Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members

Pars for the Longs at Mt Airy Options
Fred Salaz
Posted: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:02:24 PM
Rank: Expert

Joined: 2/27/2003
Posts: 1,228
Just checking to see if we could have a friendly discussion about the pars for the long pin placements at Mt Airy. I have been playing(very poorly I might add) in the pdga leagues on Tuesdays and noticed that some of the holes in the long positions at Mt Airy have pars(3) that are impossible to birdie(2). Specifically holes: 4 - 480 ft, 5(it's a par 4 now but very difficult to birdie(3), 6 - 440 dogleg right tough to get a 2, 11 - par 3 almost impossible to birdie, 13,16, and 18 are all impossible to birdie except for the really long throwers. I was hoping to raise my player rating by playing in this league but it doesn't look like I won't be able to because I'm playing poorly and I can't get any birdies because the holes are too difficult. If I am alone on this then I will go back to my corner and shut up but I think this deserves at least a discussion. Thanks, Fred
NatiBuckeye
Posted: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:25:51 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
What's the current par for Airy longs? 57? What is the rating for par ?

Personally I love Airy because it plays like a disc golf course should where all your shots matter. What's the problem with a difficult 3?
Fred Salaz
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:34:58 AM
Rank: Expert

Joined: 2/27/2003
Posts: 1,228
Par for the longs is 58. That is a rating of approximately: 974. As we all know a 58 is a really good score in the longs and should be rated higher. Jeremiah shot a 54 and it was only rated 1008. I agree that theres nothig wrong with a difficult par 3 but having 6 or 7 holes that are 98% impossible to birdie is too much.
The dilemma is that at if the top players want to be sponsored by the major disc manufacturers they have to have ratings well over 1000 but because we play tough courses like mt airy that isnt going to happen for them. They need to play couses like the memorial where every hole is birdiable.
Do you know where im coming from?
Jevv V's 49 two weeks ago was only rated 1024. Thats a 1060 round anywhere else. Good shooting Jeff.
NatiBuckeye
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:02:47 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
My question which may be misguided is how would changing par effect the rating? The rated round is compared to the SSA not par, correct?

As far as locals getting sponsored I believe that responsibility is on the player to go out and showcase themselves.
Fred Salaz
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:20:20 PM
Rank: Expert

Joined: 2/27/2003
Posts: 1,228
Senor Chris, you are correct. A quote from Chuck Kennedy "The par set on each hole or the total par set for the course has nothing to do with ratings. Only the round scores and the ratings of the propagator players are used in the calculation." I understand that but how is someone going to score well if the pars are unbirdable hence the low ratings for good scores at mt airy.

 

DrewMiller(RH)
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:20 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 200
Location: Loveland
A birdie is not a "2", a birdie is one stroke under the propagators avg score on the hole....
DrewMiller(RH)
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:41:57 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 200
Location: Loveland
On easier courses, there is a compression factor, that results in each stroke being worth more, that's because the ssa becomes lower, think winton, a 1000 rated round would be something like a 14 down, meaning a 16 down would be a 1026....the other factor to consider...are the propagators ratings themselves...this plays a factor in the actual ssa calculation....if your on tour and you have a hot round..... That rating will be super high.... Recent trends in NT event are different layouts than the ams... Though arguably an anomaly, it creates more of an opportunity for the anomaly of a crazy high rated round...so if you want a higher rating as a pro, play with high rated players at tournaments with unique layouts for the pro field...
NatiBuckeye
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:09:16 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
I'm confused as to the point of this. Raising par would not help the rated round, so what's the point of changing par. That is of course unless the true point is making people feel better about their rounds.

Drew brings up a great point about rated rounds. The best way to get hot rounds is to play in big events not weekly events
Madmike
Posted: Friday, June 13, 2014 6:50:07 AM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/4/2009
Posts: 400
The rating system needs work its not perfect! I shot a 56 at Goshen last Saturday it was a 972 rated round. Blakely shoots a 56 last night on the same course setup other than 18 not being in temp long placement it was rated 993. The only reason the Big sponsored players are rated so high is because they play one another every tourney so therefor the ratings are a lot higher than they would be anywhere else. Fred It also helps to be able to throw a 400ft hyzer like they do at the Memorial!
bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:01:28 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 449
In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green, plus two. In other words, if you can hit your drive to the green, and make a putt, you have achieved a birdie "2". To convert this to disc golf, we have to determine how big a "green" is, and then determine how many throws it takes to get inside this distance. Another thing to consider, ball golfers often play par four holes, around 320 yards +/-, which they can reach with a driver or three wood, usually with considerable risk of water, numerous sand traps, or O.B.
Another thing to consider, if a hole rarely gets deuced, should it be a par 3?
To keep it simple, how big is a disc golf green..., 100 feet radius?
bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:08:24 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 449
Here are a few sentences from this link:
http://golf.about.com/cs/golfterms/g/bldef_par.htm

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.

The value assigned to represent par for an individual hole is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the green. Holes typically are listed as par-3, par-4 or par-5, although par-6 is also occasionally encountered. A par-4 hole is going to be longer than a par-3 hole, and a par-5 longer than a par-4 (with rare exceptions).
AdamJ
Posted: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:30:33 PM

Rank: Expert

Joined: 5/22/2005
Posts: 1,224
Location: Nati
Here is a link to the Par guidelines from the PDGA. And yes, par has no effect on ratings, just shows what skill level the course was designed for and what they should expect to shoot there.

www.flickr.com/photos/adamj27655/14378727391/ Simple version, I have access to a much more detailed one for course design, but can not share it with you all.

Also refernce this:  www.pdga.com/documents/design-skill-level-guidelines This explains the basics for Par.

Will have more info coming next week....

bobherb
Posted: Friday, June 13, 2014 4:49:00 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 449
Watching the U.S. Open now (very tough course)...
Rory McElroy just drove a par 4 (hole 3) with a 3 wood and has a putt for an eagle 2.
Another thing about par 3's..., ball golfers usually tee off with an iron, not a wood.
This means they are not cranking a shot for "max D".
We should learn from the classic game of ball golf and not determine par by what an average score is achieved. Designers of ball golf courses determine par, not players' scores.
By having the same par criterion as ball golf, we are positioning our game in good company.
DiscHead
Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:12:58 PM

Rank: Regular

Joined: 3/3/2006
Posts: 79
Location: nky
In my mind, I've always pictured "the green" on a disc course to be about a 10 meter
circle radiating from the basket, kind of like the center-circle on a soccer field *(world cup kicks ass!).
But if this were the case - then 2 putts, once on the green, would certainly not be appropriate.
I think that Bob is right though; in order to determine a more accurate par, there needs to be some
sort of consensus on the size of the "green".
vizi25
Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:46:38 AM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 2/20/2011
Posts: 24
bob herb - Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.

If this is true I am completely confused. If this is true birdies are unreachable if it takes an expert to just par it and it is completely impossible to eagle! In golf holes are suppose to be able to birdie or sometimes even eagle, if a pro can not do this then there is something wrong with that judging on how to par. Also to say it helps if you can throw a 400 ft hyzer makes no sense either, people can def beat you in the short game and not have to throw far and win. If you watch ball golf there are many many people who cannot drive as far as many others in the tournaments but simple beat them because of there approach and putting. If we judge a par on the length and not the overall tougness of the actually hole you are making an unfair advantage to those who can only bomb holes for example hole 14 at idlewild is only 477 ft but a par 5 which is a proper par for that because of the tough shots you have to take just to be in the fair way. I guess what my point is that I do agree with fred in some cases that if many holes birdies or eagles are unattainable on a course then that is not golf to me.
vizi25
Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:50:27 AM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 2/20/2011
Posts: 24
Let me also say im nowhere near a pro but i should still be able to birdie or even eagle a hole here and there on a few holes. If anybody here also plays ball golf they can tell you that you can go play a proffesional golf course and still find a couple holes you can birdie or eagle even if you are not an expert.
Drew
Posted: Monday, June 16, 2014 11:04:32 PM
Rank: Regular

Joined: 1/14/2004
Posts: 67
Love the thread but, it appears there is a slight variable missing - Is a disc golf basket equal in difficulty to a 4.25" diameter hole in the ground? Don't watch a lot of golf, but most rounds have at least a dozen or so hit flag sticks with a diameter between 0.5 and 0.75" using a ball of 1.68". I have a hard enough time hitting metal with our current baskets and would hate to cut my chances by about 92%.

Perica, please work the stats but I would think the green size us of little Consequence when the target ratio comes into play. Just a thought.
perica
Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:47:40 AM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 9/18/2005
Posts: 370
Location: Where it puts the lotion on its skin
Bwaaaaa! Putting is so much harder in ball golf. But I accept your challenge ... sort of.

According to ESPN, the best putter on the PGA tour (as measured by putts per hole) is Bubba Watson at 1.713. The worst is Paul Goydos at 1.884. So the average is somewhere in the middle, I don't feel like running the numbers to find the mean, nor do I feel like a discussion around how this metric is skewed by the quality of approach shots. :)

Now I don't know if this data is tracked anywhere, but if I were a bettin' man ... and I am, I'd bet that PDGA touring pros have fewer putts per hole than 1.713. Which is about ~13 two-putt holes per 18-hole round.

As to vizi25's point, birdies are certainly possible. I've had a few and I stink at golf but love to play. Eagles, with the exception of aces on par 3s, are truly rare moments for players who aren't very skilled.
gw0904
Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:14:27 PM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 3/3/2010
Posts: 49
Discussions about pars and putting statistics in ball golf are of little use in disc golf. Handicaps in ball golf are tied to pars (along with course/slope ratings), while ratings in disc golf have nothing to do with what is considered "par". We just shouldn't make the comparison between the two games in that respect. Ball golf can maintain a relatively consistent scoring distribution by tying par to hole length. These boundaries have moved over the years and overlap a lot more than they used to, but they have been able to maintain that relationship with par mostly by using multiple tees. This design feature also serves to equalize par across different skill levels, and handicaps are calculated using the course/slope ratings assigned to each set of tees. In disc golf, someone who shoots a 60 in a tournament on a particular setup at Airy will have that round rated the same no matter what the par is listed as. Sure, there is a +/- to par indicator on pdga.com tournament results, but nobody looks at that - you want to know what the round was rated. Also, In disc golf there isn't the flexibility or means to create multiple tees to make a hole a "true par 4" to everyone from Paul McBeth to an 800 rated player. The SSA in disc golf is analogous to course ratings in ball golf and could be used to create rough disc golf handicaps, but that's not helpful in the quest to assign an accurate par to individual holes. I would interpret Fred's original post as dissatisfaction with the number of deuce opportunities on the long setup and at the same time the narrowing of the scoring spread. I get the par implication - #1 is considered a par four regardless of pin location, - but many others have gone from possible deuces (at least for some people) to really hard/nearly impossible to deuce while still be considered par threes (3,6,10,11,13,16,18). I know we will never get away from pars and will continue to have discussions about what par really means, but I would just think of Airy as one of those courses you can't just say "I shot one down" like you can at places like Turtlecreek or Lincoln Ridge - you have to qualify it with something like "I shot one down at Airy ----- long pause and much quieter ----- on the short pins"... _______________________EDIT:_________________________________ Sorry for the format - for some reason I can't create paragraphs...
perica
Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:39:46 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 9/18/2005
Posts: 370
Location: Where it puts the lotion on its skin
gw0904 wrote:
We just shouldn't make the comparison between the two games.


I believe I was contrasting, not comparing the two.

duel 
gw0904
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:16:45 AM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 3/3/2010
Posts: 49
perica wrote:


I believe I was contrasting, not comparing the two.

duel 
Semantics. By quoting ball golf putting stats and relating them to disc golf you are making a comparison. Saying they would be different in disc golf is the contrast, and my point is that the comparison is not useful because the only thing they have in common is the use of the term "putt". You might as well compare (or contrast) NBA free-throw percentages to 30' putts - both actions involve throwing an object to a target from a fixed distance...
perica
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:33:17 AM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 9/18/2005
Posts: 370
Location: Where it puts the lotion on its skin
Just poking fun - I do disagree with your contention that a comparison is entirely useless. We're extraordinarily limited in terms of data available COMPARED to ball golf.

I was just answering a question posed by other folks. Agree that the par-birdie-bogey view isn't very useful - but with the right data, and agreements about distance assumptions, a putting comparison could be quite valid. We just don't have the disc golf data.

And what's the deal with airplane food? I mean, come one! Who wants to eat that stuff?
gw0904
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:09:27 PM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 3/3/2010
Posts: 49
No worries - as you can tell I enjoy a good debate.

If we could agree on a definition of a putt, I think the only comparisons that make sense is between the pros in one sport, not between sports. The top ball golf pro averages 1.7 putts per hole, and let's say the top disc golf pro averages 0.8 - what does that mean? We already agree putting is easier in disc golf.

And to your last question, I would rather know that if an airplane's black box can survive a crash, why they don't just make the whole plane out of the same material?
bobherb
Posted: Saturday, July 05, 2014 6:09:23 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 8/10/2004
Posts: 449
To keep it simple, if you crank a perfect drive on a hole, and you are not putting for a 2 (let's say inside 50 feet), it should likely be a par 4 or higher. If someone (big arm) happens to throw an unlikely 1 in 100 drive, over 450 feet, and has a putt, it should be a putt for an eagle 2.
Some par 4's are naturally tougher than others.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

YAFPro Theme Created by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.7 running under DotNetNuke.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.