When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[Stud Muffin]

At the Potosi course I play often, there is a 650' par 3. It is downhill, but it is OB completely down the right side, and traditionally always facing a head wind. This means most flex shots end up OB.

Even with a good Flex shot, I still am still 300-250' out. This again, is traditionally facing a head wind, and OB down the right line. Is this a realistic distance to be making an 'approach' shot? There are Par 3's not as long as this approach shot on this course.

I do not throw far by this forum's standards. Some days better than others, but 300-330 range. Still, with the people I play DG with, I look like a mad bomber compared to them. There is no way they are making three unless they put it in 200' away.

I look at it like this, some people are very accurate, and can birdie technical holes with ease. Some people can throw really long too. If they can birdie long par 4's with ease, then they can do it, that still should be no reason to call a par 4 on a legitimate par 4 a bogey.

It just doesn't seem fair.
And, for the record, I have never made a 3 on the hole. It is an awesome challenge, and I do not beat myself up over making a 4, just hate that the scorecard does. :(

[DirtyMittenDG]

Just depends who your playing with...

[optidiscic]

How much of an elevation drop is it? It sounds wide open if you can huck a flex out there. Sounds like a weak 4 to me....so they kept it at 3

[Connor Jones]

Its still all going to a total at the end,so it doesn't really matter,call it a par 20 if that makes you feel better.

[skybird]

We have a par three that sounds just like the one you describe except it is 950'. Some holes you just take a 4 and walk away happy... Par ratings are just reference points, really. Around here everything is par 3, while somewhere else the same hole would be a 4 or 5. Its the same for everyone so what's in a number?

[Three Putt]

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker. - Willie Nelson.

[Stud Muffin]

How much of an elevation drop is it? It sounds wide open if you can huck a flex out there. Sounds like a weak 4 to me....so they kept it at 3

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4748/8c912a5b_m.jpg

It is uphill for 200', then it drops, I can not give a exact number or idea on that. It is completely wide open, but that does not make it easy. The fence to the right, OB, runs all the way down, and the basket is 40-50' from the fence. With the land being treeless here, massive wind gusts even on calmer days, and always in your face, coming a little left to right. I have thrown Wraiths on a hyzer that flipped up and over the fence. If you ever go there, there is a Huddle House across the road, which is over the fence... I have put discs in that parking lot with flex shots.

So the only safe bet is throwing a OS disc down center, and ending far left of the line. I have trouble getting much distance on that. Do not let it fool you, it is difficult to get a 4, much less a 3.

[jenb]

When is a par 3 unrealistic? How about on that 228 foot hole number 4 you should park with your putter? For every one of those on a course, there should be a hole like the one you described, just to even things out.So keep in mind that sometimes a hole that "should" be a par 4 is assigned a par 3 to even things out, because you can't assign a par 2 to the holes that deserve them.

[optidiscic]

Potosi has 4 par 4s...so this is not an everything is a par 3 argument...I'd guess its closer to a 3 than a 4 and thus they call it a 3.

[DirtyMittenDG]

When is a par 3 unrealistic? How about on that 228 foot hole number 4 you should park with your putter? For every one of those on a course, there should be a hole like the one you described, just to even things out.So keep in mind that sometimes a hole that "should" be a par 4 is assigned a par 3 to even things out, because you can't assign a par 2 to the holes that deserve them.

No hole deserves a par 2. An ace shouldn't ever be a single birdie. And I don't like that "make up par" philosophy. lol

[sansho]

I had a similar discussion with a couple of locals about our long holes who play in local tourneys but not tons of sanctioned stuff.
We have a few holes that are definitely 4's in a sanctioned tourney but everyone always plays them as 3s whether it's playing casual round or local doubles tourneys.
Like it was said above I guess it's really just a reference point and you're always playing towards a total score anyway.

But "shooting par" does obviously have its psychological advantages.

[Stud Muffin]

When is a par 3 unrealistic? How about on that 228 foot hole number 4 you should park with your putter? For every one of those on a course, there should be a hole like the one you described, just to even things out.So keep in mind that sometimes a hole that "should" be a par 4 is assigned a par 3 to even things out, because you can't assign a par 2 to the holes that deserve them.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4748/b72e572f_m.jpg

The 228' does get birdied, but not every time. There is a tree that plays Shaun Bradley with discs.

...but I have never made a 3 on number 6.

[jenb]

IDK. I guess being 18+ over par on the average course for the past 6 years has jaded me to the whole par issue. I routinely assign personal pars to holes, and feel overjoyed to get 4s on holes that no one would think ought to be par 4s. I'm sure there are men over 40 or 50 who have to deal with the same or similar issue.

[elpool009]

how's about for all them times you score a 5...every effing time...til you hit that one open pocket on your drive and you bang that 25-45 footer for a deuce...the s h i t

[Stud Muffin]

IDK. I guess being 18+ over par on the average course for the past 6 years has jaded me to the whole par issue. I routinely assign personal pars to holes, and feel overjoyed to get 4s on holes that no one would think ought to be par 4s. I'm sure there are men over 40 or 50 who have to deal with the same or similar issue.

That is sort of what I am getting at.

There should be a universal number for drive length. A realistic number. If you took the average drive of every PDGA member, and averaged them all out, NOT just the open players, and used that number.

Then use elevation and average wind to make things as precise as possible. Also factor in risk/reward.

Then establish what is a 'expected 2' area? 100', 125'? Whatever it would be, use it universally across all DG courses.

Then par would no longer be an opinion, but a decision of math. If the average drive length is outside of the expected 2 zone, then it is a par 4. If the average length of 2 drives is still outside of the expected 2 zone, then call it a 5.

[DiscGolfer947]

I think for an average player who can drive around 300-320 with accuracy the max for a par 3 should be around 450ish on a flat mostly open hole..wide open hole closer to 500-525ft. Moderately wooded holes prob around 375-400 and heavily wooded hole prob around 320-340. But every hole is different. I just set my own pars for every course I play, that hole you talk of tho should really be a 4, the only people I could see having a legitate chance at par on regular basis is someone who can consistently drive 500ft.

Edit: and there is a thing on the PDGA site that gives par guidelines by distance and foliage density for different levels of players.

[DirtyMittenDG]

....Then par would no longer be an opinion, but a decision of math...

Thats how it SHOULD be!

[Stud Muffin]

I think for an average player who can drive around 300-320 with accuracy the max for a par 3 should be around 450ish on a flat mostly open hole..wide open hole closer to 500-525ft. Moderately wooded holes prob around 375-400 and heavily wooded hole prob around 320-340. But every hole is different. I just set my own pars for every course I play, that hole you talk of tho should really be a 4, the only people I could see having a legitate chance at par on regular basis is someone who can consistently drive 500ft.

Edit: and there is a thing on the PDGA site that gives par guidelines by distance and foliage density for different levels of players.

Exactly.

And if someone has the talent and ability to do that, they should call their 3 a birdie. Instead of it being a 'common par', while every normal human being is 'below common'.

[Stud Muffin]

Thats how it SHOULD be!

:thmbup:

[optidiscic]

Thats how it SHOULD be!

there are far too many variables to realistically make a formula for what par should be....it's far easier/practical to think of par in more subjective terms. The hole in question is probably a 3.4 or 3.5 and its given a 3. This kind of hole actually is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47140

[Emoney]

Who cares about pars and birdies. U should be practicing shots and trying to throw the lowest total strokes. The "3 is par" system is just a simple way for me to keep track of my strokes.

When it counts (at tournaments) they use the total number of strokes to determine your place. Thats the goal, lowest number of strokes for your round. My opinion

[DirtyMittenDG]

there are far too many variables to realistically make a formula for what par should be....it's far easier/practical to think of par in more subjective terms. The hole in question is probably a 3.4 or 3.5 and its given a 3.

Where did you come up wit that 3.4-3.5 system? Doesn't sound very subjective. :p

[Stud Muffin]

there are far too many variables to realistically make a formula for what par should be....it's far easier/practical to think of par in more subjective terms. The hole in question is probably a 3.4 or 3.5 and its given a 3. This kind of hole actually is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47140

I don't know how to say this right, so I am going to say it as well as I possibly can.

I play a lot of DG, and I play this course a lot. Until Farmington goes up, I consider this my home course.

I have made par or better on every hole, but 6. Never have I made a par.

For something to be a 3.4 or a 3.5, then at some point, you would need to make a '3'. I have never made a 3. 4 and 5 are my usual score.

Now am I great, no. But I make 3's on number 8:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4748/d308e51f_m.jpg

A 490' par 4. I make 3's on that throwing over a lake.

#5 is considered a par 4:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4748/4d1e8d0b_m.jpg

It is slightly uphill at the very end, the basket placement, and 580'. I have never made a 3 here either, but I have made 4's.

I wrote on the Gateway website about it, because David McCormack designed it. It is just not realistic, #6 being a par 3.

[bigbeano]

When is a par 3 unrealistic? How about on that 228 foot hole number 4 you should park with your putter? For every one of those on a course, there should be a hole like the one you described, just to even things out.So keep in mind that sometimes a hole that "should" be a par 4 is assigned a par 3 to even things out, because you can't assign a par 2 to the holes that deserve them.

There is at least one course I can think of in this area that has several holes marked as par 2. Oakwood Park in Cottage Grove... the ridiculous part about it is that one of them is almost 300' through thick trees. If I remember right I think I had to make a 25' putt just to make 4 on that hole the one time I played there. Anyway, point being someone apparently feels that you can assign a par 2 to hole. I disagree, but what do I know...

[optidiscic]

Your saying that "in your opinion" the hole at question is a 3.4-3.5, right? Cus if you were stating thats what it is or what it should be, then it wouldn't be a subjective thought. :p

sure I was guessing the hole avg scores are closer to 3.4 than 4......thus it is a tweener hole (the best holes in DG) and assigned as a par 3 (there are 4 actual par 4s on the course so it must have been thought out)
The subjectiveness comes in due to the level of player....a good player SHOULD be able to throw a drive just over the crest of the hill and sail downhill to within 100 feet of the basket....upshot...and putt out. A good player might hit a long approach and birdie it and some days he might shank his drive and require a second drive and upshot and putt...or he may go oob and bogey that way. Your idea of what a good player should do is very subjective.

[Stud Muffin]

sure I was guessing the hole avg scores are closer to 3.4 than 4......thus it is a tweener hole (the best holes in DG) and assigned as a par 3 (there are 4 actual par 4s on the course so it must have been thought out)
The subjectiveness comes in due to the level of player....a good player SHOULD be able to throw a drive just over the crest of the hill and sail downhill to within 100 feet of the basket....upshot...and putt out. A good player might hit a long approach and birdie it and some days he might shank his drive and require a second drive and upshot and putt...or he may go oob and bogey that way. Your idea of what a good player should do is very subjective.

That would be a 560' drive.

This is number 7, and this is shooting back up the same hill:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4748/708cff95_m.jpg

It is downhill, but not some super massive drop off. I am not saying someone could not throw 560', but in relation to 'par' that is unrealistic.

Par is what a scratch golfer can shoot.
Of course, a scratch golfer is someone that can shoot par, so all we have achieved is circular reasoning.

Still, even ball golf has it's standards on this:
"The male scratch golfer hits his tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots. The female scratch golfer can hit her tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots."
http://golf.about.com/cs/golfterms/g/bldef_scratchgo.htm

[optidiscic]

I agree its probably not a 3....its probably a weak 4 or an easy 3 for Gold Players.....This argument happened on my home course. It was a par 4 but played more like a 4.5. It was rarely 4'd and most took a 5 or 6 on it. Climo hit a 3 and thought he had an eagle only to learn it was a birdie (disgusted)....I got a 4 on it once in 5+yrs....the problem was the hole was a weak 5 but a difficult 4 for gold level players....for most players the par set at 4 was absurd. Bottom line is that 1000 rated players probably avg over a 3 but not quite a 4 and thus its a pro 3 albeit a tough one.....for the rest of us its just a reminder that we are not 1000 rated.

[dreadlock86]

That is sort of what I am getting at.

There should be a universal number for drive length. A realistic number. If you took the average drive of every PDGA member, and averaged them all out, NOT just the open players, and used that number.

Then use elevation and average wind to make things as precise as possible. Also factor in risk/reward.

Then establish what is a 'expected 2' area? 100', 125'? Whatever it would be, use it universally across all DG courses.

Then par would no longer be an opinion, but a decision of math. If the average drive length is outside of the expected 2 zone, then it is a par 4. If the average length of 2 drives is still outside of the expected 2 zone, then call it a 5.


wind should never be a factor in par. risk/reward practically by definition should not be factored into par.



It is just not realistic, #6 being a par 3.


perhaps not for you. and regardless, there's no principle that says we should be able to make par.


and many people have pointed out already that if the par is on the fence between 3 and 4 then it's the designer's decision. par is really just the designer's way of saying "here's the shot(s) i expect you to be able to execute to score well on this hole". apparently here he wants you to throw a 400' downhill drive and a 200' downhill approach. why is that unrealistic?

[Stud Muffin]

I agree its probably not a 3....its probably a weak 4 or an easy 3 for Gold Players.....This argument happened on my home course. It was a par 4 but played more like a 4.5. It was rarely 4'd and most took a 5 or 6 on it. Climo hit a 3 and thought he had an eagle only to learn it was a birdie (disgusted)....I got a 4 on it once in 5+yrs....the problem was the hole was a weak 5 but a difficult 4 for gold level players....for most players the par set at 4 was absurd. Bottom line is that 1000 rated players probably avg over a 3 but not quite a 4 and thus its a pro 3 albeit a tough one.....for the rest of us its just a reminder that we are not 1000 rated.

I understand what you are saying totally.

What I am getting at is 1000 rating should not = big arm.

Tiger Woods is a ball golfer with majors with a big drive.
Justin Leonard is no where near as long, but won a Major.

We should not look at Avery, Nikko, and Schusterick and say, "that is average arm par".

[craftsman]

Two 300ish shots and a putt with light woods and solidly defined ob.....sounds like a 3 to me, and i am no big arm by any means.

[gcr_russell]

Two 300ish shots and a putt with light woods and solidly defined ob.....sounds like a 3 to me, and i am no big arm by any means.

Exactly my thought. Even a small armed 1000 rated player has their 3 chance here this way. With a smaller arm and still having a 1000 rating means they're more deadly within their range. Sure the Avery's may have long putts with a low percentage of making them. But 300' man will have a long upshot/short drive with a high percentage of being in the circle for their 3 as well.

[dreadlock86]

What I am getting at is 1000 rating should not = big arm.


why not??

[KenTyburski]

Some people have already mentioned each of the points I will highlight, but three things stand out to me.

One, every time I go out on course, I'm just playing against myself anyway: did I shoot poorly, average, really well, or the best round I have ever played? Did I choose the right disc? Off the tee? For my approach? What would I do differently, and how could I improve my game for the next time? If you are frustrated about not being able to ever hit a three, I'd say.. Work on your accurate distance, then a solid approach, and always work on your putting, and think about it as improving your game, not lowering your score. The score will come.

Two, ratings are based on round scores, not on individual hole scores. So those high-rated players might be able to par or hit a crazy long deuce putt on that hole. So what? I know I can't do that yet, and I'd drive myself crazy trying to think I can. If you can never take a three, then you're just going to have to find another stroke out there. Either way, the one hole is always part of a larger round.

Three, par is so subjective. When I first started playing my local course, it was about a par 65 as marked. But the people that did the original marking had no idea what "real" disc golf "par" was, by way of the PDGA guidelines. Those guidelines are one, just guidelines, and two, written to make decisions just like this one. Now the course, with its most recent updates, is a par 54 from the white tees and 57 from the blues. And the course, to me, seems loads shorter than it used to feel. When I first played it, I thought I could never break 50. I knew I would someday, because I knew I wanted to. Then, once I hit that magic 50, I knew I had to shoot 49. Now my best local round is 44, because my game just kept getting better. And I think there is only one hole I have never deuced.

You'll hit a three. But if you don't? So what? Enjoy the challenge, and work on getting 4's consistently. Then the threes will start coming faster than you know it.

(FWIW, this hole sounds like a Wraith, Buzzz, VooDoo for a three in my game. :)

[KenTyburski]

Edit: Because I became a preachy idiot.

Incidentally, I didn't notice that you've been playing for eternity. ;) You'll get the three. Have faith that the perfect set of three throws is still out there. You know they are. :)

[DiscJunkie]

I play a course that has several Par 4's and 5's. One of our holes was adjusted from a 5 to a 4 because the SSA on it slipped below 4.5. It's a tough but not impossible 4.
Does anyone play sanctioned tourneys on this course? If so, it should have an SSA figured for it and adjusted if necessary. It's science, not wild-a** conjecture. Par on any hole should be determined by it's rounded SSA, not the deluded imaginings of a bunch of opinionated hackers.
Par is not subjective, it's simple math.
Just a thought.

[pchitti]

Its still all going to a total at the end,so it doesn't really matter,call it a par 20 if that makes you feel better.

Thats my usual response to this question about different holes.

[ForTheGlory]

I think we all get too hung up on what "par" is. I also find on my home course that some par 3's are out of my range and I'm OK with that. The PDGA site has this chart for suggested pars which I found really useful:

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

I realized that I'm not crazy and that some holes are just not meant to be par 3 for someone of my limited skill level. I record total number of throws per round anyway so I judge my progress on that score instead of how many over par I am.

I really found this chart helped me feel better about the scores I was throwing and hope it can help someone else out too.

[Sneaky Alligator]

No hole deserves a par 2. An ace shouldn't ever be a single birdie. And I don't like that "make up par" philosophy. lol

then the only eagles should be aces

[DavidSauls]

I play a course that has several Par 4's and 5's. One of our holes was adjusted from a 5 to a 4 because the SSA on it slipped below 4.5. It's a tough but not impossible 4.
Does anyone play sanctioned tourneys on this course? If so, it should have an SSA figured for it and adjusted if necessary. It's science, not wild-a** conjecture. Par on any hole should be determined by it's rounded SSA, not the deluded imaginings of a bunch of opinionated hackers.
Par is not subjective, it's simple math.
Just a thought.

I'm not clear what you're saying---"SSA on it slipped below 4.5" doesn't make sense to me, since "SSA" refers to the course as a whole. Do you mean the SA (Scoring Average), or average score, of 1000-rated players on a particular hole?

It's a valid standard, though it does result in a bunch of Par-2s on shorter courses.

(Just asking for clarification, since I'm in the "par doesn't matter much" school).

[biscoe]

It's science, not wild-a** conjecture. Par on any hole should be determined by it's rounded SSA, not the deluded imaginings of a bunch of opinionated hackers.
Par is not subjective, it's simple math.
Just a thought.

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range with close range being approximately 120 feet says this deluded, opinionated hacker...

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

[Stud Muffin]

why not??

Because throwing long is just one part of the game.

Let's say, for example, I could throw a really crazy line with my Roc. A unique crazy line.

Then I design a really nice course, and on 12 of the holes, you have to be able to throw this really unique crazy line to score. So people, like myself, who can score on the crazy line do well, and those that can not just do what they can.

Then other courses start making their holes with a majority being this crazy line. So I am now looking like a very good player, much higher rated, and people who can not do not score as well. It is not that I am a complete player, it is just the courses are playing into my strength.

Now take out 'crazy line' and put in 'long'. Just super long wide open holes. Those that can throw long are naturally going to shoot better, have a more consistent lower score. More and more parks make longer and longer holes.

The game is definitely moving into a phase where courses just plays into a long thrower's strength. I like throwing long, and I like seeing people throw a disc a long way, but I have also seen Feldberg make a 4 on a 300' par 3, because he missed a gap and hit a tree.

But back to my par issue, I appreciate this link:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

It appears the standard is 400'.

Still, in being congruent with the course, it is odd you play 5 a shorter hole, a par 4, then 6 a longer hole, a par 3, then 8 a much shorter hole, a par 4. That is all I am getting at.

[Stud Muffin]

Edit: Because I became a preachy idiot.

Incidentally, I didn't notice that you've been playing for eternity. ;) You'll get the three. Have faith that the perfect set of three throws is still out there. You know they are. :)

Well I practice hard, and maybe someday soon, it will become a easy 3 for me too. ...maybe. :D

I play a course that has several Par 4's and 5's. One of our holes was adjusted from a 5 to a 4 because the SSA on it slipped below 4.5. It's a tough but not impossible 4.
Does anyone play sanctioned tourneys on this course? If so, it should have an SSA figured for it and adjusted if necessary. It's science, not wild-a** conjecture. Par on any hole should be determined by it's rounded SSA, not the deluded imaginings of a bunch of opinionated hackers.
Par is not subjective, it's simple math.
Just a thought.

Not that I know of. It just went in 1 year ago.

[jmitch]

It doesn't matter what the par on the hole is. What does matter is the final number of shots per round. Don't worry about the par is, just try and play each shot to the best of your ability.

[Olorin]

Stud Muffin,

In all humility (well maybe not) here is the answer to your OP:

1. Determine the Course Level (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf). Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green
2. Calculate the Effective Length of the hole. (Eff Length = Actual length +/- [Elevation change * 3])
3. Apply the Close Range Par (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar) guidelines for a hole of the course level. CR Par it THE best method for determining par! (But I may be just slightly biased in that assessment.)
4. Enjoy playing your par 4 hole, because that's what it will come out as even for a Gold level course.
5. Ignore everyone who says that par does not matter. See Why par is necessary (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar).

P.S.- The What is Par? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31) thread has lots more helpful information.
P.P.S.- If you really want to do LOTS more reading check out all of the DGCR threads about par (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/dgcr-par-threads).

[Olorin]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range

QFT! Listen to Biscoe!

[DavidSauls]

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

Scoring averages and scoring spreads help validate the design concepts.

[biscoe]

true... validate... not dictate.

[New013]

and we're back at the par discussion again...

the reason why par matters in ball golf is because most courses are set up to be par 72, therefore you set up your course so you generally have 4 par 3's, 10 par 4's, 4 par 5's.

in disc golf the designers don't really follow this layout so there is no standard par for the course that designers try to meet.

[denny ritner]

Stud Muffin,

In all humility (well maybe not) here is the answer to your OP:

1. Determine the Course Level (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf). Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green
2. Calculate the Effective Length of the hole. (Eff Length = Actual length +/- [Elevation change * 3])
3. Apply the Close Range Par (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar) guidelines for a hole of the course level. CR Par it THE best method for determining par! (But I may be just slightly biased in that assessment.)
4. Enjoy playing your par 4 hole, because that's what it will come out as even for a Gold level course.
5. Ignore everyone who says that par does not matter. See Why par is necessary (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar).

P.S.- The What is Par? (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31) thread has lots more helpful information.
P.P.S.- If you really want to do LOTS more reading check out all of the DGCR threads about par (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/dgcr-par-threads).

This^^^

[Olorin]

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

IMNSHO par is a design concept but scoring averages should also be used to establish the course level and that determines par. The level score averages validate the par values. Also, on tweener holes the Level Score Avg will help the designer decide whether to go up or down with the par value they assign. (Note to the par naysayers out there: yes, this does add a subjective element. That's because course design is both a science and an art.)

[denny ritner]

http://waydowndisc.com/reason.jpg

[scarpfish]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range with close range being approximately 120 feet says this deluded, opinionated hacker...

I say in 99% of cases, number of shots to reach the 10 meter circle, plus 1. On a standard 335' hole, a scratch player better get a whole lot closer than 120'.

[Thumber]

To the OP, I think the real question is the elevation. If its way downhill then throwing well over 400 leaving a 200 foot approach makes it a reasonably hard par 3 and a very weak par 4

I play on a mountain all the time and people throwing 500 downhill is pretty common. Why are you throwing a flex shot? Just pump something low and hard with lots of spin. It will accelerate going downhill and get great D.

Sounds to me like you personally can't get a 3, but that doesn't mean it s not a hard 3

[mattdabbs]

Hole 18 at Cliff Stephens is 695 feet. Your drive has to stay low through a hole in the trees about 200 feet out. After that you have another 200 feet to a lake on the right and train tracks up a hill on the left. So you have to be able to throw a lazer drive 400 feet no more than 15 feet high to get within 300 of the pin for your second shot. Then you have to avoid the lake and tracks. It is a par 3 but I would say it is a legit par 4.

[Alin]

Hole 18 at Cliff Stephens is 695 feet. Your drive has to stay low through a hole in the trees about 200 feet out. After that you have another 200 feet to a lake on the right and train tracks up a hill on the left. So you have to be able to throw a lazer drive 400 feet no more than 15 feet high to get within 300 of the pin for your second shot. Then you have to avoid the lake and tracks. It is a par 3 but I would say it is a legit par 4.

And, I have never flown a 3 on this hole...the best I've ever done is a 4. With that, I still feel I can get the 3 and it should be a par 3. One day...

[yearofrolling]

I'd say anything under 150' should be par 2.

[grodney]

par when properly applied is a design concept

Par is a design label.

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.

And, yes, it does matter which skill level the hole was designed for.


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.

If that's too hard and/or you need guidelines that work on a vast majority of courses for the vast majority of players, you can use this:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/partable.jpg

[DavidSauls]

I wonder what percentage of holes, if you use this definition and the PDGA's definition and CR-par and SA-par, you get the same "par" for? Or at least 75% of these systems?

[DiscJunkie]

Like I said before, if there is an SSA for this course and for the hole then the debate is over.
Take the SSA for the hole and round the number.
This really isn't as difficult as everyone makes it out to be.

[Olorin]

I hereby declare that Grodney Par (GRP) is a concept but no standard.

[Olorin]

Like I said before, if there is an SSA for this course and for the hole then the debate is over.
Take the SSA for the hole and round the number.
This really isn't as difficult as everyone makes it out to be.
That's only IF you hold to the SA Par philosophy. I do not. Myself and others have any entirely different outlook about the fundamental nature of par that is expressed with this idea (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar):

"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 clear 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."

[dreadlock86]

why not??

Because throwing long is just one part of the game.



if your original statement meant that distance shouldn't be the only thing, then obviously. but having a competitive distance potential is absolutely required. this means don't be bitter when a hole demands that you execute a long shot to score well. a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.

[DiscJunkie]

That's only IF you hold to the SA Par philosophy. I do not. Myself and others have any entirely different outlook about the fundamental nature of par that is expressed with this idea (https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar):

"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 clear 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."

I appreciate your candor and forthrightness.
However much I respect your approach, I disagree with your conclusion.

Anything set in an outdoors environment will change.
No matter how a hole is designed, it changes over time. Aging may occur because of weather damage, normal arbory aging, normal trampling or players may find some special way to defeat the designer's intent. In extreme cases, this may even change the par of the hole.
Using SSA is a way to track the way the hole is being at each successive tourney and set the par at a level that reflects the way the hole is played today, in an objective way.
Typically,heavily wooded courses get easier over time, lightly wooded courses tend to get togher.
The designer or club may want to tweak the design to adjust the SSA to levels they desire.

I suspect that I won't change your mind, Olorin, just wanted to elaborate on a different POV.

[Cgkdisc]

dreadlock86 - a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.
Not exactly. One shot par 3 holes shouldn't be longer than what 80-90% of the players in that skill level can reach. Power is already over rewarded in DG and holes longer than this guideline get into the unfair realm. Where extra long distance should be rewarded is on par 4s and 5s where the bomber for that skill level gets a shorter upshot (not putt) on par 4s and might be able to reach the basket in two throws on some par 5s for a potential eagle.

[Olorin]

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.
GR Par is more commonly called "Traditional Golf (TG) Par". Along with the illustrious grodney, others who use it include some of the biggest names in DG course design: John Houck, Harold Duvall, Stan McDaniel, Dave Dunipace.

TG Par is very close to CR Par. The main difference is only the size of the "putting area/ close range".

[Cgkdisc]

Those "biggest names in DG course design" may use TG par because it takes them 2 putts to hole out other than Stan. In his case, his fairways are narrow enough that it many times takes 2 throws to get near the green on his 1-shot holes and then his solid 1-putt to get in...

[Clempson13]

par is completely irrelevant. if it's a par 3, and you and everyone else make it in 4, then you are still even score-wise.

[DiscJunkie]

par is completely irrelevant. if it's a par 3, and you and everyone else make it in 4, then you are still even score-wise.

I think there is some value to a "good" par designation.
I play one course that is a Par 67, or in that range, and I play all but one of them as par 3's. I'm usually in the low 50's
My home course is a Par 63, and on a few holes (#3, #6, #8, #15), it brightens my day just to make Par.

You and others are very correct that only the final score matters, but one way I avoid nerves in a tourney is to "play the course, not the other players". Par then becomes very relevant to me.

[DiscJunkie]

GR Par is more commonly called "Traditional Golf (TG) Par". Along with the illustrious grodney, others who use it include some of the biggest names in DG course design: John Houck, Harold Duvall, Stan McDaniel, Dave Dunipace.

TG Par is very close to CR Par. The main difference is only the size of the "putting area/ close range".

I use this method to figure a "reasonable" par on some courses that are way over my head or way too easy. This lets me know how well I'm doing by my abilities.

The OP talked about a hole that is a 650' Par 3. That's ridiculous to me, so I'd play it as a Par 4. I think the OP's original question is, should that be a Par 3. I would bet that whether you use SSA or TG Par, you would conclude that it should be a Par 4.

[Monocacy]

I use this method to figure a "reasonable" par on some courses that are way over my head or way too easy. This lets me know how well I'm doing by my abilities.

Good idea. Where possible, I try to develop my “personal par” before a tournament, listing which holes I will try to reach in one and which holes I will try to reach in two. Even so, it is difficult to throw a safe shot when every instinct (often wrongly) tells you to ignore the punishing rough and go for it.

[Lewis]

If the hole would be set as a par 3 if the tee pad were placed where the planned landing zone is for a player's drive, there is no non-stupid reason to set the full version of the hole as a par 3.

[Giv'r]

I still don't see why it matters. If you usually throw a 4 when you play, just be happy when you do actually throw a 3. :confused:

[Jax11]

IMO, Dave Mac knows what he is doing when it comes to course design. I played a temporary course this past weekend on one of his relative's private land that he designed with legitimate par 4's and par 5's and it was phenomenal.

With that said, I agree this hole would fall under the "3.5" category. Based on sheer distance alone it could be a par 4, but given the fact that there is no set line or intended line you have to throw it should be a par 3, you can basically throw a controlled distance line on your first shot. I suggest trying some different lines or throwing styles to stretch yourself (in turn expanding your game) , in order to get that three. I don't know what the ground is like, but you could try a roller, make sure you get it standing up enough and let it ride the fence so it doesn't go too far off course. You could also throw a RHFH flex shot out over the OB and let the headwind turn it back in play.

I have played several 600 ft open field shot par 3's and believe you can par all of them if you can throw 300' and execute your at least 2 out of 3 of the shots to near perfection.

[zepphead33]

Always par 3, does not matter how long it is. It's not like the par screws up your score.

[Danger]

Par 2:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/381/cf9f3413.jpg

[jenb]

So how about this hole? 540 feet in the short pin position. 590 feet in the long pin position, and it is set way back in the trees at a right angle. This tee is classified as the blue tee, not the gold tee. Is par 3 reasonable for a blue tee on this hole?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/191/5af677c9_m.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=191&mode=media&view=hole&hole=1&page=1#

[jenb]

That should say 590 feet in the long pin position.

[CwAlbino]

Think about this, most people call all 3's "pro" par. There are opposite sides of the coin, but a pro should 3 that hole the majority of the time.

So how about this hole? 540 feet in the short pin position. 590 feet in the long pin position, and it is set way back in the trees at a right angle. This tee is classified as the blue tee, not the gold tee. Is par 3 reasonable for a blue tee on this hole?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/191/5af677c9_m.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=191&mode=media&view=hole&hole=1&page=1#

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

[KniceZ]

There seems to be a completely different perspective on par between ball and disc golf. The average ball golf player is unlikely to ever par a real course (par 3 courses aside). How many golfers do you know that have a zero handicap? While the average disc golfer is discouraged if they can't throw par.

Is this a continuation of the "all kids are winners" attitude of youth sports. Let's not even keep score and give everyone a participation trophy!!

[PhattD]

I think if top pros come in and average 3.5 to 4.49 it's a par 4. I think if top pros come in and average less than 2.5 it's a par 2. I don't get what the difference is between "playing" a hole as a par 3 or a par 4. If your home course has a 940' wooded par 3 and one day someone changes the sign to sat par 4 are you going to play the hole any differently? A 4 on a hole that pros average 4.5 on is a better score than a 3 on a hole they average 2.5 on regardless of what the guy in the parks department decided par should be. If you don't think any hole should be a par 2 don't make any holes that easy.

[dreadlock86]

Not exactly. One shot par 3 holes shouldn't be longer than what 80-90% of the players in that skill level can reach. Power is already over rewarded in DG and holes longer than this guideline get into the unfair realm. Where extra long distance should be rewarded is on par 4s and 5s where the bomber for that skill level gets a shorter upshot (not putt) on par 4s and might be able to reach the basket in two throws on some par 5s for a potential eagle.



interesting perspective and i can kinda agree with the highlighted. but i don't really see the distinction between long par 3's and par 4 or 5's the way you describe it. if power is rewarded on a par 4 why can't it fairly be rewarded on a long par 3?
if we disregard par and just look at strokes, what difference does it make? how does what we call par change what is fair about how far any particular player can throw?

[Cgkdisc]

The difference is that on par 3s, a player who can reach the green can regularly save a shot compared with someone AT THE SAME SKILL LEVEL/RATING who cannot with their longest throw. Imagine an extreme example course with mostly open holes in the 475-550 range. Maybe 15 of the top 50 players could reach these but still only a few birdies result to separate scores. So 35 players playing for 3s and only 15 who can reach by distance and can actually contend.

On par 4s, past a certain distance, ideally there should be risk/reward so the longer throwers risk something if they can throw past where everyone at that skill level can reach. However, if they can throw farther, they get rewarded with a shorter upshot where they can club down and be more accurate for the potential birdie 3 compared to others who have to use a more bladed disc from farther away likely with less accuracy.

Even on longer but reachable par 3s by most players in a skill level, the more powerful throwers can use rounder edged discs for more accuracy. They can also throw farther from standing and more awkward stances in the schule using rounder edged discs. So other than downhill floater shots, power is essentially rewarded on most throws which also enhances accuracy at the same time. Those who are accuracy specialists don't get the same benefit if a hole or shot is out of reach no matter how accurately they can throw.

[mattdabbs]

And, I have never flown a 3 on this hole...the best I've ever done is a 4. With that, I still feel I can get the 3 and it should be a par 3. One day...

I 3'd it 3 of the first 5 times I played it but very, very, very few times sense then.

[dreadlock86]

The difference is that on par 3s, a player who can reach the green can regularly save a shot compared with someone AT THE SAME SKILL LEVEL/RATING who cannot with their longest throw. Imagine an extreme example course with mostly open holes in the 475-550 range. Maybe 15 of the top 50 players could reach these but still only a few birdies result to separate scores. So 35 players playing for 3s and only 15 who can reach by distance and can actually contend.

On par 4s, past a certain distance, ideally there should be risk/reward so the longer throwers risk something if they can throw past where everyone at that skill level can reach. However, if they can throw farther, they get rewarded with a shorter upshot where they can club down and be more accurate for the potential birdie 3 compared to others who have to use a more bladed disc from farther away likely with less accuracy.

Even on longer but reachable par 3s by most players in a skill level, the more powerful throwers can use rounder edged discs for more accuracy. They can also throw farther from standing and more awkward stances in the schule using rounder edged discs. So other than downhill floater shots, power is essentially rewarded on most throws which also enhances accuracy at the same time. Those who are accuracy specialists don't get the same benefit if a hole or shot is out of reach no matter how accurately they can throw.


:thmbup: i'm convinced. thanks for the great answer

[bjreagh]

I feel distance is not really a factor that warrants adding a number to par. Risk/reward and odd shaped fairways (do not follow a normal disc flight path for the entire hole) where you must carefully place a couple of shots to me are reasons to make a hole a par 4 or 5. I am thinking of courses like Flyboy, Highbridge Gold, and IDGC Jackson that each have holes that fit this description and par is adjusted accordingly.

The farther you throw the better chance you have of getting pars on birdies on a couple more holes over the people just below you in distance range, but then you have the same advantage on a couple of holes over those just below you as well. I say all this and I am a relatively short thrower. I know I can't expect a 3 on a 900' hole, but some people can and good for them. I will get my stroke back on them when the next hole is in the woods!

[Stud Muffin]

To the OP, I think the real question is the elevation. If its way downhill then throwing well over 400 leaving a 200 foot approach makes it a reasonably hard par 3 and a very weak par 4

I play on a mountain all the time and people throwing 500 downhill is pretty common. Why are you throwing a flex shot? Just pump something low and hard with lots of spin. It will accelerate going downhill and get great D.

Sounds to me like you personally can't get a 3, but that doesn't mean it s not a hard 3

I have lots of room to the left. So to work the disc closest to the line from tee to basket, I throw a flex shot, but wind gusts do throw it over the fence OB. To play a hyzer line down the fence has not worked so well, also flipping over the fence OB. To play conservative, I do throw my Firebird/Predator to make sure in case of any gusts I make it back in play. If I fade to far left, I seriously extend the length of the hole. [of course, using the FB/Pred I do not have the length to reach in two.]

So for the chance to reach the circle in 2, I have to throw my Wraith or Teebird.

This is like a ball golfer with a max potential drive of 270 yards playing a 500 yard par 3.

[Stud Muffin]

if your original statement meant that distance shouldn't be the only thing, then obviously. but having a competitive distance potential is absolutely required. this means don't be bitter when a hole demands that you execute a long shot to score well. a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.

It is not about bitter, but reasonable.

In ball golf, I do not remember ever playing a par 3 hole I did not have the capable distance to reach in 1, nor a par 4 in 2, or a par 5 in 3. Now in Major Championship tourneys, yes it happens, BUT you also see a majority of the best players shoot over par when that happens.

But in disc golf, we have 400' par 3s, which means only people who can drive 400+ ft will have the potential to have 2 putts at it. But in the case of #6 in Potosi, only those who can throw a disc 660ft + have the potential to have 2 putts at it.

[timothyasteele]

I agree with you 100% that the hole is not fair. I'm assuming it was put there to have everyone lose a stroke due to some other easier holes on the course, or to really challenge the very best disc golfers to try and make a par out there. 400 to 500 foot drive, long upshot, par putt. Seems do-able for a select few, but pretty ridiculous for most decent to good players. But whoever said life was fair, right? I mean, look at a lot of courses with ridiculously difficult holes. Some of the wooded courses with 5 - 10 foot gaps between trees haphazardly growing every which way with no really defined lines are more luck than skill. At least this hole is pretty open...

Tim S.

[dreadlock86]

It is not about bitter, but reasonable.

In ball golf, I do not remember ever playing a par 3 hole I did not have the capable distance to reach in 1, nor a par 4 in 2, or a par 5 in 3. Now in Major Championship tourneys, yes it happens, BUT you also see a majority of the best players shoot over par when that happens.

But in disc golf, we have 400' par 3s, which means only people who can drive 400+ ft will have the potential to have 2 putts at it. But in the case of #6 in Potosi, only those who can throw a disc 660ft + have the potential to have 2 putts at it.


sorry, i hope that didn't come off as if i were attacking.
i just don't consider too much what is "fair" on the course, i just take what it throws at me (unless it's ridiculous!). it's definitely a long hole and you probably won't see me carding a 3 :D

[jongoff09]

There seems to be a completely different perspective on par between ball and disc golf. The average ball golf player is unlikely to ever par a real course (par 3 courses aside). How many golfers do you know that have a zero handicap? While the average disc golfer is discouraged if they can't throw par.


That is because it is so easy to putt in DG. In golf, the slopes of the green and the size of the hole make it really difficult to make putts outside of 5' for most people. In DG, most people can make 10-15', and even up to 20' putts a decent percentage of the time. So getting to that distance with a shot at par is pretty easy. Also, I believe that throwing a disc straight with your arm/hand is much easier than trying to hit a ball with a 44" stick in your hand and a flat surface as impact.

I love golf, but it is sooo frustrating :wall: ;). It is easier for me to hit a 90mph fastball than it is to hit a golf ball straight :rolleyes:

[gotcha]

No hole deserves a par 2. An ace shouldn't ever be a single birdie.

So you've never played miniature golf?

http://www.proputters.com/history/2010s/2011/national/2011_ppa_national_championship.htm

[jenb]

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

But it's actually 540 to the landing zone to be able to perform the up to the far pin position.

Also, it's a blue tee, which is supposed to be for 950 rated players. If it were a gold tee, then it would fit the criteria for a par 3, but as a blue tee, it's solidly in 4 par territory on the chart.

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

And I don't know about how any other people feel about it, but I am aggravated at seeing the top pro women finishing over par at worlds, with the leaderboard following them around displaying how far over par they are during the final 9. The women should be going from different tees or have different pars or something, because par is not just a number; it is a value judgement.

[gotcha]

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.
The value assigned to represent par for an individual hole is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the green. Holes typically are listed as par-3, par-4 or par-5, although par-6 is also occasionally encountered. A par-4 hole is going to be longer than a par-3 hole, and a par-5 longer than a par-4 (with rare exceptions).

On a par-3, an expert golfer is expected to need only one stroke to reach the green, followed by two putts. On a par-4, he should need two strokes to reach the green, followed by two putts; and so on.

For 18 holes of golf, the par is the total number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to require to complete the course.

[gotcha]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range with close range being approximately 120 feet says this deluded, opinionated hacker...

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

But the scoring averages "after the fact" can help a designer tweak the design or choose an alternative pin placement (or tee area) to yield a better scoring spread on a particular hole.

[jenb]

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.
The value assigned to represent par for an individual hole is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the green. Holes typically are listed as par-3, par-4 or par-5, although par-6 is also occasionally encountered. A par-4 hole is going to be longer than a par-3 hole, and a par-5 longer than a par-4 (with rare exceptions).

On a par-3, an expert golfer is expected to need only one stroke to reach the green, followed by two putts. On a par-4, he should need two strokes to reach the green, followed by two putts; and so on.

For 18 holes of golf, the par is the total number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to require to complete the course.

If you had only one set of tees, that might be acceptable, but whn you have three sets of tees, white, blue, and gold, and the color coding for white and blue means something less than a scratch golfer, then your definition does not apply.

[Cgkdisc]

Members of the DGCD course designers group have access to software that accurately predicts scoring average on any new hole design (+/-0.3) in advance so you don't necessarily have to wait for an event to determine those averages other than for confirmation.

[Cgkdisc]

jenb - And I don't know about how any other people feel about it, but I am aggravated at seeing the top pro women finishing over par at worlds, with the leaderboard following them around displaying how far over par they are during the final 9. The women should be going from different tees or have different pars or something, because par is not just a number; it is a value judgement.
I've discussed this with the top women over the years, and in general, they prefer playing the same tees with the same par as the Open players on courses they both play at Worlds or NTs. If they play in separate events like women in ball golf, they don't mind having different tees than Open might use and an appropriate par for blue level. But that doesn't happen that often other than USWDGC.

[simpletwist]

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker. - Willie Nelson.

The perfect quote.

[denny ritner]

don't get what the difference is between "playing" a hole as a par 3 or a par 4. If your home course has a 940' wooded par 3 and one day someone changes the sign to sat par 4 are you going to play the hole any differently?

That has always cracked me up. It also cracks me up when players spend more time studying the tee sign, instead of walking up 100 ft. and looking at the hole.

[Brall]

I've discussed this with the top women over the years, and in general, they prefer playing the same tees with the same par as the Open players on courses they both play at Worlds or NTs. If they play in separate events like women in ball golf, they don't mind having different tees than Open might use and an appropriate par for blue level. But that doesn't happen that often other than USWDGC.

at first i was surprised that the pro women would prefer to play the same tees/pars as the guys until i put a little thought into it.

i realized that these top females are true competitors and do not need special treatment. and i can guarantee that they aren't looking at their over par numbers as a value judgement even if some spectators are. i'd be willing to bet that they'd feel the same about the comparison of top female ratings to male.

[denny ritner]

I am aggravated at seeing the top pro women finishing over par at worlds, with the leaderboard following them around displaying how far over par they are during the final 9. The women should be going from different tees or have different pars or something, because par is not just a number; it is a value judgement.

Pro women and pro men should absolutely play from different tees at worlds. The first year that we had a separate woman's division at Players Cup. I followed the women around during the final round. The competition was close and Burl prevailed by 1 over Des and Val and 2 over Angela, but the golf itself was all about not making mistakes and minimizing bogeys. There were very few opportunities for the ladies to be aggressive and try to take strokes from the others. The course was designed intentionally for the guys that throw 400-450 ft. with control. Avery shot -21 for 3 rounds to win and Burl was +10 for 3 rounds.

[whiz]

The hole in question (#6) seems very threeable imo. If you can throw two shots of 325' accurately you are putting. What is so hard about that? In addition, the fence on the right would tempt me to try to throw a long distance roller. If the roller turns over to much you always have the fence to stop it. OP, do you ever try throwing rollers? This hole somewhat reminds me of hole 12 at Renaissance Gold. It is pretty open but with OB on both side of the fairway. Even most intermediate players are trying to get a three.

[harr0140]

Par needs to be defined by the PDGA in my opinion. They do have design guidelines that take into account tree density and distance, but those are only design guidelines. This needs to become part of the course installation . . . determining what par is on each hole (FROM EACH TEE) and it needs to be consistant and not subjective. Everything is a par 3 is a joke to me. Par in my mind should be based on what an average 1000 rated player would shoot on the hole over and over and over. This is just one of those times disc golf should fall in line with what golf has laid out before them!

[Cgkdisc]

Note: ball golf does have standards for par for each skill level a set of tees is designed for just like we do in disc golf. All tees do not use a scratch (expert) open golfer but a scratch (expert) player of that skill level to set par.

[scuddyp4]

Its still all going to a total at the end,so it doesn't really matter,call it a par 20 if that makes you feel better.

I agree with this. The more important thing is what your final score is. Not what you did on a single hole and whether it's a par 3 or par 4 your total score will be the same.

There's a hole on my home course that was my nemisis for years. I would par it maybe 1/10imes. Long story short. I found the shot that worked best for the hole and have had several birdies on the hole now.

It sounds like a big hyzer that is thrown out over the OB and fades back inbounds might be a good shot for this hole. That's what I would try.

[harr0140]

Note: ball golf does have standards for par for each skill level a set of tees is designed for just like we do in disc golf. All tees do not use a scratch (expert) open golfer but a scratch (expert) player of that skill level to set par.

What do you think it would take to get the PDGA involved in certifying courses and would it be worth the time and effort? Would course municipalities and such even bother contacting the PDGA to do this?

My thoughts are if you want to host a PDGA event, you need to have the course certified beforehand by the PDGA to establish the par. It would be the equivalent of having a USGA official come out and "Rate" your golf course.

[Cgkdisc]

scuddyp4 - I found the shot that worked best for the hole and have had several birdies on the hole now.
How can you say you shot birdies unless you know the "correct" par for the hole?

[Cgkdisc]

What do you think it would take to get the PDGA involved in certifying courses and would it be worth the time and effort? Would course municipalities and such even bother contacting the PDGA to do this?

My thoughts are if you want to host a PDGA event, you need to have the course certified beforehand by the PDGA to establish the par. It would be the equivalent of having a USGA official come out and "Rate" your golf course.
Something along these lines will get started in 2012 working at least from the top events down but it won't just be about courses but all the facilities and resources available in a location to support an event. CVBs (Convention & Visitor Bureaus) may pick up the tab in some cases.

[scuddyp4]

So you've never played miniature golf?

http://www.proputters.com/history/2010s/2011/national/2011_ppa_national_championship.htm

I've never seen a 3 year old make an ace on a 220' disc golf hole. I have however seen a 3 year old make an ace in putt-putt. There is a huge difference IMO.

[Alin]

I 3'd it 3 of the first 5 times I played it but very, very, very few times sense then.

When I'm at Cliff I expect bogey 4 on holes 1, 16, and 18. If I make the par 3 then all the better. Going in knowing that, there are plenty of holes for me to make birdie 2 so I can offset the bogey 4's. Then again, I have 2 aces out there...hole 3 and hole 7...with many more holes that are aceable!!

[gotcha]

I've never seen a 3 year old make an ace on a 220' disc golf hole. I have however seen a 3 year old make an ace in putt-putt. There is a huge difference IMO.

You missed the point. One can have a par 2 hole. Ever heard of the Tiki course at the Blockhouse in Spotsylvania, Virginia? 18 holes ..... all par 2.

:thmbup:

[gotcha]

By the way, did you happen to see the cash prize payout for the miniature golf tournament I posted up thread? Not bad....for par 2 golf!

[harr0140]

Something along these lines will get started in 2012 working at least from the top events down but it won't just be about courses but all the facilities and resources available in a location to support an event. CVBs (Convention & Visitor Bureaus) may pick up the tab in some cases.

Sounds great!

[scuddyp4]

How can you say you shot birdies unless you know the "correct" par for the hole?

Because I do know the correct par for the hole. The point of my post wasn't that I didn't know the correct par. It was that there is a certain shot that makes birdie much more possible and makes par almost automatic. I was trying to tell the OP that he should try and figure out what that shot is for the hole he was talking about.

[biscoe]

You missed the point. One can have a par 2 hole. Ever heard of the Tiki course at the Blockhouse in Spotsylvania, Virginia? 18 holes ..... all par 2.

:thmbup:

i would argue 17 par 2 and one par 3... (the widowmaker as they call it)

[scuddyp4]

You missed the point. One can have a par 2 hole. Ever heard of the Tiki course at the Blockhouse in Spotsylvania, Virginia? 18 holes ..... all par 2.

:thmbup:

Yes I've heard of the course. It's like putt-putt for disc golf in that it's a novelty and is more of an exception to any rule about par out there. It makes it fun on a novelty course like Tiki. I don't think it's smart to say, "Well Tiki has par 2's so lets put in a 120' hole and call it a par 2." That's not what most people are looking for when they go to a DG course.

Tiki is the exception, not the rule.

[Stud Muffin]

Because I do know the correct par for the hole. The point of my post wasn't that I didn't know the correct par. It was that there is a certain shot that makes birdie much more possible and makes par almost automatic. I was trying to tell the OP that he should try and figure out what that shot is for the hole he was talking about.

lol
Yes, I know what that shot is, a 660' drive down the center of the fairway, lol.

[scarpfish]

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.
I agree with this part. If people want to come up with these silly concepts of skill level based pars, public pars, etc., then fine, but that not what the concept of par ever meant by its original concept.

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

On a par-3, an expert golfer is expected to need only one stroke to reach the green, followed by two putts. On a par-4, he should need two strokes to reach the green, followed by two putts; and so on.
This part only applies to ball golf, since what constitutes as a "green" in each sport is a completely different animal.

Once a ball golfer reaches a green, any club they used to get to that point is now pretty much useless, and they pull out a completely different piece of equipment, (which was essentially useless prior to getting on the green) to complete the hole. Generally, considering the size of the green, the ball & the hole, its only logical to see why a golfer should get two strokes to complete the hole. One to get it close, and one to get it in.

But in disc golf, no such functional equipment restriction exists, and the edge of the "green" is an often unmarked circle (and is always a circle) with a 10 meter radius around wherever the basket is located. Once a scratch golfer reaches a point inside this circle, he will more often than not make more putts than miss. He should not need two shots from our "green" like a ball golfer should on his. Hence my definition of "par" being the the number of shots to make our "green" +1. If that means, said scratch golfer can consistently make it to the circle in one drive, and then make his putt, than I'm sorry, but that's a Par 2 hole.

[scuddyp4]

lol
Yes, I know what that shot is, a 660' drive down the center of the fairway, lol.

Yea...That would work, if you've got it in the bag. :thmbup:

[E_Rock25]

I think our pars in DG are way to easy for the most part. IMO it looks ridiculous when pros are shooting -27 or better on a "Gold Level" course.

OP I think the par is far. What is your rating? Are you one of the top 50 players in the world? If not than you should not be able to get par on every hole you play. I am not trying to be a DB but this whole par thing is ridiculous.

Case in point BRP has some par 4's that should never be par 4's unless you are playing a casual round and want to make yourself feel better about your ability. Hole 18/19 is 750' wide open with a ditch running at about 450'. I always get a 4 on this hole and that is course par but I play it as a par 3 because if I throw two 350' shots I have a chance at a 50' putt for a 3. I have 3ed this hole 2 or 3 times and it felt great. Putting in DG is way easier than ball golf so the whole 2 putt idea is BS IMO.

If we start making our greens harder than maybe 2 putts would be exceptable but as it stands the greens are for the most part to easy. If a pro player is within 40' they should make the putt IMO so calculating 2 putts into the par for most holes is crazy. I can hit 25' putts 80% of the time and 40'ers 30% of the time. Why should we give a player 2 throws to par when they are within 40'? I am just getting started as a course designer and this is going to be one of my main focuses when designing tournament quality courses. Hard greens will make DG more respectable IMO.

I don't play ball golf anymore but I never expected to shoot par or under unless I was playing a real easy par 3 type course. I was never a good ball golfer so I should not be able to par many holes IMO. I am not a bad Disc golfer and I shoot scratch for the most part but I am no where near a great DGer and I think I should shoot over par more offten than I do. That is why unless a hole is over 800' or has a ton of obstacles preventing a stright line to the basket I play all holes as par 3's.

[Stud Muffin]

I agree with this part. If people want to come up with these silly concepts of skill level based pars, public pars, etc., then fine, but that not what the concept of par ever meant by its original concept.


This part only applies to ball golf, since what constitutes as a "green" in each sport is a completely different animal.

Once a ball golfer reaches a green, any club they used to get to that point is now pretty much useless, and they pull out a completely different piece of equipment, (which was essentially useless prior to getting on the green) to complete the hole. Generally, considering the size of the green, the ball & the hole, its only logical to see why a golfer should get two strokes to complete the hole. One to get it close, and one to get it in.

But in disc golf, no such functional equipment restriction exists, and the edge of the "green" is an often unmarked circle (and is always a circle) with a 10 meter radius around wherever the basket is located. Once a scratch golfer reaches a point inside this circle, he will more often than not make more putts than miss. He should not need two shots from our "green" like a ball golfer should on his. Hence my definition of "par" being the the number of shots to make our "green" +1. If that means, said scratch golfer can consistently make it to the circle in one drive, and then make his putt, than I'm sorry, but that's a Par 2 hole.

There are plenty of videos of plenty of pros missing inside the circle putts. In fact, at the Skyland Classic this year, Nikko 3 putted from 50' away.

Why not reward good golf with a birdie, give common score golf a par, and over that bogeys. Why is that so complicated?

The whole reason for this points rating system is because courses are not congruent with their par scores.

Maybe it is better to just forget par, and rate courses on the point system and forget it, because it is the point system, not the course or designer, that would decide the real par.

[Cgkdisc]

scarpfish - If people want to come up with these silly concepts of skill level based pars, public pars, etc., then fine, but that not what the concept of par ever meant by its original concept.
Par is skill based in ball golf also. It's based on an "expert" in each of the skill levels a set of tees is designed for whether scratch expert, woman expert, weekend warrior expert, junior expert or senior expert.

[E_Rock25]

scarpfish :hfive: :thmbup:

[Stud Muffin]

OP I think the par is far. What is your rating? Are you one of the top 50 players in the world? If not than you should not be able to get par on every hole you play. I am not trying to be a DB but this whole par thing is ridiculous.

Just because I am not the top 50 in the world does not mean I am not capable of shooting par.

In ball golf, look what happens when you juice up the difficulty of par, like the US Open, most 'pro' 'top 50' golfers shoot 'over par'. In fact, they try to set the US Open up to where the winning score is 'par'.

I believe DG messed up with this point system in the beginning instead of unifying standards for 'par'. Now we have massive circular logic going on where par is what a 1000 point player would shoot, not what a course is rated. So it is the shooter defining the course instead of the course defining the shooter. Make sense?

There is always going to be a limited amount of 1000 point players, because the more people that shoot better than 1000 on courses is going to cause the course rating to drop, which makes it harder to shoot 1000 on the same course, where less people shoot 1000, which causes the course rating to go up, which makes it easier to shoot 1000...

Are you able to follow this?

Par should have been established in the beginning, where if only 150 people could shoot par, or 1,500 could shoot par, par was always relation to the course, not to other players.

my 2 cents :thmbup:

[scarpfish]

There are plenty of videos of plenty of pros missing inside the circle putts. In fact, at the Skyland Classic this year, Nikko 3 putted from 50' away.
I'm sure you can find videos of top ball golfers doing similar mess ups as well. Videos don't mean squat, percentages do. If a scratch player is hitting from a putt range better than 75% of time under normal conditions, it should be accepted that he should make that in one shot. It doesn't mean he should make that putt every time.

Why not reward good golf with a birdie, give common score golf a par, and over that bogeys. Why is that so complicated?
Complicated? Why instead of using the very convenient numerical system that is already provided, which is what we write on our scorecards and can be added up, we instead use these stupid terms involving avian and paranormal creatures, which with regards to most formats doesn't really add anything. I don't care whether someone's '3' is a par, birdie or bogey. Its a '3' and will be added up as such when the round is tallied.

Maybe it is better to just forget par, and rate courses on the point system and forget it, because it is the point system, not the course or designer, that would decide the real par.
Sounds like a plan. :thmbup:

[E_Rock25]

Just because I am not the top 50 in the world does not mean I am not capable of shooting par.

In ball golf, look what happens when you juice up the difficulty of par, like the US Open, most 'pro' 'top 50' golfers shoot 'over par'. In fact, they try to set the US Open up to where the winning score is 'par'.

I believe DG messed up with this point system in the beginning instead of unifying standards for 'par'. Now we have massive circular logic going on where par is what a 1000 point player would shoot, not what a course is rated. So it is the shooter defining the course instead of the course defining the shooter. Make sense?

There is always going to be a limited amount of 1000 point players, because the more people that shoot better than 1000 on courses is going to cause the course rating to drop, which makes it harder to shoot 1000 on the same course, where less people shoot 1000, which causes the course rating to go up, which makes it easier to shoot 1000...

Are you able to follow this?

Par should have been established in the beginning, where if only 150 people could shoot par, or 1,500 could shoot par, par was always relation to the course, not to other players.

my 2 cents :thmbup:

I agree with this and understand what you are saying but I still think the hole in question should be a par 3. Par should not be an easy thing to get and only above average players should get par or better consistently IMO.

Once again not trying to be a DB.

[E_Rock25]

Good thread by the way....

[discmeister]

Your total score compared to that of the other competitors determines how you place. Playing par golf on a easy course or being over par on a harder one is not an accurate picture of how you did. If 90% of players cannot par the holes you speak of, then you are in the majority and competitive. Worrying abour par on certain courses will cause you to lose focus and impair your performance.

[denny ritner]

. . . in disc golf, no such functional equipment restriction exists, and the edge of the "green" is an often unmarked circle (and is always a circle) with a 10 meter radius around wherever the basket is located. Once a scratch golfer reaches a point inside this circle, he will more often than not make more putts than miss. He should not need two shots from our "green" like a ball golfer should on his.

that's the problem. too many disc golfers think of the "green" as being the 10 meter circle. a 30 ft. putt in disc golf is like a 5 ft. putt in golf. that's like saying that this is a golf "green":

http://www.synlawngolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/dave-pelz-elements-of-practice-01-setup.jpg

if a disc golf basket is on flat ground, in the wide open, then i'd give the "green" a radius of about 150 ft.

[DiscChainBasket18]

At only 118', #1 at Sertoma Field in Walhalla, SC is super-short. It should be considered a Par 2. Either you Ace it (1) or Par it (2).
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3082/d8ece416.jpg?rand=4166
Look back:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3082/9aa50092.jpg?rand=1249

[optidiscic]

^^
Why I like the # of reasonable throws to 10M +1 formula vs the # of reasonable throws to the green +2 formula

[slicemaster]

To answer the OP's question......These are holes where distance makes a par 3 unrealistic.....not a 600ft wide open hole. At least you can see the basket on your hole. The first time I played this course I had to walk over 600 ft just to see the basket. (both) :)



http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/541/6afdc481.jpg 1055ft.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/541/8e715f84_m.jpg 1003ft.

[craftsman]

I agree with scarp and erock.
Par is something that players should aspire to shoot, not expect.

I also agree that the difference in opionion seems to fall at weather one or two putts are nessecary once the green is reached. I ofcourse feel one is all that should be needed.

[E_Rock25]

We need to start making greens harder.....
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd455/E_Rock26/Somerset%20Hole%20Signs/f22df681.jpg

[craftsman]

I 100 percent agree with greens being harder. The stan style ones are cool but even more hills or trees would surfice.

[optidiscic]

I 100 percent agree with greens being harder. The stan style ones are cool but even more hills or trees would surfice.

define green?

obstacles and elevation and hazzards within 120 feet of the basket are the green to me

[denny ritner]

We need to start making greens harder.....
http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd455/E_Rock26/Somerset%20Hole%20Signs/f22df681.jpg

YES!!!

[Cgkdisc]

Not hard enough to make even a 0.1 difference in putting percentage.

[optidiscic]

Not hard enough to make even a 0.1 difference in putting percentage.

hey chuck we agree..:hfive:..thats just an open putt

[Cgkdisc]

There are two ways that can change the putting percentage enough to better emulate ball golf's 2-shots for putting. One is to reduce the size of the basket. Two, is to increase the diameter of the disc required once you have landed in whatever is defined as the green area. The second option could instantly be applied with minimal investment.

[craftsman]

define green?

obstacles and elevation and hazzards within 120 feet of the basket are the green to me

I dont know. It seems that different holes have a differnt distance of what i would consider their green.

[E_Rock25]

define green?

obstacles and elevation and hazzards within 120 feet of the basket are the green to me

I agree the putt is not hard but getting to the putt is. I like the 120' idea mine might be more like 80' but not a big difference.

[DavidSauls]

There are two ways that can change the putting percentage enough to better emulate ball golf's 2-shots for putting. One is to reduce the size of the basket. Two, is to increase the diameter of the disc required once you have landed in whatever is defined as the green area. The second option could instantly be applied with minimal investment.

Three. Define the "green", or "putting", to the area that produces the same results.

[E_Rock25]

Not hard enough to make even a 0.1 difference in putting percentage.

In actual putting percentage a agree but the green is much harder than a flat one. I think of anything inside 80' as a green. So my par rating would be however many throws it takes to get to withing 80' and then add 2. In the case of the pic from Bryant the black tee par is right. The hole is 416' so a 336' drive then you get 2 more shots to make par. Big arms will have a bit of an advantage on this hole but the par rating is where it should be and the evevated pin makes it hard to get a 2 even with a 380' drive. To get a two you need a great upshot or you need to land at the bottom of the "green" for a long uphill putt.

[E_Rock25]

Three. Define the "green", or "putting", to the area that produces the same results.

this... it should be about 80'

[E_Rock25]

There are two ways that can change the putting percentage enough to better emulate ball golf's 2-shots for putting. One is to reduce the size of the basket. Two, is to increase the diameter of the disc required once you have landed in whatever is defined as the green area. The second option could instantly be applied with minimal investment.

People already complan about "perfect putts" spitting out. I don't think eather of these ideas work very well. It would be much better to double the size of the circle IMO.

[Cgkdisc]

DavidSauls - Three. Define the "green", or "putting", to the area that produces the same results.
Nope. Doesn't work that way. Same answer to E Rock25. The green is defined mathematically by the constant derived from the SSA formula which is about 1.7. In ball golf, the same parameter is 2.3. DG differs from DG by about 0.6 shots in difficulty around the green. It's not really a pure putting stat but an aggregate constant for "shots around the green." No matter what the SSA of the course from 40-72, this constant remains the same in DG and probably does in BG but they don't have the capability to measure at well as DG. Only changing the relative ratio of the projectile size to the reeptacle it lands in can significantly budge these constants. Completely blocking access from some directions (directional basket/hole) would also do it but few think that would be fair.

[scuddyp4]

I think puting things in the way (i.e. trees, bushes, ect) a little closer to the basket. Maybe blocking a whole side of the basket is really the only way that you would be able to accomplish a need to have 2 putts. There is a course that just went up in the Houston area that has some trees that block certain angles to the basket when putting. They're smaller trees but it makes putts from >25-30 a little more difficult.

I'll admit that I have changed my mind slightly since this thread has evolved. I think maybe 2 putts on shorter holes is a little generous and especially on holes like this:

At only 118', #1 at Sertoma Field in Walhalla, SC is super-short. It should be considered a Par 2. Either you Ace it (1) or Par it (2).
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3082/d8ece416.jpg?rand=4166
Look back:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3082/9aa50092.jpg?rand=1249

I don't make 120' footers often but it does happen sometimes so I think this could be a legit par 2.

Not a well designed hole IMO but I think that's a whole different thread. :)

[E_Rock25]

Nope. Doesn't work that way. Same answer to E Rock25. The green is defined mathematically by the constant derived from the SSA formula which is about 1.7. In ball golf, the same parameter is 2.3. DG differs from DG by about 0.6 shots in difficulty around the green. It's not really a pure putting stat but an aggregate constant for "shots around the green." No matter what the SSA of the course from 40-72, this constant remains the same in DG and probably does in BG but they don't have the capability to measure at well as DG. Only changing the relative ratio of the projectile size to the reeptacle it lands in can significantly budge these constants. Completely blocking access from some directions (directional basket/hole) would also do it but few think that would be fair.

0.6 is a big difference IMO. 2.3 in BG explains why BG says you get 2 strokes once you get to the green. 1.7 in DG makes the greens much easier than BG putting. Why not make the putting area large enough to get a 2.3 for DG?

[scuddyp4]

There are two ways that can change the putting percentage enough to better emulate ball golf's 2-shots for putting. One is to reduce the size of the basket. Two, is to increase the diameter of the disc required once you have landed in whatever is defined as the green area. The second option could instantly be applied with minimal investment.

I don't think either of these would work. There are no restrictions as to which club to use on the putting green in ball golf and there are no rules about which disc you can use for putting in DG. I've had to putt with a midrange or even a driver when it's been really windy. Sometimes a putter isn't the best option. In order for the disc diameter to affect anything you would need to change the diameter of all discs in order to compensate for a new rule or people would simply putt with one of their smaller diameter midranges. I don't think this would go over very well at all. I also don't see the basket size changing any time soon. I think there would be a huge uproar about completely changing the discs that we all know and love.

[Cgkdisc]

Size of the green doesn't matter in ball golf with regard to the 2.3. The primary thing that matters in both sports is the ratio of the projectile size to the receptacle size. Either a shot holes out or it doesn't presuming a shot has a clear line to the receptacle. Think about it. A shot misses but a bigger basket or hole would have caught it. That's why this ratio is the crux of the putting stats. You can call or make the green whatever size you want. But ultimately, the deciding factor is what happens when the projectile gets to the receptacle.

[tallpaul]

The return of a bigger diameter putter would be more in line with Steady's original intentions. I don't believe he had in mind the drill style putts that are most common now.

[E_Rock25]

Size of the green doesn't matter in ball golf with regard to the 2.3. The primary thing that matters in both sports is the ratio of the projectile size to the receptacle size. Either a shot holes out or it doesn't presuming a shot has a clear line to the receptacle. Think about it. A shot misses but a bigger basket or hole would have caught it. That's why this ratio is the crux of the putting stats. You can call or make the green whatever size you want. But ultimately, the deciding factor is what happens when the projectile gets to the receptacle.

Ok I get it now... How far away is this statistic derived from? There has to be some distance involved because if I am under the basket or 6'' form a bg hole I will make it every time.

The statistic must be a percentage of all putts, from all distances???

It still seem to me that defining a putt in DG as anything within 80' would make the DG number go up, closer to BGs 2.3.

[mashnut]

He's not basing it on a certain distance, it's based on looking at scoring and separating out the portion that varies with the length of the course. What's left turns out to be a constant, and that's the number of "putts" or "close range shots".

[scuddyp4]

The return of a bigger diameter putter would be more in line with Steady's original intentions. I don't believe he had in mind the drill style putts that are most common now.

If we changed the diameter of just the putter then we would have to define what a putt is. To do that would we use distance or how the disc is thrown (stand and deliver, 1 step, 2 step, jump putt) or what disc is thrown? I think it would be way to difficult to define what is a putt.

[E_Rock25]

He's not basing it on a certain distance, it's based on looking at scoring and separating out the portion that varies with the length of the course. What's left turns out to be a constant, and that's the number of "putts" or "close range shots".

Well than I return to my first point "DG Greens" must be made more difficult.

By the way Chuck I highly respect your course design and experience in our great sport, but my parents always told me to question authority... LOL

Thank you for your insite on the topic....

[GLong]

i think the definition of the 'green' varies widely from course to course. on wooded courses it is defined often by the trees/ground growth/etc that is left behind after a course is installed/'broken in'. on some courses many holes do not have a true 'green' because of several reasons - lack of elevation, lack of obstructions, absence of consequence from a long blow-by, etc.

[MNcyclone]

Chuck, I don't think the physics of a pole hole support your idea that a wider diameter disc will reduce putting percentage. If we were landing putts into a basket without chains then yes, I could see it. But as it stands the point of a putt is to make contact with the chains which will drop the disc into the basket. Wider diameter means more disc to hit chains with. Not only that, but there is more disc to hit cage or pole with to avoid a blow by.

[DiscGolfer947]

Ok I get it now... How far away is this statistic derived from? There has to be some distance involved because if I am under the basket or 6'' form a bg hole I will make it every time.

The statistic must be a percentage of all putts, from all distances???

It still seem to me that defining a putt in DG as anything within 80' would make the DG number go up, closer to BGs 2.3.

the distance away from the basket does not makes your throw a putt or not a putt, it's the way you propell the shot. like BG, it doesnt matter if your 20-30yds away on the green, you still putt...where if you were on the fairway you'd pull out wedge or something else like that from that distance. it seems to me that when i watch top pros play they are putting from ~100ft and in, depending on the player and the green. A putt should NOT be called a putt just because you are x distance away from the basket, when actually putting the percentage of putts in is probally close to BGs 2.3 [/rant]

[mashnut]

Chuck, I don't think the physics of a pole hole support your idea that a wider diameter disc will reduce putting percentage. If we were landing putts into a basket without chains then yes, I could see it. But as it stands the point of a putt is to make contact with the chains which will drop the disc into the basket. Wider diameter means more disc to hit chains with. Not only that, but there is more disc to hit cage or pole with to avoid a blow by.

Putt with a zephyr or ultrastar and revisit this point, larger diameter discs definitely make it tougher to stick putts.

[Steve West]

There are two ways that can change the putting percentage enough to better emulate ball golf's 2-shots for putting. One is to reduce the size of the basket. Two, is to increase the diameter of the disc required once you have landed in whatever is defined as the green area. The second option could instantly be applied with minimal investment.

Three is to strip down the target to just the basket. Make it disc golf, not disc target shooting.

[DavidSauls]

Nope. Doesn't work that way. Same answer to E Rock25. The green is defined mathematically by the constant derived from the SSA formula which is about 1.7. In ball golf, the same parameter is 2.3. DG differs from DG by about 0.6 shots in difficulty around the green. It's not really a pure putting stat but an aggregate constant for "shots around the green." No matter what the SSA of the course from 40-72, this constant remains the same in DG and probably does in BG but they don't have the capability to measure at well as DG. Only changing the relative ratio of the projectile size to the reeptacle it lands in can significantly budge these constants. Completely blocking access from some directions (directional basket/hole) would also do it but few think that would be fair.

Sorry, I was reading a different, much simpler meaning into your earlier post.

My reply was correct in regards to what I thought your statement was.

[denny ritner]

Three is to strip down the target to just the basket. Make it disc golf, not disc target shooting.

that would certainly lower the % made. the downside would be, though, that all putts would become the stall and drop variety, which would result in very few three putts from any distance.

changing the basket size and/or requiring different sized discs for putting are both fun intellectual exercises, but neither will ever happen.

the answer is designing dynamic greens. the charlotte crew has developed some good concepts. these are the baby steps towards real disc golf greens. the greens of the future will force players on their approach shots to consider not only the "best" route to the basket, but also the putting risk/reward scenarios that present themselves on all sides of the basket.

[harr0140]

Part of the problem here is that golf is more distance based while disc golf is more obstacle based challenge. In disc golf there are people who can throw 4-5 times as far as the recreational player, but in golf a recreational player might hit the ball 175 yard and the top pros can only double that to about 350 yards. That makes the risk reward in disc golf much different than in golf and thus birdies and bogeys might be more prevalant than pars where in golf PAR is the most frequent score. Just a theory of mine.

The other issue I wanted to touch on was the "green area". I agree that a 30' green may not be the best comparison to the actual golf green because it is true that golfers will average 2 putts per green while disc golfer probably average something like 1.25. We could expand "the circle" to 50' and push those numbers way up because it is obvious that the difference between a 30' putt and a 50' putt probably takes the putting average up near 1.75 instead of down to 1.25 putts per green average.

I wonder if Steve West has done any statistical analysis on what sort of shot spray we would have on a typical 50' green.

Another problem here is that not all baskets have 50' clear to the basket because we have been using the notion that a green is 30' and a lot of the courses I play now do not have 30' clear all around in fact some may be as small as 15' or less even. SO are all greens the same? Heck no, some will be harder than others just like in golf with undulations, bunker protection, etc etc etc.

[MNcyclone]

Putt with a zephyr or ultrastar and revisit this point, larger diameter discs definitely make it tougher to stick putts.

I love putting with zephyrs, and if they made an ultrastar in grippy plastic I would love to putt with it! Putting with Ultrastars is only hard because the stiff plastic and light weight for the diameter make them brush off the chains.

[Cgkdisc]

denny ritner - the answer is designing dynamic greens. the charlotte crew has developed some good concepts. these are the baby steps towards real disc golf greens. the greens of the future will force players on their approach shots to consider not only the "best" route to the basket, but also the putting risk/reward scenarios that present themselves on all sides of the basket.
Doesn't work statistically to have much impact although it does make holes more interesting.

[harr0140]

Sorry my last post became somewhat repetitive, I had no idea there were so many responses talking abiout the exact same issue I brought up since my previous post.

[Cgkdisc]

Steve West - Three is to strip down the target to just the basket. Make it disc golf, not disc target shooting.
Essentially the same as one which was making the basket smaller in relation to the disc.

[Steve West]

I wonder if Steve West has done any statistical analysis on what sort of shot spray we would have on a typical 50' green.

No data.

[denny ritner]

Doesn't work statistically to have much impact although it does make holes more interesting.

i don't know how you can make statistical conclusions today about something that will happen in the future . . . unless you happen to own an '86 delorean ;)

[Cgkdisc]

It just so happens that my presentation at the Fall Summit last month was called "Back to the Future" where I went 5 years into the future using my souped up Delorean Club Car getting it to 17.5 mph using my special Chuck's Capacitor...

[denny ritner]

It just so happens that my presentation at the Fall Summit last month was called "Back to the Future" where I went 5 years into the future using my souped up Delorean Club Car getting it to 17.5 mph using my special Chuck's Capacitor...

two words: mad skills!

[Cgkdisc]

Certainly some would agree with the "mad" part...

[Karl]

"Size of the green doesn't matter in ball golf with regard to the 2.3. The primary thing that matters in both sports is the ratio of the projectile size to the receptacle size. Either a shot holes out or it doesn't presuming a shot has a clear line to the receptacle. Think about it. A shot misses but a bigger basket or hole would have caught it. That's why this ratio is the crux of the putting stats. You can call or make the green whatever size you want. But ultimately, the deciding factor is what happens when the projectile gets to the receptacle."

Be careful Chuck,

While in theory I agree with much of what you're saying, back about 25-30 years ago, the USGA did an intensive experiment on the effects of increasing the hole from 4.25" to 6". Results? No negligible difference in scoring! They DID attribute this to the process of people focusing less intensely / concentrating less on the now-larger hole, etc. (thus yielding equivalent scoring), and eventually just dropped the "test" knowing that it wouldn't be worth the changes (to incorporate it into non-competitive golf, etc.) needed. So we still (all bg'ers) have a 4.25" hole.
The same MIGHT hold true to the increase of disc / decrease of basket size(s)...just in the opposite direction (than that of the PGA experiment).
You have 2 options - perhaps the "easiest" of the lot - but also don't brush off David's (that of more 'stuff' in the way 'within the green')...IMO about 110' or so circumventing the basket (akin to Biscoe's earlier post).

Karl

[Danger]

Larger baskets are not the solution. Arroyo Vortex Baskets are.

[Cgkdisc]

I found these recent test results that indicate a significant reduction in putting average for pros and ams when a golf hole is doubled in diameter from 4.25 to 8.5 inches. The early math is extremely heavy duty. But jump to the final page 2834 and the table shows the results: http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc08papers/356.pdf

[Stud Muffin]

Good thread by the way....

:thmbup:

[Stud Muffin]

To answer the OP's question......These are holes where distance makes a par 3 unrealistic.....not a 600ft wide open hole. At least you can see the basket on your hole. The first time I played this course I had to walk over 600 ft just to see the basket. (both) :)



http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/541/6afdc481.jpg 1055ft.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/541/8e715f84_m.jpg 1003ft.

That's just crazy.

I agree with scarp and erock.
Par is something that players should aspire to shoot, not expect.

I also agree that the difference in opionion seems to fall at weather one or two putts are nessecary once the green is reached. I ofcourse feel one is all that should be needed.

I understand.
I believe Birdie is something that players should aspire to, and Par should be the expected score of getting on the green and 2 putting.

[Stud Muffin]

0.6 is a big difference IMO. 2.3 in BG explains why BG says you get 2 strokes once you get to the green. 1.7 in DG makes the greens much easier than BG putting. Why not make the putting area large enough to get a 2.3 for DG?

First I want to say I love the game just how it is. Changing basket sizes and disc sizes do not sound appealing to me at all. There is nothing wrong with the game.

All I am suggesting is, make the putting area large enough to satisfy the putting difference from ball golf to disc golf.

Meaning, lets just say for a round number, 100' green, when tallied, was congruent to ball golf greens. Close enough anyways, certainly not an 'expected' putt to make.

Now, use par ratings with that. Say my longest drives are 330'. So a 430' hole would be the limit for a par 3 length. [of course, factor in density, elevation, etc.]

Then 760' would be the limit on par 4 length. [etc.]

Then 1090' would be the limit on a par 5 length. [etc.]

Now I have a short drive, but I just used my number for an example. I do not think it would be reasonable to use a number over 400' though, I want to play golf, not enter a long drive contest. :D

[GT Chris]

"Size of the green doesn't matter in ball golf with regard to the 2.3. The primary thing that matters in both sports is the ratio of the projectile size to the receptacle size. Either a shot holes out or it doesn't presuming a shot has a clear line to the receptacle. Think about it. A shot misses but a bigger basket or hole would have caught it. That's why this ratio is the crux of the putting stats. You can call or make the green whatever size you want. But ultimately, the deciding factor is what happens when the projectile gets to the receptacle."

Be careful Chuck,

While in theory I agree with much of what you're saying, back about 25-30 years ago, the USGA did an intensive experiment on the effects of increasing the hole from 4.25" to 6". Results? No negligible difference in scoring! They DID attribute this to the process of people focusing less intensely / concentrating less on the now-larger hole, etc. (thus yielding equivalent scoring), and eventually just dropped the "test" knowing that it wouldn't be worth the changes (to incorporate it into non-competitive golf, etc.) needed. So we still (all bg'ers) have a 4.25" hole.
The same MIGHT hold true to the increase of disc / decrease of basket size(s)...just in the opposite direction (than that of the PGA experiment).
You have 2 options - perhaps the "easiest" of the lot - but also don't brush off David's (that of more 'stuff' in the way 'within the green')...IMO about 110' or so circumventing the basket (akin to Biscoe's earlier post).

Karl

Did you mean to say there was no appreciable difference in scoring? As it stands, this post is somewhat contradictory.

[optidiscic]

We are not Ball Golf. We are better with far more nuances and obstacles than any ball golfer could ever imagine. Why do we always have to try to be like BOLF?

[Stud Muffin]

We are not Ball Golf. We are better with far more nuances and obstacles than any ball golfer could ever imagine. Why do we always have to try to be like BOLF?

Well the congruence is 'golf'.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the game, I love it just how it is.

The only consideration, on things like 'par', is we do have a fellow sport that is in essence the exact same sport with the exact same goal, only a different object and method. Ball Golf has been very successful, and it is wise to learn what the sport has done to become so successful.

[denny ritner]

We are not Ball Golf. We are better with far more nuances and obstacles than any ball golfer could ever imagine. Why do we always have to try to be like BOLF?

for real?

i love both sports, but disc golf on almost all courses is a skills contest of driving and putting compared to ball golf. there is soooo much more strategy and subtlety in ball golf. i think we're moving in the right direction, design-wise, though. this website is an amazing tool for exposing lots of people to this evolution. people are beginning to realize that there's much more to great design than painting with a prettier shade of grey, there's a whole amazing pallet out there that's barely been touched.

[Stud Muffin]

for real?

i love both sports, but disc golf on almost all courses is a skills contest of driving and putting compared to ball golf. there is soooo much more strategy and subtlety in ball golf. i think we're moving in the right direction, design-wise, though. this website is an amazing tool for exposing lots of people to this evolution. people are beginning to realize that there's much more to great design than painting with a prettier shade of grey, there's a whole amazing pallet out there that's barely been touched.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/image/images/small-bnb.gif

HA A HA A HA HA
He said pallet has barely been touched.
HA A HA A HA HA

[optidiscic]

Well the congruence is 'golf'.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the game, I love it just how it is.

The only consideration, on things like 'par', is we do have a fellow sport that is in essence the exact same sport with the exact same goal, only a different object and method. Ball Golf has been very successful, and it is wise to learn what the sport has done to become so successful.

My point was that we should embrace the differences about our game and not strive to become some kind of bastard love child of ball golf.

[optidiscic]

for real?

i love both sports, but disc golf on almost all courses is a skills contest of driving and putting compared to ball golf. there is soooo much more strategy and subtlety in ball golf. i think we're moving in the right direction, design-wise, though. this website is an amazing tool for exposing lots of people to this evolution. people are beginning to realize that there's much more to great design than painting with a prettier shade of grey, there's a whole amazing pallet out there that's barely been touched.

you must live in Florida :p

Most of what I play in Disc Golf courses are anything but lacking strategy and require as much thinking as skills.

[Stud Muffin]

My point was that we should embrace the differences about our game and not strive to become some kind of bastard love child of ball golf.

I agree.
I like the game as it is.
Just the philosophy of par goin' down.

[Cgkdisc]

If we are being similar but our own sport separate from ball golf, then our current equipment combination should lead us to use half pars for many holes. Opti's preferred tweeners would then make sense as 2.5 and 3.5 par holes.

[harr0140]

I both like and dislike the idea of half pars . . . while it is neat and tidy in terms of defining a holes difficulty, it is sloppy in the regards that noone will ever get a half on any given hole, they will either get a 2 or a 3 but noone will ever get a 2.5, so how can that be par?

So what I would say is each hole should be rated with a decimal number like 2.1 or 2.9 or 3.4 depending on its difficulty. Then determining par for each holes can be based on proximity to the higher or lower round number and from there there should be a balance of pars that round up and down. So a course par should be attainable by the best in the game, but the rating of each hole helps determine which holes are the hardest on the course which also assists in handicapping (at least in accordance with the way golf does it).

I am drawing off of my history with golf and golf handicaps and course rating etc because it is established.

[denny ritner]

you must live in Florida :p

Most of what I play in Disc Golf courses are anything but lacking strategy and require as much thinking as skills.

I routinely site the Pittsburgh scene (played Knob Hill, living vicariously through the internet on the rest) and Charlotte (have played 6 courses there) as two of the most progressive areas design-wise.

Florida's got a few good courses, including this one
(http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1853).

[optidiscic]

I routinely site the Pittsburgh scene (played Knob Hill, living vicariously through the internet on the rest) and Charlotte (have played 6 courses there) as two of the most progressive areas design-wise.

Florida's got a few good courses, including this one
(http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1853).

Denny that course looks very very tasty to me (added to my wish list).....why do you think disc golf is boring and bland compared to ball golf?

[denny ritner]

Denny that course looks very very tasty to me (added to my wish list).....why do you think disc golf is boring and bland compared to ball golf?

i didn't say that disc golf is boring. there is so much more touch and reading involved with greens in ball golf. the ball golf greens and pin placement reverberate all the way back to decisions on the tee shot, i.e. if the pin is on the right side of the green, then the ideal tee shot is usually to favor the left side of the fairway. when pro golfers come to a course to play their practice rounds, many will spend much of their preparation time putting and chipping around the greens. they'll also revisit greens at different times of the day, particularly on southern courses with bermuda grass. they'll be taking notes of the various pin placements that are planned for the event.

for the big dog golf pros, there's a huge amount of subtlety when it comes to hitting wedges into greens. varying the trajectory, spin, and carry distance on wedge shots requires a lot more touch than virtually any disc golf shot. the touch required on golf shots only increases as the distance decreases.

in contrast, disc golf is a much more athletic sport. i guarantee that craig stadler could not throw a disc further than maybe 320 ft. (although tiger woods could be a cashing disc golf pro within 2-3 months).

thanks for the kind words on the course. hope you get the chance to play it some day. (best october - june)

[Stud Muffin]

I routinely site the Pittsburgh scene (played Knob Hill, living vicariously through the internet on the rest) and Charlotte (have played 6 courses there) as two of the most progressive areas design-wise.

Florida's got a few good courses, including this one
(http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1853).

:thmbup:

[Stud Muffin]

For the record, I made a 3 on the 650' hole #6 today.

There was no wind today, that was key.

I got a great flex shot off with my 171 star Wraith, I would say it was in the 350-360' range.

So 290-300' out, I threw my 166 champion Wraith [a little more stable] flat and high, and let it hyzer back in, and put it about 10' away.

My Wizard did the rest.

...it felt like a birdie.

[denny ritner]

For the record, I made a 3 on the 650' hole #6 today.

There was no wind today, that was key.

I got a great flex shot off with my 171 star Wraith, I would say it was in the 350-360' range.

So 290-300' out, I threw my 166 champion Wraith [a little more stable] flat and high, and let it hyzer back in, and put it about 10' away.

My Wizard did the rest.

...it felt like a birdie.

if it quacks like a duck . . .

[Stud Muffin]

if it quacks like a duck . . .

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l60/venus160/Funny/thDonaldDuckjkbiubg87.jpg

[denny ritner]

Congrats Cards!

[Stud Muffin]

Congrats Cards!

:thmbup:

[jenb]

When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

About the time I'm teeing off?

[Stud Muffin]

About the time I'm teeing off?

:D
Oh come on now...

[HarkeyPuck]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

[Giv'r]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

Exactly. :hfive:

[Stud Muffin]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

Par is not supposed to be an opinion based rating. It is supposed to represent a number of shots to reach a basket, and either 1 or 2 putts.

You can say 18 holes is a par 17 or par 117, and it is still irrelevant.

It is just frustrating that it is not congruent.

I play Jokerest in Festus, MO, amd it has +300' par 4's.
I play Jefferson Barracks in St Louis, and it has +300 par 3's.
I play Festus, MO, and it has a +600' par 3...

[BENFTS]

At the Potosi course I play often, there is a 650' par 3. It is downhill, but it is OB completely down the right side, and traditionally always facing a head wind. This means most flex shots end up OB.

Even with a good Flex shot, I still am still 300-250' out. This again, is traditionally facing a head wind, and OB down the right line. Is this a realistic distance to be making an 'approach' shot? There are Par 3's not as long as this approach shot on this course.

I do not throw far by this forum's standards. Some days better than others, but 300-330 range. Still, with the people I play DG with, I look like a mad bomber compared to them. There is no way they are making three unless they put it in 200' away.

I look at it like this, some people are very accurate, and can birdie technical holes with ease. Some people can throw really long too. If they can birdie long par 4's with ease, then they can do it, that still should be no reason to call a par 4 on a legitimate par 4 a bogey.

It just doesn't seem fair.
And, for the record, I have never made a 3 on the hole. It is an awesome challenge, and I do not beat myself up over making a 4, just hate that the scorecard does. :(

I use a pro pig off the tee at top of the world and it's 500' easy with a big downhill, try throwing somethng slow and really throw at the same angle of the hill. If putters can go 500' you can throw them that far too with som nice downhill and a steady headwind to keep it floating.

So yea, a 4 on a par 3 is a bogey.

[Stud Muffin]

I use a pro pig off the tee at top of the world and it's 500' easy with a big downhill, try throwing somethng slow and really throw at the same angle of the hill. If putters can go 500' you can throw them that far too with som nice downhill and a steady headwind to keep it floating.

So yea, a 4 on a par 3 is a bogey.

...it's not that kind of downhill. About a 20' drop from tee to basket.

[HarkeyPuck]

Par is not supposed to be an opinion based rating. It is supposed to represent a number of shots to reach a basket, and either 1 or 2 putts.

You can say 18 holes is a par 17 or par 117, and it is still irrelevant.

It is just frustrating that it is not congruent.

I play Jokerest in Festus, MO, amd it has +300' par 4's.
I play Jefferson Barracks in St Louis, and it has +300 par 3's.
I play Festus, MO, and it has a +600' par 3...

But there are some holes out there that if we followed some formula, that would be par 2's. I agree that 650' par 3 is a TAD long, but what are you gonna do? Play it at a par that our think is fair. We have a course here that the listed par is 55. For league it's 54 because the only par 4 is a wide open downhill hole. But when playing with my friends we play it as a 4. You know what a good score is there. Don't let a sign or card make you feel bad if you throw a good 4 shots.

[jenb]

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

I watched the top card of the VPO play that hole today. Nikko Locastro, Eric McCabe, Paul Ulibarri, Jeremy Koling, and Nolan Grider all landed in position to shoot up the pike, but the majority could not penetrate the thick trees on the second shot to be able to putt for par. If the majority of the top pros can't 3 a hole, you know the par is set too low. Would you agree?

[HarkeyPuck]

At Major Tourneys maybe not. I know people hate the ball golf comparisons, but there are many times I've seen pros finish over par for 4 rounds, with the winner being even or +/- 1.

[Dave242]

At Major Tourneys maybe not. I know people hate the ball golf comparisons, but there are many times I've seen pros finish over par for 4 rounds, with the winner being even or +/- 1.

1 of the reasons people hate them is because they don't apply. All they need to do to make the course much harder is grow grass longer and mow differently to make the fairways narrower.

[Stud Muffin]

But there are some holes out there that if we followed some formula, that would be par 2's. I agree that 650' par 3 is a TAD long, but what are you gonna do? Play it at a par that our think is fair. We have a course here that the listed par is 55. For league it's 54 because the only par 4 is a wide open downhill hole. But when playing with my friends we play it as a 4. You know what a good score is there. Don't let a sign or card make you feel bad if you throw a good 4 shots.

If the 2 putt rule of par, which is not unrealistic, was made, a par 2 would have to be at or shorter than 10 meters. Personally, I believe the 2 putt par circle should be at least 50'.

[Stud Muffin]

I watched the top card of the VPO play that hole today. Nikko Locastro, Eric McCabe, Paul Ulibarri, Jeremy Koling, and Nolan Grider all landed in position to shoot up the pike, but the majority could not penetrate the thick trees on the second shot to be able to putt for par. If the majority of the top pros can't 3 a hole, you know the par is set too low. Would you agree?

yes :thmbup:

[HarkeyPuck]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

[Stud Muffin]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

Just depends on the philosophy, is par supposed to be an skilled person's ability, or should only the greatest athletes be able to achieve par?

I am more for part 1.

Pro's do not care how far under par they shoot, they care how they place. I definitely see par a Am issue, not a pro one.

[jongoff09]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

What is wrong with a pro being so low in relation to par? I don't have a problem with it. I like the golf definition of par where it is strokes to green +2. By that definition, DG scores will be lower in relation to par than golf scores because of how easy it is to putt in DG compared to golf. I like the PDGA's par guidelines for this reason. You should be rewarded with making it to the "green in regulation" (golf term) and only taking one putt. A par shouldn't be the best that anyone can do on a hole.

[denny ritner]

If the 2 putt rule of par, which is not unrealistic, was made, a par 2 would have to be at or shorter than 10 meters. Personally, I believe the 2 putt par circle should be at least 50'.

more like 150 ft. for a wide-open basket.

[Stud Muffin]

more like 150 ft. for a wide-open basket.

I want to say I got 10 meters because that is the established putting circle, so on a 150' hole, you would need 1 shot to get inside the putting circle, and then 2 putts.

I would say that for relationship to par, the circle should be extended to 50-100', or simply, what is an expected 1? 30', 40', 50'?

[HarkeyPuck]

I was using this as an example that par works both ways. We shouldn't change hard par 3's to 4's, just like we shouldn't lower par on easier holes. I have no problem with the pros shooting well. Seeing them on my home courses made me realize how good they are and gave me motivation to get better. What I was saying is that you wouldn't change par on these courses just because they shot so low & I don't think you should change par on a hole because they shoot a high score.

Pickin' up what I'm throwing in the schule?

[HeadsUpHolloway22]

Last time i was at Potosi which was last week on tuesday, they had par 5 written on the post. Along with hole 5 and 8. Are you reading it wrong or am i?

[Stud Muffin]

Last time i was at Potosi which was last week on tuesday, they had par 5 written on the post. Along with hole 5 and 8. Are you reading it wrong or am i?

That was written by casual players, not the course designer, David Mac. Here is the 'official' par for Potosi:
http://gdstour.com/the-potosi-course-update-back-nine/

[jimimc]

Wouldn't all this just be easier to use the average score of the players each tee or layout is intended for? If the SSA of a Gold course is 72 then the pars on the holes should equal 72. The same for White tees. If 72 on the white tees are a 900 rated round then the White or Am par should total up to 72. It's not that hard to take the average score for just the golfers the tees were intended for and either adjust the par or the hole some how.

[jongoff09]

Wouldn't all this just be easier to use the average score of the players each tee or layout is intended for? If the SSA of a Gold course is 72 then the pars on the holes should equal 72. The same for White tees. If 72 on the white tees are a 900 rated round then the White or Am par should total up to 72. It's not that hard to take the average score for just the golfers the tees were intended for and either adjust the par or the hole some how.

Par isn't an average score. That isn't the way it works. Course pars are a reflection of how it plays. A par 54 course should be one where every "green" is reachable from the tee for the level of player it was designed for, and if the par is 72, then you shouldn't expect to reach many of the baskets with your drive. Whether the average is par or not depends on how tough the course is for the players it was designed for.

[jimimc]

I believe in a good course design, both would and should be true. A par 3 should not only be reachable, but have a balanced score and at least a 2 stroke swing. Same for a par 4. Just because you can't reach the hole doesn't make it a good par 4. A 600' wide open hole can not be a good par 4 for a gold player. A 600' wooded hole on the other hand would make a great par 4. I'm not saying all holes have to play exact to their par, but I believe they should equal out.

[Discobedience]

A par 4 would IMO be either a distance issue, a reaching issue, or a balance between the two.

As far as distance goes, I would say that in order to jump into par 4 land you would have to be up over 1000' in the open, and no significant downhill slope. I top level AM should most of the time end up with a 4.

As far as a technical par 4, there would be no true definition. All wooded and obstacled holes are going to be so incredibly different that it tough to dicuss. I generally think of these par 4's being a long distance through the woods or having forced shots that dont allow you to reach it in 2.

Either way, where I come from up in Maine, there are very few true par 4's. You want some nice par 4's hit up Maple Hill.

[HeadsUpHolloway22]

That was written by casual players, not the course designer, David Mac. Here is the 'official' par for Potosi:
http://gdstour.com/the-potosi-course-update-back-nine/

Ahh thank you. I thought i did fairly good on that course till now lol :/ I do agree now that hole six is tough, and you would need a fairly good arm and accuracy to get it to the hole. But what i do and what many others is always to have competition within yourself and try to stack some PR's! :thmbup:

[Stud Muffin]

Ahh thank you. I thought i did fairly good on that course till now lol :/ I do agree now that hole six is tough, and you would need a fairly good arm and accuracy to get it to the hole. But what i do and what many others is always to have competition within yourself and try to stack some PR's! :thmbup:

Yea, with the other method I was shooting under par pretty often. Anyways, the back 9 is not as tough as the front, so hopefully that stroke can be made back.

[bwiese]

[QUOTE=Discobedience;1079895]A par 4 would IMO be either a distance issue, a reaching issue, or a balance between the two.

As far as distance goes, I would say that in order to jump into par 4 land you would have to be up over 1000' in the open, and no significant downhill slope. I top level AM should most of the time end up with a 4.
QUOTE]

I dont think I have ever seen a 1000' foot hole be a par 4. They have all been 5's even mostly open ones

If you you get a 4 on a 1000' hole in a tourney you walk away happy. Very few people (ams) have the power or skill to be putting for a 3. throw in yes, putting usually no.

There are tons of par 4's in the woods that aren't crazy long, just more placement holes.

To the OP if par 3 is no longer realistic, you get a 4 or worse......

[Stud Muffin]

I got another par on 6. Dropped one from 54' away. Yes, I measured it. :thmbup: