How is Par For a Hole Determined?

[greg_lange]

In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus two.

At my favorite course, there are three par threes that take two shots to reach the green. By that, I mean there is no player in the world that can reach these greens in one shot. I was lucky enough to play this course with Nikko Locastro last year and so I truly believe I'm not exaggerating.

So, what's the rule of thumb for determining hole par?

Should every hole be "birdiable" by somebody without making a lucky long shot?

Also, I've seen tournaments at this course play par threes for every hole (even the two that are marked as par fours). Does this practice make any sense?

Thanks and sorry if this a topic that comes up all the time.

[liamxparker]

54 regardless of length.

[prerube]

not true at all, see Nevin

[vonDrehle]

54 regardless of length.

Look at that super helpful post that has nothing to do with what he is asking...



For me I prefer holes to have a low as a par as possible. If a majority of the field during a tournament is making eagles on it or better than that holes should be considered one less par then at is.

I think the tough area comes in when a hole can either be a difficult par 3, or a fairly easy par 4. I feel that with 2 good shots a par 4 should be birdeable but a 4 still doesn't make you feel too bad on it. If it takes one shot and a simple approach and you are upset when you don't make a 3, then that should be a 3.

[ZBoazMobster]

How is Par For a Hole Determined?


54 regardless of length.

Par 54 hole?

[ZBoazMobster]

vonD beat me...

[liamxparker]

Par 54 hole?
3 each.
Unless it's huge.

[prerube]

Par 54 hole?

:hfive:

[Dave242]

In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus two.
.......
So, what's the rule of thumb for determining hole par?

In ball golf almost always there are multiple tees and par is set for each tee according to the level of player intended to play that set of tees.

In disc golf it is less than 50% of the courses that have more than 1 set of tees (intended for different level of players to tee from) and very rare for there to be more than 2 sets. So, it is important to determine the level of player the course is intended for (or a particular set of tees on a course).

The "green" in DG to be analogous is the area where it is expected that you can/should get up-n-down from. It is MUCH bigger than that in ball golf since putting is so much easier.

Developed by Olorin (and some input on some of the details/concepts by me), Close Range Level Par (CR Par) bases the par determination with these two main factors in mind. If you have not read up on it, you can by going here:
http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar

[ejvogie]

In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus two.

From what I understand, disc golf uses the same rule of thumb. Sometimes tournaments set all pars at 3 to make scoring easier.

[jenb]

PDGA has a colorful chart that everyone ignores as far as I can tell.

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

[prerube]

PDGA has a colorful chart that everyone ignores as far as I can tell.

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

Great post Jen, you could have ended all debate in this thread :)

[JoshEpoo]

Also, I've seen tournaments at this course play par threes for every hole (even the two that are marked as par fours). Does this practice make any sense?

Playing everything as par 3's makes for a simple scoring system. What your score ends up being is only important relative to what everyone else shot, not what course par is. Par is pretty meaningless at this point in disc golf's evolution. Shooting par at one course might be a good score while -15 could be reasonable at another. The really short holes we have in disc golf mess up the system. It's much easier to throw a disc <200' accurately for a tap out birdie than it is to hit a wedge 150 yards for an easy deuce.

[Dave242]

That chart and CR Par come up with the same results the vast majority of the time. What the PDGA chart does not give any guidance on is forced lay-ups (as in hard doglegs) and forced carries (say over water).

The "big" philosophical difference is that the PDGA chart is based on scoring averages. As you see, the distances for any given par is based on "light" or "heavy" foliage. CR Par's position is that Par should be only a result of length (effective length). Fairway width is a Design issue, not a Par issue.

[Dave242]

Par is pretty meaningless at this point in disc golf's evolution.

And, some people see that as an issue in DG's evolution and are trying to change it.

IMO, getting a larger percentage of the playing population to understand scoring spread and how hole design effects that will lead to hole design and course design that is intentional and meaningful. When that happens, "seeing" Par will be easy: 1-throw holes are Par-3's, 2-throw holes are Par-4's, etc.

[JoshEpoo]

And, some people see that as an issue in DG's evolution and are trying to change it.

IMO, getting a larger percentage of the playing population to understand scoring spread and how hole design effects that will lead to hole design and course design that is intentional and meaningful. When that happens, "seeing" Par will be easy: 1-throw holes are Par-3's, 2-throw holes are Par-4's, etc.

Well I would argue par is pretty meaningless in golf too. The problem I see is that it's just a lot easier to accurately throw a disc than hit a golf ball. There are a lot of disc golfers, even amateurs, who are sinking 30' putts at 80% or higher. To even approach that kind of consistency, even in a pool of the best golfers on the PGA tour, you have to get inside 10'. When you take disc golf's shorter holes, higher accuracy, and larger effective putting radius and then try to adopt a par rating system similar to golf you end up with something stupid.

[JoshEpoo]

Hmmmm. Reading the Close Range par stuff now...

[jongoff09]

I wish disc golf would standardize par like ball golf has. Although, some ball golf courses have the same "problems" as we see common in disc golf. I played a ball golf course earlier this week with a 390 yd par 5. I hit my drive and left myself with an easy wedge shot to the green for an eagle putt. I would be furious if I ever scored more than a 4 on that hole. I don't think I have ever seen a ball golf hole that I didn't think I could birdie though like I do in disc golf.

In ball golf, over/under par isn't how you can tell how good you are from course to course, the "rating" and "slope" tells how easy/hard the course is. Something like that is also what I would like to see in disc golf. I know the PDGA has "SSA," but that isn't in use on every course and also changes based on the scores by the players.

[JoshEpoo]

I think it's a good system, however I think the flaw is probably the assessment of the "Close Range" values in which a skilled player can get up and down in 2. I think that range is probably closer to 225' for pros, higher on a wide open shot, and even Ams are expected to be able to throw a putter 125' accurately for a layup. With those values in mind, holes less than 225' become par 2s (and I've seen this in some PDGA tournaments abroad on even longer holes).

[devin_707]

In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus two.

At my favorite course, there are three par threes that take two shots to reach the green. By that, I mean there is no player in the world that can reach these greens in one shot. I was lucky enough to play this course with Nikko Locastro last year and so I truly believe I'm not exaggerating.

So, what's the rule of thumb for determining hole par?

Should every hole be "birdiable" by somebody without making a lucky long shot?

Also, I've seen tournaments at this course play par threes for every hole (even the two that are marked as par fours). Does this practice make any sense?

Thanks and sorry if this a topic that comes up all the time.

May I ask which course you are referring too? I live in Austin, and am not too far from SA.

I would think that every hole should be birdiable by its par. There is one par 4 hole at Cat Hollow (My local course, #5) that is 599 feet. We usually play it as a 3 because it is very possible to three it with decent shots, though they would technically be considered birdies according to course par. Getting a 2 on this hole would be impossible though, unless you hit a field ace. Therefore I would think that considering it a par 4 is correct, since that would still give you the opportunity to birdie it, opposed to calling it a par 3 which gives you 1 to a million shot at getting a 2 on it.

[Sunday Mike]

How about this:
For every 100' we add a stroke.
100' hole--Par 1
200' hole--Par 2
300' hole--Par 3
etc.

[Sunday Mike]

http://209.85.48.11/6236/88/emo/troll.gif

[devin_707]

How about this:
For every 100' we add a stroke.
100' hole--Par 1
200' hole--Par 2
300' hole--Par 3
etc.

Lol... No.

[Sunday Mike]

Geez--people keep talking about scoring being "easy".
What could be easier?
And if you have a hole under 100' it's a Par Zero. Drink a beer and move to the next hole.
SIMPLE!!!!

[devin_707]

Geez--people keep talking about scoring being "easy".
What could be easier?
And if you have a hole under 100' it's a Par Zero. Drink a beer and move to the next hole.
SIMPLE!!!!

It would bruise people's egos to know that they just double bogeyed a hole lol.

[Sunday Mike]

It would bruise people's egos to know that they just double bogeyed a hole lol.
That's why you drink the beer and skip it!!
It works really well if you're playing a course designed for beginners that has a lot of holes under 100'. You can totally freakin' blasted a not give a crap about your score!!
You don't have to worry about par AND you get drunk!
BI-WINNING!!!

[greg_lange]

May I ask which course you are referring too? I live in Austin, and am not too far from SA.

I would think that every hole should be birdiable by its par. There is one par 4 hole at Cat Hollow (My local course, #5) that is 599 feet. We usually play it as a 3 because it is very possible to three it with decent shots, though they would technically be considered birdies according to course par. Getting a 2 on this hole would be impossible though, unless you hit a field ace. Therefore I would think that considering it a par 4 is correct, since that would still give you the opportunity to birdie it, opposed to calling it a par 3 which gives you 1 to a million shot at getting a 2 on it.

The course is called Brian McClain.

I tend to agree with what you say about par, above.

At McClain, I think 2, 5, and 15 should be par 4s.

If you don't want easy 4s, remake the holes.

[greg_lange]

I think the tough area comes in when a hole can either be a difficult par 3, or a fairly easy par 4. I feel that with 2 good shots a par 4 should be birdeable but a 4 still doesn't make you feel too bad on it. If it takes one shot and a simple approach and you are upset when you don't make a 3, then that should be a 3.

I might go for that par determining system.

[greg_lange]

Developed by Olorin (and some input on some of the details/concepts by me), Close Range Level Par (CR Par) bases the par determination with these two main factors in mind. If you have not read up on it, you can by going here:
http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar

Thanks for the link. It makes sense. So, maybe those three holes have the correct par. They are just nearly impossible to birdie. Good tee shots would be on "the green" as defined in the link.

[greg_lange]

Playing everything as par 3's makes for a simple scoring system. What your score ends up being is only important relative to what everyone else shot, not what course par is.

I don't see how it's easier. If you want to add by counting over or under 3 strokes on a hole, you still can.

Also, national tour events don't do this and ball golf tournaments at all levels also don't do this.

[jongoff09]

Also, national tour events don't do this and ball golf tournaments at all levels also don't do this.

I think what he means is that even though it might be said that someone scored a -12 to win, it is still the total # of strokes/throws taken that accounts for the score. Ball golf is no different, the winner is still the person with the least amount of strokes.

Par is just there to see how people are doing while the tournament round is being played. If you saw that someone is shooting at par, then you know how you are doing compared to that regardless of how many holes you have played. If someone is playing his 28th shot, then you have to know how many holes he has played to determine how well he is doing, then determine how many holes you have played vs how many shots you have taken to determine how you are doing compared to him.

[DavidSauls]

For the importance of par, "all-par-3 scorekeeping", and which method of determining par is best, see 50 other threads.

For the O.P., as to how is par set---generally it is the number of throws to get close, plus 2. There are a number of ideas as to what constitutes "close", the best way for determing par, and whether to determine it for top players, or different skill levels. There is no uniformly applied standard, so on each course it depends on who did the determining.

[grodney]

In ball golf, par is the number of shots it takes to get to the green plus two.

So, what's the rule of thumb for determining hole par?


It's the same.

If the hole was designed to be reached in 1 shot, it is a par 3.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 2 shots*, it is a par 4.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 3 shots**, it is a par 5.

If you can't easily tell how many shots a hole was designed to be reached in, there is probably a design problem with that hole.

Notes:
* Or, at the player's discretion, 1 heroic*** shot.
** Or, at the player's discretion, 2 heroic*** shots.
*** "heroic" implies risky and really really good.

It's really that simple.



Or, if you can't figure that out, there's this:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/partable.jpg

This applies to the VAST MAJORITY of courses meant for NORMAL PUBLIC PLAY. Or even minor- to medium-sized tournaments.

If you are a near genius, you can adjust the length by 3 feet for every 1 foot of elevation change, before applying the table above.

[Dave242]

CR Par.

(I just couldn't let such a straightforward method that makes so much sense have the last word).

[nocalkind]

[QUOTE=grodney;799128]It's the same.

If the hole was designed to be reached in 1 shot, it is a par 3.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 2 shots*, it is a par 4.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 3 shots**, it is a par 5.

If you can't easily tell how many shots a hole was designed to be reached in, there is probably a design problem with that hole.

Notes:
* Or, at the player's discretion, 1 heroic*** shot.
** Or, at the player's discretion, 2 heroic*** shots.
*** "heroic" implies risky and really really good.

It's really that simple.


QUOTE]


This. Exactly. If a pro can't throw a great drive and have a putt at bird it can't be a par-3. Par is designed to give you a putt at birdie if the previous throw(s) were great.

[Cgkdisc]

If only putting were as tough as ball golf but it's not. So there are legit par 3s normally reached in two throws and legit par 4s normally reached in three throws. Birdies are rare on these holes but bogeys are scored less than half the time so the pars are correct. There are ball golf holes in tournaments which yield only a handful birdies all weekend that would be the ball golf version of these more common "many more bogeys than birdies" holes in DG.

[Olorin]

So, what's the rule of thumb for determining hole par?
Close Range Par (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar) (but I may be just a little biased.)

Should every hole be "birdiable" by somebody without making a lucky long shot?
Excellent question. Two comments:
1) Make sure that the par is correctly set for the proper player skill level (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf). (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). Then remember that top pros are Gold level, so even if they're playing on a Blue level course they'll have many more birdies than Blue level players will. e.g.- on a Blue level course the real question is NOT "can somebody (even a 1000 rated Gold player) birdie this hole?" blue but "can a Blue level player birdie this hole?" Same applies to White, Red, Green level courses. If it's a Green level course then par should be set for Green level players regardless of the fact that White or Blue level players will usually have many birdies based on Green CR Par.
2) Even if a hole has par correctly set for the proper skill level then there can be holes where birdies are very rare. Holes with a level scoring average above par will have fewer birdies. For example, if a White level course has a White CR par 3 hole with a White Scoring Average (WSA) of 3.5 then a 4 will be a very common score. Most scores will be 3 or 4. Birdies will be very rare or may never even happen without a heroic hole.

So the answer to this question is "Most of the time, but not always." assuming that the "someone" is a player of the same skill level that the course is designed for.

Thanks and sorry if this a topic that comes up all the time. DGCR Par threads (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/dgcr-par-threads)
What is Par? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31) (I think it was the 31st thread on DGCR.)

[smyith]

If only putting were as tough as ball golf but it's not. So there are legit par 3s normally reached in two throws and legit par 4s normally reached in three throws. Birdies are rare on these holes but bogeys are scored less than half the time so the pars are correct. There are ball golf holes in tournaments which yield only a handful birdies all weekend that would be the ball golf version of these more common "many more bogeys than birdies" holes in DG.

thats why i think some Pro tournaments need to set some holes at Par 2. there are holes with averages near 2 at tournaments. those should realistically be changed.
also, i think that might be apart of the appeal to DG Chuck. the fact that anyone can birdie without being good. heck it took me a long time just to par a hole in ball golf. i would honestly get sick of disc golf if i had to really work to get par on every hole on every course.
thats were DG is starting to gain an advantage in my eyes. its got lots of "easy" courses, a fair amount of "moderate" courses, and quickly gaining more and more "difficult" courses. eventually DG should be able have a greater demographic range than ball golf. although because of equipment cost DG may not ever make the same $$$ as ball golf

[grodney]

If only putting were as tough as ball golf but it's not. So there are legit par 3s normally reached in two throws and legit par 4s normally reached in three throws. Birdies are rare on these holes but bogeys are scored less than half the time so the pars are correct. There are ball golf holes in tournaments which yield only a handful birdies all weekend that would be the ball golf version of these more common "many more bogeys than birdies" holes in DG.

First of all, Chuck, there's only a handful of people that understand your point here. It's not a horrible point, but it's very esoteric. Well, esoteric and wrong. But it doesn't really matter because hardly anybody gets it anyway.

Putting is easier in frisbee than in ball golf. That's true. But it doesn't change par. It just means that holes will average a lower score compared to their par, on the whole. That's it. See, that's really confusing.

This thread is in the Design section. The definition I have layed out is "Design Par". Or for short, you can just call it Par.

The end.

[Cgkdisc]

Since when is there a universal law that sports that play like golf have the same elements that define par? What if there were a golf game where players threw a tennis ball from the tee and had to hole out by tossing it into a barrel like an oil drum. However, unless you sink it from outside 15 meters, once you get within 15 meters (the green), you have to face away from the barrel and throw over your head but use a basketball. Would par automatically be the number of throws to the green plus 2?

[Cgkdisc]

thats why i think some Pro tournaments need to set some holes at Par 2. there are holes with averages near 2 at tournaments. those should realistically be changed.
That was done at Pro Worlds in 2001 and 2002. It made the overall course par come close to SSA but it seemed to make people uneasy since you couldn't regularly birdie those par 2 holes. So the practice didn't continue.

[grodney]

Since when is there a universal law that sports that play like golf have the same elements that define par? What if there were a golf game where players threw a tennis ball from the tee and had to hole out by tossing it into a barrel like an oil drum. However, unless you sink it from outside 15 meters, once you get within 15 meters (the green), you have to face away from the barrel and throw over your head but use a basketball. Would par automatically be the number of throws to the green plus 2?

I'll let the people on tennisballorbasketballoildrumgolfcoursereview.com hash that one out.

[magictenor1]

I wish disc golf would standardize par like ball golf has. Although, some ball golf courses have the same "problems" as we see common in disc golf. I played a ball golf course earlier this week with a 390 yd par 5. I hit my drive and left myself with an easy wedge shot to the green for an eagle putt. I would be furious if I ever scored more than a 4 on that hole. I don't think I have ever seen a ball golf hole that I didn't think I could birdie though like I do in disc golf.

In ball golf, over/under par isn't how you can tell how good you are from course to course, the "rating" and "slope" tells how easy/hard the course is. Something like that is also what I would like to see in disc golf. I know the PDGA has "SSA," but that isn't in use on every course and also changes based on the scores by the players.Exactly. there are hard and easy courses in ball golf and Dg should be no different.

[Lewis]

as to how is par set---generally it is the number of throws to get close, plus 2.

This is the opinion of one camp in the Great Par Debate, but it is not generally nor universally accepted. I would prefer par be described as the number of throws to get within the putting circle, plus one.

The main difference here is that in ball golf you expect a player to take two putts to hole out, but in disc golf you expect a player to make his first putt. That's just the fact of the matter for both sports, and the determination of par should reflect it.

[Rondpitt]

Given the fact that this discussion Has, and Will Go On Forever...... at some point someone has to decide what to print on the signs of the local course. (what one poster described as "The Determiner")

So, locally --- I became the determiner. I will share my determination method, but do so rather reluctantly because it won't please all. So, if you play one of my courses feel free to use your own par system. It truly won't hurt my feelings. :)

We have two sets of tees:
* One is labeled Red, and is designed for that skill level.
* The other is labeled White, but has a rotating mixture of skills depending on the pin placement, some white, several blue, and some gold.

My thinking was simple: If a "red" player is standing on a "red" tee --- what should I shoot if I shoot this WELL?
Or
If a "gold" player is standing on the long tees --- what should I shoot if I shoot this WELL?

So... using the course design score predictor chart (of CK fame) I used the 850 rating for the short tees --- because that is pretty much the skill level that plays those tees.

And I used 1000 rating for the long tees --- because (forgive the ball golf line-of-thinking) that is the top of the food chain (aka pro) for the long tee players.

A rating of 2.1 through 3.6 became a par 3. Why? Because we have not yet embraced the concept of a Par 2 hole and because I had to round up (or round down Somewhere) and I chose 3.6 instead of 3.5 or 3.7 I have that power as the determiner. :D

And a rating of 3.7 through 4.6 became a Par 4. And so on.

I comfort my personal self in the notion that at least it wasn't arbitrary. The math is real. And our tournament statistics have backed up the score predictor data perfectly.

I had this DGCR par discussion on my mind last week during a recent round. A thoroughly Am player and I were coming up on a rather tuff Par 3 hole (from the long tees) and he was making the argument that it should be a par 4. I happened to know for a fact that it was a close call mathematically -- the score predictor data showed it to be a 3.6 - near the bubble so to speak.

I cheesed up my drive by clipping a limb waaay off the fairway. My upshot was both sad and stupid. My second attempt at an upshot was weak, but still 25' away from the pin. I made the putt, carded a 4. I asked the am this question? Well, since I had 3 horrible shots and one decent putt -- for a 4; would you say I played "par" golf? He saw my point and we both agreed; I played some sad bogey golf. And I contend that real life and the math line up nicely.

Thanks,
Ron

[Dave242]

For all the banter between the PDGA scoring average Par, grodney Par & CR Level Par; the reality is that in the vast vast number of cases their results are the same. The banter is basically philosophical.....which is fun for some of us.

The big thing they all have in common is a commitment to assigning Par to a specific player level.....and doing it consistently/intentionally. They all doing with the the standard Red-White-Blue-Gold levels.

More courses need this and more course designers/determiners need to pay attention. It is great to see another course notched up the right way!

[harr0140]

For all the banter between the PDGA scoring average Par, grodney Par & CR Level Par; the reality is that in the vast vast number of cases their results are the same. The banter is basically philosophical.....which is fun for some of us.

The big thing they all have in common is a commitment to assigning Par to a specific player level.....and doing it consistently/intentionally. They all doing with the the standard Red-White-Blue-Gold levels.

More courses need this and more course designers/determiners need to pay attention. It is great to see another course notched up the right way!

In golf terms this all translates to needing a decimal based specific rating fo each hole and each layout . . . this would give us a hole rating and a course rating (for each possible setup) and without this handicaps are impossible to assess.

Count me in, I think it would help tremendously for all sorts of mini tourneys and such, but the "determiner" as a previous poster declares needs to be one person within the PDGA that can effectively rate a course based on a 1000 rated player. Take a hint for the USGA, they have how many thousands of rounds to use for statistics?

Start somewhere and if it needs adjusting do so, but start somewhere in my opinion!

[grodney]

grodney Par

"grodney Par" isn't a very good name. I prefer "Design Par", or just "Par" for short.

Besides, I didn't make it up, I'm just relaying its usage. As I've noted before, this usage has been expressed independently by the top designer (Houck), the top manufacturer (Dunipace) and the top player (Climo).

[Dave242]

"grodney Par" isn't a very good name. I prefer "Design Par", or just "Par" for short.

haha. We would all like our methods referred to by everyone as "Par"

For all the banter between the PDGA scoring average Par, grodney Par & CR Level Par; the reality is that in the vast vast number of cases their results are the same. The banter is basically philosophical.....which is fun for some of us.

While all methods have the all-important concept of designing intentionally to a specific level of player, each of these methods makes users/adopters (designers especially) think about different and important disc golf concepts:

HDC Par/grodney Par/Design Par - avoid designing holes in the gray zones since those make "tweener holes". Design for good scoring averages & spread.

CR Par - the "green" is bigger than the 10M circle. Par is dependent on effective length alone. Challenge factors (obstacles) are Design issues, not Par issues (unless the obstacles force layups or forced carries).

PDGA Par - ....well, this does not really make you think. To think, join the designers group and use the hole forecaster (which are better tools than the other camps offer).

[grodney]

haha. We would all like our methods referred to by everyone as "Par"


I knew you would catch that and the spirit in which it was intended.

[Olorin]

HDC Par/grodney Par/Design Par - ...
CR Par - ...
PDGA Par - ...

Actually, I think that 3 other names are more useful:

Traditional Golf (TG) par = HDC Par/grodney Par/Design Par. Based on "throws to the basket + 2" like the older cousin TG.

Close Range (CR) Par = CR Par. Based on number of throws to "a larger green" + 2

Score Average (SA) Par = PDGA Par. Par is determined by scoring averages for a specific skill level.

I've written at length what I see as the major pros and cons of each approach but haven't published it online anywhere. Each camp has it's advocates. TG par has some of the most well known course designers using it (Houck, McDaniel, Duvall), but these guys aren't vocal on forums. SA par has Chuck Kennedy so that became the PDGA standard. Although CR par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar) has supporters and advocates it remains a minority voice crying in the wilderness.

[Kwick]

I thought all holes were par 3:popcorn:

[Cgkdisc]

Each camp has it's advocates. TG par has some of the most well known course designers using it (Houck, McDaniel, Duvall), but these guys aren't vocal on forums. SA par has Chuck Kennedy so that became the PDGA standard.
Some clarifications here. Using TG only is old news for Houck and Duvall. PDGA par is characterized by using TG initially, if the designer isn't using the Forecaster or PDGA chart, followed by potential adjustment of either the hole lengths or some pars based on actual scores (SA) once a design can be played in competition by rated players. I think you would find that designers start from the point of view that each hole they design is intended to take one, two or three shots to the green. If that turns out not to be the case, then the hole is adjusted to meet the design intention versus the par being changed.

[Dave242]

hmmm