Par-how to define @ Worlds

[jack]

The topic in the other thread is giong adrift.

I personally think that the way that Par is designed is inherent with faults.  We have differing viewpoints on what it should be, but yesterday there was a topic that I was reading that hit it right on the head.
Mark Ritner  wrote:
>
> "The real reason for the ridiculous scoring relative to ball golf:
putting is way easier in disc golf."That depends on what you define as
a "putt". Shots from the 10 meter line are the equivalent of 4-5 ft.
putts in ball golf. To get similar scoring distributions to ball golf
greens we can simply define our "green" and thereby our "putts" in
such a way as the pro player should take 1-2 shots to get in the
basket without error. A "green" thereby becomes, say, a 150 ft.
circle around a basket without obstacles. The "green" shrinks as
obstacles are introduced. Once we have the proper definition in place
by which to make a parallelism putting in disc golf suddenly isn't any
easier than ball golf."

I am not sure that I agree with the 150' analogy, but the point made is something that I have always thuoght of.  I have long considered the 10 meter line a good barometer, but not a true"green".  I have always felt that a 30' radius should be available to the player, but not as a green, but because it is close enough that it should be open for them to have a chance.  THat doesn't mean that I feel that it is the same as a 4-5' putt, but more like a 10' foot putt.....

What are your true thoughts on Par folks.  The argument probably has been going on longer than you haev been playing this sport.......

[phisherman_77]

though people argue about this all the time, at the end of the day, all that really matters is the # of shots that it took you to finish the round.

[tla06]

What is the history of pars for any given hole/course?  Why is it even necessary?  Should we be so much like ball golf that par is the end-all?  While the two share similarities in the way they are played, the nuts and bolts of the two are waaay different.  On the other hand, if you play course for the first time how do you rate your performance against the course or others?  Golf is mostly an individual sport; having benchmarks to measure against is what keeps us coming back.  However, -100 for a tournament seems a bit excessive; it's sounds like the course pars were a bit subjective. 

[Timko]

In the end, par has a relation on score, because if you miss a hole, it's par + 3.  The real question is, what seperates an upshot from a putt?  500' and wide open with nothing in the way is tough to make a par 4, even if most Am players can't get within 75 ft of it since pro players can either 1.) get it in the circle, or 2.) are comfortable enough with making a long putt.  A hole like that is simply poorly designed, since you can shoot 3 average shots and still make a 3.  I would mark that down as a par 3.

On the other hand a hole like #8 at Rosedale has a barrier at 370' ish that forces you to make an upshot.   There is a huge scoring spread on that hole, from a chip in eagle 2 to double/triple OB 10's.  A player with less power can still easily 4 it with 2 shots to get to the OB line, then get up and down.  It also gives those with really big arms a chance to drive the green with a huge risk/reward scenario.

Another interesting pin to consider is #17 at WyCo in the long position.  This hole would take 2 really good drives (one to the bottom of the hill, and the other at least halfway up) to give you a chance to get up and down.  So it's a par 4 that has a scoring average that's going to be higher than 4, which makes it a tweener hole (par 4?  par 5?).

What screws up par for a course are holes like I first mentioned.  Holes that have very little scoring spread.  If 80% of the field makes the same score on it (reguardless of the par), then that hole didn't accomplish much in terms of testing people's skills.  One of the important things to keep in mind for a worlds competition is that unless you intend on moving the pins for different divisions, you're going to have people with different skill sets playing on each hole.  How does that translate?  Well, lets consider a technical 380' shot.   I think more MPO players will have an oppertunity to drive it off the tee, meaning they will bring a 4+ number into play.  Those less skilled players aren't concerned about driving it, so you may see a smaller scoring spread.  Now look a 300' hole like Rosedale #3 long left.  This hole will have a lot of birdies for the MPO division, but a larger spread for those in lower divisions.  So it seems important to set up a course that offers holes with scoring spreads for each division.  It seems this is more important that the discussion about the actual par for a hole.

[jack]

par+4 not 3

[Timko]

par+4 not 3

that's what I meant .

[Big Sky]

In my opinion, set par to what a scratch player would expect to shoot on average.  (yes, Par 2's would be abundant and I think that's OK).  The variation of skill at the highest levels aren't nearly as wide spread as they are through the entire disc golf population.  If you focus just on the skills of the 1000+ players, it's much easier to define what par for any give hole should be.

 There are millions of ball golfers that shoot significantly over par. Those players dream of even just once shooting even par for a round.  I believe, disc golf shouldn't be any different.  Let the public, the average, the less than elite players aspire to achieve the ability to shoot an even par round.

I agree completely...

[jack]

There are no Par 2's, nor should there be IMO, and the rest of the PDGA.  They tried this in 2001, and abolished it in 2002.

The minimum par is 3, as it should be.  Even though I agree with many points, the simple fact is that you have to allow a shot (drive), an attempt to get to the "green" (see my earlier comment) and then a chance to make it.  I personally feel as though the "green" should be about 2-2.5x what it currently is, somewhere between 60-75' should be considered the green.

And Par for competition is required, though it is not as important because ultimately score matters, but in the absence of a player, our rules are set in place to allow for the standard.  That is why you see more inflated pars at larger events.  It punishes a player for missing a hole that maybe more difficult to achieve a 3 on in normal play, hence the 4-5's that show up on courses that you would not normally think of.  Why cliff drive has a par 4 on long 13, a normal player may go OB and end up with a 6 relatively ok, and then have a player show up late and only gain one stroke, not fair.  Having that player take an 8 though is much more fair, and punishable accordingly.

17 at WyCo, I have seen 3's there by a few people, Hemmeline almost got a 2 (Freaking lefty lines on that hole with his arm are sick!)  I however am always glad to get a 4, and feel that it is a par 4, one to get past the trees, one to get up closer, then I should be on the fringe of the green and have 2 shots (my green here not 10 meters).

You could also throw out all of this and go strictly on distance, and create a standard that way.  There have been many comments and suggestions on par, do seom research not only in here, but also the PDGA forum for more questions to lead to more questions, to lead to more questions, to more dicsussions, to more questions, and well were back where we started (as Ray Daives would say)

[jack]

[/quote ]

So the sport may never change because it is sort of an unsolvable problem.  But it is interesting to talk about and theorize solutions. 
[/quote]

Agreed.

[Timko]

That's why it's important to pick good pin placements for out Worlds configurations.  We can't do anything about Feldberg going out and birding 13 of the 18 holes he plays for a round, unless we artificially decrease the par with either par 2's or unrealistic par 3's (like making the above mentioned WyCo hole being a 3).  What is important is to have a good scoring spread for as many of the divisions as possible.

Another great par 4 in the city is #13 at Swope Long2Long.  While not demanding off the tee as #17 at WyCo, the green more than makes up for that.

[Big Sky]

Another great par 4 in the city is #13 at Swope Long2Long.  While not demanding off the tee as #17 at WyCo, the green more than makes up for that.

Really? How many times have you landed anywhere but the woods or the road on thirteen long off the tee? Tough call... That hole gives me fits.

[Schoen-hopper]

The rating system is our most valuable tool right now in determining course difficulty.  This most recent worlds, par was set at about a 940 rated golf level.  For pro worlds, I think this should be at 1000.  Take the SSA's for each course and work backwards from there if you are concerned about hole pars.

Will the courses be set up mostly long or all long for Worlds?  Anyone care to dig up some SSA values for each course in KC?

For individual holes, I think using a half par system would be more accurate and indicative of a hole's difficulty.  I ball golf, all hole's pro scoring averages are close to the hole pars.  Sometimes par 5's average close to 4.5.  In disc golf holes designed in the 2.5 or 3.5 scoring average range can actually be better for open holes.  You get 2 scores instead of 1.  So if these "tweener" holes were correctly labled as par 3.5, whatever, the hole par would be more accurate and the hole pars would add up closer to the correct course par for a specific level.

Note that most courses normally set their par around 950 rated golf.  In a Worlds, with so many 1000+ rated players, I think par should be set lower at 1000 rated golf, which is about 5 strokes per round difference.

If you really want to be informative on a given hole, give the HSSA, or the hole scratch scoring average.  That would be what 1000 rated player would be expected to shoot on it.  Example 3.2.  A pro isn't doing too bad making a 3 here.  If your rating was 910, take 1000-910=90.  90 = about 9 strokes per round. 9/18 holes = .5 stokes on an individual hole.  So you could add .5 to 3.2 and you get 3.7.  The 910 rated player would be doing really good to make a 3 on this hole.  With the HSSA, a player of any rating could make a quick calculation that would work the same on any hole on the course.  They add that much and that is what they should average.  It would be difficult to implement, but some interesting data to have.

[dickthediscparker]

Well there are a lot of par 2 holes out there.. Cliff drive is an example of a challenging course.. The best golfer will walk away with an 8 under if they shoot lights out.   But thats it.  I'm sure someone WILL come along and do better but not every time.  So courses need to be designed with a little more length and alot more thought.  The days of building swope or prairie center are gone.  New courses should all hold a 1000 rating at around 62-63 and a par of 67-68.  That should just be in the design.  I know not every peice of land we aquire can hold that type of course but when we have the land to work with like I dont know BV or Shawnee lets UTILIZE it to it best potential.  We are known for our world class courses and we should only improve and try to push the boundries to reach a new platform in our course design.   I think considering 75' "circles" around our baskets to be greens is a good start.  It will make us possibly rethink the way we design holes.  Yes they may get longer but the par 4s will be par 4s and the par 5s (dare we do it) will take 4 SHOTS to get there and one solid putt.   What about bunkers like those in Highbridge but put them around that 50-75' mark where you have to avoid areas in your landing path our your 30' back.   Though the idea has it's flaws the mere thought might interest more ideas. 

[David E]

New courses should all hold a 1000 rating at around 62-63 and a par of 67-68.  That should just be in the design.  I know not every peice of land we aquire can hold that type of course but when we have the land to work with like I dont know BV or Shawnee lets UTILIZE it to it best potential. 

I would be interested to know from Jack, Rick, Chap and others that deal directly with Parks and Rec's, to get new courses approved what they think about this part of Dick's post?  I just wonder about using "public' parks to design and build 'pro' courses?

Here's a thought I haven't heard, and this is longer term or something that could possibly be done on new builds or as tee pads are put in at SMP etc...what about multiple tee-pads? This would be a solution similar to ball golf.  A golfer might be able to shoot close to Par or below Par from the white tee's but push them back to the tips, and it's a completely different game.

I guess what immediately comes to mind is the cost of 3-4 pin locations is still cheaper than two tee pads?

[Keizer]

What par is or should be is only important to me if I'm playing a round by myself. It gives me a goal to strive for-- if I get par, it was a good hole/round, if I'm way over, then it wasn't such a good hole/round.

When it comes to competing against others, all that matters is execution. Sure, you and your opponent are probably both CAPABLE of getting a deuce on a particular hole, but the difference is who executes and who does not. I don't think par really matters there, and I don't think a par 3 should be changed to a par 2 just because good players get a deuce most of the time. There are quite a few deuceable par 3s in ball golf as well...

Speaking of multiple tee pads, what are the typical distances between the blue/red/white positions in ball golf? How much farther back are you from one to another, and would those same distances work for disc golf?