MTL21676
Aug 07 2007, 10:29 AM
There was a bunch of a talk at the pro worlds this year about par.
I counted like 7 holes between the 3 courses we played in open where I felt par was a stroke less than it should have been.
The most obvious examples of these were hole 1 at gold (530 foot L type hole - I actually spotted this hole for the A Pool and no one got within 50 feet of it then entire round) and hole 9 Granite (615 downhill over OB - I'd say about 5% of the field went for it, everyone else played safe).
Chuck's argument was these types of holes score 3.3ish and then play as a tough par 3, much like par 3's in golf do.
However, do you EVER see a golfer hitting a 7 iron to 50 yards short on a par 3? No.
I think that par should be based on the hole and the number of shots it should take to reach the green plus 2 rather than on a scoring average.
Sure par really doesn't matter. Whether these two holes were listed as par 3 or par 4, you still wanted a 3 on the hole. However, if someone was late and missed one of these holes, the par plus 4 rule is a big deal. I know that if I tied someone who took a 7 instead of an 8, I would be very upset.
Thoughts?
jefferson
Aug 07 2007, 10:56 AM
However, do you EVER see a golfer hitting a 7 iron to 50 yards short on a par 3? No.
in general, its much more difficult to puTT on a ball golf green than a disc golf green... some might say a stroke harder
skaZZirf
Aug 07 2007, 10:56 AM
I agree rubber toe...Many of the holes at worlds were incorrectly listed...
paul
Aug 07 2007, 11:00 AM
The rule about adding 4 strokes to par when you're late is stupid. Change the rule to if you're late you don't play.
I know -- not where you want the discussion to go.
Sorry -- it's a rule that's evolved from the culture of buddies running tournaments for buddies. It's silly. Sorry you overslept -- sorry your car broke down -- sorry you got stuck in traffic -- better luck next time. Think about players that run out of time and have to leave a tournament early . . . they don't get par plus 4 -- they get DQ'd . . . . ??? Seems crazy you can come late but not leave early . . . .?? Dumb rule -- either play or don't play. If you missed the first tee -- you missed it.
bruce_brakel
Aug 07 2007, 11:01 AM
USGA par is based on what the top half of the field averages at the amateur national championship. It is also defined as what a skilled amateur can shoot with errorless play.
In golf, taking two putts to complete the hole is common and not bad. In disc golf taking two putts to complete the hole is common in the Rec division and not good at all.
In the Final Nine or the Semis there was a "par 5" where three players "eagled" and one "birdied." My scare quotes indicate what I think of the par designation for that hole. :D Unless those three guys all made fairway aces from 300 feet, par was likely set a little high on that hole. But maybe it was just a freak occurrence. I have not seen the stats for the hole.
One other comment about par, at that tournament last weekend, Tiger was the only pro under par. The other pros didn't suck. It is our usage of the term "par" that sucks. Par is not a score that some sucky over 40 amateur has to beat by eight throws to be competitive at Am Worlds. That's special ed par.
MTL21676
Aug 07 2007, 11:11 AM
The hole they went 3 3 3 4 on was def. a par 5. The three guys who 3'd it BOMBED two shots.
I even referenced in my blog how far they threw both shots.
Even Markus had to bomb 2 to get there.
jefferson
Aug 07 2007, 11:11 AM
Sorry -- it's a rule that's evolved from the culture of buddies running tournaments for buddies. It's silly. Sorry you overslept -- sorry your car broke down -- sorry you got stuck in traffic -- better luck next time. Think about players that run out of time and have to leave a tournament early . . . they don't get par plus 4 -- they get DQ'd . . . . ??? Seems crazy you can come late but not leave early . . . .?? Dumb rule -- either play or don't play. If you missed the first tee -- you missed it.
are you serious? so mccray should have been DQd last year from the worlds for being late to the semis? DNF instead of 7th?
whateva
JerryChesterson
Aug 07 2007, 11:27 AM
I personally like the idea of having more Par 4s and Par 5s. I just think the course design has to warrent it. A Par 4 should take 2 throws and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par.
A Par 5 should take 3 drive like shots and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par. I generally like par 5s that have a risk reward factor. For instance you can either take 3 250-300 foot shots to generous landing areas (but somehow the course limits you to these distances) and then putt out or you can choose to skip one of those areas with 1 or more bomb shots.
paul
Aug 07 2007, 11:52 AM
Yes -- if McCray's in second by 30 throws and Climo steps in a hole and breaks his leg and is taken from the course in a helicopter the McCray gets to win?
You don't see any absurdity of someone coming in 7th not having even played all the baskets?
The rule is silly -- you're just used to it. Change it to something like when your group throws their second shot or putts out on their first basket you're DQ'd. You're either playing in the tournament or you're not. If you're in the tournament play all the baskets . . . .otherwise you're not in.
In the case of the semis if you want to make a rule that he beat everyone else except the guys that finished the semis and finals that makes sense. He played the same amount of baskets as the players that he beat.
It's a silly rule made even sillier by the idea that par is debateable.
Fishead_Tim
Aug 07 2007, 11:54 AM
I personally like the idea of having more Par 4s and Par 5s. I just think the course design has to warrent it. A Par 4 should take 2 throws and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par.
A Par 5 should take 3 drive like shots and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par. I generally like par 5s that have a risk reward factor. For instance you can either take 3 250-300 foot shots to generous landing areas (but somehow the course limits you to these distances) and then putt out or you can choose to skip one of those areas with 1 or more bomb shots.
Would 4 shots @ 200' plus a gimme' work?! :confused: :D
denny1210
Aug 07 2007, 11:58 AM
Sorry -- it's a rule that's evolved from the culture of buddies running tournaments for buddies. It's silly. Sorry you overslept -- sorry your car broke down -- sorry you got stuck in traffic -- better luck next time. Think about players that run out of time and have to leave a tournament early . . . they don't get par plus 4 -- they get DQ'd . . . . ??? Seems crazy you can come late but not leave early . . . .?? Dumb rule -- either play or don't play. If you missed the first tee -- you missed it.
are you serious? so mccray should have been DQd last year from the worlds for being late to the semis? DNF instead of 7th?
whateva
yes. at the professional world championship, players should be dq'd for missing their tee times. (and i'm a big fan of mr. demon) note i said tee times, there shouldn't be any shotgun starts for a world championship and only one round per day on par 65+ courses where the SSA is no lower than 62. imo.
on the long par 3's mentioned above: maybe those holes were a bit too long, but they definitely weren't par 4's. if a pro player is within 150 ft. with no obstacles to the basket, then they are "on the green". it's obviously a "lag" putt, just like they have all the time in ball golf.
sandalman
Aug 07 2007, 12:01 PM
In disc golf taking two putts to complete the hole is common in the Rec division and not good at all
only if you define the green as the 10m circle
JerryChesterson
Aug 07 2007, 12:06 PM
I personally like the idea of having more Par 4s and Par 5s. I just think the course design has to warrent it. A Par 4 should take 2 throws and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par.
A Par 5 should take 3 drive like shots and either 1 upshot and 1 putt or 2 putts to complete in par. I generally like par 5s that have a risk reward factor. For instance you can either take 3 250-300 foot shots to generous landing areas (but somehow the course limits you to these distances) and then putt out or you can choose to skip one of those areas with 1 or more bomb shots.
Would 4 shots @ 200' plus a gimme' work?! :confused: :D
That would be a Par 4 in my eyes. 600 feet requires 2 good drives of 300 feet, plus 2 putts.
MTL21676
Aug 07 2007, 12:06 PM
I think its silly that someone can play 17 holes then miss one and get a DNF, yet someone can miss 17 holes and then play 1 and get a score.
circle_2
Aug 07 2007, 12:08 PM
did-not-finish
gotcha
Aug 07 2007, 12:12 PM
I think that par should be based on the hole and the number of shots it should take to reach the green plus 2 rather than on a scoring average.
<font color="red"> To properly discuss this topic, please provide your definition of "green". If you refer to the green as the 10m radiant circle, I would respectfully disagree with your statement above. I tend to think most of the putting greens in disc golf are 60' to 70' in radius to the target. As for the large diversity in disc golf hole design, scoring averages seem to be the logical solution to accurately designating par for a course. Obviously, the more scoring data the better... </font>
Sure par really doesn't matter. Whether these two holes were listed as par 3 or par 4, you still wanted a 3 on the hole. However, if someone was late and missed one of these holes, the par plus 4 rule is a big deal. I know that if I tied someone who took a 7 instead of an 8, I would be very upset.
<font color="red">Of course par matters. Besides the penalty factor you've pointed out, par defines what an expert player is expected to score on the hole (or in the case of ratings-designed courses, par defines what a particular rated player is expected to score on the hole). With correctly established pars, players are able to determine what their scores are in relation to par during a particular tournament. Spectators and officials can know the standings of tournament players, even if the players are on different holes of a course. In addition, handicaps can be developed for recreational and tournament play if par is correctly established for each hole. </font>
Thoughts?
mbohn
Aug 07 2007, 12:18 PM
we need a new acronym:
OPAFH??
only-played-a-few-holes
august
Aug 07 2007, 12:24 PM
It bugs me to no end to have someone tell me that they played the 800-foot Hole #18 at New Quarter and carded a "bogey 4".
It seems we have a long way to go before the concept of proper par is accepted. Base 54 is a great tool for counting total scores, but it is impossible for it to be an accurate measure of difficulty for every disc golf course in existence.
I look forward to the day when this mindset is gone.
Fishead_Tim
Aug 07 2007, 12:30 PM
I think its silly that someone can play 17 holes then miss one and get a DNF, yet someone can miss 17 holes and then play 1 and get a score.
I believe Father Dave Tayloe recieved a DND at the Flagstaff Worlds. Only one known in any Worlds.
DND= Did Not Die ! :D
God Bless you Father Dave,.... oh and also,...
F.Y.D. :D
Karl
Aug 07 2007, 12:30 PM
Jerry,
Your "I tend to think most of the putting greens in disc golf are 60' to 70' in radius to the target." I believe may be off by 40' or so. Bump that out to 100 - 110' and I think you're spot on. At that range, I'm "lagging up" but occasionally will be the recepient of a 'blind-pig-syndrome'...just as a PGA player will occasionally make a 50'er (but not that often).
Your "As for the large diversity in disc golf hole design, scoring averages seem to be the logical solution to accurately designating par for a course" can be fine IF IF IF it is by 1000-rated players (or so)...not "just a scoring average" (of say everyone). Really high numbers can really skew things goofy.
Let's keep par sacred...something it ISN'T right now.
Karl
anita
Aug 07 2007, 12:55 PM
I don't see the argument that par was too high when the winner shot -69!
johnbiscoe
Aug 07 2007, 01:26 PM
i agree- shots around the green goes out to 150 feet or so on wide open approaches. i would never think it to be as short as 10 meters.
rhett
Aug 07 2007, 01:42 PM
Instead of trying to make up a green size that fits ball golf's "plus 2", how about we just look at how far away you are when you expect to finish in 2 throws?
At a wide open 200 feet, I'm expecting to get up and down in two. If it takes me 3 or more throws I know I screwed up.
I don't know where that puts us, except for in the position of being "not at all ball golf like" when it comes to this. I'm all for following or at least considering ball golf's example wherever it makes sense in disc golf, because they've been doing this for hundreds of years and have worked out some issues along the way. But I personally don't believe that the par concept "number of thrwos to reach the green plus 2" works for disc golf.
We do have a 10 meter circle already. A good player is expected to putt out in one throw from inside the circle with erorrless play. I say we use that to help determine par.
"Number of throws to reach the 10 meter circle plus 1 throw to putt out. A good(?) player can expect to throw par with errorless play."
mbohn
Aug 07 2007, 01:55 PM
I agree, it's not a good comparison. Also, most ball golf courses have no ceilings and are set up to specifcally make it to the green in "regulation" ie; in two on a par four, leaving a two putt for par... In disc golf reaching the 10 meter circle in regulation depends on the amount of obstacles like trees, overhead canopy, tall bushes etc... So a tunnel shot that is 450 feet with a bunch of trees could result in a regulation green of 3 throws and a one-putt. Take out the trees and its a 2 throw reg and a one putt....
gotcha
Aug 07 2007, 01:56 PM
Your "As for the large diversity in disc golf hole design, scoring averages seem to be the logical solution to accurately designating par for a course" can be fine IF IF IF it is by 1000-rated players (or so)...not "just a scoring average" (of say everyone). Really high numbers can really skew things goofy.
You are absolutely correct. If one is trying to determine par for a gold-level (1000 rated) course, you would use scoring averages of players with ratings at or near 1000. Likewise, 950 rated courses should use scoring averages of players with a rating at or near 950, etc.
junnila
Aug 07 2007, 02:00 PM
"Number of throws to reach the 10 meter circle plus 1 throw to putt out. A good(?) player can expect to throw par with errorless play."
Methinks there would be a lot of par 2's if this were the case.
mbohn
Aug 07 2007, 02:24 PM
Ever heard of the duece or die or compression courses out there? It's either a bird or a par in most cases unless you gak. However, I see what you are getting at. But it depends on the terrain IMO and where your drive or approach ends up in relation to the 10M circle.
Karl
Aug 07 2007, 03:48 PM
Jerry,
I guess I'm just hung up on not being an advocate of this "gold-level, blue-level" designation stuff - and the "par" stigma that's attached it each. I think we're doing our membership a disservice if we actually design courses which are meant to be "pared" by 950 golfers (white tees in bg aren't "made" to be pared by 6hcp'ers....). Made to be scored equally as the courses rating, OK...but par is I think supposed to be a little more sacred than that.
As a bg'er, I'm a 6hcp...and I've never shot even par, let alone shoot even par compared to the course's rating (which is harder to do). As a 950 dg'er, I NEVER expect to shoot even par IF IF IF the par is TRULY set properly. Who do I think I am to think I can shoot even par? If I was 5 shots better, OK...but I'm not. I've never gotten that "hot" playing bg and I've been a single-digit hcp'er for a decade now (and played hundreds of rounds).
Hcps in bg are not based on scores alone, are not based on scores compared to par, but are based on scores compared to course ratings. Hcps are kind of like our ratings. Until we have this system (AND understanding among all we dg'ers) there will always be 1) misunderstandings about it and 2) tournaments won by people who are -69. That's analogous to a PGA tournament being won with a -36 or -37 total. That would be laughed at. T. Woods has never come close to such - especially at a "major" and to think that our top dg'er can do such just makes me think that the par (for these courses) was an incredible ego booster - but not really indicative of what par should be.
Karl
denny1210
Aug 07 2007, 04:09 PM
the 10 meter circle has absolutely nothing to do with defining par. under the "10+1 rubric" a 400 ft. gold-level hole that has a tight bend at the end such that it takes an awesome drive to leave a 40 ft. putt would be a par 4.
while designers may vary in their philosophical parameters, par can be verified empirically by taking a scoring sample normalized to the specific skill-level (i.e. the average player rating would be 1000 for gold tees) and finding the mode (most frequent score). end of story. now, does this say anything about the quality of the hole? - no. imo, holes should have at least three scores represented by a minimum of 10%, with the variance coming primarily from skill, not luck.
we may not like calling a 250 ft. hole a gold par 2, but if 60% get 2 and 40% get 3 that's what it is. those types of holes are the antitheses of risk-reward.
it'll be interesting to see the scoring distributions on the long highbridge par 3's in question. chuck believes that they'll validate his projections.
bruce_brakel
Aug 07 2007, 04:12 PM
"Number of throws to reach the 10 meter circle plus 1 throw to putt out. A good(?) player can expect to throw par with errorless play."
Methinks there would be a lot of par 2's if this were the case.
"In Putt-Putt golf, every hole is Par 2." :D Very few people will get that joke but my brother Jon will.
rhett
Aug 07 2007, 04:14 PM
"Number of throws to reach the 10 meter circle plus 1 throw to putt out. A good(?) player can expect to throw par with errorless play."
Methinks there would be a lot of par 2's if this were the case.
Well, if you know you just gave up a stroke to the field by carding a 3 on a hole, then it really is a par-2.
They exist in disc golf. Just because we call them par-3s doesn't change that.
mbohn
Aug 07 2007, 04:23 PM
Lets face it... DG is much easier than ball golf when it comes to making a par. We have way less technical problems. In BG you have to hit an object that is in contact with the ground with a club. So it's like apples and oranges....
I like the idea of getting away from compression/duece or die type courses. On average getting a birdy on a par 3 (54)course you play regularly is about 20% to 30% of your holes...
So adjusting tees and creating difficulty is a great way to even out each of the player levels respective par total...... Ball golf has that distance adjustment for that same reason (it changes the slope rating of the course) to make it relative to skill levels.
denny1210
Aug 07 2007, 04:30 PM
I guess I'm just hung up on not being an advocate of this "gold-level, blue-level" designation stuff - and the "par" stigma that's attached it each. I think we're doing our membership a disservice if we actually design courses which are meant to be "pared" by 950 golfers (white tees in bg aren't "made" to be pared by 6hcp'ers....).
i've played golf for 29 years and spent 6 years working on courses as a caddy and groundskeeper. i love the game and love that disc golf is embracing and incorporating more elements of golf.
my philosophy is to model as much as we can after golf, unless there's a reason not to. with regards to setting up tees so that par is appropriate for the designed skill levels, i think we're in a position to create an aspect of our game that is far superior to that of golf.
there's a big difference between disc golf and ball golf in the ease with which newer players can consistently execute at a given level. a fairly new disc golfer can throw 200 ft. and a fairly new golfer can hit a 7-iron 130 yards, but the disc golfer is going to execute much more consistently. the nature of hitting a golf ball consistently is much more difficult than throwing a golf disc.
golf holes are indeed designed for the typical distances that each level of player hits in order to attempt to replicate the club selection into the green that the pros have. i.e. pro 300 yard drive + 175 yard 7-iron = 475 yard par 4, while the white tee might be 240 yard drive + 145 yard 7-iron = 385 yards. even though the "white level" golfer can hit those distances and will make some pars, their inconsistency won't allow them to shoot even par for a round. now, give them 3 balls to hit on every shot and play their best shot and they'll most likely shoot around par.
it's a great thing that our game has a much faster learning curve and doesn't require nearly as much practice to maintain for recreational to advanced players. it's really frustrating when you're too busy to play golf for a month and then finally get out on a sweet $50 course to find that the swing's not there and getting solid ball contact is a struggle.
Karl
Aug 07 2007, 04:37 PM
"Lets face it... DG is much easier than ball golf when it comes to making a par." Absolutely agreed...unfortunately it is because we've bastardized par though! It doesn't HAVE to be that way. It's just an ego thing for us...but in doing so we cheapen the sport. One of the allures of bg is that it is well known to be a "hard" sport. The little ball just sits there, but **** if you can't hit it where you want to! In the 32 years I've played bg I've never seen 1 person shoot even par and walk away from it because it was "too easy". I've (in less than 4 years of dg) seen this happen a few times already (..."too easy" being a newbie playing a short course, having some natural throwing / coordination talent, being lucky, shooting -1 or -2 and saying "...well I did that course, what sport's next?").
Karl
denny1210
Aug 07 2007, 04:54 PM
I've (in less than 4 years of dg) seen this happen a few times already (..."too easy" being a newbie playing a short course, having some natural throwing / coordination talent, being lucky, shooting -1 or -2 and saying "...well I did that course, what sport's next?").
another testimonial for why it's vital for us to have multiple tees that accomodate a wide range of player abilities as a design standard. players will know when to move up to a tougher set of tees when they start shooting under par on the easier ones.
Karl
Aug 07 2007, 05:05 PM
Oh Denny,
And I thought I always liked you(r comments on MBs...). No my last comment is NOT a testimonial (for you) as you state. In fact the opposite. It states that our sport (certainly not the PGA...which the newbie would NEVER shoot even par ball golf right out of the box) is cheapening par (and thus the sport itself) if he could shoot even par - fully knowing that he is not "god's gift to dg", has a lot to learn (about the sport), and really isn't that good.
You can call it what you want (I can't stop you) but in reality I'm saying something quite different than you're stating (...no fair word "spinning") ;)
Karl
Karl
Aug 07 2007, 05:15 PM
And why does a player have to be able to shoot par? Unless they're REALLY good - which newbies aren't. Boy do we coddle ourselves. Delusions of "oh my, I must be good, I just shot par". What is wrong with seeing that J. Nicklaus was beating me by 50 odd shots in '75 when I took up bg? Nothing! I just realized that SOMEONE could do a WHOLE lot better at the game than I was doing (at that time). Was that demoralizing? No. Did I suck? Yes. Did I work at it and get better? Yup. Am I equal to JN? No. Will I ever be? No. Is that bad? No.
I just personally think (and I don't think I'm the only one) that if par is THAT easy to reach we will lose more than we'll grab (by the "I shot par" delusion).
Karl
Over and out...got a business trip.
MTL21676
Aug 07 2007, 05:25 PM
We also need to face that in golf in majors, Even par is good enough to win sometimes.
I was -6 this week and missed cashed by 4 shots - and that includes quite a few holes where par is too low. Basically, I was around -20 for the week. Nate was around -93 for the week.
We need to stop thinking like ball golfers and realize that it is ok that par is not acceptable to win, much less cash. We are a seperate game from them, an easier game. We need to just move on.
Jeff_LaG
Aug 07 2007, 06:32 PM
"Lets face it... DG is much easier than ball golf when it comes to making a par." Absolutely agreed...unfortunately it is because we've bastardized par though! It doesn't HAVE to be that way. It's just an ego thing for us...but in doing so we cheapen the sport. One of the allures of bg is that it is well known to be a "hard" sport. The little ball just sits there, but **** if you can't hit it where you want to! In the 32 years I've played bg I've never seen 1 person shoot even par and walk away from it because it was "too easy". I've (in less than 4 years of dg) seen this happen a few times already (..."too easy" being a newbie playing a short course, having some natural throwing / coordination talent, being lucky, shooting -1 or -2 and saying "...well I did that course, what sport's next?").
Karl
You can blame a lot of that on the ridiculous novice pars that they put on tee signs. Maybe Steady Ed was responsible for this, but it annoys me to no end to see 300 ft. holes listed as par 4s for only one reason: to coddle newbie disc golfers and entice them to play more. When in fact it sometimes drives them away.
When I first started playing disc golf 12 years ago I perserved for months just to shoot less than +20 over. Years later I got to the point where I could shoot -4 or -5. Nowadays I play world class courses such as Moraine State Park, Warwick, Deer Lakes, etc. and still get excited to shoot a few strokes under the pro par of 66.
Make shooting par sacred. Make tough par 3s where the scoring averages can actually average between 3.0 and 3.5 for 1000-rated players.
eupher61
Aug 07 2007, 08:39 PM
WHy is "par" such an important number? It really doesn't matter in the long run, at least as far as playing a course is concerned. If you have fewer shots than anyone else, you win, no matter if par is 54 or 68 or 123 or 47. Even for course ratings, it really doesn't matter. It's really an ego thing, "I shot 17 under" "Wow, I was only 14 under"
anita
Aug 07 2007, 09:38 PM
snip...
I was -6 this week and missed cashed by 4 shots - and that includes quite a few holes where par is too low. Basically, I was around -20 for the week. Nate was around -93 for the week.
We need to stop thinking like ball golfers and realize that it is ok that par is not acceptable to win, much less cash. We are a seperate game from them, an easier game. We need to just move on.
Then IMO, we need to stop using the word "par". Par in ball golf has meaning. "Par" in disc golf is pretty much meaningless. I find it mind boggling that the winner of our world event shot -69 and we can use the term "par" with a straight face.
That type of score makes our sport look stoooopid. How can "par" mean anything when someone shoots THAT LOW? I'm not trying to cheapen what Nate Doss shot at worlds, but how goofy is "par" in disc golf when the winning score is -69?
enkster
Aug 07 2007, 09:58 PM
Steve,
In one way you are correct, since if everyone plays the same course, lowest score always wins. However, par does matter when it comes to a few things:
<ul type="square"> Penalty strokes (I know that this has already been discussed, but it is important). Comparison of progress. If the par is listed at 54, yet one of the holes is 740 feet, some pros will throw a "par 3", while me as a sub 700 player is happy getting home in 6. Does that make it really a par 3, par 4, par 5?
I know on that 700 footer when I throw a legitimate 5 (no 100 putts), I can better gauge my progress.
Legitimacy of our sport in comparison to other sports. If the pros in our sport are shooting 12 under per round to win their tournaments, to me this means that either a) they had a few very hot rounds/week or b) the par is misjudged. [/list]
BTW, when everyone is saying that Nate shot -69 for the week, he played 7 1/2 rounds to get there (averaging over
-9/round), where is Tiger shooting -18 at the US Open (2000) was an average of -4.5/round. We will arrive as a sport and have a better idea of how to rate everyone once we get the pars set up in a consistent manner.
Steve
MTL21676
Aug 07 2007, 10:35 PM
That type of score makes our sport look stoooopid.
It's more stupid when you watch videos of the top players in the world throwing huge rollers than throwing 300 foot approaches and hearing the announcer say "that should be a simple par from there"
krazyeye
Aug 08 2007, 12:24 AM
Par is... relative. I have had the good grace of playing in Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Oregon in the last few weeks. I can't make a putt to save my life, I have no time to practice. I did par (3) a 710' hole (roadrunner/firebird/drop in) and duece a 400'(wraith) and a 395' hole (Spider). I also took fours and five's on some holes I shouldn't have. Elevation or the lack there of played a big role on some. Really in the long run par doesn't matter. Except to the new players. A 400 foot par 3 is not a par for a new player. An 800' par three is something I may do (maybe), but in reality that does just run off the casual(moderately competative) player.
Lance
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 01:13 AM
Here's the challenge for setting par when multiple divisions play in an event. Blueberry and Granite are Blue level courses with blue level pars. However, with Worlds I reduced the par on several holes to better reflect the par for Gold level to reduce the amount the winner would be under par, which still ended up very low. This table shows how the scoring average goes up by 0.3 to 0.4 as the skill level drops one step.
Skill
Gold.. 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0
Blue.. 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3
White 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.7
These courses have several good par 4s for blue level but the ones more in the open like Granite 9 and Blueberry 10 have 3.7 blue averages. If you look at the table above, you can see that a 3.7 for blue drops to 3.3 for gold. I'm not saying some of these holes are particularly great for gold level from the standpoint of scoring spread, but there wasn't a good alternative on these. Are we saying that we should never have holes with 3.3 scoring averages if they are done well? If we have them, they are going to look like HG1, HG17 and GR5. These holes have good scoring spread but for some reason it's so much better to have dueces and pars rather than pars and bogeys. Both types of holes spread the scores. Setting tough par 3s as par 4s just so you can get easy birdies just pads the par versus SSA even more than it is already.
rhett
Aug 08 2007, 01:23 AM
BTW, when everyone is saying that Nate shot -69 for the week, he played 7 1/2 rounds to get there (averaging over -9/round)
Worth repeating. That is a -9.2 average per 18 holes, or a birdie every other hole with no bogeys.
...where is Tiger shooting -18 at the US Open (2000) was an average of -4.5/round.
I don't think you can compare the U.S. Open to Pro Worlds. USDGC maybe.
The sad thing is that a -9.2 per round doesnt sound that bad when you break it out that way.
junnila
Aug 08 2007, 01:36 AM
However, with Worlds I reduced the par on several holes to better reflect the par for Gold level to reduce the amount the winner would be under par, which still ended up very low.
Did you think the winner would be that low? I know that Doss killed it the entire week, but I'm just wondering what your predictions were for what under par would be for MPO.
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 08:46 AM
I'd have to check the records but I believe Doss may have the record for the highest average rating for winning a Worlds title. Typically, the winner shoots between 1035 and 1040 to win. Since one throw is worth a few rating points less the higher the SSA, that means you will shoot more under par to shoot 1040 on a course with an SSA of 65 like Gold versus one with an SSA of 50 like public park. In addition, with Blueberry and Granite having pars set for blue with the exception of the half dozen holes that were changed to long par 3s, it was a certainty players would shoot more under par on these courses than gold par on a Gold level course. Unless putting is made more difficult with a change in the basket and/or we play fewer rounds on long courses for Worlds, we'll continue to have players winning with more than 40 under par.
In Pro Worlds 2001, we kept the number at -35 even though we played one more round than last week, by having up to 20 holes set as "legit" par 2s. Several good par 3s for blue level at Highbridge would be legit par 2s for gold but I didn't reset them to gold par. I left them at blue par to reduce confusion on tee signs not matching scorecards and having another hassle with the no par 2s crowd.
MTL21676
Aug 08 2007, 09:25 AM
That's my point though...I don't understand why you need to base par on the scoring average.
In my opinion, if you have a hole that comes out to 3.3ish that is over 450 feet, then you have a BAD hole and the hole should have been designed better.
Hole 6 at Granite is 400 feet and probably has a 3.3 scoring average but that was a great hole b/c it was dueceable, but still very very tough.
The scoring average on 5 and 6 at Granite probably came out the exact same or close to the same, yet 5 sucked and 6 was a great hole. To me, sounds like 5, along with about 5 other holes out of the 54, needed some design tweaks.
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 10:39 AM
Holes mostly in the open with 3.3 averages are usually easy upshots and not that challenging like GR9 for gold level and are rarely good holes even with the hump and OB behind the pin. GR9 had the aesthetics and the elevated shot over water that made it fun to play despite the less than ideal stats. I thought about using the short pin just over water to tempt more to go for it. But with all of the other divisions playing it and the visually cool longer pin placement, I sacrificed better scoring spread for Open on that one. It is much better for blue level with a 3.7-3.8 scoring average.
The "problem par" holes being discussed at Highbridge on Granite and Blueberry have all proven to be good holes for blue level in terms of scoring spread. GR6 has heavier foliage and much trouble if going off line so it works well as a Gold level par 3 with possibly a 3.3 average but I need to check the stats to see.
Holes 1 & 17 likely to come out in the 3.3 neighborhood on the Gold course have trouble on the upshots and drive for the few that might be able to reach it so I believe both play well for Gold level. I was surprised in the Worlds Warm-up when 20 players all scored 3s on HG1 since it was designed to be an easy par 4 for gold. I reluctantly reduced that par to 3 based on the stats and realizing that the super pros would surely be getting mostly threes. I'll check the stats from Worlds normalized to a 1000 rated player and see whether the Warm-up data was a fluke and the average was at least 3.5 or higher and revert back to the Par 4. I think I have room to make a tougher pin placement on that one to get the average up and make it a better challenge for a true par 4.
The one thing I'd like to point out in this dialog is the effort necessary after designing holes to test them and make them better if necessary relative to your intent for challenging a particular player skill level. Very few designers have made this effort so far and hopefully more will consider doing it in the process of making their courses the best they can be.
MTL21676
Aug 08 2007, 10:51 AM
I loved GR9 - thought it was a great great hole.
However, not even close to a par 3.
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 10:53 AM
Like I said, other than stats for gold, it was a fun and great looking hole.
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 11:01 AM
During Words Warm-ups 12 players averaging 955 ratings shot 58% 3 and 42% 4s for a 3.4 average. That would predict 80% 3s and 20% 4s for gold with a 3.1 average, although it's a small data sample. We'll see what the real results show on the less windy day when open played it. You'll all get to see the stats as I get time to crank them out. It's too bad the current version of this Board makes it too cumbersome to post tables any more.
MTL21676
Aug 08 2007, 11:05 AM
This is exactly what my point is...
Should par be based on the hole or the scoring average?
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 11:09 AM
The definition of "par" itself implies either an average (mean) or the most common score (mode) for a player skill level. A throw counts the same whether we arbitrarily call it a drive, putt or approach.
james_mccaine
Aug 08 2007, 12:06 PM
Chuck, I am curious. Did you ever consider making the high grass area to the right and deep on GR 7 or the high grass area to the left on GR 9 as OB areas?
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 12:38 PM
Not really. We've tried to avoid too much OB that isn't natural looking such as using yellow rope. Of course, we could stake it but it makes mowing maintenance a headache.
If we do anything at all there in the future, it will likely be tree planting/transplanting to better separate fairways visually which would also make shots near them tougher if you go off line. There are other spots on the courses where OB creeks, waterfalls and fountains will be built that will have water pumping thru them during tournaments and provide fairway separation in some cases such that landing in or crossing them will be OB. For example, that dry pond next to Gold 18 is planned to have a fountain at pin high which will provide additional visual reference for gauging your upshot.
mbohn
Aug 08 2007, 01:03 PM
Disc golf has a pace and feeling that is different than when I play ball golf. I play about bogey and a half ball golf... and shoot in the 90's consistiently and sometimes sneak in a mid 80's. But it feels way different than disc golf. If I hit a par four ball golf green in regulation I get really excited that I have a chance for birdie! The rest of the time you are trying to make your third shot land close enough to possibly sneak in a par or two for the entire round! The only holes you may line up for a one putt bird or a two putt par is on a par three or a short par five. Whereas in disc golf, you are trying to set up for a birdie on every hole. I don't ever remember thinking during a disc golf round " Wow I just hit that green in regulation" So even though par is sacred in ball golf, it doesn't fit like that with disc golf due to the variations in course design and course location..... It's more like the coveted birdie is sacred.....
ck34
Aug 08 2007, 09:44 PM
Here are the scoring averages for the top 57 Open players who played Granite Ridge in the Semis. They average 1005 rating and they make it look easy:
1 2.75
2 2.43
3 3.25
4 2.59
5 3.41
6 3.43
7 3.29
8 2.55
9 3.32
10 3.70
11 2.30
12 3.52
13 2.30
14 3.18
15 2.23
16 3.25
17 3.18
18 4.29
Holes 7 and 14 were listed as par 4s and played more as 3s. Hole 18 played as a tough par 4 instead of 5. As predicted, holes 9, 16 & 17 played as 3s. In fact, holes 5 & 6 played as the toughest par 3s. Holes 7, 9 15 & 17 were the only holes with a weak distribution with at least 75% of one score.
I'll be posting additional scoring results from Worlds in the Results Analysis thread of the Course Design topic over the next week.
denny1210
Aug 09 2007, 07:38 AM
It's too bad the current version of this Board makes it too cumbersome to post tables any more.
:confused:
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 08:56 AM
1 2.75
2 2.43
3 3.25
4 2.59
5 3.41
6 3.43
7 3.29
8 2.55
9 3.32
10 3.70
11 2.30
12 3.52
13 2.30
14 3.18
15 2.23
16 3.25
17 3.18
18 4.29
Holes 7 and 14 were listed as par 4s and played more as 3s. Hole 18 played as a tough par 4 instead of 5. As predicted, holes 9, 16 & 17 played as 3s. In fact, holes 5 & 6 played as the toughest par 3s. Holes 7, 9 15 & 17 were the only holes with a weak distribution with at least 75% of one score.
You should not base par on scoring average!!!
I Cannot believe you would think to make hole 7 a par 3 and hole 18 a par 4. That is really really dumb!
I hope you have realized that the par at worlds was making people really get a good laugh.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 08:58 AM
These numbers COMPLETELY argue what I said before these were posted.
That most of the holes I Was complaining about the par on came out to be around 3.3 average - aka bad holes.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 09:00 AM
I also find it funny that you are talking about lowering the pars on some holes, yet 14 has the most lowest scoring average on the course compared to its par it and you didn't say a word about it!
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 09:18 AM
I hope you have realized that the par at worlds was making people really get a good laugh.
Perhaps that, but those who were thoughtful may have learned something about design that will expand their vision of appropriate and less appropriate holes. Those with x.3 average can sometimes be good. Holes with scoring averages that are good for one skill level at 3.6-3.8 may or may not be good when played by gold level at 3.2-3.4. It depends on the design. If it's in the open like GR9, it will likely not be great. GR9 is OK for gold only because the elevation, view and pin placement compensate for it's challenge weakness. But it's a really good hole for blue level.
GR6 on the other hand, is still a good challenge as a tough par 3 for gold and a challenging par 4 for blue level. GR7 may have been better in the shorter position since it wasn't long enough to make it a par 4 for gold, just for blue level. GR14 in that pin placement may not work well for either gold or blue although the scoring spread was borderline OK. It's a solid white par 4 but appears to be more of a tweener for gold and blue.
Regardless whether you use scoring average or Lowe's method, I believe these longer holes called par 3s would still be tough par 3s in any valid system for DG. The BG system is not applicable for disc golf pars.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 09:27 AM
I guess we will never agree that our idea of what a good hole and bad hole is.
Personally, I really like the courses....my only changes would have been...
GR5 - new tee in field making the hole a 370ish turnover
GR16 - Teed from white tee to make more people go for it
GR 17 - made the tee shorter to make more people go for it - maybe 350ish
BB4 - Made the tee further back and around the 600 mark to make it a true par 4
BB 10 - teed shorter left of the tee to make the hole like 450
BB16 - tee at the turn
That was pretty much it to be honest. Most of my gripes were not the hole, just the par assigned to the hole. Like I thought GR9 (although def. NOT a par 3) was a GREAT golf hole. The upshot was the challenge on the hole and the pin was in a great place with some serious roll away potentional. If you wanted an easy upshot, you had to bomb something over the OB and risk a big number.
I also liked GR7 for the same reasons.
I love holes that make you think and these two holes did that. Where as GR5, you just picked up a driver and threw a hyzer. Then picked up an avair and threw. Pretty boring hole.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 09:39 AM
I also found it very interesting that GR13 played tougher than GR15.
Once again proving my point that so many great players struggle on short holes and the need for more of them.....
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 09:43 AM
I'm not saying GR9 was a bad hole because scoring spread is only one factor, albeit important at least for competition. I don't necessarily disagree with your suggested adjustments either because those are holes on blue level courses that have been proven to work well for blue level players.
We had plans for gold level tees on a half dozen BH holes such as BH4 and BH10. But people liked the course so much as it is, plus other divisions were playing it besides Open. So we decided to leave it as is for Worlds. If you like BH16 from the landing area, why not have the challenge of laying up to that position or go over the top? I'm surprised to hear from Feldberg that no one in his group went over the top on that one. We blue level players play that route all the time to penetrate further down the fairway.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 09:46 AM
I also found it very interesting that GR13 played tougher than GR15.
For blue level, it's just the opposite. GR15 is a power shot due to the wide hyzer required and blue level players don't get there as easily on average for the birdie try.
On GR13, I'm looking at another pin to the left perched on the edge of the dry creek bed and clearing some schule there for a more interesting putting area.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 09:51 AM
I'm surprised to hear from Feldberg that no one in his group went over the top on that one.
B/c there is no point in doing so!!!
Going over the top on that for it to work out the player would have to pull the shot off. Going down the fairway was a pretty simple 3. Going for a shot like that doesn't do anything unless you get the two. That is bringing up a REALLY big number possibility.
I would say if someone went over the top, they would, on average, get 6 3's, 3 4's and maybe one 2. Around the corner would net probably 8 3's and 2 4's.
No where close to woth the risk. I saw one person take that route and he thew a thumber. Still, he was no where near the pin and took a three.
I think my problems with many of the holes was you felt that more players would go for stuff than they did. A golfer is a golfer first and foremost and has to play the odds.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 09:53 AM
I also found it very interesting that GR13 played tougher than GR15.
For blue level, it's just the opposite. GR15 is a power shot due to the wide hyzer required and blue level players don't get there as easily on average for the birdie try.
I'm not arguing that 15 would play easier for gold players than blue players, that is obvious. I'm just saying I find it funny that the best golfers in the world struggled more on a 240 foot hyzer with 2 trees than a 340 foot hyzer with 15 trees.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 10:06 AM
Or a 130-ft hole with one tree... :eek:
james_mccaine
Aug 09 2007, 11:47 AM
If it's in the open like GR9, it will likely not be great. GR9 is OK for gold only because the elevation, view and pin placement compensate for it's challenge weakness. But it's a really good hole for blue level.
It was interesting for me, as I watched a lot of mid-pack masters play those courses, as well as the top pros. Some holes work well for the masters, but not for the top open guys. However, for the purposes of a large tournament, with various skill divisions, I have concluded that you either need multiple boxes, which don't make sense for a host of reasons, or simply set the holes up to generate a good spread for the top players.
For instance GR 7 and 9. Both are fine for masters level, but not for the top open guys. Tightening the drive up for the top open guys would yield more 4s for them, but it would still work for the masters level. Instead of a good spread of 3s and 4s for the masters, you would get a spread of 3s, 4s, and 5s.
In short, for tournament play, I don't think a designer needs to concern himself so much about how the hole plays for each division, just make it tough and fair for gold level and the rest will almost always fall in line.
denny1210
Aug 09 2007, 12:10 PM
In short, for tournament play, I don't think a designer needs to concern himself so much about how the hole plays for each division, just make it tough and fair for gold level and the rest will almost always fall in line.
I'm hoping to see the day that all pro tournaments are one-division only, eliminating that problem.
Karl
Aug 09 2007, 12:19 PM
"...just make it tough and fair for gold level and the rest will almost always fall in line." Finally someone says something that is logical, easy, and will work! None of this "par for 950-rated players" or "par for white level players", etc. Coddle, coddle, coddle. This even gets back to part of the infamous Des diatribe (coddling to women via having them tee off of someone's definition of "the correct tees" for them).
PAR, by definition (not Chuck's definition...Merriam Webster's) is "the number of golf strokes regarded necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play." Therefore it doesn't matter if you're Doss, a dg'er with a 150 rating or anyone in between, PAR (for any hole / course) IS THE SAME FOR ALL. Period. Remember, it is the course's or hole's par - not yours. YOU don't even come into the equation.
Karl
denny1210
Aug 09 2007, 12:19 PM
That most of the holes I Was complaining about the par on came out to be around 3.3 average - aka bad holes.
i think it's a mistake to conclude that a hole with a 3.3 average is "bad". from a scoring distribution perspective, such a hole could have a "weak" distribution of 70% pars and 30% bogeys OR it could have a tasty distribution of 15% birdies, 50% pars, 25% bogeys and 10% double-bogeys.
james_mccaine
Aug 09 2007, 12:20 PM
I guess my statement should not use the word "divisions" and instead say that "I don't think a designer needs to concern himself so much about how the hole plays for each skill level, just make it tough and fair for gold level and the rest will almost always fall in line." The only time this little maxim wouldn't apply is when the distance to clear OB is too far for the less-skilled level.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 12:22 PM
I have also said that hole 3 and 6 were great holes and fall in this scoring range....but that is b/c they were tough, but dueceable - these holes fall in the true comparison of a ball golf par 3, not a 500 foot hole that no one can reach and everyone is throwing 100 foot approches too. Those are comparable to 300 - 350 yard par 4's in golf.
The holes that are almost impossible to duece and come out at that average are bad holes.
People complain about pitch and putt courses that force you to get up down from 200 feet, however, when a hole is a par 4 and is a 3.3 average, it basically does the exact same thing, yet people (other than me) seem to never complain about these holes. These are basically par 4 versions of pitch and putt.
gotcha
Aug 09 2007, 12:31 PM
In short, for tournament play, I don't think a designer needs to concern himself so much about how the hole plays for each division, just make it tough and fair for gold level and the rest will almost always fall in line.
I'm hoping to see the day that all pro tournaments are one-division only, eliminating that problem.
How would that eliminate the alleged "problem"?
denny1210
Aug 09 2007, 01:00 PM
the tees used for the tournament would be specifically designed for the skill level of the competitors.
you can't have a blanket course for open, pro grandmasters, and pro women that's ideal. it always involves some sacrifices. for instance, the red hawk course was designed specifically as a tough challenge for open players and provides excellent scoring distributions on all but 2-3 holes for that group of players, but the distributions weren't as good for the women.
we were excited to have a very close competition among the top four women, but felt that some of the holes are too long for them to think about birdie on and they played a lot of "play safe, don't make mistakes golf". we're looking at changing some of the tees for the ladies this year to give them more birdie opportunities and challenge their course management more. (i'd be interested in getting pm's from any of the ladies reading this thread on their thoughts on the players cup tees.)
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 02:34 PM
PAR, by definition (not Chuck's definition...Merriam Webster's) is "the number of golf strokes regarded necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play."
Sorry Karl, but they don't even hold to that in ball golf where the quote originated. There are different par standards for each tee in ball golf based on the skill level for those tees. What they mean is that the par is set for an "expert" at that skill level, i.e., a White level player is an "expert" white level player and a red level player is an "expert" at playing at the red level.
Now ball golf primarily takes into account only the first shot so that players can get to the first landing area, or to the green on par 3s. However, on par 4s & 5s, that means the lower level players don't get a break and have longer upshots than are really appropriate for their skill level. That, besides worse chipping & putting skills, is why lower level golfers can't shoot the par on their level of course and many times, the par for shorter tees will be set at 5 on a hole that is par 4 from a longer tee.
In disc golf, we design the shorter layouts to match the skill level all the way to the basket where possible. Just like ball golf, a red level par 5 might be a blue level par 4 or a blue level par 4 might be gold level par 3 as shown in Worlds. Setting all pars at gold level has been shown to be foolish because roughly half of the holes in the world would likely be gold par 2s.
paul
Aug 09 2007, 03:31 PM
"Setting all pars at gold level has been shown to be foolish because roughly half of the holes in the world would likely be gold par 2s."
That seems about right. Is there a course where if you set all the pars according to gold level skill there would be no par 2's?
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 03:38 PM
Maybe a half dozen that were actually designed that way like Highbridge Gold, Winthrop Gold, Idlewild, Moraine, Renny Gold and Charlotte's Web and some temp layouts for Golden State and Beaver? Even some of the alternate pin placements on H.Gold have been under 2.5 in some events so they might need shoring up or changing.
james_mccaine
Aug 09 2007, 03:55 PM
I've long agreed with Paul's assertion. Par would actually be a more meaningful concept if it were absolute.
doot
Aug 09 2007, 04:36 PM
ugg, the solution is simple, but it's application is confusing.
Par (per hole) in disc golf courses should be based upon a certain skill level.
The problem with this, however is that many holes have have up to 3 or 4 different "pars". It sounds stupid, but it works in theory.
Par on a hole should be what a player at whatever appropriate skill level is expected to shoot at that skill level. Throw an exceptional drive or hit an exceptional putt, and you've earned a birdie. Throw off the fairway, botch an approach, or gak a putt and it's a bogey.
The ULTIMATE course would have 3, 4, or 5 different teepads (or pin positions) each at different lengths or in different placements based upon skill levels to create a legit "par" for each skill level.
You could say that Warwick with its 4 different layouts, might meet the mold on most holes. Hole 1 Short to short is a par 3+ at the Red level, a Par 3 at the White Level, and probably a Par 2 at the Blue and Gold Level.
But if you look at the different layouts at hole one, you could say it's:
RED: SS 3.5, SB 4, BS 4, BB 5
WHITE: SS 3, SB 3.5, BS 3.5, BB 4
BLUE: SS 2.5, SB 3, BS 3, BB 3.5
GOLD: SS 2, SB 2.5, BS 2.5, BB 3
For current courses, one would need to have designated different pars on each hole based upon the skill level.
This is the route we must go if we want to maintain consistancy in establishing pars..but it also means there are a whole bunch of Par 2s out there, at EVERY skill level.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 04:40 PM
I just think basing par on skill level is a little rediculous....I think if someone shoots 12 under and someone else shotos even, that people understand that just as much as saying someone shot 42 and the other shot 54.
denny1210
Aug 09 2007, 04:43 PM
Maybe a half dozen that were actually designed that way like Highbridge Gold, Winthrop Gold, Idlewild, Moraine, Renny Gold and Charlotte's Web and some temp layouts for Golden State and Beaver? Even some of the alternate pin placements on H.Gold have been under 2.5 in some events so they might need shoring up or changing.
the lowest hole average for the gold sample pool (average 1000 rated) from last year's Players Cup was hole #11 at 2.8 (the easiest hole relative to par was the par 4, #16 at 3.7)
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 04:52 PM
I personally think the best way to show score seperation is not by looking at data, but by watching players play the hole. After about 6 groups, you get a good idea pretty quickly.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 05:02 PM
Watching tells you how players play the hole in terms of routes, which can be useful for interpreting the actual scoring data.
davidsauls
Aug 09 2007, 05:04 PM
Par is, essentially, a scoring shorthand. On short and moderate courses, players often treat everything as "par 3" to keep a score in their head without paying attention to designated pars. More formally, they can base their scores on the posted pars for each hole and still keep score without a card. For this purpose, it is best if the posted par is close to the player's skill level, so that most holes do not change the score in relation to "par". All of which is just shorthand---because total strokes, not relationship to par---decides the outcome.
Except, of course, for the penalty for missing a hole, which is the only situation that comes to mind where "par" is part of the rules. If you post only the gold-level par, then the penalty for missing a hole is much less for the intermediate player. As an aging, 900-rated duffer, there are holes that I could skip, take a rest and a gold-par-plus-4 score, and be better off.
But it's also a factor in course design, where a designer may decide, "I want this hole to be a 'par 5'---to take an average of 5 shots for the gold-level player (or whoever else it's designed for)", as part of his decision on how long or tough to make a hole.
doot
Aug 09 2007, 05:05 PM
I just think basing par on skill level is a little rediculous....I think if someone shoots 12 under and someone else shotos even, that people understand that just as much as saying someone shot 42 and the other shot 54.
My point is that par for you (on any course) will be far different than par for me. You're rating is 100 over mine, which means in order to play at your level, you're expected to shoot on average 10 strokes better. That means some Par 3 holes for me are Par 2s for you, etc. Whether it's pure distance (I'm driving probably 320') or thumbing over a tree that I can't reach, what you and your group's level *should* shoot is different than mine.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 05:13 PM
By why should I beat you by 10 stokes and then get a score of -4 when you get a score of Even. That's dumb to me.
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 05:19 PM
I guess my point really was that if I had tied someone who missed hole 1 at HG, I would very very uspet b/c that person recieved a 7 instead of an 8.
As long as our rules give out penalities based on par, par HAS to be based on the hole, not scoring averages.
I know someone out there in discussion land agrees with me....perhaps a poll....
Karl
Aug 09 2007, 05:20 PM
Fred,
You're being brainwashed. ;)
Your "My point is that par for you (on any course) will be far different than par for me." is NG. I have no par. You have no par. The COURSE (or hole) has a par. It is calculated by a REALLY good player playing it. Yes, I should end up (on avg) about +5 on the course; you +12, etc. But the course's par doesn't change (because the avg. "expert's" play doesn't change).
"Expectations" are not par. We all have "expectations" and we all have "our avg. score", but par is (or god knows it should be (but isn't)) constant. If it isn't, then it's meaning is severely diluted. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Chuck) could then say "...I shot par" and anyone (who didn't know dg) would think "...wow, he's good..." when he could be rated bazillionith in the world. That would just be stupid.
Karl
MTL21676
Aug 09 2007, 05:21 PM
"My point is that par for you (on any course) will be far different than par for me." is NG. I have no par. You have no par. The COURSE (or hole) has a par.
Brilliant!
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 05:22 PM
If you beat him by ten shots on your gold layout, you shoot maybe -3 and he shoots +7. You play on his white layout and you shoot -11 and he shoots -1 based on par for the white skill level layout. There aren't necessarily different pars for the same layout.
mbohn
Aug 09 2007, 05:24 PM
Your out of order, he's out of order, your all out of order, par is out of order!!
doot
Aug 09 2007, 05:27 PM
Fred,
You're being brainwashed. ;)
Your "My point is that par for you (on any course) will be far different than par for me." is NG. I have no par. You have no par. The COURSE (or hole) has a par. It is calculated by a REALLY good player playing it. Yes, I should end up (on avg) about +5 on the course; you +12, etc. But the course's par doesn't change (because the avg. "expert's" play doesn't change).
"Expectations" are not par. We all have "expectations" and we all have "our avg. score", but par is (or god knows it should be (but isn't)) constant. If it isn't, then it's meaning is severely diluted. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Chuck) could then say "...I shot par" and anyone (who didn't know dg) would think "...wow, he's good..." when he could be rated bazillionith in the world. That would just be stupid.
Karl
Brainwashed? I'm considering this a moment of clarity! :confused:
calbert
Aug 09 2007, 05:29 PM
One valid point that is being left out of this discussion is that all holes should have the possibility to be birdied. That is why par 2's are dumb. All this talk about using scoring averages to decide par is odd to me as well. The concept of par is pretty simple. Add one stroke to the best score an "expert" player can shoot. You have to rule out distance freaks though, as just because the longest driving ten players in the world can get there doesnt' mean its a par three. I just got back from World's and while there were some holes I liked, I found many of them to be boring and too forgiving. A great example of a bad hole in my mind is 17 on Blueberry. It is a 430' shot up hill with a big man-made ob lake before the basket. Everyone I played with threw far right to avoid trouble, pitched up and took a 3. Just because I saw Kallstrom take a 2 on it does not make it a good hole. When most players drive and then have a 120-150' upshot, that is just not a good hole. Let the par rant continue.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 05:29 PM
You're just off base Karl except on the roughly dozen courses designed for Gold level which is the reference standard for SSA. There par is set for that skill level AND will hopefully have some holes where par is lower than the scoring average (MTL). All other courses should have par set appropriate to the "expert" players who play the skill level that course is designed for.
rollinghedge
Aug 09 2007, 05:31 PM
I guess my point really was that if I had tied someone who missed hole 1 at HG, I would very very uspet b/c that person recieved a 7 instead of an 8.
As long as our rules give out penalities based on par, par HAS to be based on the hole, not scoring averages.
Why not just change the rules that include par as part of the penalty?
exczar
Aug 09 2007, 05:44 PM
"My point is that par for you (on any course) will be far different than par for me." is NG. I have no par. You have no par. The COURSE (or hole) has a par.
Brilliant!
Correct. For a given tee location and a given pin location, there is only one par,BUT...
Chuck made a valid and important point. Ball golf does indeed use the same par for the hole, and adjust the tee location accordingly, but all that is intended to do is to adjust the distance to the preferred landing zone for the first shot. Disc golf has much more variety in hole design to allow us to always do that, so I think that we can make adjustment to par if it make the playing experience better for the player.
Let's say we have a hole that is a good gold par 4. It is interesting and has a good score distribution. If we set up a tee for a lower division to have a par 4 with good score distribution, it makes for a boring uninteresting hole. But, if we stay at the gold tee, or move slightly from it, it makes an interesting par 5, with good score distribution.
Ball golf assumes that, after the first shot, all players are alike in their ability to get finished with the hole. We know better with DG, and we should design our hole accordingly, and not get hung up with a hole having the same par from all tees.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 05:47 PM
One valid point that is being left out of this discussion is that all holes should have the possibility to be birdied.
Says who? Where's the rule for that? You can't use ball golf as a reference because the difficulty of putting in ball golf automatically creates the scoring spread that allows birdies and bogeys on most holes. But lately even ball golf is stretching the limits for championships and making 300 yd par 3s with little chance of birdie. I'll get on the soapbox again and say that until putting is made as difficult as ball golf we'll have these tweener par problems because most holes with less than average foliage can be set either for 1/3 2s and 2/3 3s or bad lengths with mostly 3s or hopefully well done holes with 2/3 3s and 1/3 4s like GR9.
Blueberry is a blue level course so no apologies if some holes like 17 weren't challenging enough for gold level players. That hole works just fine for blue level with the upshot not being a routine 3.
It would be nice to have all gold level courses to challenge world class players for Worlds but the reality will be mostly blue level courses with hopefully some holes tricked out for gold level. Actually, I'm not sure it would be all bad to have Open play one round a day with a rolling start on just one or two courses at Worlds on truly gold level courses while everyone else plays the usual schedule with some 2-round days on other courses.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 05:51 PM
Ball golf DQs for being late. We DNF for not finishing a round. Seems like we either need to allow players to take par plus 4 for leaving early or DQ those who are late, to be consistent.
chappyfade
Aug 09 2007, 06:30 PM
There are different par standards for each tee in ball golf based on the skill level for those tees. What they mean is that the par is set for an "expert" at that skill level, i.e., a White level player is an "expert" white level player and a red level player is an "expert" at playing at the red level.
Now ball golf primarily takes into account only the first shot so that players can get to the first landing area, or to the green on par 3s. However, on par 4s & 5s, that means the lower level players don't get a break and have longer upshots than are really appropriate for their skill level. That, besides worse chipping & putting skills, is why lower level golfers can't shoot the par on their level of course and many times, the par for shorter tees will be set at 5 on a hole that is par 4 from a longer tee.
In disc golf, we design the shorter layouts to match the skill level all the way to the basket where possible. Just like ball golf, a red level par 5 might be a blue level par 4 or a blue level par 4 might be gold level par 3 as shown in Worlds. Setting all pars at gold level has been shown to be foolish because roughly half of the holes in the world would likely be gold par 2s.
There's no such thing as a par 2, unless the hole is under 100 ft long, but we've been down that road before, and I won't rehash old arguments.
I will say that the USGA does NOT adjust par due to skill level (look here (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html) for verification) There are 3 different pars, one for men, one for women, and one for juniors. You will often see the par for men and women posted on the tee signs at golf courses, or on the scorecards. I've never yet seen the junior par listed anywhere, except in the USGA Handicap Manual found here (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html) .
Par in ball golf is based on how many shots it takes you to get to the putting area, plus 2 shots in from there. Par is almost ENTIRELY based on the length of th hole. The average score for a hole for 1000+ rated players (or any rated players) has NOTHING to do with it.
It'd be more instructive to look at how many people birdied the hole, rather than at scoring average. If a hole played 3.4 shot average...but you're calling it a par 3...did anyone birdie it (make 2)? Did anyone have an opportunity to birdie it (within 100 ft on drive)? If not, then it might be a par 4, even if more people made 3 than made 4. It's just an easy par 4. If no one can even get on the dance floor in one shot, there's no way it can be a par 3.
Chap
mbohn
Aug 09 2007, 06:47 PM
I was thinking along the same lines. I have always thought that the average pro player throws about 350' ( if thats not true don't worry, this is just an example) so that means the max distance of a par 3 would be about 700' (drive, approach, putt). This 700' would be a tough par three...
Pass that distance and you are now in the par 4 territory, at 700'-1000' for any par 4
over 1000' and its a par 5....
I know that to adjust par for technical influences would required averaging scores, buit it sure simple to base it on distance.
ck34
Aug 09 2007, 07:01 PM
If no one can even get on the dance floor in one shot, there's no way it can be a par 3.
That's not quite right Chap, in a few ways. There are no USGA rules that specifies a hole has to be birdied to have an appropriate par. They've already demonstrated that with their recent 300 yd par 3s. And we have no 'dance floor' like ball golf. If we make putting tougher then we can finally use ball golf analogies for this discussion. The USGA has only published guidelines for men, women and juniors for handicapping purposes but the par for the additional tees other than the official mens and womens have their own guidelines done by their course designers.
Maybe three of the five tees will have a mens par reference and two might have a womens reference and then one for seniors (not published by USGA). So you end up with the confusing and sexist situation where there are two pars on one or two layouts for handicapping purposes with both mens and womens pars from the same tee. It would be as if I published both the blue and gold pars for Granite Ridge at Worlds where the GMs used the blue pars for their rounds and the Masters and Open used the gold par.
rhett
Aug 09 2007, 07:08 PM
The real problem with par in disc golf....is that people hate the idea of calling a hole a par-2 even though they've all played holes where they know they just gave up a stroke to the field (aka "bogeyed") when they took a 3.
mbohn
Aug 09 2007, 07:10 PM
You know what is really hard to do? Make putts on a mini basket with regular discs... We had one of those nice ones from the mini-disc golf federation and it would just fit a disc. It had great chains, but was really small. Make the baskets smaller and that would really make disc golf tough!
rollinghedge
Aug 09 2007, 09:22 PM
Ball golf DQs for being late. We DNF for not finishing a round. Seems like we either need to allow players to take par plus 4 for leaving early or DQ those who are late, to be consistent.
Just give them a 10 for every hole they miss. That's consistent.
chappyfade
Aug 10 2007, 02:00 AM
If no one can even get on the dance floor in one shot, there's no way it can be a par 3.
That's not quite right Chap, in a few ways. There are no USGA rules that specifies a hole has to be birdied to have an appropriate par. They've already demonstrated that with their recent 300 yd par 3s.
Singular, Chuck. There was only ONE 300 yd. par 3, hole #8 at Oakmont for this year's U.S. Open (and there were some birdies on that one, Angel Cabrera for one, and lots of others got on the dance floor), and it was only in that position for ONE day....Sunday. It was downhill, and it only played that long because the tees were at the very back, and the pin was at the very back of the green. And believe me, there's a lot of controversy within the golf community about that one 300 yd. par 3. I know Jack Nicklaus was not pleased with it, since it was a 3-wood or 1-iron for most people anyway when it "only" 250 yds long. Tiger Woods was quoted as saying "if you scored 12 or less for the four rounds, you're going to be picking strokes on the field." That was controversial, and the golfers COULD reach the green.
And we have no 'dance floor' like ball golf.
Actually, we do, it's just not as pretty or as well-defined as a ball golf green. I'd say the dance floor is within 100' ft of the hole, because that's about how far people can use putting form to throw a putt. Yes, some can jump putt farther, some might not be able to putt as far, but it's a good place to start, and we have some flex around the boundaries between the pars. Your definition of dance floor might differ from mine, and we may have more obstacles on our dance floor than ball golf, but we do have a dance floor.
If we make putting tougher then we can finally use ball golf analogies for this discussion. The USGA has only published guidelines for men, women and juniors for handicapping purposes but the par for the additional tees other than the official mens and womens have their own guidelines done by their course designers.
Course committees only vary from the recommended USGA par if the length of the hole is borderline for one par or the other, and the USGA will request par be adjusted for any course that goes outside their guidelines without justification. Factors such as uphill/downhill are considered. Par is typically not set for any reputable course without at least USGA approval or notification.
Maybe three of the five tees will have a mens par reference and two might have a womens reference and then one for seniors (not published by USGA). So you end up with the confusing and sexist situation where there are two pars on one or two layouts for handicapping purposes with both mens and womens pars from the same tee. It would be as if I published both the blue and gold pars for Granite Ridge at Worlds where the GMs used the blue pars for their rounds and the Masters and Open used the gold par.
The USGA doesn't have senior par, and I've never seen it posted at a course anywhere around here or any of the staes I've played in. Typically, men's and women's par are posted on the various tees. I agree that is sexist (I prefer the terms forward and back tees myself, or whatever color the course committee has chosen for their tees (those color choices are not even close to being uniform across the country)). Also, par can be approximated for whatever tees are used, because the USGA has a standard for setting such things (the hanidcap manual).
While what we do does not fit neatly along ball golf's ideas of par, we can learn from them. Also, the closer we follow those principles, the more likely the viewing public (or new players!) will catch on.
Chap
august
Aug 10 2007, 07:58 AM
Ball golf DQs for being late. We DNF for not finishing a round. Seems like we either need to allow players to take par plus 4 for leaving early or DQ those who are late, to be consistent.
Just give them a 10 for every hole they miss. That's consistent.
Frankly, I don't want to spend time processing scores for people who are late or don't complete a round or tourney. Let's just DQ them and be done with it. Stop the coddling.
gotcha
Aug 10 2007, 08:14 AM
You should not base par on scoring average!!!
The one thing I'd like to point out in this dialog is the effort necessary after designing holes to test them and make them better if necessary relative to your intent for challenging a particular player skill level. Very few designers have made this effort so far and hopefully more will consider doing it in the process of making their courses the best they can be.
MTL...I do not understand your logic. You say par should not be based on scoring average, yet you are criticizing particular holes as being "bad holes" and basing your criticism on the scoring averages.
One cannot use scoring averages when designing a hole because that scoring data does not exist. Once the course is completed, however, one <u>can</u> begin using scoring averages from tournament play to determine if par was correctly established for a particular hole and/or if a hole yields a decent scoring spread. As Chuck points out in his quote above, course designers can utilize scoring averages to tweak hole design and/or par for a particular hole in relation to the skill level the hole was designed for.
kenmorefield
Aug 10 2007, 08:34 AM
I think par three is just a convenient way of keeping and counting the scorecards. Ball golf doesn't have fivesomes where one guy is responsible for keeping and tabulating everyone's score. When playing alone, not every course has scorecards readily available, and having one, consistent par makes it easier to track the scores in your head. I play some courses where par is a good score and others where I'm disappointed if I'm not several strokes under. A good round is defined by how I score relative to how I normally score and (sometimes) to how the people I'm playing with score.
Oh, and bear in mind that the top cars are playing something like 8 rounds, right? So extrapolating final scores to ball golf is a bit like looking at a college baseball doubleheader (with aluminum bats) and saying, "Gee the scores are up relative to an MLB game where Johann Santana pitched against Josh Becket in the Metrodome."
rollinghedge
Aug 10 2007, 08:42 AM
That would have been my first choice, but I didn't think it would go over too well though.
paul
Aug 10 2007, 08:51 AM
"That would have been my first choice, but I didn't think it would go over too well though."
Exactly!! It's a rule established so that when someone's buddy oversleeps he still gets to be a part of the festivities . . . ??
Another things that's not been discussed is that if that guy's late by 2 baskets what about the other guys in the group. Now they're lucky enough to get to hear about why that guy was late for the next 3 baskets and how it wasn't his fault and about how he didn't get a chance to warm up and about how he woulda done so much better if he didn't just take par plus 4 on the baskets he missed he'd be beating you . . . . wah wah wah . . .we started -- you missed it -- try again next week.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 08:56 AM
MTL...I do not understand your logic. You say par should not be based on scoring average, yet you are criticizing particular holes as being "bad holes" and basing your criticism on the scoring averages.
Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.
If a hole is correctly listed as a par 4 and has a scoring average of 3.3, then my only gripe would be its a boring hole. However, if you change it to a par 3, then my gripes would be its a boring hole with par being off base.
If a true par 3 comes out to 3.3, that's a good hole. If a par 4 comes out to a 3.3, that, in some cases, is a bad hole. If a par 4 comes out to a 3.3 and is listed as a par 3, then you have about 10 holes at pro worlds.
One cannot use scoring averages when designing a hole because that scoring data does not exist. Once the course is completed, however, one <u>can</u> begin using scoring averages from tournament play to determine if par was correctly established for a particular hole and/or if a hole yields a decent scoring spread. .
No. If someone has a little knowledge of disc golf (I happen to have a lot from 14+ years of play and close to 150 PDGA events played including 3 worlds and 2 world doubles), then you can EASILY look at hole and know what the scoring average will be.
Trust me, I was griping about the same holes at the beginning of the week after just playing a single practice round on them. Once you understand how discs fly and how far they fly, you can easily estimate what holes just are not going to be good. I bet I can walk on to a course blind and pretty much point out the holes with not a lot of scoring average simple b/c of experience and having played with probably 1,000 different people.
You've been playing a long time Jerry. I'm sure you could easily do the same.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 09:21 AM
Why is it that a reachable par 3 hole with a 3.3 average due to hazards and tough green area is OK and a hole that is not reachable by most at the skill level, but still with a 3.3 average must be listed as a par 4? Why is it that tough putting is more legit as a par 3 hole than a tough upshot? Let's assume that both types of holes are done well. All this does is pad the under par stats even more than they already are.
Holes at 3.3 should only be maybe one fourth of the number of par 3s on a course because those in the 2.7 neighborhood spread scores better to determine the top third of players. However, what they do by lisiting them as par 3s and not 4s is to bring the par more into line with the scoring average for that skill level.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 09:30 AM
Why is it that a reachable par 3 hole with a 3.3 average due to hazards and tough green area is OK and a hole that is not reachable by most at the skill level, but still with a 3.3 average must be listed as a par 4?
You answered your own question, the word "reachable"
A tough par 3 at 3.3 still provides the player a chance at duece.
I would guess out of the field of 57 in semis, there were about 5 dueces, 20 pars, 20 bogeys, and 12 doubles or worse on hole 6 at GR.
The previous hole, with a similar scoring average that was not reachable, probably generated 0 2's, 40 3's, 12 4's and 5 others.
The problem with holes like GR5 is the lack of skill seperation. Pretty much everyone from a 920 rated guy all the way up to Climo would expect to three that hole. On GR6, KC may play for deuce or play safe. The 920 guy probably has no chance at deuce. Even if he goes for it, he probably won't get a 2.
That seperates skill.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 09:37 AM
I mean look at the scores from the top 2 cards...
Hole 5 - 7 3's and 1 4.
Hole 6 - 1 2, 4 3's and 3 4's.
Please tell me how 6 is not clearly a much better hole even though they averaged nearly the same thing.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 09:45 AM
I said forget about particular holes. Why is a tough drive and/or green causing a 3.3 more valid for a par 3 than one where it takes a tough upshot to yield 3.3? Compare GR6 with GR9. A shot is a shot. You're mentally trapped in the ball golf putting syndrome.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 09:49 AM
b/c more than likely a par 4 that yields a 3.3 doesn't have a tough upshot
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 10:29 AM
But you liked GR9?
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 10:31 AM
yes, b/c the upshot was not easy.
If you crushed a drive way over OB and then hyzered safely, then yeah, the upshot was kinda easy (although the pin made it kinda tough).
However, when we had that massive head win and I was throwing a Max off the tee like pretty much everyone in my group and our upshots were 280 - 300 feet, then the hole was tough.
Much tougher upshot that just throwing a 100 foot avair shot.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 10:33 AM
Then, it can certainly be a good par 3 versus a weak par 4 for gold level.
chappyfade
Aug 10 2007, 10:34 AM
Why is it that a reachable par 3 hole with a 3.3 average due to hazards and tough green area is OK and a hole that is not reachable by most at the skill level, but still with a 3.3 average must be listed as a par 4?
Because par doesn't have anything to do with scoring average. Scoring spread may have something to do with how well a hole is designed, but it doesn't affect par at all.
Chap
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 10:35 AM
Why is it that a reachable par 3 hole with a 3.3 average due to hazards and tough green area is OK and a hole that is not reachable by most at the skill level, but still with a 3.3 average must be listed as a par 4?
Because par doesn't have anything to do with scoring average. Scoring spread may have something to do with how well a hole is designed, but it doesn't affect par at all.
Chap
EXACTLY!!
chappyfade
Aug 10 2007, 10:38 AM
Then, it can certainly be a good par 3 versus a weak par 4 for gold level.
No, it's a par 4 that can made into an easier birdie 3 by going for it over the water.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 10:41 AM
Then, it can certainly be a good par 3 versus a weak par 4 for gold level.
No, it's a par 4 that can made into an easier birdie 3 by going for it over the water.
Chap are sharing a brain?
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 10:44 AM
Par absolutely is related to scoring average or it's nonsensical. Many are mentally trapped with ball golf analogies. While we should try to borrow relevant aspects of it for design and competition, if it doesn't match with our game we forge our own way that makes sense.
For example, we don't play it where it lies so we have rules that determine how to take a stance where it lies. The simplified BG par method of shots to the green plus two does not work for our game. However, their normalized scoring averages do match their pars. We are doing the same thing but the mnemonic of throws to the green plus two does not match for DG. Big whoop.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 10:47 AM
To me, one of the ways I look at a hole as good or bad like this.
If I was down one stroke going to that hole and it was the last hole I played, would I be happy or upset that I was coming to that hole?
GR5, I would be upset, b/c I'm not 2ing and chances are the guy ahead of me is going to 3.
GR6, I'm happy. B/c there are dozens of possibilites of the outcome.
james_mccaine
Aug 10 2007, 10:52 AM
To me, one of the ways I look at a hole as good or bad like this.
If I was down one stroke going to that hole and it was the last hole I played, would I be happy or upset that I was coming to that hole?
GR5, I would be upset, b/c I'm not 2ing and chances are the guy ahead of me is going to 3.
GR6, I'm happy. B/c there are dozens of possibilites of the outcome.
Captured my sentiments exactly.
gotcha
Aug 10 2007, 11:30 AM
MTL...I do not understand your logic. You say par should not be based on scoring average, yet you are criticizing particular holes as being "bad holes" and basing your criticism on the scoring averages.
Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.
If a hole is correctly listed as a par 4 and has a scoring average of 3.3, then my only gripe would be its a boring hole. However, if you change it to a par 3, then my gripes would be its a boring hole with par being off base.
If a true par 3 comes out to 3.3, that's a good hole. If a par 4 comes out to a 3.3, that, in some cases, is a bad hole. If a par 4 comes out to a 3.3 and is listed as a par 3, then you have about 10 holes at pro worlds.
One cannot use scoring averages when designing a hole because that scoring data does not exist. Once the course is completed, however, one <u>can</u> begin using scoring averages from tournament play to determine if par was correctly established for a particular hole and/or if a hole yields a decent scoring spread. .
No. If someone has a little knowledge of disc golf (I happen to have a lot from 14+ years of play and close to 150 PDGA events played including 3 worlds and 2 world doubles), then you can EASILY look at hole and know what the scoring average will be.
Trust me, I was griping about the same holes at the beginning of the week after just playing a single practice round on them. Once you understand how discs fly and how far they fly, you can easily estimate what holes just are not going to be good. I bet I can walk on to a course blind and pretty much point out the holes with not a lot of scoring average simple b/c of experience and having played with probably 1,000 different people.
You've been playing a long time Jerry. I'm sure you could easily do the same.
I could do the same. I am also willing (I wish others would, too) to analyze scoring averages and scoring distributions to determine "if" par is accurately established for a particular hole and/or "if" the hole needs to be redesigned or tweaked to bring the scoring average closer in line with par (for the expert player, I might add).
We have been analyzing the scoring averages/distributions from sanctioned tournament play at Moraine State Park in Pennsylvania. The first few sanctioned events revealed two or three holes which yielded a poor scoring distribution, particularly from the 1000-rated gold tees. Improvements were made to these holes which included tee box relocation. The Ironwood Open this past spring proved a better scoring spread was realized on these particular holes. We have yet to crunch the data from the Scholl's Bicycle Center Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open in July, however, we will analyze this data for future course development and/or modifications. With par established at 66 and the SSA coming in around par, I would say the designers of the Lakeview dgc at Moraine State Park did a mighty fine job with the intended design.
In my opinion, scoring averages/scoring distributions prove to be invaluable if course designers want to use statistical data to improve individual hole design. Now, that we are finally stepping away from the "everything is a par 3" mentality, analyzing scoring averages on existing courses will help serious designers and dg clubs to accurately determine "par for the course". There are plenty of courses out there with legit par 4's and 5's, yet they are recognized as par 3 holes. Scoring average data would be most helpful to eliminate these discrepancies.
denny1210
Aug 10 2007, 11:39 AM
the mnemonic of throws to the green plus two does not match for DG.
it just depends on how you define the "green". although, i prefer the Close Range term to green because it takes the whole 10 meter rule (which has absolutely nothing to do with par) out of the discussion.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 12:08 PM
Here are the holes at Worlds where the Open players scores adjusted to a 1000 rated player averaged between x.2 and x.5. I've shown the pars we set and what they probably should be and an assessment of the scoring spread in terms of how well the hole worked to separate players in Open from a competition standpoint:
<table> <tr> <td>Validation</td><td>Score</td><td>HG6</td><td>GR6</td><td>GR16</td><td>HG8</td><td>BH8</td><td>BH10</td><td>BH14</td><td>HG1</td><td>BH16</td><td>GR3</td><td>GR18</td><td>BH12</td><td>GR5</td><td>GR14</td><td>BH13</td><td>GR17</td><td>BH17</td><td>GR7</td><td>GR9 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Effective Length</td><td>.</td><td>911</td><td>440</td><td>390</td><td>1164</td><td>659</td><td>484</td><td>443</td><td>545</td><td>520</td><td>475</td><td>875</td><td>536</td><td>555</td><td>516</td><td>433</td><td>505</td><td>471</td><td>570</td><td>550 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Worlds Par</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Gold Par Should Be?</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Comp. Quality: Gold?</td><td>.</td><td>Great</td><td>Great</td><td>Great</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>Good</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>OK</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak</td><td>Weak </td></tr> <tr> <td>Adjusted Score Avg.</td><td>.</td><td>5.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.4 </td></tr> <tr> <td>Percentage of Holes</td><td>2</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>11%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> <tr> <td>with these Scores</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td><td>59%</td><td>55%</td><td>0%</td><td>9%</td><td>70%</td><td>60%</td><td>63%</td><td>62%</td><td>63%</td><td>2%</td><td>68%</td><td>66%</td><td>71%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>75%</td><td>77% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>4</td><td>26%</td><td>29%</td><td>32%</td><td>13%</td><td>66%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td><td>33%</td><td>36%</td><td>29%</td><td>70%</td><td>30%</td><td>27%</td><td>18%</td><td>17%</td><td>21%</td><td>17%</td><td>21%</td><td>14% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>5</td><td>39%</td><td>9%</td><td>2%</td><td>63%</td><td>23%</td><td>6%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>27%</td><td>2%</td><td>7%</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>6%</td><td>4%</td><td>9% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>6</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> <tr> <td>.</td><td>7+</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0% </td></tr> </table>
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 12:19 PM
I still don't understand why you would change par based on what players make on the hole....
I've said this probably 10 times in this thread...
The way to fix it is not to change par but to change the design on the hole!
Jeff_LaG
Aug 10 2007, 12:41 PM
I still don't understand why you would change par based on what players make on the hole....
I've said this probably 10 times in this thread...
The way to fix it is not to change par but to change the design on the hole!
I think that is well understood. The hole averages and scoring distribution show that in a few cases a whole number par of 3 or 4 was equally inappropriate.
You could easily make the case that both GR7 & GR9 should be altered with a different tee or polehole position since the scoring average was in the middle between 3 and 4, the distribution was weak with greater than 75% of one score taken (3), and no scores of deuce recorded.
Note however that while hole#17 at Granite Ridge had an equally poor scoring distribution, 4% of the scores taken were deuces and you said no one would ever reach this hole for a 2. Note also that the scoring average was 3.2; it is definitely NOT a pro par four as you have asserted. However, I think this is a perfect example of where having a tough par 3 on a course is acceptable.
james_mccaine
Aug 10 2007, 12:44 PM
I have opinions on how par should be, but honestly, why does anyone really care? At the end of the day, it is simply an arbitrary reference point.
If you finish +20 and your competitor finishes +25, or if you finish -25 and your competitor finshes -20, it is the same. The value of how well or poorly the hole was played has absolutely nothing to do with par.
Inexplicably, I watched one guy whose feedback was based on the par of the hole. If he played the hole well and got a par, he was dissatisfied, but if Chuck changed the par to a 4, the exact same shots would have yielded a birdie and the guy would have been joyous.
Par is irrelevant in determining how well one played. it is only relevant in giving the player some rough idea of what lies ahead of him/her. If that is the only utility we aim to have, the calculation seems pretty straightforward, and will have nothing to do with scoring averages.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 12:44 PM
The holes on Granite and Blueberry were designed for blue level players with blue level pars. Those seem to be just fine. It's only when you have a higher level group playing them that the designs, scoring and par settings may appear funky on some holes even though I tried to tweak some with 5 longer gold tees on Granite. Once I do the Masters, GM and Women on these courses looking only at players in the 925-975 range, we'll see how they fare for blue level in competition.
Notice that there wasn't much problem on the Gold course except the tweener hole 1 which I'm OK resetting at par 4 since we'll probably look at a slightly tougher alternate pin which it doesn't have yet.
sandalman
Aug 10 2007, 12:47 PM
yeah, those blue scores will tell the story. chuck's right - applying gold scores to a blue design is gonna create funky results. thanks for posting this stuff chuck... it is great to see the analysis tools in action
james_mccaine
Aug 10 2007, 12:47 PM
You could easily make the case that both GR7 & GR9 should be altered with a different tee or polehole position since the scoring average was in the middle between 3 and 4
Please, more trouble and pressure off the tee, not more length. Length is a lousy surrogate for challenge.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 12:53 PM
I have opinions on how par should be, but honestly, why does anyone really care? At the end of the day, it is simply an arbitrary reference point.
I agree with this.
However, I point back to the John E. Mac situation from 06 worlds where he missed the first 2 holes, getting 7's.
Both of these were clearly par 3s. However, imagine in this would have happened this year on the gold course?
Hole 1 was clearly a par 4, and the way it was listed had it a par 3. Hole 2 was clearly a par 3 and and it was listed this way.
Now instead of taking an 8 and 7, McCray gets 2 7's. I would be pretty upset if I was the guy tied with him or the guy one behind him.
A simple brain fart in listing the par could result in someone making about 1,000 dollars less.
rollinghedge
Aug 10 2007, 01:30 PM
He should have been DQ'ed for being late!! There is NO reason to set a penalty based on par.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 02:03 PM
that is a totally different discussion that should def. be discussed, however, for this discussion, using the current rule is the best way to go.
rollinghedge
Aug 10 2007, 02:11 PM
Your entire premise is that par only matters b/c of that rule:
Sure par really doesn't matter. Whether these two holes were listed as par 3 or par 4, you still wanted a 3 on the hole. However, if someone was late and missed one of these holes, the par plus 4 rule is a big deal. I know that if I tied someone who took a 7 instead of an 8, I would be very upset.
Change the rule and then we can all go back to not caring about par.
MTL21676
Aug 10 2007, 02:22 PM
where there are dozens on reason why par matters, but most of them are simply for outsiders.
Within the sport and the rules, the only reason par matters is b/c of the par plus 4 rule.
This is why it is important for each hole to be labeled correctly.
There is a hole in NC that is 1001 feet and is a true par 5. Every year the TD lists it at par 3. Things like that, for the par +4 rule, MUST change.
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 03:05 PM
Considering that most of the worst penalties someone can take amount to 2 shots, it's bizarre that the late penalty is par plus 4. I think that's the case because it covers situations when the TD leaves a true par 5 at par 3 for the event and also to make sure that juniors and beginners can't "take advantage" of the rule to get a score equal to what they might throw on a par 5 listed as a 3. If the pars were set at the scoring average and the penalty was par plus 2, it would be more consistent. However, I believe that if the player misses more than 3 holes at the beginning or end, they should be DQ'd. This would make it consistent and allow some leniency at either end of the round. And it would also connect with our record system because players who miss three holes will almost always have that round rating dropped and will not be propagators for that round.
mbohn
Aug 10 2007, 03:34 PM
I don't agree with this anaolgy:
"I think that's the case because it covers situations when the TD leaves a true par 5 at par 3 for the event..."
Why? Because there have been times when we discuss this issue during a weekly round for example. Sometimes the conditions or just the general level of play will end up getting players a double bogey on any given par 3 hole. Some people argue that 4 throw penalty is excessive. Well lets say it was only a par plus 2 throws penalty, then when a guy shows up late and then gets a five on the hole that 3 out 4 in a group also got 5, and the late guy didn't even play the hole, people start saying that is not fair for him to get the same score. So for me the Par +4 rule seems to make perfect sense becuase a player could easily end up with a double bogey on any par three if he hits a tree or two or if the weather is questionable.... That would be worst case senario + 2 throws or Par plus 4 throws :D
ck34
Aug 10 2007, 04:12 PM
It just seems weird that if you're not DQ'ing a player, then don't give him such a high penalty for being late that is worse than penalties such as courtesy violations, misadding a scorecard or playing from another lie. How about if the player gets two throws worse than anyone on his card in his division? Likewise, allow a player to miss up to three holes at either end with that penalty. Even if the winds are howling and the player tries to skip the last hole(s) on purpose, he could be DQ'd by the TD for circumventing the rules.
"Number of throws to reach the 10 meter circle plus 1 throw to putt out. A good(?) player can expect to throw par with errorless play."
Methinks there would be a lot of par 2's if this were the case.
"In Putt-Putt golf, every hole is Par 2." :D Very few people will get that joke but my brother Jon will.
It's very vain of you to think that I read all of your posts. :D
enkster
Aug 11 2007, 08:44 PM
Jon,
But obviously quite correct.... :D
stevenpwest
Aug 11 2007, 09:05 PM
I disagree with using scoring AVERAGES to set par. All definitions of par revolve around "did a player do good on that hole?"
I would submit that the players who got the highest scores on each hole did not play well. So, why should they be included in calculating par?
My gut tells me to use the lowest score that "a bunch" of players scored. To turn that into a formula, and since you like the fraction 1/3, I calculated the pars based on the score at the 33.33rd percentile. They add up to 63, vs. the 69.1 total of average scores.
5 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
This usually leaves open the possibility of a birdie, but doesn't mandate it. It can also be used to set par for any skill levels (or sexes or ages), for which you have results.
ck34
Aug 12 2007, 01:20 AM
I would submit that the players who got the highest scores on each hole did not play well. So, why should they be included in calculating par?
You don't know that they didn't play well, just that they are on the high end of the standard deviation for that skill level, assuming you are only including scores from players in that skill level. Par still means 'average' or 'normal' by most definitions. It's apparent that par in ball oglf isn't best play but is good play or typical play for those who the tees are being designed for. Otherwise, you couldn't birdie or eagle holes if par was set at best play.
gotcha
Aug 12 2007, 05:57 AM
I still don't understand why you would change par based on what players make on the hole....
I've said this probably 10 times in this thread...
The way to fix it is not to change par but to change the design on the hole!
MTL......what about existing courses that have true par 4's & par 5's, yet the local idiots observe them as par 3's? Wouldn't scoring average data come in handy to correctly assign par those holes? :confused:
MTL21676
Aug 12 2007, 09:30 PM
MTL......what about existing courses that have true par 4's & par 5's, yet the local idiots observe them as par 3's? Wouldn't scoring average data come in handy to correctly assign par those holes? :confused:
I think the above answers your question :D
stevenpwest
Aug 12 2007, 10:24 PM
I would submit that the players who got the highest scores on each hole did not play well. So, why should they be included in calculating par?
You don't know that they didn't play well, just that they are on the high end of the standard deviation for that skill level, assuming you are only including scores from players in that skill level. Par still means 'average' or 'normal' by most definitions. It's apparent that par in ball oglf isn't best play but is good play or typical play for those who the tees are being designed for. Otherwise, you couldn't birdie or eagle holes if par was set at best play.
I agree that par should not be based on best play. That's why I did not take the lowest score on each hole. That would have produced a lot of 2's, and a total par of only 50. I was suggesting a score that at least 1/3 of the players did as well as.
I still maintain that "average" is not the same as "normal" "good" or "typical" play. For example, it is not normal, good, or typical to throw OB. Yet, Average includes everyone who did throw OB (plus all other non-normal, not good and atypical ways to play the hole).
I would even be willing to use mode as par. What bothers me is a few high scores boosting par. Perhaps at the 1000 level, there aren't any untypically high scores, but there are at other skill levels.
By the way, in a golf tournament, are there as many scores below par as above?
ck34
Aug 12 2007, 10:42 PM
I always cap the outlier scores that are more than 3 shots above the current average at 3 shots or less above the average so they don't artificially boost the average used as a par reference. In addition, holes that come in around 3.4 average don't have to be par 3s just like those that come in around 2.4 don't have to be par 2s. I believe the designer gets to make the call on par for holes in the 3.3-3.5 zone. There may be a reason in the flow or overall par to have a 3.4 hole be a tough par 3 to "work" the players. Or, perhaps you want to give the players a really easy par 4 at that point in the flow. It also might be a hole that if the wind kicks up, the scoring average will balloon over 3.5 such that it's a solid par 4 on a course that's normally windy but the stats were collected when it was calm.
Anyone who watched the PGA Championship today would see how common it is for par 3 holes to have scoring averages in the 3.3-3.4 range. Hole 18 only had 4 birdies all day but was a par 4 with a scoring average well over 4.
chappyfade
Aug 12 2007, 10:48 PM
I would submit that the players who got the highest scores on each hole did not play well. So, why should they be included in calculating par?
You don't know that they didn't play well, just that they are on the high end of the standard deviation for that skill level, assuming you are only including scores from players in that skill level. Par still means 'average' or 'normal' by most definitions. It's apparent that par in ball oglf isn't best play but is good play or typical play for those who the tees are being designed for. Otherwise, you couldn't birdie or eagle holes if par was set at best play.
I agree that par should not be based on best play. That's why I did not take the lowest score on each hole. That would have produced a lot of 2's, and a total par of only 50. I was suggesting a score that at least 1/3 of the players did as well as.
I still maintain that "average" is not the same as "normal" "good" or "typical" play. For example, it is not normal, good, or typical to throw OB. Yet, Average includes everyone who did throw OB (plus all other non-normal, not good and atypical ways to play the hole).
I would even be willing to use mode as par. What bothers me is a few high scores boosting par. Perhaps at the 1000 level, there aren't any untypically high scores, but there are at other skill levels.
By the way, in a golf tournament, are there as many scores below par as above?
Or, we could just admit to ourselves that putting is easier in disc golf, and good scores are going to be more under par than in ball golf tournaments. Instead of trying to tinker with par statistically, I think it should make more sense intuitively. A basically flat 600 ft. hole is intuitively a par 4. I still maintain that if a good player can't reach a hole within 100 ft., it's not a par 3. Calling GR #9 a par 3 is equivalent to calling a 400 yd. hole on a ball golf course a par 3. Even Markus wasn't getting in putting distance on that hole.
Now that being said, there are longer holes I might call a par 3, and that's because they are severely downhill and can be reached in one shot. #18 at Hyland SSA in Bloomington, MN is one example. The hole measures 712ft., yet even I had a birdie putt (which I missed :() on it one round.
Chap
MTL21676
Aug 12 2007, 11:06 PM
My thought on this is looking to the future to people who have no knowledge of disc golf, but have seen golf on TV. Hopefully, this people will turn on thier tv and see disc golf at one point.
All the sudden they someone throw an incredible shot (such as putting HG1 50 feet away) and they are not going to understand that that is an really really good shot b/c they are "50 feet out on a par 3"
That is not going to make sense at all. Sure, if someone is in the schule and throws some crazy thumber 50 feet away, they are going to understand thats a good shot.
However, from a teebox, that aint gonna fly.
I've said this before, watch the 03 NT video, esp. the memorial part. Kevin McCoy bombs a roller and throws like a 300 foot approach and John Houck says "should be an easy par save"
If I had not known that 3 was good on this hole based on knowledge of the game, the 500 foot roller Kev just threw coul then be interperted as a "bad shot" b/c he still had 300 feet to reach a "par 3"
We need to accept the fact that our game is easier than golf. We are just like ping pong and tennis. Tennis is much larger, takes more skill, more power, and has more variables. Ping Pong was made from tennis and is much much easier. Disc golf and Golf are the same way.
We need to stop realizing that we are NOT golf. Part of the reason for these rediculous pars at worlds was b/c chuck felt that tough par 3's in golf have averages of 3.3, which these holes had as well.
WE ARE NOT GOLF!!
ck34
Aug 12 2007, 11:17 PM
We can easily elect to pad our pars in disc golf. However, we should come up with another name for it because those padded values will not have any connection with what par is in ball golf. We can call it the hole index, the norm or the "ref" short for reference. Don't use the terms birdies and bogeys so we're not compared with ball golf. Ace would still be fine. The -70 for Worlds will just be the normal scoring for our game and won't look foolish relative to under par in golf.
james_mccaine
Aug 12 2007, 11:37 PM
I respectfully think y'all are going nuts.
We are golf, we shoot eagles, birds, bogeys, etc. We also don't need to resign ourselves to 90-under-par tournaments. It's all about course difficulty, and our present courses are way too easy. How many under were the leaders at the USDGC? I couldn't find it, but I suspect they were closer to par.
We may be twenty years away, but as course design innovations occur, course designers shoot for more challenge, and players stop whining as much, you will start to see tournaments where even the best will barely be below par.
ck34
Aug 12 2007, 11:50 PM
The only way to get scoring spread on relatively open terrain is to do what Harold did with fake OB which pads the scoring averages to get more bogeys and a similar number of birdies. This offsets the more common holes where there are more birdies and few bogeys such that the overall scores are not as far under par. Still the USDGC winner gets in the -35 range for 4 rounds which is about what the Pro Worlds winner shot per round.
Holes in the woods generally won't have this problem. However, wooded courses like Castle Hayne won't give you the higher rated rounds that players seem to think they deserve. I'm not saying we have an easy solution to this. But our dynamics do not match ball golf and even progressively tougher courses will not solve our 'one putt' problem.
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 12:33 AM
no, but not thinking of a putt as something that only happens within 30 feet will.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 12:46 AM
I'm fine with "putts" being out to 120-150 feet. But then you get the 3.3 holes as par 3s that players whine about which is what happened with several holes at Worlds. Calling 120-150 ft shots putts also would sound strange to the average observer and media from outside the sport.
chappyfade
Aug 13 2007, 12:49 AM
The only way to get scoring spread on relatively open terrain is to do what Harold did with fake OB which pads the scoring averages to get more bogeys and a similar number of birdies. This offsets the more common holes where there are more birdies and few bogeys such that the overall scores are not as far under par. Still the USDGC winner gets in the -35 range for 4 rounds which is about what the Pro Worlds winner shot per round.
Holes in the woods generally won't have this problem. However, wooded courses like Castle Hayne won't give you the higher rated rounds that players seem to think they deserve. I'm not saying we have an easy solution to this. But our dynamics do not match ball golf and even progressively tougher courses will not solve our 'one putt' problem.
I think Harold would prefer the term "creative" OB to fake OB. I assure you the players who play at USDGC will assurt that the OB there is very real, even if it may seem artificial or contrived to some (I personally think it's great).
That being said, ball golf can toughen up their courses by cutting narrower fairways, letting the rough grow longer, and mowing the greens shorter so they roll faster and dry out faster so they don't hold as well. That's basically what happens when the USGA sets up a course for the U.S. Open. They can do a lot to toughen up a course in a short amount of time without placing yellow rope or planting lots of trees....they have a big advantage there. Disc golf designers do not have that advantage...we can't make a course 5 shots harder just by letting the grass grow. :)
Chuck, I think your idea of par really more reflects the idea of SSAs and course RATINGS, rather than par. They (par and course rating) are different ideas and should be mutually exclusive. You can have two ball golf courses that are both par 71 (because they're the same approximate length), but one might be rated much easier (even 7-8 shots easier) than the other. You can even have a par 70 course that's really much more difficult than a par 72 course.
Chap
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 07:47 AM
I'm fine with "putts" being out to 120-150 feet. But then you get the 3.3 holes as par 3s that players whine about which is what happened with several holes at Worlds.
No, its the par 4's that turn out that way. Par 3's that turn out that way are GREAT holes.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 08:28 AM
Chuck, I think your idea of par really more reflects the idea of SSAs and course RATINGS, rather than par. They (par and course rating) are different ideas and should be mutually exclusive.
They aren't different. It's just that the USGA isn't able to do the SSA calcs the way we do because they can't validate course ratings with indexed scores from validly rated players. They contrived the outdated slope system to fudge the ratings to make the lucrative handicap system work for local clubs. They can't prove that a properly set course rating in ball golf wouldn't have the same slope rating and thus the same par.
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 09:46 AM
Calling 120-150 ft shots putts also would sound strange to the average observer and media from outside the sport.
many new things sound strange. i have abundant faith that the average observer will understand. :)
james_mccaine
Aug 13 2007, 10:06 AM
I think Harold would prefer the term "creative" OB to fake OB. I assure you the players who play at USDGC will assurt that the OB there is very real, even if it may seem artificial or contrived to some (I personally think it's great).
That being said, ball golf can toughen up their courses by cutting narrower fairways, letting the rough grow longer, and mowing the greens shorter so they roll faster and dry out faster so they don't hold as well. That's basically what happens when the USGA sets up a course for the U.S. Open. They can do a lot to toughen up a course in a short amount of time without placing yellow rope or planting lots of trees....they have a big advantage there. Disc golf designers do not have that advantage...we can't make a course 5 shots harder just by letting the grass grow.
No doubt, it is creative OB. Basically genius, imo.
I'm aware that there are course designers who are either downright opposed to anything "unnatural" and are unwilling to employ any new concepts. Their courses, no matter how well-designed and challenging, will always suffer from the under-par phenomenon, unless they get millions of dollars to construct "fake OB" which they will then call "natural." Butchering the concept of par is a bad way to address design issues.
Given more innovations along this line, most of which no one is yet aware of, designers can easily create a course that will yield near-par scoring while still favoring the most skilled players, both in terms of distance, accuracy, creativity, etc. Chuck, for example, take the bunker on HG2. I had never really heard of the concept. I loved it. That is just another example of how designers can create more difficulty without just adding more distance or random trees.
I think our biggest challenge in this regard is the resistance many of our best designers and average players have to these things. Too many designers consider some innovative (my term) concepts as hokey, and too many players whine if "their sport" is transformed from something wide open and easy to something that tests and challenges them in ways they previously could not imagine.
I'm pretty confident that we will evolve towards the more innovative style of design, mainly because we don't have a lot of money or land and because as a sport, some designers will thankfully be on a quest to challenge all golfers and separate the great from the good.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 10:16 AM
As pointed out though, whether natural or artificial hazards are employed, it will not resolve the easy putting situation around the green to make setting par more like ball golf. Even with Harold's innovations with OB rope, players are still putting as well near the pin and the scores under par at USDGC are no less than at Worlds or most other courses, especially those that are mostly open. And, of course, these will be the ones where the showcase finals will typically be held to accommodate spectators and the video crews.
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 10:26 AM
. Chuck, for example, take the bunker on HG2. I had never really heard of the concept. I loved it. That is just another example of how designers can create more difficulty without just adding more distance or random trees.
I liked the bunker as well, actually. We have a hole in Raleigh with that same idea. The pin sits on top of a hill and there is a ropped off area on the hill that you can't putt from. Pretty much the same exact thing as HG2, but the reason we have it is to prevent erosion.
However, I didn't like the OB bunker on number 7. I just don't like when I can throw a shot and be OB and someone can throw a much worse shot and be in bounds.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 10:32 AM
Dunipace thought that was one of the best par 3 holes there with the risky OB to fly over and the backside hill placement. It's also one of my favorites. Why is flying over OB not OK versus having it off to the side? Here it is for those who weren't there:
http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=wi&c=highbridgegold&h=7
The depression you see to the right side of the ball golf green is the OB area. If you Zoom In you can see the basket and the route right over OB.
gotcha
Aug 13 2007, 10:37 AM
I think Harold would prefer the term "creative" OB to fake OB. I assure you the players who play at USDGC will assurt that the OB there is very real, even if it may seem artificial or contrived to some (I personally think it's great).
No doubt, it is creative OB. Basically genius, imo.
There is no such thing as "fake" or "artificial" OB. <u>Everything</u> is in bounds until a course designer designates an area otherwise.
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 10:40 AM
Why is flying over OB not OK versus having it off to the side?
B/c you could throw a shot that stalled out and was 100 feet left of the pin and be completely safe and be in better shape than someone who threw the shot, just left it 40 short.
gotcha
Aug 13 2007, 10:43 AM
Why is flying over OB not OK versus having it off to the side?
B/c you could throw a shot that stalled out and was 100 feet left of the pin and be completely safe and be in better shape than someone who threw the shot, just left it 40 short.
Sounds similar to a sand trap hazard.....something players try to avoid when managing the course.
james_mccaine
Aug 13 2007, 10:46 AM
The putting issue is somewhat solvable. To me, this is another example of where players and designers need new attitudes. What is wrong with having a basket right next to some natural obstacle, making one's approach more challenging? What is wrong with artificial devices being used near the pin to make upshots more demanding? Nothing imo, but I can hear people whining now, or spouting off the incomprehensible maxim that nothing should be within X feet of the basket. Once these types of attitudes are overcome, putting and the 100 foot upshot will become more challenging, as they should be.
Don't want to deal with that hokey obstacle blocking an easy putt, put your upshot on the easy side of the pin. Ball golfers do it all the time.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 10:48 AM
B/c you could throw a shot that stalled out and was 100 feet left of the pin and be completely safe and be in better shape than someone who threw the shot, just left it 40 short.
If the hazard was blind, I could maybe understand the logic. But why is that any different from trying to throw around a group of trees and you stall out back into them? You saw the hazard, tried to avoid it, blew your shot and got penalized. it's not like there wasn't loads of safe landing area around it if you couldn't throw 310 downhill...
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 10:52 AM
Why is flying over OB not OK versus having it off to the side?
B/c you could throw a shot that stalled out and was 100 feet left of the pin and be completely safe and be in better shape than someone who threw the shot, just left it 40 short.
Sounds similar to a sand trap hazard.....something players try to avoid when managing the course.
the difference is there is not a penalty for landing in a sand trap.
sure, the player may have a tough time at getting up and down to save what is probably par, but at least he is given the opportunity. With "fake" ob, the chances at recovery is shot out the window.
I personally have never liked "fake" OB for the above reason.
chappyfade
Aug 13 2007, 11:01 AM
Chuck, I think your idea of par really more reflects the idea of SSAs and course RATINGS, rather than par. They (par and course rating) are different ideas and should be mutually exclusive.
They aren't different. It's just that the USGA isn't able to do the SSA calcs the way we do because they can't validate course ratings with indexed scores from validly rated players. They contrived the outdated slope system to fudge the ratings to make the lucrative handicap system work for local clubs. They can't prove that a properly set course rating in ball golf wouldn't have the same slope rating and thus the same par.
Golf has WAY more statistical data than we do, and could easily calculate such things...yet they have chosen not to. Slope rating and course rating are NOT related to par...they are different things, and do not affect each other.
Once people grasp that SSA (or course rating) and par are not the same thing, we'll be closer to getting to the concept of par.
Chap
gotcha
Aug 13 2007, 11:05 AM
[/QUOTE]
Sounds similar to a sand trap hazard.....something players try to avoid when managing the course.
[/QUOTE]
the difference is there is not a penalty for landing in a sand trap.
sure, the player may have a tough time at getting up and down to save what is probably par, but at least he is given the opportunity. With "fake" ob, the chances at recovery is shot out the window.
I personally have never liked "fake" OB for the above reason.
[/QUOTE]
"Fake" or "artificial" OB is an oxymoron.
One's lie is either "in bounds" or "out of bounds"..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 11:10 AM
yeah I know what you mean.
I just don't like a few inches making a semi bad shot into a terrible shot.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 11:17 AM
I just don't like a few inches making a semi bad shot into a terrible shot.
Not all hazards can be like stands of trees with variable penalties. Maybe we should have an outer ring on OB that's 3 feet wide where you just get a half shot penalty if you land there instead of the full penalty in the center of the hazard? Then it would be like landing a few feet off the fairway in the trees where you might lose a shot half the time when you can't execute your recovery throw up and down.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 11:24 AM
Golf has WAY more statistical data than we do, and could easily calculate such things...yet they have chosen not to. Slope rating and course rating are NOT related to par...they are different things, and do not affect each other.
Not so, Chap. I've met with the USGA handicap folks at their Far Hills HQ and had several exchanges with the inventor of their slope fudge factor Dean Knuth who lives 90 minutes from me. They are locked into the handicap economics for local clubs and self reported scores. They've found the handicaps so unreliable that they can't do calcs like we do that rely only on tournament scores. The British have a system a little more like ours which they've looked at and rejected because the data is no good. I think they would love to have better course ratings based on scores from valid propagators but they have none.
In the mean time, new golf course owners pay the rating committees to come out and walk around a course and give it a rating that has little foundation in reality. Fortunately, they aren't too far off because course length is such an overwhelming factor that anything they do with their sharp pencils has minimal percentage impact on the final rating number.
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 11:24 AM
[ Maybe we should have an outer ring on OB that's 3 feet wide where you just get a half shot penalty if you land there instead of the full penalty in the center of the hazard?
"What did you shoot"
"49 1/2"
james_mccaine
Aug 13 2007, 11:31 AM
MTL, I understand your issue, but I don't think has anything to do with fake or natural OB. The use of OB needs to make sense, and one of the obvious considerations imo is that it penalizes worse shots at least as much as merely bad shots. The obvious example is where the road is OB, but beyond is not. That is simply ill-conceived design.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 11:35 AM
You're such a great setup man...
www.popeofslope.com/courserating/par4.html (http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/par4.html)
They had half pars in ball golf earlier in the century. While it's not really needed in ball golf any more because putting always produces high enough percentages of at least three scores on a hole, that might be the solution to our easy putting problem without having to ditch the current baskets since we have so many holes that end up with only two primary scores. It's a lot easier to handle numbers with computers now and it wouldn't even have to involve the half shot OB traps mentioned above (but that might make sense then, too). It would just be a scorecard par used as a reference. On GR9 set at a par of 3.5, a birdie would be a 3 and bogey would be a 4. You play it twice and get one of each and you averaged par on that hole for the event. Seems like that simple slight of hand would solve much of the bickering on this.
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 11:40 AM
pretend the road is a creek and the TD has declared that water is OB. that way the OB road is no different than other forms of Contrived OB. :)
btw, i agree the OB road/sidewalk/etc across the fairway is questionable in many cases. "on or beyond" makes sense, but just a little strip of OB territory is frequently cheesy.
my personal thought is that there is nothing inherently wrong with Contrived OB, and that it has a valid place in the sport. like others have stated, its all in how it is applied.
MTL21676
Aug 13 2007, 11:51 AM
MTL, I understand your issue, but I don't think has anything to do with fake or natural OB. The use of OB needs to make sense, and one of the obvious considerations imo is that it penalizes worse shots at least as much as merely bad shots. The obvious example is where the road is OB, but beyond is not. That is simply ill-conceived design.
exactly.
If a shot is out of bounds, a worse shot should be OB as well. I have no issues with OB unless what I just mentioned was not the case.
davei
Aug 13 2007, 04:12 PM
MTL, I understand your issue, but I don't think has anything to do with fake or natural OB. The use of OB needs to make sense, and one of the obvious considerations imo is that it penalizes worse shots at least as much as merely bad shots. The obvious example is where the road is OB, but beyond is not. That is simply ill-conceived design.
exactly.
If a shot is out of bounds, a worse shot should be OB as well. I have no issues with OB unless what I just mentioned was not the case.
Another way to deal with the pit, might be as was done with hole #2. No penalty, just move back to the tee side of the pit. This would make it saveable. The pit could have been a deep pit; no penalty. Could have been filled with water, with stroke penalty. IMO all, including the way it was, are legitimate. Plenty of fairway.
chappyfade
Aug 13 2007, 04:15 PM
Golf has WAY more statistical data than we do, and could easily calculate such things...yet they have chosen not to. Slope rating and course rating are NOT related to par...they are different things, and do not affect each other.
Not so, Chap. I've met with the USGA handicap folks at their Far Hills HQ and had several exchanges with the inventor of their slope fudge factor Dean Knuth who lives 90 minutes from me. They are locked into the handicap economics for local clubs and self reported scores. They've found the handicaps so unreliable that they can't do calcs like we do that rely only on tournament scores. The British have a system a little more like ours which they've looked at and rejected because the data is no good. I think they would love to have better course ratings based on scores from valid propagators but they have none.
In the mean time, new golf course owners pay the rating committees to come out and walk around a course and give it a rating that has little foundation in reality. Fortunately, they aren't too far off because course length is such an overwhelming factor that anything they do with their sharp pencils has minimal percentage impact on the final rating number.
If you're talking about using the self-reported scores that USGA currently uses for handicaps, of course that data is unreliable. Players pad their handicaps all the time, especially if they're playing in that member-guest handicap event next weekend, and need to be a 18 handicap instead of the 15 that they currently are. Of course, USGA's objective is different...they're really trying to give a handicap to anyone who wants one, not necessarily just to people who play tournaments. Your objective is different, and the USGA handicap system is not analogous to our system. We're not computing handicaps. Handicaps also have nothing to do with setting par, which is the discussion I thought we were having here. Whether or not you or Dean Knuth think the USGA course and slope rating system has merit is not the point. The point is that neither SSA, course or slope rating, or scoring average have anything to do with par.
There are thousands and thousands of more ball golf tournaments per year (real tournaments) that ball golf could draw from to do statistical analysis such as yours, yet they've chosen not to do it, and I don't know their reasons. Not only do you have the PGA Tour, but you have all the local PGA section events, city championships, state amateurs, etc., etc.
Chap
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 04:21 PM
But they do stats from the standpoint of hole scoring averages and they rank which holes have been the toughest or easiest in relation to par for the weekend. There are no holes with 4-round scoring averages more than 0.5 from the par set for the hole with the possible exception of nasty weather events. I'd say the scoring averages have a direct relation to par in ball golf. It's not like you ever see a par 5 with a 3.8 scoring average or a par 3 with a 4.5 scoring average.
chappyfade
Aug 13 2007, 06:03 PM
But they do stats from the standpoint of hole scoring averages and they rank which holes have been the toughest or easiest in relation to par for the weekend. There are no holes with 4-round scoring averages more than 0.5 from the par set for the hole with the possible exception of nasty weather events. I'd say the scoring averages have a direct relation to par in ball golf. It's not like you ever see a par 5 with a 3.8 scoring average or a par 3 with a 4.5 scoring average.
True dat, but you do occasionally see the par 5 with 4.4 scoring average, and the par 4 with the 4.6 scoring average, yet par is not usually changed on those holes. A lot of that has to do with the shape of the hole, and the size of the green, or perhaps the hole just played easy or hard that day. And still, the USGA does not base par on scoring average. Again, we should embrace the fact that putting is much easier for disc golfer, and we're occasionally going to have score averages of 3.3 on a par 4 because of the easier putting and approach game, and -70 might win an 8 round tournament.
Chap
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 06:20 PM
True dat, but you do occasionally see the par 5 with 4.4 scoring average, and the par 4 with the 4.6 scoring average, yet par is not usually changed on those holes.
That is not true. The holes with numbers like 4.4 on a par 5 have been changed longer and tougher due to the new technology and players. Because BG has 4 to 6 preset pin placments on each green, it's possible that one setting may be more than than 0.5 from par but the 4-round average using four settings will not be more than 0.5 away barring weather issues.
reallybadputter
Aug 13 2007, 08:10 PM
MTL, I understand your issue, but I don't think has anything to do with fake or natural OB. The use of OB needs to make sense, and one of the obvious considerations imo is that it penalizes worse shots at least as much as merely bad shots. The obvious example is where the road is OB, but beyond is not. That is simply ill-conceived design.
exactly.
If a shot is out of bounds, a worse shot should be OB as well. I have no issues with OB unless what I just mentioned was not the case.
With the ball golf example (which everyone loves to hate)
Creek running across the fairway?
Pond just short of the green?
Sand Traps around the green?
All of these if you come up way short of the green you miss the hazard. Or if you slice it 50 yards to the right you miss the hazard.
By definition the shot that landed OB was worse than the one that didn't. (Unless it is so far off that you can't make it to the basket in at most one more throw than from the drop zone.)
There's this whole concept of risk-reward... In ball golf, I try and drive over the sand trap and catch the downhill run or I hit the 3-wood out the the left...
Would you whine so much if it were a natural lake and stream?
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 08:20 PM
is water OB by default in BG?
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 08:27 PM
Creek running across the fairway?
The difference between a creek and a path going across the fairway has to do with trapping a bad shot. A cement path that's 5-8 feet wide is more bad luck than bad throw to land completely on it since you can roll over or skip off it. A creek bed will usually stop rollers or shots into it without coming out making it a much better OB hazard. Even free standing OB sand traps or ponds should be visible and large enough to truly trap bad throws. An OB area in the fairway that's just say 10 feet wide or around just seems too small to be anything but a bad luck trap.
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 08:30 PM
is water OB by default in BG?
No. If it's not casual from a recent storm, it's a hazard not OB. It's more like a stringent version of our casual relief rule. Play from it or take a penalty if you want to move the lie at all.
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 08:35 PM
maybe we should just do that? it seems so much simpler
ck34
Aug 13 2007, 08:38 PM
It can't really work the same since it's easy to make a throw from water versus hit a ball from it. Plus, there's the safety issue and how to mark your lie in it and watch for foot faults...
sandalman
Aug 13 2007, 08:53 PM
you have basically those same issues with BG. plus, most players not seem to call foot faults anyway. besides, it could possibly support the argument that DG is easier then BG :)
MTL21676
Aug 14 2007, 09:17 AM
Creek running across the fairway?
<font color="red"> just the water should be OB. when the fairway crosses the OB obstacle, it makes sense just for the water to be OB </font>
Pond just short of the green?
<font color="red"> same thought as above </font>
Sand Traps around the green?
<font color="red"> sand traps give the player the chance at recovery. OB does not. </font>
chappyfade
Aug 14 2007, 04:06 PM
True dat, but you do occasionally see the par 5 with 4.4 scoring average, and the par 4 with the 4.6 scoring average, yet par is not usually changed on those holes.
That is not true. The holes with numbers like 4.4 on a par 5 have been changed longer and tougher due to the new technology and players. Because BG has 4 to 6 preset pin placments on each green, it's possible that one setting may be more than than 0.5 from par but the 4-round average using four settings will not be more than 0.5 away barring weather issues.
No weather issues in the Quad Cities this year. Hole #2 (a par 5) scored at a 4.458 average. There's more examples than this, but this is one example that I found in about 60 seconds of searching. Verification of this stat can be found here Deere Classic (http://www.pgatour.com/2007/tournaments/r030/07/15/notebook071507/index.html)
ck34
Aug 14 2007, 04:11 PM
That's a single round average. Only 4-round averages on a hole are relevant because they usually move the pins to four different locations for an event.
chappyfade
Aug 14 2007, 04:16 PM
is water OB by default in BG?
No. OB and hazards are designated by the TD/course designer, staked for daily play, and usually painted as well as staked for tournaments. There are some places with standing water that might be designated as casual water or GUR (ground under repair)
Chap
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 01:46 AM
It seems we have a long way to go before the concept of proper par is accepted. Base 54 is a great tool for counting total scores, but it is impossible for it to be an accurate measure of difficulty for every disc golf course in existence.
I look forward to the day when this mindset is gone.
Amen to that!
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 01:50 AM
<font color="red"> To properly discuss this topic, please provide your definition of "green". If you refer to the green as the 10m radiant circle, I would respectfully disagree with your statement above. I tend to think most of the putting greens in disc golf are 60' to 70' in radius to the target. </font>
Or the edge of the "green" could be up to 130 ft. on a Gold level course. Another term for this would be "close range". A player would have 2 shots from there to complete the hole.
chappyfade
Aug 15 2007, 02:01 AM
That's a single round average. Only 4-round averages on a hole are relevant because they usually move the pins to four different locations for an event.
Well, I did only take 60 seconds to look for it. :) Usually, the most difficult pin position is Sunday's position, but that's not always true. I'll find more examples when I have time to delve deeper. Right now, I'm neck deep in box scores.
Chap
chappyfade
Aug 15 2007, 02:02 AM
you have basically those same issues with BG. plus, most players not seem to call foot faults anyway. besides, it could possibly support the argument that DG is easier then BG :)
Pretty difficult to call foot faults on yourself in disc golf. I'm very rarely looking at my feet when I throw. It's a lot easier to call fouls on yourself in ball golf, as you ARE looking at the ball on the ground when you hit it.
Chap
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 02:06 AM
"Lets face it... DG is much easier than ball golf when it comes to making a par." Absolutely agreed...unfortunately it is because we've bastardized par though! It doesn't HAVE to be that way. It's just an ego thing for us...but in doing so we cheapen the sport.
If the standards for hole lengths were longer then it wouldn't be so easy to make par. For example, on a Gold level course, if there was an average drive of 390 ft. and 130 ft. more for a "close range" shot, you'd have a maximum length of 520 ft for a par 3. If you had holes that long there wouldn't be as many 3s and much fewer 2s.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 02:15 AM
I'll find more examples when I have time to delve deeper.
Even if you find a few examples, it will be an indication they will likely either redesign the hole or maybe adjust the par. Just like I try to do if the scoring averages aren't where I expected on a newer pin placement.
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 02:15 AM
Then IMO, we need to stop using the word "par". Par in ball golf has meaning. "Par" in disc golf is pretty much meaningless. I find it mind boggling that the winner of our world event shot -69 and we can use the term "par" with a straight face.
Anita,
I COMPLETELY agree! Our method of determining par needs to be changed! Right now it's meaningless.
chappyfade
Aug 15 2007, 02:41 AM
I'll find more examples when I have time to delve deeper.
Even if you find a few examples, it will be an indication they will likely either redesign the hole or maybe adjust the par. Just like I try to do if the scoring averages aren't where I expected on a newer pin placement.
Unlikely they'll adjust the par unless they also change the length of the hole, in which case the par might need to be changed. Still doesn't change the fact that par is less relevant to scoring average...it's more related to length. I haven't found stats for easiest hole yet, but I've found four examples (out of 41 tournaments) where the scoring average was more .5 over par for a hole, 3 of which were .6 over, including Spyglass Hill #6, Carnoustie #18, and Oakmont #18. For some reason the PGA Tour doesn't want to make it easy to find the easy holes. Torrey Pines North only had one hole of 18 that played over par, and that was barely over par.
Chap
gotcha
Aug 15 2007, 08:26 AM
[/QUOTE]
Our method of determining par needs to be changed! Right now it's meaningless.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree that a universal method of determining par for disc golf is needed for the advancement of the sport, I disagree with the blanket statement statement above. There are existing courses where par is considered to be correct and meaningful.
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 09:17 AM
The definition of "par" itself implies either an average (mean) or the most common score (mode) for a player skill level.
It would be more correct to say that one standard for par uses scoring averages.
Here's another way to determine par:
"Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for an expert player of a particular skill level to reach �close range� then take 2 throws to hole out. Close Range is the distance that players can get �up and down� in two from a high percentage of the time. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in traditional golf. �Close range� is much longer than the 10 meters used to define a disc golf putt, though.
Note 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."
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 09:36 AM
Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for an expert player of a particular skill level to reach �close range�, plus 2
it truly is that simple
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 09:38 AM
It would be more correct to say that one standard for par uses scoring averages.
It would be correct that any valid standard for par is connected with scoring average or it is not a guideline based on the meaning of par. For what it's worth, the long par 3 holes in question at Worlds also met Lowe's preferred guideline for a par 3 but will still bother players who erroneously feel a hole needs to be regularly birdieable for the par to be valid. Getting within 130 feet is not a putt and a par 3 hole like this (GR3, GR5, GR6, GR9 & GR17) will still yield less than 10% birdies.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 09:54 AM
"Getting within 130 feet is not a putt "
i didnt understand this comment. is that because the area around the basket is heaveily treed? could you describe the hole? i checked the map, but dont know what configuration things were in. thx
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 10:07 AM
It would be correct that any valid standard for par is connected with scoring average or it is not a guideline based on the meaning of par. For what it's worth, the long par 3 holes in question at Worlds also met Lowe's preferred guideline for a par 3 but will still bother players who erroneously feel a hole needs to be regularly birdieable for the par to be valid. Getting within 130 feet is not a putt and a par 3 hole like this (GR3, GR5, GR6, GR9 & GR17) will still yield less than 10% birdies.
I agree. Good point. Using the CR Par method, holes at the maximum length will most likely have score averages above par. That's OK, but most people don't like it because they're not used to it. They love birdie fests too much.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 10:13 AM
I'm just saying that on each of the five par 3 holes mentioned, players could regularly get within 130 feet off the drive but rarely get a 2. So, your and Lowe's proposed par method of shots to "close range" plus 2 does not produce a par value different from the scoring average.
And players object to those longer holes being par 3s even though both methods consider those holes par 3s. The problem is that some good long holes set as par 3s with scoring averages or shots to CR+2 will not produce birdies, but primarily just pars and bogeys. It's still the bugaboo of easy putting in DG that will never resolve this mismatch between the scoring parameters of ball golf versus disc golf.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 10:41 AM
is the problem that CRPar turns out the same as the scoring average, or that players dont like long par 3s that rarely yield 2s? landing 130 out and having a tough birdie shot is like landfing at the very front of green and having an 80 foot bridie putt, ie its possible but chances are slim. just like ball golf has organic green shapes, disc golf has varying degrees of difficulty at CR. crazy foliage or links style design might make CR for a given hole a lot less. wide open space could increase it to 250 feet for gold players. just like your yardage guides vary with foliage and terrain features, so does the value you use to determine CR for any given hole.
the relative ease of DG "putting" has nothing to do with this. the CR approach makes your mismatch go poof in an instant. the only real problem with CR methodology is that it is brutally efficient at demonstrating that the real problem is caused by disc golf's traditional definition of putting.
chappyfade
Aug 15 2007, 11:02 AM
It would be more correct to say that one standard for par uses scoring averages.
It would be correct that any valid standard for par is connected with scoring average or it is not a guideline based on the meaning of par.
Only insofar as that the the effective length of the hole affects scoring average. I mean, you could have a ridiculously tight 350 ft. hole, uphill, that averages 3.7 for good players. Would you call that a par 4?
[/QUOTE]
For what it's worth, the long par 3 holes in question at Worlds also met Lowe's preferred guideline for a par 3 but will still bother players who erroneously feel a hole needs to be regularly birdieable for the par to be valid. Getting within 130 feet is not a putt and a par 3 hole like this (GR3, GR5, GR6, GR9 & GR17) will still yield less than 10% birdies.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it has to be regularly birdieable, but it does have to be birdieable, meaning a good player has to be able to get within 100-120 ft. of the hole with a drive. This would effectively eliminate having any thought of a par 2.
I remember looking at Timmy Gill and his group one year at the Majestic on a 270-ish ft. hole that was listed as a par 2. I told that this hole was the toughest birdie on the course, and it spun his (and the group's) gears a little bit until they realized he'd have to ace the hole in order to birdie it.
Chap
bruceuk
Aug 15 2007, 11:11 AM
One problem with the 130' putting model is that it's very difficult to cause players to miss the pin by that much long or to the sides, unless you have fairly extreme terrain, whereas it's common in BG for players to miss in all directions.
A more accurate model of BG par is that it's possible to reach the entire green in regulation, then take 2 to get down. In order to map that to DG, you need players to be able to overshoot the pin by 130', which isn't gonna happen.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 11:19 AM
hmmm... very intersting angle neil. i need to put that into the stew. it is certainly a subtle difference, but i need to understand how that truly matters
bruceuk
Aug 15 2007, 11:39 AM
hmmm... very intersting angle neil. i need to put that into the stew. it is certainly a subtle difference, but i need to understand how that truly matters
I feel that if you don't take it into account, it leads to holes being lengthened simply to toughen par, which can all to often flatten the scoring spread, removing birdies without adding bogeys.
The difference between a player landing 20' from the pin, relative to one who lands 50' away is normally a shot, whereas the difference between 120' and 150' will normally be nothing.
Holes with a downhill approach will often cause players to miss in equal measures in all directions, with flybys or misjudging the fade, and fit the CR+2 model much better whilst maintaining the scoring spread.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 11:49 AM
I feel that if you don't take it into account, it leads to holes being lengthened simply to toughen par, which can all to often flatten the scoring spread, removing birdies without adding bogeys.
I agree. But that's not the holes we're talking about here. The five examples all had good scoring spread for relatively open holes but it was in the bogey direction. However, not far enough in the bogey direction such that the scoring averages were still under 3.5 and with the ability for many in the division to get inside 130 feet using the shots to CR+2 proposal.
bruceuk
Aug 15 2007, 11:56 AM
I agree. But that's not the holes we're talking about here. The five examples all had good scoring spread for relatively open holes but it was in the bogey direction. However, not far enough in the bogey direction such that the scoring averages were still under 3.5 and with the ability for many in the division to get inside 130 feet using the shots to CR+2 proposal.
No, that's the 5 examples you're talking about, I was talking about the relative merits of CR+2... ;)
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 12:04 PM
ah, i see what you are getting at now, although one could also argue that a BG as an alternative to lengthening, i prefer to toughen up the previous shot. i usually calc the percentage of attempts that the targeted skill level can successfully place to set up their next shot.
for example if i am looking for a 55-45 split on on a par 3, i could design the first shot to an .8 probability and the approach to a .7. this creates a hole with a 56% probability of a 3. if the approach was so wide open that its probability rose to .95, i'd need to toughen up the first shot all the way down to a .59 to get a 56% probability of a 3. the two holes would play vastly different even though they'd be the same length. there's all kinds of ways to alter the success percentages without resorting purely to distance (altho you are right that it seems too many times that distance is the first option)
bruceuk
Aug 15 2007, 12:25 PM
It's a three tiered probability though, so you won't want 55-45, you'll want 20-55-25 say. So you need to create a whole where there is a .2 probability of getting inside about 50', .55 of getting in the 50-130' range, and .25 of landing outside 130'.
Or, a .2 of getting within 50' and .8 inside 130', but leaving a .7 on those approaches inside 130'.
That's a tough hole to design! Usually, it's achieved by narrow windows 30'-50' from the pin, or with hefty gradient changes.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 12:31 PM
CR+2 basically validates the scoring average approach since there's little difference in the pars that will be assigned. On the margins where the two approaches differ, the hole could either be assigned as par 3 or 4 based on a designer preference for whether they wanted a tough 3 or easy 4 in the flow at that point. CR+2 basically produces a rationale to sugar coat the fact that putting is much easier in DG than BG.
Since CR+2 is based on driving stats versus scoring stats, its parameters will change based on players throwing longer even though they are not more accurate and score better. We haven't updated the throwing distances for players since 2002 but I suspect they are longer on average by at least 30 feet. However, we have no indication that the scoring averages have changed and in fact may be worse on holes that were at the high end of the power range for a skill level since plastic has gotten "skippier" and players could be farther from the reachable pins on average than in 2002.
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 12:47 PM
We haven't updated the throwing distances for players since 2002 but I suspect they are longer on average by at least 30 feet.
Interestingly enough I had the same thought, so I recently already increased the Gold avg drive length by 30 ft from 360 to 390.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 12:47 PM
the scoring average approach basically validates CR+2 since there's little difference in the pars that will be assigned. On the margins where the two approaches differ, the hole could either be assigned as par 3 or 4 based on a designer preference for whether they wanted a tough 3 or easy 4 in the flow at that point. CR+2 is remarklable consistent with ball golf's concept of green and renders irrelevant the apple-to-oranges BG-DG putting comparisons. :)
"However, we have no indication that the scoring averages have changed and in fact may be worse on holes that were at the high end of the power range for a skill level since plastic has gotten "skippier" and players could be farther from the reachable pins on average than in 2002."
wow, that is the strongest repudiation of Harold Duvall's claims regarding the new disc configurations that i have seen so far.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 12:57 PM
Is Howard Harold's pen name? I've talked with him about this idea that scoring averages either haven't improved and may have increased on the same par 3 holes in the past several years due to slipperier plastic, and he agreed that could be the case. The older DX cobras were fine for 270-300 ft holes in 2000 but only old schoolers likely use a disc like that for those holes these days. A Champion Leopard is pretty good but still a little more skippy than the Cobra and certainly the Champ Wraith, Beast or Valk will skip left or right and the Champ Roadrunner or Sidewinder may slide longer straight beyond the basket.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 01:01 PM
CR+2 is remarklable consistent with ball golf's concept of green and renders irrelevant the apple-to-oranges BG-DG putting comparisons.
Chicken or the egg. Par and scoring calculations came about in ball golf before they discovered that STG+2 worked out as convenient par reference. If their putting stats turned out to be like ours, they might have continued using half pars like they used for many years.
denny1210
Aug 15 2007, 02:38 PM
One problem with the 130' putting model is that it's very difficult to cause players to miss the pin by that much long or to the sides, unless you have fairly extreme terrain, whereas it's common in BG for players to miss in all directions.
A more accurate model of BG par is that it's possible to reach the entire green in regulation, then take 2 to get down. In order to map that to DG, you need players to be able to overshoot the pin by 130', which isn't gonna happen.
that's 130' wide-open, no hazards, no schule, no trees, no elevation changes. the CR area doesn't have to be that big given sufficient challenges near the basket. we need players to have the opportunity to three-putt from 30,50,100 ft. out if they're overly aggressive and/or execute poorly.
The vast majority of existing disc golf holes do not have "greens". It is vital that we take a quantum leap forward in course design/construction philosophy to include building in greens that incorporate the risk of three-putting. I disagree with Chuck's assertion that the problem lies with the baskets themselves. The baskets can still be improved upon for greater catching consistency, but the size, shape, sound are all great.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 03:01 PM
I disagree with Chuck's assertion that the problem lies with the baskets themselves. The baskets can still be improved upon for greater catching consistency, but the size, shape, sound are all great.
You may disagree but the proof is in the numbers. Short of making greens minefields with pot holes and windmills, only making the basket smaller wiil get the scoring dynamics like golf. We already saw the anguished cries of players who couldn't fathom an additional challenge to putting with the basket in the triple trees at Worlds. Any natural or unnatural blockades right near the pin will be met with strong resistance, that is unless the purse is big enough that players are willing to put up with it.
Why do you think the innovations on Winthrop Gold strictly for the USDGC have survived? Because players liked them or becasue first prize was the highest in the sport? Personally, I think they are needed to increase the challenge. But you would find many who don't want it to be any tougher and hide behind not liking something due to aesthetics. I don't disagree with them on the aesthetics but even if done naturally, other reasons will be found to discount their purpose for increasing the challenge in a fair way.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 03:11 PM
chuck, that is only true for many existing courses. sticking a basket in the trees is viewed by some not so much as a challenge but more as a gimmick mopre suited for a miniature golf course.
on another topic...
"Par is derived from the stock exchange term that a stock may be above or below its normal or 'par' figure. In 1870, Mr AH Doleman, a golf writer, asked the golf professionals David Strath and James Anderson, what score would win 'The Belt', then the winning trophy for 'The Open', at Prestwick, where it was first held annually from 1861 to 1870. Strath and Anderson said that perfect play should produce a score of 49 for Prestwick's twelve holes. Mr Doleman called this Par for Prestwick and subsequently Young Tom Morris won with a score of two strokes 'over Par' for the three rounds of 36 holes. " (http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/bogey_par.htm)
note that the first use of par was for perfect play. its our course that are too easy, not our baskets.
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 03:45 PM
Those were duffers then and no scratch golfers played it. Who's to say it wasn't a perfect white level score?
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 03:50 PM
how do you know they were duffers and not the best?
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 03:59 PM
No one had seen Tiger or Kenny play then to gage.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 04:15 PM
you are kidding, arent you?
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 04:19 PM
I'm not sure it's relevant to the current discussion unless it has some bearing on solving the dilemma of easy putting.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 04:37 PM
title said Par, not Putt. but anyway... how do you define "putt" in disc golf?
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 05:29 PM
I think a putt is when a player takes a stance such that they are making a realistic attempt to sink the shot. It's how we define it in the PSTATS program. Typically, it would be out no more than 50-60 feet for most players. Granted, there are places on the ball golf green where players are lagging up to get close versus go for it. But those might be our equivalent of shots in the 50-150 ft range.
lowe
Aug 15 2007, 11:12 PM
Chuck, I think your idea of par really more reflects the idea of SSAs and course RATINGS, rather than par. They (par and course rating) are different ideas and should be mutually exclusive. ...
Chap
I totally agree with your assessment.
Lowe
ck34
Aug 15 2007, 11:31 PM
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.
sandalman
Aug 15 2007, 11:46 PM
neil, thats a different thing, and an important one. the one i described above is just the probabilities for a perfect tee shot followed by a perfect upshot. it is absolutely good to look at the most common less-than perfect outcomes for each. that way you can manage the range oif scores. a fully developed hole map has many "typical" paths to the basket, each with their own likelihood of occuring. this kind of approach helps a lot with par 4s and 5s, and seems particularly well suited for links style designs
lowe
Aug 16 2007, 08:36 AM
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.
OK, I'm not saying that there should be no correlation. Also, SSA and par are not "mutually exclusive", as Chap said. All I'm arguing for is that par and level score averages are used for different purposes.
The level scoring averages should not determine par, but par should be compared to level score averages. Par should be determined independent of Level score averages. Score averages will tell you about the quality of the hole design and how difficult the hole is relative to par.
I could conceive of a hole at maximum effective length that has so much OB and such a narrow wooded fairway that the level score average is 5.2, yet it's still a par 3. It's probably not a good hole b/c it's way too hard; that's what the level score average tells you.
I determine par from " the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for an expert player of a particular level".
But here's a key point:
"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."
ck34
Aug 16 2007, 09:12 AM
How do you determine the player skill level? Player ratings which are based on SSA and their scores.
How do you determine distances players at a skill level can throw to determine distances for CR+2 pars? Measure their drives on a flat, open hole in competition.
While distance a player is able to throw is directly relevant to their ability to score on a hole, accuracy is the other component. CR+2 does not take accuracy into account. We also only have one set of throwing distance data points from 2002 which was measured by division not directly by skill level. Since 2002 we are getting close to a million rated round scores.
So, which method is more likely to continually reflect current player abilities for a skill level: what that skill level currently scores on holes or fixed values based only on distances thrown in 2002? CR+2 is fatally flawed with its lack of sufficient data and accuracy to stay contemporary with changes in player skill levels even if it was possible to measure the driving distance of 200 players in each skill level each year. Length alone, even effective length, is not sufficient for determining the challenge on a hole.
sandalman
Aug 16 2007, 09:49 AM
"How do you determine distances players at a skill level can throw to determine distances for CR+2 pars? Measure their drives on a flat, open hole in competition."
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.
ck34
Aug 16 2007, 10:16 AM
However, all of those adjustments for foliage are based on the open field distances so it's the source for all of the calculations.
lowe
Aug 16 2007, 10:41 AM
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.