Even though I advocate it, I just want to make sure that it really is valid to label existing courses as Blue, White, Red. Do you think this is a valid concept? These color ratings are for players not for courses. However, by my personal definition a course gets a color rating when a player of a certain color level is considered a scratch golfer there. So a Red course is one where Gold SSA is so low that it equals the average score that an 850 rated player would shoot.

For example, using the Score/SSA/ Rating table - at SSA of 43 (Gold, of course) an (averaged) score of 53.92 would yield an 850 rating. So it seems to me that if an 850 rated player averaged slightly below 54 on this course then it could be called a Red course.

As I've typed this I've had to hesitate because of some imprecision related to the point of comparison being SSA or "par". Perhaps later I can try to give some examples and explain this better. (For example, in the above example our minds immediately think that 53.92 should be close to "par" which we assume is 54. But what if that course had some par 2s or par 4s?)

Nick is advocating that SSA for the course would be within a throw of the Par for the course for the skill level that makes par 54 or higher. I'm saying the Par for each hole would be the rounded SSA on a hole by hole basis which might make the total par as much as 5 different from total SSA. And BTW, the SSA doesn't change that much under normal conditions. Even with heavy wind it might change the total SSA up to 3 shots unless the course is wide open like DMACC. But when that's divided among holes, the change is normally 0.03 and up to .17 per hole under adverse conditions.

A couple of general points:

1) I am advocating the development of standards, not that all course pros be forced to agree with them. That would be unrealistic, since they, like us, are about as cooperative as a herd of cats.
2) I may argue my points as forcefully as I can manage, but my mind is open, and I am willing to consider new ideas. Concerning standards for setting par I am willing to see the value in using all tools available (Design Concepts, Scratch Score Average and "Gold Par") and letting the Course Pro decide what "Par" is for each hole.
3) But I think that a standard by which all courses pars can be universally and verifiably judged and compared is something that not only we need to do, but that will provide value to disc golfers everywhere and to our sport as a whole.
4) The thing is to nail down the "best practice" as best we can concering disc golf par and get started on the process of continual upgrading and improvement so that 10 or 20 years from now, not only are we not having this discussion, but every course in the world has a uniform standard of par on it's tee signs, scorecards, in the course directory, online course info, and everyone who cares to know what all that means will face the same standard whether they are playing a course in Delaware or Australia.

So in summary, I propose:
1) Determining the Playing level of a course (Gold, Blue, White, Red)using SSA.
2) Converting Gold SSA to equivalent SSA in Blue, White, or Red.
3) Determining par based on what a scratch player for the level would shoot.



Sounds good, but then what? Would you recommend putting this info on a website or do you want to see the tee signs altered?



Personally I hadn't planned that far. I've just been keeping data my own date in an Excel spreadsheet on course rating numbers and in an Access database called "Course Evaluations".

For those who have the resources putting the info on website would be great. Then on the PDGA directory page have a link to the info. The really ambitious can put it on tee signs.

Nick,


1) I am advocating the development of standards, ...




I agree 100%


2) But I think that a standard by which all courses pars can be universally and verifiably judged and compared is something that not only we need to do...



I agree 100%!


4) The thing is to nail down the "best practice" as best we can concering disc golf par"



I agree 100%!

Here are the results from the Hole by Hole Ratings Calculator from this weekends event a next years Pro Worlds Course. Prior to the calculations the course pro had estimated the par to be around 66. In this instance the calculations seem to confirm his estimation. They also perhaps offer some clues as to how to get the SSA rather than the Design Par to match the Design Par. By raising the Scratch Score Average on only three holes by 1/10th of a stoke the course would have a World Class Par (or Gold Par) of 67! And that doesn't even include the changes coming that will make hole 14 twice as long...

Enjoy!

<table border="1"><tr><td> Course:</td><td>Nockamixon</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout:</td><td>GOLD</td><td></td><td>ST:</td><td>PA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Actual Hole #</td><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><td># of Holes
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout</td><td></td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>18.0
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole Distance</td><td></td><td>828</td><td>505</td><td>237</td><td>460</td><td>357</td><td>544</td><td>409</td><td>460</td><td>483</td><td>535</td><td>424</td><td>316</td><td>285</td><td>329</td><td>345</td><td>440</td><td>520</td><td>700</td><td>8177.0
</td></tr><tr><td>No of Players</td><td>Mode</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>24.0</td><td>Median</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1s</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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2s</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>3s</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>4s</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>15</td><td>10</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>5s</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>6s</td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>7s</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</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>
</td></tr><tr><td>8s</td><td>2</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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Date:</td><td>10/2/2004</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole #</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><td>WCP
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole WCP</td><td></td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole SSAs</td><td></td><td>5.4</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>4.0</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.2</td><td>64.0
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>APR</td><td>AHBHS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>ASR
</td></tr><tr><td>64.0</td><td>941.2</td><td>6.1</td><td>4.3</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.9</td><td>4.4</td><td>4.7</td><td>71.9
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Note: The formula and calculations were developed by Chuck Kennedy. I just put them all together to make the calculator. If you are interested in seeing how your (existing) course scores send me hole by hole results of at least 10 PDGA Rated Players (the more the better) and I will plug them in and send them back to you. At this stage I'd prefer to do calculations myself, though in the future I hope to make this tool more readily available.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Course:</td><td>Tyler State Park </td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout:</td><td>Gold</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Actual Hole #</td><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><td># of Holes
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout(Must Be Entered)</td><td></td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole Distance</td><td></td><td>241</td><td>434</td><td>356</td><td>224</td><td>797</td><td>424</td><td>339</td><td>490</td><td>271</td><td>273</td><td>551</td><td>400</td><td>456</td><td>328</td><td>269</td><td>296</td><td>635</td><td>578</td><td>7362
</td></tr><tr><td>State:</td><td>PA</td><td>Mode</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Date:</td><td>38255</td><td>Median</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1s</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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2s</td><td>24</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>0</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>3s</td><td>51</td><td>35</td><td>31</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>42</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>3</td><td>46</td><td>9</td><td>41</td><td>0</td><td>50</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>34</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>4s</td><td>4</td><td>35</td><td>37</td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>43</td><td>27</td><td>39</td><td>21</td><td>38</td><td>10</td><td>34</td><td>18</td><td>9</td><td>24</td><td>40</td><td>50</td><td>40</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5s</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>31</td><td>22</td><td>9</td><td>21</td><td>5</td><td>28</td><td>1</td><td>29</td><td>4</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>19</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>6s</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>27</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>27</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>7s</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>8s</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</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>
</td></tr><tr><td>No of Players</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>Hole #</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><td>WCP
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole WCP</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole SSAs</td><td></td><td>2.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>5.2</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>63.9
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>APR</td><td>AHBHS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>ASR
</td></tr><tr><td>63.94976307</td><td>926.675</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>5.8</td><td>4.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>4.5</td><td>3.2</td><td>5.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.2</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>71.1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Nick, your data got screwed up when you transferred it onto the message board. It should look like the following:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Course:</td><td>Nockamixon</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout:</td><td>GOLD</td><td></td><td>ST:</td><td>PA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Actual Hole #</td><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><td># of Holes
</td></tr><tr><td>Layout</td><td></td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>G</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole Distance</td><td></td><td>828</td><td>505</td><td>237</td><td>460</td><td>357</td><td>544</td><td>409</td><td>460</td><td>483</td><td>535</td><td>424</td><td>316</td><td>285</td><td>329</td><td>345</td><td>440</td><td>520</td><td>700</td><td>8177
</td></tr><tr><td>No of Players</td><td>Mode</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Median</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1s</td><td></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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2s</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>3s</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>4s</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>15</td><td>10</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>5s</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>6s</td><td></td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>7s</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</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>
</td></tr><tr><td>8s</td><td></td><td>2</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><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Date:</td><td>10/2/2004</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole #</td><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><td>WCP
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole WCP</td><td></td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole by Hole SSAs</td><td></td><td>5.4</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>4</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.2</td><td>64
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>APR</td><td>AHBHS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>ASR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>941.2</td><td>6.1</td><td>4.3</td><td>2.7</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.8</td><td>3</td><td>2.9</td><td>4.4</td><td>4.7</td><td>71.9
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Thanks for working up this data. -Jeff

...how to get the SSA rather than the Design Par to match the Design Par.



Shouldn't it be pretty simple to get the design par to match the design par? :D

Nick,

Although I agree with all of the objectives you outlined, I pretty strongly disagree with your PRSS solution. I think it has some fatal flaws which I can enumerate later.

The biggest problem we face is how to determine par for the 1500+ existing courses already in the ground.

I think that whether or not there should be par 2s for Gold level players is one key issue that needs to be resolved. The "powers that be" (whoever that is) need to make a solid decision about this and then implement it across the board. The answer to the par 2 issue affects the approach you take to making standards for par. As Chuck has said, in earlier posts in this thread, for Gold level players (which SSA is based on) par 2 is a reality that we just have to deal with. Chuck, I'm sure you'll be gratified to know that I, too, think there should be par 2s. (Does that then settle the question? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Nick, you said that the core of your PRSS system is to avoid par 2s. IMO this then creates the need for your complex mathematical gymnastics. If we can accept the reality of par 2 on existing courses (and avoid them on all newly designed courses) we can come up with much easier and more readily acceptable standards for par.

if a "good" hole is one that readily differentiates the quality of players, then all "par 2"'s are bad holes because they cannot show that a player is better than par, except for those rare lucky bad shots. all they can do is show a player is worse.

there is no such thing as par 2 - there are only ridiculously easy par 3's.

someone's contrived formulas might say par 2 exists, but as a concept it is useless. as they say, statistics can prove anything.

If we can accept the reality of par 2 on existing courses (and avoid them on all newly designed courses) we can come up with much easier and more readily acceptable standards for par.



Problem is Lowe, we can not "accept" the reality of par 2s. I am ready and waiting for your suggestion of a "much easier and more readily acceptable standards for par". Any estimates on when it will appear?

The math is not complex for converting World Class Par or (Gold Par) to Blue, White, Red of Green Par and avoid any possibility of posting Par 2s on our tee signs (existing or future). And the key is that they remain consistant with World Class Par.

But this is only a shell. The guts of the plan are as follows:

1) Create Design Par Standards - These are based on design concepts but related to major skill level range breaks. They help in projecting likely Scratch Score Averages or lesser skill level ranges to create appropriate challenges.
2) Create Performance Par Standards - These are based on the resulting scores, with 1000 Rated Golf as the standard, of the designed course. This verifies the design calculations and provides a tool for adjusting course design, along side design concerns, to create a course that more closely plays to the designers expectation.
3) Online and Tee Sign Par Standards - These standards are based on both Design and Performace Par considerations, with final say given to the course designer. To be classified as being in compliance with PDGA Par Standards, it would have to be verified within a stipulated range of the Design and Performance Pars.

The next step is to set and include clear distance/elevation/foliage/wind guidelines for design standards to increase the appropriateness of challenges presented to each major skill level range. Because a Par 4 based on Gold Par, does not mean that it is an appropriate or optimal challenge for Gold Players, it might actually be a far better Par 5 for Blue or White Players (none of which changes the standard index of Gold Par 4 [SSA 3.5 to 4.4], it just helps to designate which Tee Color Set it best belongs with).

The primary goal, besides avoiding Par 2s, of the Color Tee Designations matched to minimum par scorings of 54 is to set a minimum level of challenge per skill level (Par 3 per hole and usually higher on most courses that are slightly above the minimum per color range).

The math is not complex for converting World Class Par or (Gold Par) to Blue, White, Red of Green Par and avoid any possibility of posting Par 2s on our tee signs (existing or future)...

The primary goal, besides avoiding Par 2s, of the Color Tee Designations matched to minimum par scorings of 54 is to set a minimum level of challenge per skill level (Par 3 per hole and usually higher on most courses that are slightly above the minimum per color range).



Nick, the math is more complex than your proposal shows. Par 2 holes are still possible on courses with a par over 54. I've said this in an earlier post, but perhaps you missed it.

And this is not a difference of opinion. I can give you an example. Say, a course has a Gold Par 56. Let's say statistically that's made up of two par-2s, four par-4s, and twelve par-3s. All the hole pars sum up to a course par of 56, but you still have two par-2s.

For that matter, eight par-2s and ten par-4s will also add up to a course par of 56. For this example, to avoid par-2s, you'd have to elevate all eight par-2 holes up to par 3 and drop eight of the ten par-4 holes down to par 3 to maintain your course's Gold Par of 56. That wouldn't be very accurate on the hole pars, but at least the course par would stay matched to SSA.

To statistically avoid par-2s on this same course, you would end up with eight par-3s and ten par-5s, which would give the course a total par of 74. But this would be par for a Red Level player, probably -- certainly not a Gold Par.

To statistically avoid par-2s on this same course, you would end up with eight par-3s and ten par-5s, which would give the course a total par of 74. But this would be par for a Red Level player, probably -- certainly not a Gold Par.



Actually, it may be worse than I thought. If the holes on a course are all par-2 and par-4 for Gold Level players, then they are separated by two Gold-level throws. But statistically shifted to Red-level to avoid par-2s, they may now need to be separated by three Red-level throws!

So then you end up with eight par-3s and ten par-6s to calculate your Red-level par! That's a Red-level course par of 84!

Another way to think of it: par-2s shifted to par-3s mean an increase of 50% of the throws to get to the basket. Par-4s shifted to par-6s also mean an increase of 50% of the throws to the basket.

...I am ready and waiting for your suggestion of a "much easier and more readily acceptable standards for par". Any estimates on when it will appear?



Kind of a snippy response! But earlier in this thread I already gave my methodology for determining the par of an existing course. It still needs some work in spots to be sure. And if there is a better way I'm always open to suggestion.


(Par 3 per hole and usually higher on most courses that are slightly above the minimum per color range).



Nick,

Briefly this is the crux of why I think your PRSS system will never work. For levels other than Gold you have to inflate par above 3. This inflation of par required will never fly with anyone who's a regular player. IMO, with all due respect, this is a fatal flaw of you system. I can give more details if later if you'd like.

As one example, if you go back to your analysis of Burke Lake or to your suggestions about Kentwood in Raleigh you have many par 4s on courses that are already very easy. Noboby will ever use that.

I still agree with your overall objectives, though.

I'm not trying to argue, and I only post my opinion here in hopes of moving the discussion forward.

Say, a course has a Gold Par 56. Let's say statistically that's made up of two par-2s, four par-4s, and twelve par-3s. All the hole pars sum up to a course par of 56, but you still have two par-2s.




Obviously since there are par 2's then atleast some holes are not appropriate for Gold players.

Now do that example based on Blue level players. Likely the par 2's are blue level par 3's so you then have a blue course par of 58 (assuming the other 12 par 3's and the par 4's stay the same for a blue level player)

Obviously since there are par 2's then atleast some holes are not appropriate for Gold players.



That's true. But Nick's system assumes a course par of 54 is all that's needed to bump to a different color level to avoid par 2s. And that's not the case.


Now do that example based on Blue level players. Likely the par 2's are blue level par 3's so you then have a blue course par of 58 (assuming the other 12 par 3's and the par 4's stay the same for a blue level player)



Likely? Par-2s are really, really easy holes, and Blue-level players are still very strong players. And par-2s are not just a Gold-level phenomenon. There will be statistical par-2s to contend with for Blue level, for White level, even for Red level courses.

But for your example, you're talking about Gold Par-2s that are just on the cusp of being rounded up to Blue-Par 3. At the same time, you're assuming that Gold-Par-3s and Gold-Par-4s are easy enough that they stay the same par, becoming somewhat more difficult Blue Par-3s and Blue Par-4s. As a result, Blue course par is 58.

This is better than 74 or 84, but worse than my first example of 56, and none of these pars match up with Nick's proposal, which simply asks for course par to be shifted to 54 to avoid par-2s.

I suppose an example could be imagined where a course par of exactly 54 would be obtained which totally eliminates par-2s, but having a par standard that only works on a limited number of course configurations isn't appropriate. You can't call it a "standard" if it only fits a narrow definition of possibilities. A standard has to be universally applied to all possible courses, or it isn't a standard at all.

So I think Nick's proposal is a step in the right direction, but it won't work without modification if one of the intents is to eliminate par-2s. On some courses, total par may need to be elevated substantially beyond what Nick is calling for and still keep the relative weightings between hole pars statistically accurate.

That's true. But Nick's system assumes a course par of 54 is all that's needed to bump to a different color level to avoid par 2s. And that's not the case.




I agree.


Likely? Par-2s are really, really easy holes, and Blue-level players are still very strong players. And par-2s are not just a Gold-level phenomenon. There will be statistical par-2s to contend with for Blue level, for White level, even for Red level courses.




Do you realize how easy a hole would have to be to be a par 2 for a blue, white or red level player? You are talking about holes wide open and under 175 feet. For a red player the hole would have to be wide open and under 100 feet to qualify. So me saying "likely" for any hole that you are talking about(that would be considered a real hole) is pretty good assumption.


But for your example, you're talking about Gold Par-2s that are just on the cusp of being rounded up to Blue-Par 3. At the same time, you're assuming that Gold-Par-3s and Gold-Par-4s are easy enough that they stay the same par, becoming somewhat more difficult Blue Par-3s and Blue Par-4s. As a result, Blue course par is 58.




All Gold par 2's are on the cusp, with the exception of a really bad wide open short hole. I dont beleive any hole can fall below 2.0 on average(unless of course it was like 30 feet long...lol) so ALL gold par 2's are within .4 of being a blue par 3.


So I think Nick's proposal is a step in the right direction, but it won't work without modification if one of the intents is to eliminate par-2s. On some courses, total par may need to be elevated substantially beyond what Nick is calling for and still keep the relative weightings between hole pars statistically accurate.



Maybe the right direction is to just not assume that over gold par 54 is a gold course.

If you have holes on the course that are gold par 2 then the course should be labeled by blue par standards. If the course has blue par 2's then it should be labeled white etc.

I beleive Sandalman pointed out in an earlier post that any par 2 hole is a dumb hole. There is just no way a par 2 hole can have anything but terrible score spread. They should be avoided. If they are present then maybe that course is just not upto whatever skill level par was set for and should be considered for a lower skill level par.

I do have to say that one major contribution from Nick's system that I gleaned is the possibility of having separate par standards for the different playing levels. That's been a very helpful step forward.

Here's a chart that may help some people a little. None of it is my work. When I asked if there were any length guidlines for par for each skill level Chuck pointed me to the chart called "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Rating based on Hole Length". I simply put the data into a different format. I transferred it into a length continuum for the various foliage types. I did add one category I called "Thick" so that there would be 10 levels.

For each hole on a course after you've determined the "effective length" based on elevation differential then see what kind of foliage there is and see what par should be for that hole for various skill levels.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Foliage adjustment
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>1. None</td><td><325</td><td>325-749</td><td>750-1100</td><td>>1100
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><290</td><td>290-649</td><td>650-950</td><td>>950
</td></tr><tr><td>>964 PR</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><260</td><td>260-599</td><td>600-949</td><td>950-1300
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td><250</td><td>250-574</td><td>575-874</td><td>875-1150
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td><240</td><td>240-539</td><td>540-849</td><td>850-1120
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><230</td><td>230-509</td><td>510-774</td><td>775-1050
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td><225</td><td>225-499</td><td>500-724</td><td>725-1000
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td><210</td><td>210-474</td><td>475-709</td><td>710-950
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Thick</td><td><205</td><td>205-449</td><td>450-689</td><td>690-930
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10. Pinball</td><td><200</td><td>200-424</td><td>425-674</td><td>675-925
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>950 </td><td>1. None</td><td><225</td><td>225-574</td><td>575-949</td><td>950-1300
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><200</td><td>200-509</td><td>510-824</td><td>825-1150
</td></tr><tr><td>924-963 PR</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td><190</td><td>190-489</td><td>490-799</td><td>800-1050
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td><175</td><td>175-449</td><td>450-724</td><td>725-980
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td><175</td><td>175-439</td><td>440-674</td><td>675-930
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td><160</td><td>160-424</td><td>425-649</td><td>650-900
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td><160</td><td>160-399</td><td>400-624</td><td>625-875
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td><150</td><td>150-374</td><td>375-599</td><td>600-825
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Thick</td><td><145</td><td>145-359</td><td>360-584</td><td>585-810
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10. Pinball</td><td><140</td><td>140-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-800
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>900</td><td>1. None</td><td><150</td><td>150-474</td><td>475-774</td><td>775-1080
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td><140</td><td>140-424</td><td>425-724</td><td>725-980
</td></tr><tr><td>874-923</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td>none</td><td>125-409</td><td>410-699</td><td>700-925
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td>none</td><td>125-374</td><td>375-624</td><td>625-875
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-599</td><td>600-840
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-574</td><td>575-775
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>125-324</td><td>325-549</td><td>550-750
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>125-309</td><td>310-524</td><td>525-725
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Thick</td><td>none</td><td>125-304</td><td>305-499</td><td>500-720
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>125-299</td><td>300-474</td><td>475-710
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>Foliage</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>850</td><td>1. None</td><td>none</td><td>125-399</td><td>400-674</td><td>675-975
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>2. Sparse</td><td>none</td><td>125-359</td><td>360-609</td><td>610-900
</td></tr><tr><td><874</td><td>3. Scattered</td><td>none</td><td>125-349</td><td>350-579</td><td>580-825
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4. Stands</td><td>none</td><td>125-324</td><td>325-539</td><td>540-775
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5. Average</td><td>none</td><td>125-299</td><td>300-524</td><td>525-725
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6. Woodsy</td><td>none</td><td>125-289</td><td>290-489</td><td>490-700
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7. Corridor</td><td>none</td><td>125-259</td><td>260-474</td><td>475-670
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8. Tighter</td><td>none</td><td>125-</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9. Thick</td><td>none</td><td>125-</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10. Pinball</td><td>none</td><td>125-</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

All Gold par 2's are on the cusp, with the exception of a really bad wide open short hole. I dont beleive any hole can fall below 2.0 on average(unless of course it was like 30 feet long...lol) so ALL gold par 2's are within .4 of being a blue par 3.



Here's my experience. I may be an 850-rating player right now, or roughly Red-level, given that my scores on some courses roughly correspond with those of the same rating in tournament play. I may actually be closer to 800-rating, since I know tournament play and recreational disc golf are two different stress levels entirely.

Given that, here are my hole averages for my past 20 rounds at Kentwood in Raleigh:

<table border="1"><tr><td>holes 1-18: 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.9</tr></td></table>

So I'm roughly a Green-to-Red-level player averaging 2.5 on one hole, 2.6 on another, and 2.7 on four other holes. I'm thinking that a White-level player would consider a couple Kentwood holes a par-2, a Blue-level player would consider six of the holes a par-2, and a Gold-level player would probably consider 10-12 holes at Kentwood a par-2.

So no, I don't think as you do that all Gold Par-2s are on the cusp.


If you have holes on the course that are gold par 2 then the course should be labeled by blue par standards. If the course has blue par 2's then it should be labeled white etc.



Yes, if the intent is to eliminate par-2s, I think you're right. I'm just not sure it's all that important to get rid of every statistical par 2.

If the hole SSA says the hole plays between 2.0 and 2.5, and the argument is that the hole pars should be accurately matched to their SSA, then I don't know how you get away with calling that hole a par 3. But if you allow SSA to bend so that you do call it a hole par 3, then I don't see how you can insist that the SSA rules supreme and changes a hole to par 4 when the designer originally called it a par 5. So the designer liked par 5 better than par 4 for that hole, just as you like par 3 better than par 2 for another. Makes things very subjective when it seems like you're trying to take subjectivity out of it and reduce everything to statistical measurements. (And please don't tell me you're trying to replace the designer's subjectivity with your own subjectivity, because that won't wash at all!)


I beleive Sandalman pointed out in an earlier post that any par 2 hole is a dumb hole. There is just no way a par 2 hole can have anything but terrible score spread. They should be avoided.



Now maybe those Gold-Par 2 holes at Kentwood are "dumb" holes, and maybe Kentwood is a "dumb" course, but I happen to think a course has more to offer than just its point spread. And there are several local tournaments held at Kentwood each year that get fairly good attendance, so I think other people must appreciate this course, as well. And I can't believe it's alone in the wilderness as the only course with candidate Gold Par-2 holes that remain Par-2 for Blue-level and White-level players. There must be other examples. Maybe Horizons Park in Winston-Salem, for example.

My point is, this par standard has to work especially for those courses that don't fit the Gold-level mold. If this new par standard is only ever applied to Gold-level courses, or only to courses considered "normal" or "well-designed", then you really don't need a standard, because design par should already be normalized to SSA on that course. Right?

(Edited to get the name of the park at Winston-Salem correct.)

So I'm roughly a Green-to-Red-level player averaging 2.5 on one hole, 2.6 on another, and 2.7 on four other holes.



Obviously you have played this course numerous times. I would venture to say that you are better then you think you are on it due to knowing the course so well and the fact that this course is geared toward the rec player which yeilds very little score differential between different level players.


So no, I don't think as you do that all Gold Par-2s are on the cusp.




What i mean by that is that there is only less then .5 of a point between par 2 and par 3.

From what i have seen from statisical info there is an average of about .25 between each skill level on the exact same hole.


Yes, if the intent is to eliminate par-2s, I think you're right. I'm just not sure it's all that important to get rid of every statistical par 2.




IMO, if there is gold level par 2's on the course then that course has holes on it that are not geared toward gold level players. Same thing goes if you end up with blue or white par 2's. I would suggest (and i am sure Chuck has an opinion on this from a design point) if you have gold par 2's then you should label the course as blue, unless of course you have blue level par 2's in which case you would label the course with white level pars and so on and so forth. That way you never have to bend any numbers you just change what color the course is.


Now maybe those Gold-Par 2 holes at Kentwood are "dumb" holes, and maybe Kentwood is a "dumb" course, but I happen to think a course has more to offer than just its point spread. And there are several local tournaments held at Kentwood each year that get fairly good attendance, so I think other people must appreciate this course, as well.



"Dumb" hole is a term I have seen used from designers to refer to a hole with little variety and or little score spread. It was not a knock on Kentwood. Sorry if you thought that is what i meant.

And yes, there are alot of other things to consider besides score spread but score spread is very important.


My point is, this par standard has to work especially for those courses that don't fit the Gold-level mold. If this new par standard is only ever applied to Gold-level courses, or only to courses considered "normal" or "well-designed", then you really don't need a standard, because design par should already be normalized to SSA on that course. Right?



Assigning a color to the tees on a course lets the players know what to expect from the course/hole. If the Course is a blue course then a 1000 rated player knows that he should be well under par on average, a blue level player would know that since it is a blue course that they should be shooting in the range of the posted blue par.A 900 rated player steps on a white course and knows that he should be shooting around par for that course etc.

I just think it would be great to read in the course directory ,before I take a road trip or go to a tournement, what color difficulty the course is. As a 909 rated tournement player I would have an idea that if it is a white course that it will be a par course for me, and if it is a blue course it is going to be a tougher course for me to get par.

I think we are making some good steps forward though and I hope that soon we can reach what appearently we all want and that is a meaningful par across the board.

Scott and Lowe,

I appreciate your interest in this and understand your concerns.

The challenges you are having with my proposal stem from it�s attempt to both eliminate Par 2s (using skill level breaks to reset Scratch Score Average; or use of Gold, Blue, White, Red and Green Par) and stay true to the �Course� Par over the �Hole by Hole� Par.

In my mind, there is no doubt that �Uniform Accuracy� across courses, concerning a standardized par, will suffer if we go to a hole by hole standard rather than a course standard, just as there is no doubt that �Uniform Accuracy� (not to mention �Comprehension�) concerning standardized par, will suffer if we are unable to come to terms with the reality of par 2s.

The simplest, most straight forward, most easily comprehensible and uniform standard for gauging what an expert golfer is expected to shoot on a particular hole or course is the Scratch Score Average (or even more accurate World Class Par; which is averaged SSAs). Problem is, they are not �nice round numbers�, so how do we face another problem; folks expect hole by hole pars to be �round numbers�.

Plan 1 �
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s and Decimal Place Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf.
Plan 2-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s but Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, where Hole by Hole Par takes precedence over Course Par accuracy.
Plan 3-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s but Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, where Course Par takes precedence over Hole by Hole Par accuracy.
Plan 4-
Acknowledge peoples discomfort with both Par 2s and need for Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s, where Hole by Hole Par takes precedence over Course Par accuracy.
Plan 5-
Acknowledge peoples discomfort with both Par 2s and need for Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s, where Course Par takes precedence over Hole by Hole Par accuracy.
Plan 6-
Disregard peoples discomfort with Par 2s and Decimal Place Pars and provide SSA based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf for each hole and the course and allow course designers to set Course Par according to a combination of (as yet to be agreed upon) Design Par and Scratch Score Average. And if those standards are met then �Certify� the par as Official PDGA Par.
Plan 7 �
Set no standards, either design or scratch scoring average, and let everyone create their own idea of �Par�. (Do nothing in other words.)

I am ok with any plan other than number seven.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Obviously you have played this course numerous times. I would venture to say that you are better then you think you are on it due to knowing the course so well and the fact that this course is geared toward the rec player which yeilds very little score differential between different level players.



I wish you were right. Unfortunately, no, I'm definitely an 850-rated player at Kentwood. I average a score of 54 at Kentwood, and a score of 66 at Cedar Hills. Gold Par at Kentwood is about 41, and Gold Par at Cedar Hills is around 50. So I throw 32% more throws than Gold Par on both courses. And according to this website, the score of 66 at Cedar Hills puts me in the 850-rating area, or lower.


What i mean by that is that there is only less then .5 of a point between par 2 and par 3.

From what i have seen from statisical info there is an average of about .25 between each skill level on the exact same hole.



I think you're right, or close: the linear slope between skill levels is 5 shots over 18 holes, or 0.28 per hole.

But as you pointed out, it can't be the same linear slope between 3.0 and 2.0 as between 4.0 and 3.0, because we're approaching a limit with 2.0. Skill level scores should compress more as you approach Gold. And they should really compress as 2.0 is approached. I wonder if Chuck has data on that. My view still is 0.5 is a very sizeable jump in average between 2.0 and 2.5.


IMO, if there is gold level par 2's on the course then that course has holes on it that are not geared toward gold level players.



I agree with you.


Same thing goes if you end up with blue or white par 2's.



Personally, I would allow par-2s on every skill level but gold. I think that would avoid the runaway par assignments I was talking about earlier.


"Dumb" hole is a term I have seen used from designers to refer to a hole with little variety and or little score spread. It was not a knock on Kentwood. Sorry if you thought that is what i meant.



No, I didn't think you were knocking Kentwood. I was simply afraid that courses like Kentwood will suffer if the par standard is developed without considering it because it has so many statistical par-2 holes. And then someone will apply the new par standard to Kentwood, and there'll be a mess of unhappy responses. So I want Kentwood and other courses like it to be considered up-front so we can see what we're talking about as the new par standard is developed.


Assigning a color to the tees on a course lets the players know what to expect from the course/hole...

I just think it would be great to read in the course directory ,before I take a road trip or go to a tournement, what color difficulty the course is.



I'd like to see that, too. SSA actually already determines a Course Rating that can be used to determine its color level, so that can be prepared and delivered now. Instead, I think the push is to have SSA delivered to all the courses by having all its hole pars changed to match with it. I still don't understand why such a cumbersome method is preferred, when the easier one -- posting the course's SSA on a website and assigning the course a color rating -- is readily available.

... but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s



Nick, I like this breakdown of plans you've listed above. But how do you plan to adjust course pars according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid par 2s? I've stated in a couple posts now that it cannot happen simply by elevating a course par to 54. Certainly, if you get below 54, you're guaranteed to have a par-2 hole; but the converse isn't true. Having a course par above 54 does not guarantee that par-2 holes are eliminated.

So I would understand your plan list better if you explained how course pars would be adjusted to truly eliminate par-2 holes.

I'd like to see that, too. SSA actually already determines a Course Rating that can be used to determine its color level, so that can be prepared and delivered now. Instead, I think the push is to have SSA delivered to all the courses by having all its hole pars changed to match with it. I still don't understand why such a cumbersome method is preferred, when the easier one -- posting the course's SSA on a website and assigning the course a color rating -- is readily available.



There is nothing more cumbersome about using SSA as the basis for posting pars on tee signs than any other proposed "Par Standardization Plan". There is no plan short of number seven, which basically has no standard at all, that allows for tee signs to post what ever they want regardless of any standard.

Moreover, no plan is going to "require" all courses to redo their course tee signs to be in compliance with whatever standard we decide on, but if they want to be "Certified" then what is wrong with having them meet certain standards? If the course pro gets around to updating the pars on their tee signs then great! If not, the users simply will not have available the added value of knowing Standard PDGA Par for the holes or course (same as today).

In other words, we need the standard, whether or not every director or course pro makes use of it; and I am not suggesting that we require every course to update their tee signs, ones we have a standard it will be an option.

There is nothing more cumbersome about using SSA as the basis for posting pars on tee signs than any other proposed "Par Standardization Plan". There is no plan short of number seven, which basically has no standard at all, that allows for tee signs to post what ever they want regardless of any standard.



I was just saying posting SSAs for courses and their respective course ratings on a website would be less work and may achieve the same overall goal. If a designer is attempting to make a Gold Par course and is told by the PDGA that after a review of his course's SSA, his course is actually a Blue level course, he'll probably re-think things. All I'm saying is that you could provide the feedback you want, and have the courses improved, without diving so much into the details. A par standard is established by means of feedback using the course's SSA and a PDGA color level assignment. I'm not a proponent of plan 7.

Guess that means I'm leaning closer to plan 6, but if that doesn't wash, then I'm torn between plans 2 and 4. But I don't know about plan 4 until I hear how you really plan to adjust course pars to eliminate par-2s. Because it can't be done simply by going to a course par of 54. For plan 4, all the hole pars elevate until the par-2 hole is gone, which could conceivably make the course par much higher than anticipated. Is that what you intend by plan 4?

If you have a course that has green par-2 holes, they deserve to be called par-2 holes. Of course they would have to be about 120' with no truoble, but if they were, then they should be par 2 holes.

I would think that most courses would have to drop to the next level down if they don't adjust to at least 57. If the level adjusted par is 54-56, then you need to go down one more level.

... but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s



Nick, I like this breakdown of plans you've listed above. But how do you plan to adjust course pars according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid par 2s? I've stated in a couple posts now that it cannot happen simply by elevating a course par to 54. Certainly, if you get below 54, you're guaranteed to have a par-2 hole; but the converse isn't true. Having a course par above 54 does not guarantee that par-2 holes are eliminated.

So I would understand your plan list better if you explained how course pars would be adjusted to truly eliminate par-2 holes.



That plan is based on the idea that if the course has an SSA or WCP of 54, whether based on GOLD, BLUE, WHITE, etc, in maintaining, in my opinion, the more important course par, the Director or Course Pro would mark all the holes as Par 3s.

I like your idea, or think it is worth considering, that any single layout (or set of tees) that has a statistical Par 2, whether based on Gold or other pars, should be required to drop a tee designation color. So even if a course has a Gold Course Par of 64, if it has a single hole averaging less than 2.5, it would have to be designated as a Blue Course with Blue Tees and the blue course par set at 69, and that hole moved to par 3. The course pro or Director would face the choice of increasing the difficulty of that hole enough to bring it over an SSA of 2.4 or settle for a Blue designation.

Alternative: The plan and table are not however incorrect. Minimum SSA is correct at 54 for Gold but that might go up depending on the number of Par 2s on the course (if there are 3 par 2s then the minimum would be 57, or if there were 5, 59).

I want to be clear again on another point here: Chuck Kennedy is completely correct in pointing out that just because a course, under my plan, would be designated a Gold Course, does not mean that every hole and throw on the course is designed with that skill level in mind. Appropriate Skill Challenge per skill level range is the exclusive domain of Course Design.

My proposal deals only with "Scoring Standards": No Par 2s and all that entails.

I am not sure that an entire set of tees actually can be designed tee to pin, hole after hole, throw after throw for one specific skill range. I can think of none that have been. Now, it would be nice for course designers and pros to have that in their thinking as they design new courses or update old ones, but I do not think that we can wait for them to complete their work before we provide a useful and uniform Official PDGA Par Standard.

I still say that instead of having 6 standards for par based on a players color rating or whatever we make the par for the average PRO rating. We have this theory that 1000 is scratch golf when really 1000 is AMAZING golf! Ball golf scratch is generally considered anything under a +3 handicap. (If fact having a handicap of +3 or better is what one must have to try to qualify for the US Open)

If someone shoots a 1000 rated round on the day they should IMHO be a few under par. (a few being anywhere from -2 to -6 or so)

Par should be a design standard, however some of our designs are pretty lacking and this is where the problem lies. Let the designer determine par, but list a courses SSA or WCP or whatever at the course, on the scorecards, and on the web.

Now, on a different note...

If we do decide to go with hole by hole SSA's then the TD's are going to have to start reporting scores hole by hole. The ratings commitee is going to have to start producing hole by hole data. This is going to have to be done 10 times on each course by however many propigators is necessary through enough tournaments. The process to get hole by hole pars on many courses might take 3 years depending on how many tournaments they host and if there are enough propigators at the tournament.

We are going take the work the ratings committee must do and multiply it by 18 to get hole by hole SSA's. This is asking to much of these guys.

We are going to multiply by 18 the work of the td's in reporting scores. That is to much to ask of them also.

I'm all for figuring out some standard for what par is, but I think we're making it a little to complicated.

It is a choice for TDs. Provide hole by hole results and get hole by hole SSAs to use or supply total round scores and get course SSAs to use.

Just like anything else; you get out what you put in.

And this need not involve the Ratings Committee, it can be done by a different group of volunteers. Who you might ask?

Me and whoever wants to help out.

(Certainly I would automate it as much as possible and provide an online tool for inputting data and TDs would not be "required" to use it, just if they want the benefits of having a "Certified PDGA Par" for their course. No gun to the head necessary.)

What I propose is:

For existing courses-

If a course has statistical par 2's that it be demoted, for lack of a better word, to a color level that does not contain any Par 2's. In order to go up in color the course pro/designer would have to bring all the holes upto the next step up.

For new courses- If designers are using the right tools then there should be no issue here. Yo know what skill level you are aiming at and you design the course according to that color range and set pars for that skill color range..

I understand that existing courses may not be completely appropriate for what ever color level it happens to fall into. I think that it would be ok for that to be the case. We have a standard and future course can fall into that standard and older course can be revamped if they want or it can stay how it is and it would be understood that it is an older courseand may be a little off.

That's it.....

There might be 300 Green par 64 courses out there next week.

What's 41 Gold - 46 Blue - 51 White - 57 Red - 64 Green ?

Can you explain exactly what you are asking, not sure I follow.

I am basically going off what Nick has proposed before. Gold Par based on the SSA of 1000 rated players,athough I think it should be looked at as a range : 975-1024. If all the holes on the course fall in that range then the course would be a gold course and hole pars would be set according to what thier SSA is for that range. Using a range allows for a little flexibility in setting par i.e it may be 2.4 for a 1000 rating but 2.55 for 975 rating, this could be considered a par 3. (thats just a thought)

If there are holes that fall into the Gold par 2 area but not into the blue par 2 area (925-974) then that course have its pars set to the Blue range. Then you can go on down the line form there.

The only question in the post was the correct associated level pars starting from a base of 41 gold.

I was agreeing with your post as the simplest method, and the one with the best built in incentive for a course pro to tweak the design of a hole or two if those are the only holes that are forcing the course to get a lower rating.

If we do decide to go with hole by hole SSA's then the TD's are going to have to start reporting scores hole by hole. The ratings commitee is going to have to start producing hole by hole data. This is going to have to be done 10 times on each course by however many propigators is necessary through enough tournaments. The process to get hole by hole pars on many courses might take 3 years depending on how many tournaments they host and if there are enough propigators at the tournament.

We are going take the work the ratings committee must do and multiply it by 18 to get hole by hole SSA's. This is asking to much of these guys.

We are going to multiply by 18 the work of the td's in reporting scores. That is to much to ask of them also.

I'm all for figuring out some standard for what par is, but I think we're making it a little to complicated.



This is a great point -- you said it much better than I've been saying it.

I wonder if some compromise here is possible. What if only a few Gold-Par courses signed up for that extra work, tracking their hole-by-hole SSAs. Maybe these select courses would be called "Championship Gold" courses.

I wonder if something like this would be acceptable:

Championship Gold:
Both Course and Hole SSAs tracked, no Par 2s, each Hole Par matched within +/- 0.7 of Hole SSA (allows for flexibility in setting Course Par), Course Par can be no greater than 5% over Course SSA

Gold: Course SSA tracked, no Par 2s, Course Par can be no greater than 5% over Course SSA

Blue: Course SSA tracked, Par 2s may be allowed, Course Par can be no greater than 10% over Course SSA

White: Course Par can be no greater than 20% over the predicted Course SSA (using Chuck's tool)

Red: Course Par can be no greater than 30% over the predicted Course SSA (using Chuck's tool)

Green: Course Par is either unevaluated or greater than 30% over the predicted Course SSA (using Chuck's tool)

I think there are already charts that show what the rating for a given score is based on a course SSA.

That is if a score of 41 is a 1000 rated round then 46 strokes would be about 950(blue). Not enough strokes yet. 51 strokes would be about 900(white), still not enough. 56 strokes would be 850(red). This might do it, but still have to check for par 2 holes. If there are no par 2 holes, this would be it. If there are still par 2 holes, then green(800) would be about 61 strokes.

It would be easier to use the SSA estimation tool and work backward from a score. The first range that allows no par 2's either from individual hole scores of total par for all holes is where the course gets rated.

Here is an example i just did for one of my local courses.

Berry's Treasure, Pleasure Island, TX

Average player rating from our local league players scores that i used = 922

SSA= 45.6

45.6 makes it where each stroke is worth 12 ratings points. So each ratings bracket/color break is seperated by 4 strokes on this course.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Hole#</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><td>total
</td></tr><tr><td>AvgScore</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>52.1 </tr></td></table>

Converted to Gold 1000 rated using an adjustment factor of .875 :
<table border="1"><tr><td>Hole#</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><td>total
</td></tr><tr><td>GoldPar</td><td>2.71</td><td>2.45</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.65</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.275</td><td>2.45</td><td>2.45</td><td>2.275</td><td>2.65</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.1875</td><td>2.3625</td><td>3.15</td><td>2.45</td><td>2.5375</td><td>2.45</td><td>2.1875</td><td>45.6
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

For Par purposes I will round up:

Gold WCP= 46(many par 2's)

Blue= 50(still has par 2's)

White= 54 ( this would likely be the one)**

Red= 58 (possible)

Green= 62 (no need to go this low)

** So according to the calculations above for 922 rated players(high end White level) it looks as if White par of 55 is the way to go on this course with #14 being a par 4. It is within 1 stroke of WCP and would give people a very good idea of what to expect from a scoring standpoint on this course.

I'm with you Scott. How is Berry's Treasure doing? Haven't been there since 1996. Is that the only course on the island?

hn

The course is doing great. Berry's Treasure is the only course still standing. Ponderosa and Circle R are now a championship ball golf course.

Early last year the Army Corp of engineers decided to build a levy out in the sticks that causes the water they dredge yearly from the Intercoastal Canal to run into the course. While we lost the green area of hole number 12 and had to put it shorter, we gained a few "lakes" for roughly 6 months out of the year. It was a very nice trade off in my opinion.

I think there are already charts that show what the rating for a given score is based on a course SSA.



Isn't Nick proposing another chart?

** So according to the calculations above for 922 rated players(high end White level) it looks as if White par of 55 is the way to go on this course with #14 being a par 4. It is within 1 stroke of WCP and would give people a very good idea of what to expect from a scoring standpoint on this course.



Sounds good to me, too.

So even if a course has a Gold Course Par of 64, ... the blue course par set at 69



Actually to convert from Gold SSA to another level SSA you have to use the SSA/Score/Rating table and/or the underlying formula. Because of compression and expansion there is almost no place on that table where a change of 1 throw in score equals exactly 10 rating points. At low SSA there is compression and at high SSA there is expansion.

So in this case a Gold SSA of 64 = Blue SSA of 71.14.

BTW, I think we need to be more precise in our use of terminology. This table uses SSA not Par. SSA does not equal Par.

This table can be found at http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=63562&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=

What's 41 Gold - 46 Blue - 51 White - 57 Red - 64 Green ?



Actually the chart for SSA/ Score/ Rating only goes down to a minimum of 42.

But Gold 42 = Blue 45.5 = White 49.07 = Red 52.57

This is because of the compression and expansion effect. At the lowest SSA end there is compression.

In my example above I used a ratings calculator which factors in the compression, hence the 12 points per stroke in the example.

I think on the mess bored people just tend to go by 10 points per stroke for ease in conversing their point.

But I am glad that you reinterated that point, because when just extremly rough estimates are talked about it appears less accurate if you were to apply SSA towards establishing par. When you actually use compression factors and the real numbers (as shown in the example in my above post) using the hole SSA becomes extremely accurate to what I beleive par should be.

As I've been reflecting on how to determine the Skill level of an existing course I've come to see that SSA alone will not give you that information. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most people have been assuming that par = 54. That is true for the majority of courses, but not all. If par = 54 then SSA will give you the course's skill level.

However more and more courses are being designed with par greater than 54. Renaissance: Original in Charlotte, and Circle R in Wimberley TX come to mind. Renny plays to a par 57-58 (but the skill level is not designated. I would guess the intent may be for Blue level, but who knows.) In the original-A layout there are 3 par 4s. Since there are these longer and harder holes the SSA will be about 3 points higher than for a par 54 course. Does this mean that it is at a higher skill level? No. It just means that it has some longer holes.

Or as another example imagine if there was a Red level course that was designed with all par 4s. (Crookston in Fletcher NC may be close to this.) It's SSA might register in the Gold range, but it is really a red level course.

Is this line of reasoning correct?

Am I correct then that the true measure of a course's level is not SSA by itself, but Gold SSA compared to Gold Par?

In what I am proposing the number 54 really has no meaning except for that if the SSA for whatever level is under 54 then it HAS to have par 2's on it and should be pushed down to a lower level. Other then that the number 54 is just another number.


Or as another example imagine if there was a Red level course that was designed with all par 4s. (Crookston in Fletcher NC may be close to this.) It's SSA might register in the Gold range, but it is really a red level course.




I would say a course like this would be labeled Gold if none of the gold SSA's on the holes were below 2.5. The reason I say that is becasue it lets people know that this course is an appropriate challenge even for gold level players. If the course was intended for red level players there is nothing wrong with labeling the red standard par along with the gold, can even put the white ,red and green too. The more info the better imo.

Or as another example imagine if there was a Red level course that was designed with all par 4s. (Crookston in Fletcher NC may be close to this.) It's SSA might register in the Gold range, but it is really a red level course.



Is it a Red Level course because the posted pars are par-4, and par 4 matches with Red Level play? Or is there some other reason you think of it as Red Level?

What's 41 Gold - 46 Blue - 51 White - 57 Red - 64 Green ?



Actually the chart for SSA/ Score/ Rating only goes down to a minimum of 42.

But Gold 42 = Blue 45.5 = White 49.07 = Red 52.57

This is because of the compression and expansion effect. At the lowest SSA end there is compression.



Now this helps me out a lot. I knew I was not quite as good as a Red-Level player, but when I saw gnduke's post stating a course with an SSA of 41 had a Red Par of 57, it appeared I was 3 shots better than a Red-Level player. (At least at Kentwood, because I average 54 at Kentwood, which has an SSA of 41 or 42.)

But with Lowe's numbers, Red Par is 52 or 53, which is just a little better than my Kentwood average. So I think I've got a good handle on my skill level again. (See how playing loose with Par numbers can confuse a newbie?)

Am I correct then that the true measure of a course's level is not SSA by itself, but Gold SSA compared to Gold Par?



Lowe, as far as I can tell, the proposal under discussion would rate any course a Gold level course so long as its assigned course par matches with SSA and it has no hole par-2s. So the lowest allowable Gold Par is 54, where all the holes are par-3s.

I wonder if that's enough to rate a course Gold level. Should there be a minimum number of true Gold Par-4s? There was a suggestion from others earlier in this thread that a course par of 62 would be the ideal course par, providing for a suitable mix of par-3s, -4s, and -5s. But I didn't read any reactions to that suggestion from Nick or Chuck.

Here's a guide that estimates the minimum amount of acreage required for courses with different mixes of par holes for different player skill levels. Acreage Chart (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/acreage%20guide%20web.jpg) I'm not sure there should be a goal par like 62. One of the rich aspects of disc golf is the ability to locate courses on all types and sizes of property. However, sometimes the 'wrong' type of course is attempted on a property by not understanding how much space is needed for say a decent Blue level course. Hopefully, this new chart can help. Sometimes a good White course is more than appropriate without jamming a Blue course in the area.

I will say after seeing some of our longest courses like Winthrop Gold, Nockamixon, Renny Gold and Warwick, it seems like shooting for an SSA/Par around 66-68 might be the maximum most players will find psychologically satisfying, challenging and fun. I believe we have much more variety that can be designed into our reachable holes (Par 3) than BG and they still have a 'fun' factor even for elite players. A course around par 67 for any player level would have 6-8 reachable holes rather than 4 which is typical for BG.

Here's a guide that estimates the minimum amount of acreage required for courses with different mixes of par holes for different player skill levels. Acreage Chart (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/acreage%20guide%20web.jpg) I'm not sure there should be a goal par like 62. One of the rich aspects of disc golf is the ability to locate courses on all types and sizes of property. However, sometimes the 'wrong' type of course is attempted on a property by not understanding how much space is needed for say a decent Blue level course. Hopefully, this new chart can help. Sometimes a good White course is more than appropriate without jamming a Blue course in the area.

I will say after seeing some of our longest courses like Winthrop Gold, Nockamixon, Renny Gold and Warwick, it seems like shooting for an SSA/Par around 66-68 might be the maximum most players will find psychologically satisfying, challenging and fun. I believe we have much more variety that can be designed into our reachable holes (Par 3) than BG and they still have a 'fun' factor even for elite players. A course around par 67 for any player level would have 6-8 reachable holes rather than 4 which is typical for BG.



Seems like something worth considering for inclusion in Par Standards, Paul.

"68"

That is a nice number. It would make very few current courses capable of hitting the GOLD designation via design or SSA considerations, but it would institutionalize the idea of providing a variety of challenges on all courses GOLD to GREEN.

If 68 was the min SSA for a GOLD course then considering compression and significant skill range breaks (Chuck, where would you set them? 1000, 955, 915, 875, 835? Or is 1000, 950, 900, 850, 750 OK?) where would the minimums be for the BLUE through GREEN designations be?

I�m in on not permitting �any� par 2s in any designation.

Are we moving toward a concensus here ?

"68"

That is a nice number. ...
If 68 was the min SSA for a GOLD course ...



I see the value of having par 4 and par 5 holes, but why couldn't the minimum par for a Gold course still be 54? If the holes meet the standards for Gold par design and the SSA confirms it's accurate, why not have a Gold course of all par 3s?

Following what Chuck said there is great enjoyment of throwing a drive that has a chance to get near the basket. And to ace or even get close to an ace is exhilirating. Personally I think in DG the more ace possibilities the better. Of course an eagle is always exhilirating too. So if you take 3 on a legitimate par 5 with a "fairway ace" with a long approach shot that's gratifying too.

I just know from my BG days that I had a number of eagles on par 5s, but never a hole in one eagle on a par 3. The shots that came closest to hole in ones were some of the most exhilirating I ever had. An eagle on a par 5 is great, but it mostly proves you can hit (or throw) a long way. An eagle on a par 3 is unforgettable because it is so rare. Even in pro BG a hole in one is always much more exciting than an eagle on a par 5. Even an eagle on a par 4 is cool to see.

For higher par on new courses, though, which of these combinations do you like most?

-Par 64. (That might be 10 par 3s, 6 par 4s, and 2 par 5s.)
-Par 66. (Maybe 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s, and 2 par 5s.) or (10 par 3s, 4 par 4s, 4 par 5s)
-Par 68. (8 par 3s, 6 par 4s, 4 par 5s)

Personally I think that par 66 with 10 par 3s, 4 par 4s, 4 par 5s would be pretty nice and have a slight correlation to typical BG (the number of par 3s and par 4s have been switched from BG).

Regardless of future courses, though, I still think that it's fine to have Gold courses of par 54. What would be the reason not to?

Where's that lurker Pete Burns go to? I'd like to hear his level headed and insightful comments on the current state of things.

Regardless of future courses, though, I still think that it's fine to have Gold courses of par 54. What would be the reason not to?



I was thinking of the dreaded par-2 when I posted my question about whether a Gold Par of 54 was sufficient. My thinking is with regard to the future. It would be a shame if a course is rated Gold now, then disc technology improves in a couple years, or some other variable changes, and with that slight push the course slips to an SSA of 53.

So I was thinking about putting some kind of buffer in place to keep a Gold course from easily slipping into a par-2 zone by upping the Gold Par minimum. But it doesn't solve the problem, does it? Even with a higher course par, one of the easy par-3s on the Gold course could still slip down to par-2. A course with a Gold Par of 54 simply has more chances (exactly 18 chances) of one-day running into a par-2 problem, while courses with higher pars will have fewer holes in jeopardy. This is where I think "SSA equals par" and "par-2s are not acceptable" will collide as this standard ages.

So there's probably a better solution to this problem to ensure that when a course is rated Gold, it is sure to remain Gold for the foreseeable future, even accounting for year-to-year wobbles in the course and hole SSAs. But I don't know what it is, or if it has been thought through what should happen when a Gold course suddenly isn't Gold anymore. (Same for Blue, White and Red, if none of these levels find par-2 holes acceptable, also.)

Would someone please help me figure out the SSA for Brandywine in Wilmington DE? (The most beautiful course of 125+ that I've played so far!) I know how to get the PDGA stats, but there are multiple listings for Brandywine over the course of several years. Which one do you use? the most recent? or do you average these?

Also, how do you know that the SSA listed matches the current layout? What if they changed the course between then and now?

And to make it even harder for me, the layout I played was a mixture of the A&B basket positions. How can I find out the SSA for the layout I played? I don't know of anywhere online that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout.

Lowe,

I have been tracking Brandywines SSA for 4 years now, Long to Long is about 54 Short to Short is about 52.

Glad you like it, I helped with the redesign of the back nine and consider it my home couse.

Regards,
Nick

I don't think that we, trying to set usable standards for par, can be overly concerned with advancing technology or course alterations. We need to put together the best possible standards we can and then it is up to courses to deal with the implications and comply if they see the benefits of compliance, or not comply if they don't.

In other words, "what expert golfers are expected to shoot on average" will change on courses as time goes by, so long as we have a process in place that can adapt and move with that change, and remain as accurate as possible, then we have done all that we can do, and disc golf par should remain useful well into the distant future.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color 18 Holes</td><td>Adjusted Scratch Rating (ASR)</td><td>Stroke Differential Per Tee Color Designation</td><td>Min Scratch Score Average Based on 1000 Golf </td><td>Min Scratch Score Average Based on 955 Golf </td><td>Min Scratch Score Average Based on 915 Golf </td><td>Min Scratch Score Average Based on 875 Golf </td><td>Min Scratch Score Average Based on 835 Golf
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>0</td><td>54</td><td>49.5</td><td>45.5</td><td>41.5</td><td>37.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>955</td><td>4.5</td><td>58.5</td><td>54</td><td>50</td><td>46</td><td>42
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>915</td><td>8.5</td><td>62.5</td><td>58</td><td>54</td><td>50</td><td>46
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>875</td><td>12.5</td><td>66.5</td><td>62</td><td>58</td><td>54</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>835</td><td>16.5</td><td>70.5</td><td>66</td><td>62</td><td>58</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

"*If any Par 2 holes are on a set of tees according to Adjusted Par and Adjusted Scratch Rating the Tee Color Designation must drop down to a Tee Color Designation that illiminates the statistical Par 2 SSA.
*Adjustments are needed to put this proposal in compliance with PDGA Player Ratings Compression Factors.
*It is strongly recommended that design factors be considered when targetting a specific Tee Color Set to a specific skill level (See course Design Recommendations)."

...it is up to courses to deal with the implications...



No, Nick, it's up to us to deal with the implications now, to make sure the proposal for a new par standard makes practical sense. You want people to use this par standard, right?

So being an engineer, I'm just working through its practical ramifications. Really, if you don't face those now, then you'll have unwelcome surprises and unhappy players down the line, and the par standard will end up changing to something else.

I think in my example, where a Gold Par of 54, matched with SSA, slips to 53 over time and forces a par-2 to be assigned on the course, is a realistic scenario that must be dealt with now.

I think a practical solution would be setting the minimum course par perhaps to 56 for entry into a color level, which would avoid the course SSA ever dropping as low as 53 over time. To exit the color level, dropping to a lower color, course SSA and therefore course par would still need to drop below 54. This is called hysteresis, by the way, and it's very useful when dealing with a noisy signal, such as course SSA, as it approaches a threshold.

I think my example also points out the flaw in tracking hole-by-hole SSAs, with regard to avoiding par-2s. You can easily avoid par-2s if all you track is the course SSA. If the course SSA remains above 54 always, you can mathematically juggle the hole pars so that none are par-2s and still the course par matches with the course SSA.

So I would argue, in the interest of keeping the course SSA from ever drifting down to 53, that entry into Gold, Blue, White, and Red requires a minimum par of 56 (or whatever par is conceivably needed to stay above 54 over time). After entry into those color levels, course SSA can drift below 56 and the course would remain Gold, Blue, etc. So long as there are no par-2s, there would be no required color shift.

This actually supports what you, Nick, listed earlier as Plan 5:

Plan 5-
Acknowledge peoples discomfort with both Par 2s and need for Round Pars and provide Par based on a single standard of 1000 (Scratch) Golf, but adjusted according to Major Skill Range Breaks to avoid Par 2s, where Course Par takes precedence over Hole by Hole Par accuracy.



I'm merely expanding upon that by setting the minimum course par to 56 when the course is first rated a color level.

I'm not sure I like sacrificing hole par accuracy for course par accuracy, because when I throw on a course, I'm throwing one hole at a time, and from that perspective the hole par is more instructive than the course par. But if avoiding par-2s is the obstacle, and matching the course par to the course SSA is the goal, then we don't want to get into a quagmire shifting Gold courses to Blue and back up again to Gold whenever par-2s appear and disappear. So I don't see any way around it but to favor course-par over hole-par accuracy.

Paul,

I understand what you are saying and agree that we must make every effort to make this work properly the first time out. That being said, there are things (as always) that can not be factored in, that we will need to adjust to later. What I am saying is that we must have a "Starting Point", and get this thing started, not sit around planning until dooms day.

Specifically, how can we know that "56" will be enough of a safe guard? We can't. Personally, I'm fine with it, but it is just a number like "54"; but unlike "54" it is not familiar, it does not evoke the "nothing below Par 3", but perhaps that has benefits as well.

The thing I want to avoid is the endless planning without ever really getting our hands dirty and observation of a system up and functioning. We are not building a Nuclear Reactor (or NuQULer for Bushies out there), where if we make a boo boo folks will die. We are making something basically worthless move towards becoming something uniform and useful.

At this very moment I think we have nearly 80% of this task completed. What we need to finish it up are skill level numbers adjusted by ratings compression factors, and to correlate design guidelines for each skill level with each skill level tee color designation (i.e. recommended drive distances, etc.).

Regards,
Nick

That being said, there are things (as always) that can not be factored in, that we will need to adjust to later. What I am saying is that we must have a "Starting Point", and get this thing started, not sit around planning until dooms day.



But since we can easily see that any course with an SSA hovering around 54 will fall victim to your proposal, this statement of yours does not apply. What I am saying is fix this now or your proposal is dead-on-arrival.


Specifically, how can we know that "56" will be enough of a safe guard? We can't. Personally, I'm fine with it, but it is just a number like "54"; but unlike "54" it is not familiar, it does not evoke the "nothing below Par 3", but perhaps that has benefits as well.



Apparently, you didn't read my post carefully. I stated 56 as a minimum par to enter a color level, and I followed that with a caveat that another number may be better to prevent the noisy SSA from veering back and forth, in and out of par-2 territory. Chuck has indicated that around 2 shots is all the fluctuation he expects over a course's lifetime, so I thought 56 made sense. But Chuck may decide from his data that 55 or 57 or 58 makes more sense. And again, to exit a color level, the course SSA would still have to drop below 54.

So, new way: a course SSA above 56 (or a better number) gets you into Gold Level. As a course SSA wobbles between 54 and 58, you stay at Gold Level. But if a course SSA ever drops below 54, then you drop out of Gold into Blue, and all the course pars are re-marked for Blue Par. Same thinking applies to the boundaries between Blue, White and Red Pars.

Old way: A course SSA above 54 gets you into Gold Level. As a course SSA wobbles between 53 and 55, the course is alternately dropped to Blue Level, with its hole pars re-marked for Blue Par, and elevated back to Gold Level, with its hole pars re-marked back up to Gold Par. This bouncing between levels also happens at the boundaries between Blue, White and Red Par. And I ask, why do this to people when you can avoid it?


The thing I want to avoid is the endless planning without ever really getting our hands dirty and observation of a system up and functioning. We are not building a Nuclear Reactor (or NuQULer for Bushies out there), where if we make a boo boo folks will die. We are making something basically worthless move towards becoming something uniform and useful.



Oh, for heaven's sakes. I've made a good point that you can't deal with, so now you're saying let's not go overboard. And MY ORIGINAL POINT was that your proposal was too complicated to begin with, but if you must insist on imposing a standard, then I feel it ought to be a practical one, one that a course can sign up to and know that they are on solid ground for their future. I was resistant to your par-2 rule, I was resistant to matching course par exactly to course SSA, but now I'm taking you at your word that you really want to strictly follow these rules. And doing a little analysis shows that your proposal is in trouble for courses whose color-level SSAs are close to 54, because they will be endlessly be flipping and flopping between color levels between one year to the next, and who the heck wants that. Especially when it's so easy to fix that problem RIGHT NOW.

So fix this one little problem by applying a little hysteresis to the threshold (above 56 gets you into the club, below 54 takes you out of it), and I think you can move forward with your proposal. But honestly, responding to a valid critique by saying that a small modification to your proposal turns it into a "Nuclear Reactor" indicates that you think your proposal is already unstable and that you lack confidence in it.

Show some confidence in it your proposal by dealing with the critique rather than pushing it aside. I honestly think that you're almost there.

Where's that lurker Pete Burns go to? I'd like to hear his level headed and insightful comments on the current state of things.



Okay, I haven't been following this too closely, but here's what I think: I think this is being made too hard.

Below is the proposal that's been developed by the Disc Golf Certified Course Designers Association. In essence, this is just the Glossary Definition of Par, with added detail for those who are unfamiliar with the design concepts impacting the definition.

Respectfully submitted,
Pete B.

================================================== ==========================


Par in Disc Golf is the number of errorless throws needed by an expert player, allowing two close-range throws to hole out.

The determination of Par is best left to the on-site designer or course manager. However, the table below can be used as an AID to:
- Apply Par in a standard method to existing courses.
- Design new courses.
- Verify a designer's assignment of Par versus the suggested guidelines.

Notes on the table:
- Distances must be adjusted for elevation before looking them up in the table. The currently accepted standard is 3 feet of distance for every 1 foot of elevation. For example, a 300 foot hole with a 10 foot rise in elevation would be looked up as a 330 foot hole (300 + (10x3)).
- The recommendations are broken down according to amount of trees, out-of-bounds, and other obstacles. The amount of these obstacles are identified as Below Ave, Average, or Above Ave.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Expert</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Obstacles</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>225-400</td><td><--- 440 ---></td><td>525-760</td><td><--- 782 ---></td><td>825-1080
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>195-375</td><td><--- 413 ---></td><td>455-713</td><td><--- 713 ---></td><td>715-1013
</td></tr><tr><td>Above Ave</td><td>180-325</td><td><--- 358 ---></td><td>420-618</td><td><--- 632 ---></td><td>660-878
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

If you would like to design and/or label holes for skill levels other than Expert, you may use the tables below. It is recommended, however, that the Expert Par always be listed as "Par", and any other posted Par be labeled accordingly. For instance, if you would like to label your course for a Novice player, it is recommended that you label it with BOTH "Par" from the above table, and "Novice Par" from the table below.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Advanced</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Obstacles</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>197-350</td><td><--- 385 ---></td><td>459-665</td><td><--- 684 ---></td><td>722-945
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>171-328</td><td><--- 361 ---></td><td>398-623</td><td><--- 624 ---></td><td>626-886
</td></tr><tr><td>Above Ave</td><td>158-284</td><td><--- 313 ---></td><td>368-540</td><td><--- 553 ---></td><td>578-768
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Obstacles</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>169-300</td><td><--- 330 ---></td><td>394-570</td><td><--- 586 ---></td><td>619-810
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>146-281</td><td><--- 309 ---></td><td>341-534</td><td><--- 535 ---></td><td>536-759
</td></tr><tr><td>Above Ave</td><td>135-244</td><td><--- 268 ---></td><td>315-463</td><td><--- 474 ---></td><td>495-658
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Novice</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Obstacles</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Round From</td><td>Par 5
</td></tr><tr><td>Below Ave</td><td>141-250</td><td><--- 275 ---></td><td>328-475</td><td><--- 489 ---></td><td>516-675
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>122-234</td><td><--- 258 ---></td><td>284-445</td><td><--- 446 ---></td><td>447-633
</td></tr><tr><td>Above Ave</td><td>113-203</td><td><--- 223 ---></td><td>263-386</td><td><--- 395 ---></td><td>413-548
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

General notes:
- For cases of multiple tees and multiple pins, it is recommended that each combination have its own Par listed. In cases where several combinations have the same Par, they can be grouped together.
- If a hole falls below the lowest number, it should be labeled as a Par 3. However, it should also be examined for design, as it may not be appropriate for the targeted skill level.
- If a hole falls above the highest number, it should be labeled as a Par 5. However, it should also be examined for design, as it may not be appropriate for the targeted skill level.
- If a hole falls between the ranges for Par 3 and Par 4, it should be rounded according to the "Round From" value given in the table. However, it should also be examined for design, as it may not be appropriate for the targeted skill level.
- If a hole falls between the ranges for Par 4 and Par 5, it should be rounded according to the "Round From" value given in the table. However, it should also be examined for design, as it may not be appropriate for the targeted skill level.
- Whenever possible, an estimated, actual, or average Course SSA should be posted along with the Course Par. For courses with multiple tees and pins, it is important to designate which configurations apply to the posted Par(s) and SSA(s).
- If hole-by-hole Scratch Scoring Averages are available, they can be posted (to one decimal place) along with the Par for the individual holes.
- Contact the PDGA Ratings Committee for help in estimating or determining course SSA and hole-by-hole SSA.


================================================== ==========================

You can easily avoid par-2s if all you track is the course SSA. If the course SSA remains above 54 always, you can mathematically juggle the hole pars so that none are par-2s and still the course par matches with the course SSA.




That is exactly what needs to be avoided. You should NOT juggle the hole par numbers to fit the course SSA. If you do that then the hole by hole pars become meaningless. What I am trying to accomplish is a meaningful Par for each HOLE.

If the course has a Gold SSA hole of 2.4 then the course gets dropped to a color level that makes that hole not a par 2. So you could feasibly have a course with a Gold SSA of 60 but still Gold level par 2's, this course would get dropped in color levels until ALL holes are NOT par 2's. If the course pro/designer sees that his course has 1 or a couple of holes that are Par 2 for a certain color level then it is up to them to tweak/redesign the hole/holes in order to bring that course back up to the next color level.

NIck has showed that he is for this way of settiung pars. In his chart above today it shows "minimum" of gold 54 to be a gold level course. That is not saying that it WOULD be a gold course because most likely a course in that range would have gold par 2's on it which would bring it down to Blue(which Nick pointed out in the notes below the above chart)

If a course has an SSA of near 54 then the person in charge of it is likely going to have to adjust par overtime, that is what is going to happen when a course is on the cusp. I propose that it should be "recommended" for courses on the cusp to harden up a few of the easier holes or assign that course a color one level below and set the pars according to that level.

You should NOT juggle the hole par numbers to fit the course SSA. If you do that then the hole by hole pars become meaningless. What I am trying to accomplish is a meaningful Par for each HOLE.



I'm sure that would be the ultimate ideal. I'm not crazy about matching course par to course SSA either -- as I said earlier, I throw with the perspective of hole par in mind, not course par. But I don't think it's feasible to do what you're saying, not for all courses. Because remember, the SSA is a running average, which means the holes are constantly under evaluation. That means constantly flipping back and forth between color levels as new data arrives showing a hole is below 2.5 -- oh, above 2.5 -- oops, below again...


If the course has a Gold SSA hole of 2.4 then the course gets dropped to a color level that makes that hole not a par 2. So you could feasibly have a course with a Gold SSA of 60 but still Gold level par 2's, this course would get dropped in color levels until ALL holes are NOT par 2's. If the course pro/designer sees that his course has 1 or a couple of holes that are Par 2 for a certain color level then it is up to them to tweak/redesign the hole/holes in order to bring that course back up to the next color level.



Again, that's a static analysis. Holes SSAs are dynamic. Which means, once you think you're done, you're still not done! The hole SSAs continue to fluctuate even AFTER the designer has done what you expected. And then after that tweak, the hole SSAs will still fluctuate. It's just a never-ending task, what you're asking, only feasible on select courses. And what is a standard when it only works on select courses? It's NOT a standard.


NIck has showed that he is for this way of settiung pars. In his chart above today it shows "minimum" of gold 54 to be a gold level course. That is not saying that it WOULD be a gold course because most likely a course in that range would have gold par 2's on it which would bring it down to Blue(which Nick pointed out in the notes below the above chart)



Right, Nick just posted that. My arguments preceded that post, so it sounds like this is his response. He wants to track hole SSAs in addition to the course SSA to verify that the course is on the correct color level. I can't imagine that will fly as a universal standard applied to all courses, given all the work it would require.


If a course has an SSA of near 54 then the person in charge of it is likely going to have to adjust par overtime, that is what is going to happen when a course is on the cusp. I propose that it should be "recommended" for courses on the cusp to harden up a few of the easier holes or assign that course a color one level below and set the pars according to that level.



Hm. Human nature may run against you there. If a course can qualify as Gold course, you "recommend" they call it Blue anyway if a couple of their hole SSAs are only just above 2.5? I think if a course can be rated Gold by the rules without any additional work, people will want to call it Gold and leave it that way even after future hole SSAs show statistical par-2s have appeared on it.

Instead of going back and forth on this I would like to see your clear and precise proposal from top to bottom.

I am in full agreement with Nick's above proposal except that I would add :

" It is "recommended" for courses on the cusp of a color level, that you make more difficult a few of the easier holes and/or assign that course a color one level below and set the pars according to that level."

Scott, do you want to know myy proposal, or my tweak to Nick's proposal?

My proposal.......................................... ..

All I wanted from the very beginning was for designers to set par for themselves. It seems that the PDGA tournaments have typically said to designers, whatever, we're calling it par 54, and now par signs are falling into disrepair because everyone's now of the opinion that all holes are par 3. I'd like a designer to take a look at a hole he's designed, call it a par 4 or par 5 if that's what he thinks it is, and then see that par reflected in the PDGA tournament results so par has meaning again.

The PDGA can still provide designers with feedback on their par assignments in the form of course ratings. Say, the PDGA calls the designer's course Gold if its posted par matches SSA, Blue if its posted par is 10% greater than SSA, White if its posted par is 20% greater than SSA, and Red if its posted par is 30% greater than SSA, with each color level having ranges of +/- 5% SSA.

After the PDGA provides that rating, the designer will still do as he pleases. Maybe he'll re-assign the par to be more consistent with one of the color-level SSAs. Maybe he'll leave the pars alone. His choice, but whatever his choice, the PDGA keeps track of the course SSA, and consequently the color level, of his course.

So in the end, if you look up a course and the designer's reported par is 58, the PDGA has tracked SSA to be 48, and so the PDGA calls the course White, you have a clear picture of how that course should play. Now say the SSA changes over time to 46. Reported par is still 58, but now the PDGA calls the course Red. Same par, but SSA has changed to show something has made the course easier, so now the course is Red level. And no one has had to change a single hole par sign to get that information across.

My tweak to Nick's proposal.........................

When my proposal didn't fly, at least not with Nick, I gave another look at his proposal. I still thought there was too much work involved in establishing it as a standard, but if he could get people to go along with it, then his two basic tenets are: no par 2s, and course par should always match SSA for the course's color level.

I asked if maybe matching par to SSA could be a one-time deal, so constantly updating par signs could be avoided, but I was told no, the course par needs to stay accurate as SSA changes over time.

Then I worried that constantly tracking SSA meant that the color levels were always up for grabs, especially at the boundaries between the color levels. But Chuck said that SSA shouldn't drift that much over time -- even over decades, it may change by only as much as 2 or 3 shots.

So that meant the problem narrowed to within 2 or 3 shots of par 54, the threshold for "no par 2s". I asked if par-2s could simply be allowed and was told no. Then I asked if par-2s could just be disallowed from the Gold level and allowed on the other levels, trying to reduce the workload. Again, I was again told no, no level shall permit par 2s.

So that meant at each boundary between color levels, as SSA wobbled around 54, you had the risk of telling a designer his Gold course was now Blue, please re-mark your pars accordingly, and then later saying, nevermind, it's Gold again, go back to your Gold pars -- and compounding that, you would have the same thing happening for any courses on the boundary between Blue and White, and for those between White and Red.

Now, as Nick has said, designers don't have to do this. But if they don't, they're not following his proposed standard. And if enough people choose not to follow his proposed standard, you don't have a standard at all. You have an ideal, maybe, but not a standard.

So that's why I proposed a tweak to Nick's proposal. If Nick's proposal really has legs and gets recommended by the PDGA, we need to clean it up as much as we can to keep people from getting discouraged and no longer following the par standard as time goes by.

So my tweak is: when the PDGA evaluates a course for the first time, call the course Gold when its Gold SSA is at least 56 (for example), or Blue when its Blue SSA is at least 56, and so forth. This allows a course to remain on its color level even if it's SSA drops 2 shots from that starting point, because if its SSA stays above 54, there are still no par 2s. Still not wild about this, but at least we're not changing so many par signs to reflect color changes every time the SSA wobbles around the 54-par threshold.

So, now you have my proposal and my tweak to Nick's proposal, all in one post. The focus of both is to get the most out of the least effort, because in my opinion, a standard needs to be simple enough to be followed.

Does that clear things up, Scott?

Note that none of this assumes hole SSAs are tracked. Does Nick's proposal now include that feature only to ensure that statistical par-2s are avoided? If so, why? Or does he want hole pars to always be matched to hole SSAs? I'm not clear on that myself, so I can't explain it.

Thanks for clearing up your positions on this.

Meaningful hole by hole par is what I am after. If hole SSA's rounded to the nearest whole number and added together do not match exactly what the courses SSA is then so be it. I cannot speak for Nick but I beleive me and him are on the same page, atleast from the way I interpret what he is saying.

Tracking individual hole SSA's is not as hard as you may think. The ratings calculator I have has instructions on how to accomplish this and does half of the work for you. All you need is a group of rated players ,their rating, and put them and there overall scores for that course into the calculator. On a seperate spreadsheet, average what each player got on a hole, multiply the hole average by the adjustment factor (AF) at the bottom of the calculator(when you originally get the ratings it factors this automatically for you) and that gives you the adjusted SSA for a 1000 rated player on that hole. Repeat for each hole. (note: it is best to use players with ratings calculated from lots of rounds and the more players the better)

Paul,

The fact remains that if a course has an SSA of 54 and every hole has and SSA rounded to Par 3 the course is a GOLD course.

Note that any course that has any SSA hole rounded to 2 must designate itself to a level that eliminates the Par 2.

Setting it at 56 to safeguard against future considerations is meaningless when the standard already accounts for "any" eventuality. Furthermore, if we set it at 56 and courses design themselves to hit that number, those courses are just as likely to become obsolete in the future based on the 56 standard as the ones based on the 54 standard.

The option I find far more appealing is setting a standard (goal) par of 64 (11 3s, 5 4s, 2 5s). This would unfortunately make many very decent courses with SSAs around 54 into White Courses, and regardless of Design Considerations of throw distances for specific skill ranges. 56 would likely do the same thing.

I am open to further discussion on setting a goal standard for disc golf course par, but I'm not convinced that moving it up 2 strokes to avoid unseen future developments is not a great idea; if it can be included as part of other stronger considerations I'd be fine with it (such as setting the par to increase hole par variety on courses).

Nick

Paul and Scott,

I have given up on my wish that Course Par (CP) remain within 1 whole stroke of Averaged SSA, and that, as Chuck Kennedy, Jim Garnett and Rodney suggest, it is more appropriate to keep to a strict rounded Averaged SSA per hole. Averaged Course SSAs could be used as a gauge of whether the course is in the proper region of Par and possibly the exact hole by hole and course tees could be placed on the tees (not as par of this plan, but just as value added service) so players can have another tool to judge expected expert play on any given course or hole.

In actually DOING some hole by hole SSAs on courses like Tyler State Park and Nockamixon in Pennsylvania, courses with course SSAs of over 64, it is becoming clear to me that by rounding the hole by hole Averaged SSAs as a strong indicator of expert par, you arrive at hole by hole pars far more in line with what the course designer, using the PDGA Course Design Committee's par projection methods arrive at, as well as what skilled course pros in judging expert play arrive at.

The result is a merging of the best of 3 worlds:

Design Par: The projected estimate of par pased on throw distance averages of various skill levels.
Judged Par: The par estimate based on the judgment of the course pro watching actual play.
Adjusted Par: The par based on averaged hole by hole scratch score averages and adjusted to eliminate par 2s to defined skill range levels and assigned tee colors.

These should match up fairly well. The main challenge between Design and Adjusted is that design requires all throws on a certainly layout to be targetted towards the tee color designations skill level, while Adjusted only considers total strokes from tee to pin.

In a perfect world and on a hypothetical future course this might one day be possible (to have every throw be appropriate to a specified skill level), but I do not think it necessary or advisable to wait until that day to start implimenting a value added and verifiable PDGA Standard Par System.

One last note (to Paul): You have raised the question of maintaining accuracy by "having to" constantly adjust hole by hole pars and course pars by each new rounds Scratch Score Average, that is not a necessity of this plan any more than it is for the PDGA Course Design Committee's. Here's why:

1) The SSA really should not vary greatly unless there is severe weather or the holes design has changed drastically (I sincerely doubt that disc design improvements [despite the claims of some manufacturers] is likely to significantly impact a courses averaged scratch score average).
2) By rounding the averaged scratch score average on a hole by hole basis, some room is likely to be created that will ensure that Course Par remains valid for a useful amount of time.
3) If averaged SSA does change drastically, it will by the course designer who feels the most compunction to correct the Course Par not our systems. They will either want to remain in compliance with our standards for all the value it provides users of his/her course or not. Either way there is nothing we the designers of this system can do about it other than provide sensible and easily understood standards, which they can follow or not.

I hope that we are moving closer to consensus.

Peter, I completely accept your proposal as a detailed part of this overall plan to create a standard par, the Design Par part; a useful tool in predicting Course Par and analyzing whether or not a course has throws appropriate to the targeted skill levels. It is not a plan that can produce as robust a conclusion as the combined Course Par (Design, Judged, and Adjusted).

Regards,
Nick Kight

The result is a merging of the best of 3 worlds:

Design Par: The projected estimate of par pased on throw distance averages of various skill levels.
Judged Par: The par estimate based on the judgment of the course pro watching actual play.
Adjusted Par: The par based on averaged hole by hole scratch score averages and adjusted to eliminate par 2s to defined skill range levels and assigned tee colors.

These should match up fairly well. The main challenge between Design and Adjusted is that design requires all throws on a certainly layout to be targetted towards the tee color designations skill level, while Adjusted only considers total strokes from tee to pin.


Nick, are you saying that Designed, Judged and Adjusted Pars are separate ways of arriving at the same par? That Judged Par is merely a pro confirming the Design Par, and Adjusted Par is merely SSA confirming the Judged and Design Pars?

Or are you saying that's how it should turn out when everyone has a common understanding of par, but if it doesn't turn out that way, the Adjusted Par calculated by the PDGA will be provide feedback informing the designer and the pro what "true" par actually is for that hole?

I'm asking because I had a little difficulty understanding your last post. I can see how Adjusted Par might match up with Design Par, but only if there are no statistical par-2s for whatever level the designer is aiming for. If there are statistical par-2s, the Adjusted Par diverges from Design Par to the next color level.

Also, won't Judged Par always be whatever the pro thinks he should be able to throw? Seems like Judged Par will always be a kind of Gold Level par, even including par-2s when the pro thinks a score of 3 would be disappointing on that hole, while Design Par and Adjusted Par may be on more appropriate Blue, White or Red levels. Or perhaps Design Par and Judged Par are similar Gold Pars, where Design Par never accepts any hole to be Par 2, Judged Par does acknowledge a Par 2, and Adjusted Par shifts all hole pars to avoid what statistically turns out to be a Par 2.

I'm just not sure Design, Judged and Adjusted Pars necessarily converge as you say, unless all three are considering the course to be a Gold Level course and there are no statistical Gold Par-2s. Am I missing something? Will all three par assignments only converge on what's considered a "well-designed" Gold Course?


One last note (to Paul): You have raised the question of maintaining accuracy by "having to" constantly adjust hole by hole pars and course pars by each new rounds Scratch Score Average, that is not a necessity of this plan any more than it is for the PDGA Course Design Committee's. Here's why:

1) The SSA really should not vary greatly unless there is severe weather or the holes design has changed drastically (I sincerely doubt that disc design improvements [despite the claims of some manufacturers] is likely to significantly impact a courses averaged scratch score average).


What would happen if we all went back to throwing Aeros, then?

Obviously, disc technology has some kind of impact. To say we've stopped improving discs reminds me of that old turn-of-the-20th-century claim that there was nothing left to invent, because the 19th century had invented it all.

What I'm wondering is if you're implying something more inherent about SSA. Have we somehow achieved a result with SSA where the 1000-rating somehow remains constant, regardless of improvements in player performance? In other words, is the 1000-rating so historically locked down that even if we improve as a group, we'll only end up with several more players above the 1000-rating, but SSA won't budge?


2) By rounding the averaged scratch score average on a hole by hole basis, some room is likely to be created that will ensure that Course Par remains valid for a useful amount of time.


Please explain how "some room is likely to be created that will ensure that Course Par remains valid." I simply don't understand what you mean by this.


3) If averaged SSA does change drastically, it will by the course designer who feels the most compunction to correct the Course Par not our systems. They will either want to remain in compliance with our standards for all the value it provides users of his/her course or not. Either way there is nothing we the designers of this system can do about it other than provide sensible and easily understood standards, which they can follow or not.


While we can't be sure designers will follow our standards, we can do a lot to make sure they won't. But if our eventual standard is "sensible" and "easily understood", then we should avoid that trap.

The result is a merging of the best of 3 worlds:

Design Par: The projected estimate of par pased on throw distance averages of various skill levels.
Judged Par: The par estimate based on the judgment of the course pro watching actual play.
Adjusted Par: The par based on averaged hole by hole scratch score averages and adjusted to eliminate par 2s to defined skill range levels and assigned tee colors.

These should match up fairly well. The main challenge between Design and Adjusted is that design requires all throws on a certainly layout to be targetted towards the tee color designations skill level, while Adjusted only considers total strokes from tee to pin.



Nick, are you saying that Designed, Judged and Adjusted Pars are separate ways of arriving at the same par?



I am saying that they are all tools to assist in creating a par that is as accurate and standardized as we can manage.


That Judged Par is merely a pro confirming the Design Par, and Adjusted Par is merely SSA confirming the Judged and Design Pars?

Or are you saying that's how it should turn out when everyone has a common understanding of par, but if it doesn't turn out that way, the Adjusted Par calculated by the PDGA will be provide feedback informing the designer and the pro what "true" par actually is for that hole?



If the Course Pro is educated about Design and Player Ratings, then their �judgment� is a valuable tool in the toolbox. An uneducated and ignorant Course Pro will likely need to rely more heavily on Design and Adjusted Par tools. �True Par� is not based on a single tool here, it is a reasonable and defendable combination of all of them.


Also, won't Judged Par always be whatever the pro thinks he should be able to throw?



If it is then it will not likely match up with the standard of Scratch Golf (unless the course pro is a 1000 Golfer). They need to adjust their thinking to significant skill ranges. The easiest tool is Scratch Golf, but they could use 955 or 915 golf, it would just take another mathematical step (or general understanding of that skill level). Judged does not mean �opinion� it means �informed opinion�.


I'm asking because I had a little difficulty understanding your last post. I can see how Adjusted Par might match up with Design Par, but only if there are no statistical par-2s for whatever level the designer is aiming for. If there are statistical par-2s, the Adjusted Par diverges from Design Par to the next color level.



This 3 Pronged Standard assumes that par 2s are not permissible. Whether considering Design or Adjusted and moving down a skill level to eliminate par 2s, or eyeing it up as a Course Pro and adjusting your overall approach to the skill group you are designing the course for, par 2s should not enter into the equation.

Paul, yes, technology has some impact on par, but we do not know what that impact is. I would prefer not to guess on what it will be, but rather deal with it when and if it arises. If our disc golf standard for par becomes outdated then we will revise it. If par on a specific course becomes outdated then it will need to be revised. No course will likely remain static from now until eternity. We want them to be as right as possible now.

Obviously, disc technology has some kind of impact. To say we've stopped improving discs reminds me of that old turn-of-the-20th-century claim that there was nothing left to invent, because the 19th century had invented it all.


[QUOTE]
2) By rounding the averaged scratch score average on a hole by hole basis, some room is likely to be created that will ensure that Course Par remains valid for a useful amount of time.


Please explain how "some room is likely to be created that will ensure that Course Par remains valid." I simply don't understand what you mean by this.



It is not important. Course Pros will use direct observation of the course and each hole, educated and informed by Design Tools, Scratch Golf and Adjustment for major skill ranges to create a substantiated True Par. Within that True Par will be some room, both statistical and actual, to provide some flexibility in providing a useful par standard to players.



3) If averaged SSA does change drastically, it will by the course designer who feels the most compunction to correct the Course Par not our systems. They will either want to remain in compliance with our standards for all the value it provides users of his/her course or not. Either way there is nothing we the designers of this system can do about it other than provide sensible and easily understood standards, which they can follow or not.


While we can't be sure designers will follow our standards, we can do a lot to make sure they won't. But if our eventual standard is "sensible" and "easily understood", then we should avoid that trap.



If they follow our recommendations fully then we can be assured to that degree that the resulting True Par is valid. If it is proven not to be then we will adjust to make it so.

Paul, I understand your need as an engineer to foresee every possible outcome and deal with it prior to it happening, but that simply is not going to happen. That being said, we most certainly do want to include everything we can manage at this point to avoid aberrant outcomes. I am not for pushing the standard min par to 56 as a precaution due to reasons given (mainly that 54 has been the standard, it is based on no par with no Par 2s, our primary tool �SSA� is based on that standard, and it would exclude an even greater number of courses from the �Gold� designation.)

But what I suggest, in the cause of greater expediency, is that if you have a challenge with a proposal on the table that you provide a functioning alternative that hopefully does not require the reworking of every other aspect of the plan. In other words, try to answer some of these questions for yourself.

Best Regards,
Nick

But what I suggest, in the cause of greater expediency, is that if you have a challenge with a proposal on the table that you provide a functioning alternative that hopefully does not require the reworking of every other aspect of the plan. In other words, try to answer some of these questions for yourself.


I've been doing that, you goof, so I don't understand the criticism. In fact, you just disparaged one of my suggestions where I thought maybe 56 would be a better cut-off to avoid course SSA drifting into another color level. It didn't "rework every other aspect of the plan" -- it was just a small tweak. Still, it was too much for you. Of course, now that you are no longer promoting course SSA to match par, that particular tweak to your proposal is now moot.

My more fundamental objection still stands, by the way, where the avoidance of par-2s is in collision with your desire to match SSA with par. But now I gather it's hole SSA you wish to match with hole par, which in my opinion makes the problem even worse.

To avoid it, HERE is my suggestion (just because you haven't been accepting my suggestions for improvement doesn't mean I haven't been making any):

Rule 1) For courses yet to be assigned a color level, use some value 0.x above 2.5 to qualify them for par 3. The value 0.x should equal the amount of acceptable drift in the hole SSA score over time.

Rule 2) For courses already assigned a color level from Rule 1), use 2.5 to qualify a hole SSA for par 2. When a hole SSA drops below 2.5, the course shifts to the next color level to eliminate the statistical par 2.

Rule 3) For courses that have slipped to the next color level due to Rule 2), do not recommend the course be lifted back to its original color level until the par for that hole is 0.x above 2.5 again (same value used in Rule 1).

The purpose of these three rules would be to provide some buffer so that SSAs for each hole can wobble around a little over time and not cause the PDGA to inadvertantly recommend constant flipping between color levels over time.

Kentwood, for example, has 6 holes that are borderline par-2 for White, but they all may still be just over 2.5. I wouldn't mark that course for White only to have a new round of SSAs knock one of the holes into par-2 territory and force a change to Red pars. Red Pars would provide more margin, perhaps pushing score averages for the 6 questionable holes up to 2.65. But if one of the six holes is still questionable, too close to a Red Par-2, perhaps the course should be shifted down further to Green level to truly avoid all par 2s over its statistical lifetime. Depends on what 0.x is and how far apart the levels are in the scoring range.

AND NOW FOR THE RECORD, my overarching proposal was restated just a couple posts ago in a response to Scott, who asked what that would be. So if you would like to go back to that, read it, and comment on it, please do.

Really, Nick, you force people to ask questions about your proposal and to focus on it, because your proposal seems to be the only one you're willing to discuss.

So in other words, if you don't like my questions, start asking some of your own.