What is Par? [Archive] - Disc Golf Course Review

MattK

07-04-2007, 02:04 PM

Baker Farm has a 911' par 4! :eek: One of the courses I added has the opposite problem. Monroeville Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=105) has some so-called Par 5's under 300', though this is what the course designer supposedly wanted since it was on the signs that were originally posted.
This short community park course has two sets of tees, which I would generously call "Red" and "White". But this website only has a place for "Par" and "Pro-Par" as well as length and pro-length. It would be nice to see columns for red, white, and blue since many of the better courses seem to have all of these tees, perhaps with an "other" column as well to cover the occasional "gold" tees, etc.
FWIW, the PDGA does seem to have criteria on what "Par" should be (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf), but unless we can find bona-fide numbers indicating what a course designer has designated as par (from signs or official scorecards, etc), then I agree we best leave that column blank rather than take our best guess at what we think par should be.

timg

07-04-2007, 02:13 PM

I was actually thinking about adding more spots for tees just yesterday.. in my area the colors tends to be yellow/red/blue. Maybe I could just label them tee #1/tee #2/tee #3 or something along those lines.

I've been using the long tees and the next closest for par/pro par and leaving out the closest set of tees. I'll have to add these in when I get a chance

timg

07-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Just implemented the various tees. I think it turned out pretty nice, not too crowdy.

MattK

07-08-2007, 11:18 PM

Just implemented the various tees. I think it turned out pretty nice, not too crowdy.

Looks good, Tim. I've updated data for a few of the courses accordingly.

Olorin

07-09-2007, 08:58 AM

I was actually thinking about adding more spots for tees just yesterday.. in my area the colors tends to be yellow/red/blue. Maybe I could just label them tee #1/tee #2/tee #3 or something along those lines.

Tee colors vary wildly around the country. Courses should be moving toward the PDGA standard designations (from longest to shortest) of Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green, Purple, but it's a very slow process as people get educated about these standards.

timg

07-09-2007, 09:37 AM

Wow.. are green and purple right next to the baskets? :) Usually the reds are fairly close (around here).

I just went with the standard colors for the site that I looked up on the pdga site. It seemed like a safe bet.

Olorin

07-09-2007, 10:47 AM

I never saw a purple course.
I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than play one.

Olorin

07-09-2007, 10:48 AM

Olorin

07-29-2007, 08:12 AM

Olorin

07-29-2007, 08:14 AM

Would it be possible to have a column for par for each layout? Right now there is only on par column, but if you have 2-3 layouts the longer layouts sometimes have par 4s or 5s that can't be designated as such. The only layout to have par match the holes is the first column.

Different layouts can have different pars, so I'd like to be able to show this.

timg

07-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Disc golf courses unfortunately don't follow any standard from course to course so it's tough to design a system that will fit every possible situation out there. Pro par in my mind (some scorecards do list it) would either be because there is a amateur par or it can be assumed that it is for the farther tees.

In retrospect I could have had a par go with each tee (xxx ft./3) but entering all that info would have been incredibly tedious for people (~150 text boxes!).

As far as other layouts, I could make a tabbed interface for the holes area but really, how many courses have alternate layouts? Also, I have my doubts people would take the time to fill in all that information (if they could even find it). I'd just put the most popular layout on the site and alternates could be mentioned in the course description or they could be viewed on an uploaded scorecard/score map.

magictenor1

07-30-2007, 11:15 PM

Most course I know that have so called pro tees have the same par as the other tees. I agree that it probably not really needed in the course description but not a big deal. I do sometime go to courses where the signs might say a hole is a par 4 but some locals say par 3. I once went to a course in Texas where there was a running argument over whether everything was a 3 or not with people writing over the signs.

timg

07-31-2007, 08:08 AM

I know at a few courses I go to the pro tees have different pars than the regular tees so that number was really intended for that purpose. So the sign says par 4/3 based on where you're throwing from. I've noticed quite a few courses have different pars for the same hole possibly based on the tee so I definitely don't think it hurts to have the number there.

MattK

08-02-2007, 10:24 AM

Like it or not, what course designers post as "par" often makes no sense, but that is what we have to report here. I've played a course with a 262' par 5, and I cringed when I had to post that value under "pro-par", but I did and in my review commented that, in my opinion, the quality of the course was degraded somewhat because of it - misleading beginners into thinking their play is better than it really is. Just as we can't have people writing on tee signs with sharpies regarding what par should be, we shouldn't have people posting what par "should be" in the par sections here. What I think we are looking for here is a way to convey the information that the course designers wanted as "par" for their course, despite the fact that the way this is designated varies greatly from course to course.
I agree with Lowe that ideally there should be only one par per hole. Unfortunately, many courses do not adhere to this standard. For some holes it's a tee difference, like a 220' p3 from the reds and a 380' p4 from the whites. For others it will be a basket difference: p4 for pin position A and p5 for B. In either case a particular hole of a course may have up to two differing pars, which we should be able to report using the current two column format. (If anyone finds a hole that has three different pars posted, let us know) I think the header for these columns may be the sticking point, as the term "pro par" may be misleading. There has been a lot of thoughtful discussion on the PDGA web page about what par should be (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=02c9d0a6d6f519c6b802cdbde950157c), but unfortunately the par designated on many if not most courses is not up to...standards (I wanted to say not up to par:p), and I don't want what is posted here to mislead anyone into thinking the par we are listing is anything but what is posted for the course on signs or official scorecards, even though the origin of these numbers may be nothing but arbitrary.
For lack of a better idea, I throw in the possible headings of "PAR (short)" and "PAR (long)" for discussion. I'm trying to find words to convey that a hole may have two differing designated pars, but which are generic enough to encompass the possibility that the differing numbers are as a result of different tee lengths, different tee classifications, or different pin placements.

Olorin

08-02-2007, 10:54 AM

Could the columns be relabeled and rearranged? It would make more sense to me to see the columns as:
Layout A -- Par A-- Layout B -- Par B -- Layout C -- Par C -- Layout D -- Par D

I also vote to drop the label "Pro Par".

timg

08-02-2007, 11:01 AM

Matt hit the nail on the head. We're trying to reflect the information the course designer gave as far as par, etc. and often time that involves 2 different numbers. I know I've played par 5's in the past that I made in 2 shots but the sign still says par 5 so that's what we put here. I'd be willing to relabel Pro Par as Par (Long) or something along those lines though. Often the back tees are referred to as the "pro tees" around here which is where pro par came from.

Lowe,
Your idea doesn't account for multiple tees (unless that's what you mean by layout) and most holes have either one or two numbers for the par so it would be kind of pointless to enter that same information 4 times. As for different layouts of a course, the best I can do at this point is recommend a local player update the distances and pars based on whatever the current setup is.

Trying to come up with a system that will account for every possibility in something that doesn't have standards that are adhered to isn't that easy. I know that I posted a recent course that had up to 6 alternate pin positions per hole which would be headache inducing to figure out how to account for all those possibilities. Plus, even with the alternate pin positions, I've noticed that some pins are left in the original spots and some in the alt. spots so there isn't a really good way to reflect that other than a dedicated local updating the course info.

I think if the site takes off that the various local clubs may make the effort to keep the course info current (in an ideal world :)).

Olorin

08-02-2007, 11:11 AM

Lowe,
Your idea doesn't account for multiple tees (unless that's what you mean by layout)

I used the word "layout" because some courses have Alt tees, some have Alt baskets, some have both. If you want to stick with the word "Tees" then 3 columns should be enough. Of the ~200 courses I've played I've never seen more than 3 tees.

My point in rearranging the columns was to put the length first (which is the more objective and impt number) then the par that it matches with. It just seems clearer to me that way.

Lowe

Texconsinite

04-29-2008, 05:53 AM

An open question to anyone, but mainly admin: TIMG

One of the local courses here in AZ, Vista Del Camino (the site of the Memorial) has several pin positions for each hole, all marked on the map for that hole mounted next to the tee, (as baskets A, B, C, and so forth), with the distance for each one. However, they will only have one basket per hole, and just move them around weekly, so each time you are there, you would essentially be playing a different combo of reds, white, and blues, for different layouts.

However, I thought about what they do in ball golf. They regularly move the hole around the green, but at most courses, the yardage is painted on the tee sign in a permanent manner, so technically, that cant stay accurate either, but its good enough for ball golfers.

So, this all being said, how would you handle recording the length of each hole. Do I do a range for the different positions, (284-296ft) or just go with the most popular pin placement?? Or just write down which one each happens to be at the next time I'm there and roll with it???

I want to post specific AZ course info (like hole lengths) to the site before I move up North for good, but am a little puzzled. What is the best way to handle????:confused:

timg

04-29-2008, 08:31 AM

Well, the site lets you record up to 3 pin positions per hole per tee and you can pick whichever one is currently active. So unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I think think that should work for inputting the lengths at the courses you mentioned. If a course has more than 3 pin positions I guess I would just omit anything above that number. Three seems to work for a majority of courses out there while keeping the hole update/info pages reasonable.

ERicJ

04-29-2008, 04:58 PM

One of the local courses here in AZ, Vista Del Camino (the site of the Memorial) has several pin positions for each hole, all marked on the map for that hole mounted next to the tee, (as baskets A, B, C, and so forth), with the distance for each one. However, they will only have one basket per hole, and just move them around weekly, so each time you are there, you would essentially be playing a different combo of reds, white, and blues, for different layouts.

So, this all being said, how would you handle recording the length of each hole. Do I do a range for the different positions, (284-296ft) or just go with the most popular pin placement?? Or just write down which one each happens to be at the next time I'm there and roll with it???

While courses like Vista Del Camino (aka "Shelly Sharpe") with their rotating basket positions are great for play variety, they're a pain to accurately represent in a course directory.

I'd previously posted a picture of the first tee sign showing the six basket postions in that courses photo gallery:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=920&mode=gal

Complicating the matter for Vista Del Camino is the fact that not all holes have the same number of basket position. Some have four, some have six. On top of that, while hole #1 might be in 'A' position, #2 might be in 'C', #3 in 'E', etc. That can produce an exorbitant number of course layout permutations.

Well, the site lets you record up to 3 pin positions per hole per tee and you can pick whichever one is currently active.

Even if DGCR allowed six pin positions ther's no guarantee that all the baskets are in the 'A' position (or 'B', etc.) at the same time. So keeping up with the currently active postion of each individual basket would be an unreasonable task for anyone other than the people actually moving the baskets.

This type of course also makes it difficult for players to accurately enter scores into the DGCR scorebook. To be correct you'd need a set of holes with the pin assignments as they were when you played. If you're entering your score a week later and the current pin assignments had been updated you've got the wrong distances.

Perhaps the best way to represent this course given the constraints of DGCR is to use all four sets of tee assignments for 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' pin positions and document that in the "Course Description" field of the Info page. If you wanted you could enter 'E' and 'F' pin distances as alternate pin locations under the 'D' set of tees. At least this way all the information is there for people.

My $0.02,
ERic

timg

04-29-2008, 06:20 PM

Wow.. that course sounds absurdly complex. I guess that would be a good system if that was the only course in town but it seems that even locals could get confused playing it.

ERicJ

04-30-2008, 12:01 AM

Wow.. that course sounds absurdly complex. I guess that would be a good system if that was the only course in town but it seems that even locals could get confused playing it.
I played it twice while I was out there for a racquetball tournament back in February. IIRC there weren't any blind holes so it's really not too confusing under normal circumstances since you can always see the basket at which you're throwing.

However... when I was there they were doing some course alterations to get ready for The Memorial (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=7282) and there were a few extra baskets out on the course for the long holes they set up for the tournament. Never having played there before, now that was confusing.

ERic

magictenor1

04-30-2008, 11:19 AM

Gordon Barnett park in Orlando has multiple tees (3 I believe ) and hole locations with different pars for some of them. When I played there it was very difficult to decide which combo we were playing.I really prefer that the hole location not change because if you do not play a course often you can think you know where the hole is and then find out after your tee shot that it is in a different place. Multiple tees are great and do not cause the same confusion. At least that's my opinion.

timg

04-30-2008, 11:29 AM

I've thrown a tee shot and realized upon walking up to it that the basket was in a different spot quite a few times. There was one course I played in PA that had a metal slider on the tee sign and you could indicate the current position of the basket. That was pretty handy assuming people actually updated the slider.

ERicJ

04-30-2008, 11:36 AM

I played in PA that had a metal slider on the tee sign and you could indicate the current position of the basket. That was pretty handy assuming people actually updated the slider.
That does sound like a good idea, as long as no one maliciously messed with it.

magictenor1

04-30-2008, 07:12 PM

I was just looking at The Rez in Brandon,Ms (which I have played) and the par is listed as 67 for 18 holes. Ther are 2 recorded rounds for the course of 67 and 69 which would be even and +2 however they were listed as if par were 54 (3 on each hole) so they show up as +13 and +15. Yet another example of what we face in the "what is par" debate. The good news is that a 67 is always a 67 no matter it's relation to par.

timg

04-30-2008, 08:13 PM

The reason they're listed as +13 and +15 is that the guy entered his own par for each hole (3) rather than than choosing which par he played from the drop down which would have filled in the proper pars for each hole.

magictenor1

04-30-2008, 09:15 PM

That was my point. He played them all as par 3's. As long as that mindset is out there you will always have this no matter how the site is set up.

timg

04-30-2008, 09:25 PM

Ah, ok.. I misunderstood your post and thought you were questioning why it was +13. My mistake :)

magictenor1

04-30-2008, 09:36 PM

That's why this thread gets so much love. People really can't agree what par is. If I recorded a 67 there it would show even because I play the listed par. Until people change or there is much more uniformity in the sport I believe we will continue to see these debates. At least it gives us something to talk about.

magictenor1

04-30-2008, 09:43 PM

One of the reviews for the same course lists the length of some holes as a con. If you play those long holes as a 4 or 5 then the distance is not an issue. With everything as a 3 some of those holes are impossible to par(at least for the vast majority of players). It's obvious to me that the reviewer played them all as 3's.

Olorin

06-12-2008, 02:40 PM

PA_Disc,

This thread might be of interest to you as you develop your course.

gameboy9

07-14-2008, 07:28 AM

petecarp

07-14-2008, 07:56 AM

the way par designation was explained to me was if a pro player can throw the disc from the tee and place it within 30 ft of the basket (the circle) then it is a par 3, 2 shots would be a par 4.

nosajeel99

07-14-2008, 09:37 AM

Ok, here is the thing. Par really only matters if you are playing alone. It gives people a relative idea on how well you did. In tournaments, par doesn't matter, the number of throws does. So, in playing other people, the number of throws is what counts. I think we put too much emphasis on par, maybe because it is easier to say (or more ego-boosting to say) we shot a 19-under-par as opposed to a 53.

As far as how to determine par, I don't have an answer for that. I just know that if my second shot is with a driver (after a decent first shot) then I add one to the "par." There are doglegs and things to take into consideration and I usually look to ball golf in thinking about pars. If it takes 2 good shots to get to the "green" (which I classify as 50') then I also add one to the par. Some holes are designed to take two drives (drive/layup) to get to putting range, especially newer courses. I am pretty strict, though, when it comes to coming up with my own par for a hole, and if it is borderline, I usually pick the lower par (par 3 instead of par 4).

Also, I don't pay much attention to par on signs and think most signage is generous in par anyways.

edge3281

07-14-2008, 10:46 AM

I find it easiest to play everything as a par 3. I don't have to worry about if the course is marked well or not. The switch to doing that was kinda hard since I went from double digit below par to 2 over :).

Three Putt

07-14-2008, 11:18 AM

Hate to bring this up again, but I wish this stuff was standardized somehow. If you look at Codorus, you'll find 400 footers as par 3's... which makes no sense. So let me ask you all: if you had a perfectly flat hole with no woods whatsoever, what ranges would you make par?

So... say... 0-300 feet would be par 3, 300-500 feet as par 4, 500-700 feet as par 5, etc.

But I don't know how far a good amateur or a pro would throw, tee shot or approach shot, so I'm making these numbers up.It depends on the tee. For a red tee a flat open 400ft hole would be a par 4. For a white tee it is borderline...if it has no elevation and no trees I'd call it a par 3; put a couple of random trees in the fairway and you can make it a par 4. For a Blue tee it is an easy par 3.

An abstract rule of thumb for an open hole to be a par 4 is Red: 350 ft. White: 400 ft. Blue: 475 ft. Gold: 600 ft. An open par five for Red: 600 ft. White: 700 ft. Blue: 800 ft. Gold: 900 ft. Trees and elevation will change these, as a 275 ft. heavily wooded uphill tunnel shot could legitimately called a Red par 4.

So, the quick answer is "it depends."

ERicJ

07-14-2008, 01:27 PM

So let me ask you all: if you had a perfectly flat hole with no woods whatsoever, what ranges would you make par?
Here is the direct link to the PDGA recommended par values: http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

You can find it on the Course Development page: http://pdga.com/cd_start.php

Olorin

07-14-2008, 02:04 PM

1.) In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
2.) For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
3.) So that players can judge their progress by comparison to a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1.) One of the first questions that most new players ask is “What is par on this hole?” We should be able to give them a consistent and universally accepted answer.
4.) It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as “6 down” rather than “48”.
5.) The reality of disc golf being a golf type game is that the terms “par”, “under par”, “bogey” and “birdie” naturally accompany the sport. It would be strange to have a sport with the word “golf” in it that doesn’t use these terms. If we’re going to use the term “par” then it should have a standard method of determining it.
6.) In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7.) Par is an important factor for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable “portability error”. A very useful Difficulty Factor is Level Scoring average minus Level Par. This will only be useful if there are consistent, universal standards for par, though.
8.) Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
9.) If the term “par” is defined in a multitude of ways by many different people then the term loses its meaning, so it becomes worthless along with the related terms such as “birdie, bogie…”.
10.) To be able to determine handicaps.

Olorin

07-14-2008, 02:24 PM

...I wish this stuff was standardized somehow... So let me ask you all: if you had a perfectly flat hole with no woods whatsoever, what ranges would you make par?

Oh how I wish that disc golf had a standard and uniform method of determining par! At the moment, the closest thing the PDGA has is the "Score Average (SA) Par" system that Chuck Kennedy has used his considerable influence to make the PDGA standard. I believe that system has some inherent flaws, but Chuck has decreed that it's the standard to be used and no one with similar influence has questioned that.

I tried to attach a file with a proposal for a par system called "Close Range (CR) Par", but DGCR won't let me, so you'll have to get it in the Files section of my Yahoo Group "DG Resources".

The document has tables with suggested hole lengths for par 3, 4, 5 for each course level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green).

If the PDGA would only see the light and adopt CR Par as a uniform standard then we could finally close this and all other related threads. :D :)

Doktor John

07-14-2008, 02:47 PM

It's amazing to see the swing in "par"...my favorite (for ego building) is the State of Wisconsin....they seem to be VERY generous on the stated "par"...I would consistently "eagle" some of the par 4's...but like the earlier post, I tend to play most courses (in my head) at par 3, except for the monster holes

Olorin

07-14-2008, 02:58 PM

At the DG Resources (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/DGResources/files/Par/) Yahoo group I also added a long document in the Files/ Par section that contrasts the 3 main philosophies of determining par. It's long, but it should give you lots of background if you care to pursue this in more depth. If you're a member of DG Resources feel free to leave a message about your thoughts for that group.

gameboy9

07-14-2008, 06:26 PM

magictenor1

07-14-2008, 11:36 PM

Nice post by Olorin on why we need par. I totally agree that because our sport is called "golf" you should use par,birdie etc and it is much easier to keep up with your score in relation to par. I believe the person who designed a course should determine the par and everyone should play it as posted. Again relating to ball golf,no one goes to a course and says "I think I'll play them all as 3's " Does not happen!! So, why would you do that for disc golf? Of course there will be easy and more difficult courses. When I played Ball golf years ago (I was pretty bad) I could shoot around +18 on my easy home municipal course. One day I went out of town and played a much nicer harder course and I shot around +45-50. Did that mean I should change the par on the course? I don't think so. There is a huge difference between the average local municipal ball golf course and the one that Tiger won the Open on, but the par is about the same. If you are a pro there are disc courses that might be too easy for you and a nice course for a pro would be beyond a lot of us. However par should be consistent. You just need to find the courses that fit your game. I don't even think that a certain # of feet has to equal to a certain par. Let the course designer set the par. Multiple tees can then help players find the level of play (in relation to par) that best suits them.

WillA

07-15-2008, 01:49 AM

Russell Gore

07-15-2008, 08:03 AM

Olorin Wrote"There is a huge difference between the average local municipal ball golf course and the one that Tiger won the Open on, but the par is about the same."
Torrey Pines is the average local municipal ball golf course, for San Diego California. That is what is so great about the U.S. Open, they are all played on public golf courses. Bethpage Black a few years back is (or was) rated the number one hardest public course in America. As a matter of fact I believe they are going to be there next year or the year after. This is the reason that the Open draws the amount of people that it does. Anyone can come and watch the Pro's play on the course they play on daily!

Olorin

07-15-2008, 08:19 AM

Olorin Wrote"There is a huge difference between the average local municipal ball golf course and the one that Tiger won the Open on, but the par is about the same."

Actually, Magictenor1 wrote that. ;)

magictenor1

07-15-2008, 01:35 PM

THanks, Olorin. Torrey Pines may be the LOCAL municipal course for San Diego but it is anything but an AVERAGE municipal course. My point is that there is a wide difference in the difficulty of ball golf courses and I don't see why it has to be any different for DG.

Olorin

07-15-2008, 05:59 PM

I agree with letting the course designer set par and that everyone should play it the way it is set. But the course designer should use PDGA standard for public par that was posted above. In fact I'll copy the link and repost it...

http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

I think that everyone needs to know that the Public Par document is derived from another document of estimated scoring averages for various foliage. The document is called "Estimated hole scoring averages for each ratings range based on hole length (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg)". This, in turn, is derived from formulas invented by Chuck Kennedy (with input from others). The Public Par document is merely a simplified version of this one.

The underlying philosophy behind these documents is that par is determined by Score Averages (SA Par). Chuck Kennedy has been successful in making this the PDGA standard, but there are still pockets of rebel resistance out there. Notably, Harold Duvall and John Houck, among many other prominent course designers, favor using the Traditional Golf (TG) Par method. A few others of us favor using Close Range (CR) Par.

There is merit to using score averages, but it is also quite problematic. It's also fundamentally based on a certain vision of what par is that I happen to disagree with it.

Olorin

07-15-2008, 06:04 PM

I agree with letting the course designer set par and that everyone should play it the way it is set. But the course designer should use PDGA standard for public par that was posted above....
http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

It would be a step in the right direction, but one of the big problems with par is that course designers and course pros use a myriad of ways to determine par. I suspect that most have no real system, just what "feels" right to them. The result is that when you see par posted somewhere it often means very little (expect for those holes that are par 3s no matter how you determine par -- but these are still the majority). At this time the words "par, birdie, bogey..." are basically worthless and meaningless. Sigh. :(

Texconsinite

07-15-2008, 07:39 PM

I agree that a course like Torrey Pines would be a harder course with the same par as many easier course, but thats a Gold vs. a Red Course: Same par, but more difficult. However, often a very inconsistent rule is used on courses.

case in point, my home course has a hole that is posted as 380ft on the tee boxes, but the basket has since been moved 150-200ft further away (and uphill, i might add). I talked to the assistant course designer, and he said all the holes are par 3s. What can you do? Par is not posted anywhere, but seriously? a 600ft uphill par 3? That strikes me as very bogus. Even some course designers seem to embrace the "all 3s" notion, which I think takes alot of flavor out of the game. Just as some holes should be significantly longer and harder than others, they should have different pars. Instead of just having an impossible hole that 99% of players will double bogey or worse, then have to "catch up" the rest of the round to break even, vary it up. Thats not the purpose of par.

What would ball golf be like if it were all par 3s, on every course, not just the short executive courses? You would have no way of judging how hard a hole was. It makes the learning curve for courses much steeper, because the ones who have played there before know which "easy" holes you have to birdie or eagle, to make up for the impossible ones that wreck your score later. This is a stupid state of affairs.

Ball golf courses have par 4s and 5s, and its never disputed. There is no reason why we shouldn't as well. If this means making the difficulty of the holes more varied on a course, then i'm all for it. No golfer wants to play executive courses all the time, likewise for DG. Dg has executive courses too, but most are at middle schools.

Olorin

07-15-2008, 09:59 PM

Texconsinite,

I agree with all you say!

case in point, my home course has a hole that is posted as 380ft on the tee boxes, but the basket has since been moved 150-200ft further away (and uphill, i might add). I talked to the assistant course designer, and he said all the holes are par 3s. What can you do? Par is not posted anywhere, but seriously? a 600ft uphill par 3? That strikes me as very bogus.

You're totally right about this! It's bogus not to call it a par 4.

Even some course designers seem to embrace the "all 3s" notion, which I think takes alot of flavor out of the game. This is the unfortunate reality that we live with.

The "everything is par 3" mentality is detrimental to DG and holding our sport back. It's antediluvian and out of touch with current reality.

(I understand why people use 3 as a convenient way to keep score in their heads, but that's a totally different and unrelated matter.)

magictenor1

07-15-2008, 10:12 PM

The par has to be 3 mentality totally mystifies me too. As I stated earlier and Texconsinite says ball golf courses have variety of par and DG should too. I see a trend that Tex alluded to in his post. Once a course is eatablished it seems someone wants to go back and change holes to make them harder. I have seen many courses that I liked as they were, changed (for the worse) by making the holes longer. I recently played at Lake Bistineau outside of Shreveport La and the scorecard and map had (to me) reasonable length holes but when I played half the time I couldn't even see the baskets because they were so far from the tee. The length of the holes seem to have been increased by around 200 feet in many cases. And this is a fairly new course to begin with, not one that you would think needed an update.

Three Putt

07-16-2008, 01:53 AM

We have all sorts of issues that will need to be dealt with. One is the multiple pin issue. Ball golf usually moves the pin around on the same green, sometimes the same hole will have two greens but not so far apart as to change the par for the hole. You adjust the difficultly level of the hole by the tee you shoot from, and you can decide that yourself as all tees are always available to play.

We have a lot of courses with one tee and an A placement that is a Par 3 but a C or even a D placement that is in a Par 4 placement 150 ft behind the A pin. Because there is only one basket, everybody has to shoot at that basket no matter if it happens to be in the A or D placement. So you as a player can't decide if you are playing the par 3 red placement, you may be forced to play the par 4 blue placement. Same hole, different par. So the par for the course ends up depending on who had the basket keys last and how they wanted to leave the course set up. Ball golf does not have this problem.

Three Putt

07-16-2008, 02:01 AM

So you as a player can't decide if you are playing the par 3 red placement, you may be forced to play the par 4 blue placement. Oh, yea...forgot to add that if you are a 970 rated player, that par 4 for me really is a par 3 for you. So, it's a nightmare. No wonder people say "just call it a 3."

magictenor1

07-16-2008, 11:03 AM

ERicJ

07-16-2008, 02:20 PM

Also many courses do not have score cards that even tell you that par is different from the "B" pin position and the courses usually do not even have a way to tell you what position the pins are in anyway. Until courses are able to have enough baskets to have both (or all ) pin positions up at one time I really prefer that there only be ONE pin position so that you know where it is. Have as many tees as you like but leave the pin alone. I also don't like the idea that a par can be different for a different level player. Too confusing and most people I know don't have one anyway. As Olorin has stated handicaps as in ball golf would be good but right now nearly impossible to do because of these issues we are talking about.
As a relatively new player (7 months and counting) I'm inclined to agree with this position.

Multiple pin positions are confusing. The little pinwheel on the tee sign works, but how do you know you can trust it if you can't see the basket or it's too far away to judge? I found this to be particularly annoying at DeLaveaga Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=35) when I played there last week.

And while I can see the need for different par values at different skill levels for tournament penalty purposes... in general I think that too is confusing and somewhat condescending. For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that.

Anyway, there's my $0.02 based on where I am now and where disc golf course standards are now. I'll reserve the right to change that opinion as I get more disc golf experience.

gwillim

07-16-2008, 04:34 PM

I'd like to take this time to say that Milo McIver is awesome! The normal 27 hole layout is a par 89, not 81.

For the Beaver State Fling, we divide the course into two, and add 9 more holes making two complete 18 hole courses. Each course is a par 60! That's right, not 54, and we score and record it as a par 60. Each 18 has one par 5 and 4 par 4s on it. There are at least two par threes on each course that could easily be counted as a par 4 as well, but they are too close to the border.

If a hole is an obvious par four, count it as four. It annoys me that some TDs, course designers, course stewards, and such refuse to progress in this manner. A couple miles away from Milo McIver there is another course called Timber Park. It's listed as a par 54 18 hole course on all the paperwork, as well as all the recordings for tournaments and such. However, hole 17 is over 700' with O.B. on both sides and a large obstacle in the middle of the fairway. Why is this not a par 4? The topography is such that getting a 2 on the hole would take a fairway ace, and getting a three requires two really good shots and a putt.

It's time we decided to start taking our sport a little more serious and treat our courses and literature with the respect they deserve, accurate pars are a big step in my opinion.

-Ryan

Three Putt

07-17-2008, 12:59 AM

gwillim

07-17-2008, 08:53 AM

This is all stuff that would get taken care of if courses were pay for play. As it is they are free in public parks, so there is not the money or the infrastructure in the sport to develop the things we are talking about. We as players will have to be willing to pump a lot of money into course coffers if we expect these sorts of things. Tee signs take money. Multiple concrete tees take money. Three or four pole holes per hole so you can play whichever pin placement you choose takes a BUNCH of money. As it stands, you are expecting volunteers to do this stuff for free. You see how that is working. We talk a lot about the sport being taken more seriously, but the first step in that is going to come out of your wallet. Just make sure you are ready for that.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that a course has to be pay to play to work like this. It does take money, but foresight is much more valuable. If such things were taken into consideration at the conception it would be much easier. Most better courses have tee signs, making them correct isn't any more difficult when you already have to make them.

Also, if people band together and form clubs for their region, it should be one of the main functions of the club to take care of the courses. Which means work parties to install new tee pads, keep the tee signs graffiti free, keep the place maintained overall. Also, if structured correctly the club should be able to fund such things as concrete for new pads, baskets, etc.

Like minded people in large groups can get a lot of positive things done. I don't think each of us opening our wallets and pouring money out to make things work is the only way to progress.

bcross822

07-17-2008, 09:01 AM

I found this document online as a guide. It is pretty good. I dont remember the link. It is attached.

Godard

07-17-2008, 09:01 AM

I actually like courses such as Tyler where the par can change drastically. The problem comes when using the scorecard function on this site... everything has to be changed manually. Ugh!

Three Putt

07-17-2008, 02:31 PM

if people band together and form clubs for their region, it should be one of the main functions of the club to take care of the courses. Which means work parties to install new tee pads, keep the tee signs graffiti free, keep the place maintained overall. Also, if structured correctly the club should be able to fund such things as concrete for new pads, baskets, etc.This is exactly the system that has been in place for the last 25 years. This IS how disc golf is structured. So, the results are already there for you to judge. In some places, the Clubs have done very well by the sport. In other places, the results leave a lot to be desired. I know a lot of people that agree with you that the thing to do is to keep doing what we have always done and one day we will get "there," wherever "there" is. I personally think that continuing to do the same thing will result in a lot more of what we already have. No big deal, since I'm not all that displeased with what we have. But if you want all these pie-in-the-sky improvements that have been discussed on this thread, I don't see the current system ever getting us "there." Just my opinion.

Olorin

07-17-2008, 02:49 PM

I found this document online as a guide. It is pretty good. I dont remember the link.

Here are some links again (they're also further up in this thread):
Determining Par (http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf)
Estimated Hole Scoring Averages... (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg)

bcross822

07-17-2008, 03:08 PM

cool, thanx for posting the links.

gwillim

07-17-2008, 05:17 PM

....

Olorin

10-13-2008, 12:16 PM

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion. I don't think that a Green (800 PR) or Red (850 PR) level player should even expect to get many pars on a Gold level course. In this regard, TG is a good example to follow.

I'm going back to believing that the standards used to set hole lengths on every level of course should be only Gold standards. On lower level courses you can still have short holes that are appropriate for lower skill levels, but they would just be holes that are short par 3s for Gold players. There should not be par 4s on Green, Red, or White courses unless they follow Gold standards. (For Gold CR Par these would be holes with an effective length over 500 ft.)

Thanks to many of you who have contributed very good points to these discussions and helped hone my thinking on these issues.

I learn from dialogue, so I'd be glad to hear what you think.

magictenor1

10-13-2008, 02:34 PM

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

Olorin

10-13-2008, 03:29 PM

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

Analogous to traditional golf I think that par should only be attainable by a first class player, because then it means something to get a par. In TG the standard for men is “The scratch golfer is an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke-play qualifiers competing in the U.S. Amateur Championship." That's obviously quite different from DG, but it's hard to compare the skill level of a sport with millions of players (TG) to one with tens of thousands (DG). To me, a 1000 rated player is an expert.

Also, SSA means the play of a 1000 rated player, so that is the standard that the PDGA has set. If you used a different PR you would have to adjust to be equal to a 1000 PR anyway. It's also the most consistent way to compare SSA to Gold Par.

I'm not even sure what level "average" would be since you've got tournament DGers and purely recreational players (the majority). Where would you draw the line for "average"?

magictenor1

10-13-2008, 04:02 PM

I know that "average" is a very general term. You mention the majority are rec players and I would not disagree with that assessment. My thought is why not set the difficulty level to the majority instead of the expert. I do see your point about the scratch golfer and I am not strongly for either approach, just brainstorming I guess you could say. I think that maybe this is where the concept of pro par is useful. Set the par standard to a "rec player" level but have pro par for when advanced players play the course. It seems to me that could work for all DG'ers. In general I usually agree with your thoughts on par and the need for better and more consistent applications of it.

Rbuzz9

10-13-2008, 04:06 PM

i agree - par should be set in a similar fashion to ball golf. -you should have to be very good/elite to score par or lower for a round on an avg course. This doesnt mean the avg rec player won't be able to par any holes - it just means they will have a tougher time doing it consistantly.

par is something to strive for. I dont get why people have a problem with shooting over par and have to rationalize a different scoring system so they are shooting closer to par.

just not a fan of the "feel good" scoring.

Olorin

10-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

Let's brainstorm from the other direction. Why should par set at "average"?

I fear that by making it too easy that when players are throwing "par" after playing a few times then people might well think that the game is kind of dumb.

Olorin

10-13-2008, 04:12 PM

I think that maybe this is where the concept of pro par is useful. Set the par standard to a "rec player" level but have pro par for when advanced players play the course. It seems to me that could work for all DG'ers.

I think that Rec par is bogus and should be abolished. It's a big contributor the haze of confusion surrounding DG par. I wish that it were taken off of DGCR too. Par is par. There should only be one standard for par. In our area, a few courses have a Rec par posted, but no regular players pay any attention to it. After playing a few rounds people quickly realize that Rec par is just an empty feel good system, so they stop paying any attention to it. IMO par should mean something and Rec par reduces it's value.

In general I usually agree with your thoughts on par and the need for better and more consistent applications of it.

Thanks! :)

Rbuzz9

10-13-2008, 04:30 PM

lots of people dont want to accept they aren't that great.

Olorin

10-13-2008, 05:36 PM

ZMan44

10-13-2008, 05:52 PM

I agree that par should not be set for just the average disc golfer. However, I alos don't think it should be set near the level of what Doss, Climo, Feldberg, and Jenkins expect to get on a hole. Par should be difficult to attain, and it shouldn't be lowered so that others can feel good about themselves. It was stated on another thread that par should be what an elite level player expects to get on that given hole. I still think that our ideas from par have to be based somewhat (not solely) on traditional golf. Say (I am making this up because I am too lazy to go and find an actual account...but this does happen) for instance at the Masters, Tiger birdies hole #7 each of his 4 rounds. By the logic being presented, and applying it to disc golf, we are saying that this hole should be amended to a par 3 since he can honestly expect to attain that score. But that would never happen because the hole itself requires a drive, an approach, possibly a birdie putt (or a pitch) and then another putt. It would still be a par 4.

I think that there should be easier holes on each course...and there should definitely be harder ones on each course. If I go out and travel to a course and shoot a 58 I would consider it a moderately difficult course. If I shoot in the 60s then I would consider it a hard course. If I shoot in the 40s, it's an easy course. But I think maybe basing par off of a level slightly below the elite pro level is best for everyone. I would still expect the Pros to birdie a lot of the holes with this format, but they should birdie them because they are Pros.

In short, par should be difficult to attain, and most of us, myself included, should feel fortunate to hit it every now and then. However, I don't feel like the true definition of par is what Climo expects to shoot on a hole. And while par may have been designed in ball golf to be difficult, the term has come to mean "expected". "Par for the course" is a term that means exactly what someone should expect. How we determine par should be based on what is expected by someone...the identity of that someone is the real debate.

ERicJ

10-14-2008, 02:29 AM

And while I can see the need for different par values at different skill levels for tournament penalty purposes... in general I think that too is confusing and somewhat condescending. For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that.

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

:)

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion. I don't think that a Green (800 PR) or Red (850 PR) level player should even expect to get many pars on a Gold level course. In this regard, TG is a good example to follow.

I'm going back to believing that the standards used to set hole lengths on every level of course should be only Gold standards. On lower level courses you can still have short holes that are appropriate for lower skill levels, but they would just be holes that are short par 3s for Gold players. There should not be par 4s on Green, Red, or White courses unless they follow Gold standards. (For Gold CR Par these would be holes with an effective length over 500 ft.)

Devil's Advocate: Here's the argument for different par for different levels. Say you've got a tournament hole that's a very difficult 800' (gold level) par 4 hole. You've got a group of Novice/MA4 players assigned to shotgun start on that hole. If any of those players are weak armed, but savvy players... if they think they'll score an 8 or more they can "unintentionally" show up late and miss the hole taking the par+4 penalty. If the par were accurately set for Novice/MA4 maybe it'd be a par 6 or 7 and the penalty would be too severe in that case.

Another example would be a "tin-cup" island hole. There's a course near Houston (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2656) that involves one of those. The signature hole is the "Tin Cup Island hole" that requires you to land your tee shot on a grass island (bounded by concrete driveway) from ~250'. After three misses (with penalties) you then have to throw, lying six, from a metal cage ("jail") about 60' out. Scoring 8's is not uncommon on that hole. Once on the island it's an easy putt. My first round I scored a '2' in my second round I missed the island on my first throw and landed on my second scoring a '4'. Assuming error free drives/approaches play it's a par 3 with two close range shots to hole out. My girlfriend took an 11 and a 10 on that hole in two rounds. http://picasaweb.google.com/ericjubin/ShawshankIII

ERic

ERicJ

10-14-2008, 02:38 AM

Also, SSA means the play of a 1000 rated player, so that is the standard that the PDGA has set. If you used a different PR you would have to adjust to be equal to a 1000 PR anyway. It's also the most consistent way to compare SSA to Gold Par.
Yep! I'm coming around to the "difficult is par vs. SSA" way of thinking... but only if par is a unilaterally, consistently applied gold level par.

You can't have course designers or par-setters using their judgment to decide that this CR par 4 is too easy so I'll change it to a par 3. Because then you've lost the consistency that guarantees a valid SSA vs. par comparison.

Of course that has the implication, with CR par, that there will be easy par 4's and hard par 3's that have distances within a few feet of each other. And on top of that the par 4 hole may have more 3's scored on it than the par 3 hole... (implying that the par 3 hole has more 4's scored, not 2's).

ERic

ERicJ

10-14-2008, 02:40 AM

I think that Rec par is bogus and should be abolished. It's a big contributor the haze of confusion surrounding DG par. I wish that it were taken off of DGCR too. Par is par. There should only be one standard for par. In our area, a few courses have a Rec par posted, but no regular players pay any attention to it. After playing a few rounds people quickly realize that Rec par is just an empty feel good system, so they stop paying any attention to it. IMO par should mean something and Rec par reduces it's value.
I played "Rec Par" for the first two months that I played DG, after that I've tracked most of my DGCR scores in the scorebook vs. all 3's.

ERic

ERicJ

10-14-2008, 02:52 AM

ZMan44

10-14-2008, 09:21 AM

Well, this discussion could go on forever...But here's what we all seem to agree on:

1) Rec par is stupid. There is only one "par".
2) Some form of universally accepted par needs to be implemented...whether it is the method of determining par that we endorse or not. Even if we disagree with the method, we need some sort of a standard.
3) Par should not be an easily attainable number.
4) The game of disc golf is growing and longer courses are being opened. The common sense that a longer hole might require a higher par value, makes it very important that we determine a standard.

With the math, I think a 1000 rated player is a good basis for par as it increases from 3. As for par 2s, I am still against those but that discussion was for another thread. Just out of curiosity, if we came up with a standard par, what do you think the percentage of holes that would be a par 3 would be? I would wager that it would be close to 90%. If it was that high, I think it might help motivate course designers to add trickier elements or even more length, which could be good for the sport down the road.

Olorin

10-14-2008, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by ERicJ
For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that. Originally Posted by Olorin
Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.Some of us are a little slower than others. ;)

magictenor1

10-14-2008, 11:43 AM

I am not up on the rating system for players but I am still not convinced that a 1000 rated player is the standard we should set par by.
From everything I have read that is a very high level player. Again, why not set it lower, say for a 900 rated player (pulled that # out of a hat) which makes par more attainable for more players. I also don't think 2 different sets fo par for different ability levels is wrong either, whether we call thel "rec" or "pro", it's just another way to make the game fairer for all. In BG women use different tees and sometimes have different pars than men. When a pro event comes to town holes are sometimes changed from par 5 to par 4 to make the course more difficult for the better players. I don't see why these ideas can't be used in DG.

Olorin

10-14-2008, 12:44 PM

In BG women use different tees ...

Actually, in TG women have different standards to set par. These merely reflect the physiological difference that women don't hit as far as men. I think that someday DG should also develop par standards for women too, but that's for another day. Right now DG needs to get the male par standards more universally adapted and applied first.

DGtourist

10-14-2008, 01:09 PM

I'm in favor of going by the par standard of the 1000 level player with the belief that it will step up your game and create less confusion.

"dude I got a couple pars yesterday!"
"No way really? That's cool I got par last weekend over at Badass Course."

magictenor1

10-14-2008, 02:34 PM

Actually, in TG women have different standards to set par. These merely reflect the physiological difference that women don't hit as far as men. I think that someday DG should also develop par standards for women too, but that's for another day. Right now DG needs to get the male par standards more universally adapted and applied first. Sure. Different standards for different levels of ability. Juniors sometimes too. i think that wass the idea of "rec par" , something a child or woman or beginner could aspire to.

Olorin

10-14-2008, 03:59 PM

Sure. Different standards for different levels of ability. Juniors sometimes too. i think that wass the idea of "rec par" , something a child or woman or beginner could aspire to.

Actually, TG par is based on length, so I think the different standards reflect the physical limitations of those who can't hit as far as men (women and juniors). It's based on the reality that even the best women are not physiologically able to hit as far as men. The same is true in DG; just look at the ratings and throw lengths of the top women in the world compared to the top men. The women's TG par standard is NOT based on ability, so I don't think that this argument holds for Rec par in DG.

Olorin

11-24-2008, 09:19 AM

I've been trying to find what I've posted about Close Range (CR) par, and especially Gold CR Par, but I can't really find much. I thought I'd explained it on here, but maybe I only put links up to other places. I've tried searches but still can't find anything. Does anyone remember seeing an explanation of CR par and can point me to it?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

ERicJ

11-25-2008, 04:04 AM

Yeah, that DGCR limit of 30 seconds between searches is a pain in the butt sometimes. Combine that with the restriction on short word searches and I can see why you're having trouble searching for "CR Par".

Is this the post for which you were looking:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30

There was also this thread:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11319
and it's spin-off:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11658

Remember that a google search, limited by site, is your friend!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgcoursereview.com%2Ffor ums%2F+%22cr+par%22

ERic

Olorin

11-25-2008, 09:36 AM

Is this the post for which you were looking:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30

There was also this thread:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11319
and it's spin-off:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11658

Remember that a google search, limited by site, is your friend!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgcoursereview.com%2Ffor ums%2F+%22cr+par%22

ERic

ERic,

You're amazing! That's the one. Thanks.

And thanks for the tip on google. I never knew you could search by site like that.

Olorin

01-27-2009, 07:11 PM

Olorin

01-27-2009, 07:15 PM

Here is most of the explanation of Gold CR Par

Gold CR Par

Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for a first-class player to reach “close range” then take 2 throws to hole out.[1] (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/par/gold-close-range-par#_ftn1) For men a “first class player” is a 1000 rated, Gold level player. The average drive length for a 1000 PR player is used as the main guideline for calculating par. This drive length is a length that 2/3s of 1000 PR players can throw with an average drive.

Keep in mind that “effective length” is used instead of “actual length”. “Effective length” takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups.[2] (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/par/gold-close-range-par#_ftn2) Forced lay-ups cause a shot to be shorter than the maximum distance; they can be caused by water carries, fairway bends such as L or S shapes, and severe doglegs. A forced lay-up is counted as one shot toward the basket. From that shot’s landing zone the course designer will determine how many more shots, if any, are needed to reach close range, then add 2 to complete the hole.

Fairway throws, used on multi-throw holes, are 80% of the length of tee shots. The Fairway throw length is based on the reasoning that you lose approximately 20% of your driving distance when throwing from the fairway.

Close Range is the distance from which first-class players can get “up and down” in two throws approximately 90% of the time. It is much longer than the 10 meters used to define a disc golf putt. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in traditional golf. Since disc golf holes usually take less than 2 putts to complete adding this close range component helps score averages to be closer to par.

Note that par is based on a “reasonable throw” along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. 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. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues.

Many holes are not designed for the best shots to be made at full power, though. A course designer can use narrow fairways, dense foliage, and nearby OB so that the smarter throw will be a shorter shot using a more accurate disc. In these cases the designer will determine reasonable throws that are intended to reach a landing zone that is shorter than that of the full power length. On these holes par is the number of shots to reach each landing zone until one gets to close range then add 2 to hole out.

SimonCarr

01-27-2009, 07:37 PM

I haven't read through all the posts on this topic, so I apologize if someone has already said this...

To me, the best way to come up with par is to think of a hole like this... If it is possible to throw a perfect drive and be in putting range, then it should be a par 3. If it takes a perfect drive and a really good approach to be in putting distance, then it is a par 4. Par 5's are tricky, because there are not many true par 5's out there. Pro level courses (Idlewild, Nocamixon, Winthrop Gold etc) have par 5's, but the vast majority of courses out there don't have any par 5's.

Olorin

01-27-2009, 08:10 PM

To me, the best way to come up with par is to think of a hole like this... If it is possible to throw a perfect drive and be in putting range, then it should be a par 3. If it takes a perfect drive and a really good approach to be in putting distance, then it is a par 4. Par 5's ...

That's basically a good method. You just have to define some of the factors like--
-What is the skill level of this player? What is the length of the drive?
-What length is "putting range"?
-How long should an approach shot be? Again it depends on the skill level of the "expert" player.

Gold CR Par attempts to answer these questions and give numbers to be used.

SimonCarr

01-27-2009, 10:58 PM

Well, I think players of all skill levels should be able to birdie a typical par 3. I guess there is no good answer for a typical drive, as the fairway/throwing lane can really dictate the amount of distance for a good drive. On an open hole, I would think anything 450 or less is a par 3. In the woods, it may be closer to 250.

I know my method is totally subjective.. but when I am playing a course that is how I judge whether the hole should be a par 3 or par 4.

harr0140

01-27-2009, 11:19 PM

There are criteria set forth by the PDGA when it comes to par recommendation which seems adequate here.

If I can link to the site I will otherwise I will scan it in.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

ShaZaun

01-28-2009, 01:45 AM

Par is usually something I'm hoping to make it in.......

ERicJ

01-28-2009, 11:37 AM

Well, I think players of all skill levels should be able to birdie a typical par 3. [...]
On an open hole, I would think anything 450 or less is a par 3.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
How many MA4, MA3, or even MA2 players are birdieing (2) a 400-450' hole?
Don't even get me started on the MG1, MS1 or the FW#, or juniors....

solomon.trenton

01-28-2009, 12:27 PM

:confused: :confused: :confused:
How many MA4, MA3, or even MA2 players are birdieing (2) a 400-450' hole?
Don't even get me started on the MG1, MS1 or the FW#, or juniors....

:confused:what do all those initials mean:confused:

ERicJ

01-28-2009, 12:30 PM

:confused:what do all those initials mean:confused:
Player division codes. See: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/09PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf

ejvogie

01-28-2009, 12:48 PM

:confused:what do all those initials mean:confused:

Novice, Recreational, Intermediate, Advanced Grandmaster, Advanced Senior Grandmaster, and Amateur Women, respectively.

BENFTS

01-28-2009, 01:29 PM

if anybody has ever played I5 at DeLaveaga Park a par 3, than all the holes you will ever come across will be par 3's from than on. i have pared this hole less than 10 times. the reason it's called I5 is because everyone says "I fived it" i never call anything a par 4 unless the course sign says it is. even still i hold out knowing that most par 4 hole i have played are nothing like I5.

ERicJ

01-28-2009, 01:38 PM

BENFTS

01-28-2009, 02:16 PM

no, not the case it is called that because after the 400' drive you put up to get into approach range you then have to fight through a very dense group of trees and have to contend with a steep cliffs on the other side. the basket is surrounded by trees and there is no clear line from more than 40' away. result a score of 5. ask any local and they will tell you it's called I5 for that reason despite its resemblance to interstate 5 due to its length.

i guess you could ask the TD if you wanted info from someone other than just a local. also great job picking up the I5 sign on the tee sign.

harr0140

01-28-2009, 02:49 PM

In my opinion I agree with par being set at what only the top 10% of people can do. If you look at ball golf, only the top players in the world break par on a routine basis. Now they are also playing from tees that would make the average golfer cringe. The distance needed with the obstacles in the way etc make par impossible for most people if they were to play from the same tee. (It's another topic, but multiple tees should be mandatory in my opinion when building courses. Even if it was just another sign set up to 75% of the length of the hole from the back tees) My guess would be that the percentage of players breaking par in ball golf is 10%. The average golfer should not be shooting par in my opinion. I feel the same should hold true in disc golf. Now if the top tier guys are rated above 1000, then my guess is that a 1000 rated player should be shooting around par, sometime over sometimes under. Par is totally an arbitrary number anyways, it just gives some level of expectation for people.

bazkitcase5

01-28-2009, 04:39 PM

so in golf, how is par set when you include these shorter tees?

does it change for the level of player intended to play that particular tee or is par always set for the expert player, regardless of which tee is being played?

harr0140

01-28-2009, 05:16 PM

Par is typically the same from all tees, (On occassion however, what may be a par 4 for the men is a par 5 for the women, but this usually doesn't happen that often, because the goal in golf course design is typically to be somewhere between par 70-72 to be a regulation course. If par is more like 54-60 that is generally considered a pitch and putt or a Par 3 course. Similar to DG, par is what it would be expected for a specific caliber of player to be able to shoot, if it takes them two shots to get near the green (I dont know what the distance would be axactly), then it is considered par after two putts have been made. Putting in golf versus disc golf is very different in my eyes. It is much easier to 1 Putt in disc golf than it is to 1 putt in real golf) However it is up to the player to gage their abilities and play from the appropriate tees. I think this is a perfect way to speed up play and make the game mor eenjoyable for all. Rather than people thinking they need to play from the whites or blues otherwise they are considered wimps. The tees you play should be determined by your handicap. Rather than just saying the red white blue or black tees, the reds are for women and handicaps greater than 30, the whites are for 20-29 handicaps, and the blues are 10-19, and the back tees are only for those that are 9 or less handicap. Now these numbers are arbitrary, and the other issue comes into play when you have a 65 year old who is a 5 handicap. Well should they be playing the back tees . . . no they should at worst be playing the step up, and all the ratings and slopes account for that. Now there is a huge difference in abilities going from a 5 handicap to a 10, but there isn't that much difference in ability from 20-25 or 30-35. I am the handicap chairman at my club so I am up on how it works. Basically if the rating of the blue tees is 68.2 and the rating of the white tees (shorter tees) is 66.2. If you were to play the whites ( and I play the blues) your handicap needs to be adjusted by 2 shots. So if you were a 12 handicap you would only get 10 shots. If you wanted you could still play the blues and not scrifice those 2 shots, but more than likely it is worth it! It is an adjustment that makes the course equivalent no matter what tee you play from. Is it right 100% of the time no, but noones game is always right on where it should be so how can you know what the cause of the discrepancy actually is.

bazkitcase5

01-28-2009, 05:46 PM

Because disc golf courses can be considerably different, due to the amount of trees, shule, etc. and because there is not enough $$ to go in and make courses exactly as you want them, it is very difficult to have "handicaps" in disc golf that would apply to more than one course

However, we have the PDGA player ratings, which I see that you have been learning about. Unfortunately, as a growing sport, every course does not have a SSA value, so players can not easily figure out how they are shooting, unless they become PDGA members and get a rating (which is one of their main benefits, so no way could they let players get these for free, because then most people would have less of a reason to join the PDGA in the first place)

The PDGA is working to standardize the sport with colored tees and pars that make sense for everybody, but with all the new courses and players, it will take time for it to catch on. As posted on another thread by myself:

The PDGA tee guidelines list the following, with my interpetations for better understanding:

Gold Tees - basically the toughest tees... the tees where a gold level player (1000 rated) also known as a scratch golfer (in golf terms) would be expected to shoot par - to shoot under on these tees is to play like a top pro - very few courses have true gold tees

Blue Tees - basically the advanced level tees or a 950 rated player... an advanced level player would be expected to shoot par on this course from these tees - to shoot under would be to play like an good advanced player or a weak pro, or if you shoot way under (very low scores), maybe a gold level player - on most courses on this site that have long and short tees, the long tees would likely fit here more times than not...

White tees - basically the intermediate level tees or a 900 rated player... an intermediate level player would be expected to shoot par on this course from these tees - most courses with short tees would likely fit here

Red tees - basically the novice/recreation/casual player level tees or 850 rated player - these players would be expected to shoot par on this course from these tees - these would likely be the beginner tees on courses already considered pitch and putt, meant to help newer players learn the sport without being too difficult

you can also go to the following link to check out the tees and how it is suggested that par be set for each type of hole with a specific player skill set in mind for each particular tee
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

optidiscic

01-28-2009, 07:21 PM

Par is best described to be as what number of premium shots are required to reach the approach putt area plus 2. If it takes one well placed drive then its a 3. If it takes 2 drives it is a 4. It may take a series of accurate placement then 2 drives or something like that in no certain order...S curve or draconian dogleg etc. in these instances it is a 5. I am sure there are courses with 3 or 4 drives needed plus 2 as well. 1200 footer uphills. Distance alone bores me for a par 5. I think placement is far more interesting and garners much more score separation....picture a 500 foot open hole with some danger near the basket only. I suck and throw one 300 but off the fairway and still have a shot if it is open.....An expert could throw a precise 400 foot dead center...I will have a 220 foot approach for a shot at par and he has to nail the 100 foot putt to beat me. I don't think distance is a good measure of par.

solomon.trenton

01-28-2009, 08:52 PM

Par stand for Pretty Average Redneck. not to offend anyone just having drunkin fun.

ERicJ

01-28-2009, 11:49 PM

also great job picking up the I5 sign on the tee sign.
Thanks.

BTW: "I five'd it" the one and only time I played it (so far):
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/scorebook.php?vall=1&vcrse=35&mid=519

ERic

Olorin

03-03-2009, 01:49 PM

From the "Pro Pars (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38344#post38344)" thread--

it also fits in nicely with the borrowed from ball golf concept of par being the number of shots to reach shortrange (in this case inside 130 or so) plus 2 shots from shortrange.

This is the essence of Close Range (CR) Par.

Close Range (CR) Par lengths:
Par 2: 100 ft.
Par 3: 101-500
Par 4: 501-820
Par 5: 821-1140
Par 6: >1141

Score Average (SA) Par:
For a Gold level hole with average foliage, converting the SSA formula backwards to length (based on “effective playing length” vs. “actual length”):
Par 2: <236 ft
Par 3: 237-521
Par 4: 522-806
Par 5: 807-1091
Par 6: >1092

Comparing SA and CR Par lengths:
Max par length of SSA vs. CR
Par 2: 100 vs. 237 ft.
Par 3: 500 vs. 521
Par 4: 820 vs. 806
Par 5: 1140 vs. 1091

So, practically speaking, using CR and SA par will give lengths that are very close.

jace

03-03-2009, 01:55 PM

Perfecto! Precisely the info I was looking for. THX Olorin!

BENFTS

03-03-2009, 02:03 PM

Thanks.

BTW: "I five'd it" the one and only time I played it (so far):
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/scorebook.php?vall=1&vcrse=35&mid=519

ERic

dude i had a 15' par put there, hit the chains bounced out and it just rolled down into the ravine. i to fived it that day. i can count the pars i have on that hole on one hand and have played it over 50 times. something always happens.

YonderScott

03-03-2009, 02:50 PM

Reading these par threads makes my head hurt usually. But I can't see where a 100' hole and a 237' would be the same par. Which by Olorin's last post I'm reading as a par 2. If 237' for a pro is par 2, wouldn't that make the 100' hole a par 1? If your gonna use the whole argument of what a 1000 rated player would shoot, and making par harder to achieve....if you can make 237 in 2 then surely the fair way would be to make 100' a par 1.

harr0140

03-03-2009, 03:06 PM

a 100' would be about a 1.9 par if you think about it. How often do you hit 100'? Sure you can get a nice layup shot for the 237' and have a 10-20' putt for the par 2, but more often than not you (assuming you are a 1000 rated player) will not ace a 100', you might only have 2-3 feet on a bunch of the putts but you rarely will hit the ace!

Olorin

03-03-2009, 04:33 PM

I and others view "Par" as the "average" for expert players.

Personally I'm a believer in a one par system. Down with "Rec Par" and "Pro Par"! If "Par" is the standard by which you're going to measure play why confuse and complicate the matter by having two different scales??

ERic

QFT!

And I define "expert" as a 1000 rated player-- the skill level that SSA is based on.

REDARMY

03-03-2009, 05:48 PM

Personally, I'd like to see the "Pro Par" column taken out of these reviews. There should only be one par per layout of a hole, just as in traditional golf.
"Pro par" assumes that there is also a "Rec Par" and I think that's counter productive.

i know i'm way late to the discussion, but i agree that having a par and pro par only adds confusion.

if pars go up the further out the tees/pins are, i believe theres ways on here already to mark it as such.

Matthew Gardner

03-03-2009, 05:50 PM

just use all par 3's. Its just a number and at the end ofthe day everyone has toplay the same holes

ERicJ

03-03-2009, 06:21 PM

just use all par 3's. Its just a number and at the end ofthe day everyone has toplay the same holes
Not really just a number. It has usefulness in tournament play for penalizing players who are late par+4 per hole.

Olorin

03-03-2009, 07:15 PM

just use all par 3's. Its just a number and at the end ofthe day everyone has toplay the same holes

Please see "Why disc golf needs consistent par standards (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/par/why-par-standards)"

TalbotTrojan

03-03-2009, 07:33 PM

The reality is that the standard for Par in Disc Golf is just not followed well. I have seen an official document that gives suggested par based on the length of the hole. Even in ball golf there is standards, but that does not keep certain holes from being par four for some and par five for others. So, I think it is perfect legit to have different pars for the same hole, usually based on different tee pads.

harr0140

03-03-2009, 08:40 PM

The problem is that the gold tees are for pros (1000 and up rating maybe) and those should have a par of their own. The next tee forward would be for advanced players (925 and up). Then the second easiest tees would be for 850-924) and the forward tees for anyone under 850. Or whatever #'s need to be used to differentiate players skills.

Then each tee has a par, some pars will be the same, some will be more difficult. Then if it follows along to golf, there needs to be a rating. The rating is what a scratch golfer would shoot and it allows people to compete on a level playing field despite playing different tees. So if the forward tees had a rating of 51, that is what a 1000 rated player would shoot. It may still be a par 54, but a pro would shoot better. A beginner disc golfer might shoot 70, but that means they are 16 over par. Par is an important #, but the rating # is more important, and thats why i have been mentionin disc golf course rating as a necessity.

I want to do it, but I would need some serious funding to do it, I think the PDGA should be incorporating this into their services!!!!!

YonderScott

03-03-2009, 10:02 PM

Life is pretty simple. There is a simple way to make par, and it's very simple with a rec and pro par. I think most courses I've been on do a good job of this. If you make newbies to the sport have to shoot a 2 on a 237' hole with obstacles, where their second shot could be from a 100'+ you aren't gonna keep them around long. The harder you make a sport, esp a young sport that is trying to bring more people to their game, the less people are gonna stick to it. If you offer people small steps of confidence when they start out, then the hook of the game will get in them.

I used to play ball golf and I got away from it for various reasons. But we had a par 3 course down the road from me that was 9 holes. Par was 27 for 9. A pro could go out there and shoot an 18, maybe a few strokes over that. The longest hole wasn't even 200 yards. But the PGA didn't go, wait...that hole is only 126 yards-Tiger could do that in 2. No, the owners made it 1 stroke off the tee and 2 for approach/putt. If you are gonna say we have to mirror ball golf with terms like par and bogie and birdie...then tell me where a par 2 hole in ball golf is and I will listen. Ball golf doesn't punish people that are new to the sport and they offer courses to hone their game. From what I've seen of disc golf with the current system it offers the same. So....I would like to know how the benefit of blanket pars based on distance would work in disc golf when it isn't used in ball golf.

ERicJ

03-04-2009, 02:38 AM

Life is pretty simple. There is a simple way to make par, and it's very simple with a rec and pro par. I think most courses I've been on do a good job of this. If you make newbies to the sport have to shoot a 2 on a 237' hole with obstacles, where their second shot could be from a 100'+ you aren't gonna keep them around long. The harder you make a sport, esp a young sport that is trying to bring more people to their game, the less people are gonna stick to it. If you offer people small steps of confidence when they start out, then the hook of the game will get in them.

How many noobs go to a ball golf course and shoot anywhere near par?

I used to play ball golf and I got away from it for various reasons. But we had a par 3 course down the road from me that was 9 holes. Par was 27 for 9. A pro could go out there and shoot an 18, maybe a few strokes over that. The longest hole wasn't even 200 yards. But the PGA didn't go, wait...that hole is only 126 yards-Tiger could do that in 2. No, the owners made it 1 stroke off the tee and 2 for approach/putt. If you are gonna say we have to mirror ball golf with terms like par and bogie and birdie...then tell me where a par 2 hole in ball golf is and I will listen. Ball golf doesn't punish people that are new to the sport and they offer courses to hone their game. From what I've seen of disc golf with the current system it offers the same. So....I would like to know how the benefit of blanket pars based on distance would work in disc golf when it isn't used in ball golf.

It's pretty much the same in DG: X strokes off the tee and two for close range. The debate is always what is "close range"? Obviously putting is easier in DG so close range extends beyond what a traditional ball golf "green" would be.

Olorin

03-04-2009, 09:29 AM

So....I would like to know how the benefit of blanket pars based on distance would work in disc golf when it isn't used in ball golf.

Actually the USGA par standards for traditional golf are totally based on length. Note that it's "effective playing length", though. In the USGA Handicap system manual (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html) see Section 16 PAR COMPUTATION (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_16.html)

Definitions
Within each section, all defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in Section 2 (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html) - Definitions.
Yardages for guidance in computing par (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html#par) are given below. The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html#ScratchGolfer) determines par (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html#par). (See Section 13-3b (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_13.html#13-3).) These yardages may not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.
Authorized golf associations (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html#authorizedgolfassociation) are empowered to adjudicate questions of hole par (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_02.html#par). (See Decision 16/1 (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/decisions/decisions_16.html#16/1).)
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/images/Section16.gif

Matthew Gardner

03-04-2009, 11:14 AM

Not really just a number. It has usefulness in tournament play for penalizing players who are late par+4 per hole.

well if they are all par 3's you already know it is a 7 for that hole if they are late

I mean if we all play the same holes and at the end of the day my number of throws beats your number of throws what does it matter if they are par 3, 4, or 5's

biscoe

03-04-2009, 11:16 AM

...but if that particular hole is 1000 feet long and obstructed a 7 may not be any penalty at all.

80playedin10states

03-04-2009, 12:43 PM

1000'thru the woods would be insane!! par 6-7?..there's a course near saratoga, NY with 2 par 5's and both are under 600'(length doesn't matter much on determining "par" for a hole)..i'm a decent golfer and have never gotten any better than a 6 on one of them..the other is a lefty friendly hole that i "eagled" from 125'(both i believe average near or over 5 strokes)...here's the catch, when most experienced players finish a round, they don't say i shot blah blah under or over "par", they state a number.."par" for this course is 60 and the record is a 51...sooooo..did he shoot a 3 down or a 9 down?...you can argue about that all day, but i KNOW he shot a 51 and i missed that by 2..you can't argue that fact..going golfing while its warm(23 degrees)..done rambling

trifocal

03-04-2009, 01:15 PM

Not really just a number. It has usefulness in tournament play for penalizing players who are late par+4 per hole.

Maybe this rule needs to be changed. On the PGA Tour, if you're late you are disqualified.

kmunt09

03-04-2009, 02:49 PM

Here is what the PDGA suggest par should be modeled after.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

This chart is extremely ugly to look at, but it makes since. Hopefully this link hasn't already been posted. Hope this helps!

ERicJ

03-04-2009, 02:50 PM

well if they are all par 3's you already know it is a 7 for that hole if they are late

I mean if we all play the same holes and at the end of the day my number of throws beats your number of throws what does it matter if they are par 3, 4, or 5's
...but if that particular hole is 1000 feet long and obstructed a 7 may not be any penalty at all.
A not-very skilled, but savvy player could use a bogus all-par-3 layout to their advantage. If they find that their shotgun starting hole for the afternoon round is on a wicked 1000' long, tree filled hole, with Mandos and OB... and the weather forecast is for lots of wind, then maybe they accidentally show up a few minutes late from lunch and miss that first hole, carding the 7, whereas the other players on the card have taken 8's, 9's or 10's.

Now intentionally circumventing the rules like that is grounds for DQ, but how ya gonna prove it?

ERic

ERicJ

03-04-2009, 02:55 PM

Hopefully this link hasn't already been posted.
Only five other times in this thread (posts #41, #48, #64, #99, #111). :|

Olorin

03-04-2009, 03:07 PM

Here is what the PDGA suggest par should be modeled after.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

Just to make sure that people understand where this chart came from and the philosophy of par that underlies it I'll continue to point people to post #52 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4128&postcount=52) as a follow up when this chart is posted.

ERicJ can let me know if I've already posted this 5 times too. :rolleyes:

YonderScott

03-04-2009, 08:38 PM

I still have yet to hear from people advocating the use of ball golf terms of birdie par and bogey to tell me where a par 2 hole in ball golf is. You can use charts and unended streams of thought all you want. But the fact remains...as in disc golf just like ball golf there has to be a par 3 course that caters to the newbie. I am sure there are holes in disc golf that would be a par 2 to a 1000 rated player. But in my mind a 1000 rated player or anybody playing in a NT or tier A event rated over 950 shouldn't be playing on a course with par 2 hole. Period. I think par 6 is overkill, but that is another argument. Keep it simple and damn, quit over thinking something so simple. I will post 100' feet holes next to 237' holes if I must...but my goodness, quit over thinking something this simple.

YonderScott

03-04-2009, 08:55 PM

YonderScott

03-04-2009, 09:15 PM

How many noobs go to a ball golf course and shoot anywhere near par?

I mentioned par 3 courses in ball golf where newbs do, not sure they have those in Texas, but they do here in NC where the game first came to America.

It's pretty much the same in DG: X strokes off the tee and two for close range. The debate is always what is "close range"? Obviously putting is easier in DG so close range extends beyond what a traditional ball golf "green" would be.

Olorin is advocating a par 2 for holes within 237' which I strongly disagree with.

A hole that Climo can hit in 2 9 times out of 10 isn't a hole that a new player can hit within 2 10 times out 10.

It makes no sense to make holes that damn hard. A majority of players in disc golf are rec players, and an overwhelming number of ball golfers are rec players as well......

So I am waiting....where are the par 2 holes in ball golf?

ERicJ

03-05-2009, 02:10 AM

So go look at hole 1 at Bailey Rd Park and hole 5 at Renny. There are pictures of both on here. Hole 1 at Bailey is an unobstructed 100' hole and hole 5 at Renny Orig is a 227' hole with a hard right turn....are these the same par?
Do you know that when discussing par all the lengths quoted are "Effective Lenghts"?

The Effective Length is a hole’s measured length (by laser, tape, foo,t GPS or wheel) plus or minus the elevation adjustment. The elevation adjustment is calculated by taking the vertical elevation change, multiplying it by 3, then adding it to the hole’s measured length for upslopes and subtract it for downslopes to calculate a hole’s effective length.--http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf

"Effective Length" also takes into account dog legs and forced layups due to water and such.

ERic

YonderScott

03-05-2009, 06:25 AM

Do you know that when discussing par all the lengths quoted are "Effective Lenghts"?

--http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf

"Effective Length" also takes into account dog legs and forced layups due to water and such.

ERic

I am aware of that.

I am also aware that this whole thing of What is Par? is on going because supposedly the PDGA definition of par has come into question. And the reason I brought this up is that the reasoning I've seen to change the current PDGA par is a blanket par based on length.

Where is a Par 2 in ball golf?

ERicJ

03-05-2009, 10:48 AM

Where is a Par 2 in ball golf?
By definition a Par 2 in ball golf would place the tee at the edge of the "green".

By definition a Par 2 in disc golf would place the tee at the edge of "close range", whatever that is.

ERic

valkyriefb11

03-05-2009, 11:18 AM

By definition a Par 2 in ball golf would place the tee at the edge of the "green".
...
ERic

Thats called mini-golf ;)
I don't think there can, or ever will be a par 2 in ball golf ...

Olorin

03-05-2009, 03:49 PM

Olorin is advocating a par 2 for holes within 237' which I strongly disagree with.

Actually this is NOT true. You seem to have misread my point in post #115 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=38373&postcount=115). I was not advocating the current PDGA par guidelines. I was merely comparing CR Par to them to demonstrate that the end result of both is not all that different, especially for par 3-5. I obscured my point by including the complete information that included par 2 and par 6 guidelines. I also strongly disagree that holes of 101-236 are par 2s.

In actuality it is the current PDGA par guidelines, based on Score Average (SA) par, that advocate that holes with an effective length of 237 or less should be par 2. More importantly, the SA method advocates that any hole with a level score average of 2.49 or less should be a par 2. I disagree with this! This is one of the main reasons why I disagree with the SA par method, and why I’m on a crusade for CR Par.

A related issue is that if you use SA Par consistently then there should to be thousands of par 2 holes. Every course that has an SSA of 53 or below should have par 2 hole(s). On average a course with an SSA of 50 should have 4 par 2 holes. And the vast majority of courses have an SSA below 53. This is one of the biggest reasons why I disagree with the SA Par method that the current PDGA Par guidelines are derived from!!

As many long time readers here know, I advocate using Gold Close Range (CR) par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/par/gold-close-range-par). This is par based on the expert play of a 1000 rated Gold level player. In Gold CR Par a hole with an effective length of 100 ft or less is a par 2. These are very rare and occur mostly on Green level courses, but even on a Green level course par should still be based on a Gold level player. There should only be one standard, not many, for determining par. I’ve played holes with an effective length of 100 ft or less and I stand by the statement that these are par 2s.

I hope this clears things up. YonderScott, I agree with you that holes of 236 ft are NOT par 2s.

P.S.-Using traditional golf (TG) is not always directly analogous, especially because of the difference in putting between the two sports. It’s been correctly said that by definition the only par 2 in TG would have a tee on the edge of the green and this is nonsensical. Even an absurd 5 yard long fairway would still be a par 3 in TG. But because of the difference in putting in DG 100 ft or less is Close Range. It seems very reasonable to me that from 100 ft or less a 1000 rated player would complete a hole in 2 throws at least 99% of the time.

Olorin

03-05-2009, 03:57 PM

Olorin is advocating a par 2...

For the record, I'm not really even advocating for par 2 at all. In spite of what I just said about 100 ft holes, the reality is that having par 2 holes will never find a consensus because it's too controversial. I'm not going to fight for it, so I don't really think it's even worth spending any more time discussing. Anyone who wants to continue to pursue this should go over to the "Should Par 2 be used more? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=453)" thread.

bazkitcase5

03-05-2009, 05:30 PM

the thing that has made everything confusing is PDGA's definition of the green being 10 meters and in - this is confusing because everybody tries to apply the # strokes to get there +2 putts in order to determine par, like golf does it, but expert level players in disc golf make their putts in side 10 meters...

however, as close range par suggests, if our "green" was a more realistic 100' or so, it would make a lot more sense when doing the # of strokes to get there + 2 and as Olorin keeps saying, an expert player should be able to get up and down in 2 strokes from within 100'

personally, I think they should get rid of the 10 meters and extend it to 100', so we would have a more realistic green, eliminating jump putting and stepping past your marker inside 100' - only problem with this is if your near 100' away, it would be difficult to figure out when you can and can't step past your marker after a throw while during the round

Olorin

03-05-2009, 05:54 PM

The "30" number actually falls out of the mathematical equation when you do the linear fit of the course length vs. SSA plots from their 100,000's of 18-hole rounds. I believe it's the Y-intercept on the graph

On the Charlotte DG Club forum Rodney G posted an excellent analysis and explanation of the ATG. (Coincidentally it's on a thread called, "What is Par?" (http://www.charlottedgc.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=550&PN=2))

Here's what he said:

grodney (http://www.charlottedgc.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=53&FID=11)
Posted: 03.Jul.2007 at 9:36AM

A Brief History of ATG

Years and years ago, Chuck plotted several hundred courses, with SSA on the y axis and length on the x axis. By drawing a best-fit line through the data, you get a formula. This formula will be something like:
y = 0.0035x + 30
Your trusty calculator tells you 0.0035 is 1/285, so you can re-phrase the formula as:
SSA = Length/285 + 30.

So in other words, according to the best fit for this data set, the SSA is dependent on length, but then you always have this constant of 30 which has nothing to do with length. So, 30 divided by 18 holes is 1.67 shots per hole that have nothing to do with length. Chuck decided that the shots that have nothing to do with length can be called "Around The Green".

It's a reasonable generalization, but it doesn't work for analyzing specific cases.

Why?:
- Most actual data points fall above or below the best-fit line, not *on* the best-fit line.
- A year later I plotted more data, and better data (having filtered out some lengths that didn't make sense), and I came up with a totally different best-fit formula.
- Depending on the data you use, the constant on the best-fit line can easily be from 27 to 36, and probably even outside that.
- There is *way* not enough data on longer courses to determine if the best-fit line is actually a straight line. It is quite possible that it actually curves as the courses get longer (and the SSA gets higher).
- For some reason, Chuck has never changed his magic formula from the original data set. Probably because it's nice and tidy: An average of 285 ft per throw, and 30 short throws. Also probably because it does a reasonable job of estimating a lot of courses, in a macro sense.

Any uses of "ATG" should come with all of the above as a giant caveat.

YonderScott

03-06-2009, 05:37 PM

This was also posted on the Charlotte DG forum thread of what is par by Stan....the designer of many great Charlotte courses like Renny and Hornet's Nest....

Anybody who doesn't get what par is should take up ball golf and experience the game that disc golf is modeled after. The "what is par" discussion blows my mind. I must stop here, because a couple of folks that I respect highly are involved in this thing. Here is something. Chuck is partially insane, as all of us are, only he is way more insane, and the par discussion is more insane than all of us combined. Get the hell out there and drag some limbs off the course.
Love, Stan

I can't add anything to that....have a nice weekend.

Dave242

03-06-2009, 07:22 PM

There is also a reply to Stan's quote by some imposter saying:

Until you install 3-5 ability-appropriate tees on each hole at Renny, this will be a contentious issue in DG. http://www.charlottedgc.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif BG approaches par that way......that is one of the main reasons why they have a better handle on what par means.

Olorin

04-19-2009, 09:33 AM

Sometime in the last 2 weeks someone posted another thread about par. It's not the current "Pro Par vs Sign Par" but another name. The word "par" can't be searched on, so I have no way to find it. I also tried the google site thing but "par" returns too many useless results b/c of "Par members".

Here's a fun little contest: is there any DGCR guru who can beat ERicJ in finding it?

I'll let you know when it's the one I'm thinking of. You can tell which one it is because it didn't stay alive for long and I didn't post in it.

80playedin10states

04-19-2009, 10:22 AM

endless argument over nothing but a number..."I SHOT A 56" ...does it really matter if that 56 is over or under par? NO

ERicJ

04-19-2009, 10:43 AM

You talking about this one:
"What did you shoot your first round"
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2796

or possibly this one:
"Ratings/Handicaps"
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2799

ERicJ

04-19-2009, 10:50 AM

This is the only other possible one I see:
"what is your goal for the year"
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2607

Olorin

04-19-2009, 04:47 PM

Thanks Eric, but those aren't the ones. I'm pretty sure the subject was about Par.

Dave242

04-19-2009, 07:26 PM

Is the the one - "Pro Pars....."
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2173

Olorin

04-19-2009, 08:41 PM

Is the the one - "Pro Pars....."

Nope. I posted in that one. I may even be thinking of some other topic that I considered commenting on. It's getting hazy now. Sadly, I was born without a short term memory. :o

Olorin

05-02-2009, 07:36 PM

For your reading pleasure, I present a guided tour of DGCR discussions about par. The discussions have been grouped by broad categories.

Overview

What is Par? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31) (The Granddaddy of them all.)
7/4/07

PAR (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=826)
10/6/08

Par3 or Par 4??? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841)
2/3/09

Pro Par, Rec Par, Sign Par

Par vs. Pro Par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=805)
10/2/08

Rec Par vs. Pro Par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1107)
11/23/08

Pro Pars…. (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2173)
3/3/09

Pro Par vs. Sign Par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2810)
4/17/09

Reason for Pro Par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3115#post55748)
5/2/09

Misc

SSA vs. Par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=928)
10/28/08

What’s all this Par brouhaha? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1117)
11/25/08

Should Par 2 be used more? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=453)
7/24/08

Olorin’s most significant post of 2008 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16807&postcount=30)
11/25/08

(http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16807&postcount=30)

tamahawk

05-02-2009, 09:48 PM

I was recently looking back at some of the initial threads that were started on DGCR in the early days. It was pretty cool to see the history of where DGCR has been, where it is now, and the direction it is heading. Very cool!

I knew there were a lot of recent threads about "par", one of those being mine...:p, but I didn't realize there were that many, wow!

Anyway, as I was looking through some of the initial threads and posts, I noticed that many of them were about some of the same topics that we are seeing emerge in the forums today. I typically try to do some type of search before starting a thread, but the search doesn't always give me the results I'm looking for. I've noticed several other starter posts recently stating something similar "tried a search" but not getting the results they were looking for.

It's possible that myself and others aren't using the search features to their fullest potential, but many times I get the "The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search :" message. All that to pose this question:

Is there a way that we could organize all the thread titles, or list the titles somewhere that would make searching for existing threads easier?, or does something similar to this exist? With 30+ pages in the General section, searching can be tedious and difficult to find, so I would imagine that is why so many similar threads are popping up.

Just thinking out loud...:D

Olorin

05-04-2009, 11:20 AM

From the Reason for Pro par (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=56322&postcount=41) thread:
Pars at Giles were based on scoring estimates for two player ratings levels. The Red (Recreational) tee pars are for players with an 850 rating. The White (Pro) tee pars are for 1000 rated players. The scorecard which I produced for the park shows specific lengths/pars for every tee/pin configuration. (Red or White Tee to Red or Silver Pin) The current signs on the red tees show the length and 850 rated par for the red basket, Silver length and par is not displayed. The sign on the White tee seen below only displays the length and 1000 rated par for the silver basket.
After the Am and Pro Wind Up tournaments last year, I found that many of my estimates vs. actual hole SSA's were quite different. Much clearing around the baskets was done last winter so these newer SSA based Pars are already inaccurate. I will have more scores to further correct the SSA based pars after this years Wind Up in November. My goal is to post new tee signs in spring of 2010 reflecting the updated pars using the 850 and 1000 rated system. These numbers will be skewed AGAIN after further clearing next winter but it's all I can do for now.
Timber,

A couple of thoughts...

1) I think that ALL par for all tees should be based on the play of a 1000 rated player. I think that having Green Par, Red Par, White Par, Blue Par, Gold Par is way too confusing. And I don't think that unless the holes are shorter, that a Red level player should even expect to shoot par. A lower level player in Traditional golf would never even dream of shooting anything close to par. I still remember, though, how elated I was the first time I broke 90! All players should compare their play to only one expert standard.

2) Personally, I don't think that basing par on SSA or score averages is the best approach. This is a philosophical issue that hard to describe easily. I'll quote from the Gold CR Par explanation:

"Note that par is based on a “reasonable throw” along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. 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. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues. "

So, in my world, score averages might help you tweak par but not decide par. Lets say you had a very difficult and very unfair 380 ft hole where the drive was totally over water to a round island green with a 30 ft radius. The SSA would be very high, but the par would still be 3 because the intended flight path would be a drive that would land on the green. Not that many people could do it, though. Actually SSA- Par is the formula that the USDGC uses to determine hole difficulty and I think that's a pretty good method.

What do you think?

80playedin10states

05-04-2009, 12:16 PM

i think you need to concentrate more on playing the game and quit preaching!! par is useless and meaningless and a standard will not work for disc golf...you asked.. i answered

magictenor1

05-04-2009, 12:27 PM

I have to disagree. If par is so meaningless why are we always talking about it? In ball golf it is very important and it should be no different with us. The reason Olorin keeps posting is because people keep starting threads that show they are interested. I don't want some system that makes every course have the same difficulty but more consistent par is needed. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on par but it seems a lot of people do believe it is relevant.

Olorin

05-04-2009, 12:27 PM

80played,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

You're right, too, that I should play more. I sure would if I could.

80playedin10states

05-04-2009, 12:33 PM

how can you have a standard par for disc golf? you can't..beat in your brain that its a number...you compare your number with someone else's..pretty simple...much better than ..." i shot a -6.." JOE SAYS -6 IS A 48...BUT SUE SAYS ITS 55...AND SO ON AND SO ON..there is no arguing that it was a number..nothing to do with a "par"...endless argument about nonsense...you can't compare disc golf to golf..

magictenor1

05-04-2009, 12:42 PM

Why can't you compare it to Ball Golf? It's where we get the name and the idea of the sport. iIthink we will always be comparing and using golf as a guideline. They are different sports but there are obvious similarities.

Olorin

05-04-2009, 01:29 PM

80played,

My argument for why disc golf needs consistent par standards (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/par/why-par-standards) is based on 10 points.

I completely agree with you that to determine the winner of a tournament or even a casual round par is unnecessary. But there are many other situations where par is valuable, even necessary. Those are covered in the article referenced above.

Olorin

05-04-2009, 01:35 PM

how can you have a standard par for disc golf? you can't..

80played,

1) The USDGC uses par, so it must have some value.

2) The PDGA Pro Worlds reports scores at totals and in relation to par, so par must have some meaning and value to them.

3) Have you ever taken a brand new player out to the course and one of their first questions is "What is par for this hole?" That's happened to me numerous times. If I answered, "In disc golf par is just stupid so we don't use it." they'd probably think DG is lame.

4) In traditional golf, on the PGA tour, the winner of every is the person who shoots the lowest score. Are they just sticking to a useless and antiquated concept when they report scores in relation to par, or does par have some value?

80playedin10states

05-04-2009, 01:54 PM

but when every course is different, how do you set a standard? number 4.."...the lowest score"...has nothing to do with a par!! ha ha..when im playing with someone new i just tell 'em to make their own par and work at it..the usdgc and the pro worlds are played at a certain course...so you can name a "par" for a course for a day and use it as a satndard for THAT COURSE, not a pitch and putt 2 blocks up the road or the 11,000' monster near buffalo..

valkyriefb11

05-04-2009, 04:55 PM

How can you not have a standard par for disc golf? If we want this sport to be taken seriously there has to be a complete standardization. what you and your buddies do in a casual round doesnt matter, but for the sport as a whole it does matter. Not every hole should have the same par nor every course. variety adn varying difficulty is part of the sport ... but a standard means for determining par on every hole for every course is important.
I also think the comparison between disc golf and ball golf is not only good to use but only natural - we did kinda steal the whole premice of the game from ball golf.

Everyone has their own opinion, but like many said par is a relevant and important topic. Oh and I happen to know that Olorin has played enough and has enough of a knowledge base to know what he is talking about. :)

YonderScott

05-04-2009, 05:36 PM

I am back after an extended vacation. Glad to see a stupid discussion of what is par is still alive. I will tell you what par is. It is whatever the listed par is. In ball golf, like people on here like to try to align this game to, there are easy courses and tough courses. Par at Augusta isn't the same as Par at Fairfield Golf Course(in lovely Archdale, NC). Why? Because different levels of players play the game at different levels. If every golf course adopted the same rules Fairfield would be a par 18(it's a 9 hole course). It's damn easy. But just because Tiger could score a 17 on this course doesn't mean I can. Plus there is human error, Tiger would never shoot 17 on this course because over 9 holes human error kicks in and he won't 1 putt every green. My god, I thought I was anal.

A.Mutt

05-04-2009, 06:00 PM

what a quagmire of an issue. I try to just focus on my score and my goal is to make it in 3 everytime or better. How that relates to "par" seems inconsequential to me, a 2 looks just as good on the scorecard whether it was an eagle or birdie.

BUT for the sake of the sports legitimacy we need to have solid and clear guidlines/rules for everything. I refuse to believe that all holes should be a 3, that makes the sport mundane.

Also how do you account for different pin positions with par?

Case in point is my home course, Brent Hambrick Memorial DGC. On some holes the different pin positions easily shave or add a stroke for most people. Yet the posted par is the same regardless of placement. Holes 8, 10, 13, and 14 are considerably more difficult or easy depending on where the basket is that day. Some of those I'm disappointed if I don't get a 2 but if its in the alternate I'm fighting to get a 3.

innova

05-04-2009, 06:42 PM

I refuse to believe that all holes should be a 3, that makes the sport mundane.

+1

I could not agree more...

YonderScott

05-04-2009, 06:50 PM

Oh, and just for a reference marker: Until touring pros stop getting the sport kicked off courses for getting high any argument for what is par to make the sport legit is futile.

Play, have fun, enjoy life. Don't get caught up in this asinine discussion.

innova

05-04-2009, 08:21 PM

A more realistic par format has nothing to do with stoners.

Par4s and Par5s are a good idea regardless if folks are smoking dank.

Bring out the Eagle.

How many times did getting kicked from courses occur compared to the total number of events per year?

meatbones132

08-15-2009, 03:53 PM

My basic rule of thumb has always been this...

Par 3 is the lowest a hole can have as declared by the PDGA. So beyond that, every extra 100' you add 1 stroke. Capping off at par 6. The number of turns or obstacles you have to overcome does NOT delegate the strokes for par. Only distance. If you ad obstacles in then it is too many variables and you will never have an agreement between every side. Generalities have to be made...

So...
if you have a 850' hole then it is par 6.
575' dog leg left at 450' and slices right 515' then it is still par 5.
399' par 3
450' par 4
980' par 6

I think this could be a basic rule that could be adopted to kind of eleviate the frustration between fellow disc golfers. Par 3 minimum (obviously) and par 6 maximum. Add one stroke per 100' starting at 400'.

Omega SuperSloth

08-15-2009, 04:51 PM

"oh god why wont you die" (what is par)

those look like some good numbers meat bone i think 450 is just about as far as par3 should stretch , its good challenge for medium arms like myself and an opportunity for the big arms to get a easy bird with a really good drive or a decent shot at bird with an allright drive . i think you could have some type of demerit scale to adjust for terrain , say like a 1-4 scale with each point taking off 25 feet off the eligibility for that par number for each level, so if the hole was was only 400ft but a four difficulty it would have the same par as 500ft open hole so instead of a 3par it would be a 4

meatbones132

08-15-2009, 06:32 PM

Yeah...

Elevation could definitely be a factor used in determining par. The only thing is, unless you have a surveyor's tools or they already listed elevation increase or decrease to the pin there is no way of telling. And like I said... the obstacle handicap could be debated for years.

There is always going to be a hole that is extra challenging and makes you push yourself into new ways of approaching that you wouldn't do normally. I'd have to say that Elevation and distance could be the only hardline ways of nailing down what par should be unless it is a tournament. In that case, tournament officials could determine what each hole's par would be based on distance, obstacles, elevation, and water hazards.

Par 3 - 1' - 400'
Par 4 - 401' - 500'
Par 5 - 501' - 700'
Par 6 - 701' - Beyond

The way I see it... if you are an average or better player who plays at least once every two weeks at the least. You are driving 300' pretty regularly. So, if you can drive that far the only thing ever holding you back from getting under par is your putt and approach game.

Anyone else agree that this could be an accepted way to compare scores without getting the f-ing president involved?

Omega SuperSloth

08-15-2009, 06:55 PM

by terrain i meant the general topography of the hole(trees,hills and shi*) . I get what your saying although i think those nubers are a little on the short side , what id like to see is a shortness or longness limit for example the pdga could say no par3 can exceed 525ft no matter what level the player is at and no par 4 can be shorter 400 no matter how difficult the hole is that way you can still have the occasional hard par thats almost impossiable to bird ,cause sometimes its good to have a hole that you cant beat so no matter how long you play that course you still got something that still challenges you and makes you wanna keep trying to kicks its ass even after youve birdied most of the holes. but also you wanna have some holes 400 foot par 3s that give good players a decent shot at par most of the time and an occasional hard bird .

14506

08-15-2009, 07:11 PM

Honestly, I think the only "par" that matters is the par a world class golfer, that is a 1000+ rated player, should expect to get on the hole. Then all players no matter their skill level can figure out what they should be shooting on the course. Distance is misleading as the only representation of what determines par. Elevation change, fairway width, rough, foliage, distance, difficulty of the green, potential OB, risk vs reward, etc... are all factors that need to be considered.

If a hole is approximately 450 ft through the woods with a drop off behind the pin that leads to a steep drop and it forces a layup much more often than a run at it, then the par may be 4, but on the flat in an open field it may only be a par 3. Each hole and course needs to be considered individually. The best way to determine par is to see what the best players do on each hole at a tournament and average the scores out, keeping their ratings in mind. Ideally you would only consider those players that have a rating of 970 or better. I ultimately think what could Barry, Ken, Avery, or Feldberg get on the hole if they played it without error, I don't mean perfectly I mean without making a mistake and go from there, these are the types of players that courses should be geared toward if one wants to legitimize disc golf. The course I play has a par of 64 but the SSA rating is 67.8ish, so even though each hole's par adds up to only 64, the course overall plays as a par 68 for a 1000 rated player. Ideally the course par should match the SSA and over time as the course gets worn in I think it will be the same. If you can achieve this you have created the perfect course.

Olorin

08-15-2009, 08:38 PM

For anyone who is interested, here's an archive of all of the Par threads that have been on DGCR. See DGCR Par Threads (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/dgcr-par-threads).

There's lots of good reading there, but it can get repetitive.

Olorin

08-15-2009, 08:42 PM

Elevation could definitely be a factor used in determining par. ... I'd have to say that Elevation and distance could be the only hardline ways of nailing down what par should be...

You're talking about "Effective Length" here. This is the effective playing length that takes elevation into account.

For those that are new around here, I'd like to suggest that you might be interested in reading about Gold Close Range Par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/GoldCRpar).

Many of the ideas that have been expressed today have been covered by Gold CR Par. For example, it's based on the play of a 1000 rated player, and it's calculated by Effective Length. But it also adds a few other ideas that haven't been touched on. The effects of foliage and OB are covered, though.

Cgkdisc

08-15-2009, 09:02 PM

The effects of foliage and OB are covered, though.
The fundamental flaw in using Gold CRP exclusively.

magictenor1

08-15-2009, 09:22 PM

The fundamental flaw in using Gold CRP exclusively.I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning and how you think par should be determined.

Olorin

08-15-2009, 09:42 PM

The fundamental flaw in using Gold CRP exclusively.
Chuck Kennedy has a wealth of experience. You should check out his impressive credentials as a course designer. He also invented the ratings system and SSA. He also made the Hole Forecaster spreadsheet, which is available to members of the DG Course Design Group, which he was a founder of.

Chuck and I have disagreed over the years about how to determine par. If I understand his views, he favors using the Score Average Par method. But Chuck will need to explain his philosophy for setting par. Everyone should listen to him.

What are my credentials? Not much. Read more here (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursereviews/Home/lowe-s-credentials). My main tool in this par debate is only logic, experience, and common sense. I leave it to others to decide how useful CR Par is.

Cgkdisc

08-15-2009, 10:26 PM

Members of our Disc Golf Course Designers DGCD group have access to the Hole Forecaster as Olorin mentioned. This is based on actual throwing stats from 2002 plus actual field data for scoring. In other words, we forecasted what scoring was going to be on a hole before it was thrown and then saw how accurate the forecast was. Then, we've modified it since that time as we learned how some of the factors affected scoring. It's rare that our forecast is off as much a 0.4 on a hole with most estimates within 0.2. The bigger errors usually occur on holes with doglegs or OB areas where the difficulty of the OB (or lack of) was misjudged.

My primary method is to use scoring averages to help set par. However, these aren't just any averages but averages specific to one of the four average ratings ranges we've defined for skill levels. Gold (1000), Blue (950), White (900), Red (875>). But there are tweener areas where the designer gets to make the call. If the average comes out to 3.4 to 3.6 and the scoring distribution looks the way you want it, then the designer could call the hole a par 3 or par 4 based on how (s)he wants the player to see it and what the pars are of holes on either side.

In many cases, Olorin's Gold CRP will match the scoring average method. In places where it doesn't, the scoring average can be in that tweener zone where the designer could go either way on it with a par 3 or 4. An advantage the scoring method has is it reflects the actual scoring happening on the hole as players continue throwing farther, and not using throwing factors in the CRP method that have to regularly be updated.

The biggest mistake I see is designers lengthening holes that don't need to be lengthened on the assumption that because players of the same skill level are throwing farther than they did 10 years ago with faster plastic, holes must be made longer or the course is too easy. Raising the scoring average might make it tougher but should never be done at the cost of fun where birdies dry up and the goal on many holes becomes to prevent bogey versus play well for birdie.

Our data shows that players are throwing longer, but not more accurately. That 275' hole from 10 years ago might still be perfect for blue level scoring spread. Adding 50 feet can easily reduce the percentage of 2s not only too low but also bias the chance for bird only to those with longer arms at that skill level.

There are mainly two design reasons for lenthening holes that were reached by that skill level 10 years ago. The main one is that you actually studied the scoring data and it really is too easy for that level. The other reason might be that foliage has thinned out and a little more length will keep the scoring average from dropping below 2.5 into the dreaded par 2 range.

The main place where more length could be needed is holes that were already par 4s and 5s ten years ago. But how many were out there that long ago? Not too many. However, good scoring analysis might flush out holes that have been playing as tweeners for a long time averaging around 3.3-3.5, many times in the 380-475 range. Those could be lengthened not just because players are throwing longer but these were never bona fide par 4s in the first place.

Olorin

08-15-2009, 10:47 PM

Good stuff Chuck. As Chuck points out, many times the SA Par and the CR Par will be the same.

Using a couple of tools and PDGA documents, with a setting of Average Foliage, par for a Gold player can be converted to a length. Using Gold score averages of 3.5, 4.5, 5,5 the SA Par lengths are:
3 = 520 ft, 4 = 521-805 ft, 5 = 806-1090 ft

Gold CR Par lengths are:
3 = 500, 4 = 501-820, 5 = 821-1140

You can see that these lengths are very close.

But the big difference comes in when the foliage is changed. This brings in a philosophical difference at the heart of what par is, and I'll leave that for another time. If you read carefully, my view is expressed in the Gold CR Par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/GoldCRpar) document, though.

I'll go on record also with saying that I don't believe that there should be separate pars for each player level. I used to believe this, but I changed my mind. I think there should only be one par, based on the play of a 1000 rated player.

mashnut

08-15-2009, 10:54 PM

I'll go on record also with saying that I don't believe that there should be separate pars for each player level. I used to believe this, but I changed my mind. I think there should only be one par, based on the play of a 1000 rated player.

I'm torn about a lot of things concerning par, but this I definitely agree with. This gives you a real measuring stick for your entire disc golf career, and makes it meaningful when you say you shot a specific score to people everywhere, without ever having to specify pro par vs. blue par etc. That's a lesson I think we should learn from ball golf, it's ok for players who aren't good to shoot scores that reflect that, they'll still have fun.

Dave242

08-15-2009, 11:03 PM

This gives you a real measuring stick for your entire disc golf career, and makes it meaningful when you say you shot a specific score to people everywhere, without ever having to specify pro par vs. blue par etc. That's a lesson I think we should learn from ball golf, it's ok for players who aren't good to shoot scores that reflect that, they'll still have fun.

Not true. At a minimum, in ball golf you still have to specify what tees you were playing from. And you have to specify hole locations on each green, how tall the grass is on the first and 2nd cut, etc... if you really want to know how good a given score really is.

I do not agree that there should not be only one set of pars. Olorin, did you ever answer when I asked 1-2 month ago why you changed your mind? I do not remember if you did.

mashnut

08-15-2009, 11:07 PM

Not true. At a minimum, in ball golf you still have to specify what tees you were playing from. And you have to specify hole locations on each green, how tall the grass is on the first and 2nd cut, etc... if you really want to know how good a given score really is.

I do not agree that there should not be only one set of pars. Olorin, did you ever answer when I asked 1-2 month ago why you changed your mind? I do not remember if you did.

That's a really interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. More and more disc golf courses seem to be putting in multiple sets of tees though, and I think that is a much better way of adjusting for different level players than changing par.

Cgkdisc

08-15-2009, 11:42 PM

Olorin

08-15-2009, 11:56 PM

If all holes are set to gold par, then the world would be populated with thousands of par 2 holes. Either that or thousands of holes would need to be redesigned so they are not par 2s for gold and the millions of rec players will rarely get 2s infrequently and ace runs hardly ever. You've just pointed out one of the main problems with the SA Par method. If you want to use it consistently, with a scratch player (1000 PR) as the standard, then you'd have thousands of par 2s.

Do they set the home run fences for Little League and High School at Major League distances telling the youngsters you don't desrve to get home runs until you're big and strong?I don't think that this is a useful analogy. You can't compare different sports like that. I think we'd do better to make analogies to our cousin "traditional golf". In TG the vast majority are well content to never get anywhere near shooting par. Millions would be happy to break 100 (28 over par), and many millions more would be elated to break 90 (+18). If you can break 80 (+8) then you're pretty good. I can't figure out why DGers think they should be able to break par to be happy.

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:00 AM

Not true. At a minimum, in ball golf you still have to specify what tees you were playing from. And you have to specify hole locations on each green, how tall the grass is on the first and 2nd cut, etc... if you really want to know how good a given score really is.Not really. Most men always play from the white tees, and par is almost always 72, so it's all pretty standard. When I play TG I never refer to any of that other stuff you mentioned either. I just say I shot a certain score.

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 12:06 AM

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:12 AM

You've just pointed out one of the main problems with the SA Par method. If you want to use it consistently, with a scratch player (1000 PR) as the standard, then you'd have thousands of par 2s.
(Blast that 5 minute edit restriction. Grrrr.... :mad:)

Oh yeah, and with Gold CR Par you don't need to worry about par 2s because that only happens on holes that are 100 ft or less. I've played some holes under 100 ft., though, and have no problem calling them legitimate par 2s.

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:18 AM

The pars in golf are not set to scratch levels but each color is set to that player skill level, at least off the tee. If their Black, Blue, White and Red tees (progressively shorter) are all set to par 4, the par is actually set for that skill length at each tee. In fact, if a red level player like a junior or woman plays a black tee par 4 in some handicap event, it's likely it will be considered a par 5 for their handicap calcs. The failing in golf is to not always consistently follow thru so that the second or third shots are also at skill level. If that was consistently done, you would see more of their red level players shooting a little closer to their par.
From all the research I've done at the PGA and USGA sites I can only find 2 predominant standards for par-- for men and for women. Both are based on effective length. I believe that the longer tees still use the same standards, they're just longer holes, so it's harder to make par.

There is a Junior par standard that can be used, but I think that most recognize it for the feel good concept that it is and abandon it as soon they can. (When I was 10-18 I had no problem just using "real" par.)

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 12:20 AM

You're just fooling yourself and everyone else if a hole has a 2.2-2.4 gold level scoring average and still call it a par 3 with the CRP manipulation. You then might have a World Champ who shoots 100 under par to win. Oops! It already happened at Kalamazoo. :eek:

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 12:24 AM

From all the research I've done at the PGA and USGA sites I can only find 2 predominant standards for par-- for men and for women. Both are based on effective length. I believe that the longer tees still use the same standards, they're just longer holes, so it's harder to make par.

Those are the only published standards. But when they have up to five sets of tees, each set is adjusted according to skill level in terms of how the handicaps are set on them. It's not harder to make par on the longer tees for the players like Tiger who play them. In fact, I would say the PGA pros play the Championship blacks+ better to par than do the Blue or white level players play to their par.

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:30 AM

You're just fooling yourself and everyone else if a hole has a 2.2-2.4 gold level scoring average and still call it a par 3 with the CRP manipulation. I think there's an error in logic here. On these holes the problem is not with how par is set. The problem is poor design (usually on older outdated holes).

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 12:42 AM

I think there's an error in logic here. On these holes the problem is not with how par is set. The problem is poor design (usually on older outdated holes).
Yes. But I believe it's yours. Many holes that are appropriate for rec players will have a gold level average below 2.4. So not only would you be penalizing the rec players by making holes they can't birdie, but the cost of redesigning many of those holes is impractical and in most cases, there's no room for redesign. Appropriate pars for appropriate skills as ball golf does deals with this superbly. Now if designers would just consistently design their holes for specific skill levels rather than all over the map.

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:59 AM

Those are the only published standards. But when they have up to five sets of tees, each set is adjusted according to skill level in terms of how the handicaps are set on them. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Can you point me to any sources that more specifically show the process they use when ''each set is adjusted according to skill level in terms of how the handicaps are set on them."? Also, are the adjustments being made to adjust par, or are they adjusting the difficulty to make the holes more appropriate for a given skill level?

Olorin

08-16-2009, 01:12 AM

On these holes the problem is not with how par is set. The problem is poor design (usually on older outdated holes).

...Many holes that are appropriate for rec players will have a gold level average below 2.4. So not only would you be penalizing the rec players by making holes they can't birdie, but the cost of redesigning many of those holes is impractical and in most cases, there's no room for redesign. Well, I don't think that the Gold level score avg is relevant for any course except for Gold level. I'm talking about par not scoring averages. There need to be Green and Red level courses for newer and rec players. They can have shorter holes with score avgs appropriate for their level. So even if the SSA is low, if the course is for Green or Red level that's fine. That wouldn't need any redesign; just designate it a lower player level course.

But on a White, Blue, or Gold level course I don't think that lower level players should ever expect to get birdies anyway. I don't know why Rec players should expect that they will get birdies on higher level courses anyway. When I was learning TG, in my early years I never even thought of getting a birdie, and I was fine with that.

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 08:42 AM

Well, I don't think that the Gold level score avg is relevant for any course except for Gold level. I'm talking about par not scoring averages. There need to be Green and Red level courses for newer and rec players. They can have shorter holes with score avgs appropriate for their level. So even if the SSA is low, if the course is for Green or Red level that's fine.
Then why would you use the standards of gold level to assign par on these courses not intended for gold to play?

Olorin

08-16-2009, 12:10 PM

Then why would you use the standards of gold level to assign par on these courses not intended for gold to play?Because a 1000 PR (Gold) player is a good standard for a first-class player, and there are several advantages to having only one universal standard for par. I'm currently writing up my thoughts on this subject and will post more on this in the near future.

magictenor1

08-16-2009, 01:59 PM

mashnut

08-16-2009, 02:34 PM

Great discussion, seems to me that both sides have lots of good points, and some places where things break down a little. It's really made me think about par, especially while I've been playing the last couple days.

Olorin

08-16-2009, 02:47 PM

I am enjoying your discussion. I don't think par is universally applied in ball golf at all. the short easy BG course I started playing on was par 70 and I tended to shoot around 85-90. I went to a championship caliber course and shot 130+. I think there should be easier and harder courses and trying to totally quantify par based on yardages seems to be trying to make all courses have similar difficulty so that +8 at one course is similar to +8 at another. But ball golf is certainly not that way.
Magic,

In TG I think that par is almost universally determined by the USGA par guidlelines (http://golf.about.com/od/handicaps/f/faq_parlengths.htm). A very common misunderstanding that I've seen people make repeatedly over the years is to confuse par with course difficulty. Par and course difficulty are different. Par is a universal standard and difficulty varies for each course. And it's essential that some courses are easier and some are more difficult to be able to cater to a wide range of skill levels. I bet that on the courses you described both used the USGA guidelines to set par, but one is easier and one is harder.

BTW, par and course difficulty do intersect. I think that one of the best measures of a hole's difficulty is "Par - Scratch Player Score Avg". So par alone tells you nothing about difficulty, but used with score averages it is essential in determining difficulty. But that's a topic for another time.

Cgkdisc

08-16-2009, 04:16 PM

Ball golf has attempted to have different par standards for Men, Women and Juniors but has failed going any farther because they don't use real scores shot by players in a specific skill range. They wish they could. But their handicap system with slopes is so ingrained, they'd have to start over. They wish they could do it the way we do it in disc golf and have told me as much when I visited them at their HQ in NJ.

Their problem is they calculate course and handicap ratings from a formula based on estimating the impact of various factors on the course, simply with "experts" walking around and nodding knowingly. But their numbers are never grounded in actual scoring data because they don't know for sure whether a scratch player or 6 handicapper is really that.

First, their course ratings aren't validated with actual scores, and second, their player handicaps are based on self reported scores. They tried to do calcs like we've done and got impossible numbers. Then they realized, surprise, surprise, that some players only report their good scores and some only report their bad ones for handicaps depending on whether they want to brag or bag with their handicap number.

All of our disc golf numbers are based on tournament scores and overall are very precise for determining course ratings (SSA) and player ratings by skill level. For example, at Worlds 94% of your finish position was predicted by your rank by rating before you started playing. We aren't shackled by the outdated ball golf methods where only two or three standards are out there. We can fine tune courses or sets of tees designed to match the skill of players. And we can set appropriate pars for them because we know what "par" (i.e. their expected average score) is for each skill level. We are already better than ball golf with more accurate and dynamic course and player ratings. That advantage should be used so the playing experience for all levels is as good as it can be with measurable and reachable benchmarks i.e. par by skill.

Olorin

08-17-2009, 09:05 AM

Chuck,

Thanks so much for taking the time to post on this topic. Your last post was most informative. What an intriguing idea to think that DG could do something better than our cousin traditional golf.

My goal in this discussion is not "to win an argument" but to seek the best way to set par, so I'm really pondering the ramifications of what you've said. Would you mind helping me further in this discussion with some questions I have?

How do you determine the course level? Most courses weren’t even designed for a specific level, so this has been shown to be rather problematic.

(I’ll have to say that even though this an obstacle I can already think of ways that this can be overcome.)
[Once the course level is determined, the course needs to be clearly marked with it’s level, and there should be a notification that par is set by “White Level Par”, etc. Players will also need to be educated about the concept of Course Levels. They also need to realize that since most courses only have one set of tees that it’s analogous to playing from a certain color tee in TG. e.g.- If it’s a Red level course then it’s like playing from the Red tees.]

How can you compare the difficulty of 2 courses that are a different level? Do you just start with the assumption that courses follow this order from Most to least difficult: Gold- Blue- White- Red- Green? (I think I’ve already answered this question for myself. You can’t really compare the scores on courses of different levels. You already know that your score on a Green level course will be far lower than your score on a Gold level course. Just as in TG you would first note that you played from the Blue tees, you should first note that you played on a Blue level course.)

I’ll be honest, I’ve already learned a lot just by thinking about this as I'm writing this reply. I’ve been able to answer some of my own questions and I’ve discovered some areas where I’ve had muddled thinking and lapses of logic (oh well). I’m starting to see your point about the value of having different pars for different levels. Thanks again for your patient help.

Cgkdisc

08-17-2009, 09:46 AM

If you read my article on Course Validation posted on PDGA: http://www.pdga.com/course-design-validation the main idea is that a designer needs to state in advance what level of player(s) they are designing the course for. Then, actually prove that they did so by scoring analysis once the course is installed, ideally not pouring tee pads until it has a chance to be tweaked if needed.

The fact that most courses haven't been designed with that plan, just means those currently involved with the course should evaluate their course with scoring averages to see what they have. If the course is the usual mix of holes suited for different player skills, they should resolve to tweak it to come closer to a specific skill level. For courses with multiple pins, it might simply mean determining which pin combinations are best for a particular level.

As far as comparing scores from different courses, the obvious way to me is what was the round rated. If a round of 50 is rated 1000 on one course and 975 on another, the first course is tougher in terms of SSA. If a 50 is rated 1000 on two different courses and one is 500 feet shorter, then the shorter course could be considered tougher per foot of length.

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-19-2009, 12:53 PM

If you read my article on Course Validation posted on PDGA: http://www.pdga.com/course-design-validation the main idea is that a designer needs to state in advance what level of player(s) they are designing the course for. Then, actually prove that they did so by scoring analysis once the course is installed, ideally not pouring tee pads until it has a chance to be tweaked if needed.

Chuck, I really enjoy reading your work on course design. I am certainly a proponent of tweaking after installation and leaving the concrete tee pads as the last task for the course.

However, that final step of changing from dirt tees to nice level concrete makes each hole easier. Thus, I've figured that we needed to add 6-feet to each tee after the tweaking/validation step to compensate for the concrete tees. I can't remember where we got the 6-foot number, must've read it somewhere.

What are your/others thoughts on this idea of adding a few more feet just because the concrete tees are better?

Cgkdisc

08-19-2009, 01:05 PM

I've never seen nor heard of any factor like that. Since the friction factor on your foot pivot is a little different, I'm not sure cement pads would be any easier than dirt - just different - other than when the dirt pads are wet. But then I wouldn't necessarily use scoring data from poor weather conditions to make course adjustments either. The stats indicate a 30 ft change in length changes the scoring average by 0.1 of a throw. So 6 feet isn't going to do much.

As an aside, I'm not much for listing hole lengths in anything but rounded to the nearest five feet because players have at least 9 feet and even more on some cement pads in which to release their drives. Seems like 230 and 400 make more sense than 232 or 398. The only exception is you won't see a 420 or 665 on my courses. They will be 421 or 666. ;)

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-19-2009, 02:02 PM

Appreciate your thoughts. Dirt pads can be more difficult even when they are dry. They tend to not be level and usually have a nice hole just before the board from usage. I understand that my "6-foot adjustment" isn't meant for every hole. A tunnel hole is meant to reward accuracy, so the extra few feet is meaningless. I guess, I should consider that if a draft-dirt-tee is in good shape during validation, then an added adjustment is probably not applicable.

Cgkdisc

08-19-2009, 02:15 PM

A 2, 6 or 10 ft adjustment is fine in any direction before pouring cement if by doing so it does increase the fair challenge on the hole once you've seen how the dirt tee plays. I use the wear pattern on the ground to see if players overly use one side. Then we might shift the position of the cement pad just to mess with players ;) or get the tee more centered on the preferred release point for the route.

CwAlbino

08-19-2009, 02:17 PM

craftsman

08-20-2009, 01:31 AM

So I'm new to the Internet (and obviously dgcr)& I just spent my whole night reading all this. WOW... I've always played all 3's (due to many missing signs)but this convo. makes me think a little differently. It's a releif to know I'm not actually ten strokes worse than everyone else. I figured if everyone throws over 450 like they claim they could get 3's. If pars will further the sport (t.v.) then I'll use pars. In Michigan we have a lot of great am players so I favor the cr method (I think...based on 1000 rating...right?). I also have a greater appreciation for some of the course designers: brewer in grand rapids has four 9 holes that are color coded and I heard they're tryin to change the colors to pdga colors. Also my league course, hudson mills, there are two 24 courses with cement dual tees and a handful of permenent champ pins. With all that said I played a newly designed 24 hole from am tees and shot a 79....7 over. One "birdie", one "double bogey". Little ego= Big fun

XxInnovaxX

08-20-2009, 01:49 AM

PAR = 3....no question about it...yeah sure theres holes that seem like a 3 is impossible but who cares?!?!? take your bogey, walk to the next hole and make it up with a birdie....you're still shooting the same amount of strokes, no matter if you count holes as 3's or 4's...the only person your psyching out is yourself, its not like you're really shooting any better..

wolito

08-20-2009, 11:30 AM

I also play with the assumption that all holes are par three. If it is a long hole, then it will be tougher to get that par, but also more satisfying if I do. Unless it is an super difficult hole, then I might play it as the post par 4 or whatever.

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-20-2009, 11:32 AM

waynewf

08-20-2009, 11:37 AM

I'll never figure out the folks who say that par can only be three in disc golf. My friend who taught me how to play is in the "par=3" camp. Hours of arguments have never changed either of our minds...

Frusterating isn't it? Wait until you meet someone who thinks half the holes on your favorite course should be considered Par 2's!! I've started tracking my score and have just gotten used to looking at the raw number and using that to track my progress...I'm definitely no pro though, so there is a part of me that thinks if I can score at or below par on the course, that something probably isn't quite right....

DavidSauls

08-20-2009, 11:51 AM

I'll never figure out the folks who say that par can only be three in disc golf. My friend who taught me how to play is in the "par=3" camp. Hours of arguments have never changed either of our minds...

That's just a shorthand for keeping score. Your actual score is the total number of throws---the raw numbers, as waynewf says. This is how disc golf is won and lost.

The "all-par-3" is a shorthand for keeping score in your head. You don't have to remember what each hole's par is, and you keep a running score as "2 over" or "3 under" or whatever, changing it only when you don't get a "3" on a hole.

If you play by any other par system, you have to ask, "Who established it?" "By what rationale". On a local course here, the signs show the par as 68. If I play it in 54 shots, I can say I'm 14 under par. If someone changes the signs on a few holes and how they total 60, I'm only 6 under par. Did I get that much worse? So I play as all-par-3s, by which system I may shoot around "par" or slightly better, and scorekeeping is a snap.

It only seriously matters once you start playing sanctioned tournaments, are late for a round, and miss one or more holes.

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-20-2009, 12:40 PM

If you play by any other par system, you have to ask, "Who established it?" "By what rationale".

I never have to ask this as the rationale has been around for hundreds of years. IMO, the idea of "par must be 3" is just a way for disc golfers to differentiate themselves from those of us who play golf with sticks and discs...

Cgkdisc

08-20-2009, 01:40 PM

There are a few courses out there where using par=4 on all holes is easier such as Idlewild, WR Jackson, Renny Gold and Highbridge Gold.

magictenor1

08-20-2009, 04:12 PM

DavidSauls

08-20-2009, 04:42 PM

There are a few courses out there where using par=4 on all holes is easier such as Idlewild, WR Jackson, Renny Gold and Highbridge Gold.

Even more courses, if you're as weak as I am.

I've done this on courses where I shoot in the mid-70s but, after so many years of scoring by par-3, it's a little odd. Serves the same purpose, though.

DavidSauls

08-20-2009, 04:58 PM

I never have to ask this as the rationale has been around for hundreds of years. IMO, the idea of "par must be 3" is just a way for disc golfers to differentiate themselves from those of us who play golf with sticks and discs...

Not true. I have no care to differentiate myself. I do it because it's simpler.

Keeping in mind that I'm talking about "all-par-3" as a scorekeeping shorthand. For example, at Stoney Hill, we have 4 holes that are Par-4 for the Pros. I gets 4s....or 5s....or 6s on them. But when playing casually, I still count by par-3, bogeying our double-bogeying these holes, but convert it to total throws when I'm done.

Now, on our scorecards, those holes show as Par-4s. If you ask me what the course par is, I'll say "58" for the Pros. If someone's late for a tournament round, they'll get an "8" on those holes. Psychologically, they are par-4s; I'm satisfied with a 4, very happy with a 3.

The reasons you may care about what "par" is for a particular hole apply, more or less, and all holes aren't equal. But the "all-par-3" folks are usually talking about something different---ease of scorekeeping.

So when I play Earlewood, where every hole is an easy 3 and some are easy 2s, I forget the signs and just count by 3s.

And when I travel and play a new course, without a scorecard, I don't want to finish a hole and try to remember what the sign said the par was.

The concepts of par, as in ball golf, are valid, and there's a bit of discussion as to how they should be calculated. The "all-par-3" is altogether different.

And what I meant by "rationale" was for that particular hole. A 300' hole at Earlewood is labeled Par-5. Why? Who decided? What rationale? You could very well ask me that, about my four par-4s at Stoney Hill. And everywhere else "par" is established. I don't question the concept of par itself.

DavidSauls

08-20-2009, 05:08 PM

Do disc golfers have trouble with numbers and counting? I played BG for years and never used a score card. I kept up using how many over par. It is not difficult in DG either. I always play the posted par. Sometimes it is very easy and I shoot well under par. Sometimes it is difficult and I shoot well over par. I don't have any trouble keeping my score either way.

(1) Earlewood, par is 68, I, a poor player, average 53. 15 under par. Still easier to base score on par-54, so that on most holes, my score doesn't change ("I've been stuck on 1-under since hole 7...").

(2) Can't speak for other disc golfers. I'm good with numbers but poor at remembering what the assigned par was for a particular hole, especially if I don't play it often, especially after negotiating some of the adventurous lies I find myself in, especially when it's not necessary.

Cgkdisc

08-20-2009, 05:12 PM

The original Steady Ed par system was under 200 ft = par 3, 200-265 = par 4 and over 265 = par 5. Thus the 300 ft "par 5" at Earlwood.

DavidSauls

08-20-2009, 05:17 PM

Thanks, Chuck. I'd never heard that.

Course was built around 1990, a little before my time, and figured it had to do with the type of discs available and the newness of the sport, at least around here.

bettsjc

08-20-2009, 05:27 PM

I believe it's based on the Steady Ed system for the older courses where you find short par 4s and 5s.

But I know that some courses apply posted pars for recreational/beginning players. You might find this occurs more often on courses not designed for tournament or professional play.

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-21-2009, 10:08 AM

And what I meant by "rationale" was for that particular hole. A 300' hole at Earlewood is labeled Par-5. Why?

Clearly, a short 300-foot hole being marked a Par 5 is incorrect. Apparently, it was originally deemed such back in the day before technology changed the game. If I played such a hole, I would understand this and agree we should play it as a Par 3.

BTW: Ball golf has a similar history. What was a long Par-4 one-hundred years ago is probably an easy Par-3 these days. Back when I was a kid (and a wood was built with wood), we had a bunch of 300-yard Par 4's. Most courses have now either shortened these to Par-3's or somehow added length to the hole.

Anyway, what I can't understand is why some want to play an uphill 500-600 foot DG hole as a Par 3. Only the top Pros can get anywhere near that far off the tee. Not me, if I score a 4 on #14 Dolese (OKC) then I consider it a Par. Except of course if I'm in a tournament because "the regulars" running the tourny say all DG holes are Par-3...

DavidSauls

08-21-2009, 11:05 AM

The 300' par-5 I cited is an extreme example of the problem of no accepted and applied standards for establishing par. Think of any hole that is marked, and you play as, par-4. Why 4? Why not 3 or 5? Who made that decision, and on what basis? So if we score based on the relationship to par, it's rather at the whim of who put up the signs.

As for playing a monster hole as a par-3, I don't play any hole any differently, regardless of what par is designated. I'm still trying to make it in the fewest throws possible. Psychologically, I have my own "par" as well---what I'm satisfied with on a hole, and/or expect to get.

I started out playing by the pars posted on the course, and thought the par-3 idea was odd, too. But here's another example of why playing by the course pars is a problem, unless you only play 1 course:

Course A --- Pars on signs total 68 --- I average 53
Course B --- Pars on signs total 58 --- I average 64

So, if I play my average game, I shoot 15 under on one course, 6 over on the other. What does my score, related to par, mean?

On the other hand, if I use the "all-par-3" scorekeeping shorthand, I'm shooting 1-under on Course A, 10-over on course B. So I can compare the courses and say that, for me, Course B is 11 strokes tougher than Course A. Which at least means a little---thought the same as the actual scores.

Were a time to come when we have universally agreed upon and applied definitions of "par", it would be much more useful. Alas, there are some very good arguments for determining par in different ways, and no control over how they are designated on courses.

Ryan P.

08-21-2009, 11:43 AM

I'd agree with most of what you said, David Sauls.

When I want to compare two courses, I just compare how many strokes it took me on each course. So if it took me 60 shots on one course and 54 on another, there is a 6 stroke difference. I don't convert to a generic par score and then compare them. It seems like a waste.

Plus, i play a lot with people who have already played on courses and gone by posted par. It's much more simple to just go with posted par when playing with them.

It seems to me that calling everything a par 3 defeats the purpose of having par in the first place. Par was designed to reveal how many strokes it takes to complete a hole, or something similar to that. So calling everything a par 3 does nothing. I just fail to see how calling everything a par 3 helps, but if it does I'd love to hear how.

DavidSauls

08-21-2009, 01:00 PM

Just to be clear, I fault no one for scoring either way.

As to "how playing everything par 3 helps", and at the risk of rephrasing---

Those of us who do, don't "play" everything as par-3. We do our scorekeeping based on par-3. Advantages are:

(1) You don't have to remember what the par was for a particular hole.
(2) Easier math, at least if you're shooting under 63 on a given course.
(3) Easier math to convert to your total score, since you don't have to know what the course par is.

That's it. Nothing special.

It doesn't make the play any different. It's just scorekeeping. For a "Par 4" hole, I'm expecting to make a drive, another long shot, an upshot, and a putt. I'm playing for a 4, hoping for a 3....but if I'm keeping score in my head, it'll be +1.

Everyone I know and play with does this, so if someone says they shot "4 under" at Crooked Creek, I know what they mean. If everyone you play with uses the course par, you'll get the same result.

Sports_Fan_Stan

08-21-2009, 04:58 PM

David, appreciate your explainations. I think it has helped me understand this confusing issue of why par is not as important to the current game of disc golf. I sure hope that over time, the concept of par is strengthened in DG and courses become accurately rated vis-a-vis par.

Have a nice weekend. The weather is gr8 here in Oklahoma and we will be flinging a bunch of plastic this weekend!!

Olorin

08-21-2009, 05:05 PM

We do our scorekeeping based on par-3. ..It's just scorekeeping.
I only wish that everyone would understand that this only a convenient scorekeeping method, but it really has nothing to do with "real" par. If you use this at a Gold level course your scores will be way over "par". Try using it at Winthrop Gold, Renaissance Gold, or Nockamixon to see. I wish people would leave out the word "par" when using this scorekeeping method. Your scores are merely in relation to the number 3 they are not necessarily in relation to "par". When you play TG you can use the same scoring system in relation to the number 4 even though there are 8 holes that are definitely par 3 & 5.

Olorin

08-21-2009, 05:09 PM

The 300' par-5 I cited is an extreme example of the problem of no accepted and applied standards for establishing par...

Were a time to come when we have universally agreed upon and applied definitions of "par", it would be much more useful...This is the entire reason why I keep posting on this and related threads. Many people are sick of the whole debate, but it's obvious that there is still way too much chaos out there. When "every man that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess. I'd like to see that mess cleared up.

solomon.trenton

08-21-2009, 05:12 PM

im confused by this quote
When "every man that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess

magictenor1

08-21-2009, 06:14 PM

It means if everyone is doing their own thing then you have chaos.

Olorin

08-21-2009, 06:14 PM

im confused by this quote
When "every man that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess
When "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess

magictenor1

08-21-2009, 06:15 PM

I only wish that everyone would understand that this only a convenient scorekeeping method, but it really has nothing to do with "real" par. If you use this at a Gold level course your scores will be way over "par". Try using it at Winthrop Gold, Renaissance Gold, or Nockamixon to see. I wish people would leave out the word "par" when using this scorekeeping method. Your scores are merely in relation to the number 3 they are not necessarily in relation to "par". When you play TG you can use the same scoring system in relation to the number 4 even though there are 8 holes that are definitely par 3 & 5.Yes. Scorekeeping is not "par".

WillA

08-22-2009, 02:00 AM

Keep up the good fight Olorin!

solomon.trenton

08-22-2009, 08:01 AM

When "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess

ok thank you, i was scratching my head a little bit there

Dave242

08-22-2009, 08:57 AM

I new immediately that you forgot "doeth".

DavidSauls

08-24-2009, 11:59 AM

This is the entire reason why I keep posting on this and related threads. Many people are sick of the whole debate, but it's obvious that there is still way too much chaos out there. When "every man that which is right in his own eyes" you have a big fat mess. I'd like to see that mess cleared up.

I'd love to see it cleared up, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Looks to me like a 2-step process: to agree on a standard, and apply that standard. Various people, including yourself, have offered differing but well-thought-out ideas for how par should be established. Disc golf holes vary so much from each other that it's a difficult proposition. Even if it happens, I can't imagine 3,000 courses re-making their signs, nor anyway to force course designers to follow the standards. Maybe there can be a "Certified Par" system, with courses that follow the agreed-on standard promoting that their par is "Certified Par."

The issue will come up endlessly, though, as every day new people start playing disc golf, most often on one course that has some sort of "par" on the signs, and they relate their scores that that par. This discussion board is rife with people posting "I average 6 under. What division should I play?", with no reference as to where or how the "6 under" was determined.

You're right that those of us using the "all-par-3-scorekeeping-method" would more correctly forego the word "par". But it's easy and ingrained at this point.

biscoe

08-24-2009, 12:14 PM

I new immediately that you forgot "doeth".

i knew immediately you meant "knew":p:D

scarpfish

08-24-2009, 04:33 PM

As long as DGA, Discraft, Innova etc. accepts money from any parks department or other bozo who wants to buy poleholes to install a course, this 'par' problem is never getting resolved. The majority of the money being made in this "sport" right now is being made installing a recreational activity for the masses, and selling them on how egalitarian it is, not coming up with an accurate measurement of course/hole difficulty for competitive play.

magictenor1

08-24-2009, 07:59 PM

skinner21

08-25-2009, 09:56 AM

Very interesting concept. I never thought the all-3 method as more of a scorekeeping than as how par is in ball golf. I really like the argument that it makes it easier to compare the courses. Because of the cost effective nature of this sport, we are able to play more courses more often than most ball golfers, and I think that is what makes the score convertion important. On this site it is not uncommon to see players who have played dozens, if not hundreds, of courses, which would be VERY uncommon in ball golf.

Thanks for helping me understand this, because I have often been frustrated with why people would want to do this.