using that application, if HoleLength <= (WorldRecordDistance - 130) the hole could legitimately be called a par 3 :) making a hole such as the one you describe a par3 is a design problem, not a CR problem.

maybe i've developed a hybrid methodology that uses accuracy and length for tee and fairway shots but uses the CR concept to understand the green and as a guide to setting par.

if i have a nice pin position, i'll determine the green using CR, then work backwards using Chuck'sCharts<font size=-2>TM</font> to set the landing zone or tee shot. alternatively if i have a nice tee location, i'll use Chuck'sCharts<font size=-2>TM</font> to get me down the fairway, then start looking for a pin position based on LZ+2. the final effect is the same either way: Chuck guides me down the fairway and Lowe guides me on the up and down.

using that application, if HoleLength &lt;= (WorldRecordDistance - 130) the hole could legitimately be called a par 3.



Sorry, but that's not correct. The Drive length is the average length that a player of a given skill level would throw. For Gold level this length is 390 ft. You couldn't use the World Distance record as a standard because it was one special throw in special conditions by one of only a handful of people that could throw that far. There would be no reason to use that length as a standard for all Gold level players.

what if you were building a course for world distance record holders? you just said 1/1000 was ok as long as the designer could visualize the line. why stop at 1000? why not 10,000?

what if you were building a course for world distance record holders? you just said 1/1000 was ok as long as the designer could visualize the line. why stop at 1000? why not 10,000?



Pat,

Somehow we're not communicating here. I've got a concept in my head, but the message isn't getting through clearly. It might be better to carry this on by email if you want. Feel free to email me at Lyrhnc(at)gmail.com.

What I'm talking about is a consistent standard for setting par. That standard is based on achievable length shots for each skill level. The designer still has to work within the standards, and for Gold level that's a drive length of 390 ft. Gold is the highest level, so that's the longest drive as a standard for par. Length has to be capped there.

My comment about 1/1000 had to do with a drive up to 390 ft and referred to the effects of OB, foliage density, and fairway width. The Gold length parameters are set at 390 for the drive and 130 ft for CR. Now, at those lengths, envision a straight hole with wicked OB, foliage, and a narrow fairway such that only 1/1000 shots will go make the intended flight path, but there is a fairway with a makeable shot. Yes, for hypothetical purposes you could also use 1/10,000 or even 1/1,000,000. (If needed, I could describe a pretty wicked hypothetical hole.) Try to picture that the designer's intended drive is 390 ft. Now picture that one perfect shot that hits the intended path. See the disc flying through the air. If the 390 ft drive can be made and that leaves a 130 ft CR shot that can be made then it's a par 3. This is the hard part to describe clearly. For me, it was an "aha" moment when I saw it. Do you see what I'm saying? If not, lets continue this by email.

what if you were building a course for world distance record holders?



If they're Gold level, it doesn't matter how far they can throw. The length standard for a Gold par 3 is still 390 ft for a drive and 130 ft for a CR shot. That doesn't change just because you have super long throwers.

you just said 1/1000 was ok as long as the designer could visualize the line. why stop at 1000? why not 10,000?



It's only OK to set it at a Gold par 3 if the hole has an effective length of 520 ft (390 + 130) or less. By "OK" I'm separating par from difficulty and quality. A hole that can only be parred 1 in 1000 tries is wickedly difficult and is probably bad quality, but it's still a par 3. Par is different from difficulty and hole quality. In my thinking, score averages are not important to par, a key factor in determining difficulty, and important in deciding hole quality.

Pat,

The essence of what I'm trying to say is that the length is a constant because that's the factor that CR Par is based on, so it can't vary. But the other factors- OB, foliage, fairway width-- are all variables that can be changed. As they are changed it will influence the Score Avg.

Your example suggested changing the length parameter, and that can't be done.

Does this make sense?

Lowe

that would be a very incomplete measurement. you need to measure what they can do in all types of design conditions. CR+2 does not say a 450 foot hole down a forest tunnel is a gold par 3 just because a gold player can throw 350 in an open field.



Pat,

Actually CR Par does say that the hole you described is a Gold par 3. Gold CR par 3s are up to 520 ft (effective length) and the amount of OB and foliage is irrelevant. If you had a flat 520 ft hole down a tree lined corridor that's only 5 ft wide, yet has a clear path to the basket, then it's a Gold CR par 3. If that narrow fairway was the designer's intended flight path and it can be hit (even if it's only 1 in 1000 throws) then it's still a Gold CR Par 3.



Wow, I couldn't disagree with that more. Scoring average MUST play a factor in par. If it's a 520 ft hole down a tree lined corridor that's only 5 ft wide, the best disc golfers in the world are probably going to average close to 4, making it a pro par 4. Just because 1 in 1000 drive the green means nothing. If they take a deuce, it's an eagle.

Jeff,

So you're entering the fray. Welcome! This is a conceptual issue and it took me a while for the "light to go on". I'm not sure how to cause an epiphany either, but that may be what it takes. It's just a whole different way of looking at par.

As an aside, this has got to be the basis for why traditional golf uses length as the only parameter to set par.

Wow, I couldn't disagree with that more. Scoring average MUST play a factor in par. If it's a 520 ft hole down a tree lined corridor that's only 5 ft wide, the best disc golfers in the world are probably going to average close to 4, making it a pro par 4. Just because 1 in 1000 drive the green means nothing. If they take a deuce, it's an eagle.



Ok, let's take this a step further by looking at a hypothetical Gold level hole with a scoring average of 5.5. But this hole is 520 ft long, so CR Par says that it's a Gold par 3. Let's look at the hole, because it's one tough and weird hole. (We must leave aside whether or not it's a good hole because that's another issue.)

This 520 hole is a 4 ft wide peninsula with trees intermittently guarding the sides. There are no trees in the center leaving a narrow straight path. Off the fairway, on both sides, it is a cliff that drops 20 ft to water that is OB. The trees will often kick drives into the OB water. The intended landing spot for the drive is at 390 ft. If you go past the basket, the water drops off the end of the peninsula at 400 ft. Just for fun, at 250 ft the fairway is almost entirely obstructed by thick holly bushes, but there is a clown's mouth with a 5 ft. diameter that the disc can get through; otherwise the wall of holly is impenetrable. This holly wall with a hole is repeated at 340 ft. But there is still a small thin line that the diabolical designer intended for a perfectly thrown disc to go on a drive and end at 390 ft. If you successfully make your drive then you have a 130 ft. shot totally over water to an island green with a 10 ft. radius. In addition the green is cone shaped and the basket is elevated. You now have 2 throws from this close range to hole out.

After collecting tournament stats on over 1,000,000 rounds by Gold players it's been found that only 1 in 10,000 Gold level players will make a 3 on this hole. But a 3 can, and has been made. The SSA is 5.5, but according to CR Par this is still a par 3. OB, foliage, and fairway width just don't matter in determining CR Par (or traditional golf par for that matter).

P.S.- This is from the CR Par guidelines:
"Note, too, that par is based on a �reasonable throw� on an intended flight path for an expert player of a designated skill level. Factors that affect score averages such as obstacles, foliage density, narrow fairways, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many throws on the intended flight path that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. Scoring spreads and scoring averages provide helpful design information, but these are not primary considerations in determining par."

As an aside, this has got to be the basis for why traditional golf uses length as the only parameter to set par.



I'm not sure that's true. Considering that we're seeing 520 yard par 4s and 300 yard par 3s in ball golf tournaments, which violates all previous yardage and par guidelines, I would say scoring average is playing a part.

Chuck,

Those are points well made, and I don't deny that there are challenges to the drive length standards of CR Par. But I don't think they're insurmountable. Traditional golf (TG) has managed to use length as their only parameter to determine par for a long time.

With the hypothetical hole I just described with an SSA of 5.5 would you make it a par 5?

As an aside, this has got to be the basis for why traditional golf uses length as the only parameter to set par.



I'm not sure that's true. Considering that we're seeing 520 yard par 4s and 300 yard par 3s in ball golf tournaments, which violates all previous yardage and par guidelines, I would say scoring average is playing a part.



Are those holes in use for every day play or are they only set up temporarily for the Majors played by the Super Pros?

Those are points well made, and I don't deny that there are challenges to the drive length standards of CR Par. But I don't think they're insurmountable. Traditional golf (TG) has managed to use length as their only parameter to determine par for a long time.

With the hypothetical hole I just described with an SSA of 5.5 would you make it a par 5?



If there was enough scoring data (4-5+ tournaments) which consistently recorded the hole's SSA at 5.5, then, yes...I would definitely reassign par for that particular hole.

The diversity of dg "fairway" design versus bg "fairway" design are two different animals. Toss in the differential between the green concept (not to mention, the lesser putting difficulty in dg) and you have an apples to oranges comparison when using primarily length to determine par for a particular dg hole design. The length factor works well in bg and most holes in dg, but that formula begins to break down (to a certain degree) when dealing with select dg hole design. I understand the necessity for adjustments due to foliage and the like, however, there are plenty of instances where scoring averages would provide additional (and valuable) information in relation to establishing par for a particular hole. This would seem especially true for existing courses where par has never been correctly established, yet there is a sufficient amount of scoring data for analysis.

Regardless of what any distance/design chart recommends, just because a hole "can" be 3'd doesn't make it a par 3. If scoring data for gold-rated players reveal that only 1/1000 players card a 3 on a hole, then that hole would be incorrectly labeled as a par 3. Heck, if only 1/100 players are carding a 3 on said hole, then I would believe par for that design needs to be revisited. At minimum, I would think a course designer (with common sense) would reevaluate the designated par for such a hole and either 1) redesign the hole to yield more "par scores" and/or scoring distribution or 2) change par for the hole based upon what the scoring analysis reveals (again, assuming enough scoring data exists).

I always find it helps to go back to the original source documents. From the rulebook:

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

The first sentence supports scoring averages, the second CR+2. But, if we define "expected" and "errorless" right, they do not need to disagree.

Take "expected" to mean the score that an expert thinks he'll get on that hole, and will be disappointed if he doesn't get.

Take "errorless play" to mean a series of shots that does pretty much what the player wanted to do.

So, par is NOT the average score of all the experts on that hole, because no player expects to go out of bounds, hit a tree, have grip-lock, whatever.

Also, par is not the score that Superplayer would get one out of 1000 times in the designer's dreams. If there were that small a window, the player would not EXPECT to go for the window. They would take some other route. That implies a different pattern of throws should be fed into the CR+2 method.

This allows us to establish par on new courses by CR+2, or however the designer thinks the hole should be played (assuming the designer recognizes that most players won't take ridiculous routes, only reasonable ones). Then, we can check whether that par is appropriate using the actual scores.

If nobody plays that 1/1000 par 3 hole by trying to throw 390 feet, then the scores will not show any 3's, so par should change. That way, expert players coming up to that hole for the first time know what to expect.

[Note that the opposite effect could happen. The course designer might have thought he was making a par 5 hole, only to have the players find a new route by which they can expect to score 3. Scoring data would discover what's happening, par can be lowered, and the CR+2 method could use the new route in its calculations.]

Another method to set par for new courses would be to use the Hole Forecaster (with all the "trouble" settings set to zero) to set initial par.

To me, CR+2 is one method to guess what par will be, but is not Par. Scoring data provides empirical evidence of errorless play and player expectations, but is also not Par. To put it another way: they're both arrows, but Par is the bull's eye.

When using scoring data to try to find what Par on a hole really is, one must choose the statistic that will best tell us what score "errorless play" has produced, or what expert players have come to expect with experience.

When I look at scoring distributions, the score that "should" be par usually jumps out at me. (Thought balloon: "Look at all those 3's. I wonder how the other 5/8ths of the players got 7's? They brought the average up to 5.5. Par 3.")

I've proposed taking the score that at least 1/3 of the players tied or beat. Throwing out the "outlier" high scores before calculating the average is another choice. Taking the second-lowest score might work in a lot of cases.

Any of these will produce an estimate of par that is lower than the average score of expert players, which (given the unlimited upside of bad scores) seems to me to be mathematically necessary to conform to the definition of par.

lowe, i get it, really i do. i just hope you are not saying that every hole that is less than 590 feet is a Gold par 3.

Traditional golf (TG) has managed to use length as their only parameter to determine par for a long time.

TG does not have near the emphasis on shot shaping. it typically does not have the same severity of schule and OB that DG has.

lowe, i get it, really i do. i just hope you are not saying that every hole that is less than 590 feet is a Gold par 3.



No, I'm not. But I would say that a hole on a Gold level course that is under 520 ft is a par 3 (390 + 130).

Pat, what do you think about that?

Lowe

(OK, that's for simplicity and not to make it too complicated. In the real world, I'd also look at tweener lengbs that are on the borders of the par lengths and make adjustments up or down as warranted. But for simplicity lets just stick to using 520 ft. as the cut off point.)

How about a wooded dogleg that's 250 to the landing then 250 to the pin? Or do you consider the effective length which would make it 570 and a par 4?

Traditional golf (TG) has managed to use length as their only parameter to determine par for a long time.

TG does not have near the emphasis on shot shaping. it typically does not have the same severity of schule and OB that DG has.



Good point about how the analogy to TG breaks down.

You know, for a couple of years I used Score Averages to determine par because it seemed to make so much sense. I argued for that position. But then, one day, in discussing par with some members of the DGCD I was persuaded that score averages really don't matter. It was a "revelation" that changed my thinking, and to be honest, I can't go back. I literally can no longer see the sense of using Score averages that take foliage, and OB into account. If a shot goes OB or into the shule then it was not on the designers' intended path and it shouldn't be considered in the data.

Again, if the hypothetical hole has a Score avg. of 5.5, but it's the length of a par 3, should it be a par 5 or a par 3? I can only see making it a par 3. I think I'm always open to persuasion, so someone please persuade me if I'm wrong. I just can't see it anymore.

Lowe

How about a wooded dogleg that's 250 to the landing then 250 to the pin? Or do you consider the effective length which would make it 570 and a par 4?



I believe I've said on here that forced layups are treated separately. If the length of the drive is shortened so that you still can't get to Close Range on your drive then it's a par 4. Forced layups need to be considered in the length calculation, so using CR Par your example would be a par 4.

Following that logic, since we know a player is able to throw the appropriate distance on a reachable par 3 and the only reason they don't get 2s all of the time is due to less accuracy, why aren't those holes par 2s if length is the only cirteria? Why is open field accuracy the only consideration versus fairway width and OB that additionally penalize a player's open field accuracy? We know putting is less than 1.5 shots and closer to 1.2 for gold.

i think its a crock :) there's more going on than just length, and whether you measure down the fairway or tee-to-pin as the crow flies doesnt change that. CR is an incredible leap forward in DG design, but using such a strict application to set par does the concept a terrible disservice. i think the 520 is defensible as a theoretical max length for a Gold Par 3. that is a very useful guide. however, to just say "less than 520, gold par 3; less than 910, gold par 4" is far too rigid a method.

We know putting is less than 1.5 shots and closer to 1.2 for gold.



Huh? Where did this come from? That's the first I've heard of this. What does this do to the ATG factor used in the SSA formula?

I didn't say ATG, just Putting (PSTATS). My point was that if a hole is 250, reachable and accuracy is irrelevant, then the expectation for scoring and CR par should be a 250 frozen rope to the base of the pin and a drop-in putt for a Par 2.

CR is an incredible leap forward in DG design, but using such a strict application to set par does the concept a terrible disservice.



Pat,

Can you please explain more why you think this?

A corollary, that I just don't follow, seems to be-- why are score averages (esp. the effect of OB, foliage, and width) used in determining par?

Lowe

You know, for a couple of years I used Score Averages to determine par because it seemed to make so much sense. I argued for that position. But then, one day, in discussing par with some members of the DGCD I was persuaded that score averages really don't matter. It was a "revelation" that changed my thinking, and to be honest, I can't go back. I literally can no longer see the sense of using Score averages that take foliage, and OB into account. If a shot goes OB or into the shule then it was not on the designers' intended path and it shouldn't be considered in the data.

Again, if the hypothetical hole has a Score avg. of 5.5, but it's the length of a par 3, should it be a par 5 or a par 3? I can only see making it a par 3. I think I'm always open to persuasion, so someone please persuade me if I'm wrong. I just can't see it anymore.




If the pool of data is acceptable (large enough and composed of the proper skill set) then OB, foliage, and scoring average MUST be taken into account. If you've got enough tournament data from 1000+ rated golfers, and they average 5.5 on a hole, how can you call it a par 3? If 1000-rated players consistently go OB or into the shule, even though it was not on the designers' intended path, how can you not consider it in the data? When the course design of that hole does not allow perfect play for the top 0.1% of the golfers in our sport, and when the course design of that hole does not allow perfect play except for every 1/1000 plays (which would likely require a fairway ace) then your idea of par based on distance is entirely unrealistic.

Following that logic, since we know a player is able to throw the appropriate distance on a reachable par 3 and the only reason they don't get 2s all of the time is due to less accuracy, why aren't those holes par 2s if length is the only cirteria?



Because according to the standards for CR Par any hole longer than Close Range is allowed one shot to reach CR and then 2 throws to complete the hole. For a Gold level course only holes of 130 ft. or less would be par 2s.

You know, for a couple of years I used Score Averages to determine par because it seemed to make so much sense. I argued for that position. But then, one day, in discussing par with some members of the DGCD I was persuaded that score averages really don't matter. It was a "revelation" that changed my thinking, and to be honest, I can't go back. I literally can no longer see the sense of using Score averages that take foliage, and OB into account. If a shot goes OB or into the shule then it was not on the designers' intended path and it shouldn't be considered in the data.

Again, if the hypothetical hole has a Score avg. of 5.5, but it's the length of a par 3, should it be a par 5 or a par 3? I can only see making it a par 3. I think I'm always open to persuasion, so someone please persuade me if I'm wrong. I just can't see it anymore.




If the pool of data is acceptable (large enough and composed of the proper skill set) then OB, foliage, and scoring average MUST be taken into account. If you've got enough tournament data from 1000+ rated golfers, and they average 5.5 on a hole, how can you call it a par 3? If 1000-rated players consistently go OB or into the shule, even though it was not on the designers' intended path, how can you not consider it in the data? When the course design of that hole does not allow perfect play for the top 0.1% of the golfers in our sport, and when the course design of that hole does not allow perfect play except for every 1/1000 plays (which would likely require a fairway ace) then your idea of par based on distance is entirely unrealistic.



Jeff,

Along with many people, I think your mixing course design considerations in with par. In my thinking the score average data you mentioned are only relevant to how difficult and how good the hole is (design); they aren't relevant to setting par. To me, the two are separate matters.

Lowe

Granted that a 520 hole that averages 5.5 is unlikely, the fact that CR par is disconnected with the reality of the hole shows its flaws. Imagine an announcer showing the scoring on the hole for the round with no pars, 20 bogeys, 40 double bogeys, 40 trip bogeys and 20 quad bogeys...

Granted that a 520 hole that averages 5.5 is unlikely, the fact that CR par is disconnected with the reality of the hole shows its flaws. Imagine an announcer showing the scoring on the hole for the round with no pars, 20 bogeys, 40 double bogeys, 40 trip bogeys and 20 quad bogeys...



Again, this is a design issue, not a par issue. If I heard that I'd just say, "Wow, that's an incredibly difficult hole. It doesn't sound very fair. I bet the design is flawed and could be changed."

Can you please explain more why you think this?

A corollary, that I just don't follow, seems to be-- why are score averages (esp. the effect of OB, foliage, and width) used in determining par?


DG sorely needs the concept of "green", and what is means to get up and down. these concpets are the the core of your CR philosophy. by trying to force CR into a par-setting formula you shift its focus from the green and the area around it towards the entire fairway. the resulting bruhaha and "how to figure par" arguments end up hiding CR's value in discussing the green.

i dont use scoring averages to set par. i use shot probabilities. there is a big difference.

Chuck,

What's the difference between the ATG factor and PSTATS?

Lowe

PSTATS is a way to track your individual stats and putting within 10m seems to be about 1.1 to 1.2 for gold level players who have tracked it in tests.

Granted that a 520 hole that averages 5.5 is unlikely, the fact that CR par is disconnected with the reality of the hole shows its flaws. Imagine an announcer showing the scoring on the hole for the round with no pars, 20 bogeys, 40 double bogeys, 40 trip bogeys and 20 quad bogeys...



Again, this is a design issue, not a par issue. If I heard that I'd just say, "Wow, that's an incredibly difficult hole. It doesn't sound very fair. I bet the design is flawed and could be changed."



Separate matters?!? Wow, whatever epiphany you had has made for a disconnect that is enormously large. Design and par are closely intertwined! A 520 hole that averages 5.5 likely wouldn't exist, for starters. It would be ridiculed from existance by everyone that played it. Furthermore, no course designer would ever design a hole where a tournament's worth of golfers rated ~1000 would take no pars, 20 bogeys, 40 double bogeys, 40 trip bogeys and 20 quad bogeys. Either par would be adjusted accordingly, or the tee or hole locations would be adjusted greatly.

In uncut thick woods create a corridor 175 ft north, 175 ft east, 135 ft south, 35 ft west. Gold level scoring average of 5.5 in less than an acre with no 3s. Hmmmm...

Design and par are closely intertwined!



Why? Please prove your point.


A 520 hole that averages 5.5 likely wouldn't exist, for starters. It would be ridiculed from existance by everyone that played it. Furthermore, no course designer would ever design a hole where a tournament's worth of golfers rated ~1000 would take no pars, 20 bogeys, 40 double bogeys, 40 trip bogeys and 20 quad bogeys.



I completely agree with you-- on the part of your post that I quoted. The Score Avg. would show that the design of the hole needed to be changed. (Of course, we're only talking about an extreme example of a hypothetical hole that was only invented to illustrate a point anyway.)

Lowe

why does anyone care about the 10m circle when discussing putting and /or par?

It doesn't matter in relation to par but we had the stats that way to indicate that getting close to the basket on a reachable drive only takes one throw to hole out if accuracy of that drive is not a consideration, just length.

doesnt that explanation assume 10m is the definition of "close to the basket"?

With CR, the throws before getting to the "two close throws area" are assumed to be precise length and on the centerline of the fairway which of course would mean that drives on holes shorter than the length a skill level can drive should be under the pin, not even 10m away.

yeah, thats too bad for CR in that case. CR becomes nothing more than "how far can a XXXX level player throw in a wide open field". we dont need CR to tell us that, we can just go measure. thats why i say that CR's most useful purpose is its view of the range itself, not in how it handles the fairway. who constructed this CR thing anyway?

(btw, the question about 1.2, 1.1 still stands. measuring from 10m does nothing except tell us the probability that a gold player will sink a 10m putt. its sorta interesting, but not as interesting as other distances)

With CR, the throws before getting to the "two close throws area" are assumed to be precise length and on the centerline of the fairway which of course would mean that drives on holes shorter than the length a skill level can drive should be under the pin, not even 10m away.



That's almost right. You're getting the idea. The only part that isn't correct is to imply that all drives will be right under the basket. CR Par never says that. CR Par only says that <font color="red"> a drive, but not necessarily all drives, </font> thrown the way the designer intended it to will end up right under the basket, if the hole is shorter than the level drive length.

Your comment is not correct to say that all drives <font color="blue"> should</font> be under the basket. CR Par merely says that a drive <font color="blue">could</font> be under the basket; in fact, it will be if (and only if) it is thrown on the line that the designer intended.

You guys can't seem to resist adding in score average concepts into par. Again I say that they are separate when it comes to determining par.

Analyzing scoring spreads will tell you how many people actually threw the hole in the way the designer intended it.

Analyzing scoring spreads will tell you how many people actually threw the hole in the way the designer intended it.


not quite true either. analyzing spreads will tell you if the outcome was as the designer intended. it says nothing about how the player gotthere. he might have landed right where the designer wanted him to, or he could have made a spectaular recovery from a crappy tee shot. analyzing individual shot execution is the only way to tell if the player performed "as expected"

Good clarification Pat.

You guys can't seem to resist adding in score average concepts into par. Again I say that they are separate when it comes to determining par.



Par is completely meaningless without scoring average playing a part. You assign your idea of par based on hypothetical flat open field distances, when elevation differences cause changes in the effective distance, and foliage, OB, doglegs, and other course features practically guarantee that no competitor ever achieves these open field distances on most courses.

Using mere distance to assign par, as they do in ball golf, is completely inappropriate for disc golf and results in a par that will be utterly meaningless and wrong much more often than it is right. Assigning par based primarily on scoring averages has real world value and meaning to disc golfers and will result in par being right 99% of the time.

CR does imply that reachable shots would be under the basket since accuracy isn't relevant. If it were relevant, then taking foliage, OB and left/right variance would be accounted for for each skill level, not just their reference length.

You assign your idea of par based on hypothetical flat open field distances, when elevation differences cause changes in the effective distance, and foliage, OB, doglegs, and other course features practically guarantee that no competitor ever achieves these open field distances on most courses.




Jeff,

Just to be clear, CR Par uses "effective length" that takes elevation changes into account, and it also takes forced layups from doglegs and water carries into account as well.

Lowe

CR does imply that reachable shots would be under the basket since accuracy isn't relevant. If it were relevant, then taking foliage, OB and left/right variance would be accounted for for each skill level, not just their reference length.



Chuck,

That's incorrect. As I just recently said, CR Par says that an expert of the appropriate skill level "could" make a shot under the basket not that they "should" make it.

Lowe

I know that's what you're saying about CR but not how you're using it in practice.

I know that's what you're saying about CR but not how you're using it in practice.



I'm coming to think that "what we have here is a failure to communicate". I again disagree with your statement here. We seem to be going round and round and missing each other.

Just to be clear, CR Par uses "effective length" that takes elevation changes into account, and it also takes forced layups from doglegs and water carries into account as well.




But it doesn't take real world conditions into account and is therefore meaningless.

Consider Highbridge Gold hole#5 which is a 530-ft. pro par 4 with an island of brush between the tee and the polehole. You'd probably call it a par 3 because flat open field driving distances put Open competitors within 130 ft. of it. But Chuck's data from Worlds showed that Open competitors (minus the top 16) averaging a player rating of 997 will average 3.9 on the hole. The top 23 Masters averaging 995 will average a score of 4.1 on it. It's clearly a pro par four, and a 3 is a birdie. Everybody that plays it would instantly recognize this.

Next, consider Highbridge Gold#15 which is a 570 ft. pro par 4 with heavy foliage on either side. The same two groups of competitors averaged 3.8 and 3.9 according to Chuck's data. Markus K�llstr�m was the only competitor in the world to drive within 130 feet of this polehole, and you should have seen the ridiculous shot it took to do it. Any CR par method that says this hole is a par 3 is a sham.

Go to http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=WI&amp;c=highbridgegold to see for yourself what these holes look like.

I'm coming to think that "what we have here is a failure to communicate". I again disagree with your statement here. We seem to be going round and round and missing each other.



You have a failure to understand what your CR method implies regardless of what you say. The only way the 520 ft par 3 is possible is with a perfect laser drive effectively and exactly 390 feet. If that doesn't happen (i.e. due to fairway width, accuracy, OB), then your final two shots from 130 can't happen. So your calculation requires perfect execution of the drive regardless of the conditions of the hole which you consider irrelevant. If it requires perfect execution of the throws to the "close range area" your system diverges from any connection with reality and by extension implies laser drives on reachable par 3s making them really par 2s.

Jeff,

In order to determine CR Par I'd need the elevation change data to get the effective lengths of those HG holes.

But if they are not downhill shots then both holes would be CR Par 4. At 570 ft. HG15 definitely would be since the cutoff for Gold is 520 ft. I mentioned earlier that in the tweener distances the par can also be adjusted as warranted.

Lowe

But it doesn't take real world conditions into account and is therefore meaningless.



Jeff,

Do you think that you really understand what I've been trying to say? I'm not sure. I know you don't agree, but I just want to make sure that you've got the concept. I mean that sincerely. I have high respect for you and your understanding of DG course design. Truly you have a dizzying intellect, but it just seems like the concepts in my mind may not be as clear to you. But I may be wrong about that.

Lowe

I'm coming to think that "what we have here is a failure to communicate". I again disagree with your statement here. We seem to be going round and round and missing each other.



You have a failure to understand what your CR method implies regardless of what you say. The only way the 520 ft par 3 is possible is with a perfect laser drive effectively and exactly 390 feet. If that doesn't happen (i.e. due to fairway width, accuracy, OB), then your final two shots from 130 can't happen. So your calculation requires perfect execution of the drive regardless of the conditions of the hole which you consider irrelevant. If it requires perfect execution of the throws to the "close range area" your system diverges from any connection with reality and by extension implies laser drives on reachable par 3s making them really par 2s.



Chuck,

This latest message just proves to me that you really don't totally understand what I'm saying. It's not I who doesn't understand it. You keep mixing up "could" with "should".

Let's use a TG analogy. In TG a par 4 is defined as 251 to 470 yards. That doesn't mean that an expert golfer will always hit it 270 yards (or whatever the base drive length is). In the same way, a Gold CR Par 3 hole is 130 to 520 ft. with a base drive length of 390 ft. An Gold expert player may drive 450 ft. or he may drive 320 ft. The length is not proscribed.

Then, in TG once a player is on the green he may have 80 ft to the hole or he may have 2 ft. In DG, once a Gold player is on Close Range he may have 130 ft to the basket or he may have 2 ft.

You're just building a straw man to say that a drive must always be only 390 ft. A drive can be of any length.

I just hope that this is clearer to someone.

Pat, even though you don't buy in on every point, do you see what I'm saying?

A voice crying in the wilderness,
Lowe

Par is a guideline for what players should try to be shooting or even better on a layout. Why would you even consider that it wouldn't correlate to what players of the skill level the par is set for actually shoot? This ideas youse guys have makes no sense to not be related. Why have a "sort of" correlation? Either par is determined by darts or by some direct correlation with reality such as actual scores.



Actually, it depends on the course. If I shoot par at the U.S. Open at Oakmont, I win the tournament by 5 shots. If I shoot par at Torrey Pines in San Diego during the Buick Invitational, I miss the CUT by 3 shots. Par might be a good score, it might not.

That's what I keep saying. Course rating (or SSA in our case) is an accurate rating of how tough a course is. Slope rating in TG is the rating of how tough a course is for a bogey golfer (lower skill level). Neither one of those really have anything to do with par. You can have a par 71 that's rated 69.7, and a par 70 that's rated 73.4, and yes, the par 70 is more difficult. They are separate ideas. Par is not average. Par is analogous to CR + 2. Par IS a good score. It's probably not a good score for a top player. Most golfers will never break par for a round. Most disc golfers will never break par for a round (I'm including all the local players that play on the weekend or after work, and will never play in a tournament, and believe me, those people are WAY more numerous than the number of people that play in a tournament this year). Yes, putting is easier for disc golfers, thus par is easier to achieve for disc golfers than ball golfers. That's not sugar coating it. It's embracing it.

Chap

What you've overlooked Lowe is that a ball golfer can cleanly reach the effective distances used for their par references because their numbers are based on open fairway distances. But that's not true in disc golf. That's why the CR process for DG falls apart under scrutiny. In ball golf, they can reach the center of the green when the 2 more shots takes over. In disc golf, if you don't account for accuracy, trees and OB, the CR process falls apart.

Think of it this way, BG fairways are at least as wide if not wider than the greens on average. So, a player who has the accuracy to hit the fairway also can hit the green. In DG, if you use the same 2 close shots which goes out to 130 feet for DG, you would need a fairway as wide as 130 feet to match the equivalent structure in ball golf. We all know that fair fairways can be as narrow as 20 feet in DG. So, the CR model doesn't work without accuracy considerations.

What you've overlooked Lowe is that a ball golfer can cleanly reach the effective distances used for their par references because their numbers are based on open fairway distances. But that's not true in disc golf. That's why the CR process for DG falls apart under scrutiny. In ball golf, they can reach the center of the green when the 2 more shots takes over. In disc golf, if you don't account for accuracy, trees and OB, the CR process falls apart.

Think of it this way, BG fairways are at least as wide if not wider than the greens on average. So, a player who has the accuracy to hit the fairway also can hit the green. In DG, if you use the same 2 close shots which goes out to 130 feet for DG, you would need a fairway as wide as 130 feet to match the equivalent structure in ball golf. We all know that fair fairways can be as narrow as 20 feet in DG. So, the CR model doesn't work without accuracy considerations.



Thank you Chuck. Maybe Lowe will see the light now.

Jeff,

If you re-read my post #730683 - 08/21/07 06:15 PM you may notice a subtle change that I made.

Lowe

Thank you Chuck. Maybe Lowe will see the light now.



Nope, still in darkness. But I would like to thank Chuck, Jeff, and Pat especially for the time that you've spent trying to enlighten me. Honestly. This board is a great place where a guy who doesn't even play in tournaments and is just a hack Intermediate Masters player can just show up and people will patiently reply to his crazy ideas. Thanks for all the time you've spent replying to this outlandish idea for par.

Lowe,

I think I get your concept. You basically think that if a hole can be threed even 1 in 10,000 times, it's a par 3. Everything else is moot.

You think this way because when you first started out in disc golf, you were originally frustrated by the "everything is a par 3" mentality that was prevalent for decades in disc golf. Now that everyone has moved past this, you're frustrated that the winner of Pro Worlds or other majors shoots -69 under par for the tournament (averaging 10 under par or so per round) Additionally, the fact that we have gold par, blue par, white par, etc. also clouds the issue for you.

In order to rectify all this in your mind, you're looking to TG and how they calculate par. You understand that putting in disc golf is easier for gold level players, so you've artificially expanded the concept of the green to 130 ft. You understand that par in TG is calculated almost solely by distance, and you're trying to apply that concept to disc golf. But it doesn't apply whatsoever because we have foliage and OB that affect our shots as shown by Chuck in the previous post. Open field distance can be entirely moot when we play down 10 ft. wide corridors that even the best players in the world cannot consistently hit.

If we take the best 0.1% of all the disc golfers in the world (1000+ rated golfers) and look at their hole scores &amp; averages, and set par according to it, it can be the simplest thing in the world then to identify what is par, what is a birdie, what is a bogey, what is an eagle, etc. in disc golf. I have accepted such as pro par in disc golf, and when I go out to courses such as Highbridge, Paw Paw, Warwick, Winthrop University, Moraine State Park, Maple Hill, Borderland State Park, Circle R Ranch, Nockamixon State Park, Wickham Park, Campgaw Reservation, Deer Lakes Park, Knob Hill, Patapsco Valley State Park, Little Lehigh Parkway, Sea Tac Park, Trap Pond State Park, Hornet's Nest, etc. and step up to the tee sign or look at the scorecard and read the pro par, it makes perfect sense to me.

All this talk about distances equating to par makes no sense to me (nor does a lack of correlation between par and average scoring by top players).

The best way to salvage the ball golf notion of par for our sport is to get rid of unobstructed basket locations and increase the difficulty of the approach shots. The idea that nothing should be within 10 meters of the basket has destroyed the notion of "green" in our sport. We don't need to stretch courses out beyond 10000 feet to get to par near 72, we need to tighten the preferred landing zones near the baskets. Location Location Location!

Snapper has placed many baskets near trees and bushes at Morley Field. It is frustrating to be 10 feet from a basket with no clear shot...but guess what, I shouldn't have thrown it there!

If we can combine the East Coast mentality of Early Trouble with this notion of Late Trouble then maybe we can get away from average rounds of nearly -10 :confused: by top players at our Pro Majors.

Jeff,

Some of your thoughts are right and some are not. Lets go through them:

-----------------
JL: "You basically think that if a hole can be threed even 1 in 10,000 times, it's a par 3."
LB: Yes

----------------
"You think this way because when you first started out in disc golf, you were originally frustrated by the "everything is a par 3" mentality that was prevalent for decades in disc golf."
LB: Not really. You start to get into trouble if you try to figure out why I think something.

-----------------------
"Now that everyone has moved past this, you're frustrated that the winner of Pro Worlds or other majors shoots -69 under par for the tournament (averaging 10 under par or so per round):
LB: Wrong

---------------------
"Additionally, the fact that we have gold par, blue par, white par, etc. also clouds the issue for you."
LB: No. (At least not now.) A few years ago I was against this because it introduced great "portability error", but now I've embraced it and I use par for each course level.

----------------------
"In order to rectify all this in your mind, you're looking to TG and how they calculate par."
LB: Only partially true. I've been looking for a universal standard for par and there is a large group of renowned course designers who use TG par. I was looking for something that all camps could embrace.

--------------
You understand that putting in disc golf is easier for gold level players, so you've artificially expanded the concept of the green to 130 ft.
lB: Partially correct. The ATG factor is 1.67 per hole, yet the PDGA definition of par allows 2 close range shots. I was looking for a way to make these match. Adding 1/3 of a shot seemed to do this.

--------------------------------
You understand that par in TG is calculated almost solely by distance, and you're trying to apply that concept to disc golf.
LB: Kind of. It's not because of TG, although that is a nice precedent and attractive to those who hold to BG par. The real idea is that if you hit the intended line it doesn't matter what else could deflect a shot that is off.

----------------------
JL: "But it doesn't apply whatsoever because we have foliage and OB that affect our shots as shown by Chuck in the previous post. Open field distance can be entirely moot when we play down 10 ft. wide corridors that even the best players in the world cannot consistently hit."
LB: I disagree because of the point I just made. I don't think you see what I'm saying. I'm just not persuaded by Chuck on this.

-----------------
"If we take the best 0.1% of all the disc golfers in the world (1000+ rated golfers) and look at their hole scores &amp; averages, and set par according to it, it can be the simplest thing in the world then to identify what is par, what is a birdie, what is a bogey, what is an eagle, etc. in disc golf. I have accepted such as pro par in disc golf..."
LB: I disagree pretty strongly because would be using Gold players (or the best 0.1% are really "Super Gold" players with ratings 1020 and higher) as the standard for all par. I believe that the standard for each course layout should be an expert player of the same level as the layout. I'm almost positive that Chuck agrees with this and has said so in this very thread. I guess a Gold expert is 1000 PR, Blue 950, White 900, Red 850, Green 800. If you have a Green level course it's crazy to use a Gold player as the standard. If you did then most holes would have to be par 2. If it's a Green layout then that's like playing from the Green tees and the standard is based on a Green level expert. In some cases what is a Green par 4 would be a par 3 if Gold was the standard. Chuck, did I get that right?

-----------
Jeff, thanks for taking so much time to write that all out! I appreciate the dialogue.

Lowe

All this talk about distances equating to par makes no sense to me (nor does a lack of correlation between par and average scoring by top players).




Actually, in my thinking, the predominant concept is that par is based on a �reasonable throw� on an intended flight path for an expert player of a designated skill level. Distance is just the way to quantify a standard for the intended flight path.

----------------
Break for an impassioned plea for help:
Is there anybody else lurking out there who agrees with me? If so, I could sure use some support!

JL: "You basically think that if a hole can be threed even 1 in 10,000 times, it's a par 3."
LB: Yes

Do you think if a hole is aced 1 in 10,000 times, it's a par 1?
Lowe, I actually agree with a lot that you're saying, but alot of what Chuck, Pat and Jeff are saying as well. CR can work as a guide, but you should also account for fairway width/ shape/ foliage... Score ave. should not be the only factor in determining par, but should not be ignored. IMHO

I was so naive. I always assumed I knew what par was. It basically gave me an idea of the hole I was about to play. Here, par has become some esoteric concept that is divorced from it's original role as a guide to the player approaching the tee.

Lowe,

Most of what you say I agree with. Par should be something that is easily determined (and not a huge amount of statistics / formulas / data used - which seemingly only muddies things and most people (except those with self-aggrandizing / ulterior motives) don't care a hoot about). Actually, there's been a lot of talk about dg putting being easier than bg putting. Fine. Wouldn't this - somewhat - counter that dg driving is harder (at least to acheive avg off-the-tee distance) than bg driving? And therefore, the 2 aren't so much different (as some would have you believe). And therefore, PAR for both may not be so different.

But I don't agree with you and Chuck about his different pars for different color-based (gold, blue, white, etc.) player designations. Par is (should always be) based off the best human players that exist. Par should be tough to acheive! Again I say "coddle, coddle, coddle." Oh my ego has been bruised; I didn't break par! If that's the case, screw my ego! I just need to get better. Life can be a challenge...so should sports! If we "invent" a game where just about anyone can "break par" then we open up ourselves to "look cheap". People like a challenge. We are inexplicably connected with bg (I don't care how much Chuck tries to differentiate the two). We must live with it. By the way, if the next generation of bg'ers are given superballs (to drive consistently over 400yds), all those 550yd par-5's will become par-4's. But Chap (I think...in a previous entry) hit on it when he said that the RATING is what is most important. Even in bg, players inflate their egos by saying "...I shot +2 today..." - when, if fact, it was on a par-72 that has a rating of 64. In reality, that person just shot about 10 over what a really good player would shoot; not bad, but not great.

Anyway, stick to your guns...they're not bad guns.

Karl

Par is (should always be) based off the best human players that exist.



Not true Karl. BG has different par standards for different tees. They even have a super gold level for PGA tour that does not match the USGA expert definition.

The downside of using Gold level to set all pars has been widely renounced because more than half of the holes in the country would become par 2s.

or easy par 3s. You act like it must be one way.

Par is simply a concept that exists for our benefit. One uniform standard conveys more to the eventual user than six "uniform" standards. Multiple standards simply force the user to make internal conversions in their head to recalibrate back to the one uniform standard.

The downside of using Gold level to set all pars has been widely renounced because more than half of the holes in the country would become par 2s.



Also, on Green and Red level courses many legitimate level appropriate par 4s would be par 3s. But these par 3s would never be parred by the Green or Red level players the layout is designed for. This would then create a great disjunction between the Level Score Averages and the par.

Karl,

Thanks for the encouragement.

Lowe

P.S.- Jeff, did you notice the PB reference in my post #730683 - 08/21/07 06:15 PM ?

Also, on Green and Red level courses many legitimate level appropriate par 4s would be par 3s. But these par 3s would never be parred by the Green or Red level players the layout is designed for. This would then create a great disjunction between the Level Score Averages and the par.



Not if the course pars were correctly assigned for a particular skill level (i.e. Player Rating).

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Par is (should always be) based off the best human players that exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not true Karl.

Yes true Chuck!!!

It's not based off machines, it's not based off hackers, it's based off the best human players that exist.

So don't start your rebuttal with a discrediting statement (which makes you look like you're right and that person's wrong when they're not). You do this a lot (in your other posts regarding other topic with other people) so lay off that tactic.

"more than half of the holes in the country would become par 2s." Really? For a person who "prides" themselves on their knowledge of statistics, where'd you come up with this one? More than 1/2 huh? You know the length of ALL holes in the country? Amazing. Or is it just a guess? If it is, Mr. Precise should admit that up front...or would that damage your credibility?

You have a lot invested in dg (I'll give you credit for that) - time, money, etc., but always debating (trying to convert us "sinners" to your fervent zealousness) everything just waters down any thing you say that actually has merit.

Chuck, you obviously have more time to discuss topics (considering you chime in "as a expert" on just about every topic posted) than the rest of us, so you can "always have the last word"...but WE (the other people) don't believe your concept of "he who has the last word must be correct". It's just "he who has the last word has the most time on his hands". That's all.

Karl

Also, on Green and Red level courses many legitimate level appropriate par 4s would be par 3s. But these par 3s would never be parred by the Green or Red level players the layout is designed for. This would then create a great disjunction between the Level Score Averages and the par.



Not if the course pars were correctly assigned for a particular skill level (i.e. Player Rating).



If you read the whole context that was my point. I was adding to why there should be par for each level, not just use Gold as the standard.

Wow! Chuck and I actually agree on something related to par! Inconceivable! :)

Karl, you apparently are not familiar with how par is set for ball golf so I would suggest reading the USGA guidelines in the Handicap area as a good start. www.usga.org (http://www.usga.org) However, pars are set for other tees than the women and men based on skill level for juniors, seniors, etc. via the course designers group for ball golf. And the PGA, LPGA and Champions tour sets pars based on their unpublished guidelines.

And yes, based on the average hole lengths posted in the course directory and stats we have run for ratings, over half of the holes in the country would have scoring averages less than 2.5 for gold level players.

Do people really put that much stock in Par? I have been to a course that had a par 5 hole that was easily 2'd and another hole that was par 3 that was a difficult 4.

I count everything as par 3 for ease of keeping score. If I shoot a 54 and my opponent shoots a 56 it doesn't matter if it was a par 54 course or par 72. It's all relative.

Not specifically at you Jerry (I'm just pirating a reply mode), but:

In this Gold, Blue, White level thing, how does one account for the 975 dg'er? The 925 dg'er? Etc.

If a set of tees is "made" for a specific rated player (1000, 950, 900, etc.) it can't be as optimum for anyone that is "caught half-way between 2" as it is for that specific rated player. Why not have a set of tees for EVERY rating possible? Of course this would not be practical, but why every 50 points? Why not every 100? Why not every 200? Why not just ONE SET FOR EVERYONE?!!!!! And if you're thinking that this won't work because of a "forced carry" that may be too long for some people, then that's a design flaw. The hole should be angled like the 18th at Pebble Beach (where you can chew off as much as you dare - depending on your ability), etc.

Karl

And yes, based on the average hole lengths posted in the course directory and stats we have run for ratings, over half of the holes in the country would have scoring averages less than 2.5 for gold level players.



Over half the holes in the country, Chuck? That's a <u>very</u> broad statement.

Chuck, using ball golf to justify this idea is not persuasive. First, they don't butcher the concept nearly as much as y'all do and secondly, who cares what ball golf does if the idea can be improved upon.

Statistically, a player up to 50 rating points below another player has a chance to cash in a 2-round event. More than that and the competition becomes less and less fair. That's why the ranges for Am competitions run 40-50 pts wide. Actually, the higher the rating the narrower that range becomes. At 1000 rating, a 40 pt gap is almost insurmountable except maybe on a home course for a one round league.

A blue level course isn't designed for a 950 player but for players in the 925-975 range. If a player is 925, they are likely to average a little ove blue par. If their rating is 975, they should average under blue par.

Over half the holes in the country, Chuck? That's a very broad statement.




I'm including all of the shorter tee and pin layouts in that calculation which is relevant to the discussion since the proposal being discussed would be to set all pars at gold level on those layouts.

There is a proposal somewhere where par will be set at gold level? Who are those behind this proposal, they need to be given the "too much common sense" award. ;)

Do people really put that much stock in Par? I have been to a course that had a par 5 hole that was easily 2'd and another hole that was par 3 that was a difficult 4.



Pars on the tee signs at many casual courses are often based on "Steady Ed" pars, which are for coddling novice and recreational players, or listed incorrectly as whatever the local course pro puts on them.

For our discussion purposes, we are referencing pro par which is based primarily on scoring averages for gold level players and is what is listed at world-class caliber courses where the designers and course pros are a little more knowledgeable.

The good news would be that the winner at Pro Worlds would only be shooting 30-35 down (like PW2001 &amp; PW2002 with par 2s) rather than 70 down.

Not true Karl. BG has different par standards for different tees. They even have a super gold level for PGA tour that does not match the USGA expert definition.




Chuck,

Please point me to where you found this information, because neither me (who managed a municipal golf course for 8 years), nor my former club pro know what the heck you are talking about. USGA sets par by essentially by length of hole, and there are only three levels..Men, Women, and Juniors (which I've never actually seen posted at any golf course I've ever played, but at least it IS in the USGA Handicap Manual)

Chap

and the bad news is that there would be Par 2s at worlds. thats just plain silly, imvho. i think i'd rather see a -50 win than have courses that are half par 2s. thats not golf, thats pitch-n-putt.

One time this comes up is with the commentators at the three tour challenge where the PGA, LPGA and Champions tour players play together but from separate tees. They show and discuss how the different tours have their own guidelines for setting competition hole lengths and their pars. Their guidelines aren't published to the general public that I know of.

As far as other standards besides men, women and juniors (which is enough to make my point as it is about different par standards), once you have five tees on a course, each of those is for a specific skill level and they are not always set at the same par at each tee on hole. A shorter senior tee that's shorter than either guideline for a men's or women's par 4 and is still called a par 4 is using a different standard.

Y'all seem to always jump the gun by saying there are par 2s. I guess if you define par as the average score by all gold level players rounded to the nearest whole number, then you have par twos, but that is merely a choice you are making. The average player I discuss this with is apparently not burdened with y'all's notion of par. They simply call that an easy par 3.

As to worlds, y'all apparently call on par to come to the rescue of non-challenging design. An easy par three or a par 2 in your language is simply a bad hole for a pro worlds. A worlds winner at -67 is a result of a course designer who is unwilling or unable to challenge players with punishing holes. Just another symptom of a coddling culture, but nothing to do with the useful concept of par.

and the bad news is that there would be Par 2s at worlds. thats just plain silly, imvho. i think i'd rather see a -50 win than have courses that are half par 2s. thats not golf, thats pitch-n-putt.



Pat.....are you saying disc golf has no "pitch-n-putt" courses?

If our public courses were able to challenge world class players, we wouldn't have par 2s at Worlds. But we have to live with what courses are available at our venues. Highbridge had one of the highest SSA Worlds ever for Open and it was the highest ever for Masters. And yet, two of the three courses were designed for blue level players. Maybe we should have Open just play a single Gold level course five or six times for Worlds. Although Nate and the top guns still shot 8 to 10 down on the Gold course per round.

Hey, I understand and accept that there would be logistical challenges involved, but I can take almost any hole at any worlds played and imagine challenges which would yield more bogeys, even for the top players. You do that to 54 holes and waalah, the winner is not -76 because they too have had more bogeys, but something much much less.

My point is simply that -76 has nothing to do with how par is calculated, but how punishing the holes are. It also has nothing to do with SSA per se. A high SSA does not mean that there is a high frequency of bogeys, double bogeys, etc.

"They simply call that an easy par 3."

james, james, james. those are words. in disc golf we use numbers instead of those ambiguous adjectives that, i believe, the devil himself invented.

stick to numbers or i'll report you. ;)

hmmm, good point jerry. we do. massive numbers of them. i guess i was in denial when i wrote that sentence :)

james, i find the concept of par 2 void of use. i mentioned it because some believe it exists. weak par 3s exist. calling them "par 2" is goofy.

lowe, it seems your strict L&lt;=520=par3 confuses people, especially when sometimes you say only length matters and other times you include foliage, OB, fairway width, etc as inputs.

CR2 is a huge advance for DG design because it forces us to examine the area around the pin (green, ATP, CR, whatever you call it) very carefully. the DGCDG spreadsheets do not treat this part of the hole any differently, and that is the weakness that CR2 remedies.

lets take a par 4 and see the contribution CR2 makes to design. some par4s are easier than others, and designers will very consciously decide if they are going for a tough or easy par 4. when designing, i'll use guidance from the DGCDG sheets to validate the teeshot and first fairway shot. lets say ther second shot gets me to between 200 and 75 feet of the hole. now, if i want an easy par 4 and am at 200, i better ease up on the approach... lighten the schule, open things up, etc. but if i am at 80 feet and want a tough par 4, i better be adding a bamboo wall, thick/tall ground cover, placing the pin near OB or other obstacle, etc... something to make them earn that up-and-down.

this is why i say the value of CR2 philosophy lies mostly around the green. CR2 fills a big void in design tools and methodology because it forces us to think long and hard about the final two shots.

Acerun,

IMO, there are two places where par is important.

1) Penalties for missed holes: (You don't just get a 7 on all missed holes, you get par + 4)

2) Setting your personal expectations: If you are playing a Winthrop Gold as a 54 and you usually shoot 6 down normally, you may feel that your 54 is a terrible round, when it may be right on pace (caveat: I do not know what the par on Winthrop Gold is, just that it is a difficult course).

As a novice, when I walk onto a course I haven't played a have an expectation as to what is acheivable. If that 800 foot hole is a par 3, I will think it is impossible to do.

Steve

lowe, it seems your strict L&lt;=520=par3 confuses people, especially when sometimes you say only length matters and other times you include foliage, OB, fairway width, etc as inputs.



Pat,

This MB sure seems like it breeds miscommunication. I feel ilke I've said about 20 times that the OB, foliage, width, etc don't matter in determining par. That's the big point where Jeff and Chuck disagree with me. I can't remember ever saying that, so your comment mystifies me.

I've said repeatedly that score avgs don't matter to par but they DO matter for design. People, including you, keep mixing design issues together with par. I'm trying to stick to par, pure and simple.

BTW, your formulation for Gold of "L&lt;=520=par3" seems so clear and simple to me that I'm baffled why it's confusing. What's confusing? I'll grant that it does necessitate a paradigm shift on 2 fronts. 1) You have to accept the premise of making a shot on the designers' intended flight line, and 2) you have to visualize CR (or "the green") out to 130 ft. (for Gold). Are those the confusing parts? I'll try my best to clear up whatever I can.

Lowe

fair enough. one more question then, can L&lt;=520=4?

one more question then, can L&lt;=520=4?



Yes, certainly... for Blue, White, Red, and Green level courses holes many under 520 ft. are par 4. :eek: But I don't think that's really what you're asking.

In the real world, for Gold level-- maybe, under some conditions, but not usually. (I'm assuming that you mean 520 ft. effective length, not actual length.) As I've said before, for tweener holes you could adjust the par if it's warranted.

Lowe

Pat,

What do you think confuses people about CR Par?

Lowe

After reviewing the DGCDG messages, I realize I am the source of your epiphany (where you realized that OB penalties, etc., should not be included in calculating par). Let me amend your epiphany.

Just because OB and bad throws should not be included in determining par, does not mean that only theoretically perfect throws should be included. The key is not if a player COULD make the throw, it is if the player EXPECTS to make the throw.

You've come close to realizing this, when you talked about players making reasonable throws. It is neither reasonable to try a 1/10,000 shot, nor to expect to make it.

An analogy: Lowe is saying "North is towards Canada on odd-numbered highways."

Chuck is saying "North is the direction the red part of the compass points to."

Both methods get you closer to North, but neither truly IS north. North is actually at the axis of rotation of the earth.

Lowe's method is inflexible, covers only ideal situations and can leave you far short of the mark.

Chuck's method allows for continual adjustment based on input, works anywhere, but misses the mark by taking you to magnetic north.

As I've said before, for tweener holes you could adjust the par if it's warranted.

what could make it a tweener hole? (i assume you mean a 515 footer as a par4, or a 530 as a 3.)

After reviewing the DGCDG messages, I realize I am the source of your epiphany (where you realized that OB penalties, etc., should not be included in calculating par). Let me amend your epiphany.

Just because OB and bad throws should not be included in determining par, does not mean that only theoretically perfect throws should be included. The key is not if a player COULD make the throw, it is if the player EXPECTS to make the throw.

You've come close to realizing this, when you talked about players making reasonable throws. It is neither reasonable to try a 1/10,000 shot, nor to expect to make it.



Hallelujah! Maybe Lowe will see the light now.

After reviewing the DGCDG messages, I realize I am the source of your epiphany (where you realized that OB penalties, etc., should not be included in calculating par). Let me amend your epiphany.

Just because OB and bad throws should not be included in determining par, does not mean that only theoretically perfect throws should be included. The key is not if a player COULD make the throw, it is if the player EXPECTS to make the throw.

You've come close to realizing this, when you talked about players making reasonable throws. It is neither reasonable to try a 1/10,000 shot, nor to expect to make it.



Steve,

Thanks for the epiphany. It's changed my thinking so much that I don't seem able to go back to the way I was before using scoring averages. Thanks, too, for tracking that down. I've been wondering who the catalyst was. Do you have the dates on that DGCD discussion?

On the 1/10,000 shot I think that you too are mixing design and par together. If I came to that hole and I knew the designer's intended flight path and could even visualize the disc going along it, then I would think that I could make the shot. Having such a ridiculous shot is a design problem, though, that score averages make apparent. I might berate the designer for making a ludicrous hole. It's still not related to par. Design and par are separate (mostly). If the hole falls inside the parameters of a CR Par 3 and 1 person out of 10,000 has made a 3, then it's a par 3, even if it's the toughest one on the planet.

The confusion by some on this thread is that we should actually be heading toward magnetic north and not true north since that's how the feedback measurements can effectively be used in our sport. Anyone can locate the north pole using ancient "technology" by finding the north star from the alignment of the big dipper stars.

what could make it a tweener hole? (i assume you mean a 515 footer as a par4, or a 530 as a 3.)



Yes, that's what I mean.

Lowe's method (CR Par)...covers only ideal situations...



Sorry, but this is wrong. CR Par works with all real conditions with any OB, width, and foliage. But those are all difficulty factors from the design. Par and difficulty are different!!!


and can leave you far short of the mark.



Steve, I'll assume that your claim to be the source of epiphany is correct. But if it is then you've gone over to the other side. Par does not have to be close to the score average. Score averages are measures of difficulty. Difficulty and par are separate!!!

COULD - goes with par
EXPECT- goes with difficulty and design. You only Expect a certain score because of score avg data.

I hope you've heard me clearly that score averages have a very important role -- in determining difficulty.

On my hypothetical 1/10,000 par 3 hole with a 5.5 score average, I still maintain that it's incredibly difficult but it's a par 3. Imagine that the hole is perfectly straight and that the designer can use a laser pointer to show the route from the tee to landing zone for the drive to reach close range. If there's a route then visualize a tunnel and block out everything else. When the shot goes down the intended tunnel it's a par; when it doesn't it's not par.

I'm not sure if I've said this yet, but PAR AND DIFFICULTY ARE SEPARATE!

What you've overlooked Lowe is that a ball golfer can cleanly reach the effective distances used for their par references because their numbers are based on open fairway distances. But that's not true in disc golf. That's why the CR process for DG falls apart under scrutiny. In ball golf, they can reach the center of the green when the 2 more shots takes over. In disc golf, if you don't account for accuracy, trees and OB, the CR process falls apart.

Think of it this way, BG fairways are at least as wide if not wider than the greens on average. So, a player who has the accuracy to hit the fairway also can hit the green. In DG, if you use the same 2 close shots which goes out to 130 feet for DG, you would need a fairway as wide as 130 feet to match the equivalent structure in ball golf. We all know that fair fairways can be as narrow as 20 feet in DG. So, the CR model doesn't work without accuracy considerations.



For the record, I refute this. I didn't want my lack of a reply to indicate that I agreed with it. However, I don't have the inclination to go into a long explanation. I know why I refute it, but I don't think that my explanation will change anyone else's mind, so I won't take the time to write it out.

On the 1/10,000 shot I think that you too are mixing design and par together. If I came to that hole and I knew the designer's intended flight path and could even visualize the disc going along it, then I would think that I could make the shot. Having such a ridiculous shot is a design problem, though, that score averages make apparent. I might berate the designer for making a ludicrous hole. It's still not related to par. Design and par are separate (mostly). If the hole falls inside the parameters of a CR Par 3 and 1 person out of 10,000 has made a 3, then it's a par 3, even if it's the toughest one on the planet.



Then CR par is meaningless, imo.

Par is supposed to be a real number that golfers who make accurate shots can expect to attain. Birdies are real numbers that golfers who make who make highly skilled shots can expect to attain. If a CR Par 3 means that 1 person out of 10,000 has made a 3, and 1 person out of 50,000 or so has made a birdie 2, than CR par is hogwash. All you're doing is ensuring that every person in the world shoots over par through this arbitrary par system you've created.

Again, TG par and CR par is based on wide open fairway shots. TG rarely encounters trees, OB, and other hazards like we do ALL THE TIME in disc golf.

It is neither reasonable to try a 1/10,000 shot, nor to expect to make it. Design and par in disc golf are closely intertwined. CR Par doesn't work with real conditions such as OB, width, or foliage. Par should be close to the scoring average. Par and difficulty are almost the same.

After reviewing the DGCDG messages, I realize I am the source of your epiphany (where you realized that OB penalties, etc., should not be included in calculating par). Let me amend your epiphany.

Just because OB and bad throws should not be included in determining par, does not mean that only theoretically perfect throws should be included. The key is not if a player COULD make the throw, it is if the player EXPECTS to make the throw.

You've come close to realizing this, when you talked about players making reasonable throws. It is neither reasonable to try a 1/10,000 shot, nor to expect to make it.



Hallelujah! Maybe Lowe will see the light now.



Jeff, thank you for caring that I see the light. Sorry, though, I'm still in darkness. Didn't Plato have some kind of analogy about people in a cave in darkness? (All that comes to mind for me is the prophet Isaiah "those sitting in darkness have seen a great light"...) Maybe I'm just incredibly obtuse.

Level Score Average (LSA) minus Level Par equals Difficulty.
LSA - Level Par = Difficulty

The TG Master's tournament uses this formula.
The USDGC uses this formula.
Those two heavy weights are good enough for me.

Design and par in disc golf are closely intertwined. ..Par should be close to the scoring average. Par and difficulty are almost the same.



There's the crux of the disagreement. As you know, I take the side that par and difficulty are separate.

I agree the scoring average in relation to par determines difficulty. That's why we use the designation of easy or tough Par X on a hole. But X should follow the conventional definition of par which is average, typical, normal, most common, expected, etc. and be a number that's within 0.7 or so of the scoring average for that skill level (excluding 2). That's why scoring average doesn't directly set par, but there is usually only one whole number within 0.7 of the scoring average.

And when there are two whole numbers within 0.7, the designer gets to choose based on the design intent, balance on the course, whether a tough or easy to par hole is desired at that point in the flow. But it's the designer's call for par on those tweener holes and the scoring data may spur the designer to change the parameters on that hole to move the scoring one way or the other if desired.

TG rarely encounters trees



Too true...Gill has definite game...too bad he puts so much time into DGTV! :D

This thread is redonkulous!

If the hole falls inside the parameters of a CR Par 3 and 1 person out of 10,000 has made a 3, then it's a par 3, even if it's the toughest one on the planet.



I see very little difference between this statement and the old-school mentality of "every hole is a par 3". Just because a hole falls within the CR parameters and can be 3'd, that shouldn't automatically make the hole a par 3. Have you ever heard the old adage, "there's an exception to every rule"?

COULD - goes with par
EXPECT- goes with difficulty and design. You only Expect a certain score because of score avg data.



so then why stop drives at 390? they COULD go farther. in fact, one could argue that anything inside about 550 is a Par 1, since it COULD be aced.

in fact, one could argue that anything inside about 550 is a Par 1, since it COULD be aced.



You're right. The PDGA COULD adopt this as their standard if it wanted. They be crazy to do so, but they COULD.

It stops at 390 because that's an average drive for a Gold level player.

BUTTERCUP: We'll never make par.

WESTLEY: Nonsense -- you're only saying that because only 1 in 10,000 ever has.

What about a 615' hole? I've seen it 2'd. It maybe a 1 in 10,000 score. But since it happened, does that make it a par 2 and not a par 4?

What about a 615' hole? I've seen it 2'd. It maybe a 1 in 10,000 score. But since it happened, does that make it a par 2 and not a par 4?



No, it doesn't fall in the CR Par guidelines (which I apparently need to post really soon). A Gold Level Par 2 can only be up to 130 ft. (the CR distance).

Not to be snippy, but we're getting really off track. I'm afraid that you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. Communication has broken down in either the sender, the receiver, or both. I'm at a loss how to fix it.

Just one side of the discussion (stated just one more way)...

Par 3s

Any basket that can possibly be reached with a tee shot is a par 3.
If there is trouble anywhere, it just becomes a harder par 3. It�s still possible to ace it (with a fluke tee shot), to deuce it (if your tee shot is close enough to then 1 putt), and to par, or worse.

Any dg hole that is under about 120� would be like having a bg hole under about 25 yards. Silly for the pros because it would be just �2 putting� for birdie. Just like any dg hole under 120� would be just �2 putting for birdie�. Don�t blame the hole, blame the tournament committee for �choosing� that hole (or that hole in that configuration) for tournament play!

That�s why the PGA rarely has par 3�s under about 140 yards (I know, there are exceptions like Pebble Beach�s # 7 which is about 110 yards � but again, that�s the exception). If par 3�s are too short, they effectively make the green much smaller than the �1 shot to get there and 2 putts = a par� concept. The PGA / USGA / RA / etc. make a conscious decision to �set up� the hole so there is �enough challenge�. If the challenge isn�t there, they do something about it. We should (when setting up a course) do the same. If PGA, et al can�t make it challenging enough, they DON�T select that course. Period. We should do the same�unless we want a deuce-fest at our biggest tournaments�which I�m guessing we don�t.

Par 4s

If it is not humanly possible to hit the basket with your tee shot - but you can, after a good / great drive, possibly hit it with your second shot - then it�s a par 4. No, par 4s aren�t supposed to be aced. An eagle should only be doable with a fluke shot after a good drive. Birdies take a good drive, an approach (to within make-able range) and then make the putt.

Par 5s

They are nothing but Par 4s with the need for 1 additional full / semi-full shot thrown in.

Hogan had it right when he said �There�s no reason why I can�t birdie every hole�. He didn�t say �There�s no reason why I can�t birdie every par 3 and par 4 hole and eagle the par 5s� because in his day par 5s were exactly that�par 5s. Without a fluke, -18 WAS the perfect obtainable score. Not like today where that number is more like -21 (as the typical course the pros play on is a par 71).


Par 3s are the easy ones. If you can ace it, it�s a par 3.

Par 4s are a little tougher (because you have to pull off a good drive before you can �go pin hunting�).

Par 5s are supposed to be tougher still (because you have to execute TWO full shots precisely before you can even attempt a shot at the pin)�although, even the PGA has gotten away from this concept.


The PGA has chosen to (normally) have the tree line to tree line distance at ~ 40 or so yards (fairway and rough). It�s their decision. In a few cases, par 4�s have been so tough (tightness, rough, length approaching a par 5�s length, and tough green conditions) that the scoring averages have been greater than 4.5. But do they call that a par 5? No. It�s just a tough par 4.

We should emulate this (in dg). If we chose to have our fairways narrower than the PGA (good choice on our part�), then great. But this is also OUR choice. But neither have anything to do with par. Presently we are making things WAY to complicated when it comes to par.
If it is POSSIBLE to thread a needle (and don�t give me any of that 1/10,000 crap�let�s talk reality. Heck, most courses may not have had 10,000 1000-rated players play that hole, so how can you state such? How about a 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 shot? Give a Brinster or a Frizzak or a Barsby 100 shots at ANY long tight hole and I bet they can pull it off! If they can, then it CAN be done. If they can�t do it frequently, then they have to improve on their consistency (�as do we all�), but it doesn�t change the par for that hole at all.

Lowe has it correct (in my opinion); par and difficulty are independent of one another. In some cases they CAN come close, but it is more of a factor of the designer making it that way consciously and not the par of the hole.

Karl

If the hole falls inside the parameters of a CR Par 3 and 1 person out of 10,000 has made a 3, then it's a par 3, even if it's the toughest one on the planet.



I see very little difference between this statement and the old-school mentality of "every hole is a par 3". Just because a hole falls within the CR parameters and can be 3'd, that shouldn't automatically make the hole a par 3. Have you ever heard the old adage, "there's an exception to every rule"?



That's basically what CR Par does. It makes all holes less than 520 ft. a par 3, all holes between 521 and 1040 a par 4, and everything longer than that a par 5. It results in a new par system that is the least robust of any ever created and does not account for real world conditions. Out on the course, people would step up to a 435 ft. hole such as hole#2 at the Bear course in Highbridge WI which has three separate routes to the basket through heavy woods and be told it's a par 3. Even though Gold level players average over 3.5 on this hole, and most competitors are very happy to score a 3. To my knowledge (and Chuck can probably confirm) no one has ever deuced it. But in this new par system, you have a hole where no one has ever "birdied," perfect play nets you a "par" and shooting what some of the best disc golfers in the world often record, a score of 4, nets you a "bogey." Yea, that makes sense.

hey, you asked why the confusion. this is a great example. you use "average drive" to establish a reasonable length, but then completely disregard the impact that layout of the hole has on the average. all 390 foot fairway are not alike. not all 130 foot radius greens are alike. if you want CRPar to remain a theoretical construct, that approach is fine.

btw, why is the 550 Par 1 any crazier than the 1/10,000 play that you use to justify a par 3?

besides, a formula doesnt set par (CRPar or SA or whatever). the designer does. i agree that if a hole plays at 5.8 and the designer calls it a par 5, it may be a really really tough par 5, but its still a par 5.

you want another locus of confusion? here's ya go: you keep saying we are confusing par and design, and that you are keeping par pure and not considering design. but the entire premise of your CRPar is based on the DESIGNER's vision of the throw. you emphasize the designer's intended line, thereby introducing design into the CRPar concept. trying to have it both ways is downright confusing.

I heard someone dueced Bear #2, but I didn't witness it. If a system results in that hole being a par 3, the system should be scrapped. It really is that simple.

Is this discussion y'all are having possibly going to result in something official? In other words, might some of this madness actually affect the average golfer?

Lowe, I really don't think that I'm confused. I think that you are right with the CR par distances to set par for a hole, on many holes. BUT NOT ALL HOLES! If you don't take into account the shape/elevation/desity of foliage...of the hole, how can you say that just because a PERFECT tee shot will get you within 130' of the pin, it's a par 3? If you said a REALLY GOOD (ave. 1000 rated player throw) would get to the same spot, then OK, it's a par 3. But a 1 in 10,000 shot would allow 1 in 10,000 to get a CHANCE at par? (Player would STILL have to make the upshot AND putt) I really think I (and others on here) understand the concept of CR par. I think it's a good tool to use as a basis for establishing par. I just don't think it's the end-all, be-all method.

you want another locus of confusion? here's ya go: you keep saying we are confusing par and design, and that you are keeping par pure and not considering design. but the entire premise of your CRPar is based on the DESIGNER's vision of the throw. you emphasize the designer's intended line, thereby introducing design into the CRPar concept. trying to have it both ways is downright confusing.



Good observation, Sandal...

Is this discussion y'all are having possibly going to result in something official?



Did any of the other numerous discussions about par result in something official? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Jeff,

Your

"But in this new par system, you have a hole where no one has ever "birdied,"

[Maybe not enough have played this REALLY tough hole for it to yield a birdie.]

perfect play nets you a "par"

[Doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near perfect. If it can be reached, it can be aced...that's perfect. In fact, it doesen't even seem that ANYONE has even thrown a REALLY GOOD tee shot on it - if no one has birdied it! Just a bunch of OK throws. Remember, if a 435' hole CAN be reached in one and nobody has 2'd it, they HAVEN"T thrown a great shot.]

and shooting what some of the best disc golfers in the world often record, a score of 4, nets you a "bogey."

[Guess they haven't played it as well as it could be played.]

Yea, that makes sense."

[It does to me. Give it time, that hole will be birdied. Give it enough time and it will be aced. And if it can be aced, how can it be a par 4?]

Karl

Karl, it can't be reached in one throw and it can't be aced. The best throw on this hole could probably only come within 100 ft. of the polehole. There's no direct line to the basket, only wide anhyzer or hyzer fairways around the outside through very thick woods. It probably plays more like 500 ft. Perhaps this wasn't the best example because I can't show you a picture of the hole or a diagram of it. But trust me, everybody that plays it knows that it's a true pro par 4 in our established par system.

Dano Johnson, a lefty Master, deuced the hole throwing in a 135 ft upshot. That's the only one I heard about though.

Dano Johnson, a lefty Master, deuced the hole throwing in a 135 ft upshot. That's the only one I heard about though.



Must be a par 3 then. :D

Maybe for Dano. :D

in fact, one could argue that anything inside about 550 is a Par 1, since it COULD be aced.



You're right. Truly you have a dizzying intellect. The PDGA COULD adopt this as their standard if it wanted. They be crazy to do so, but they COULD.

It stops at 390 because that's an average drive for a Gold level player.



Lowe:

For the record, I'm enjoying this discussion because it's good for people to understand where par in disc golf comes from and why. I'm not quite sure why you are intent on devising an entirely new definition of par, which would clearly be inappropriate for a majority of the holes in disc golf and confuse nearly everyone who plays them. 500-ft. holes through heavy woods that gold 1000-rated players average close to 4.0 on would be called a par 3 in your system and that's just silly.

The only thing that bothers me about this discussion (other than Karl's senseless attack on Chuck Kennedy in post #730860) is your continued use of the phrase "dizzying intellect." I don't know how to take this. You're either being extremely sarcastic and making a very subtle insult, or overly complementary. I'm suspecting the latter, but it's still kind of weird. I don't know if there's anybody I've met in my life who I'd describe as having a dizzying intellect, and if I did, I'm not sure I'd ever tell them so, especially through an internet message board. When I see you continue to use this phrase, it just seems very awkward and weird to me. :confused:

<font color="blue">Click on picture to enlarge image<font color="blue">
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/23-0748443412T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=23-074844L&amp;y=2007&amp;m=08&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=3412&amp;srv=img3)
The gold-tee scores posted above are for professional players rated over 1000

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/23-0753347278T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1671499)
The scores posted above are for 19 professional players with an average rating of 1003

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/23-0815263369T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1671501)
http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/23-0815297938T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1671502)
The scores posted above are for the entire field of professional players

**** scorecard morphed into a dog!!!!! I hate it when that happens. ;)

Jeff,

Thanks so much for your comments and for pointing this out:


The only thing that bothers me about this discussion is your continued use of the phrase "dizzying intellect." I don't know how to take this. You're either being extremely sarcastic and making a very subtle insult, or overly complementary. I'm suspecting the latter, but it's still kind of weird. I don't know if there's anybody I've met in my life who I'd describe as having a dizzying intellect, and if I did, I'm not sure I'd ever tell them so, especially through an internet message board. When I see you continue to use this phrase, it just seems very awkward and weird to me.



The source of "dizzying intellect" is from the Princess Bride and I guess I made the wrong assumption that most people would recognize it as so, esp. after the other thread. It's in the Battle of Wits scene.

-----------------------------------------------
MAN IN BLACK: You've made your decision then7
VIZZINI: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
MAN IN BLACK: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

----------
My use of "dizzying intellect" was supposed to be for a humorous interlude, and wasn't intended to be taken seriously. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic or an insult. When I addressed it to you it was meant to be a humorous compliment; that's why I kept directing you to look there. I assumed (wrongly) that you would get the subtle PB reference. I do respect your intellect and your thoughtful contributions here, and to this topic in particular. I weigh what you say heavily. Frankly, it's inconceivable to me that you've spent as much time as you have replying to my ramblings.

Thanks again for pointing that out. That's a great example of how something that's really clear in my mind can be interpreted differently (and understandably so) without the full context. (Sounds like much of this thread.) I imagine that others have had similar thoughts b/c the PB reference is so obscure. It really helps to get feedback on how I'm coming across. This can be a hard medium to communicate with since there are no tone or visual cues, so I hope that's cleared up.

Lowe

Oh, it was a Princess Bride reference! Sorry for not picking up on that. Duh. :o

Jeff and Pat,

OK, I'll confess. My use of "dizzying intellect" in response to Pat's Par 1 suggestion was meant to communicate mild sarcasm in a humorous way. I thought the idea was outlandish. My tone was about the same as Westley's toward Vizzini in the Battle of Wits scene in the PB.

Pat, I apologize for the sarcasm, and I've edited my original post.

Lowe

nice jerry!

4C: 385 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet, CRPar = 4; stated par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet, CRPar = 4, stated par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.1

six holes on this course "violate" the laws of CRPar, and in every one of these six cases, the SA is much closer to Stated Par than it is to CRPar. not saying that SA determines par... but i would say that from this data the designer has crafted the course precisely at the gold level.

nice jerry!

4C: 385 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet, CRPar = 4; stated par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet, CRPar = 4, stated par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.1

six holes on this course "violate" the laws of CRPar, and in every one of these six cases, the SA is much closer to Stated Par than it is to CRPar. not saying that SA determines par... but i would say that from this data the designer has crafted the course precisely at the gold level.



A big caveat is that you can't use Actual length, you have to use Effective length that takes elevation changes into account. So you can't just use the lengths printed on a score card.

Lowe

Karl is describing TG Par. The TG Par method is basically used by many eminent course designers.

I had absolutely nothing to do with the design of this course with the exception of input toward select pin placements and a few modifications we've made since its opening in May 2005. Lakeview (Moraine) course designers J Gary Dropcho, KB Clark, Chris Deitzel, Leo Liller and Bryan Wright did what I would refer to as an "excellent" job with the overall layout and establishing par for this 1000-rated, gold level course. The scoring data we have compiled from our sanctioned events has helped us tweak the design here and there to either improve or lessen the difficulty for each individual hole in relation to par (i.e. moving tees forward/back/sideways, opening gaps/alternate routes, etc). For the record, the most difficult hole in relation to par is the par-4 hole 12 in the c-pin position (reflected in the scores above).

nice jerry!

4C: 385 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet, CRPar = 4; stated par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet, CRPar = 4, stated par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.1

six holes on this course "violate" the laws of CRPar, and in every one of these six cases, the SA is much closer to Stated Par than it is to CRPar. not saying that SA determines par... but i would say that from this data the designer has crafted the course precisely at the gold level.



A big caveat is that you can't use Actual length, you have to use Effective length that takes elevation changes into account. So you can't just use the lengths printed on a score card.

Lowe



The elevation gain or loss on those holes does not affect the CR Par guidelines.

4C: 385 feet: elevation gain of 20 feet, at most. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet: essentially flat, maybe a few feet downhill. CRPar = 4; stated pro par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet: elevation gain of about 20 feet, which would not give it an effective length of more than 520 feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet: essentially flat, perhaps an elevation gain of a few feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet: elevation gain of about 30-35 feet which would not make it a CR Par 5. CRPar = 4, stated pro par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet: essentially flat; perhaps an elevation loss of a few feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 4.1

Here are six examples, on just one course, of wooded holes where CR Par would result in an unrealistic meaningless par, that nearly everyone who played it would scoff at, and where "birdie" would be practically unattainable without a fairway ace.

CRPar lengths have to be adjusted based on foilage and density. Also are the SA's from multiple rounds of only 1000 rated plus players? From the score card posting it personally would not qualify as a Decent sampeling since it was 1 round on 1 day and few people. However if the same numbers continued over 5-6 rounds with 20-30 players over 1000 rating for all those rounds, then you would have a better SA to go with. As far as we know that round was on a day with a down pour and 50mph winds.

I play a 585 ft heavy wooded hole and still average 3 and 4's on t being a sub 900 player

nice jerry!

4C: 385 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet, CRPar = 4; stated par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet, CRPar = 4, stated par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.1

six holes on this course "violate" the laws of CRPar, and in every one of these six cases, the SA is much closer to Stated Par than it is to CRPar. not saying that SA determines par... but i would say that from this data the designer has crafted the course precisely at the gold level.



A big caveat is that you can't use Actual length, you have to use Effective length that takes elevation changes into account. So you can't just use the lengths printed on a score card.

Lowe



The elevation gain or loss on those holes does not affect the CR Par guidelines.

4C: 385 feet: elevation gain of 20 feet, at most. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet: essentially flat, maybe a few feet downhill. CRPar = 4; stated pro par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet: elevation gain of about 20 feet, which would not give it an effective length of more than 520 feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet: essentially flat, perhaps an elevation gain of a few feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet: elevation gain of about 30-35 feet which would not make it a CR Par 5. CRPar = 4, stated pro par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet: essentially flat; perhaps an elevation loss of a few feet. CRPar = 3, stated pro par = 4, SA = 4.1

Here are six examples, on just one course, of wooded holes where CR Par would result in an unrealistic meaningless par, that nearly everyone who played it would scoff at, and where "birdie" would be practically unattainable without a fairway ace.



First of all, CR+2 would be par 5 for hole 6C, not par 4.

Birdie on hole 9 GR at World's, set as a par 3, was unattainable (no one did it). CR would have a that as a par 4.

Birdie on the 270-ish hole #2 at Kaposia set at par 2 in the 2004 Majestic (last time I was marshal there) was flat unbirdieable. At least no one did it that year.

Same thing with numerous holes set at Par 2 during 2004 Pro-Am Worlds. We didn't have par 2s in the next 2 Pro or Am Worlds due to the Comp Director objecting strongly. :)

Chuck has said earlier in this discussion that he doesn't feel like a hole has to be birdieable, so your argument against CRPar would actually contradict his argument for your par set by SA, sort of.

Now on those wooded holes, did yo go in and throw out all of the anomalous numbers, like the 8s and 9s and above? I bet if you did that, the SA would come into a more normal number, closer to CR+2 Par. Extremely wooded holes tend to produce big numbers like that.

Chap

Same thing with numerous holes set at Par 2 during 2004 Pro-Am Worlds. We didn't have par 2s in the next 2 Pro or Am Worlds due to the Comp Director objecting strongly.



At PW2005 when I helped Allentown set the hole specs and pars, we didn't have any expected par 2s for Gold level. Pete and Brian were on their own for PW2006.

Same thing with numerous holes set at Par 2 during 2004 Pro-Am Worlds. We didn't have par 2s in the next 2 Pro or Am Worlds due to the Comp Director objecting strongly.



At PW2005 when I helped Allentown set the hole specs and pars, we didn't have any expected par 2s for Gold level. Pete and Brian were on their own for PW2006.



I had made it known to Dave Gentry that I didn't want any par 2s for any of those events. Whether or not that message ever got to you or the other TDs, I'm not sure, only Dave would know for sure, but since there weren't any par 2s at any of those events, I assumed that was at least partially because of my wishes. Otherwise, the TDs were on their own with the par 4s and 5s.

There won't be any par 2s at the 2009 Worlds, either, I promise you. :)

Chap

I'm perfectly fine having the concept of par 2s defined as poorly designed par 3 holes for a skill level, and not ever seeing the reality of par 2s again. :D

nice jerry!

4C: 385 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.9
6C: 934 feet, CRPar = 4; stated par = 5, SA = 5.3
10C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.0
14C: 453 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 3.8
16B: 645 feet, CRPar = 4, stated par = 5, SA = 4.8
18C: 465 feet, CRPar = 3, stated par = 4, SA = 4.1

six holes on this course "violate" the laws of CRPar, and in every one of these six cases, the SA is much closer to Stated Par than it is to CRPar. not saying that SA determines par... but i would say that from this data the designer has crafted the course precisely at the gold level.



A big caveat is that you can't use Actual length, you have to use Effective length that takes elevation changes into account. So you can't just use the lengths printed on a score card.

Lowe



Oh, I also need to know what the level of this layout is to apply the appropriate level CR Par guidelines. Jeff, can you tell me the level of this layout?

P.S.- I'm curious, where did the hole score averages come from? and were they taken from the players that are the same level as the layout level? If not, then those SAs are worthless for this exercise.

Those are designed as gold level holes and those are gold level scores.

"The gold-tee scores posted above are for professional players rated over 1000"

"The gold-tee scores posted above are for professional players rated over 1000"



Oh yeah. I guess I didn't read the post closely enough, nor look closely enough at the score card. My bad. I see the answers to my questions now.

For the full explanation of CR Par, please download the file "Par for Disc Golf" at my Google group, discgolfer. Just go here (http://groups.google.com/group/discgolfer/) , and look under Files for "Par for Disc golf". Hopefully that will explain more fully what I've been trying to say here abou CR Par. Please let me know what you think.

Lowe

Lowe: I agree that par and difficulty are separate. In fact, one of my problems with using pure averages is that doing so would pull par too close to the difficulty region, blurring the difference between the two.

Chuck: To me, "average" (mathematically, the mean of all scores) is not a synonym for, "typical, normal, most common, or expected". To me, "average" is magnetic north, and "typical, normal, most common, and expected" are true north. The problem is that average includes not only normal play, but also error-ful play. You recognize this yourself, I think, because you throw out some of the way-high scores before calculating the average.

For Blue or Gold courses, I think a trimmed average and normal are close enough to use interchangeably (just as magnetic north and true north are almost the same for the Highbridge Hills area).

For the Green and Red courses I design, there is a difference (like the difference between magnetic and true north in Oregon).

Here is an example.

As a Red-level player, I approach hole 1 at Acorn expecting to throw across the pond, and land in a spot where I can throw it close enough to putt it in on the next (3rd) shot. That's normal, and what I expect, so it's par 3.

Now, if you look at my actual play, I have once or twice made a great (for me) throw and a lucky putt for 2. But that's not what I expect, so it's not par 2.

Sometimes (maybe half the time), the disc gets snared by the bushes in front of the pond, or bounces off a tree into the pond, or over to the parking lot, or gets lost somewhere around the short tee, or something. So, sometimes I score a 4 or 5 or 6. Say that brings my average up to 3.9. That's not normal, but it is average. I still say par is 3, not 4.

In my mind, the 4,r 5, and 6's do not represent error-free play, so I did not throw par those times, so 4, 5, and 6 have no place in setting par.

So, if I were to use Red-level scoring data only to set par on this hole, I would not look at the 3.9 average. Instead, I would see that there are enough 3's to convince me that getting a 3 must be a normal result of error-free play. There would not be enough 2's to convince me that getting a two is normal or expected.

"might some of this madness actually affect the average golfer?" Not very often. We're almost always asking one of two questions "3 or 4?" and "4 or 5?". And, most of the time, all methods will produce the same answer. Notice most of the discussion revolves around the exceptional holes. There just aren't enough small numbers to do all we're asking of them.

But it's fun to talk about, and Leno's on re-runs.

I normally don't use scores from players outside the ratings range when looking at scoring distribution and I do cap the high outliers more than 3 above the average. Interestingly though, I've discovered that using scores from players as much as two levels below the level being analyzed produce virtually the same adjusted scoring average and adjusted distribution as scores from players in the correct ratings range. In fact, there's likely more difference per hole between older versus younger players of the same skill level than between players of the same average age from different ratings ranges.

Early on, I did an experiment to see whether scores from amatuer players in the 800 ratings range would be relatively worse than those of Open players on Fountain Hills which has several long water carries. My expectation was that there might be a step change difference if the ams scores were adjusted to match the ratings range of the Open players. Surprisingly, the adjusted am scores were slightly higher than the actual Open scores but close enough to be statistically the same.

What appears to be the case is that the Open players took enough OB penalties to offset their advantage carrying the water on several holes that most ams would have to go a longer way around. This doesn't have so much to do with setting par. But it does show that scores from players outside a ratings range being analyzed can be included to still get enough scores for a decent analysis in smaller events that don't have large numbers of players in any range.

Also are the SA's from multiple rounds of only 1000 rated plus players? From the score card posting it personally would not qualify as a Decent sampeling since it was 1 round on 1 day and few people. However if the same numbers continued over 5-6 rounds with 20-30 players over 1000 rating for all those rounds, then you would have a better SA to go with. As far as we know that round was on a day with a down pour and 50mph winds.



Click here &gt;&gt;&gt; Moraine State Park (Lakeview) Course Statistics (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=3004)
(please note the first four SSA's are from the 1000-rated gold tees...including the 2005 data listed as "blue" tees).

Moraine SP looks like a challenging course. I hope I get to play it some day. It looks like a long course with lots of multi shot holes. That's definitely the direction that DG should be heading. You've whetted my appetite.

I've always wondered how to actually use the available SSA data. Can someone help me?

Here's what I saw at Moraine:
Gold layouts have SSAs are in a range of 63.8-68.9
Blue (1) 59.4
White 55.6-62.5
So is it fair for someone to ask, "What is the SSA of the Gold layout?" If so, what would you answer?

But I also notice that Moraine has A, B, C basket placements, and some configurations are noted. Doesn't the SSA only apply to that specific configuration? If so, wouldn't I need to know which holes were A, which B, and which C, so that I could know if the layout I was playing matched it?

At present the best I can come up with is that the Moraine Gold SSA is about 64-69 and the White is about 56-63.

Now, let's say I get an SSA value. If I'm a 900 rated player do I just add 10 to the SSA to get an idea of what I might shoot?

I wish I could communicate my tone. I'm not trying to be combative; I'm sincerely interested. SSA seems very useful, so I'd like to get more out of it.

Right now, the main thing I get from the SSA data I saw on Moraine is that if I play there I'll be scoring pretty high.

BTW, my questions have nothing to do with par this time. :cool:

BTW, my questions have nothing to do with par this time. :cool:



Hallelujah! ;) :D

BTW, my questions have nothing to do with par this time. :cool:



Hallelujah! ;) :D



Jeff- are you getting religious?

Now if you could only have an epiphany! ;)

i got the file lowe, thanks. more on that in a few, but please tell me what par you would assign to the hole pictured below. the fairway is cut through thick forest and is 2 meters wide the entire way to the pin. the fairway curves gently as pictured, LZ1 is not visible from the tee, LZ2 is not visible from LZ1.
http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/design/CRP_ex1.gif

That drawing doesn't show much except for the shts you think people will take. if you have a photo of the hole from multi spots and angles that may show something totaly different. Is the non cut area very thick, or what I consider bumper golf? Is there High routes that aren't normal, but a seasoned player may know or find? Can a disc be rolled or thumbed easier then thrown? Without seeing the terrain and actual course I would still consider this a par3.

Pat,

I need more information-
1) What is the skill level of the course?
2) Is the hole flat or is there an elevation change? If so, what is that elev change? This lets me know whether the lengths given are actual length or effective length.
3) is this a real hole or a hypothetical example?

I await your answers.

Lowe

Pat, et al,

I can't think of a shot that could get from the tee to Landing Zone 2. Can you?

From the limited data on the drawing it appears that there is a force layup after LZ1. I would guess that a Gold player could throw an S shot that would curve right to LZ1 and then flex back slightly past it. Could we agree that the max distance drive off the tee would go only 210 ft and thus have a forced lay up?

Lowe

1. gold
2. flat (0)
3. that doesnt matter, but lets say its real

mcop, the little horizintal line depict thick forest, as the description states. the fairway is cut through it, and is 2 meters wide. the curves are as shown. there is no way out over the top (really, it is not there at all)

yes, the only possible route is down the fairway tube. obviously there is no through that could be shwaped to get all the way to LZ2 in a single shot... discs dont fly or roll like that.

Par 5 for Gold. Effective length is around 770 ft.

whoa, howd ya get 770? i was going for an effective length of each of the first two legs as about 190

The Gold level adjustment is 320 per restricted throw on the Forecaster. Two times 320 plus 130 equals 770.

well then the forecaster should not be applied in this case, since theres no way you can go further than 180-ish on either of the first two shots. i'd call it a Par 4... T-LZ1 is a tough shot but doable, same for LZ1-LZ2. then we have 2 for the final up-and-down from 130-ish.

Par 5 for Gold.



Chuck,

Are you talking SA Par?

To me, this exercise is showing some of the weaknesses of SA Par. If I used SA Par and someone asked me "what is the SA Par on this hole?" and it was my first time on the course I could only say, "I don't know. I don't have my computer and the internet with me."
1)To get an estimated score average you have to have a handy dandy tool like the Hole Forecaster. But to get the Hole Forecaster you have to join the DGCD. Then to use the Hole Forecaster you have to have access to your computer.
2) The average Joe doesn't have the hole forecaster so he has no real way to find out the score average for this hole. Some digging on the internet may turn up some SAs that a local club has published, such as the Moraine ones, but those are rare. And you need internet access.
3) If score averages are available then you need to make sure that they are truly averages from players of the skill level that matches the course skill level. This is rarely the case, since the averages are usually just what all players in a tournament shot.

Now, I'm imagining that Jeff may be thinking, "Naw, I can just look at a hole and decide the par." (I taking a risk here because it's REALLY dangerous to assume what someone else is thinking!) But Jeff, was that at all close? I grant that Jeff can come up with a rough approximation of par the first time he sees a hole. But that's because he has wide experience playing and reviewing courses. (The last number I saw was that he's played ~160, but that's probably dated.) Jeff also has a trained eye for OB, foliage, width and their effects that helps him decide par on the spot. Most people are not so experienced. But I'd be truly amazed if even Jeff or Chuck could look at that hole in real life, walk it, and declare "It has an Gold SA of 4.8" without using a computer. Maybe they can. If so that's an amazing ability. I know I never could.

Well, that's one scenario in our present real world that makes SA Par really hard to use.

OK, I'll take the other side for a minute. Lets fast forward to the future. An informed course pro has the tools and the data. He uses his computer, then he posts the correct SA Par (and maybe even the Level SA) on the tee signs. Everyone agrees that SA Par is the cat's meow, so we just read the sign, accept the course pro's numbers, are grateful in our hearts for his work, and throw. That's be a nice world (if everyone would agree that SA Par is the way to go). [I fear, though, that if Chuck, Jeff, and SA Par faction take over that there will always be pockets of rebels who still push for those crazy systems of TG and even CR Par.]

Lowe

The effective distance calculation relates to the predicted equivalent scoring average expected for a 770 ft hole of that foliage density. The scoring averaga would definitely be close to 5 and the player has to make a minimum of 3 throws to get to the green. Not sure how big the landing zones are but I assume that if the player is offline on their first or second throws, it will be all they can do to reach the LZ in one more throw.

i'd call it a Par 4... T-LZ1 is a tough shot but doable, same for LZ1-LZ2. then we have 2 for the final up-and-down from 130-ish.



I agree. That's what I was going to say. You actually have a force layup on your tee shot and 2nd shot. But overall it would take 2 well played shots to get to the CR and then 2 to finish = par 4.

Pat,

The forced layups add 240 ft for each of the first 2 shots (for Gold using 320-180 in the hole forecaster). That makes the effective length 770 (490 + 280). With CR Par the range for par 4s is 520-830, so with CR Par this is still a par 4 when done strictly by the numbers.

Lowe

lowe, this is where the confusion comes in. this hole is less than 520 but is par 4. the reason is foliage, so foliage does matter. i believe your pdf file "disc golf par" would be better off without paragraph 6.

chuck, this is where i side with lowe. this is a good example of where par and scoring average can be different.

lets say that both T-LZ1 and LZ1-LZ2 have a 60% probability of happening in one shot. to keep the math simple lets also assume that the trees are arranged such that it will never take more than 2 to finish a leg. we'll also assume that 100% of the players get up and down in 2 from LZ2.

here are the leg-by-leg scores for 10 players:

Tee-LZ1: 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
LZ1-LZ2: 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
LZ2-Pin: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
totals : 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

SA: 4.8
Par: 4.. in this case a very tough 4
scoring distribution: par 40%, bogey 40%, double 20%

now, if the designer decides that 4.8 is too tough for this par 4, the designer could loosen up the fairways such that probability of completed each leg in 1 shot goes up to .8, the SA will drop to 4.4

Tee-LZ1: 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LZ1-LZ2: 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
LZ2-Pin: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
totals : 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5

SA: 4.4
Par: 4.. an easier par4 than in the first scenario but still tough
scoring distribution: par 70%, bogey 20%, double 10%

(you can get it down to 4.2 if you loosen things all the way out to a .9 probability, but then the scoring distribution goes bad at 80/20)

I would estimate the scoring average on this hole even for Gold level will exceed 5. A 2m wide fairway almost 360 feet long is unplayable/unfair even for Gold skill level. Even one of my favorite "whipping post" courses has tight fairways wider than that. If the fairways were more like 6-8m average, I could go with this hole being a tough 4. I have no problem with a par 4 that can normally be reached in at least 3 throws. But the fairways have to be reasonably playable.

lowe, this is where the confusion comes in. this hole is less than 520 but is par 4. the reason is foliage, so foliage does matter.



Foliage only matters when it creates a forced layup. It only mattered in this example because of the shape of the fairway. If the fairway was straight or curved in such a way that a disc could get to the CR then the foliage wouldn't matter. The CR definition includes info about forced layups and effective length.

With the forced layups the effective length is 770 ft. (Chuck and I agree on this!) so it's a solid par 4.

Lowe

chuck, i suppose the 2m width was tyoo tight for the example. the key points are that you cannot go over the top, you need to follow the fairway, and that players could get to the next LZ 60% of the time. i should have left the 2m out of it.

lowe, foliage is what create fairway shape. very little else does, altho yes there are other things. the effective length of this hole is not really 770, but thats another discussion.

lowe, foliage is what create fairway shape. very little else does,



Agreed, but my point is that there's a forced layup, so that's why it's a par 4.

Par 5 for Gold.



Chuck,

Are you talking SA Par?

To me, this exercise is showing some of the weaknesses of SA Par. If I used SA Par and someone asked me "what is the SA Par on this hole?" and it was my first time on the course I could only say, "I don't know. I don't have my computer and the internet with me."
1)To get an estimated score average you have to have a handy dandy tool like the Hole Forecaster. But to get the Hole Forecaster you have to join the DGCD. Then to use the Hole Forecaster you have to have access to your computer.
2) The average Joe doesn't have the hole forecaster so he has no real way to find out the score average for this hole. Some digging on the internet may turn up some SAs that a local club has published, such as the Moraine ones, but those are rare. And you need internet access.
3) If score averages are available then you need to make sure that they are truly averages from players of the skill level that matches the course skill level. This is rarely the case, since the averages are usually just what all players in a tournament shot.

Now, I'm imagining that Jeff may be thinking, "Naw, I can just look at a hole and decide the par." (I taking a risk here because it's REALLY dangerous to assume what someone else is thinking!) But Jeff, was that at all close? I grant that Jeff can come up with a rough approximation of par the first time he sees a hole. But that's because he has wide experience playing and reviewing courses. (The last number I saw was that he's played ~160, but that's probably dated.) Jeff also has a trained eye for OB, foliage, width and their effects that helps him decide par on the spot. Most people are not so experienced. But I'd be truly amazed if even Jeff or Chuck could look at that hole in real life, walk it, and declare "It has an Gold SA of 4.8" without using a computer. Maybe they can. If so that's an amazing ability. I know I never could.

Well, that's one scenario in our present real world that makes SA Par really hard to use.

OK, I'll take the other side for a minute. Lets fast forward to the future. An informed course pro has the tools and the data. He uses his computer, then he posts the correct SA Par (and maybe even the Level SA) on the tee signs. Everyone agrees that SA Par is the cat's meow, so we just read the sign, accept the course pro's numbers, are grateful in our hearts for his work, and throw. That's be a nice world (if everyone would agree that SA Par is the way to go).

Lowe



Lowe,

I'm a little confused about your hypothetical scenario and why it shows a weakness of SA Par. If it was your first time on the course, why would someone ask [i]you what par was on the hole? Wouldn't it just be written on the tee sign or scorecard by the course designer or course pro? All this work was done for you before you got to the course, why do you need to instantly do it again on the spot, and without a computer?

In my experience, a course designer designs a course and uses various tools such as the Hole Forecaster, driving distance data, PDGA Course Design Guidelines, casual round data, and yes, intuition, to assign an initial par to the hole. This would then be verified by tournament data, and adjustments made to tee or basket locations if needed to achieve the desired par, scoring average, and score separation.

I'm again left with the impression that for whatever reason, you're dissatisified with our current par system and you want a simple, easy formula for par in disc golf like they have in TG:

less than 300 yards = par 3
300 &lt; x &lt; 480 yards = par 4
greater than 480 yards = par 5

And again, we tell you that no such simple formula exists because of foliage, OB and other considerations that make our sport uniquely different. Where is the weakness, in that at the present time, gold level scoring averages give us real world data with which to generate meaningful pars (and birdies, and bogeys, and eagles, etc.) that are appropriate on 99% of the holes in existence in disc golf?

here's a theory: DG pars differ more widely from actual hole scoring averages than BG pars.

here's a thought: that's okay.


here's the reasoning: using scoring average to set par changes the meaning of par from "the score expected by of player of that skill" to " the closest whole number to the scoring average". in DG, the difference between par and SA is greater than in BG because a) shot shape matters more, and b) recovery from off the fairway is (typically) more difficult. that shot shaping metter more to DG is critical, because it means a player who comes up 30 feet short of the ideal landing zone may find himself with a horribly more difficult next shot than the player who landed dead center in the LZ. * this is a rare situation for BG, because in most cases the shortage can be overcome simply by lengthening the next shot instead of creating a shot/line that thehole was not designed for *

so, while in BG we would might raise an eyebrow at a par 4 with an SA of 4.8 - 5.2, in DG it is entirely acceptable.

C'mon Jeff, with all of the courses you've played I know that you've had the same experience that I've had hundreds of time. There are tons of holes that don't have any par marked, or more commonly, the par is obviously not accurate. There is such a vast variety of ways to assign par in DG that many holes are suspect as to the par. I've heard you say lots of times, "To me, this was a Pro par 4." as you've given your personal assessment of par.

Haven't you had people you're playing with ask you "what's the par on this hole?" The last time that happened to me was 2 days ago on my home course. I started playing with a couple of guys who I could tell were regular players, but they were stuck in the "everything is par 3" school. I had to explain to them that two of the holes are actually par 4s. If I had to know the scoring averages for Blue skill level for these holes I would have been hard pressed to give them without a computer.

My main point was that getting all of the score average data can be complex, and I bet that most of the time the course pros who set the par haven't even done so. On top of that, determining par becomes inaccessible to the average player.

Lowe

I think it's rather humorous that you're calling this example hole a par 4 which would likely have a scoring average close to 5 and with the original thread, MTL was complaining about a hole with a 3.3 gold scoring average being assigned as par 3 at Worlds.

To be honest, Lowe, I rarely play courses with the pars marked incorrectly anymore. Course designers and local course pros have gotten the word around here on how to set pars correctly, and I trust they've done due dilligence and used appropriate and accurate data. I can't recall the last time I saw a tee sign or scorecard where I thought the par was egregiously inaccurate. If there are a "vast variety of ways to assign par in DG" then I haven't seen it. A lot of the information we've been discussing is freely available and the guys in charge are usually told about it if a par somewhere isn't quite right. Again, assuming the information is correct, I don't quite understand why the average player should need to have to quickly determine par. You say that determining par becomes inaccessible to the average player, but to me that seems like what you are really looking for is a quick way to do so. Which, as we've stated ad nauseum, probably doesn't exist for disc golf. It really depends on foliage, OB, elevation changes, landing area sizes, fairway widths, fast greens, etc. and not just driving distances.

I think it's rather humorous that you're calling this example hole a par 4 which would likely have a scoring average close to 5 and with the original thread, MTL was complaining about a hole with a 3.3 gold scoring average being assigned as par 3 at Worlds.



You know, I've had that very same thought. It does seem ironic. It seems like in most of the examples we've looked at that the CR Par comes out lower than the SA Par which exacerbates the issue that caused this thread in the first place! I guess MTL would really howl if there was a hole with a 4.2 SA that was a CR Par 3.

To be honest, Lowe, I rarely play courses with the pars marked incorrectly anymore. Course designers and local course pros have gotten the word around here on how to set pars correctly, and I trust they've done due dilligence and used appropriate and accurate data.



Wow! You're fortunate. That's not my experience. I wonder where they get tools like the Hole Forecaster since it's only available to DGCD members.

Around here the predominant attitude I hear is the antediluvian "everything is par 3". We've got a course (Zebulon) with 2 holes over 500 ft. that people insist are par 3s. There are also no pars marked on that course either. SO count yourself blessed that you live in an area with people who are so on the ball.

Let's look at an example of two holes played by the same group of 100 players who average 1000 rating. On each hole 70 players shoot 3s. On hole A, 30 shoot 2s. On hole B, 30 shoot 4s. Hole A has a 2.7 gold scoring average and hole B has a 3.3 scoring average. This is all you know about the holes.

No ball golf logic is allowed in answering the following questions. This is disc golf which is truly a more advanced game than ball golf for several reasons (other than putting) and there's no reason we need to be trapped by their outdated traditions. The fact their players make millions has nothing to do with the dynamics and parameters of how either game is played.

1. SA par would indicate both are gold par 3s. Why should any other information be relevant?

2. If other information allows hole B to be assigned par 4, why can't hole A be assigned par 2 based on other information?

3. If some holes with distributions like hole B can be called par 3 and some can be called par 4, justify why that should be true for any reason other than the choice of the designer?

4. Since these dual score distributions are common on relatively open holes in disc golf, must par always be set so a birdie is not rare?

5. Are holes that end up with distributions like hole B automatically just poor design for that skill level no matter what the hole looks like? So there's really no need to worry about par for these types of holes since they shouldn't be included in courses anyway?

here's a theory: DG pars differ more widely from actual hole scoring averages than BG pars.

here's a thought: that's okay.




Corollary: The 3 methods of determining par have varying degrees of closeness between par and Score averages. Going from closest correlation btwn SA and par to farthest they're in this order: SA Par -- CR Par -- TG Par.

In other words TG Par will typically have the largest differential btwn SA and Par. That's b/c at max length the holes are shorter than with the other 2 methods.

So if your goal is for the SA to be as close to par as possible then SA Par is for you. That sure seems to me to be Chuck and Jeff's main goal for par.

No ball golf logic is allowed in answering the following questions.


I'm not even certain what TG logic is, so I don't really know what I'm not allowed to use, so I dare not venture an answer.

BTW, who is this question addressed to? Is it addressed to me in relation to CR par or to MTL or to a general audience? I can't really figure out the point you're making.

These are the fundamental questions that show the conflict among all those posting on this thread. So they aren't toward anyone in particular and shows how ball golf logic can trap someone's thinking in a way that doesn't serve the much wider ranging dynamics of disc golf.

Trying to stay away from TG logic...

4. No. In my thinking you don't have to be able to make a birdie at all. But you course design gurus have to decide whether that's an acceptable design or not. I defer out of lack of expertise. It would sure mess with the scoring spreads and you'd hear tons of complaints at tournaments.

5. No, I personally don't think they're poor designs. They're just tough holes. We need more tough holes. I could personally conceive of a hole being up to 2.0 over the par. The toughest hole in the world has got to be out there somewhere. The complainers would be many, but I'd just reply with a word I learned from my 5th grade teacher-- "Quityerbellyachin"!

Design and par in disc golf are closely intertwined. CR Par doesn't work with real conditions such as OB, width, or foliage. Par should be close to the scoring average. Par and difficulty are almost the same.



I submit that SA Par and CR Par have different goals:
<ul type="square"> SA Par tries to get par as close to the Score Avg as possible.
CR Par focuses more on measuring difficulty, so it doesn't matter if the score and par are not close. In fact, it can be a good thing when there is a wide divergence because it shows more clearly that this is a really tough hole.[/list]
At the core they also start with different, irreconcilable assumptions:
<ul type="square"> SA Par assumes that par is determined by score averages which take into account people going OB, or hitting trees. CR Par assumes that par is determined by reasonable throws along an intended flight path. Since it was not intended to hit trees or go OB these items are not considered. [/list]

I think CR should not be used for par but become a new term called the Difficulty Reference. Essentially, it could be the reference for the wide open, non-adjusted distance for an accurate throw for a player skill level. The actual Scoring Average by players at a skill level on a hole would be divided by its DR to determine the Difficulty Index (DI) for a hole. That would succinctly capture how challenging the foliage, elevation, twists and turns and hazards are on the hole relative to a wide open, flat reference distance.

Chuck, I don't think either are bad, and in fact you need both in a good tournament course I believe. Now if all the holes were either type A or type B then we have a design problem.

Personally I feel birdies should be rare, and eagles extremely rare. I would like to see the leader not have more then -5 to -8 per round.

The biggest problem I see with some peoples thoughts are they are fine if the separation is toward the top 1/5 of the leader board, but a good scoring spread for a tournament does not mean that players 25-90 should all be tied either. A course should allow a spread at every point, whether it be letting the leaders get a stroke on the field or the bottom 10% loosing a stroke on the field.

The biggest problems I have are par 2's (based on either SA or CRpar, and the fact that we have way to many pitch and putt courses in the ground already and there still seems to be many coming. I want to see true pro par gold 64+ par courses like idlewild.

I think CR should not be used for par but become a new term called the Difficulty Reference. Essentially, it could be the reference for the wide open, non-adjusted distance for an accurate throw for a player skill level. The actual Scoring Average by players at a skill level on a hole would be divided by its DR to determine the Difficulty Index (DI) for a hole. That would succinctly capture how challenging the foliage, elevation, twists and turns and hazards are on the hole relative to a wide open, flat reference distance.



I don't mind seeing SA determining par, but there has to be a stronger guideline for what scores we throw out. I would suggest that we throw out:

1. Anything over (higher then only) 2 strokes from the median.
2. Any score with a penalty stroke or OB
3. Ignore any rounds that are out of normal conditions.. High winds, rain etc.

Finally replying to Jeff's post #731607 - 08/23/07 12:17 PM about Moraine SP. It's fun to post when everyone else has gone for the day. The downside is that you don't get replies to everything, though.

OK, the lines are drawn, and I really don't think that any of the main advocates on either side are going to change their minds. So in some ways this post is futile, but I offer it in hope of persuading those who are undecided.

The example of Moraine has been offered as evidence that CR Par is bogus. I'd like to offer a counter argument that CR par does a better job than SA Par of showing how difficult Moraine really is. Consider the following table. Collating the info given I came up with estimated Effective lengths for the holes.

<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Hole </th><th> Effective Length </th><th> Score card Par </th><th> CR Par </th><th> Gold SA </th><th> SA-Card Par </th><th> SA-CR Par </th><th>
<tr><td> 4C </td><td> 445 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 3.9 </td><td> -0.1 </td><td> 0.9 </td><td>
<tr><td> 6C </td><td> 925 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 5.3 </td><td> 0.3 </td><td> 0.3 </td><td>
<tr><td> 10C </td><td> 525 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 4.0 </td><td> 0.0 </td><td> 0.0 </td><td>
<tr><td> 14C </td><td> 460 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 3.8 </td><td> -0.2 </td><td> 0.8 </td><td>
<tr><td> 16B </td><td> 750 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 4.8 </td><td> -0.2 </td><td> 0.8 </td><td>
<tr><td> 18C </td><td> 455 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 4.1 </td><td> 0.1 </td><td> 1.1 </td><td>
<tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> Total </td><td> -0.1 </td><td> 3.9 </td><td>
</table>
(BTW, thanks Jeff, for the Excel spreadsheet to make tables. I was finally motivated to figure out how to use it.)

But notice that 6C and 10C have the same par for both, so let's throw those out since they tell us nothing.

<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Hole </th><th> Effective Length </th><th> Score card Par </th><th> CR Par </th><th> Gold SA </th><th> SA-Card Par </th><th> SA-CR Par </th><th>
<tr><td> 4C </td><td> 445 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 3.9 </td><td> -0.1 </td><td> 0.9 </td><td>
<tr><td> 14C </td><td> 460 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 3.8 </td><td> -0.2 </td><td> 0.8 </td><td>
<tr><td> 16B </td><td> 750 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 4.8 </td><td> -0.2 </td><td> 0.8 </td><td>
<tr><td> 18C </td><td> 455 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 4.1 </td><td> 0.1 </td><td> 1.1 </td><td>
<tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> Total </td><td> -0.4 </td><td> 3.6 </td><td>
</table>
OK, about now the SA Par crowd could be gleefully saying, "See! That's just what I've been saying! Look how far the CR Pars are from the SAs. Why don't those bozos see the light?" I'll agree that the CR Pars are not as close to the SAs as with SA Par. If you insist that par and SA must be as close as possible then here's your evidence. Case closed.

But what if you're more concerned about about a consistent measure of difficulty? To measure difficulty then you need a standard that doesn't shift from hole to hole, and that's what CR Par does.

If you look at the SA Par column you'd conclude that these holes are average to a little bit easy to par. In reality, using SA Par, you really can't say anything about the hole difficulty at all. But if you look at the CR Par column you'll think, "Whoa! Those look like pretty hard holes. Look at how much over par the SAs are. I bet 18C is a bear!"

So it all seems to me to come back to what you want out of par. For me, despite the at times vehement protestations, I still think that CR Par has a lot of usefulness... But what else would you expect me to say?

Lowe

I think CR should not be used for par but become a new term called the Difficulty Reference. Essentially, it could be the reference for the wide open, non-adjusted distance for an accurate throw for a player skill level. The actual Scoring Average by players at a skill level on a hole would be divided by its DR to determine the Difficulty Index (DI) for a hole. That would succinctly capture how challenging the foliage, elevation, twists and turns and hazards are on the hole relative to a wide open, flat reference distance.



Naw, that misunderstands and misinterprets CR Par.
Besides it's already being done with the Challenge Factor (CF)
CF = [(SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 20000
I've collected CF data on ~100 courses or so.

Thanks for making a small concession that the CR concept might be good for something, though. :)

For those who like to read here's how I defined it:
"This factor measures how difficult the course is by a ratio of SSA to the Actual length of the course. SSA alone is insufficient to indicate course difficulty. For example, a very long course could have a high SSA, but if it is flat with no foliage then it is not be very difficult. The Challenge Factor comes from the the formula (SSA-30)/ Actual Length] x 20000). By dividing SSA by actual length you can compare the difficulty between courses with very different lengths. For example, if two courses have the same length then the course with the higher SSA is more difficult. The number 30 is a constant for the number of putts on an 18 hole course. (For 9 hole courses the number 15 is used in the formula.) It is subtracted from the SSA to determine the core aspect of SSA. The number 20,000 is merely used to make a more useable number."

The biggest problems I have are par 2's



If you rigorously apply SA Par then one outcome is to have more par 2s. You can get around it by magically calling them weak par 3s but they're still there. With CR Par the only Gold level par 2s would be under 130 ft.

Lowe, we've already shown that the SSA determines the challenge level of a course. All SSA 60 courses will essentially produce the same scoring averages for anyone playing them. Rodney tried valiantly to prove that wasn't true but the data has consistently shown that it's true.

Why does it matter that a shorter course got the same SSA value as a longer course more from foliage and hazards than legnth? It doesn't matter. If players want to choose a 60 SSA course, then they want to know about the actual terrain, elevation and hazards on the course, not some abstract Difficulty Index in reference to how tough a course is relative to a wide open course. They want to know what elements actually produced the challenge.

I'm not quite sure why you are intent on devising an entirely new definition of par,


I've been working on this because I'm dissatisfied with both the SA Par method and the TG par method which are the 2 predominant par philosophies. I think they both have weaknesses, so I've sought to make an improved version by taking the best from both. (This used to be called "Hybrid" par for that very reason.)

Lowe

What you've overlooked Lowe is that a ball golfer can cleanly reach the effective distances used for their par references because their numbers are based on open fairway distances. But that's not true in disc golf. That's why the CR process for DG falls apart under scrutiny. In ball golf, they can reach the center of the green when the 2 more shots takes over. In disc golf, if you don't account for accuracy, trees and OB, the CR process falls apart.

Think of it this way, BG fairways are at least as wide if not wider than the greens on average. So, a player who has the accuracy to hit the fairway also can hit the green. In DG, if you use the same 2 close shots which goes out to 130 feet for DG, you would need a fairway as wide as 130 feet to match the equivalent structure in ball golf. We all know that fair fairways can be as narrow as 20 feet in DG. So, the CR model doesn't work without accuracy considerations.



I dispute most of this notion that y'all keep saying, but I'll wait til later to give more details. I think I've saturated this thread for now.

I also think you've violated your own precept of a CR index by doing any length adjusting. Why would you adjust for elevation and forced landing reduction but not for foliage and OB? You're inconsistent in your own CR approach. True CR would take the straight line GPS distance to the hole as the basis for the CR calc. Any element like foliage, hazards, elevation and forced layups that makes the hole harder then becomes an aspect of the difficulty. I don't see any validity in adjusting length but not for the other factors.

Lowe, we've already shown that the SSA determines the challenge level of a course. All SSA 60 courses will essentially produce the same scoring averages for anyone playing them. Rodney tried valiantly to prove that wasn't true but the data has consistently shown that it's true.

Why does it matter that a shorter course got the same SSA value as a longer course more from foliage and hazards than legnth? It doesn't matter. If players want to choose a 60 SSA course, then they want to know about the actual terrain, elevation and hazards on the course, not some abstract Difficulty Index in reference to how tough a course is relative to a wide open course. They want to know what elements actually produced the challenge.



Maybe it's just me, and maybe it quixotic, but I've been on a quest to find ways to quantify course difficulty. I guess I just like to rank and compare things, and there are certainly pitfalls to that. (As an aside, my latest venture is rating dark chocolate. It's been fun, and I've learned tons, especially about the difficulty of quantifying matters of taste.)

Anyway, it may just be me, but if I played 2 courses with the same SSA and one was 1000 ft shorter than the other I'd say that the shorter one was more difficult. Or to turn it around, if I played 2 courses of the exact same length then I'd say the one with the higher SSA was more difficult. Is that wrong? Is that just the way I see it? (No sarcasm here; all sincerity and trying to learn.)

I also think you've violated your own precept of a CR index by doing any length adjusting. Why would you adjust for elevation and forced landing reduction but not for foliage and OB? You're inconsistent in your own CR approach. True CR would take the straight line GPS distance to the hole as the basis for the CR calc. Any element like foliage, hazards, elevation and forced layups that makes the hole harder then becomes an aspect of the difficulty. I don't see any validity in adjusting length but not for the other factors.


That's something to think about...

But the SSA and the physical description of the terrain tells a player more than a difficulty index.

"SA par would indicate both are gold par 3s. Why should any other information be relevant?" it might not be if you are fromthe SA school. one question though - what do you use for par before you have any throws in? even if you retain the right to change your minf, you must have some idea what par you are designing

"If other information allows hole B to be assigned par 4, why can't hole A be assigned par 2 based on other information?" it could be. but then the course couldnt be used for worlds :)

"If some holes with distributions like hole B can be called par 3 and some can be called par 4, justify why that should be true for any reason other than the choice of the designer?" i think that reason is good enough. another reason could be that the desired balance of the course required it. if i have a couple easy par 4s early on, i might want to toughen one up later to make up for it.

"Since these dual score distributions are common on relatively open holes in disc golf, must par always be set so a birdie is not rare?" nope. theres nothing wrong with a hole or two that will be birdied very infrequently. (also true for eahles on par 4s and 5s.) hopefully they'll be bogeyed a lot to make up for it. these are the "cant win it here, but sure can lose it" holes.

"Are holes that end up with distributions like hole B automatically just poor design for that skill level no matter what the hole looks like? So there's really no need to worry about par for these types of holes since they shouldn't be included in courses anyway? " not necessarily poor design at all. with a decent scoring distribution they could be great holes, just tough ones. those ya dont need to worry about at all.

Let's look at an example of two holes played by the same group of 100 players who average 1000 rating. On each hole 70 players shoot 3s. On hole A, 30 shoot 2s. On hole B, 30 shoot 4s. Hole A has a 2.7 gold scoring average and hole B has a 3.3 scoring average. This is all you know about the holes.

No ball golf logic is allowed in answering the following questions. This is disc golf which is truly a more advanced game than ball golf for several reasons (other than putting) and there's no reason we need to be trapped by their outdated traditions. The fact their players make millions has nothing to do with the dynamics and parameters of how either game is played.

1. SA par would indicate both are gold par 3s. Why should any other information be relevant?

2. If other information allows hole B to be assigned par 4, why can't hole A be assigned par 2 based on other information?

3. If some holes with distributions like hole B can be called par 3 and some can be called par 4, justify why that should be true for any reason other than the choice of the designer?

4. Since these dual score distributions are common on relatively open holes in disc golf, must par always be set so a birdie is not rare?

5. Are holes that end up with distributions like hole B automatically just poor design for that skill level no matter what the hole looks like? So there's really no need to worry about par for these types of holes since they shouldn't be included in courses anyway?



1. Because Par is not Average. They seem to be inextricably entwined in (only?) your mind - so much so that it might take a ridiculous example to separate them. On hole B, say the other 30% scored 7's instead of 4's. If the only piece of information you use is the average of 4.2, you would say par on this hole is 4. To me, if 70% of the players can score a 3, then par is 3.

2 &amp; 3. In this example, I would say there is not enough other scoring information to set par at anything other than 3. And, I would agree that no matter what the designer set par at originally using any method, it would make sense to re-set par to 3 based on this information. I do believe scoring data outweighs pars based on any models (Hole Forecaster, CR or whatever). But, use all the information, not just the average.

4. No.

5. Worrying about Par for poorly designed holes is a useful way to distinguish among methods for setting par. We should be able to set par for any hole out there, even the poorly designed ones.

Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough here that viewing the scoring distribution is important along with the average to make sure there aren't bizzaro anomalies like 30% with 7s. Best example of distribution oddities is hole 17 on Winthrop with the donut hole distribution of mostly 2s, 4s plus 6s. This hole is listed as a par 3 but a 3 is the least common score in the range of scores.

The revised version of Winthrop 17 on Highbridge 16 worked to produce a better distribution but turned out to be a little too easy. So we need to add some trees to make the route to the island quite bit tougher and/or lengthen the hole. But fixing these island holes so they aren't completely do or die will make the distributions better and make them more legit par 3s. I know Harold is pondering ways to revise hole 17 for the USDGC more along these lines to provide an option to go for a conservative but challenging 3 rather than just deuce or die.

I don't mind seeing SA determining par, but there has to be a stronger guideline for what scores we throw out. I would suggest that we throw out:

1. Anything over (higher then only) 2 strokes from the median.
2. Any score with a penalty stroke or OB
3. Ignore any rounds that are out of normal conditions.. High winds, rain etc.

[/QUOTE]

I like your thinking. But 2&amp;3 wouldn't be workable if the only information you had was scores.

My suggestion is to throw out the top 2/3rds of the scores, and use the highest score remaining. (In other words, the lowest score that 1/3 of the players scored as well as or better.)

Note I would use the highest of the best 1/3 of the scores from all players on each hole, as opposed to the highest score of the best 1/3 of the players.

At least I don't have to do any rounding.

I'm not quite sure why you are intent on devising an entirely new definition of par,


I've been working on this because I'm dissatisfied with both the SA Par method and the TG par method which are the 2 predominant par philosophies. I think they both have weaknesses, so I've sought to make an improved version by taking the best from both. (This used to be called "Hybrid" par for that very reason.)




I see many more weaknesses in CR par than SA Par. Using just the Moraine State Park data, we have a course where CR par would be grossly inaccurate on a whopping 6 out of 18 holes. SA Par is accurate and better than CR Par on 99% of the holes in disc golf. (that is not a verified stat, I'm just throwing it out there...) One example of where SA Par is a little inappropriate is an island green hole such as #17 at the USDGC. I don't know the exact stats, but because of the OB, the scoring average may be over 3.5 and dangerously close to a par 4. But at 250 feet and almost completely wide open, it's obviously a par 3. CR Par would reign there. You will still have many, many more holes in disc golf that are 400-520 feet with heavy foliage that are pro par fours for gold level players where CR par is just silly wrong, though.


I think CR should not be used for par but become a new term called the Difficulty Reference. Essentially, it could be the reference for the wide open, non-adjusted distance for an accurate throw for a player skill level. The actual Scoring Average by players at a skill level on a hole would be divided by its DR to determine the Difficulty Index (DI) for a hole. That would succinctly capture how challenging the foliage, elevation, twists and turns and hazards are on the hole relative to a wide open, flat reference distance.



Like Chuck suggested, you could use CR Par for computing Difficulty Reference or Difficulty Index. I'm not sure how useful this would be to course designers, course evaluators, or disc golfers in general, but it's something you could track if you want.

OB penalties have to be counted. Penalties for scoring errors or being late shouldn't be counted.

The rationale for counting OB penalties is the same reason we count throws a player makes trying to escape from going off the fairway. Why shouldn't OB traps added to increase the challenge on a relatively open hole be just as valid as the challenge provided by carving a fairway thru the woods where players regularly rack up extra throws by going off the fairway? Both are ways to provide challenge and in fact OB may be the only way to do it on open terrain such as the miles of yellow rope for USDGC.

Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough here that viewing the scoring distribution is important along with the average to make sure there aren't bizzaro anomalies like 30% with 7s. Best example of distribution oddities is hole 17 on Winthrop with the donut hole distribution of mostly 2s, 4s plus 6s. This hole is listed as a par 3 but a 3 is the least common score in the range of scores.



You have made that point, as well as the point that you don't use all the high scores in calculating the average. I glossed over both.

It still bugs me to use the term "average" as the definition of par, even though I recognize that what you are using is not actually a strict average. Perhaps a new term is needed?

Anyway, just for fun, what pars would you set if the distribution of 2/4/6's was 30%/60%/10% (strict average = 3.6)? Or 40%/40%/20% (also 3.6)? 50%/20%/30%?

I don't think we've ever had such a stark set of 2/4/6 numbers without some 3s or 5s. Except for the first years on Winthrop 17 without drop zones, the recent scoring averages have still been closer to 3 than 4. As a result of Winthrop 17, we've had other TDs create reachable par 3s with a lack of threes that might not have been done the best way possible. In ball golf, they always have a drop zone on island or pond crossings. If a player doesn't use it, it's their own choice to retee for a potential "tin cup" scenario. Players can even chip to the drop zone, chip over to the green and hopefully get a "safer" three.

I'm hopeful the word will get out and we'll see better versions of island holes with more normal scoring distributions. Regarding the original question, I don't know what I would do if it was my hole to set par. I have to think I would change the rules for how the hole is played to change the distribution so the average was closer to 3.

OB penalties have to be counted. Penalties for scoring errors or being late shouldn't be counted.

The rationale for counting OB penalties is the same reason we count throws a player makes trying to escape from going off the fairway. Why shouldn't OB traps added to increase the challenge on a relatively open hole be just as valid as the challenge provided by carving a fairway thru the woods where players regularly rack up extra throws by going off the fairway? Both are ways to provide challenge and in fact OB may be the only way to do it on open terrain such as the miles of yellow rope for USDGC.



Granted, counting OB is just as valid as counting extra throws in the woods. But, to me, neither is valid as they don't represent expected error-free play. Unless, perhaps, they happened "regularly".

If just a few players go into the woods or go OB, I don't think that would change the score that a player would expect to get with errorless play. Yet, it does raise the average. So, to me, par and average are not mathematically equivalent.

Now, if everyone who plays the hole goes out of bounds or in the woods, that sort of play may become expected, and I think that should be reflected in a higher par. I don't know where the tipping point is.

But even if everyone goes OB, the few players who go OB twice or thrice do not represent par play. I would like to ignore their scores in setting par. But, average does not.

Judicious use of average, throwing out some of the high scores, does come close to what I think par should be. And I could probably get behind an average that throws out a defined population of high scores.

Yet, par seems to me to be defined as an integer, and I would like to use a method that starts with an integer � which is to look at the distribution and pick the one score that seems to be par.

1. Because Par is not Average...



Second that.

This is also what I wrote back on 8/14/06 in the "What is Par?" thread:


What I would use to set par on a hole is a "landing zone" model. For a certain skill level, a player should be able to throw to a particular landing zone. From that landing zone, a player should be able to throw to the next landing zone, and so forth, ending with the final putt. The number of landing zones plus the final putt establishes the par for that hole.

I'm all for statistics and distance charts as a sanity check, but I think the hole must be seen and known by a designer, to determine these landing zones, so he or she could then properly set the hole's par. My two cents.


I still feel this way. SSA is a measurement, which by nature changes over time, while Par is an assignment, specified by the intended design of the hole. SSA can be used to understand how difficult a hole is with relation to Par, but it should never be used to replace Par, in my opinion.

But the SSA and the physical description of the terrain tells a player more than a difficulty index.



Probably, and the Challenge Factor (CF) is only useful for comparing courses of the same Skill Level. You can't get much value from it as just an isolated number. But OTOH if I only had the length and the SSA (which would also give me the CF) then I could compare 2 courses and
-I they had the same SSA then the shorter one is harder. Just the numbers would tell me that the shorter one most likely has more OB, foliage density, and perhaps more uphill shots.
-If they had the same length then the one with the higher SSA (and higher CF) has more challenging terrain.

In summary, there are 3 variables-- length, SSA, terrain-- if you know two of the variables then by comparing courses of the same Skill Level then you can make deductions about the missing variable.

Jeff,

Do you have any comments on my post about the 4 holes at Moraine? #732311 - 08/24/07 06:44 PM

Lowe

Dear SA Par proponents, especially Chuck and Jeff-

Not surprisingly, I'm going to make a point that is critical of SA Par. (Much of this thread seems to be "attack or defend", but I guess that's the essence of debate.) Believe it or not, I've really been trying to evaluate if your arguments have enough merit for me to use SA Par. I actually used SA Par for a few years in my personal course evaluations, and at one time I argued for it myself, so I think I understand it.

Well, CR Par has been accused of being inadequate because on holes with high SA the par and the SA are too far apart. I've tried to show how this is not only a weakness, but a strength that gives a true measure of difficulty.

Lets look at Moraine SP, hole 18C. I chose this as the strongest example of the point Jeff was trying to make. But it also works quite well for the issue that I want to make.

Here's where I wish you could hear my tone. If I was speaking you'd hear no rancor. I'm really trying to understand you, but I just don't.

OK, here's the hole data again:
<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Hole </th><th> Effective Length </th><th> Score card Par </th><th> CR Par </th><th> Gold SA </th><th> SA-Card Par </th><th> SA-CR Par </th><th>
<tr><td> 18C </td><td> 455 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </td><td> 4.1 </td><td> 0.1 </td><td> 1.1 </td><td>
</table>
It was previously stated that par has to do with expectations of what one will shoot. According to SA Par this is clearly a par 4. I know nothing of the hole, but from the numbers I can guess that there must be lots of OB and thick foliage. If par is 4 then I honestly can't imagine the expectations of a 1000 PR player as he steps up to the tee. For sake of argument, lets say that he throws an average of 390 ft. Can you please explain each of the 4 shots that he's going to expect to take? Lets use Aleksey Bubis, PR 999, as a real life player.

What is Aleksey thinking, envisioning, and planning as he steps to the tee of 18C? Does he think, "This is a par 4, so I'll probably go OB and have to recover from there." or "I expect to go into the woods on my drive then throw an 80 ft. recovery shot onto the fairway and finish with 2 more." or "I'll throw a putter 230 ft., then a putter 200 ft and 2 putt." All of these types of thinking are so defeatist that I can't imagine a Gold player thinking that way. I'm really trying to be sincere and not facetious, but I just can't construct a reasonable scenario of how Aleksey would expect to play this hole as a par 4. Maybe he thinks, "Most other guys will take a 4 or above, but I bet I can get a 3 and gain a stroke." If so, then he's using a CR Par mentality.

With CR Par Aleksey steps up to the tee and doesn't expect to go OB or in the woods. According to CR Par he'd think like this, "There's the really tight line that I'm going to hit. Lots of people go OB or in the woods, but I won't even consider it. [Ed. note- most likely he wouldn't even get the negative possibility into his mind at all.] I can do it! I can see my disc flying to the landing zone in the fairway at 390 ft. Then I'll only be 65 ft away and easily get down in 2 from there for my 3."

Which scenario is more likely? I've honestly tried, and maybe you can come up with a better way to explain each of the shots for a par 4. I can't. I'm open to hearing your thoughts, so please let me know what you think.

In summary, on difficult holes SA Par will have a higher par, and I don't think it's how players really play in real life. I think that CR Par works much better in real life. (But what else would you expect me to say?)

Take care,
Lowe

There's a picture from the gold tee on 18 at moraine SP here:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=126&amp;mode=gal
(The last picture in the gallery)

Looks like a tight, wooded drive with a set of trees about 60 feet off the tee that you need to miss and then you need to keep the disc on the fairway.

While I'm not a 1000-rated player, they way I would play it looks like I'd throw a midrange and try and make a 280-300 foot shot that lands in the fairway. (The kind of shot that a pro might throw 330)

Then If I were a pro I'd try to put my upshot close from 130 feet out to give me 3.

If we are following the BG definition of expected score for errorless play, then 3 probably fits as the par for this hole.

It doesn't look like the fairway is impossible, just very tough.

For the &gt;1000 pros there were 4 3s, 3 4s, an 5 5s. The next 7 players added 1 5, 2 4s, 3 5s, and 1 6.

My guess is that most of those 5s would be hit the tree early and kick to one side.

That's the beauty and genius of hole#18 at Moraine State Park hole#18, when played from the blue tee to the long pin - is that it can be played with both CR Par and SA Par mentalities. (Although from a "golf" and "trying to win the tournament" standpoint, the former is foolish...)

If you've never played this hole, what you can't see from pictures is that there is a water hazard with a high bank that must be breached about halfway down this hole. Shots that end up in the roped-off OB area play from a dropzone. Additionally, behind the polehole is another water hazard with an OB area marked off that really comes into play on aggressive upshots and putts. What you can see from the picture is that there is a very tight window to breach just off the tee, and the rest of the hole is very long and narrow with thick rough off the fairway on either side. There are small lanes available for heroic attempts at recovery shots, but pitching out is often the preferred play to avoid big numbers on this hole.

As a 950-rated blue golfer, I know my strengths and limitations and I don't play this hole with the intention of driving as far as I can. I am usually throwing a mid-range off the tee in order to lay up in the center of the fairway so that I will have a better chance to make a longer upshot for a look at birdie three, or par four at worst. Aggressive shots off the tee will usually find heavy woods or the OB and may result in a pitchout and at that point I'm looking at a minimum of 4, and probably 5 or worse.

I can't speak exactly for the mindset of 1000-rated players, but from what I have observed, on occasion they will choose to use their bigger arms and accuracy skills to attempt to drive as far as they can on holes such as these, and deal with the consequences later. But I'm almost 100% certain that many of these golfers who practiced the course beforehand and saw the consequences of a poor drive will at least consider the possibility of laying up. As smart golfers and those who are looking to beat their competition and win tournaments, it must enter their minds. The error in your logic is thinking that "I'll throw a putter 230 ft., then another putter 200 ft and 1-putt for a 3" is somehow 'defeatist.' In many, many cases that's just smart golf play and I practically guarantee that Gold players do indeed consider that line of thinking and use it on occasion. Those that choose to "grip it and rip it" do so understanding the consequences of a poor shot.

I can understand your line of thinking, but I still think CR Par is most inappropriate here. According to your logic, this would then be a hole where perhaps 1 in 10,000 would take a "birdie" 2, (more likely from a lucky upshot from far away, not driving the green) perfect play would then score a "par" 3, and scores of 4 or more would be "bogeys." I think most people playing this hole would scoff at that, even 1000-rated players. CR Par simply does not work in many instances in real life and this hole is a perfect example of where it doesn't. It's simply a hole where accuracy, not distance, reigns and controlled placement shots and avoiding the trees and the OB is the smart play. More and more I think that not trying to drive the polehole and/or not trying to drive as far as they can towards the polehole IS how players really play in real life. On this hole especially, the number of OB strokes and high scores those take for trying to do otherwise is definitely an eye-opener for those who still cling to this outdated mentality.

The example of Moraine has been offered as evidence that CR Par is bogus.



Lowe's statement above is incorrect. I simply provided the Moraine scoring data for discussion on this particular topic. I believe the CR concept has a certain degree of merit in relation to course design, however, I would disagree with the notion CR "Par" can be correctly applied to any disc golf hole. The extreme diversity of dg hole design makes it difficult to establish one set of parameters which would apply to every single hole in our sport.

The example of Moraine has been offered as evidence that CR Par is bogus.



OK, I should have said, "Jeff used the Moraine data as evidence that CR Par is bogus."

I believe the CR concept has a certain degree of merit in relation to course design, however, I would disagree with the notion CR "Par" can be correctly applied to any disc golf hole. The extreme diversity of dg hole design makes it difficult to establish one set of parameters which would apply to every single hole in our sport.



I basically agree with this statement. I'm changing my thinking a bit. As currently stated the CR Par guidelines do need some revision, but I think that with modification the basic concepts can still apply to all disc golf holes. I'm rewriting it to be more flexible and applicable to a wider variety of situations. More later...

P.S.- Jeff, did you notice the PB reference in my post #730683 - 08/21/07 06:15 PM ?



An aside... Jeff, I just saw my own post (on 8/22 at 8:57) that was in reference to "dizzying intellect" before you asked me about it. I guess that you initially overlooked it in the barrage of par posts. No prob. I'm not making any point about this; just wanted to mention it...

I'd like to clear something up about the 1/10,000 shot. With my hypothetical super hard peninsula hole I was trying to invent an extreme example that would clearly illustrate the concept of "the designer's intended flight line". This led to unintentional results and shifted the focus of the discussion in an unfortunate way. I would hereby like to cease using this 1/10,000 line of argument. If I could still delete my post #728942 - 08/17/07 10:33 AM I would do so.

(Jeff, as a friend, could you use your moderator powers to delete that post? I realize that it's useful to your argument, but for the sake of progress I think it's clouded the issues.)

From here on I will no longer use the 1/10,000 or even the 1/1000 shot in my line of reasoning.

Lowe

Here's something I wrote earlier (#730766 - 08/22/07 12:05 AM)

"Actually, in my thinking, the predominant concept is that par is based on a �reasonable throw� on an intended flight path for an expert player of a designated skill level."

This is one of the core concept of what I've been trying to say.

Lowe

I've always wondered how to actually use the available SSA data. Can someone help me?

Here's what I saw at Moraine:
Gold layouts have SSAs are in a range of 63.8-68.9
Blue (1) 59.4
White 55.6-62.5
So is it fair for someone to ask, "What is the SSA of the Gold layout?" If so, what would you answer?

But I also notice that Moraine has A, B, C basket placements, and some configurations are noted. Doesn't the SSA only apply to that specific configuration? If so, wouldn't I need to know which holes were A, which B, and which C, so that I could know if the layout I was playing matched it?

At present the best I can come up with is that the Moraine Gold SSA is about 64-69 and the White is about 56-63.

Now, let's say I get an SSA value. If I'm a 900 rated player do I just add 10 to the SSA to get an idea of what I might shoot?



Would someone please answer these questions? I'd really like to know.

Lowe

For those really concerned about it, all they need to do is refer to this table: www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ExpectedScoresAndCompression%20graph.pdf)

It shows player skill level scores and SSA in a way anyone can determine what score they (or players in their skill range) should shoot on a course with a specific SSA. It's not going to solve the problem on courses where there are multiple pin placements that change regularly. You flat out have to get that info from the Course Pro unless they provide that info on their course website.

Thanks Chuck. That's helpful. Now, how do I determine the course SSA so that I can use this chart? Please refer back to my Moraine questions. For example, the SSAs are in a range. Would I just look at a range of SSAs on the chart you linked to?

Read the second part of my post. No help unless course pro provides it. We're planning to have the weekly pin rotation scheme posted online for the Highbridge courses next year such that pars and SSAs for the current layouts will be available. I would hope this becomes a more standard practice for courses in the future.

Lowe,

No SSA charts or information is necessary at Moraine State Park because the pars don't change no matter the pin position. The philosophy at that course is that of a ball golf course where there are 3 pin positions for each 'green.' On nearly every green the pins change by a maximum of only about 50 feet or so at Moraine. No matter which pin you are playing to, the par always remains the same for each hole, and a total of par 66.

The SSA values have differed historically because it wasn't always the same pin combinations at each tournament. Some tournaments had nearly all pins in the 'C' pin positions while others featured a mix of pin positions. While the par remained the same, there were subtle differences in total scoring average.

At other courses, differences in pin positions may affect scoring averages more but again only the par should matter for daily play. Hopefully the local course pro has indicated the par for each hole on the scorecard or tee sign, especially if the par changes because of a long tee or alternate pin position. If you've got the par data for each hole I don't know why you would be concerned with SSA.

If you've got the par data for each hole I don't know why you would be concerned with SSA.



Jeff (or anyone else),

One of my original questions about using SSA was "is it reasonable for someone to ask, 'What is the SSA of the Gold layout?' If so, what would you answer?"

I was only using Moraine as an example b/c the link had been provided to make it easy to see the data. I summarized it as:
Gold layouts have SSAs are in a range of 63.8-68.9
Blue (1) 59.4
White 55.6-62.5

So I take from your answer that "No, you can't say the SSA of Moraine is X." Is that right? Moreover, you said you don't need the SSA since you have par. Is that right too?

So what are those SSA values useful for? Are they only used to compute the ratings of the rounds played on that day? If so, do they have any wider use, other than just to give a general range of what a Gold player would shoot there?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Lowe

Gotcha,
Who set the par on the Gold layout at Moraine?

Gotcha,

Since you're listed on the PFDS website as one of the contacts for Moraine may I ask you a few questions about the course?

First of all, big kudos to whoever set the par for Gold, Blue, and White skill levels. I sure hope that this spreads to more courses!

We've had some discussion about 4 holes at Moraine. Since the C layout is Gold level would you please help me understand how a typical 1000 PR player might play those holes? We could use Bard and Sjur Soleng as players with a 1000 PR.

From the PDGA Course Eval and what we've discussed here I think that we can use these effective hole lengths:
4C -- 445
14C -- 489
16C -- 750
18C -- 444

Would you please give a shot by shot breakdown of how a 1000 PR player would hope to play each hole? I think it would be very instructive for the issue of par that we've been discussing. I know that I'm looking to learn from it. For time's sake you don't need to give too much detail, but it would be helpful to know if they'd drive with a driver, approach disc, or putter and a guess at the length of each shot.

Thanks in advance.

Lowe

Hey Lowe, I have an idea...how about you go and play Moraine so you can actually experience it?? Looking at a course is not the same as playing it, and hearing someone tell you how they played it is next to useless if you have not been there. I wish I could join you...I hear it is magnificent!! DD

Hey Lowe, I have an idea...how about you go and play Moraine so you can actually experience it?? Looking at a course is not the same as playing it, and hearing someone tell you how they played it is next to useless if you have not been there. I wish I could join you...I hear it is magnificent!! DD



I'd love to play Moraine; it's on my list of courses that I'd like to get to!

But I wasn't asking Jerry for how HE would play the course. I'm asking how a 1000 PR Gold player would play those holes. I'm assuming that Jerry has some say in how par is set. Since this is a Gold level course then the course designer, or his designated representative, should have an intended way for a Gold level player to play these holes. This is relevant to the discussion we've been having about setting par on these holes.

Lowe

We've had some discussion about 4 holes at Moraine. Since the C layout is Gold level would you please help me understand how a typical 1000 PR player might play those holes? We could use Bard and Sjur Soleng as players with a 1000 PR.

From the PDGA Course Eval and what we've discussed here I think that we can use these effective hole lengths:
4C -- 445
14C -- 489
16C -- 750
18C -- 444

Would you please give a shot by shot breakdown of how a 1000 PR player would hope to play each hole? I think it would be very instructive for the issue of par that we've been discussing. I know that I'm looking to learn from it. For time's sake you don't need to give too much detail, but it would be helpful to know if they'd drive with a driver, approach disc, or putter and a guess at the length of each shot.



Lowe,

I'd agree with DD that you visiting the course is the optimal way to answer what seems to be a plethora of questions about the course. Trying to explain them online is tedious and may not give you a good idea of what these holes look like. You can view pictures from the tee at the DG Course Review site: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=126&amp;mode=gal#

but the holes specifically in question are pro par four and par five holes and you won't be able to see the approach shot(s).

Furthermore, Jerry Gotcher and I are 975 and 950-rated golfers respectively and won't be able to give you shot by shot breakdowns of 1000-rated golfers. We can't speak exactly for the mindset of these players and can only relate from what we've observed in casual and tournament play.

Here's a best attempt: <ul type="square"> Hole#4C: As you can see in the picture, the hole tees from the bottom of a small hill to the top of a plateau, with a tree-lined fairway to the polehole. From the top of the hill, it's probably 150 feet through a very narrow fairway to the basket, with thick rough off to either side, that bends slightly to the right followed by a very sharp turn right in the final 30 feet. Fairway placement on the drive is critical to set up the approach shot, as drives that don't find the fairway usually only leave a pitch-out. I usually just try to land my tee shot in the fairway, but I would venture that 1000-rated players try to throw as far as they can over the top of the hill and down this fairway. Some big-arms have also been known to try huge sky-hyzers that crash down into the fairway, with mixed results. The approach is usually a left-to-right turning shot with a wicked bend at the end. A short RHBH roller is not out of place here. Hole#14C: The tee shot must negotiate a first island of trees where there's a landing area before a second island of trees. The approach to the polehole is through a 'keyhole' that is no more than about 5 feet wide. On the drive, most golfers are just trying to hit their lane and hope they land lined up with the keyhole so that their next shot can reach the basket. Depending on placement on the drive, one could also try a sky hyzer on the approach over the trees to reach the polehole. For 1000-rated golfers, the drive is about 325'-350' on this hole, with the approach about 100'-125'. This isn't a long hole, but the margin for error is quite slim. Hole#16C: This is one of the most unique holes I've ever played. As you can see in the picture, the drive is severely uphill to a narrow lane through pine trees and heavy woods. It would be a remarkable shot, even for a 1000-rated golfer, to negotiate the trees and reach the crest of the hill from the gold tees. For most, the second shot is to get past the top of the hill. Alternatively, a forehand roller is a good option to carry the hill and go as far as possible. From the top of the hill, the approach is probably about 300' through scattered trees with heavy rough on either side to the polehole, which has a sharp dropoff behind it. Hole#18C: I described this hole in great detail previously. [/list]

These are four great holes where foliage considerations (and in the case of 18C, out-of-bounds) render open field distances moot.

Who set the par on the Gold layout at Moraine?



J.Gary Dropcho, Jerry Gotcher and Chris Deitzel, using scoring data from 3 years of sanctioned professional play.

Unless 4 has really improved from when I saw it, it still sounds like a pretty lucky shot to hit the landing area and then try to negotiate the upshot. Hope to see the updated course and Deer Lakes maybe next year.

J Gary Dropcho, Chris Deitzel, KB Clark, Leo Liller and Bryan Wright designed the Lakeview course at Moraine State Park. I wasn't playing disc golf when the course was being designed in 2004, however, I did visit the course a couple of times during the final design phase. Honestly, the Lakeview course at Moraine is what lit the dg fire in me again. It is beautiful, challenging and designed with the sport's top players in mind.

If I remember correctly, the original design was something like a par 60-62 +/- and from what the designers have told me, there were significant changes to the layout when they were plotting the holes in summer of '04. Back then, the design did not include the acreage that now houses holes 4 - 10! When I first visited Lakeview in late summer '04, I was impressed with what I saw.

My second tour during the fall was quite a surprise as there were significant changes to the layout on several holes...including the elimination of two holes altogether (for those of you who have played Lakeview, the the par 5 Hole 16 was originally two holes....a 250'-270" uphill drive to a pin at the tree line, followed by a little 190' dinker that played along the ridgetop through the trees. Thanks for persuading the others to make it a par 5, Deitzel! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif).

J Gary belongs to the course design group and I know he and the other club members used the data/charts to establish par for the course. One of the things J Gary was insistent upon was utilizing the "green center" concept from traditional golf. Each hole has three pin placements, yet the hole distances are measured to the green center. Par does not change for these pin placements, but just like golf, the pin position affects the difficulty of the hole/green.

Tournament scoring data did not exist when the course was designed, however, this data has proved extremely useful in justifying the par for each hole. Based upon the SSA's yielded from five sanctioned events, the Lakeview designers did an excellent job establishing par for the course. In addition, the scoring data has shown us where we needed to make modifications to a small number of the "tweener" holes which revealed a less than desired scoring distribution. Modifications included moving tee boxes forward/backward, opening alternate routes, raising the ceiling, etc.

As for how 1000-rated players manage the course, one can only witness the spectacle in person. Deitzel and I had the pleasure of guiding Barry Schultz and Billy Crump through the course in 2005 and we were AMAZED at some of the routes and options Barry chose on several of the holes (he held the original gold tee record of 60....now held by Al Shack with a smokin' 57). Jeff LaGrassa provided some good examples in his post above and one of the holes I'd like to add to is hole 14. From the gold tee, I've seen sky-hyzers, low hyzers, low anhyzers, rhbh rollers, two-finger forehand hyzers &amp; rollers....this is a cool hole with LOTS of options off the tee. The best play I've ever witnessed on this hole, however, was by Steve Heckathorn from Ohio. One big pancake over the top to the middle of the landing zone.....followed by another big pancake over the top onto the green, three feet from the bucket. It made me wish I had that shot in my bag....

The SSA "tee" data is somewhat incorrect as in 2005, the gold tees were labeled blue and the blue tees where labeled white. We now have three sets of tees: gold (1000), blue (950) and white (900). Also, you will see some variation in the Ironwood Open scoring data vs. the PFDO data due to foliage. The Ironwood is contested in April when we have no leaves on the trees. Plus, this year's Ironwood utilized two a-pin placements (holes 9 &amp; 12) where the PFDO in July utilized the c-pins on those two holes. Again, par is the same for these pins...only the difficulty is changed.

Anyway, I would love to chat some more on this topic, but I am minutes away from leaving for the WVO at Paw Paw. Unless Spencer has WiFi at Brokeneck Mountain, I'll post more on this thread after the weekend fun. :D

Have a nice (and safe) Labor Day Weekend, everyone! :D

Lowe,

Attached is some Open division data from the recent Marshall Street Dics Golf Championships at two courses in Massachusetts last month. This data was posted on their website and is freely available to all. There you can also see pictures from the teepad of each hole, and see the breakdown of birdies, pars, bogeys, double bogeys, etc. from both this year and last year. You can also check elevation changes which may alter effective lengths, and note whether there is a significant dogleg on the hole.

Note that you can view the scoring data from all competitors as well as just the top 50. Since the tournament typically gets many entrants from intermediate and advanced amateur golfers, we will look at only the latter, which should be competitors with an average player rating of about 990-1000.

First, the relevant data from the Maple Hills Airplane layout.

http://livescoring.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/roundstats.asp?rid=4

<table border="1"><tr><td> <u>Hole#</u> </th><th> <u>Dist.(ft.)</u> </th><th> <u>Scoring Avg.</u> </th><th> <u>SA Par</u> </th><th> <u>CR Par</u> </th></tr>
<tr><td> 6 </td><td> 370 </td><td> 4.14 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 9 </td><td> 350 </td><td> 3.80 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 10 </td><td> 370 </td><td> 3.35 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 12 </td><td> 730 </td><td> 4.90 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 4 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 17 </td><td> 400 </td><td> 3.57 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
</table>

As one can see, the combination of foliage and OB on many of these holes makes for differences between SA Par and CR Par on several holes.

Next, select holes from the Pyramids Gold layout are shown.

http://livescoring.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/roundstats.asp?rid=1

<table border="1"><tr><td> <u>Hole#</u> </th><th> <u>Dist.(ft.)</u> </th><th> <u>Scoring Avg.</u> </th><th> <u>SA Par</u> </th><th> <u>CR Par</u> </th></tr>
<tr><td> 4 </td><td> 349 </td><td> 3.33 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 7 </td><td> 315 </td><td> 3.69 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 8 </td><td> 402 </td><td> 3.69 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 9 </td><td> 334 </td><td> 3.69 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 12 </td><td> 436 </td><td> 3.98 </td><td> 4 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
<tr><td> 13 </td><td> 488 </td><td> 4.94 </td><td> 5 </td><td> 3 </th></tr>
</table>

Again, one can see that the combination of foliage and OB on many of these holes makes for differences between SA Par and CR Par. The last hole, #13 is known as "The Airport Hole" because there's a good view of the local airport on this hole. The play of this hole is anything but open, however, as the hole throws down a very narrow wooded corridor. Note that CR Par methodology would assess a very inappropriate value of 3 for this hole, when expert disc golfers average nearly 5.0!

on maple hill, i'd make hole 6 a 3 also. no need for a 4. those mostly come from OBs i bet.

is hole 9 the one that goes way uphill and finished by that planter (in the elements layout) if so, that is absolutely a par 3.

is 12 the new long one, or is that the one that plays out over the xmas tree field?

on maple hill, i'd make hole 6 a 3 also. no need for a 4. those mostly come from OBs I bet.



OBs should never be more than maybe 1 in 3 getting them on a specific throw, preferably more in the 1 out of 10 range. If that hole averaged less than 3.5 with no OBs, then that would mean roughly 2 out of 3 were getting OBs which would seem to be a poor hole design for a par 3.

is 12 the new long one, or is that the one that plays out over the xmas tree field?



The link provided shows the hole descriptions with pictures. Hole#11 plays downhill over the Christmas trees, and hole#12 is the new par 5 through the woods.

Jeff (and all),


Your statement "As one can see, the combination of foliage and OB on many of these holes makes for differences between SA Par and CR Par on several holes." is absolutely true - but maybe only shows the difference between "averages" and "what CAN be done"! As I am as familiar with these holes as you are, let me explain that Pyramid Gold 13, while 488 feet, has two distinct shots needed to traverse it. I dare say that NO ONE will EVER get to within putting distance of that hole in 1 unless they try the "hugh anhy thru the dense left trees and out over the abyss" (foolhardy at best, lost disc for sure). It's a laser to the dogleg, then another laser to the pin at about a 45 degree angle. Can't be rolled (all the way) in 1.

Your MH Airplanes 10 averaging a 3.35, yet SA is a 4??? I'm confused. I know it's uphill, but that is no par 4!

Averages can be misleading in that if one person goes double OB, that skews the avg. up yet the median is lower than the mean. And both of those #s still don't tell what is POSSIBLE if a great player pulls off the needed shots.

All this just tells me is that WITH ALL THAT OB, etc., that the players were NOT executing the proper shot. Any shot that goes OB cannot be a good shot. Sure, it may be unlucky and you may have missed missing that deflecting tree by 1/2 inch but the shot still stunk.

Karl

Averages can be misleading in that if one person goes double OB, that skews the avg. up yet the median is lower than the mean. And both of those #s still don't tell what is POSSIBLE if a great player pulls off the needed shots.



That's not going to skew the averages. First of all, the score from one person going double OB should be thrown out in the first place, but simple mathematics shows that the contribution from that in the scoring average from 50 players would be negligible. As Chuck indicated, if too many top players go OB it's fairly obvious that there's a course design issue. If there's a 250-ft. wide open island hole (obviously a par 3) that averages close to 4.0, there's a design flaw that is readily apparent.

Again, these are the top 50 players with ratings averaging 990-1000. Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it's what happens in reality. Why not set par according to what the best players in our sport actually shoot? What are you going to set par to, some hypothetical number that no human can achieve? I don't know what you are getting at, Karl. What's your idea of par?