Course Conditions

[DPdiscer]

The scorecard used for Texas States has the Wilmont at par 60. Par 4 for holes 6,8,9,11 and par 5 for 14. Whoever set up the pars for the scorecard might have referenced the pdga "Par Guidelines". It is a table that takes into consideration the skill level of the tees, the hole length, and density of foliage. They probably used the Gold Tees and light foliage. Amount of OB could also be considered. If you have a lot of OB on a hole then consider it like dense foliage.
Par 3 Par 4 Par 5
Light 275-600 600-900 900+
Heavy 225-450 450-750 750+

Using these guidelines I would reduce Wilmont #6 (555) to par 3; and reduce Wilmont #14(800) to par 4. Wilmont #8 (480) leave at par 4 because of the cautious approach shot.

Lets look at the Tourney
15 (523) and 16 (626) are par 4. Both have a lot of OB that come into play. Leave as is.
#17 (594) and #18 (575) are par 4. I could go either way on those two. They are borderline.

The Powell looks good all the way through.

Use SSA as a guideline? I think not.

I will get with Neal and ERic on this.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by DPdiscer

The scorecard used for Texas States has the Wilmont at par 60. Par 4 for holes 6,8,9,11 and par 5 for 14. Whoever set up the pars for the scorecard might have referenced the pdga "Par Guidelines". It is a table that takes into consideration the skill level of the tees, the hole length, and density of foliage. They probably used the Gold Tees and light foliage. Amount of OB could also be considered. If you have a lot of OB on a hole then consider it like dense foliage.
Par 3 Par 4 Par 5
Light 275-600 600-900 900+
Heavy 225-450 450-750 750+

Using these guidelines I would reduce Wilmont #6 (555) to par 3; and reduce Wilmont #14(800) to par 4. Wilmont #8 (480) leave at par 4 because of the cautious approach shot.

Lets look at the Tourney
15 (523) and 16 (626) are par 4. Both have a lot of OB that come into play. Leave as is.
#17 (594) and #18 (575) are par 4. I could go either way on those two. They are borderline.

The Powell looks good all the way through.

Use SSA as a guideline? I think not.

I will get with Neal and ERic on this.

Not sure if this tangent belongs under Bass Course Conditions or TxSDGC thread but....

First this could, but shouldn't blow up into a big deal. The only use that par has in sanctioned play is to penalize players who are late to start. They card a score of par+4 for each hole missed.

The PDGA has no hard and fast rules on par. They define it as follows:

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

The subjective area is what is "close range"? For Gold level players 100' is a good value for "close range", i.e. you should be able to hole-out in two throws from within 100'. If you assume that Gold players can accurately throw a golf distance (not raw distance) of 400' off the tee that means over 500' is Par 4.

Wilmont #14 at 800' is sitting on the edge of the par 4/par 5 range. Golf distance for Gold level players in the fairway is more like 330' which puts the over/under par4/5 line at 830'. Consider the OB wetlands and basket on a hill that nudges you toward the par 5 side for Willy #14.

If TxSDGC were an NT we'd probably err on the side of lower par values. But TxSDGC has AMs playing too and you don't want anyone to be able to take advantage of intentionally showing up late in poor playing conditions and carding a par+4 score that is better than the average score by players who actually played the hole(s).

Personally I think pars should be based on actual scoring data from past events. But I don't know anyone in HFDS that has accumulated that level of detailed data with which to scientifically and accurately assign pars.

Lastly, if you consider this year's TxSDGC Southern Star Putting Contest for which automatic qualification is based on number of sub-par holes carded... a couple holes that might be considered easier birdies vs. hard pars is a good thing, right?

[DPdiscer]

Yeah, I knew all along that you would have to have scorecards from the past TxSDGC at Tom Bass. Look at the Open cards and get an average for the holes in question. How big a sample size? At least 100? I don't know. Mainly wanted to review the par concept. Accomplished. Thanks ERic.

[ChrisMacG]

I think it is good to have a realistic par instead of the 'par three on every hole' mentality. When you have a course that has both a 248 foot hole and a 747 foot hole you cannot seriously call both a par three. I think that the method Eric described for finding par is a good way to go about setting par for the course.

Originally Posted by DPdiscer

Yeah, I knew all along that you would have to have scorecards from the past TxSDGC at Tom Bass. Look at the Open cards and get an average for the holes in question. How big a sample size? At least 100? I don't know. Mainly wanted to review the par concept. Accomplished. Thanks ERic.

[zipper]

Without blowing up the par issue, I do agree that whatever par we use is fine, but SSA has meaning. It is based on real world play on the course and isn't just a measure of distance, but rather of difficulty. A 500 foot hole out in the open is a par three for most accomplished players. A 500 foot hole through the trees could be par 4 or par 5 for an accomplished player, depending on configuration. Tom Bass is, in terms of SSA, not even par 54. The top Pros eat this up. There is a reason why we have trouble getting top Pros to come to this event. The course is too open and too easy for today's players. If you spend some time looking at the other top events, they are not hitting below par 54 SSA. That is the standard. If we want to continue to be viewed at the same level as the other A tiers in the country, we should offer the same challenge.

The plain and simple fact is that no matter what you call par, most players are going to look at each hole as par three. That is the standard in our sport. Calling hole x par 4 or 5 won't much matter with the exception that it can hurt you. The general commentary on the PDGA site is that any hole that is par 2 SSA is not acceptable for any real tournament play. There is also commentary on what the real difficulty of a course is. If you set a course as par 60 and it is SSA 51 then it is going to be evident in the scores that get posted and discussed on the PDGA web site. We should be realistic about what the course is and how it plays. While it is okay to sit on par three, given the history of that use in our sport, calling a hole that has an SSA of 3.4 or less, par 4 is, IMO, a mistake.

Statistics. PDGA Chuck is an excellent statistician. He knows what sample size means, and he knows what is a significant measurement. When he tells us that the sample size he uses to determine SSA is significant, we need to accept that. I accept it because as a geneticist I used statistics all the time. My use of a number of tools tells me that his numbers aren't just good, they are so good as to be unquestioned.

Jerry, would it be possible to get a rough draw of what you think would be the best reconfiguration of Willy. I'd like to look at it. Have you thought similarly about Powell?

[zipper]

BTW - unless things have changed, and maybe they have, the general approach was not par + 4, it was 7 strokes per hole. Now it may be that all along that was meant to reflect par + 4, but that's how it has always be discussed by the rules Zealots on the PDGA MB over the past 10 years. No one ever discussed non-par 3 in that formula. I suspect if you treat it differently than that, you will hear about it. Take for example two players who come late. Player one is on hole three, set at par three, player two is on hole 7, par 5. Three more holes are played all par three. So player one gets punished with 12 + 16 stokes whereas player 2 gets punished with 14 + 16 stokes, simply based on luck of the draw. I'd hate to be the TD explaining that one.

BTW - the notion that some rookie would use that to get an advantage seems a little misplaced to me. If that is your strategy to get ahead in a tournament, I have a bridge to sell you in NY, come see me now before you play that Saturday night poker round.

Redefining par on the course, to accommodate a mini event, no matter how sweet, sort of defeats the concept and recognized goals of a Super Tier event. The goal of A Tiers and higher is to set a professional tone, not lower the standards so more people have a shot at winning a free beer...

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by zipper

BTW - unless things have changed, and maybe they have, the general approach was not par + 4, it was 7 strokes per hole. Now it may be that all along that was meant to reflect par + 4, but that's how it has always be discussed by the rules Zealots on the PDGA MB over the past 10 years. No one ever discussed non-par 3 in that formula. I suspect if you treat it differently than that, you will hear about it. Take for example two players who come late. Player one is on hole three, set at par three, player two is on hole 7, par 5. Three more holes are played all par three. So player one gets punished with 12 + 16 stokes whereas player 2 gets punished with 14 + 16 stokes, simply based on luck of the draw. I'd hate to be the TD explaining that one.

You don't get to replay any missed holes. So if player two missed a harder hole they should be penalized more, right?

Originally Posted by PDGA

If a player is not present to throw when it is his or her turn, the scorekeeper shall allow 30 seconds. If the player has not thrown after the 30 seconds has elapsed, a score of par plus four is to be entered for that hole. This procedure continues on any subsequent holes for which a player is absent.

--http://www.pdga.com/rules/1-5-practi...-and-tee-times

[ERicJ]

Lyle, agree with much of what you wrote. Especially about real scoring averages having meaning for par values. But where does that data exist?

Originally Posted by zipper

Tom Bass is, in terms of SSA, not even par 54. The top Pros eat this up.

2009 Wilmont was SSA >54 for both rounds. And remember that we played a significantly shortened version of hole #14 due to the muddy teeing area.
http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-b...t?TournID=8493

[zipper]

Funny, just like that you point out the problem with SSA, the TS configuration is different from the day to day configuration. The day to day for Powell, used to be SSA 51. I haven't looked at it in a couple of years. That said, you made me think about it, and I think the Willy may have been SSA 55, standard configuration. Still, I stand by my notion that I think moving these courses into a more technical configuration is a good idea. If we take TS vs. the standard layout, clearly, we are acknowledging that for an A tier we need a tougher configuration. I'm saying that our overall approach to that should be more technical for the day to day play out there. That may be selfish but that concept has been support by every Pro I've ever discussed this course with. I do concede the notion that Ams should be able to play here, hence multiple Tee placements.

SSA - I hadn't looked at them in some time and you are right, I couldn't immediately locate them. If the PDGA is going to argue that this is a concrete and usable tool in course rating and measurement, then they need to make them available clearly for every round and for standard configurations on in the ground courses. I will be sending a note to PDGA Chuck.

[zipper]

I'm going to disagree with you on the missed hole part. I will try and get a look at the rules book, but even if it says, par + 4 and par is meant to vary I think that is a mistake. I'm pretty confident that card assignments are alphabetical (or have typically been so). If my last name always puts me (first round) at a par 5 hole, and it always puts you on a par 3 hole, and we're late every year for this same tournament, I'm punished more severely than you simply because you're a Jubin, and I'm a Ross.

7 strokes per hole solves that problem. I promise that if this situation every occurs, the PDGA would hear about it in the loudest possible fashion.