I know Nick's feelings well...Mid Nationals is a LONG drive from TX! It sure would be fun though.

I know Nick's feelings well...Mid Nationals is a LONG drive from TX! It sure would be fun though.



Maybe you could just pick me up in Philly on your way North?

...Distances are not relevant. If you want to know what the par on a particular hole is, throw it. If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three. If not, it's a four or five...



Dave,

I hate to disagree with you, but distance is quite relevant to setting par. It's not the only factor, but it is one of the key ones. You proved it yourseelf when you said "If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three." To get to putting range a player has to throw it a certain distance, so distance is a key factor.

The statement "If you can get a putt with a decent throw, it's a three." also shows the need to define the level of a scratch player. There has to be some universal standard. To determine par one needs to start with a baseline of the length that a scratch player can reach the basket on a flat, totally open hole with no obstacles. From there you can extrapolate the effects of foliage, OB, doglegs, water carries... When you said "If you can get a putt" for my noodle arm that would mean a hole of 300 ft., and that's obviously not a good standard.

Currently I lean toward staying closer to the BG standards and calling a "scratch" player a 960 level player. (But my opinion sure doesn't change anything other than my own course evaluations.) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Currently I lean toward staying closer to the BG standards and calling a "scratch" player a 960 level player.



That's a pretty big leap. We have formally defined a scratch disc golfer as a player with a 1000 rating, which is equivalent to a scratch ball golfer with a zero handicap. Both of these players are the reference point for setting par and for determining the formulas for calculating course ratings. Remember that pro and am ball golfers can both have zero handicaps. The fact that we call players pros with 1000 ratings and not ams does not mean our pros at the level (or most of them) are not really ams.

Lowe, I said distance is not relevant. But throws are. If I can throw my putter to the hole that is 880 feet from the tee, as Elaine King did in Flagstaff, or not be able to reach a 250 ft hole with my driver, (again Flagstaff comes to mind), how do you assess par with a distance? All that matters is how the hole plays, not the distance per se.

how do you assess par with a distance? All that matters is how the hole plays, not the distance per se.



Dave,

If you start with a baseline value for the driving distance of a scratch player then you can construct tables and formulas that will give you the "effective playing length" of each hole. The effective playing length of a hole starts with the holes measured length and then takes into account elevation changes, foliage (on a 1-9 scale), OB, doglegs, and water carries.

I don't have any specifics of the holes you mentioned, but the steep elevation change on Elaine's hole and perhaps a lack of foliage obviously made the hole play much shorter. And knowing nothing about it I'd suspect that the 250 ft. hole had a steep upslope and probably dense foliage.

I'm convinced that having consistent par standards is crucial for many reasons. Among other things it's the first important step in meaningful course difficulty evaluations.

Currently I lean toward staying closer to the BG standards and calling a "scratch" player a 960 level player.



That's a pretty big leap. We have formally defined a scratch disc golfer as a player with a 1000 rating, which is equivalent to a scratch ball golfer with a zero handicap. Both of these players are the reference point for setting par and for determining the formulas for calculating course ratings. Remember that pro and am ball golfers can both have zero handicaps. The fact that we call players pros with 1000 ratings and not ams does not mean our pros at the level (or most of them) are not really ams.



Chuck,

I guess you're right; it's a huge leap. You know more way more about this than just about anybody. If the reference point changes then everything else, formulas, charts, ratings, and all would also have to be changed.

I've just been thinking about the ball golf statistic that 1/2 of 1% of players are scratch golfers. From the latest DGWN I counted 85 players with ratings of 1000 or more. No one knows how many regular players there are in the world, but if there 85,000 then 1/10 of 1% are scratch players.

It seems to me that in ball golf becoming a scratch golfer is attainable to a higher percentage of players. Although 99.5% of all amateurs will never reach it anyway. In DG so few players will ever be a scratch player if the standard is a 1000 rating. But even if it is 99.9% who never make it there that's not really all that different from BG.

But I guess the most important thing is to have a consistent benchmark that handicaps and ratings can all be generated from.

In additon, who says that DG has to follow the same statistics as BG anyway?

Here's something to ponder. In ball golf, the best players are roughly 4 shots better than their scratch standard. Our top players are roughly 3 shots better than our scratch standard at a course with a 50 SSA. However, if we ramp up the length of our courses to have ratings closer to golf, say near 70, then our top players would be about 5 shots better than our scratch standard. So, our scratch standard is set very close to the ball golf reference (in fact slightly more generous), considering other differences in how they do handicaps and course ratings versus the way we do them.

Lowe, I don't disagree with the need to have standards for par, but Chuck's rating system is the best way, because it's based on actual rated play. Basing par on 1000 instead of 975 is arguable but the scores on holes are not. There are many factors besides uphill and downhill that affect not only driving distance, but par too. One of the biggest factors besides uphill and downhill is unrollable tunnel shots. This can take a 100 ft off a big boys drive. Short dry grass ala Vista in Phoenix can add 100 ft.. OB threatening long shots. Anything that forces drives away from power and glide alleys can kill distance. This is why distance per se is unreliable. These are also things that a good course designer wants to have such that distance per se does not dictate who wins. You can make assumptions about difficulty factors and superimpose them on distance, but you are guessing. Most of the time the guesses work well enough, but when you come down to it. It's way easier to just play the course, and let the course tell you what the par is. Then you can decide if you want to make the Par frustratingly/challengingly low, reasonably attainable, or a joke.

Here's something to ponder. In ball golf, the best players are roughly 4 shots better than their scratch standard. Our top players are roughly 3 shots better than our scratch standard at a course with a 50 SSA.



Chuck,

Excellent point!

Dave,
Your post was well stated and informative.

A difficulty that I face is that there are two competing philosophies about how to even determine par. I call these "Ball Golf (BG) Par" and "Scratch Hole Score (SHS) Par". A fundamental difference between them is whether or not a scratch player (1000 PPR) can reach the hole to score a birdie. So for a par 3, with BG Par the scratch player MUST be able to reach the hole, but for SHS Par the scratch player must score on average between 2.51 and 3.5 on this hole. For SHS Par the length of a hole can be way longer than anyone could ever reach on their drive because the length of a par 3 is basically 1 drive + 1 approach shot.

Based on what some have attributed to you in the past and on your recent remarks on this thread, that if you can drive the hole it is a par 3, I put you in the "BG Par" camp. But now it seems that you've said pretty clearly that you're in the "SHS Par" camp. Is that accurate?

Lowe, the one thing you're missing is assuming hole designs are a continuum of lengths, and they aren't. As Houck, myself and others have stated, there are gray zone lengths for each skill level that should be avoided, especially on more open holes, so these holes don't have too many players shooting the same score on the hole. For example, 375-575 is a length for Gold level players that should be avoided if the hole is mostly level, wide open and no hazards. The scoring average would be expected to range from 2.7-3.2 which means over 70% of the players would shoot 3s. Wide open holes that average 3.3-3.5 for Gold level, 600-700, are really 2-shot tough par 3 holes that are easy enough for 1/3 to a 1/2 of these players to still get birdie 3s. Once the hole gets from 700-800 feet it's a 2-shot easy par 4 with a scoring range from 3.5-3.7.

You've seen the scoring average chart where these numbers come from which I've posted on this thread and others. What you may not realize is that the darker shaded cells of each color are gray zone areas that designers should probably avoid if the foliage is average or less. Wooded holes with more than average foliage spread scores automatically so a wider range of lengths can work reasonably well.

Lowe, I am not in the 1000 is par camp. I am not sure exactly what the number is yet, but it is above 960 and below 1000. Sounds like 980, but I don't know yet. Also there is two different things we are discussing. One is hole par, which I think you can get by just throwing the hole. The other is course par. That is additive and is much more tricky when you have to assign whole numbers to par and they don't add up to course par.

Lowe, the one thing you're missing is assuming hole designs are a continuum of lengths, and they aren't. As Houck, myself and others have stated, there are gray zone lengths for each skill level that should be avoided,



Chuck,
Thanks so much for your endless patience and forebearance with people like me asking so many questions and even questioning some of what you've worked so hard on for a long time.

Actually, I am aware of what you've said, as I think I've studied that "Estimated hole Scoring Averages...." chart rather closely for a while. For what it's worth (and admittedly not much) my main concern is evaluating the difficulty of existing courses. I'm kind of interested in the design of future courses, but only for the 2 object courses I've designed. Since my concern is for what already exists I'm just trying to figure out how to determine par on these holes. I'll leave the issues about whether these are good holes or not to others.


Wide open holes that average 3.3-3.5 for Gold level, 600-700, are really 2-shot tough par 3 holes that are easy enough for 1/3 to a 1/2 of these players to still get birdie 3s.



I hope I'm not being obtuse, but I don't really understand this statement. I'm looking at the chart and you must be referring to the top line at Foliage = none. I think what is throwing me is the phrase "birdie 3s". You just said it was a par 3 so how could 3 be a birdie? I bet this is just a typo. If you dropped the word "birdie", or changed it to the word "par", this would make perfect sense and illustrate well the "SHS Par" philosophy. On a 700 ft open hole I don't think that even Barry and the best in the world will get many 2s on it except for fairway aces with their approach shots . At 700 ft. the SHS is 3.5 so it's still a par 3 with the SHS Par method. That means that at best the scratch player can only hope to stay even in relation to par by taking a 3 and not losing a stroke to par by taking a 4. It seems like with a 3.5 SHS about 1/2 the time the players will take a 4.

Here are what I see as some of the key arguments in favor of the "Ball Golf (BG) Par" method:

� The PDGA definition is as follows: �Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out.�
� It matches the precedent of ball golf. There is no ball golf hole where a scratch player can�t make a birdie.
� If there are no birdies then you�ve lost 1/3 of the potential scores. Without birdies there will mostly be only pars or bogies. The best you could hope for is to stay even with your position relative to par, you couldn�t improve it.
� It provides for better score spreads because players have a chance to go under par on a hole.
� Better score spreads make better holes.
� The psychological factor. Players are more encouraged by making birdies. If they can�t even make a birdie then they can only make either maintain their standing or lose a stroke to par.

I welcome any comments. I know that this already been discussed ad nauseum several hundred posts back.

For about 10 months I've been using the "SHS Par" method to determine par on the courses I've played and evaluated, but recently I've been strongly leaning to converting to the "BG Par" method for the reasons stated above. I may step into Pete Burns world after all.

� Better score spreads make better holes.
[Agreed]
� It matches the precedent of ball golf. There is no ball golf hole where a scratch player can�t make a birdie.
[True]
� If there are no birdies then you�ve lost 1/3 of the potential scores. Without birdies there will mostly be only pars or bogies. The best you could hope for is to stay even with your position relative to par, you couldn�t improve it.
[True]
� It provides for better score spreads because players have a chance to go under par on a hole.
[True]

The problem is the difference between the scoring spreads inherent in BG vs DG holes. Spartan disc golf holes that are level with not much foliage and challenge might statistically have scratch players shooting "only" two scores on them- 2s & 3s, or 3s & 4s. I have the stats to show that. It doesn't necessarily mean they are great holes. But in disc golf, we have to do what we can sometimes with what public property we have to use.

So, on these holes that have just 2s & 3s, the scoring average on these birdieable "par 3s" might be 2.3-2.8. The holes that have only 3s & 4s might have scoring averages that range from 3.2-3.8. Should those from 3.2-3.5 still be called par 4s so they can be birdied with a 3? Or, using ball golf methods, they would be considered hard par 3s where a 2 is uncommon.

The easiest way for DG to emulate the scoring spreads of BG is to make putting more difficult so our ATG shot average goes from 1.7 up to 2 or more like BG (2.3). That would provide the scoring spread so three different scores would be reasonably likely on any DG hole regardless of length. It's not likely to happen, so we're left with the 2-score distribution on many holes.

As a big time ball golfer, I don't understand why we have such a problem with holes that don't have a wide scoring spectrum. Most holes on a golf course have little spread, especially among the professional players. Most of the time players shoot for par, but there will be 4 or 5 holes that they consider "birdie" holes. These few holes, along with a few incredible shots here and there, determine the winners of the week. Remember, par is defined as the score a scratch player is EXPECTED to shoot, birdie is a reward for a better than average shot, and bogie a penalty for a poor one. I think the biggest problem we have with par is perception of the players. People who have been playing for 3-4 months shouldn't reasonably expect to shoot under par, but they do.

The easiest way for DG to emulate the scoring spreads of BG is to make putting more difficult so our ATG shot average goes from 1.7 up to 2



Chuck,

Or we could change our thinking about the Green (the G in ATG) so that the ATG goes up to 2. More to follow...

I'd like to present a new way to determine par. It is an attempt to combine aspects of both "Ball Golf Par" (BGP) and "Score Average Par" (SAP) thus, for now, it is named "Hybrid Par" (HyP). It seeks to overcome some of the difficulties of BGP and SAP. A hallmark of this method is an attempt to seriously account for the 1.67 ATG in disc golf.

This definition is used to set the maximum length standards for par on existing holes. Because of gray zones and good hole design the maximum length may not even be a desirable length for course designers to use for future courses. However, these standards can mainly be used to determine par for the many courses already existing.

Also keep in mind that the lengths given refer to effective length. For simplicity these lengths can be thought of in terms of holes with no elevation changes and average foliage.

Hybrid Par

This method combines aspects from both Ball Golf Par and Score Average Par, hence the name �Hybrid Par�. In order to accept this method some traditional concepts will need to be reassessed and redefined. This philosophy is built on several related assumptions: 1) Par should be determined by the standard PDGA definition of the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole, 2) A �close range� shot is longer than a putt (10 m / 33 ft.). The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the average drive length for that playing level. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the green in ball golf. More explanation follows. 3) The disc golf �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 needs to be a strong consideration in establishing par.
To begin with, since putting in disc golf is so different than putting in ball golf we should not feel too closely bound by the ball golf definition of par. Moreover, I think that the BG standard for par is inaccurate. The BG standard is based on the length for the scratch player with average length to reach the flag in regulation. However, the definition of par in BG is that for the maximum length of a hole a player should be able to reach the green in regulation and have 2 putts to hole out. Green lengths vary widely, but in BG it is very possible to be on the front edge of the green and still be 60 feet (20 yards) from the hole. I propose that in BG the length used for par should be the length to reach the front of the green in regulation since the definition is to the green plus 2 to hole out. Using 45 ft (15 yards) as a standard then they would add 15 yards to their standard lengths for par. This standard would make eagles even more rare, but I see no reason why at the maximum length that a hole should expect to be able to be eagled by scratch players. (Perhaps I�ll present this proposal to the USGA and suggest that they change their par system. J.)
The Hybrid Par method seeks to incorporate the reality that putting in disc golf is very different than that of our older brother ball golf. In BG since putting is so different from the other strokes when you�re on the green the length measurement shifts from yards to feet. In DG the length measurement stays in feet the whole time. Hybrid par proposes that 1 ft of BG putting approximately equals 3 ft. in DG length. With this ratio a scratch player in both sports would make the same percentage of shots. For example, a scratch ball golfer would make 99% of 10 ft. putts and a scratch disc golfer would make the same percentage from 30 ft. To give some more numbers:

BG ft DG ft
10 30
40 120
50 150
60 180

Hence a 120 ft. DG shot corresponds to being on the green in BG 40 ft. from the pin. Thrown by a scratch player a 120 ft. DG shot a has about a 5% chance of going in, so there is a small possibility of making a birdie even if the probability is very low. Eagles will be very rare for holes at this length. Conversely, from 120 feet with average foliage a scratch player will hole out in no more than two throws approximately 98% of the time.
Keep in mind that this number is only for the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be much shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater.
Another key difference between BG and DG is the Around the Green (ATG) factor. In BG it is 2.1 but in DG it is 1.67. Because of the 1.67 ATG factor, if you define a close range shot as up to a maximum length of 0.33
of the base drive length, then you have a length that from which a scratch player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. This would make the maximum length of a par 3 to be 1.33 of the base drive length. For Gold the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 is 120 ft. Therefore, the maximum length for a par 3 is a 360� drive + 120� close range = 480 ft. (or 360 x 1.33 = 480)
Thus the standard for a par 3 hole is 1 shot to get to �close range� plus 2 throws to complete the hole. This �close range� throw corresponds to reaching the front edge of the green in ball golf.

Advantages of Hy Par:
� This explicitly takes into account the 1.67 ATG factor
� At the maximum length a birdie is possible, even though rare.
� Actual scores will be closer to par than they would be with the Ball Golf Par method.
� This adheres to the PDGA glossary definition with 2 �close range� throws (even though �close range� is defined differently than current usage) and it follows the precedent of ball golf.
� Since the standard is built on effective length there is more consistency than using SSA, and also the standards are more accessible to every player than SSA is.

Disadvantages of Hy Par
� At the maximum end of the range eagles are very rare except by the very longest throwers; birdies will be rare.
� Score averages will not be quite as close to par as they would be with the SAP method, although the numbers for both methods are quite similar

Initial tests with data on courses have been turning out favorably.

I welcome your feedback.

People who have been playing for 3-4 months shouldn't reasonably expect to shoot under par, but they do.



That is due to the fact that almost ALL of our holes are drive and putt. If we had courses that had 3 Par 3s----3 par 5s and 14 Par 4s then they wouldnt even come close to shooting par and the 1000 rated players would only be shooting a few under when they were playing well.

We can use the same scoring or handicaping as ball golf untill our courses are par 72

I wish more courses were multiple shot course because those are the ones that seperate the Men from the Boyz :D

That is due to the fact that almost ALL of our holes are drive and putt. If we had courses that had 3 Par 3s----3 par 5s and 14 Par 4s then they wouldnt even come close to shooting par and the 1000 rated players would only be shooting a few under when they were playing well.




So you are saying we should have a standard of 20 hole par 80 courses??? :DWhy cant we keep it to 18 holes, why you gotta be soo complicated :D

So you are saying we should have a standard of 20 hole par 80 courses??? Why cant we keep it to 18 holes, why you gotta be soo complicated




Its been a long day. I meant to say 12 par 4s

It's unclear how to set par using this proposed Hy Par method. To determine BG par, the designer/TD says it takes one, two or three shots to get to the basket for par 3, 4 or 5 respectively. For par based on scoring average, the designer/TD may start with the BG method then adjust the par if the scoring average indicates something different when it's actually played. That is unless the designer uses the forecaster.

For Hy Par, the designer/TD does what? Here's a hole that is 385 with 16 feet elevation uphill. It takes two shots to get there among scattered trees and the scoring average is 3.35 for Blue level. Scoring average par is 3 and BG par is 4.

renny gold is a par 70...The points bonanza showed scores that looked similiar to that of a pga tourney.....

true that...

Ratief shot 81 on sunday, I took care of the 81 on Saturday.

#3512

It's unclear how to set par using this proposed Hy Par method. To determine BG par, the designer/TD says it takes one, two or three shots to get to the basket for par 3, 4 or 5 respectively. For par based on scoring average, the designer/TD may start with the BG method then adjust the par if the scoring average indicates something different when it's actually played. That is unless the designer uses the forecaster.

For Hy Par, the designer/TD does what? Here's a hole that is 385 with 16 feet elevation uphill. It takes two shots to get there among scattered trees and the scoring average is 3.35 for Blue level. Scoring average par is 3 and BG par is 4.



Chuck,

I'm sorry to say so, but I think you're obfuscating the situation. I will grant that you haven't yet seen any actual numbers that can be used to translate the theory into practice. But the scenarios you described are not that simple. Both BG Par and SA Par rely on numbers for their par determinations. At the core every system of par depends on length. The core of SA Par is the formula for average foliage of determining the Score average for certain lengthe. The colored table of "Hole Socring averages for various player levels" is derived from length. Just as in BG the BG Par method depends on length criteria to determine the maximum length of a 1 shot hole. Hy Par is also built on length.

Following are a few more preliminary points then there will be some tables that will clear things up.

The lengths used for par vary according to the player skill level.

Par is the length that 2/3 of that playing level can reach the designated length.

Maximum length for a Gold player on par 3 = 360 ft. with max approach shot on par 4 of 320 ft. (or 290 ft.)
Max par 3 length for Blue = 310 ft. (86% of Gold) with max open approach on par 4 of 275 ft. (or 240 ft.)
Max par 3 length for White = 270 ft. (75% of Gold) with max open approach on par 4 of 225 ft. (or 180 ft.)
Max par 3 length for Red = 230 ft. (64% of Gold) with max open approach on par 4 of 185 ft. (or 140 ft.)

Lengths given are �effective lengths� calculated from adjusting the Actual length for elevation changes, foliage density, forced lay-ups and trouble such as OB or extreme terrain.

BG Par
using Design guidelines chart. Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5)

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>360</td><td>680 (360 + 320)</td><td>1000 (680 + 320)</td><td>1320 (1000 + 320)
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>310</td><td>585 (310 + 275)</td><td>860 (585 + 275)</td><td>1135 (860 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>270</td><td>495 (270 + 225)</td><td>720 (495 + 225)</td><td>945 (720 + 225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>230</td><td>415 (230 + 185)</td><td>600 (415 + 185)</td><td>785 (415 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Score Avg Par (SAP)
From Hole Forecaster v2.95 Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5)
Set at the x.5 score with est. Hole score at Avg foliage. Scores are converted to length.

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold </td><td><236</td><td>521</td><td>806</td><td>1091</td><td>>1092
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td><171</td><td>430</td><td>689</td><td>949</td><td>1208
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td><117</td><td>355</td><td>592</td><td>830</td><td>1067
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td><72</td><td>291</td><td>510</td><td>729</td><td>950
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>none</td><td>236</td><td>440</td><td>643</td><td>847
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Hy Par
Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = max drive for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>480 (360 x 1.33)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>410 (310 x 1.33)</td><td>685 (410 + 275)</td><td>960 (685 + 275)</td><td>1235 (960 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>360 (270 x 1.33)</td><td>585 (360 + 225)</td><td>810 (585 + 225)</td><td>1035 (810 +225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>305 (230 x 1.33)</td><td>490 (305 +185)</td><td>675 (490 + 185)</td><td>860 (675 + 185) </tr></td></table>

The Hy Par looks so close to the Scoring Average figures that there appears to be no benefit for using a more complicated process to explain. The BG method uses simple one, two, three shots to the green. The Scoring Average method uses actual scores. Both of these methods are grounded in tangible results from either observation or measurement that most players can understand. Is it possible to post a simple one liner to define the Hy Par method to help us out? And then, why is another option needed or better?

The Hy Par looks so close to the Scoring Average figures that there appears to be no benefit for using a more complicated process to explain. The BG method uses simple one, two, three shots to the green. The Scoring Average method uses actual scores. Both of these methods are grounded in tangible results from either observation or measurement that most players can understand. Is it possible to post a simple one liner to define the Hy Par method to help us out? And then, why is another option needed or better?



Chuck,

Thanks for asking. This is an excellent question. I'm preparing a thorough explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of each philosophy of par. A woefully inadequate explanation of Hy Par may be that it is an attempt to create a length based par standard that takes into account the unique aspects of disc golf, mainly the 1.67 ATG factor.

It is also an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the other two methods.

To me, the 800 posts in this thread, and the lack of consensus on a uniform standard for par indicate that the issue is not resolved. In the Winter 2002 (#60) issue of DGWN (p. 30) John Houck said, "Meanwhile, disc golfers are still trying to define their own version of par." I haven't seen much to indicate that this situation has changed. Even the course designers in the DG Course Designers Group are split between the two current methods (BGP and SAP). (I think the dividing line there may be whether a player should be able to make an eagle on a maximum length hole, but that's another issue.)

I'll explain more soon, but in a nutshell the problem with BG par is that the BG definition has some inherent inconsitencies to begin with and it doesn't fit the uniqueness of DG, especially the 1.67 ATG factor. My results of using it with actual course data confirm to me that it is inaccurate compared to the other two methods. With SA Par the main problem is using SSA becuase of the variability, the lack of accessible data, and the need for specialized tools to estimate it. There's more to explain on this. For me personally, I've never gotten any satisfactory answers to the questions I've asked about using SSA. If you can give persuasive answers that would be great.

Since Hy Par is length based the numbers are accessible to everyone and they don't change.

In a nutshell, Hy Par par is determined by the number of shots in regulation (1, 2, or 3) to reach "close range" (call it the "green" if you want). "Close range" is defined as 0.33 X the standard drive length for each Player level. (All lengths used are "effective length" not "actual length".)

In the Winter 2002 (#60) issue of DGWN (p. 30) John Houck said, "Meanwhile, disc golfers are still trying to define their own version of par."



Nothing to add other than this is a complete and total disgrace.

What exactly are we afraid of? Getting it wrong? Wah!

Getting it wrong is a necessity for getting it right for all but God! And we are not God (in case anyone was wondering).

Let's set it, what ever it is, and work at improving it as we are able. What is currently in our rulebook should absolutely be updated. This does have competitive implications...

LET'S GET ON WITH IT, SHALL WE!

The Hy Par looks so close to the Scoring Average figures that there appears to be no benefit for using a more complicated process to explain.



Chuck,
The SA method seems simple to you because you are so entrenched in it that it is second nature. But to a total newcomer I think that explaining the rationale of SA Par is also complicated. I'll grant that people who play tournaments are familiar with SSA, but what about the vast majority of rec players who have no clue about SSA? I think that Hy Par is actually easier to explain to a newcomer than the SA method.

Lets imagine a first time DG player who also plays BG so they're familiar with the concepts of par. Which is easier to explain to her the SAP method or the HyP method? Then even if they understand the theory the new player is still dependent on someone else to derive the SA data for each hole and give it to him, while with the standards and a calculator this player could construct Hy Par for himself. (OK, this is a bit simplistic because methods rely on tools to compute the effective length anyway.)

The BG method uses simple one, two, three shots to the green. The Scoring Average method uses actual scores.



This is oversimplifying the situation.

BGP uses set lengths for each player skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). BGP still needs to calculate effective length and compare it to the standards to determine what is "1 shot" for each player level. I doubt that any but the very most experiences designer could walk out to a hole, look at the actual length, compute the effective length in their head (by taking into account elevation change, forced layups, foliage density, and OB trouble), then say "this is a 1 shot hole for Gold, but 2 for White and Red players".

The SA method has to crunch the data with specialized tools that are only available to a few people. Then I've never seen a public place where hole by hole score averages are available anyway.

i have not follwed the esoterica of this entire thread in close detail. but HyPar Par sure seems to be straightforward and understandable. the two biggest problems with SSA is that a) it is impossible to calculate par using SSA until a certain number of rounds have been played by certain types of players, and b) the data required to calculate SSA is not available to most people. SSA is not intuitive at all. the fact that SSA values should be close to "par" IS intuitive, but the values themselves arent.

The BG method uses simple one, two, three shots to the green. The Scoring Average method uses actual scores.



This is oversimplifying the situation.

BGP uses set lengths for each player skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). BGP still needs to calculate effective length and compare it to the standards to determine what is "1 shot" for each player level. I doubt that any but the very most experiences designer could walk out to a hole, look at the actual length, compute the effective length in their head (by taking into account elevation change, forced layups, foliage density, and OB trouble), then say "this is a 1 shot hole for Gold, but 2 for White and Red players".

The SA method has to crunch the data with specialized tools that are only available to a few people. Then I've never seen a public place where hole by hole score averages are available anyway.



I'd like to amend this just a bit about the BGP method. Upon reflection I realize that for most holes an experienced person CAN fairly accurately asess the number of shots that players of different skill levels would need. My point relates more to holes that are on the boundary between two pars and that have complicating features such as big elevation changes, dense foliage, forced layups, and OB. In my experience these kinds of holes can only be analyzed with mathematical data.

Let's set it, what ever it is, and work at improving it as we are able...
LET'S GET ON WITH IT, SHALL WE!



Great idea!
I vote to use Hybrid Par.
Chuck votes to use Score Avg. Par.
John Houck votes to use Ball Golf Par.

Now what?

Can anyone think of a better name than "Hybrid Par"? That's a pretty milquetoast name, but it's the best I could come up with.

[Previous tries were "Close Range Par" (CRP) and "Revised Standard Par" (RSV). Neither one cut it.]

i have not follwed the esoterica of this entire thread in close detail. but HyPar Par sure seems to be straightforward and understandable. the two biggest problems with SSA is that a) it is impossible to calculate par using SSA until a certain number of rounds have been played by certain types of players, and b) the data required to calculate SSA is not available to most people. SSA is not intuitive at all. the fact that SSA values should be close to "par" IS intuitive, but the values themselves arent.



Strangely enough I disagree with Pat. What is strange or unintuitive about SSA being the average score for scratch golfers? How does any distance or throws to the green and one or two putts relate to scratch golf?

I am in favor of using SSA to verify distance or throws to the green and one or two putts formulas. That would cover all bases. Courses without access to SSA calculations could simply use the distance/throws formula until varified by SSA. And depending on the course, between 1 to 4 strokes lee way could be given to the local course pro to set pars per hole (more for high SSA courses, less for low SSA courses).

The challenge remains holes that have an SSA of less than 2.5 or more than 5.5 and courses that have an SSA of less than 54.

For those I believe a remede was found last year: Skill level codes for course and hole par (if a course has an SSA of less than 54, then it is designated a color that affords it more strokes to maintain a par of above 54. The more strokes it needs the lower the skill level code, i.e. a course has an SSA of 44 then it is a Red (just for example) Course and is allowed 10 strokes or so to bring par up to 54, but everyone understands that the par is based on 900 golf, or a course with an SSA of 49, would be white tees and be given 5 strokes to bring written par up to 54 with the understanding that it is based on 950 golf. This is not exact, but it is the general gist.

So we would have a PDGA Par that would consist of:
A) Initial throws/distance/folliage type calculation of Par based on major skill level breaks(Gold, Blue, White, Red players and tees).
B) Once SSAs are available the Course Pro adjusts Par and tee designations accordingly.

This has got to be better than what we have (or don't have) now, right?

one thing i have wondered about is why we have a bunch of differnt pars. does BG do the same? seems wierd. if par is the objective, why have lots of different objectives? its like we have one objective for people who represent the best the sport has. another objective for people who are pretty darn good but not quite great. a third objective for people who are not that bad especially when they are sober. and a fourth for beginners and those who just plain suck.

end the madness! stick with one par!

How about "Disc Golf Par?" :)

I've hesitated to chime in on this discussion, because I came to the game late in life, am not tied to the "everything is par 3" mentality (yes, I actually add my scorecard up hole by hole), and try to design courses with a mix of pars. So what I have to say is from a personal approach only.

When I design, I use a philosophy that combines appropriate land use, esthetics, and knowledge of player abilities. I've picked the brains of Harold Duvall, John Houck, Chuck Kennedy to try to understand their varying approaches to DG course design. I've read the works of Donald Ross and Michael Hurdzan on golf course design and architecture and tried to relate that to our sport. I've designed courses in city parks, college campuses, youth camps, ski areas, and desert settings.

All through this, I have really appreciated having access to the Hole Forecaster and the statistical data that Chuck and others have collected, analyzed, and presented. Since I don't throw the distances of the Blue and Gold players, that data helps me design for them. But, as has been said here in the past few posts, trying to explain SSA to someone from a BG background is next to impossible. And in some areas of the country, or on privately owned courses where tournaments might not be frequently held, getting enough rated rounds in to validate the SSA is also next to impossible.

Lowe's ideas presented here give as good an indication about what par should be as any other method. SSA might be more "accurate" as far as giving fractional (decimal) representation of what a hole's par should be. BGPar might be easier to approach from a "traditional" definition standpoint. But this proposed method does seem, to me at least, address the unique characteristics of disc golf.

As some have said, "We are golf, so act like it."
As others have said, "We are not THAT golf, so don't act like it."

We should appreciate all the work that has been done quantifying the abilities of varying levels of players. We should also work at making all aspects of our sport accessible to the public, the media, and sponsors. Having a "Disc Golf Par" that is easy to understand, easy to explain, and uniformly applied, should be part of that plan.

I'm sure this discussion will go on for days, weeks, months, and will bring us ultimately closer to a method that is appropriate for our unique sport.

one thing i have wondered about is why we have a bunch of differnt pars. does BG do the same?



Actually BG does have different par standards for different levels.

I don't know their exact terms but the levels are:
Tournament / Pro. Blue tees
Men. White tees
Women. Red tees
Juniors. Red tees?

I know that the USGA has different standards specificed for the par lengths for men, women, and juniors.

Think of it this way. A scratch woman player can shoot 72 from the red tees, but if she plays the white tees she'll shoot higher and if she plays the blue tees even higher. Or starting at Blue, a player who averages 72 from the Blue tees would shoot lower on the whites and even lower on the reds. There are different par standards for each of these sets of tees. The maximum length of a par 3 is longest from blue, shorter from white, and shortest from red.

Or from another perspective: A scratch player who averages 72 from the Blue tees is better than a scratch player who averages 72 from the White tees and they're better than a player who averages 72 from the Red tees.

The most famous example of different par standards can be seen at Augusta National. They have the regular tees for eveyday play and the longer tees for the Masters. The holes have the same par (I think), but the length standard is different for each.

As a follow up to John's postI'd like to repost something that I've posted earlier and elsewhere :

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:

1. To have a number that matches the reality of what expert players at each skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
2. Par is essential for comparing the difficulty of different courses. It is the only way to overcome �portability error�.
2.1. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook. This comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough.
3. To be able to compare scores on different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�.
4. People play with a certain par in their head anyway, and on older shorter courses they play as if many holes are par 2 (which they are).
5. In tournaments when a player is late to know how many throws to assess. (Although that rule is random and needs to be redone. Why would someone be penalized unnecessarily just for being assigned to start on a par 5 hole?)
6. Over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
7. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different course.
8. To be able to determine handicaps.

Pat's right when he says "Stick to one par!"
Lowe's right when he talks about USGA standards.

And the way accompish both for disc golf is for the designer to design a hole of particular par for (insert Scratch, Gold, Pro, Blue) top level players, then design appropriate tee locations for (Intermediate, Red, White, Green, Purple) players of improving abilities that reflects that same par.

Unlike BG, where this generally means just shortening the distance by moving the tee forward, more consideration has to be given to throw placement, etc. The "forward" tees may have a different line or approach in DG.

When you go to your local BG course, the par remains the same on the hole, but you play it from the appropriate tee set for your playing level. There's nothing wrong with doing the same for disc golf.

they have different tees. so does DG. thats fine. but a par three hole in BG is par 3 from all the tees, isnt it?

they have different tees. so does DG. thats fine. but a par three hole in BG is par 3 from all the tees, isnt it?



If the appropriate level player is playing from that tee.

If Annika and Tiger play the same course, both from the Gold Tees, he'll beat her just because he can drive further.

If she plays from the Ladies' Tees (Red, I think), they'll likely play equally.

If he played forward tees and she played back, the disparity is even more emphasized.

Same with Dad and son playing on the local course. Dad plays Gents' tees, son plays junior tees, with the par being the same for each.

I think you are absolutely correct. You have to think outside our little box. Imagine someone seeing disc golf for the first time (which we hope will happen more and more often). This person probably has some knowledge of Ball Golf and the idea of par. Would it not be to DG's advantage to assimillate the two ideas of par. Such that, an outside observer can understand what a players score means. I feel this is an essential aspect of DG which must be standardized for maximum exposure to the masses. (i.e. TV, walk up audience, etc.)

ok, thanks. i agree... sure seems like thats a good approach for DG as well. but the concept of different par values from the same tee, depending on the skill of the player in the box seems, well, like kinda anti-par.

The par from different ball golf tees is not always the same. There are forward tees where the par is higher, typically par 5 and it's par 4 from tees farther back. At Pinehurst #2 this past weekend, at least one par 5 for members was set at par 4 AND the tee was farther back.

The par from different ball golf tees is not always the same. There are forward tees where the par is higher, typically par 5 and it's par 4 from tees farther back. At Pinehurst #2 this past weekend, at least one par 5 for members was set at par 4 AND the tee was farther back.



That's a bit of an aberration, Chuck. The USGA controls the course set-up for the Open. They can dictate the mowing heights of the fairways, rough, and greens, whether or not to water the greens, where to put the pins, where to put the tees. They are using the course as a basic canvas and tweaking the design to make it tougher than any set-up the course pro would ever have. They do this on any course they use for the Open. Once they have the set-up they want to use, they can set the par for the course, which may or may not be the same as the everyday par for public/members.

On a day-to-day basis, the posted par on any hole is the same from each tee. I just called our local PGA club pro, and though he couldn't quote the standard and didn't have time to go look (he was having breakfast :D), he said there is a design and set-up guideline (PGA/USGA??) that states such. This makes it uniform for scorecards and signage.

On a day-to-day basis, the posted par on any hole is the same from each tee.



Not always.

google "par 5/4":
http://www.indianolacountryclub.com/construction.html
Hole 1. Par 5 from long tees and 4 from short tee.

I've seen lots of examples of this. Lots still pales to the total number of holes though. :p :D

Perhaps you wanted to say "there is only 1 par for any single tee". I don't think I've ever seen a single tee given more than 1 par, i.e. for different skill levels, on a day to day basis. :cool:

Actually, I meant to say what I said. It's the fact that their guideline says "should" rather than "shall." My local golf pro said that they "strongly encourage" all hole pars to be the same, no matter what tee the player is hitting from. His course is like that and he says that when it's listed like the example you gave from Indianola it is dependent on pin position and other factors and that the course pro has to decide and post what the day's par is.

Maybe we can do them one better and just be consistent in our approach.

Know what? I call BS on your course pro and his "guideline" from the PGA/USGA. :eek:

I'll gladly rescind the BS given a cite. :p

I'm going to second Hank's BS call only because I know a little bit about golf course pros. :D

Know what? I call BS on your course pro and his "guideline" from the PGA/USGA. :eek:

I'll gladly rescind the BS given a cite. :p



and


I'm going to second Hank's BS call only because I know a little bit about golf course pros.



Whatever. I made the call to him because I was interested for my own information, and for what it might contribute to this conversation. I don't play golf and he thinks disc golf is silly, so I'm not going to bother him with it again.

If you care so much about disproving me, you find the cite that supports your BS call and quote it here.

Again, this discussion breaks down to nastiness and rancor. I'm going on a long weekend.

PS: Right or wrong, BS or not, at least "they" have guidelines. I guess, as Bruce so handily states in another thread....we're just a silly game. Who needs par? After all, everything's a 3.

I don�t think we should get hung up on the way a designer or TD sets par. I happen to prefer using Scoring Average as a guide because that method provides numbers that are closer to what players of that skill level will shoot. And, I�ve developed design tools to help designers do that. The ball golf method �inflates� par a few throws more for the course. The Hy par method appears to fall somewhere in-between. So, on the two holes out of 18 where BG par is higher than SA par, Hy par matches SA par on one and BG par on the other. Is it that big of a deal? If the course owner wants to be more forgiving in setting par, that�s fine with me.

However, I feel these items are much more important goals:
1. Assign and post a par for every tee based upon the skill level it was intended for.
2. Encourage designers to consistently design the holes from a set of tees for a specific player level.
3. Avoid designing holes for a specific player level that average below 2.5.

The PDGA can and does provide charts for Park Directors, course contacts and novice designers to help them set par. No fancy formulas required. Let�s say local play, leagues or event results later indicate a change is needed on a few holes, they can change them. It�s not that complicated.

The majority of players seem more concerned that a par, any par, is set for each hole, not how they were done. Those of you who are interested in more detail have additional resources to tap like your player ratings, event results and SSA values for the courses you are interested in. That information tells you more than any par values will.

If you care so much about disproving me, you find the cite that supports your BS call and quote it here.



Sure thing. I'll get right on finding that proof that such a guideline does NOT exist.

Have a great weekend! :D

The challenge remains holes that have an SSA of less than 2.5 or more than 5.5 and courses that have an SSA of less than 54.

For those I believe a remedy was found last year: Skill level codes for course and hole par (if a course has an SSA of less than 54, then it is designated a color that affords it more strokes to maintain a par of above 54. The more strokes it needs the lower the skill level code, i.e. a course has an SSA of 44 then it is a Red (just for example) Course and is allowed 10 strokes or so to bring par up to 54, but everyone understands that the par is based on 900 golf, or a course with an SSA of 49, would be white tees and be given 5 strokes to bring written par up to 54 with the understanding that it is based on 950 golf. This is not exact, but it is the general gist.




Nick,

I've been using a variation of this to first set the player level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) and then calcualte appropriate level par for existing courses that I play and evaluate. It seems to work pretty well.

Lowe

deleted. Sorry.

ok, thanks. i agree... sure seems like thats a good approach for DG as well. but the concept of different par values from the same tee, depending on the skill of the player in the box seems, well, like kinda anti-par.



I agree. There should not be different par values for different players on the same course. For existing courses I first determine the Playing Level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) then I determine the par for that playing level. To me that is the par for the course, so par does not change for different skill level players.

As an example, I'm currently evaluating McLean Central Park in McLean VA. It's a 9 hole course. It has an estimated SSA of 21.4 and Gold Par would be 19 using Hy Par. (Actually it's 19 with BGP and SAP too.) But with a Red Scoring Average (RSA) of 27.8 it has a Red Par of 28. I call this a Red Level course with a par of 28. The player this course is best suited for is Red Level. A Gold player will average 21.4, Blue 23.7, and White 25.9 so they are consistenly going to average way below the Red Par. If there were consistent colored tee markers in DG as there is in BG then there would be red tee markers in place on this course so people could see at a glance what to expect.

It would be fantastic if DG could standardize how to determine a course's playing level and have that posted for every layout at every course.

33 pages and still no official solution!!!!!! Put it to the vote of the membership. :D

What are the options again? :p

What are the options again? :p



Ball Golf Par (BGP
Score Average Par (SAP)
Hybrid Par (Hy P)

Par is simply a superficial (sp) number designed to make you feel good or bad about how you are playing.

Par is simply a superficial (sp) number designed to make you feel good or bad about how you are playing.



Please see my post #395101 - 06/23/05 10:55 AM farther back for reasons why Disc golf needs consistent par standards.

who cares what par is and what par isn't, its just a word to say i shot so and so under par or whatever. i ussually play by the least amount of strokes possible...like last year at the worlds....at pickard. thy sai like 61 was par or somthing....who cares...just don't mess up. shoot stroke play.

who cares what par is and what par isn't, its just a word to say i shot so and so under par or whatever. i ussually play by the least amount of strokes possible...like last year at the worlds....at pickard. thy sai like 61 was par or somthing....who cares...just don't mess up. shoot stroke play.



Sigh If you played Worlds then you should know a reason for having par. See point 7 below. As long as people keep posting these uninformed statements that we don't need par I'll keep posting why we do need it.

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:

1. To have a number that matches the reality of what expert players at each skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
2. Par is essential for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�.
2.1. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
3. To be able to compare scores on different courses.
4. People play with a certain par in their head anyway, and on older shorter courses they play as if many holes are par 2 (which they are).
5. In tournaments when a player is late to know how many throws to assess. (Although that rule is random and needs to be redone. Why would someone be penalized unnecessarily just for being assigned to start on a par 5 hole?)
6. Over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
7. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different course.
8. To be able to determine handicaps.

Chuck,
Would you please tell us how you get the SA to determine par with the SAP method? I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm genuinely curious. Do you just use the Hole Forecaster for an estimated SSA? But that may be 1-2 throws different than reality? If you have actual scores then you can use the validation tools of the Hole Forecaster. Is this the approach you use or do you do something else as well?

5. In tournaments when a player is late to know how many throws to assess. (Although that rule is random and needs to be redone. Why would someone be penalized unnecessarily just for being assigned to start on a par 5 hole?)



If par is set correctly on each hole, why would the penalty of par+4 for missed holes be unfair? It's random whether you're assigned a par 3, 4, or 5 but the effective penalty is the same.

What is the SSA of Winthrop Gold?
Go here (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=45) for the PDGA data to determine your answer.

Then from that data alone please determine the Score Average for hole 12. (Assume a standard length of 888 ft.)

Do you just use the Hole Forecaster for an estimated SSA? But that may be 1-2 throws different than reality? If you have actual scores then you can use the validation tools of the Hole Forecaster. Is this the approach you use or do you do something else as well?




I happen to use the Hole Forecaster but anyone can use the published table based on it. It's just easier to do it in the computer so I can then use the values to create scorecards. Then, holes that appear off after actual play, whether PDGA or not, can be adjusted. In some cases like Highbridge, the actual hole gets changed (usually pin placement) to match the intended par when the results don't pan out from the forecast. Although usually designers won't have the flexibility to change the hole and changing the par is all that's available.

Regarding Winthrop Gold, I said that the par needs to be set properly for the late penalty to be fair. Some of those holes were legit par 6s. Ball golf would DQ late players so players should be happy they can even play if they're late. For ratings, someone who misses two holes will likely not have that round rated. They're also likely to not be a contender, so I'm not sure changing the late penalty would change much. My suspicion is that the Rules Committee leans toward DQ, at least for that round if any change is made.

Regarding Winthrop Gold, I said that the par needs to be set properly for the late penalty to be fair.



I'm not sure why you said this. My point was that on the PDGA Course stats site the SSA for Winthrop U varies from 66.97 to 75.17, so if the Gold course was set up for everyday play what would the SSA be? and from that what would par be?

I happen to use the Hole Forecaster but anyone can use the published table based on it.



Is the table you refer to the Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg) ?

Much of that Winthrop SSA variance is based on different course layouts and the 75s are based on weather. The 69+ was based on the 2004 layout under normal weather and the par would be set on this basis. If weather kicks up, the late penalty is still fair, at least on Winthrop, because the scoring average on each hole get boosted a little bit.

Yes, that's the table. Although there's also a simplified version I haven't posted but provide to Park Depts and those who have emailed with course design questions.

Much of that Winthrop SSA variance is based on different course layouts and the 75s are based on weather. The 69+ was based on the 2004 layout under normal weather and the par would be set on this basis.



This Winthrop example illustrates the near impossibilty of using PDGA SSA records to set par. SSA changes with layout changes so one must have a detailed knowledge of the particular layout for a particular SSA. One also needs to know specific details of the weather on the particular day listed. So would you say that par for that day of bad weather was 75? It seems to ludicrous to have different pars on different days of the same event.

Then even if you do pick a number to use you nothing about the scoring average for each hole. Only a few people have access to the hole scoring averages, even for DG's premier event. How would you know if a hole averaged 3.4 or 3.6? The average person doesn't have this information so everyone just says, "Okay, par is just what Harold says it is." I guess that's what the PGA does at the U.S. Open, though. In this instance, the USDGC may be such a special case that it breaks down at points for what I'm trying to point out.

Yes, that's the table.



Chuck,

This table will give you an estimated SSA for holes of certain lengths and foliage density for each skill level. Do you think that the SSA estimated in this way is accurate enough to use to set par?

5. In tournaments when a player is late to know how many throws to assess. (Although that rule is random and needs to be redone. Why would someone be penalized unnecessarily just for being assigned to start on a par 5 hole?)



If par is set correctly on each hole, why would the penalty of par+4 for missed holes be unfair? It's random whether you're assigned a par 3, 4, or 5 but the effective penalty is the same.



You're right. Thanks for clarifying how that works. I've never played a PDGA tournament and never seen the rule enforced.

I happen to use the Hole Forecaster but anyone can use the published table based on it.



Is the table you refer to the Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg) ?




Yes, that's the table.



Chuck,

I don't want to belabor the point, but I just want to make sure that I understand you clearly. To get the hole score averages from which you set par using the SA Par method you use some sort of tool to get estimated hole scores. Is that correct? Members of the DG Course Design Group have access to the Hole Forecaster. All other people must use numbers based on the table "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length".

That means that you find the estimated score averages to be accurat enough within the margin of error.

Then I assume that when you have scoring data you either use the validation section of the Hole Forecaster or other resources to check the actual hole scoring averages against the estimates. Is this correct too?

I suppose that the holes that cause the most questions are those on the edge of the score average, e.g. 3.5, because they could go either way and be a par 3 or a par 4. With any method to determine par these holes on the border will always need a judgement call to decide.

The design process isn't that mathematical and people shouldn't get the idea that course and hole design is lead by the numbers. The numbers follow and support the creative process. Designers have a sense of what they're trying to do with the design balance and taking advantage of the terrain that's available in the best way possible. Experienced designers have a sense whether a hole is a one, two or three shot hole for the skill level being designed for without going to any chart or number crunching. I usually do routing and rough hole designs or possibilities even before more accurately measuring.

Once measurements are made, the numbers are reviewed relative to the charts or spreadsheet to see how that's panning out, not just for individual holes but for the mix on the course. Alternate pin placements are usually the ones where the charts specifically provide guidance because many times they're the ones closer to the 2/3, 3/4 or 4/5 boundaries.

Designing for specific skill levels is a new process for most designers. Many have not done it nor know how to do it well yet, or agree that it should be done. So the charts are helpful learning aids. In particular, they are helpful for designing sets of tees for player levels (usually lower) that you may have less experience with.

Score validation can be done with the Hole Forecaster or any spreadsheet by entering the numbers from leagues or an event. Before the Forecaster, I just used the regular Excel stats functions as others have done.

Chuck,

It's funny how perspective can make a big difference. You and I are coming from different perspectives that drive how we look at things. You're more focused on the design of new courses, while I'm more focused on evaluating existing courses. I think that the two perspectives can inform and complement each other.

My immediate goal is to get a consistent number for par for the 140+ courses that I've played and evaluated. I'm more concerned about courses that are already in the ground.

A more long range goal that affects the 1500+ courses that currently exist is that consistent and universal standards for par will be developed that apply to all courses. I'd like to see every course have a course level designation (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green) and from that a par that is appropriate for that level. It would be so great to be able to play a new course and to have confidence that what they call par is based on a universally recognized standard. As is now stands after I play a new course I have to crunch the numbers to figure out what the par of the course really was. If we had a universal standard for par it would make the job of Course pros much easier and more consistent as they set par for their course. In the same way that course designers are just getting used to designing courses for specific levels I think even fewer course pros even understand course level criteria, much less determining the actual player level that their course is best suited for.

That is my main concern as well. The existing courses need a meaningful par system that avoids par 2's. If that means that half of the existing courses end up as red rated courses, that's fine. Just get them rated so players know what they are traveling to.

if you use Lowe's method for determining par (which makes an overwhelming amount of sense), then pretty much only holes that are less than about 150 would possible be par 2.

the concept of par 2 is STOOPID anyway!!!

theres nothing wrong with having the ol' "short par 3" type of course. a significant percentage of the BG courses out there are of that type.

Nothing wrong with it, except as of now, you can't tell before playing the course what type of course you are traveling to.

you could ask someone maybe. it just seems nonproductive to build a system that describes courses in different ways depending on a players level.

This makes sense (referring to the same course):
"Its par 54 but really tough for an intermediate player"
"Its par 54 and an advanced player should shoot even"
"A touring pro can shoot seven or eight down on this course"

This does not (again referring to the same course):
"This course is par 62 for an Intermediate"
"This course is par 54 in the MA1 division"
"This course is par 47 for pro players"

I cannot be the first one to think of this but here is this wild example.

Give an old pitch and putt course, where SSA on each hole is only 2.6, just follow me.

2.6 SSA is barely enough to consider it a par 3 hole (a poor par three, but a three none the less).

So...
18 x 3.0 = 54 which would be the course par.
18 x 2.6 = 46.8 (47) which would be the SSA par or true par.

So your average Advanced player (rated 930) should shoot "par" on the course.

Are we not trying to advance course design to where only the pros shoot par? Like ball golf.

I apologize for my ignorance on this, I am just trying to catch up and the thought came to my head. I prefer holes where the SSA is either X.8 or x.9 (holes that can be, but seldom are birdied). To me, these are the holes that really test your strenghts and excentuate your weaknesses.

It's really the same thing as ball golf, except they have a slope to indicate difficulty of the course.

At an "executive" course, the pars do not drop below three, but everyone knows that the par 3 for every hole is a bit low, and a scratch golfer will shoot well below par on that course.

There are several courses in DFW that would be considered "red" courses where a 950 rated player will be well below 54 on the course. In order to avoid Par 2 holes, either the courses must be changed, or the way we rate them must be altered to take into account the level of player the course is suitable for. All more advanced players can estimate their expected par from the course's rating and listed par.

At least this would be an easily listed and understandable way to rate existing courses and still keep the pars as listed at par 3 and above.

It would also allow courses that may barely reach a par of 54 for 950 rated players, but are truly more suited for 900 level players to be listed by the level of player most likely to find the course challenging.

Perhaps on the psychology side of determining course difficulty and assigning it a level, we could come up with names for the difficulty, like ball golf with the executive courses.

We could have perhaps; True SSA in (##)
Par 3 - Recreational (40-44)
Executive - Intermediate (45-48)
Gold - Advanced (49-53)
Platinum - Professional (54 and up)

By no meas am I suggestion that these names are the best, but if you name a type of course, which is descriptive but not insulting (no one wants to play on a course labeled "Beginner" even if they are beginners.

This has a more personalble "feel" then Chucks K's Red, Blue, Gold levels. Just a thought.

Community, Regional, National, TPC ?

What does TPC stand for? :confused:

Top Pimpin' Course

I thought is was Tournament Players Course, but it really is Tournament Players Club. It refers to 23 specific Championship level courses that are tough for scratch golfers to reach par on.

Maybe a level between National and TPC, like World.

I don't really like them, just another option that conveys some of the design purpose as well as the level of challenge expected.

I feel, that since the idea of rating courses is up in the air, instead of just putting out a number or par. A title would be more attractive to the psyche of players. And you could then search for "National" courses in your area on the PDGA website.

Just a thought.

I'm of the opinion that we need to set a standard level of play where par is applied. It seems that the "Blue" group is where the largest number of serious players resides. If we set par using the data for these players, then others would know where they should stand.

For instance, a course has one set of tees and one pin placement per hole. There are a mix of par 3, 4, and 5 holes, with a total par of 65. This is set for Blue players (950 average PPR). A Gold player with a PPR of 1010, should play this course at 59, while a Red player with a PPR of 850 should have a score of 75. (Using the 10 rating points = 1 throw concept.)

Courses with varying pars (as set for Blue players) could be designated as (my terminology):

Recreational: < 54
Community: 54 - 60
Tournament: 61 - 66
Championship: > 66

This would allow classification of current courses to reflect their difficulty for a standard class of player and encourage course designers and builders to provide a variety of hole challenges. It would also allow for holes that calculate out as 2.5 to 3.5 to just be 3's, etc. and for the general public (and players that don't care about the statistical mumbo-jumbo) to see whole numbers on tee and course signs and scorecards.

I think it would be fairly easy to use a version of the hole forecaster to determine the above for every course now in the ground. Using effective length, foliage density, and special adjustments (for doglegs, etc.) to set a par for Blue level players would be the goal. Factors such as weather, etc. should be left out of it. While they may affect the "played as" par during a tournament, it's only of statistical interest to compare player performance at that moment in time.

I agree with what you are saying, but think "scratch" should be a little harder to acheive than 924 golf. More along the lines of where a player goes from a top level Am to a competitive Pro. More in the 950-960 range. I know it's only a couple of strokes, but if I were to think of my DG game in BG terms, I wouldn't consider myself to be a scratch golfer.

Being a 924 golfer, I scratch out every shot I can... :)

I agree with what you are saying, but think "scratch" should be a little harder to acheive than 924 golf. More along the lines of where a player goes from a top level Am to a competitive Pro. More in the 950-960 range. I know it's only a couple of strokes, but if I were to think of my DG game in BG terms, I wouldn't consider myself to be a scratch golfer.



I just edited it up to 950. I looked at a newer version of the data sheet which said 950 average, rather than 924+. Makes more sense there, anyway. Thanks for the catch.

we cant even agree on the sanity of par 2... how will we ever agree that a course is "Touring" or "Local Executive"? :D

I haven't read the whole thing, but y'all seem to be making sense. IMO at least. To paraphrase, why not use 950 as the standard, use the commonsense method described earlier about using reasonable number of throws to reach pin + 2. Then compare that par to some avearge SSA (based on 950 rated players) during tournaments and apply catchy category names based on the difference between SSA and par. Is this workable? If so, adopt it.

Gary, you cannot just use 54 as the standard. The standard needs to be the course's par. Remember you will have par 72 courses that are easy to shoot -10 on and par 72 courses that are difficult to achieve par.

we cant even agree on the sanity of par 2... how will we ever agree that a course is "Touring" or "Local Executive"? :D



That will come after a par rating system is intact. And that would be based on what the true par or as of now (SSA) is on the course. My example would have everyone shooting approximately the same score (54), refer back to my post where I state example SSA's for each category.

lowe's makes the most overall sense so far. it disregards the strict 10m "green" and says par is equal to the number of shots it takes to get "close to" the pin, then plus 2.

Before we can expect to get anywhere with nailing down "PDGA Par" we need to nail down "PDGA Scratch Golf" and "PDGA Scratch Golfer". So long as there is a vast disagreement on those to standards defining par will remain unattainable.

What reservations does anyone have to using the average round of what we currently calculate as a 1000 PDGA Rated Player? Are they not "PDGA Scratch Golfers" after all?

lowe's makes the most overall sense so far. it disregards the strict 10m "green" and says par is equal to the number of shots it takes to get "close to" the pin, then plus 2.



Not to start a thread drift, but speaking of "greens"...

I'd like to see something more fluid determine the "close to" the pin distance rather than the rigid 10 m figure.

Example: Pin is on a side hill placement. You land 7 meters short and 2 meters below the basket. That a much more difficult putt (stance and throw) than being 7 meters away on a flat surface.

Another example: Flat ground and you are only 5 meters away, but there is a meter wide tree trunk directly on LOP a meter in front of your lie. More difficult than the straight, unobstructed shot from 5 meters, don't you think?

So, a "green" could really be an irregularly shaped area surrounding the pin with the putt being relatively the same in difficulty from each position, based on elevation, stance difficulty, obstructions, etc. A bit similar to the BG issues of slope, line, speed of the cut, etc. It would reward shot placement much like setting up your approach with a well placed drive.

Now, back to PAR! :D

Before we can expect to get anywhere with nailing down "PDGA Par" we need to nail down "PDGA Scratch Golf" and "PDGA Scratch Golfer". So long as there is a vast disagreement on those to standards defining par will remain unattainable.

What reservations does anyone have to using the average round of what we currently calculate as a 1000 PDGA Rated Player? Are they not "PDGA Scratch Golfers" after all?



Are the proportions of 1000+ rated players to the general populace of disc golfers similar to the numbers of PGATour Scratch type golfers to the general numbers of ball golfers out there?

Just a question.

Before we can expect to get anywhere with nailing down "PDGA Par" we need to nail down "PDGA Scratch Golf" and "PDGA Scratch Golfer". So long as there is a vast disagreement on those to standards defining par will remain unattainable.

What reservations does anyone have to using the average round of what we currently calculate as a 1000 PDGA Rated Player? Are they not "PDGA Scratch Golfers" after all?



Are the proportions of 1000+ rated players to the general populace of disc golfers similar to the numbers of PGATour Scratch type golfers to the general numbers of ball golfers out there?

Just a question.



Does it matter? When our current player demographic is a mere shadow of Ball Golf's and what we project it to be once we have attained mainstream acceptance?

Just a question.

I asked the question because I was truly interested in the answer, not to get a smart aleck response, Nick. I want to know if 1000 is the right cut off spot, or maybe 975, or maybe 1010. Because knowing that means a lot toward defining a standard.

I don't know the answer, so I asked. Maybe instead of being argumentative you should be informative. And if you don't have the information, just say so.

Now, does anyone know the answer to my question?

Don't know the answer, but know that par would be a terrible score for the few I know if they were playing our municipal course.

The 54 number is the minimum par for a course if you wish to avoid par 2 holes. I am very much in favor of a higher par as the standard. I am also aware that the majority of courses that are in the ground would have a very hard time reaching a realistic par of 54 for even 950 rated golfers.

A player rating of 1000 to define a scratch disc golfer seems right to me also. I checked the pro men player ratings just now and 82 of 1927 are at or above 1000 that is about 4% of golfer's in the toughest division, sounds like an elite few to me.

I would think that all touring Ball Golfers were scratch golfers, and some percentage of non-tour players as well. I would think that any touring ball golfer would be expected to shoot well below par on any course not set up for PGA championship play.

I think setting up par ratings for disc based on the abilities of an elite few players will leave the courses with par ratings that are nearly useless as a tool to compare courses. What I would like to see is a standard that allows a player looking at a course listing to have an idea of the level of challenge the course will provide based on the length and par. The length is usually a good benchmark, but two courses of equal length with differing pars would indicate that one is much tougher than the other.

1000 is too high for scratch golf because in general our 1000 rated players throw too far relative to lower rated players. scratch golf should represent mistake free golf played by experienced players with skills attainable by anyone of reasonable aptitude (i believe this to be 325-350 in distance.). imo this is about 960 golf. the difference in hitting distance between top pros and the lower echelons of players is not as pronounced in bg as in dg.

I believe the highest handicap that's calculated for ball golfers is +3.5 which is where the PGA tour golfers reside. That is equivalent to our 1035 rating which is where our top players reside. As a side note, the winner of Worlds in Open has had to shoot at this level to win Worlds for the past several years. So, our scratch golfer at 1000 is equivalent to the zero handicap scratxh ball golfer.

Don't know the answer, but know that par would be a terrible score for the few I know if they were playing our municipal course.

The 54 number is the minimum par for a course if you wish to avoid par 2 holes. I am very much in favor of a higher par as the standard. I am also aware that the majority of courses that are in the ground would have a very hard time reaching a realistic par of 54 for even 950 rated golfers.



So, the quandary is whether to accept the concept of par 2 on some holes (because using 1000 players as the standard will force that) or use another player rating level as the standard for setting par.

It's much easier to design new facilities to a higher standard than to classify old courses. The 9 hole course that I designed when I first started playing was known for being short but technically challenging. Most everyone thought that it was truly a 28 (one par 4) and tournament data supported that. In the past year, about half the trees in the park have been removed due to drought conditions and a lot of the technical difficulty is gone. I'd say that 5 of the holes would now be par 2 for a 1000 rated player and the 4 is now a 3. So does that make it a par 22 for 9 (44 for 18)? Or is it still 28 (56) that plays very easy for top players? Do I change the signs to reflect the 2's when we have had only two players over 1000 ever play the course? Or does they stay the same because the average player in our area is around an 850?

Not so fast Chuck. In my half-competant search on google I learned this little factoid:


Ernie Els' unofficial handicap through his first 20 tournament rounds of 2003. If he played a scratch golfer in a match. Els would have to give him 11 shots.



I don't offer it as proof of anything, just to note that the top player at the moment (I assume Ernie was hot in early 2003) is way freaking better than a scratch golfer.

John, my understanding is that it is still a par 27 (or par 28), but when compared to the SSA (using ???? rated players), it would be rated as an easy course (Executive in Gary's terms).

In order to be in the top 33% of the DGLO (usually cash limit, I don't know how many cashed) a player had to at least of shot 2 +1000 rated rounds out of the three, and the lowest round shot was a 975 out of the top 33%. So looking at just these results, I would think that being a scratch golfer would mean that you can compete with the top players in the sport. Cashing at an NT definately confirms you are competitive.

I think that 1000 rated player is a good standard for a scratch golfer. How many amateurs in ball golf can expect to break par?

Our ratings and ball golf aren't directly comparable because they drop 50% of the rounds for handicaps. So, a ball golfer can only beat their handicap an average of once in four rounds. Still, I find it hard to believe Ernie could average 11 shots better than the course rating, which is what the scratch golfer should be able to shoot. That would mean he averaged around 62 or even better for those 20 rounds. The math sounds a little stretched to me.

Regarding the +3.5 handicap, that's as high as they post for ball golf. If you're better than that, I believe your handicap is still set at +3.5.

You have to go back to the original basis for 1000 rating. We had to pick something as the reference for starting the ratings calcs. Stork and I determined that we would take the average of the best 100 rounds shot by 100 different people (regardless of division) on each course at Cincy Worlds. That average score, now called SSA, would be defined as 1000 rating. At the time, the Open field was around 150 so the cash line was about 50. The idea was that a person who played at a scratch level of 1000 would barely cash.

It's pretty cool that this has held up since 1998 where a player pretty much has to shoot at a 1000 rating to cash in most NT and Majors plus most A-tiers.

I bet most pros are considerably better than +3.5.

At any rate, back to John's original question, or a variant: Do we know what is the % of scratch golfers to total ball golfers? If so, we can use the PDGA's estimate of total disc golfers, make a couple of other assumptions, and estimate what disc golf rating would correspond to a scratch golfer.

There's little validity to comparing percentages and trying to match up. There's no basis for determining how many players have high ratings versus the total pool of rated players compared with the number who have low handicaps versus any handicap.

Ball golf has several par standards that aren't set very well but at least they take a stab at trying to do them for different skill levels. Our Gold par standard is set so we don't have ridiculous scores under par for Worlds and other big events. Before a better job was done with setting courses and par, Ron Russell shot something like -87 under par in Rochester Worlds to win.

Setting the scratch golfer level lower won't do much but make people feel better and inflate the under par scores to laughable levels compared with BG. Our scratch golfer is truly a 992 level player already, not 1000. With the ratings calculations changing for July, all rounds will be used. Thus, our current 1000 rated player would drop to 992 once all his rounds are used. However, we've put a factor in the formula to boost SSA which will boost round ratings for 2005. So, this player will end up back at about 1000 (plus/minus one or two pts). So, all along our scratch player has really been a 992 player that got a 1000 rating because we dropped 15% of his rounds.

I don't know how there is even a standard to determine validity in this discussion. My assumption with that train of thought is simply this: scratch golfer is a level of play. "Level of play" can be defined as one's relative distribution on the curve of total golfers. You know, "Scratch golfers represent the top X% of all ball golfers" and simply apply it to disc golf. I don't know why it is not "valid." It is quite possible that your 1000 rated player (I mean 992 rated player) is the proper cutoff.

At any rate, I'm fine with 925, 950, 992, or 1000. Since most all of our present difficult courses will play way below par, this may inspire course designers to create courses that play as par for 1000 rated players while still using a commonsense way of setting par. I suspect that in order to design such a course designers would have to get way more creative in making the average throw length more risky. It would revolutionize the way the sport is played, or at least in my dreams it would. :p

This is all pretty stupid. You can't set par by a scratch golfer, because a scratch golfer is one that shoots par. :D

But I feel bad for making Jon upset before his vacation, so I'll help out. :D

For the score data, it helps to know that probably 99.9% of the courses have a par of 70, 71, 72 and maybe 73. Still looking for Scratch number estimates. :) :p

From the National Golf Foundation:
There are an estimated 12.8 million adult Core golfers in the U.S. (as of 2004). Adult Core golfers are ages 18 and above, play at least eight times per year (average 37 times) and are responsible for 91% of rounds played and 87% of golf-related spending.
Of adult Core golfers, about 10.2 million are male and 2.5 million are female.
There are an additional 14.6 million adult Occasional golfers, those ages 18 and above who play between one and seven times a year. The impact of Occasional golfers on the industry is minimal; nevertheless, they represent an opportunity for �upgrading� to Core golfers.
There are also 2.9 million junior golfers ages 12-17, of whom 1.0 million play eight or more rounds per year.

The average score on an 18-hole regulation golf course was 97 in 2004. Average score was 95 for men and 106 for women.
The percentage of adult golfers by score category are: Score under 80 (8% of golfers); 80-89 (20%); 90-99 (31%); 100-119 (30%); and 120 and above (11%).
Average score is a statistic that is very unlikely to change over time, because the pool of golfers is constantly being refreshed by newer, less skilled ones. Also, average score increases as golfers age, which tends to balance out better scores by younger players.

Twenty-one percent of all golfers maintain a handicap. The average handicap (among those who maintain one) is 15 for men, 23 for women, and 16 overall.

This is great discussion, but does anyone care to dispute that the average cashing PGA pro or scratch golfer would shoot anywhere near par on your local municipal course with it's regular tee and pin locations ? That is where most of our courses that are currently in the ground stand.

I would never argue that many of the holes on existing courses have SSAs below 2.5. What I do argue is that we should never lable a hole as a par 2 and that the course par should be equal to the sum of all of the hole pars. Since we are not able to redesign all of the courses that are in the ground, we need to find a reasonable way to assign pars to them that avoid par 2 holes.

If assigning the course a rating offset that allows the holes to be given realistic pars that are above 2 works, I am all for it. This would also help beginning players know where they stand in development. If they are starting to shoot below par on the local red course, but still above par on the white course, they can estimate their own rating from their scores. As long as they know that par on the red course corresponds to a player rating of x and par on the white course is set for a rating of y.

Since the % of pro golfers has to be tiny, the following quote about number of scratch golfers sounds pretty good.

From the pope of slope:
The player of scratch standard represents less than one-half of one percent of amateur golfers. Approximately fifty percent of all male players in the USA have handicaps of 14 to 20 strokes, and the national average handicap of all men is 17.

Since the PDGA estimates 500K players, at 0.5% being scratch, that would mean the best 2500 disc golfers are scratch or better. :D

So that's what, like a 900 golfer? Great comparison guys. :D:p

I guess the top guys actually shoot 13 under per round. That sounds about right.

Is the pope infallible? :p

What is the universe of "amateur golfers" in the pope quote? Am I, the hacker on the ball golf course who is not a member of any ball golf association, counted towards the total number of amateur ball golfers?

I don't know numbers from shinola, but in ball golf numbers don't set par. Design sets par. Is it different in disc golf? :eek: :p

Have fun!!!! :D:cool:

I would think that it was a percentage of those golfers that turn in score cards after their rounds. That would limit it ti those attempting to establish a handicap for competitive play. It should include the more serious hack and better. :)

Is the pope infallible? :p

What is the universe of "amateur golfers" in the pope quote? Am I, the hacker on the ball golf course who is not a member of any ball golf association, counted towards the total number of amateur ball golfers?



Those are good questions James. I liked the NGF stuff better. I'll google some more as time permits, but I have a lunch date! :D

But does it matter? Whether you use the Universe of golfers as "amateur", or just the Core golfers as defined by NGF, or even the Handicap Keepers, does it get any better?

I'm not talking about setting par. I'm talking about what rating level you use to determine if the par you set for a specific course (by whatever means) is relatively easy or difficult.

Without some separate number, I think that the length / par would give us a resonable indication of difficulty.

That is not how I see it at all. Par, for a ball golf course tells you little about difficulty. I suspect some of those courses on tour where they shoot -35 are par 72, just like Pinehurst where almost everyone shoots over par (forgive me if I am a little off). So, par and I suspect length to a lesser degree, tell one little about how difficult a course is. For that, you need a more objective and statistical method, one that has little to do with the method and process of assigning individual hole pars.

The USGA accomplishes this by assigning ratings to individual courses based on the scoring averages of "Bogey Golfers".

USGA slope database lookup (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/course_ratings/course_rating_lookup.asp)

This is pretty much what I have suggested, just that we not use the artificial "54" at all, but only use the appropriate "Bogey Golfer" score as a reference. We don't need to be told that everything is a par three for the scratch golfer.

Thanks for the link. Pretty interesting. Basically, I realize that I don't know what I am talking about. :p

First, according to them, scratch golfers are defined as:

Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is an amateur player who plays to the standard of stroke play qualifiers at the US Amateur Championship. This player hits tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots.

This is not the same as I thought, but the first sentence makes more sense, even though the second sentence is lame. Maybe, I should respect the USGA less and get on their board and hound them. :D

Personally, if our ratings are solid, I feel that we have better tools to calculate something analogous to "slope," which is far more meaningful and useful than the concept of par.

I agree that slope would be far more useful to most players than par, and that is the point of rating courses with built in offsets from SA Par so that the course signage can have meaningful whole numbers on the tee signs when the caculated par for the course falls below a total of 3 on every hole.

Since we don't have the benefit of having courses designed to reach pars in the 70s many courses would be rated as several par 2 holes with the remainder at par 3 based on 1000 rated play. I just think it would be more meaningful and better received if those were combination of par 3 & 4 holes on a "Community" course.

FYI: Slope is already built into our numbers. The higher the SSA the more throws a Gold level player will beat a Red level player. It's a fixed number to the best of our knowledge for disc golf. In other words, a 900 rated player will average 60.4 on a course with an SSA of 50.4, regardless whether the course is heavily wooded or is open, has elevation or is flat or has yellow rope everywhere. All you need to know is the SSA, or for that matter, the scoring average for a group of players whom you also know their average rating. The forecasted scores or pars for all other player rating levels can be derived from that info.

Man, y'all are confusing me. Par 2s??????

I am assuming:

1) you would use some commonsense method to determine par for a hole. This method uses whole numbers and will not yield par 2s.

2) you add all these whole numbers together to get a course par.

3) to evaluate if this course is easy or hard (my understanding of slope), you use some method to compare the course's par (from step 1 and 2) to a standard level of play; ie. the average # of strokes it takes an ???? rated player to play the course. I was assuming that rating level would be akin to a scratch golfer, but I might apparently be off base on that.

4) Anyways, the final rating gives players an idea of:

a) how difficult will reaching par be for me; and

b) how good was my round.

4b is the goal of this (w)hole discussion. Correct??? To let everyone have an objective measure of their play. A "poor man's rating" so to speak.

Are the proportions of 1000+ rated players to the general populace of disc golfers similar to the numbers of PGATour Scratch type golfers to the general numbers of ball golfers out there?



Some facts, assumptions, and my conclusions:
� In Ball Golf �the player of scratch standard represents less than one-half of one percent of amateur golfers.�
� There are 85 (out of 1195 pros) rated 1000 or over.
� There are only 475 players in the World with ratings over 974 (Chuck K). [This is � of 1% of 95,000] There may be about 95,000 regular players in the U.S.
� In 2004 there were 8575 PDGA members, and up to number 26,000. The PDGA estimates 500,000 players.
� All of the formulas for SSA and ratings are based on a 1000 rated player. It�s more important to establish a benchmark than to quibble about if it�s at the exact right place. It may have been better for a 960 player to be a scratch player, but it�s way too hard to change everything now.

Man, y'all are confusing me. Par 2s???



I believe in par 2 (and par 6).

Par 2

In favor of:
-It fits the reality of how better players think anyway. A Gold level player approaches certain short holes thinking he has to get a 2 to stay even. Good example of a course- Liberty in Cerritos CA (LA area). Course Level = Red (maybe Green); Gold Par = 18
-It adds challenge and interest to otherwise really weak holes. Ex.- Avalon Peaks hole 7. Knowing you have to put the drive close adds lots more pressure and interest. As a par 3 they would be strongly in the �stupid� category.

Against:
-If a "good" hole is one that readily differentiates the quality of players by having a wide scoring spread, then all "par 2"'s are bad holes because they only allow a limited spread of scores. Except for those rare lucky shots they can�t be birdied, so it�s difficult to gain an advantage on the hole. You can only do par or worse.

So, the quandary is whether to accept the concept of par 2 on some holes (because using 1000 players as the standard will force that) or use another player rating level as the standard for setting par.



IMHO John has hit the crux of the issue right here.

If you use Gold as the standard for par then you will end up with 9 hole courses of par 18. I've recently had success with giving each course a Course Level designation of Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green then using that Level to set par.

In my mind the course level roughly corresponds to concept of tee colors in BG. Playing a Red course is like playing from the red tees in BG. Playing a Blue course is like playing from the blue tees in BG.

If you study this Score Averages chart for different Player levels (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg) you can see that par is set differently for each player level. What I mean is that for the tougher levels a score avg. of say 3.0 means a longer hole for Gold than for Blue which is longer than White which is longer than Red. I hope this makes sense.

To give an example. I just finished evaluating McLean Central Park in McLean VA. It's flat with an effective playing length of 1819 ft. I called it a Red level course so it is most suited for a Red level player. Red par is 28. I'm a White level player. I shot a 26, so I shot 2 under par. There is only one par for each layout.

For comparison:
Gold par is 19
Gold est. Score Avg = 21.4
Blue est. Score Avg = 23.7
White est. Score Avg = 25.9
Red est. Score Avg = 27.8

(According to score averages this course was on the border line between White and Red, so I could have labelled it a White course with a par of 25, but it was so flat and short that it seemed more like a Red course to me.)

It takes an adjustment in your perception to call an easy course like that a par 28. You just have to remind yourself that is because it is a Red Level course best suited for Red level players. It's like playing from the Red tees in BG.

To me, if you used Gold as the standard it doesn't feel right to say par is 19.

there are holes on the PGA ciruit that absolutely must be 2'd in order to stay even. those holes are still par 3. there is nothing wrong with an easy par 3. just like there's nothing wrong with an easy par 4 or 5 (or 6).

there are holes you can win on... there are holes you can lose on. easy par 3's are the latter.

I simply do not understand this fear of recognizing that some holes, and some courses are not up to par. One of the issues that continually prevents a consensus on developing a standard for par is the idea that it will look bad if we have courses that have a par below 54, or that have a par 2 hole. If it looks like doo-doo, and it smells like doo-doo, then it must be doo-doo, and no amount of massaging the data or fancy names will change that. It simply will make the final par values and course ratings ineffectual, and it will make us look stupid.

In reality, we do ourselves a disservice. By pretending that weak layouts are real courses we don't incentivise players to move up. "Well this is a real course and I've mastered it." I've worked both in science and in a business that is heavily regulated by the government. Every time I see people who try and paint an image that is less than the truth because they think it looks better, everyone loses. It doesn't work. Across the board, organizations in all three of these areas that do this undermeasure, underperform, and eventually their bottom line suffers. Companies have to learn this over and over. I would prefer that we not have to.

It seems to me that the fear is we will make disc golf look bad if we admit that we have some crudy courses and holes. How is that? Who is going to determine that disc golf is bad because of this? I can see the headlines on Fox now, disc golf has par 2 holes... Story at 10:00!

The second fear that seems entrenched here is that if we make it too hard no one will want to play. "Man, I'm never going to hit par!" Let's be honest, some people hate challenges, some love them. Do we really think that lables are going to change the level of play or the level of challenge in our sport? Are we so shallow as people that we're going to enjoy playing a course more because instead of it's true par of 70, we've given it a par of 90 so that the Rec players feel they have a shot at it? I can hear the Pros now... "Yahoo, I beat par by 17; I still came in last in my division but no biggy -I beat par by 17." The reality is that those who like the challenge of competitive sports are going to stick with it and those that don't will fall aside because in the end, no matter what their scores, they still won't be better than the players who beat them.

Let's be honest with ourselves, hole # 9 at Moffitt here in Houston is a par 2 hole. Wilmont, the toughest course in Houston is probably par 60 for a good advanced player and guys like me are never going to break that. No lables in the world will change those facts.

I agree with some of what you said. I have no interest in beautifying ugly holes, but for the purposes of putting numbers on tee signs, I would never put Par 2 on a tee sign. The fact that it might be poor design or play as an easy par 3 is evident and I have other means to address those issues.

Anyways, I'm obviously lost in this whole conversation. I'm not sure what the hang-ups are. I gather that there are some people who have really thought this through and have a lot of knowledge on this issue, but are still at odds. Why does this issue remain unsolved?

I wouldn't hesitate to put a par 2 on a hole. If it is par 2 it's par 2. If the people who are attached to that course feel that needs to change, then they should change the course.

If we went to a BG course developed in the 1800s that had not been changed, it would have many holes that were par 2 by today's standards. Either we change or we lose.

If I walk down to the local pitch and putt BG course I understand that I'm chipping and putting. If we have a course that is pitch and putt we should acknowledge that.

I don't agree with your examples. There is a pitch and putt course here is Austin where the longest hole is probably 100 yards. None of them are par 2s. Even if they were (god-forbid) allowed on the PGA tour, they would still be par 3s. Ridiculously easy par 3s, but par 3s nonetheless.

Anyways, a pitch and putt course can easily be "handled" by something analogous to slope, and from that measure, everyone will realize the course is super easy and shooting 12 down is no big deal. In fact, I think calling it a super easy par 54 course is much more informative than calling it a really tough par 36.

I think calling it a super easy par 54 course is much more informative than calling it a really tough par 36.


BINGO!

I asked the question because I was truly interested in the answer, not to get a smart aleck response, Nick. I want to know if 1000 is the right cut off spot, or maybe 975, or maybe 1010. Because knowing that means a lot toward defining a standard.

I don't know the answer, so I asked. Maybe instead of being argumentative you should be informative. And if you don't have the information, just say so.

Now, does anyone know the answer to my question?



This was my intended point:

CK:

There's little validity to comparing percentages and trying to match up. There's no basis for determining how many players have high ratings versus the total pool of rated players compared with the number who have low handicaps versus any handicap.

Ball golf has several par standards that aren't set very well but at least they take a stab at trying to do them for different skill levels. Our Gold par standard is set so we don't have ridiculous scores under par for Worlds and other big events. Before a better job was done with setting courses and par, Ron Russell shot something like -87 under par in Rochester Worlds to win.

Setting the scratch golfer level lower won't do much but make people feel better and inflate the under par scores to laughable levels compared with BG. Our scratch golfer is truly a 992 level player already, not 1000. With the ratings calculations changing for July, all rounds will be used. Thus, our current 1000 rated player would drop to 992 once all his rounds are used. However, we've put a factor in the formula to boost SSA which will boost round ratings for 2005. So, this player will end up back at about 1000 (plus/minus one or two pts). So, all along our scratch player has really been a 992 player that got a 1000 rating because we dropped 15% of his rounds.

Perhaps the difference in perception is that a BG course with true par 2 holes basically gets ignored by the PGA. It truely is a pitch and putt course where you go to practice your game. It has no use as a competitive venue. It seems to me that we are calling what should be practice venues competitive venues because we are desperate for a high course count to show we have impact. Other than that I concede the point; for a competition, calling a hole par 2 seems a bad precedent. But... if you have a hole that scores as par 2 in a serious competition, you are selling your competitors short, IMO.

On the other hand, for your example, if the SHS on the holes you mention is below 2.5, they are obviously and intuitively par 2. Calling them par 3 or easy par three doesn't change that fact. I don't understand the fear of saying that the course has a par below 54. If BG had developed around a norm of stroke onto the green and putt out, then we would accept the idea of par 2 as a norm. It is only because of the artificial norm set in BG that we are sooooo appalled. I have no problem playing a par 36 course. It tells we where my game stands relative to "good" or "great" players. I regularly shoot par on the long Ts at Moffitt. Am I Climo or Shultz? No, I'm an average player knocking it down on an easy course. Why does saying par at Moffitt is 54 have more value than saying par at Moffitt is 42? A standard is just that, it's a standard and then your score can be compared to that. By keeping par at Moffitt 54 we are simply making ourselves feel good about the round we just shot.

Disc golf does not want to have any hole past, present or future labeled as �Par 2�. This I believe is a general assumption worth acquiescing on so that we can move on and set meaningful, useful and is superior to ball golf�s definition(s) of par.

So if we can all accept that, what else is necessary to reach those stated goals?

In my opinion, what is needed, is for disc golf to accept that �Scratch Golf� is what PDGA Player Ratings calls 1000 golf (the average score of a 1000 rated golfer), and not some loose formula of throws plus 2 to hole out which still relies on some other loose and undefined definition of �Expert Disc Golfer�.

With those two things squarely in mind the following is possible that will fulfill our goals as concerns creating a meaningful, useful and superior definition than ball golf�s definition(s) of par:

Certified PDGA Tee Assignment and Par Specifications:
In General:
Hole by hole par is at the discretion of the course designer informed by PDGA Hole by Hole SSA and Hole Forecaster data.

Course par may not be set by the course designer more or less than 2 strokes from PDGA Course SSA or Course SSA as projected by the Hole Forecaster data.
Course Tee Designations:
GOLD TEES: SSA must be equal to or higher than 58
BLUE TEES: SSA must be equal to o higher than 52
WHITE TEES: SSA must be equal to o higher than 47
RED TEES: SSA must be equal to o higher than 42
GREEN TEES: Any course with an SSA of less than 41.

Example Courses:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole #</td><td>Total</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><td>Min SSA
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>63.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.9</td><td>4.5</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>4.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.4</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>5.1</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>63.8</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>GOLD TEE PAR</td><td>64</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>64</td><td>5.8
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>56</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>4.3</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>56</td><td>52
</td></tr><tr><td>BLUE TEES PAR</td><td>58</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</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>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>58</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>50.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.2</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>4.1</td><td>2.4</td><td>50.4</td><td>47
</td></tr><tr><td>WHITE TEE PAR</td><td>57</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</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>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>57</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA</td><td>44.1</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.2</td><td>44.1</td><td>42
</td></tr><tr><td>RED TEE PAR</td><td>56</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>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>56</td><td>2.1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Notice Par never drops below 3 for a hole and never below 54 for a course AND the difference between the minimum SSA and actual SSA allows for holes pars to go above 3 and course par above 54 without loosing relevance to Scratch Golf.

Chuck could provide more meaningful statistical breakpoints but that is the general idea.

James and others, this might be what you are looking for. This is from earlier in this thread. James, you actually used to be fairly active earlier in this thread. As you say now, what's the problem?, just implement it.

Sorry if it's too many words. Sometimes it takes a few words to spell something out.




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.


================================================== ==========================

p.s. See you all back here in another 6 months.

Wow, I read a few of the original posts back in 2001. I thought this was only about a year old. :eek:

Anyways, since I am lazy, I will assume that the proposal from the Certified Course Designers group is a response to some of the questions posed at the beginning of the thread. While I have a couple of questions about the proposal, it looks well thought out and reasonable. So again, what is the holdup? or has this already been officially adopted? If so, why are we still arguing about it? Nevermind, don't answer the last one. :D



ps. While I feel the document is pretty sound, I have a couple of questions:

What is the aversion to par sixes or above? and

I'm not sold on using the SSAs along with the par. Primarily because the SSA data is not concrete enough for my taste. It changes with the conditions; with the time of year; depending if ams are playing or not ;); and various other reasons. Assigning a one decimal number gives a false sense of accuracy. However, I do think that a range of overall course SSAs is useful in determining something akin to slope, since that figure can be meaningful without pretending to be accurate.

Also, is the designer's group or the course evaluation group doing anything along the lines of slope?

assigning decimal values is also a violation of scientific practice, because with decimals the values contain too many significant digits.

Pete's proposal has one major flaw. The Obstacle definition is purely arbitrary. Your notion of Below Ave and mine might be very different. Furthermore, with wear and tear the par will change.

Secondly, while SSAs vary with seasons players etc. an average SSA based on a several (2 or 3) year cycle would not. You would iron out the differences. Yes you are going to have some variations but they will not be significant.

BTW - I'd like to readdress the idea that a Par of 36 vs a par of 54 is not as descriptive. The idea that James proposes is that any course with an SSA under 54 would be given a par of 54. I fail to see how that is more informative.

Use of SSA vs. use of 54

SSA 36 par is 54
SSA 40 par is 54
SSA 44 par is 54
SSA 50 par is 54
SSA 52 par is 54

I suppose you could thrown in descriptive terms:

SSA 36 very very easy par 54
SSA 40 very easy par 54
SSA 44 easy par 54
SSA 48 sort of easy par 54
SSA 52 almost easy par 54
SSA 54 par 54!
SSA 56 not so easy par 54...

Oh wait, got carried away there.

As for Nick's proposal, well, it's better than Pete's. Of course it still leaves us in the false world where holes with an SHS under 2.4 are par 3. For me this is like saying, on difficult holes we will use the expert player as our mark, but on easy holes, we will use Rec players as our mark.

Sooooooo, if we can't do the simplest thing, i.e. use SSA, then so far I vote with Nick... urck! Man I almost choked on that. :D

But I reserve the right to criticize our inability to step up to the truth and accept it.

BTW - did I mention I shot 14 below par on the Rice University course (longest hole 360 feet, average length under 200)!

That is the point behind the course rating scheme.

If a course is rated as a Red/Community/Recreational course, you know the par as listed has been adjusted for that level of play.

It will be an easy course regardless of the par listed. Even if it was a Red par 60, the hole designs are based on Red level play.

If it is a white level course, then the par and effective hole lengths are best suited for White level play.

Ayyyyye!!!!!!!!

Wait. Why are we having red level pars? Why not just use the language in the designer's proposal that pars are always based on Experts (a debatable term evidently) and IF you feel a need to describe what a novice might shoot, you can put that on the tee sign as "Novice Par." Anyways, I don't see a need for different levels to have different pars at all. It's like saying "For C students, a C is an A" and little Johnny the C student starts bragging about his As, which are really Cs and everyone gets confused and the standards are blurred. Pretty soon, every little Johnny is making As, shooting par, dating the best woman, etc. Its the end of the world. :D

There is no need for more than one par. Damnit. :p

I agree somewhat. Yes, SSA tells me something about the number of throws a 1,000 rated player would need to finish the course under some assumed conditions. It is a slope measurement of sort, but I prefer a statistic that compares SSA to par. That way, I can tell how easy par is to shoot on any particular course. With SSA, I have to look up par, and then make the comparison in my mind. A more universal scale that measures the courses difficulty in relation to par is needed, IMO.

I also think it captures some essence of the design that SSA alone cannot.

Unless you are comfortable with par 36 courses, there is a need for it. I think the majority of courses in the ground today fall below an expert par of 54. If a pars below 3 are not to be used, what to you put on the tee signs and in the course directory ?

What? In the course directory, you put that it is a par 54 course. To be more desriptive you put it has an SSA of 42 and a slope of 60 (I hope this means it is very easy). That way, everyone (newbies and experts alike) can say. "Wow, that course is probably pretty lame" or "Hurry up. Let's go. I need to shoot under par."

With SSA, I have to look up par, and then make the comparison in my mind. A more universal scale that measures the courses difficulty in relation to par is needed, IMO.



That still leaves us with 2 numbers for every course. Arguably, rating the course as Red or Blue is essentially the same as adding another number, it seems like a simpler way of grouping courses of similar difficulty. It also gives guidance as to what score you should expect to shoot on the course based on the single number of Par for the course.

Color coding is so [I'm a potty-mouth!]. I mean republican. :D

Ball golf par is set for each tee set and there can be up to five sets on some courses. It makes no sense to use the Expert par setting on holes designed for Rec players when Experts rarely play them. Par should be for the intended skill level playing those tees.

Look how well organized our sport will look when you can tell a new person that they can earn a rating that determines their current skill level, say Red, and that there are sets of tees on courses designed for them. The conversion to other skill level scoring expectations for any course can be set up as a little online application. Enter the Red par or Blue par for a course and it will tell you the scoring range or par for the other skill levels.

Colors gets away from using any descriptors for levels like we have now (Advanced, Intermediate) that are not consistent by age or gender. A Red level player will be competitive with Red level players all over the world. Colors also span any language boundary.

I have no problem with different sets of tees set up for different skill levels. However, I still think that par needs to remain an objective standard, as much as it can at least. Y'all are stripping away any real meaning or utility from the concept.

If the lower skill tees have easier pars, so be it. If the pars remain the same, so be it. The concept of slope will describe the course difficulty well and for those that wish to figure their rating, they can use the SSA.

Chuck, weren't you a part of that design group that proposed setting pars by an expert level?

p.s. See you all back here in another 6 months.



Pete,

Where ya been? I've missed your input around here.

... - Contact the PDGA Ratings Committee for help in estimating or determining course SSA and hole-by-hole SSA.




Is this really true? Getting hole by hole SHS info is a major hurdle with using the SA Par method. Where is this hole info available? Is it available anywhere online in a public forum? Who is the person to contact?

There's a major flaw in Pete's long post. The philosophy is based on BG Par numbers. Many would disgree with using the BG Par method. Personally, I think that the Hybrid Par (Hy Par) method is better. (But I'm biased :cool:)

I'm not sure I ever wanted all pars to be set for an expert level. At one time I was for the long tee pars to be set based on SSA and that would include Par 2s. However, now I would prefer no par 2s on layouts designed for a specific level and believe the par should reflect the intended player skill level the layout was designed for.

Regarding par 2s, one of the weak arguments was that you can't birdie a par 2 without an ace. Anyone who has been observing ball golf course design would realize that ball golf has holes that are rarely birdied by design. Good examples were at both U.S. Opens. I haven't seen the stats yet but apparently hole 18 was only birdied a few times including the winner at the Women's Open. Several par 3 and par 4 holes were rarely birdied at the Men's Open. Full stats are at: www.usopen.com/news/2005_USOpen.pdf (http://www.usopen.com/news/2005_USOpen.pdf) Check pages 23 & 24.

My point is that ball golf's shots to the green plus 2 for par is not being followed religiously by designers. They have the equivalent of 2-shot par 3s and 3-shot par 4s in BG, and we do, too. In addition, our 1-shot par 2s are right in line with that design approach.

Where is this hole info available? Is it available anywhere online in a public forum? Who is the person to contact?



People ask and I send the document to them. Response is underwhelming. I've had poorly attended sessions on this after 2001 Worlds so it's not been promoted. Few seem to be willing to make the effort.

Course par may not be set by the course designer more or less than 2 strokes from PDGA Course SSA or Course SSA as projected by the Hole Forecaster data.



I'm sorry, but with all respecit, I have a problem with this. IMO the best measure of Course Difficulty that we have is:
SSA- Gold Par.
If you follow Nick's suggestion here you create an artifical situation and you gut the possibility of an objective measure of difficulty.

I think that an extreme example helps to make the point.
Imagine that course A has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 2.51, and course B has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 3.49.
The SSA for Course A = 45.18
The SSA for Course B = 62.82
I believe that par has to be set on a hole by hole basis. If you do this then the par for Course A = 54 and the par for Course B = 54 (using the SA Par method for simplicity).
Now comes the Difficulty measurement.
Course A: SSA - Par = 45.18-54 = -8.82
Course B: 62.82-54 = +8.82
As you would know by experience Course B is way harder to par than Course A. (They're on the extreme ends of the scale.)
In theory a very easy course can be up to almost 9 throws lower than par and the toughest course can be up to almost 9 throws greater than par.

Using Nick's method, to get either of these courses close to the SSA would require you to massage par on at least 7 holes, and it would destroy a meaningful measure of difficulty.

Ayyyyye!!!!!!!!...


Wait. Why are we having red level pars? ...


There is no need for more than one par.



You make some thought provoking points. However, the way I look at it is that the Level designation corresponds to the colored tees in BG (if they also had Gold and Green). DG has been in a situation of chaos with no real design standards for much of our existence so the existing courses that we now have are a hodge podge in relation to par. For simplicity, lets look at a course with only 1 set of tees. If you know it's a Red course then you know that it's like playing the Red tees on a BG course. It will be easier to score near par. If you play a Blue course then you tell yourself that it's like playing the Blues tees on a BG course. It will be much harder for you to get near par. In BG the Blue, White, and Red tees have different standards for par.

IMHO one of the most important tools in this discussion is the chart Est. Hole Score Avgs... (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg) Look up the score avg. 2.7 at foliage factor "None" for each playing level. Then find what the hole length is for each different playing level. You'll find that Gold is the longest, then Blue, the White, then Red. There are different standards for par for each playing level.

Response is underwhelming. I've had poorly attended sessions on this after 2001 Worlds so it's not been promoted. Few seem to be willing to make the effort.



Chuck,
Would you explain this a little more? I don't really understand what you're saying with the last 2 sentences. When you say "Few seem to be willing to make the effort." do you mean that there's no one to post the hole by hole data online somewhere?

They have the equivalent of 2-shot par 3s and 3-shot par 4s in BG



Do they, or were these just hard par 3s and hard par 4s?


My point is that ball golf's shots to the green plus 2 for par is not being followed religiously by designers



I don't understand this statement. Isn't the designer simply trying to design a fair, yet challenging hole that yields a good spread? Why does he/she care about what par is? Isn't par just an afterthougt to a designer, or simply a consequence of their design, but it is not a guide, is it?

Do they, or were these just hard par 3s and hard par 4s?



A hard par 3 or 4 in ball golf is primarily obtained by manipulating around or on the green, although typically these holes are also at the extreme end of the length for those pars. So, it would be more accurate to call them holes where the scoring average is "shots toward the green plus 2.5" versus 2. In DG, we can manipulate the scoring average more easily with length versus making the green area tougher and still keeping it fair.

I think that an extreme example helps to make the point.
Imagine that course A has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 2.51, and course B has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 3.49.
The SSA for Course A = 45.18
The SSA for Course B = 62.82
I believe that par has to be set on a hole by hole basis. If you do this then the par for Course A = 54 and the par for Course B = 54 (using the SA Par method for simplicity).
Now comes the Difficulty measurement.
Course A: SSA - Par = 45.18-54 = -8.82
Course B: 62.82-54 = +8.82


Yup. It got worse way back when Nick suggested keeping the hole pars updated as SSA scores varied over the 0.5 threshold. One tourney has the hole at 3.51, so that's a par-4 hole. Next tourney drops the hole's overall SSA to 3.49, and now it's a par-3 hole. Pretty silly.

I suggested using hysteresis on the threshold, if people were so bent to make par equal SSA over the lifetime of the hole. If the range of hysteresis is 0.2, then when SSA drops below 3.4, it's par-3, but it must rise above 3.6 to become par-4 again. That would keep the flip-flopping between pars to a minimum. But that wasn't accepted -- they'd rather keep changing the signs with every batch of new SSA data, I guess.

Hysteresis or not, I'm not in favor of forcing par to equal SSA for every hole. Seems like too much work for no real gain to me. (That might be why Chuck's sessions on establishing hole pars have been so poorly attended -- why work so hard for no reason?) This hybrid-par concept seems as good as any for setting pars. Let's have SSA continue to measure course difficulty, and leave the setting of pars to something else like that.

I'm not particularly upset that people weren't coming to those sessions. It's a limited number of people who might be interested about the underpinnings of the system anyway. Hysteresis would be a fine way to handle the tweeners if it really made a lot of difference. There are other design issues to consider that might tip the scale toward calling a hole with a 3.4 adjusted average a par 4 or a 3.55 a par 3. It could depend on the number of throws to the pin, what the par is set at on an alternate pin on that hole, or balancing the up and down rounding on the course. It's not a cut and dried answer and that's fine. It also might lead the designer to adjust the hole if possible to get it away from 3.5 a little more. For example, I moved pin back another 30 feet at Highbridge which brought the average from 3.5 to 3.6 on a pin intended to be a par 4 for Blue level.

Also, is the designer's group or the course evaluation group doing anything along the lines of slope?



The course evaluation group is not at this time involved with this aspect of course analysis.

That is the point behind the course rating scheme.

If a course is rated as a Red/Community/Recreational course, you know the par as listed has been adjusted for that level of play.

It will be an easy course regardless of the par listed. Even if it was a Red par 60, the hole designs are based on Red level play.

If it is a white level course, then the par and effective hole lengths are best suited for White level play.



The challenge, as perhaps Chuck has already pointed out, is that the tee designations and par methodology I describe does not necessarily equate to appropriate challenges for different skill levels. Just that each skill level is likely to shoot par on those tees (red on red, gold on gold, etc). The appropriate challenge of the course and each hole depends on different factors from these. Hope that is understandable.

Ayyyyye!!!!!!!!

Wait. Why are we having red level pars? Why not just use the language in the designer's proposal that pars are always based on Experts (a debatable term evidently) and IF you feel a need to describe what a novice might shoot, you can put that on the tee sign as "Novice Par." Anyways, I don't see a need for different levels to have different pars at all. It's like saying "For C students, a C is an A" and little Johnny the C student starts bragging about his As, which are really Cs and everyone gets confused and the standards are blurred. Pretty soon, every little Johnny is making As, shooting par, dating the best woman, etc. Its the end of the world. :D

There is no need for more than one par. Damnit. :p



Having only one par per course would entail one of the following:

1) Accepting that some holes are Par 2 or greater than Par 5, which some folks would rather play a round of all double bogies than do.

or

2) That par be as meaningless as it currently is. "Everything is Par 3 dude! It makes the math easier..."

I prefer the first, but as you know my preference is usually not the deciding factor... ;)

I agree somewhat. Yes, SSA tells me something about the number of throws a 1,000 rated player would need to finish the course under some assumed conditions. It is a slope measurement of sort, but I prefer a statistic that compares SSA to par. That way, I can tell how easy par is to shoot on any particular course. With SSA, I have to look up par, and then make the comparison in my mind. A more universal scale that measures the courses difficulty in relation to par is needed, IMO.

I also think it captures some essence of the design that SSA alone cannot.



I'd love to see a standard of listing Hole by Hole Par AND SSA to a tenth on cards and tee signs. This would free up the course pro to say a hole is a par 3 or 2 with an SSA of 2.3. Personally the only number I'd be interested in would be the SSA in judging the difficulty of the hole, but for rulings and scoring the Par is equally important.

I do not think Par should be SSA, but rather that it should be informed by it; just as it should be informed by the course designer and course pro.

... - Contact the PDGA Ratings Committee for help in estimating or determining course SSA and hole-by-hole SSA.




Is this really true? Getting hole by hole SHS info is a major hurdle with using the SA Par method. Where is this hole info available? Is it available anywhere online in a public forum? Who is the person to contact?



I have a calculator based on Chuck's ratings calculator. It calculates Hole by Hole SSA's and even the projected ones if you include foliage density, effective distance (includes elevations). I'm not willing to send it out just yet, but if you send me a spreadsheet of hole by hole scores including the players PDGA numbers for a single layout with all related info I will try to provide you with a hole by hole analysis of the course. No promises though. I'm a busy boy!

Course par may not be set by the course designer more or less than 2 strokes from PDGA Course SSA or Course SSA as projected by the Hole Forecaster data.



I'm sorry, but with all respecit, I have a problem with this. IMO the best measure of Course Difficulty that we have is:
SSA- Gold Par.
If you follow Nick's suggestion here you create an artifical situation and you gut the possibility of an objective measure of difficulty.

I think that an extreme example helps to make the point.
Imagine that course A has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 2.51, and course B has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 3.49.
The SSA for Course A = 45.18
The SSA for Course B = 62.82
I believe that par has to be set on a hole by hole basis. If you do this then the par for Course A = 54 and the par for Course B = 54 (using the SA Par method for simplicity).
Now comes the Difficulty measurement.
Course A: SSA - Par = 45.18-54 = -8.82
Course B: 62.82-54 = +8.82
As you would know by experience Course B is way harder to par than Course A. (They're on the extreme ends of the scale.)
In theory a very easy course can be up to almost 9 throws lower than par and the toughest course can be up to almost 9 throws greater than par.

Using Nick's method, to get either of these courses close to the SSA would require you to massage par on at least 7 holes, and it would destroy a meaningful measure of difficulty.



Lowe, I believe that you are making an understandable mistake here. Par is not a measure of difficulty it is a measure of what the score of a player is expected to be on a specific hole or course. My system, nor SSA, is an indication of "difficulty", only of average score for players of different skill levels or in SSA's case of a 1000 rated golfer.

Yup. It got worse way back when Nick suggested keeping the hole pars updated as SSA scores varied over the 0.5 threshold. One tourney has the hole at 3.51, so that's a par-4 hole. Next tourney drops the hole's overall SSA to 3.49, and now it's a par-3 hole. Pretty silly.




I suggest you reread my proposal, I do not suggest that Pars simply be rounded SSAs at all.

Nick,
Why does it have to be so complicated? It really is a simple game, and to put it simply, some golf holes are easier than others. Some holes a specific golfer will always get a three, some holes a specific golfer will get a four.

Set par and walk away. Sometimes too much analysis can take away more than it gives to the GAME . ;)

a lot of the angst in this discussion seems to come from the challenges of applying a single standard to both existing courses and the courses of the future. it may be more effective to first decide how we deal with our courses of the future, then develop a method of retrofitting that approach to the existing courses.

use the concept of Gold, Blue, White, and Red tees as previously described.

even if there is more than one tee for a hole, par is the same from each tee.

we would then talk about courses by saying things like "its a wonderful par 60 course with gold and blue tees" and "this course plays can be played as par 54 from its tees to the short pin positions, or par 62 when the pins are all in long."

here's an interesting case: Waco's Olde Cameron Park. the original nine are short, but completely classic disc golf holes. a great round of nine would probably by 19 strokes, and even advanced players better get at least 4 or 5 dueces if they wanna be in contention. these nine holes would be at toughest "white", and many people would probably just call them "red".

but the newer back nine is a different story. due to the length, use of the big cottonwood trees in a parklike setting, the slope of the land, multiple positions for seven pins, and dual tees for at least four of the holes, the back nine can play solidly white or blue. there's even one gold hole (17 super long) just for thrills.

obviously, trying to force this course into a single color wont work. there's nothing wrong with describing this course as "this beautiful, classic par 54 course combines blue, white and red holes. in its easiest configuration its par 54 is white. at its most difficult, it will test a blue player."

Having only one par per course would entail one of the following:

1) Accepting that some holes are Par 2 or greater than Par 5, which some folks would rather play a round of all double bogies than do.

or

2) That par be as meaningless as it currently is. "Everything is Par 3 dude! It makes the math easier..."

I prefer the first, but as you know my preference is usually not the deciding factor...



I am only talking about having one par per hole per teebox. This par is always anologous to "par for an expert." I realize that experts may average 2.2 on a hole. However, I still call that a par 3. The difficulty of the course is handled by other measures, not par. What is wrong with par 6s and 7s?

As to your assertion that I am making "par" meaningless. Y'all can't say that cause that is my charge against y'all. ;)

I am retaining a coherent meaning of par. Just like in ball golf, at the end of the day, every skill level can compare themselves against a rough measure of what an expert will shoot. Of course to fine tune that analysis, one needs some type of slope measure. Y'all, on the other hand, create a system where at the end of the day, EVERYONE basically shoots par. Hell, it is designed that way. Billy, who sucks. Well, he shoots par. Chip is pretty decent. He shoots par. Jill kicks butt and she shoots par. They are drving home. "What ya shoot?"

"par"

"par"

"par."

Par has lost its meaning as some rough measure of how one rates against the expert level.

Dan,

Of course you are right. Out on the course par doesn't really matter a fat lot during tournaments (other than if someone is late and takes par + 4s). We are not talking strickly about tournament play though, we're talking about a standard that covers all forms of disc golf play. Par is a useful tool. It can really help a player (at any skill level) to understand their progress (or lack of) and provide a sense of satisfaction and understanding.

About 70% of what I do is not to benefit tournament players alone, but to benefit disc golf in general. A PDGA Par Standard would be another feather in our main organizing bodies cap as far as making disc golf more mainstream accessible. Don't you agree?

Besides, when we have a par standard, only a few are likely to give a dangle about the inner workings of it, they will just be happy that when they see a par posted on a scorecard or tee sign that it will have some relative standard that makes immediate sense and that they can be confident works hole to hole/course to course.

This brings up the problem with many courses we currently have. In DG it is much easier to add more pin positions that alter the difficulty of the hole. In BG it is much easier to add tee positions.

Which pin positions should be used for course evaluation ?

I would agree that Cameron Olde is a white course with harder alternate pin locations. I suppose the course has to go with the lowest common denominator for the majority of it's holes.

???

am retaining a coherent meaning of par. Just like in ball golf, at the end of the day, every skill level can compare themselves against a rough measure of what an expert will shoot. Of course to fine tune that analysis, one needs some type of slope measure. Y'all, on the other hand, create a system where at the end of the day, EVERYONE basically shoots par. Hell, it is designed that way. Billy, who sucks. Well, he shoots par. Chip is pretty decent. He shoots par. Jill kicks butt and she shoots par. They are drving home. "What ya shoot?"



An AM golfer, his wife, and young son accompany a pro golfer to their local municipal course for an afternoon of ball golf. They each go to the first hole and tee it up, the pro fromthe blue tees, the am from the white, the wife and son from the red tees. They all manage the hole without any real difficulties and all get a par. At the end of the day with a few birdies and a few bogeys, they all have shot par. They all know what that means. What's the problem ?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the benefit of a Par Standard on all levels of play. But why deviate from what people already have a clear understanding. BG par...3, 4, 5 design to this with a course par of 62????. Some holes will be easier to achieve par than others and some courses will be easier to achieve par than others, so be it.

I believe a player can gain benefits from this simple standard. As long as the pars are posted and new course pars are standardized.

Once the standards are adopted by the PDGA, back into an existing course and set par. Then leave it alone. Unless the course is changed.

Does it really matter that a hole has an avg. par of 2.45 or 5.51? I don't believe it does. Par can be 3 and 5, just easy and hard. Am I way off base here?

gary, i would say a valid, complete course evaluation would include descriptives of common pin configurations. using only the lowest common denominator doesnt present a very accurate picture of the course.

no dan, the problem is that you are making sense!

Sorry, I misworded that. I meant the lowest common denominator after the normal pin locations were decided on. Like Cameron Olde. A little less than half of the course offers a challenge to reach par for advanced players, the rest should be birdied by several players on every advanced card. The course is challenging to advanced players because birdies are required to be competitive. The front 9 plays like a par 20 (3 for holes 5 and 9).

Par could be challenging for the Intermediate division. It is really a White course with a couple of par 4s. The Beast would be a Blue course with a couple of easy threes. Both are valid for tournament play, but Adv and Pro players know they will be below par on the olde course, and near par on the beast (if the par was correct on all of the holes). For blue level play, several holes should be changed to Par 4 with a couple that may reach 5.

An AM golfer, his wife, and young son accompany a pro golfer to their local municipal course for an afternoon of ball golf. They each go to the first hole and tee it up, the pro fromthe blue tees, the am from the white, the wife and son from the red tees. They all manage the hole without any real difficulties and all get a par. At the end of the day with a few birdies and a few bogeys, they all have shot par. They all know what that means. What's the problem ?



If the par for each tee is based on what an expert will shoot, then I'm OK with that. Then, if they desire to see how their "pars" compare, they must factor in the slope for the respective course they shot

If the pars for each tee are based on diferent level of skill, their respective "pars" are meaningless. You have taken the meaning of par away. Sure, in this case, they could use slope based on expert play (much more problematic in this case to calculate) to compare their scores.

Par is a much more meaningful concept if it is ALWAYS based on what an expert will do.

Much of my argument is based on what ball golf does. They have thought about it much more than we have and it has worked. Why reinvent the wheel?

Nick, don't start with we have better tools because of SSA. That is true, but that just means we have a better way to determine slope, not par.

Pat and Gary, why not just evaluate Cameron Olde using slope. That tells a much better story. If you want to catergorize slope values into blue green, etc. or executive, championship, et., then fine, I have no problem with it. But it is not an issue of par.

This is from the USGA handicap guide. They formally recognize two skill levels for setting pars/tees. However, there are several other standards that have been developed by ball golf course designers, PGA and LPGA tours to establish additional tee sets including Championship, Junior, Senior and LPGA. These pars are set based on that player skill level and not expert players. Where they refer to scratch golfer, they mean male scratch golfer and female scratch golfer as it applies.

(BTW, we're looking a having a bona fide Par 6 for Gold level players at Highbridge that's 1400 feet)

From USGA Handicap book:

Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary playing conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

Yardages for guidance in computing par are given below. The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer determines par. (See Section 13-3b.) These yardages should not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.

Authorized golf associations are empowered to adjudicate questions of hole par.

Yardage Guidelines

<table border="1"><tr><td> Par</td><td>Men</td><td>Women
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>up to 250 </td><td>up to 210
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>251 to 470</td><td>211 to 400
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>471 to 690</td><td>401 to 590
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>691 and over</td><td>591 and over
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Does it really matter that a hole has an avg. par of 2.45 or 5.51? I don't believe it does. Par can be 3 and 5, just easy and hard. Am I way off base here?


no dan, the problem is that you are making sense!

and actually in agreement with me...

how about this:

[cameron olde] is really a course with only white tees. The Beast would be a course with a only Blue tees.

my theory is that is will be better to classify tees (or hole configurations) wtih the colors... NOT courses.

OK, wait a minute........If most (~90%) of the people playing a hole cannot reach the basket for a reasonable putt, its a par 4. Whether there are 50 trees in the way or its a dog leg, etc. It really doesnt matter, its a par 4. If most cannot reach it in two, its a par 5. Just look at the hole. Set the par and walk away.

What would be even more beneficial would be a standard course par range. So when joe said he shot a 56 (on any couse) you have a resonable perspective as to how good that score is.

(back to your regularly scheduled discussion :))

If most (~90%) of the people playing a hole cannot reach the basket for a reasonable putt, its a par 4.



Nope. There are many holes that take two shots to get to the putting area and average from 3.2-3.45 scoring average for the player level it was designed for. And the holes are still good at spreading scores not just due to luck. There are also 3-shot par 4s. While one shot for par 3 and 2 shots for par 4 is a starting point, it's not always that simple.

(not addressed to chuck specifically)


lowe's model is better. if it takes the player one shot to get "close", ie about 120 feet, then its par 3. if it takes 2 shots to get close, then its par 4.

note that this eliminates par 2s except for holes < 120 feet.

I would say that if most players can expect to be within 10' of the basket after 2 shots, it is a par 3.

If most players require 3 shots to be within 10' it would be a par 4.

The difference in reaching tap-in distance in disc golf versus ball golf is the main problem in comparing the definition of par for the 2 sports. Getting on the green in ball golf means that the player should expect an easily makable second putt from there. In disc golf, the range that allows an easily makable second putt is well over 150' for the scratch golfer on unobstructed holes. We can't really use he green plus 2 calculation and have a realistic number for par for expert players. We need more of a 10' plus 1 calculation.

Lowe's model explains the math that's going on in the scoring average model. It's not truly a different model. Look at the tables back a few pages and you'll see the numbers are close for Blue and Gold. When you go out to the par 4 and 5 area, Lowe makes different assumptions about throw distances than Houck and I did with our forecast model.

i did notice that those numbers were remarkably close... but that want really surprising.

the difference ( i thought) was that he was concerned about what happens at a distance "close" to the pin (120') rather than ATG.

Lowe's model explains the math that's going on in the scoring average model. It's not truly a different model. Look at the tables back a few pages and you'll see the numbers are close for Blue and Gold. When you go out to the par 4 and 5 area, Lowe makes different assumptions about throw distances than Houck and I did with our forecast model.


Isn't what's different about Lowe's model that he gets par assignments before statistics have been generated?

The statistics, or SSA, merely confirm that the par assignment after the fact, and it may take a few tournaments before reliable SSAs can be tabulated.

And without tournaments at some parks, there will never be SSAs, right? So then you have Lowe's model again to use, which gets you close to SSA, if that is your goal for setting par.

Seems like a good mix of tools to me. I like Lowe's model for what it does in helping to assign par, and I like Chuck's SSA calculations for what they do with regard to measuring course difficulty. Let's use them both but remember how each tool has a different role to play. One makes a par assignment that shows designer intent, and the other makes a measurement that shows player results.

Course par may not be set by the course designer more or less than 2 strokes from PDGA Course SSA or Course SSA as projected by the Hole Forecaster data.



I'm sorry, but with all respecit, I have a problem with this. IMO the best measure of Course Difficulty that we have is:
SSA- Gold Par.
If you follow Nick's suggestion here you create an artifical situation and you gut the possibility of an objective measure of difficulty.

I think that an extreme example helps to make the point.
Imagine that course A has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 2.51, and course B has 18 holes that each have an SHS of 3.49.
The SSA for Course A = 45.18
The SSA for Course B = 62.82
I believe that par has to be set on a hole by hole basis. If you do this then the par for Course A = 54 and the par for Course B = 54 (using the SA Par method for simplicity).
Now comes the Difficulty measurement.
Course A: SSA - Par = 45.18-54 = -8.82
Course B: 62.82-54 = +8.82
As you would know by experience Course B is way harder to par than Course A. (They're on the extreme ends of the scale.)
In theory a very easy course can be up to almost 9 throws lower than par and the toughest course can be up to almost 9 throws greater than par.

Using Nick's method, to get either of these courses close to the SSA would require you to massage par on at least 7 holes, and it would destroy a meaningful measure of difficulty.



Lowe, I believe that you are making an understandable mistake here. Par is not a measure of difficulty it is a measure of what the score of a player is expected to be on a specific hole or course. My system, nor SSA, is an indication of "difficulty", only of average score for players of different skill levels or in SSA's case of a 1000 rated golfer.



Nick,

It seems to me that you didn't understand my point. I didn't say that Par IS a measure of difficulty because by itself it is not.

I said that [SSA - Gold Par] indicates difficulty.

The Scoring model uses a forecaster that generates expected scores for a skill level based on length adjusted for elevation, foliage density plus a few other tweaks. Lowe does the same thing but with slightly different assumptions than Houck and I used for additional throws. Both charts would be used by a designer the same way before a disc is thrown.

Scoring results are used to confirm or validate the SA forecast... and who knows if they will ever be gathered by some designers or Park Depts. SSA isn't even needed unless it's Gold tees being verified and that can be done with any scoring data from players with ratings whether a sanctioned event or not.

Lowe's model is more explanatory of the process to set par. There's no validation process since the model doesn't "care" what the scoring averages are. It's deemed to be correct by virtue of the data used to generate the original charts.

Lowe makes different assumptions about throw distances than Houck and I did with our forecast model.



Chuck,
Would you mind explaining this with some specific numbers? I tried to use PDGA documents and the Hole Forecaster to set my numbers. I'd really like to know what numbers you're referring to because if I need to I'll change the model. I don't want to go further if my numbers are wrong. I did find some ambiguity in the PDGA and DGCD documents that I had to interpret, though.

P.S.- I have no idea how you have time to post on here right now with Mid-Nationals next week!

Seems like a good mix of tools to me. I like Lowe's model for what it does in helping to assign par, and I like Chuck's SSA calculations for what they do with regard to measuring course difficulty. Let's use them both but remember how each tool has a different role to play. One makes a par assignment that shows designer intent, and the other makes a measurement that shows player results.



I'm gratified that the Hy Par model seems to work pretty well. I also use both Score Avgs and Hy Par in my evaluations. Estimated score averages act as a check on par and they help determine the Course Level.

Lowe's model explains the math...



Would some creative person please come up with a better name for "Hybrid par" (HyP)? It's too nondescript for my taste, but it's the best I could think of. I also think we can find a better name than "Lowe's model".

P.S.- For a while I called it "Revised Standard Version" (RSV) but that was too cumbersome.

For par based on scoring average, the designer/TD may start with the BG method then adjust the par if the scoring average indicates something different when it's actually played. That is unless the designer uses the forecaster. For Hy Par, the designer/TD does what?



Here's another answer that I recently thought of:
If you're designing a new hole (or evaluating an existing one) consider the "close range" (CR) distance as a fixed distance that equals the green. Lets use the 120 ft. for Gold. When examining a hole just decide how many throws it takes to get to the outer edge of the CR length. e.g.- If the effective length of the hole is 420 ft. then just decide/calculate how many throws it would take a player of that skill level to throw 300 ft. It's just a different way to look at holes. Instead of looking at how many holes it takes to reach the basket you look at how many throws it takes to reach the outer edge of CR (like the green in BG).

Lowe's model is more explanatory of the process to set par. There's no validation process since the model doesn't "care" what the scoring averages are. It's deemed to be correct by virtue of the data used to generate the original charts.



Actually I use estimated score averages to check the validity of the par set by Hy Par.

The problem with Lowe's, Nick's and some of these other par methods is that they involve some arbitrary measurement to determine par. Anything that is arbitrary is bad in my view (and yes I think this is a fault in Stick Golf). This is why some keep coming back to SSA. It isn't arbitrary. It is throws based on the performance of players under real playing conditions.

Two flaws keep getting mentioned:

1. When the SHS is close to 2.5 or 3.5 you will see variations in par from tournament to tournament.

2. SSA will drive some holes to be rated as par 2 and that is anathema to some.

Here is a solution:

1. I've already mentioned this but use an SSA based on a two or three year average and only reevaluate once every 3 years. The SHSs that are at 3.5 will stay there for at least that 3 year period and won't bounce around.

2. To prevent par 2s, don't base your SSAs on expert players. Instead develop SSAs based on intermediate players or players with ratings between 880 and 920, or 850 and 900.

This will virtually eliminate all par 2s and will give pars based on real world play instead of arbitrary measures.

The problem with Lowe's, Nick's and some of these other par methods is that they involve some arbitrary measurement to determine par.



Could you please be more specific about what is arbitrary in what I've proposed with Hybrid Par? I can't think of anything that is not based on empirical data derived from experience.

Also, in using SSA, from Chuck's comments he uses an estimated SSA that comes from various tools that are all length based at their heart. When available he uses real SSA to check this, but the average person does not have access to useable SSA data.

Disc golf has a great need for a universal standard to determine par. Par is one of the most fundamental elements of disc golf, but because of differing assumptions course pros and designers remain divided over how to determine par. There are three competing philosophies for setting par. Two are more established and one is a new proposal. These philosophies can best be described and differentiated by how they determine the maximum length for a par 3 hole. The three methods are: Ball Golf Par (BGP), Score Average Par (SAP) Hybrid Par (HP) .
1. Ball Golf (BG) Par uses the same approach as ball golf, so on a par 3 a player should be able to reach the basket with a good drive. An eagle is possible with a superb shot.
2. Score Average Par (SAP) is based on Scoring Average (for a particular playing level), so a par 3 is calculated from the length of hole that a scratch player would average from 2.50 up to 3.49. At the maximum length a par 3 normally requires two shots for a scratch player to get to the basket. On a Gold level hole the second shot would be up to 160 ft. At the maximum hole length of 520 ft. this makes an eagle almost impossible and it is rare for a typical scratch player to make a birdie.
3. Hybrid Par (HP): On a par 3 a scratch player should be able to drive to �close range� and then take two shots to hole out. In ball golf terms this is like reaching the front edge of the green. The length of �close range� is 0.33 times the average drive length for a scratch player at each player level. For a Gold level hole the maximum �close range� length is 120 ft. for a total hole length of 480 ft. At this length an eagle is almost impossible, even for a scratch player, and birdies will be rare.

Comparing the maximum length for par 3s: BGP is shortest (360 ft.), HP is longer (480 ft.), and SAP is longest (520 ft.). This affects the minimum score possible in relation to par. For a max length hole BGP can at best score an eagle, while HP and SAP will only rarely be birdied.
These definitions are used to set the maximum length standards for par on existing holes. Because of gray zones and good hole design the maximum length would not even be a desirable length for course designers to use for future courses. However, these standards can mainly be used to determine par for the many courses already in existence.
Also keep in mind that the lengths given refer to effective length. Effective length is the actual length adjusted for elevation changes, foliage density, forced lay-ups, and OB. For simplicity these lengths can be thought of in terms of holes with no elevation changes, no OB, and average foliage.
I believe that Hybrid Par does the best job of addressing the unique aspects of disc golf and it offers the best alternative to overcome the weaknesses of the other two methods.

I. Ball Golf Par (BGP):
BGP is based on the philosophy and definitions of Ball Golf . The key criterion is that the length of a par 3 is such that 75% of scratch players can reach the target for the possibility of an eagle. Eagles are possible, even though rare, and birdies are more common. Any hole longer than the max length bumps par up to the next level. A Par 4 is reachable with 2 good shots and a par 5 is reachable with 3 good throws or with two mammoth shots.
� Proponents: John Houck, Rodney Gardner, Dave Dunipace

Advantages of BG Par:
� It appears to follow the PDGA definition pretty closely. The PDGA definition is as follows: �Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out.� (However, the term �close range� needs to be quantified.)
� There is a possibility of an eagle on even the longest holes
� It corresponds to the precedent of golf. On all golf holes a typical scratch player with average length has the potential for an eagle and a even higher possibility of making a birdie.
� For holes of maximum length if birdies are rare then you�ve lost 1/3 of the potential scores relative to par. Without birdies there will be only pars or bogies. The best you could hope for is to stay even with your position relative to par, you couldn�t improve it. A higher possibility of birdies provides for better score spreads because players have a chance to go under par on a hole. Better score spreads make better holes.
� The psychological factor. The rare, but occasional eagle is thrilling! Also, players are more encouraged by a greater possibility for making birdies. If they can�t even make a birdie then they can only maintain their position relative to par or lose a stroke to par.

Disadvantages of BG Par:
� It does not take into account the unique differences between disc golf and golf. This especially relates to the differences in putting and the differences in the ATG factor.
� Average scores will be much lower than par because of the 1.67 ATG factor. The average number of �close range� shots in DG is a constant at 30 per 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Scores can be up to 6 throws lower than par depending on the hole difficulties.
� When new holes are designed designers will not use holes with a scoring average of x.1 to x.49. For example, these would be two shot par 3s. This would essentially eliminate 30-40% of the hole length types that would be available.

II. Score Average Par (SAP)
Par is determined by the Scoring Average (SA) in the range of x.50 to y.49 for each hole (where x and y represent two par values). For example, a par 3 is in the range of SA 2.50 to 3.49. Holes with an SA from x.3 to x.49 can be significantly longer than a scratch player could ever reach for an eagle. Thus at the upper end of the scale, a long par 3 could be reached in 2 excellent shots. On a 3.49 SA hole a par 3 would require 2 excellent shots, and many scratch players would card 4s. Eagles would be nearly impossible and at this maximum length even birdies would be rare. For par 4s at the upper end of the scale a scratch player can reach it in 3 shots. For par 5s at the upper end of the scale a scratch player can reach it in 4 shots.
� Proponents: Chuck Kennedy and many other course designers in the DGCD.

Advantages of SAP:
� The scores will be the closest to par.

Disadvantages of SAP:
� Since par is tied to SA you have all of the variability problems associated with SSA. (See below for more on the difficulties of using actual SSA to determine par.)
� A corollary problem with SSA is that specialized tools are needed to determine it. The average course pro and even many designers don�t have any tools such as the Hole Forecaster to determine SSA. If a course has not had a PDGA tournament then there is no SSA available for that course.
� Hole by hole score average data are not publicly available anywhere and this information is needed to determine par for each hole.
� On a maximum length hole a birdie is very rare. Since scores will mostly be only a par or bogey there is very little chance of gaining ground relative to par. The best a player can do is to not bogey.

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:
Using actual SSA numbers encounters various problems. However, using estimated SSA from tools such as the Hole Forecaster (only available to designers who are members of the DGCD) or charts such as the �Estimated hole scoring averages for each player level based on length� can overcome most of these difficulties. Since these tools only give estimates there is a margin of error, but this is within tolerable limits. Using estimated score averages the holes that give the most concern are those on the boundary between pars such as 3/4 or 4/5.
Using actual SSA is problematic for the following reasons:
� Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.
� What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?
� There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.
� And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.
The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still 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 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 and many people 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 SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.
� Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?
� SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult. You also need to factor in the season of the year. Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.

III. Hybrid Par (HP)
This method combines aspects from both Ball Golf Par and Score Average Par, hence the name �Hybrid Par�. In order to accept this method some traditional concepts will need to be reassessed and redefined. This philosophy is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 for disc golf needs to be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the standard PDGA definition of the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole, This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the green in ball golf. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than a putt (10 m / 33 ft.). The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the average drive length for that playing level.
To begin with, since putting in disc golf is so different than putting in golf we should not feel too closely bound by the golf definition of par. Moreover, the BG standard for par is inaccurate. The BG standard is based on the length for the scratch player with average length to reach the flag in regulation. However, the definition of par in BG is that for the maximum length of a hole a player should be able to reach the green in regulation and have 2 putts to hole out. Green lengths vary widely, but in BG it is very possible to be on the front edge of the green and still be 60 feet (20 yards) from the hole. In BG the length used for par should be the length to reach the front of the green in regulation since the definition is to the green plus 2 to hole out. For example, using 45 ft (15 yards) as a standard then they would add 15 yards to their standard lengths for par. This standard would make eagles even more rare, but there is no reason why a hole at the maximum length should expect to be able to be eagled by scratch players. (Perhaps one day the USGA will accept this proposal and change their par system. J.)
The Hybrid Par method seeks to emulate older brother golf to an extent while incorporating the reality that putting in disc golf is very different from that of regular golf. In BG since putting is so different from the other strokes when you�re on the green the length measurement shifts from yards to feet. In DG the throws are more similar so the length measurement stays in feet the whole time. Hybrid par proposes that 1 ft of BG putting equals approximately 3 ft. in DG length. With this ratio a scratch player in both sports would make the same percentage of shots. For example, a scratch ball golfer would make 99% of 10 ft. putts and a scratch disc golfer would make the same percentage from 30 ft. To give some more numbers:

BG ft DG ft
10 30
40 120
50 150
60 180

Hence a 120 ft. DG shot corresponds to being on the green in BG 40 ft. from the pin. Thrown by a scratch player a 120 ft. DG shot has about a 5% chance of going in, so there is a small possibility of making a birdie but the probability is very low. Eagles will be very rare for holes at this maximum length. Conversely, from 120 feet with average foliage, a scratch player will hole out in no more than two throws approximately 98% of the time.
Keep in mind that this number is only for the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be much shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.
Another key difference between BG and DG is the Around the Green (ATG) factor. In BG the ATG factor is 2.1 but in DG it is 1.67. Because of the 1.67 ATG factor, the number 0.33 is used to determine a close range shot. By defining the maximum length close range shot as up to of 0.33 of the base drive length, then you have a length from which a scratch player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 is 120 ft. Therefore, the maximum length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive + 120 ft. close range = 480 ft. (or 360 x 1.33 = 480). In other words, the maximum length of a par 3 would be the base drive length multiplied by 1.33.
In summary, the standard for a par 3 hole is 1 shot to get to �close range� plus 2 throws to complete the hole. This �close range� throw corresponds to reaching the front edge of the green in ball golf.

Advantages of Hy Par:
� This explicitly takes into account the 1.67 ATG factor and adds a factor of 0.33 to account for 2 close range shots.
� This adheres to the PDGA glossary definition of par with two �close range� throws (even though �close range� is defined differently than current usage) and it follows the precedent of ball golf.
� Since the standard is built on the fixed number of effective length there is more consistency than using actual scoring averages that changes. Also the standards are more accessible to every player than Scoring Average are. This method can be also used on courses that do not even have an SSA established.
� Actual scores will be closer to par than they would be with the Ball Golf Par method.

Disadvantages of Hy Par
� At the maximum length eagles are extremely rare except by the very longest throwers. Birdies are possible but rare.
� For maximum length holes, since birdies are rare scores will mostly be only par or bogey, so there is little chance of gaining ground relative to par. The best a player can do is to par and not bogey.
� Score averages will not be quite as close to par as they would be with the SAP method, although the numbers for both methods are quite similar

Max effective Par Lengths for each skill level:

Different lengths are used for par for the different player skill levels. Par is the length that 2/3 of that playing level can reach the designated length in regulation.

Gold: The drive length standard is 360 ft. The approach shot standard is 320 ft. (or 290 ft.)
Blue: The drive length standard is 310 ft. (86% of Gold). The approach shot standard is 275 ft. (or 240 ft.)
White: The drive length standard is 270 ft. (75% of Gold). The approach shot standard is 225 ft. (or 180 ft.)
Red: The drive length standard is 230 ft. (64% of Gold). The approach shot standard is 185 ft. (or 140 ft.)
Green: The drive length standard is

Lengths given are �effective lengths� calculated from adjusting the Actual length for elevation changes, foliage density, forced lay-ups, and trouble such as OB or extreme terrain.

BG Par
using the PDGA Design guidelines chart. Max effective length for par with Avg foliage (factor 5)
<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>360</td><td>680 (360 + 320)</td><td>1000 (680 + 320)</td><td>1320 (1000 + 320)
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>310</td><td>585 (310 + 275)</td><td>860 (585 + 275)</td><td>1135 (860 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>270</td><td>495 (270 + 225)</td><td>720 (495 + 225)</td><td>945 (720 + 225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>230</td><td>415 (230 + 185)</td><td>600 (415 + 185)</td><td>785 (415 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
SA Par
From Hole Forecaster v2.95 Max effective length for par.
Set at the x.5 est. hole score with Avg foliage (factor 5)
<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold </td><td><236</td><td>521</td><td>806</td><td>1091</td><td>>1092
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td><171</td><td>430</td><td>689</td><td>949</td><td>1208
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td><117</td><td>355</td><td>592</td><td>830</td><td>1067
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td><72</td><td>291</td><td>510</td><td>729</td><td>950
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>none</td><td>236</td><td>440</td><td>643</td><td>847
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
Hybrid Par
Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>480 (360 x 1.33)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>410 (310 x 1.33)</td><td>685 (410 + 275)</td><td>960 (685 + 275)</td><td>1235 (960 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>360 (270 x 1.33)</td><td>585 (360 + 225)</td><td>810 (585 + 225)</td><td>1035 (810 +225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>305 (230 x 1.33)</td><td>490 (305 +185)</td><td>675 (490 + 185)</td><td>860 (675 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
(Whenever possible these pars should be checked against the actual hole scoring averages. Numbers wildly out of line with actual averages should have par reconsidered.)

Why does par matter if you are just counting strokes anyway?

Something I never understood about any kind of golf.

wow! one thing that we do agree on.

Why does par matter if you are just counting strokes anyway?

Something I never understood about any kind of golf.



As long as they keep asking it I'll keep posting the response...

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:
1. To have a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
2. Par is essential for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�.
2.1. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
3. To be able to overcome �portability error� and compare scores on different courses.
4. People play with a certain par in their head anyway, and on older shorter courses they play as if many holes are par 2 (which they are).
5. In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
6. Over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
7. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
8. To be able to determine handicaps.

I am guilty of having inconsistently determined par over the years. As a player, I�ve kept score by 3�s thousands of times. As a designer, I�ve recommended �feel good� pars on scores of tee signs throughout the Carolinas. Neither of these extremes seems to suffice today, and I agree with Lowe that part of our sport�s maturing process should include a more consistent treatment of par. Here is what I think:

� Disc golf�s par should mimic golf�s, i.e. Disc Golf Par should be the number of throws for an expert to get a putting opportunity plus two putts to complete the hole.
� The hypothetical expert is not a top pro. If I had to assign a rating to an expert, it would be somewhere on the order of 950-975.
� Putting Opportunity is where an expert is reasonably trying to make the shot. Putting opportunity has nothing to do with the arbitrary 10-meter distance used to define a certain type of stance violation. The putting opportunity is somewhere between 50 to 75 feet from most disc golf targets. Sometimes, however, it could be as little as 10 meters in severe backdrop situations.
� There is a group of elite disc golfers for whom putting is relatively easy. There does not appear to be an analogous group in golf. These disc golf putting savants appear to undermine par, but I feel that this relatively small group is unimportant. Putting is plenty difficult for almost all other disc golfers.
� Since the ratio of putting opportunity distance to course length is typically greater in disc golf than golf, scoring way under par by the elite disc golfer is naturally going to occur more often than by the elite golfer. I am not sure this diminishes disc golf. I am sure I don�t want to design lucky, flukey or unenjoyable disc golf experiences simply to protect par.
� Par 2 holes exist, but only where the expert is putting from the tee. I have designed holes like these, but they are all less than 100 feet. At the other end of the spectrum, Hole 12 at USDGC should probably be a par 6.
� Ideally, the courses for both golf games would perfectly match score in proportion to demonstrated skill. The completion of the hole is where the greatest mismatching occurs. Fractional differences in putts can�t be saved and result in a full stroke score differences. Since there are relatively more putting opportunities in disc golf, numerical representations for disc golf courses are inherently more variable than for golf courses. That�s okay. How a hole plays is always more important than how it rates. Remember: Fun, fun for everyone and fair, fair, everywhere.

Take care,
Harold

If you'd like to read this explanation of Hybrid Par that is formatted better in Word then join my MSN Group "Disc Golf Resources". I just uploaded the file to the group. It's in the "General" category of the Documents section.

Harold,

Well stated and persuasive. Your views give one much to think about.

�The hypothetical expert is not a top pro. If I had to assign a rating to an expert, it would be somewhere on the order of 950-975.
� Putting Opportunity is where an expert is reasonably trying to make the shot. Putting opportunity has nothing to do with the arbitrary 10-meter distance used to define a certain type of stance violation. The putting opportunity is somewhere between 50 to 75 feet from most disc golf targets. Sometimes, however, it could be as little as 10 meters in severe backdrop situations.



Harold,

To put this into practice you need a length that an expert player would reach in 1 throw. According to DGCD guidelines, �At least 2/3 of the players in the specified skill range should be able to drive the maximum distance specified for drives off the tee in "normal" conditions.� Let's assume we use a player with a 960 Player Rating as the standard. What drive length would you use for 2/3 of 960 PR players? (This assumes a hole of average foliage and no elevation changes.) Also, for multiple shot holes what length would you use for approach shots that 2/3 of 960 PR players could make?

Personally, I'm mostly concerned with evaluating existing holes, so this data has great relevance toward that pursuit.

Sorry, if the dumb par question was answered earlier. My eyes were falling out after a weird day at work. Lowe, you and Harold make good arguments. I agree. Thank you for explaining it to me. Now if only I could shoot under par consistently. :)

I guess that is why I didn't understand the need for par....I never shoot it!

Sorry if this has been said before but, I always find it funny when people always talk about par being 54 even on courses that have par 4s and 5s. I of course always refer to par as 72 to make myself feel better, but alas now I am rambling. Later!

1. When the SHS is close to 2.5 or 3.5 you will see variations in par from tournament to tournament.

...Here is a solution:

1. I've already mentioned this but use an SSA based on a two or three year average and only reevaluate once every 3 years. The SHSs that are at 3.5 will stay there for at least that 3 year period and won't bounce around.


1) To be clear, you don't mean a rolling 3-year average for SSAs, right? Because if it is a rolling 3-year average, after the first 3 years, you will still have the same problem, where SSAs will get updated every tournament.

2) So what would you use to assign par for the first 3 years when averaged-over-3-year-SSAs are not yet available for new courses? What would you use to assign par for courses that rarely or never hold PDGA-sanctioned tournaments (and therefore SSAs are never calculated)?

3) Is it still okay for hole pars to bounce around every 3 years? At some courses, hole pars are chiseled into concrete pads or burned into wooden signs. Are you suggesting those signs be updated every 3 years if the holes' SSAs bounce over the 0.5 threshold?

:-) That's why I say the Hy/Lowe Par method looks good to me for assigning pars from the get-go, and SSAs look good to me as a measurement of course difficulty. Every course and every hole on that course needs a par assignment, but not every course or hole on that course can or will be measured by PDGA tournament statistics.

Before I can fully reply I need to go back and look at Lowe's original proposal and for the life of me I can't find it. Lowe, what page is it on?

If the par on the hole changes, it changes. If you make an artificial par and say that's it for ever and ever you're fooling no one but yourself. As the technology changes and the conditions change so will the relative ease of the course.

If it were me, I would generate a program that pulls scores played on the standard layout on a course from PDGA tournaments posted here, and calculates the SSA. I would then generate a printable score card with those SSAs marked per hole. Then it doesn't matter what is put on the hole, what matters is the sheet you download here. Because I'm a mean guy, I would only make those downloads available to members...


The question is what is the value of par? For you and others, it is simply a nice description of some strokes that it might or might not take to play that hole for one player or possibly another. Yes it is generally based on how players perform on holes like those being measured but it is not a true reflection of what happens on that hole (in all cases). Par is only important because, well, BG has pars defined and therefore so should we. Yes I acknowlege that the set par can be played against and thus makes for good media.

On the other hand, SSA has meaning I know it isn't perfect but it's basis is in how the hole/course actually plays. By using a class of players to define SSA you set a standard that can be measured against consistently and in all cases.

Now, if I can only find Lowe's proposal I can see just how full of dooky I really am. :D

Doh!

Lowe, I don't need your help to make me look stupid. Thanks for reposting HyPar.

If the course is using anything other than the SSA method of determining par, the par for a hole will remain the same for the life of the hole unless something happens to the hole to alter the difficulty of the hole.

If technological advances or changes to the obstacles on the hole occur that make it easier, it will just be an easy hole to birdie until/unless it is redesigned.

Par should be seperated from SSA and the comparison of the two used to establish the difficulty of the hole/course.

IMHO

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:

1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.
2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?
3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.
4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.
The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still 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 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 and many people 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 SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.
5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?
6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult. You also need to factor in the season of the year. Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.

I am not a proponent of using SSA to determine par, but it would be useful to determine the DG equivalent of a slope.

Lyle, you replied to me, but you didn't answer my questions. How about just these two:

What would you use to assign par for courses that rarely or never hold PDGA-sanctioned tournaments (and therefore SSAs are never calculated)? At least in the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the vast majority of courses do not hold PDGA tournaments.

What is your position on using SSAs for par assignments for courses that post their pars on concrete pads? Remember, I'm just talking about SSAs that average around the 0.5 threshold, so par is not changing greatly, maybe by just 0.1, but a whole par number must change on the sign if the 0.5-threshold is crossed...

Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.


Maybe you meant the reverse here.

Although the cold and bluster of a normal winter day usually makes it more difficult for me to grip and throw the disc, regardless of the foliage on the course, so I wonder if that balances things out...

I'll give my answers since I have been very tempted to chime in and espouse a very similar position as to what Lyle has written.


What would you use to assign par for courses that rarely or never hold PDGA-sanctioned tournaments (and therefore SSAs are never calculated)? At least in the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the vast majority of courses do not hold PDGA tournaments.


It does not matter. The only real value for Par is for tournament play (late arrivals penalty and following live events were competitors are on different holes.) Other than that hole by hole par is a feel-good arbitrary/subjective number.

Course SSA should be made available for comparision/portability reasons. They should be listed in the PDGA Course Directory. It is not too hard to guestimate if you observe how a handful of players with known ratings play over the course of a few (10 maybe) rounds. I guestimated SSA for 2 brand new courses (Sugaw Creek in Charlotte and Foothills in Easley, SC). My guesses were within 0.2 points of how they turned out after their first tournaments.


What is your position on using SSAs for par assignments for courses that post their pars on concrete pads? Remember, I'm just talking about SSAs that average around the 0.5 threshold, so par is not changing greatly, maybe by just 0.1, but a whole par number must change on the sign if the 0.5-threshold is crossed...



My opinion is that you should round up to 3 all SSA's in the 2.1 - 3.0 range. 2.1 and below should be listed as par 2. For all other values round up in the traditional sense (<0.5 = round down, >/=0.5 = round up). If in doubt when SSA's hover around the 0.5 range, round up.

Here is my crack at rebuffing this. I am a proponent for what Lyle is talking about.


Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:

1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.
<font color="blue">Use the SSA's that correspond to neutral conditions. Average those values out.
It will take work to do this, but so will any system you put in place. </font>

2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?
<font color="blue">These courses do not need hole-by-hole SSA's (or Par based on SSA) because the only real arguments for a real Par system is for tournament play (late arrivals and following an event on TV/Radio/Internet) All other reasons are feel good arbitrary/objective ones. A course SSA guestimate posted on the PDGA Course Directory for each course would be super.

To take this one step further, an idea I had is to implement a course rating system on a scale of 1 - 100 (roughly). Do this by multiplying course SSA by 1.4. Assume the hardest courses have an SSA of 70. They would be assigned a difficulty of 98. An easy course with SSA = 44, would have a course rating of 62.</font>

3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.
<font color="blue">So? Have regional volnteers ask TD's for score cards and enter the scores.</font>

4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.

<font color="blue"> But it easily could. If people found this idea compelling/interesting (I guess about 1% of the DG playing population does), you could do something like I did here: http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_self_config.xls This happens to be a pretty much useless spreadsheet now that there are permanent baskets in multiple locations per hole at Renny, but you see how easy it would be to do. </font>

The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still 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 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 and many people 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 SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.
<font color="blue">This is a legitimate issue/problem/challenge. I belive it would be problematic for any approach one takes for defining Par/SSA quantifiably. Maybe a compromise would be to do a middle pad to middle basket SSA and then let players guestimate the other variations.</font>

5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?
<font color="blue">If there was an online resource like I showed above, people who really cared could generate their own. </font>

6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult.
<font color="blue">It should not be too difficult. As regional volunteers collect scorecards to start building a database, they can ask the TD's about what rounds were played in adverse conditions. Those rounds' scores would not be factored in.</font>
You also need to factor in the season of the year. Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.
<font color="blue">You got that backwards, but the effect you mention is negligible - I would guess 0.2 max effect on SSA. A bigger issue is what happens when a tree comes down in an ice or wind storm or fairways are intentionally trimmed. </font>

[QUOTE]
What would you use to assign par for courses that rarely or never hold PDGA-sanctioned tournaments (and therefore SSAs are never calculated)? At least in the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the vast majority of courses do not hold PDGA tournaments.



It does not matter. The only real value for Par is for tournament play...


Well, that's a very narrow view and avoids my question rather than addressing it.

Perhaps you should open your mind to the idea that most people who play disc golf don't play in tournaments.

And most disc golf courses don't hold PDGA tournaments.

Would you suggest that no par signs at all be posted on those courses? That rec players should just throw and throw and throw and just shrug if someone asks if they were over or under par that day?

If you think that's silly -- and it would be -- then you must agree that pars should be assigned.

So back to my question, which was: what par should be assigned in the absence of SSA statistics? What is wrong with using Lowe's Hy Par method?

Here is my crack at rebuffing this. I am a proponent for what Lyle is talking about.


Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:

1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.
<font color="blue">Use the SSA's that correspond to neutral conditions. Average those values out.
It will take work to do this, but so will any system you put in place. </font>

2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?
<font color="blue">These courses do not need hole-by-hole SSA's (or Par based on SSA) because the only real arguments for a real Par system is for tournament play (late arrivals and following an event on TV/Radio/Internet) All other reasons are feel good arbitrary/objective ones. A course SSA guestimate posted on the PDGA Course Directory for each course would be super.

To take this one step further, an idea I had is to implement a course rating system on a scale of 1 - 100 (roughly). Do this by multiplying course SSA by 1.4. Assume the hardest courses have an SSA of 70. They would be assigned a difficulty of 98. An easy course with SSA = 44, would have a course rating of 62.</font>

3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.
<font color="blue">So? Have regional volnteers ask TD's for score cards and enter the scores.</font>

4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.

<font color="blue"> But it easily could. If people found this idea compelling/interesting (I guess about 1% of the DG playing population does), you could do something like I did here: http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_self_config.xls This happens to be a pretty much useless spreadsheet now that there are permanent baskets in multiple locations per hole at Renny, but you see how easy it would be to do. </font>

The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still 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 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 and many people 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 SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.
<font color="blue">This is a legitimate issue/problem/challenge. I belive it would be problematic for any approach one takes for defining Par/SSA quantifiably. Maybe a compromise would be to do a middle pad to middle basket SSA and then let players guestimate the other variations.</font>

5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?
<font color="blue">If there was an online resource like I showed above, people who really cared could generate their own. </font>

6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult.
<font color="blue">It should not be too difficult. As regional volunteers collect scorecards to start building a database, they can ask the TD's about what rounds were played in adverse conditions. Those rounds' scores would not be factored in.</font>
You also need to factor in the season of the year. Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.
<font color="blue">You got that backwards, but the effect you mention is negligible - I would guess 0.2 max effect on SSA. A bigger issue is what happens when a tree comes down in an ice or wind storm or fairways are intentionally trimmed. </font>





Yes, well all that you wrote above is one of the biggest Rube Goldberg machines that I've seen in a while. Rather than do all that, and wait for years for all the wonderful data to develop, I say you use a simple chart for distance, like the one Lowe presented, or like the somewhat more complicated one that Chuck developed, and assign pars. Done in seconds.

Sheesh!

You know, all this makes me wonder how they did it.

I'm talking about that new 9-hole course down the road from me in Turtlecreek. They put it up in a matter of days. Already have signs up and everything. Signs with par on them. How did they do that without SSA data to guide them? How did they do it?

And why? Why did they put par signs at all on any of the holes? It's not like they're going to have any tournaments there. A small, 9-hole course. Mostly a open plain, with trees bordering the starting and finishing holes. Hardly Gold course material.

But still I see par signs, on every hole, and I know I shoot about 5 under on average so far, and that my personal best is 9 under. But what does it matter?

Maybe I should take the par signs down and see if anyone notices.

Strange, though. The families that come out to that park -- the parents that are introducing their kids to the sport -- they seem to think it all makes sense.

Well, okay. I'll leave the par signs up.

But I still wonder how they did it.

Hey Lowe - These are both good questions. I am working on two designs right now (including one in Ashe Coutny), and I am going to pay attention a little more to this issue so I can develop a better answer. There's a number of variables to consider even after accounting for effective distance and predominant wind. Some of these include: Roller Possibility, Ceiling Height, Fairway Shape, obstacle density Vs. rough consistency, etc, etc ,etc. But right now, I would hazard a guess at somewhere around 350 feet plus up to 50 feet depending on how the putting opportunity relates to the fairway. This may be so vauge as to be useless for your purposes, but that's my best estimate right now. Perhaps we can refine this together from your data and observations.

Take care,
Harold

Sorry Paul,

I've been off on the alien invasion thread and am only just now getting back to real golf. Some of my replies will exactly mirror what MP3 said. No I didn't steal his ideas, well, O.K., so I did...


Lyle, you replied to me, but you didn't answer my questions. How about just these two:

What would you use to assign par for courses that rarely or never hold PDGA-sanctioned tournaments (and therefore SSAs are never calculated)? At least in the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the vast majority of courses do not hold PDGA tournaments.

<font color="red">I think you have a great point here. I am not oppossed to giving these courses an artificial par, but to have real meaning, par should be based on something.
Using a Lowe methodology for simple courses where the end result doesn't matter is fine. I think having SSA par, and an understanding of the meaning of that, and HyPar works for me.

I understand the convenience of having something easily transposed on to any course. However, it seems to me that there is still a problem; HyPar takes into account other physical conditions on the course (I may be misremembering and after I've made a fool of myself I will go and check). That is going to be impossible for a random golfer or course designer to assess What you think is important might not be important to me. So while you will have a par on those courses that don't have tournaments, it will be warped and have little more meaning than simply saying everything is par 3. </font>

What is your position on using SSAs for par assignments for courses that post their pars on concrete pads? Remember, I'm just talking about SSAs that average around the 0.5 threshold, so par is not changing greatly, maybe by just 0.1, but a whole par number must change on the sign if the 0.5-threshold is crossed...



<font color="red">Again a very good point. However, I think it is addressed in several ways. First, by using averages over multiple years, you eliminate some of that problem. Second, I would discourage people from putting permanent numbers down in concrete. There are other ways such as T signs, that are less permanent. Also, I think I already posted that the information that would be used would be primarily available at this site for download by players that really want accuracy. Finally, you have the same problem any time the course gets modified. It is an inconvenience regardless of what the reason so try not to put down permanent markers. </font>

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:

1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.

<font color="red">I fail to see how HyPar is better. If HyPar is established for one setup then it has no meaning for the others. We might as well just use par 3. Better to try and establish true SHSs for each true hole that gets played in tournament play. I simple yet effective hole structure could be established, for example, Hole 1 Wilmont t1, t2, t3, for different tee postions p1, p2, p3, for different pin positions. Smaller numbers are shorter or easier to make intuitive assesments by players easier. </font>

2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?

<font color="red"> See my last post </font>


3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.

<font color="red"> Sounds like a good volunteer project for you or maybe some other math guy... Chuck? </font>

4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.
The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still 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 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 and many people 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 SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.

<font color="red"> I only skimmed your post but I'm pretty sure the answer is organization and structure. By setting up a standard format and making it easy for TDs and players to utilize, you solve the problem. Furthermore, by setting a standard, you encourage it's use in future course development making propagation of the standard and it's use that much easier. </font>


5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?

<font color="red">What if someone cut down a tree, moved the basket, or tee pad. Why anything is possible and likley to happen. Play on and enjoy the day. Then use the standards set to determine SSA on the new configurations. </font>


6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult. You also need to factor in the season of the year. Courses with heavy vegetation play easier in the summer than in the winter.

<font color="red"> This is the best point of all and the most difficult to address. It almost makes me say you're correct. However, the value of HyPar is still weak. It suffers from the same problem and is still not based on actual play.

My opinion, develop a calculator, much like the one used for finding tournaments in your area. It would work such that if I wanted a winter SSA for a course I could go into the calc page, pull winter time tournaments for that course and get an SSA for the given configuration.

It seems to me that many of the problems you see with SSA I see also affecting HyPar. This makes me think I must be missing something or have not read your HyPar definition closely enough. One question that comes to mind - do you intend to establish a HyPar configuration for each pin and tee position?

I will admit there is not a perfect solution for determining par, I just want to set the bar as high as possible from the start. Par based on arbitrary values is only marginally better than par 3 on every hole. Now I will admit that SSA par is more work than HyPar and if the issue comes down to that, bring on the HyPar. Shouldn't we set our sights as high as possible?

BTW - you almost have me convinced. I see a value in simplicity. I need to go back and read through your definition again.</font>

Par has to be based on some verifiable constant that holds true to our definition of "Expert Golfer" or it is meaningless.

We have our "Scratch Golfer" pretty well documented. An equally verifiable "Par" should not be far off now...

Someday I will click the PDGA link and a big announcement will read, "PDGA PAR SET!"

What a grand day that will be...

We have our "Scratch Golfer" pretty well documented.



Nick,

Would you elaborate on this a little please? What PR standard are you referring to? It seems to me that Chuck is adamant on using a 1000 PR Gold standard, yet Harold Duvall and Dave Dunipace have advocated using a 950-975 PR Blue Level player as the "scratch" standard.

Lowe,

So long as it is only one it doesn't matter. I prefer the 1000 for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me. Mainly, having been fortunate enough to shoot 1000 golf a couple of times I know that feeling, and it is definitely the feeling of "Expert Golf"; and with a PR of 968 I can tell you first hand that 950 to 975 is definitely not "Expert Golf".

The key in this is that we use every available and reasonable means, create "ONE" standard, let it roll, and then adjust as needed down the line. We are getting caught up in the trees and not seeing the mountain.

Regards,
Nick

Lowe,

Can I get you to address an issue about HyPar:

I worry that you will have more exceptions than fits, have you applied HyPar to a number of courses with differing terrian and foliage to see how it matches SSA/SHS? Can you give us examples and what you've seen?

Take a look at the Mid-Nationals results PDF posted on the www.midnationals.com (http://www.midnationals.com) site if you want to see how we are doing it at Highbridge. The par from each set of tees is set for that player skill level as identified. If they are Blue tees the par is for Blue players. If Gold tees, it's for Gold, etc. The pars are shown at the bottom of the PDF for the six course layouts played. You can see the estimated SSA for each round to the right in that table.

These pars were entered in the PDGA Tour display that you see for the Mid-Nationals on PDGA.com. Players in each division were thrilled to see themselves shooting red numbers below par for the first time now that each division was displayed on an equivalent basis. The pars on a few courses were a little too liberal but that's what the event results will help us tweak for the future.

Chuck, what is your present recommendation when SSA stats are not available for a course when setting course and hole pars? I think it's a spreadsheet I've seen you post before, but I just wanted to confirm that.

If it is the spreadsheet, then when SSA stats later become available, do you then recommend people stop using the spreadsheet and start using SSA data for setting pars?

Here's the chart. I need to get this added as a link in the course design section of the PDGA site but I've been reluctant until we get further in our deliberations on how to handle it officially.

Par Chart (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg)

It's not really SSA values that are needed to adjust your hole pars. It's just gathering hole-by-hole scoring distributions from any league or event from players with known ratings. Then, adjust those averages to a specific player skill level that the tees are intended for and see if any tweaks are needed.

You boys and your silly numbers. :D

At the British Open the Road Hole just averaged 4.63 for the week and it is a par 4. :p :D

Because it averaged 4.63 doesn't make it a par 5. It makes it a really hard par 4. Know why it's a par 4? Because played perfectly it requires 2 shots before you start putting. That's it. :D

Oh and no there's nothing wrong with the design of the hole. :o

Oh and no there's nothing wrong with the design of the hole.



Exactly. If ball golf can have a tee shot directly over the wing of a hotel, disc golf can certainly have holes with triple mandos and baskets in trees :)

The Brits just happen to like Par 4s with only two Par 5s and two par 3s on that course. They like Par 4s so much that they make them so you can drive them so they're tough 3s or have pot bunkers and crowned greens so they're easy 5s. That's old style design not contemporary.

I dont think they designed the hole to be played over the roof of a hotel. That came about with top players hitting modern equipment.

At Am Nationals this year for the first time they decided to designate some holes as par 4s and maybe they even called one a par 5. By this designation a 955 rated round [more or less] was par.

As it turned out, this was irrelevant to the competition. The player with the lowest score won.

Do those of you who care about what is par have a numerical opinion on what rating of a round should be par?

It would be totally appropiate to call 61 the Toboggan Blue Par. Blue Par is for players at the 950 level which is just right for this field since 61 ended up with a 955 rating. Setting the Gold Par for Toboggan for Pro Worlds at 55 or 56 would also have been appropriate. But it's likely one or two holes might have to be Gold Par 2s unless only one or two holes are Gold par 4s.

Do those of you who care about what is par have a numerical opinion on what rating of a round should be par?



imo 970ish. error free without freakish natural ability (read: big arm).

I'd go 975ish.

Something I've been considering lately, like since yesterday when I heard Joe Mela say the par of the first round on Sunday was a "SOFT" 61.

I think that that sort of terminology could prove useful in setting pars for courses based on the three factors I believe a courses par should be set according to:

1) Course Designers Feeling (Yeah! I said it! What you gonna do! Punk!)
2) Chuck's SSA Projection Calculator
3) PDGA Course SSA and WCP

Where the Soft and Hard pars would come in is if the Par is stretched one way or the other by the designer from the Projected or Actual SSA.

OR

If the specific Hole by Hole SSAs indicate that the pars are all tight to the stated par or loose (i.e. the holes SSA is say 3.4 and the posted par is 4 that would be a soft par).

It would be totally appropiate to call 61 the Toboggan Blue Par. Blue Par is for players at the 950 level which is just right for this field since 61 ended up with a 955 rating. Setting the Gold Par for Toboggan for Pro Worlds at 55 or 56 would also have been appropriate. But it's likely one or two holes might have to be Gold Par 2s unless only one or two holes are Gold par 4s.


the following quote comes from
http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/par4.html
"Today, the USGA Course Rating is issued to a club by an authorized amateur golf association. It represents the expected better-half scoring average of a scratch golfer (who is defined for men, for example, as a player who plays in the stroke-play field of the U.S. Amateur Championship). "

Looking at the top half of the field from this year's Am-Nationals, the scoring average was 61.4 and the average player rating was 940.9

Scoring averages or ratings, however, are not the same thing as par. The convention of par is relative to definitions that are fixed in the medium run. (Par 4's used to be defined as less than 471 yards, and are now up to 530ish.) Some holes are easy relative to their par and some are harder relative to their par. Around 1900 par 3.5's and 4.5's were in existence. I'm glad that convention is gone, but some may consider it for disc golf.

In regards to "Gold Par 2's" at the Toboggan course: there are no par 2's on the Toboggan course. I believe that many tournaments do incorporate holes that I consider to be par 2's, but Am-Nationals is not one of them.

There are several reasons why the standardization of "par" is a good thing, but one I will not agree with is for knowing what score to give a competitor that is late for tee-off. Give that competitor a DQ. Golf is a game of honor and failing to arrive for a tee-time should be treated as a serious breach.

Do those of you who care about what is par have a numerical opinion on what rating of a round should be par?



There is a very simple answer to this question. The answer is...1000.

The current situation in disc golf in relation to par is "every person does what is right in his or her eyes". This is classic postmodernism. In my eyes par is based on the play of a 1000 rated Gold level player, thus shooting par is shooting a 1000 rated round.

postmodern par... nice concept! but wouldnt par = 1000 be more correctly stated as gold par = 1000? then of course blue par might = 955... etc. if they make enough colors, everyone can have (and shoot) par. which, i think, is the logical endpoint of the postmodern par anyway.

The current situation in disc golf in relation to par is "every person does what is right in his or her eyes". This is classic postmodernism.



Not quite. A big part of Postmoderism is the rejection of an assumption that modern thought (enlightenment thinking) holds dear - that knowledge is inherently good. That the more knowledge you have, the better off you'll be. By their observation, they see that modern thought fails to answer many pervasive questions and problems.

Modernists arrive at their version of truth based on empirical, measurable evidence couched in logic and rational reasoning.
Postmodernists arrive at their version of truth based on their experiences couched in intuition and common sense.

I've always hated the term 'postmodern', because it's either relative, and is always changing, or "fixes" the instance of 'modernism' in time, and when was THAT?!? Hieronymus Bosch was doing surrealism 400 years before the Futurists! :eek: