Par vs Pro Par

[Donovan]

OK so I was thinking about this while playing all these courses for the first time in Nebraska, USA. How do you decide what to list in your scorebook?

I notice that my stats are not that great and then I realized I usually play Pro Par on most of the courses. The really long courses I usually play Par. People that always play Pro Par will never have as good of stats as the ones who only play Par.

So the question is, which do you use, why do you use that one, and what criteria do you use to switch back and forth if you do that?


timg,

Do you think we could have the total stats side of the playbook show your stats as options (or tabs)for: Par, Pro Par, & Total? I wonder what good those stats are otherwise? I mean if they enter them as Par then those go int he Par totals and likewise the Pro Par. I did not mean grab data as if each round was played as both.

What do you think?

[timg]

Short answer.. no :) Btw, if you have a question for me a PM is usually better since I occasionally won't see a post in the public forum.

Re: Pro Par vs. Par, it is usually indicated on the scorecard and sometimes depends on the tee you play. It's also a hot topic among some but since some courses/scorecard make the distinction, I added it to the site.

[PhattD]

As far as I know your score doesn't change depending on what par you use. If you are comparing your score to course par as a way of comparing rounds from one course to another, For instance I am more impressed by a 56 at Grand Woods than a 52 at MSU, You would have to have a far more standardized system of setting par than we currently have. I basically use par as a convienience for score keeping. It's easier for me to keep track of -2 than 31 after 11 holes. It's also easier to remember 18 holes are par 54 and 24 holes are par 72 than to worry about what some random course designer thought on this particular course 12 years ago when Cyclones were the longest disc out there.

[Donovan]

As far as I know your score doesn't change depending on what par you use. If you are comparing your score to course par as a way of comparing rounds from one course to another, For instance I am more impressed by a 56 at Grand Woods than a 52 at MSU, You would have to have a far more standardized system of setting par than we currently have. I basically use par as a convienience for score keeping. It's easier for me to keep track of -2 than 31 after 11 holes. It's also easier to remember 18 holes are par 54 and 24 holes are par 72 than to worry about what some random course designer thought on this particular course 12 years ago when Cyclones were the longest disc out there.

PhattD, I am not refering to the score, but the eagles, birdies, pars,...you get the idea.

[ERicJ]

For statistical purposes like that I made the decision not too long ago to play everything as a par 3, unless I know the course uses carefully designed par values. A Houck course will have real pars. If I shoot a 4 out there on a "Par 5" I'm calling that a birdie not a bogie.

Take Hudson Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=539&mode=hi) for a counter-example, I've played there once. Par posted on the signs is 67! That was a good par for my brother-in-law who was playing for his second time ever, and wearing a knee brace from ACL surgery a couple months before. I shot a 55 my first time there. Was that really a -12 round? Heck no. I mean their par 5 holes are 500 footers with nothing in the way. If I played there now I'd probably "Eagle" at least one of those in most rounds.

That all being said there really isn't a standard for what DGCR par vs. pro par is... much less what par is in disc golf in general. [Cue Olorin].

ERic

[jedwards]

For statistical purposes like that I made the decision not too long ago to play everything as a par 3...

I do this too. Granted I do not play a lot of different courses but I find it so much easier to play everything as par 3.

[nosajeel99]

I do this too. Granted I do not play a lot of different courses but I find it so much easier to play everything as par 3.

Second! Or third - whatever number I am. I play all Par 3 unless I know otherwise.

[Aaron D'Angelo]

I use the par system that the park has set up. I know it may seem easy for some but as I am just starting out playing (like 2 1/2 months) that is how I do it. When I become better I might switch to all par 3's. However some courses I play have 1 or 2 holes that start at 669' from the red/short tees. I can't consider those par 3, I just don't have that kind of arm.

[PA_Disc]

I use the par system that the park has set up. I know it may seem easy for some but as I am just starting out playing (like 2 1/2 months) that is how I do it. When I become better I might switch to all par 3's. However some courses I play have 1 or 2 holes that start at 669' from the red/short tees. I can't consider those par 3, I just don't have that kind of arm.

I think its a safe bet that being 669', it could be considered a par 4.

[djext1]

I play, and always have played (except maybe those first few months in the beginning) "pro par". Everything in three. Here is why:

54 is the magic number. It's much easier to keep track of your "up" or "down" when everything is in three. The key is, that you don't think about it as "i'm over on this one" or "under on that one"..it's your OVERALL SCORE that matters. It's what you finish with. Because you aren't measuring or keeping track of your birdies, eagles, etc...you keeping track of your strokes. The number of strokes it takes you to finish 18 holes of ANY course, is what matters. It's what makes any course anywhere universal.

If I run into some guy at course A, and we begin talking about some other town and it's local course, course B, when the guy tells me he shoots on average a 51 at course B I know immediately how good or bad he does on that course. I know the number of strokes it takes him to finish.

Don't think of it as "when I get good enough I'll switch to pro par"..it has nothing to do with good or bad, it's just a way of making it easier to keep track of your score and compare it to others. Not too mention I think a larger number of 'serious' players play pro par over course.

[ERicJ]

I use the par system that the park has set up. I know it may seem easy for some but as I am just starting out playing (like 2 1/2 months) that is how I do it. When I become better I might switch to all par 3's.
That's exactly what I did. And that's how I got the only Eagle of my career (so far). It was my first round at Vista Del Camino Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=920), after I'd been playing 2 1/2 months:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/scorebook.php?vall=1&sort=&vcrse=920&fd=2008-02-01&sd=2008-02-14&mid=519

And I '2'ed hole number one which is listed as a Rec par of 4. I was definitely a "Rec" player at the time. Playing that hole now it would definitely be a par '3' for me. I'm not gonna go back there again and play it as a '4' (to pad my stats) just because I'm not in a tournament. I know that should be a par 3 for a player of my level.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/920/0fffe4f4.jpg

ERic

[Innovadude]

Par? is it relevant? Playing the course blind, not for $, does it matter what you shot?
I am not usually keeping score as I go. I know whether the throws I made were good or not that day. I don't feel a need to compare to what some course designer dreamt up as a Par for their course.
Just use numbers, there's no confusion that way.

[ZMan44]

Agreed...I am not a pro. Not even close. But I always use the Par 3 for everything unless I go to a long, long course where par is clearly defined per hole. For me, it also makes keeping up with my score much easier.

[PA_Disc]

Par? is it relevant? Playing the course blind, not for $, does it matter what you shot?
I am not usually keeping score as I go. I know whether the throws I made were good or not that day. I don't feel a need to compare to what some course designer dreamt up as a Par for their course.
Just use numbers, there's no confusion that way.

I guess you could argue the same thing for ball golf... In reality the only reason to have Par is to set a standard for Tourneys.

[ptsawyer]

I agree with the "pro par" I guess. The problem with using course par, is that there is no consistency from course to course on what a par 3, 4, or 5 is. When I am keeping score in my head, I use 3 as "par" for every hole, and add my over/under to 54 to get my total. That is what I track in my spreadsheet along with my friends scores is the total strokes. That is universal.

The key is not to get too caught up in a 4 or a 5 being a "bad" hole. There is a 600 ft+ hole at a local course here in Dayton, and I consider a 4 there a success. Its really all just BS anyways, the only thing that makes one round better than another is your total strokes.

[nosajeel99]

The par discussions won't stop, I don't think. there is a whole other thread dedicated to it. I agree that the number of strokes is really what counts, not your par for the numerous reasons listed above.

But, par (if it could be easily established) would help in determining how good someone is on a course I have never played. So if someone shoots a 58 on a course I have never played, is that good or bad? If everything is 250',then it is probably not a great score, but if all of the holes are 400' or longer, then that is a good score. The par (2 under par, or 3 over par types of language) help to inform on how good someone is if you have not played the course (which in my case is about 2,800 courses).

Even using 54 strokes as par leaves it open to interpretation of if that is "true" par or not.

[timg]

How do ball golf courses determine par? Distance alone?

[PA_Disc]

How do ball golf courses determine par? Distance alone?

Yes and no. Distance is the #1 overriding factor, but it really is a combination of things. 1. Based on a "scratch golfer" round/"Par golfer". 2. Course obstacles, trees, fairway width, elevation... I think that the only ones allowed to determine actual par is a "registered" golf rater-whatever.

Let me see if I can find the distances.

[PA_Disc]

The current guidelines are these for men:

Par 3 - Up to 250 yards
Par 4 - 251 to 470 yards
Par 5 - 471 yards to 690 yards
Par 6 - 691 yards or more

And for women:

Par 3 - Up to 210 yards
Par 4 - 211 to 400 yards
Par 5 - 401 to 575 yards
Par 6 - 575 yards or more


**I didn't even know they had PAR 6???


Here is better info on how they determine par.

It's important to note that the current USGA guidelines are not, in fact, based on actual yards, but on a hole's "effective playing length." Effective playing length is one of the factors taken into account when a course is given its USGA Course Rating and USGA Slope Rating.

Effective playing length, and why it's used in these guidelines, is pretty easy to understand. Say a hole's actual yardage is 508 yards. That hole, by its actual yards, might be a par-5. But what if the hole plays downhill all the way? It's effective playing length - how long the hole actually plays like - might be closer to 450 yards. Therefore, a hole whose actual length might make some think it should be par-5 really only plays like a par-4. According to current guidelines, that hole would be a par-4 (the guidelines are not hard and fast rules, by the way, but simply ... well, guidelines).

[nosajeel99]

Yeah, I would think that dog-legs and such would make the par change. A shot to get around the corner if you will...

And in ball golf, just the same as in disc golf, there will be tough par 3s and easy par 4s. I don't think that is a bad thing.

[DiscChainBasket18]

Told to me by a local 'open' player during a club weekly singles tourney: "Pro" par is 3's on everything regardless of hole listings. Of course this guy could hit everyting in at least 3 throws. He also gets mad when he asks for your score & you say "2 over" (par), etc. He then says "that was a 56 right?", and I say "no, there were two baskets in the long today (par 4's) today"! Then he comes back angrily with "so you shot a 58, right?" I sheepishly relpy "yes" but secretly decide to do that to him every time now just to see him get upset. Isn't Disc Golf fun?

[timg]

Sounds like a fun guy.. although I'd do the same thing as you just to mess with him :) Also, the "all par 3" thing isn't really a great system. Sure, it makes scoring easier but you could always just write your score down.

The sport is progressing and holes are becoming longer and more challenging. Eventually the idea that everything is par 3 will have to be dropped. Playing #15 at Idlewild or #11 at Baker Farm as par 3 would be ridiculous. Each of those holes clocks in at 900-1000ft.

[magictenor1]

I always play par as listed. I have never seen anyone at a ball golf course say:" I know it says par 5 but I play everything as a 3". It doesn't happen. Par is not that consistent in our sport but there is also wide variation in BG courses. A US Open course is a lot harder than my local municipal course.

[ERicJ]

How do ball golf courses determine par? Distance alone?
Primarily it's "effective distance" to the green, plus two strokes for putting on the green.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf#Par

ERic

[ERicJ]

Told to me by a local 'open' player during a club weekly singles tourney: "Pro" par is 3's on everything regardless of hole listings.

That's not really true.

Check out the fantastic Caddy Book (http://www.usdgc.com/caddybook/caddy_book_final_web.pdf) for the USDGC (http://www.usdgc.com/). There's lots of Pros there playing holes that are not par 3.


He also gets mad when he asks for your score & you say "2 over" (par), etc. He then says "that was a 56 right?", and I say "no, there were two baskets in the long today (par 4's) today"! Then he comes back angrily with "so you shot a 58, right?" I sheepishly relpy "yes" but secretly decide to do that to him every time now just to see him get upset. Isn't Disc Golf fun?

I guess you can have all the fun you want at his expense, but just be aware that if you get into the habit of doing that it can come back to bite you in a tournament.

If your score is added/reported incorrectly it will result in penalty strokes.

If you say the exact number to the scorekeeper there's no ambiguity involved. But if you start saying anything else, e.g. "two over", "par", "bogey", etc. the scorekeeper may not interpret that the same way you meant it. Just a head's up if you plan on playing serious DG.

ERic

[ERicJ]

I always play par as listed. I have never seen anyone at a ball golf course say:" I know it says par 5 but I play everything as a 3". It doesn't happen. Par is not that consistent in our sport but there is also wide variation in BG courses. A US Open course is a lot harder than my local municipal course.

Ball golf course pars seem to be in a very tight range: 70-72.

Disc golf course posted pars are all over the place. I love the Hudson Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=539) example with par 67. Where was the last 18-hole ball golf course you saw that had a par of 13 strokes over the "norm"?

As many have said before: for casual play, par is irrelevant. It's your final score that matters.

ERic

[DiscChainBasket18]

That's not really true.

Check out the fantastic Caddy Book (http://www.usdgc.com/caddybook/caddy_book_final_web.pdf) for the USDGC (http://www.usdgc.com/). There's lots of Pros there playing holes that are not par 3.




I guess you can have all the fun you want at his expense, but just be aware that if you get into the habit of doing that it can come back to bite you in a tournament.

If your score is added/reported incorrectly it will result in penalty strokes.

If you say the exact number to the scorekeeper there's no ambiguity involved. But if you start saying anything else, e.g. "two over", "par", "bogey", etc. the scorekeeper may not interpret that the same way you meant it. Just a head's up if you plan on playing serious DG.

ERic
No 'habit'.
I just do it with him (& a lot of other people do to) because he gets all bent about it. Everywhere else (PDGA tourneys included) I write down & tell my actual score.

[Innovadude]

Sounds like a fun guy.. although I'd do the same thing as you just to mess with him :) Also, the "all par 3" thing isn't really a great system. Sure, it makes scoring easier but you could always just write your score down.

The sport is progressing and holes are becoming longer and more challenging. Eventually the idea that everything is par 3 will have to be dropped. Playing #15 at Idlewild or #11 at Baker Farm as par 3 would be ridiculous. Each of those holes clocks in at 900-1000ft.

Though it was wicked to witness a '3' on #11 at Baker Farm in the '99 Worlds, and I was within 80' last time on my 2nd drive.

[ERicJ]

The sport is progressing and holes are becoming longer and more challenging. Eventually the idea that everything is par 3 will have to be dropped. Playing #15 at Idlewild or #11 at Baker Farm as par 3 would be ridiculous. Each of those holes clocks in at 900-1000ft.

Yesterday Tim Skellenger tossed a double eagle on the 901' par 5 hole #12 at the USDGC:

http://www.usdgc.com/10/02/jared-pennington-double-eagle-on-12

Pretty sweet. 900' in two throws... just thinking about that makes me want to run out and start heaving discs!

ERic

[JR Stengele]

It makes me realize how much more work I need to do to EVER get that distance.

[magictenor1]

Ball golf course pars seem to be in a very tight range: 70-72.

Disc golf course posted pars are all over the place. I love the Hudson Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=539) example with par 67. Where was the last 18-hole ball golf course you saw that had a par of 13 strokes over the "norm"?

As many have said before: for casual play, par is irrelevant. It's your final score that matters.

ERic I did say par is not very consistent in our sport but who says that 54 is the magic # ?

[Geoffro]

I am relatively new to the game, but I think a lot of this depends on the course. There are lots of courses out there where there are par 3 holes that realistically should be par 2. Typically, this occurs on short courses where room is not available for 18 realistic par 3 holes. We've also seen courses where the pars are clearly listed for casual players (par 4 on all holes), with no pro par listed. Other courses, no par is provided, though there is a clear difference between one hole to the next (hole 3 should be par 3, and hole four is 500+' with several turns and should be par 4).

If you're playing a course where the pars are realistic for the holes, I think you have to play the pro pars listed, be they 3 or 5. If you aren't, then I guess the 3 par rule applies?

The difference between ball golf and our sport is that unfortunately, disc golfers are often left to the course designers (or lack thereof) to determine par. This is often a very subjective determination, and in some cases, the determination never gets made.

I think it would be cool idea if a forum like this could begin to establish realistic pars for courses reviewed on the site. I know this could lead to endless argument and discussion on certain holes, but on many holes on many courses an established par could be established. When reviewing a course, we could enter a par for each hole - clearly most of them would be 3's, but when most of us agree that a certain hole should be a 4 or a 2 par, that would stand, as least with us. When you would pull up a course on this site, and look at a particular hole, the average par rating could be displayed - if a bunch of people rated the hole par 3, and one rated par 4, the average rating would come up "par 3.08," and we would all play this as par 3. Just an idea.

Until then, or some entity takes responsibilty for consistently rating all courses, I will play pro par when available, and make it up as I go along otherwise:)

[Lewis]

The pdga website offers guidelines, though they don't really give us a rule of thumb:

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

Boil this down as you like, but here's how I like to think of it:

From the middle tees (white), you begin to see par 4 around an effective distance of 400 feet (corrected for obstacles or slope), and you begin to see par 5 around 700 feet. The "red" or "recreational" distance guidelines are shorter, but if red tees exist, they are going to be designed as shorter fairways anyway. The inverse holds for the "gold" or "pro" tees: par 4 and 5 are supposed to be longer, but so are the gold fairways.

Another way to estimate par is to think of how many throws it would take the normal player to throw as far as the basket, and add one putt.

[ERicJ]

...Disc golf course posted pars are all over the place. I love the Hudson Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=539) example with par 67. Where was the last 18-hole ball golf course you saw that had a par of 13 strokes over the "norm"?
...who says that 54 is the magic # ?

I didn't say there was anything mystical about it, just that it was the typical value.

Tim, if you're listening would you pull some stats from the DGCR database and tell us what the mode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_%28statistics%29) is for the Par value listed for 18-hole courses. (It might be interesting to pull the value from the Course Info field and the other value from the Hole Info sum to see if they're the same.)

ERic

P.S. djex1 said 54 was the "magic number" (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10780&postcount=10). ;)

[ERicJ]

I think it would be cool idea if a forum like this could begin to establish realistic pars for courses reviewed on the site. [...] When reviewing a course, we could enter a par for each hole...

But... par for who? A novice player, a REC player, INT, ADV... Pro? Male or female?

And... from where? From which tee? To which pin position?

DGCR is not set up to hold different par values for all those combinations.


I would rather see DGCR report the average score on each hole (from the DGCR Scorebook entries) per tee. But just like the other raging thread on course difficulty if you wanted an accurate number you'd need to know the skill of the player shooting those hole scores.

You could restrict the reported data to only players with PDGA ratings, but that limits your sample size... and has the added complexity that you really want to know the rating of the player at the time they played the hole. (Players get better and worse over time.) I guess DGCR could add a field to each scorebook entry that was "Player Rating at time played" and it would default to your current value. Knowing the skill of the player recording the score is the only way to qualify the data to something meaningful.

ERic

[ERicJ]

I was impressed looking at the Maple Hill site.

http://www.maplehillopen.com/courses.html

They adjust their course par and hole layout based on the empirical data gathered from rounds played. E.g. see hole #3 (http://www.maplehillopen.com/courses_mha3.html).

My $0.02 is that's the way courses should be designed, adjusted, and have par defined. A course designer can have the best intentions for claiming a par value they think is realistic... but there's no substitute for bringing in a bunch of good players and seeing what really happens.

ERic

[DannyM]

I fully agree with having the "actual par" of a course as determined by what it was averaged after say 2 tournaments. There are going to be holes that rec. players will probably average 4's or 5's, where pros may average 3, but I have seen pros take a 5 on a hole at my course last tourney, that every round I got a 2 on. <and I play adv. Master>. Having doing the "stats" for my local course after tournaments, I was surprised to see that the most variance on holes was not the "longer" holes <over 400'>, but actually the tighter, technical holes, some as short as 180'. There are a lot of players who can drive incredibly, BUT, they lack the "finesse" touch shots.

[Olorin]

That all being said there really isn't a standard for what DGCR par vs. pro par is... much less what par is in disc golf in general. [Cue Olorin].

I'm trying to hold back here. One par discussion at a time is all I can handle. ;)

[Olorin]

Second! Or third - whatever number I am. I play all Par 3 unless I know otherwise.

Uggghh! Could y'all please differentiate between scoring and par? For ease of keeping your score I can see how people track scores relative to 3, but to say that every hole is par 3 is nothing but ludicrous! Among multiple examples look at Winthrop Gold (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=27) and Renaissance Gold (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=587&mode=hi). Saying that every hole is a par 3 is totally untrue and adds tons of needless confusion. Can we please get past this?

[Olorin]

I use the par system that the park has set up.

Double Aaaarrggghhhh! Can we please get rid of Recreational Par too??? There should only be one par. (And that should be CR Par-- had to get that in.)

[Olorin]

Par? is it relevant?

Deep sigh...

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:

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

[Olorin]

The problem with using course par, is that there is no consistency from course to course on what a par 3, 4, or 5 is.

Amen! Preach it!

[Olorin]

Yesterday Tim Skellenger tossed a double eagle on the 901' par 5 hole #12 at the USDGC:

http://www.usdgc.com/10/02/jared-pennington-double-eagle-on-12

Pretty sweet. 900' in two throws... just thinking about that makes me want to run out and start heaving discs!

ERic

Naw, it was just a nice birdie! :rolleyes:

[Donovan]

Naw, it was just a nice birdie! :rolleyes:

Dang, I have been away a whole day and you said what I was thinking. BAH! :D

[Donovan]

I have been basically taking any courses that have mostly par 3's set up on then and playing them as all par 3's. Now the courses that have various pars set up on them that are fairly realistic, I have been recording those as the posted pars. This is not a steady way of keeping track of course statistics for the masses, which is why I asked the original question in this thread. However, it is about as fair a shake as I could come up with.

I very much against all holes are par 3's, having recreational level pars (par 5 straight ahead 320 feet hole, and I will "never" (never is a strong word, but I feel it is a bad concept) be a fan of par 2's.

[Donovan]

That's not really true.

Check out the fantastic Caddy Book (http://www.usdgc.com/caddybook/caddy_book_final_web.pdf) for the USDGC (http://www.usdgc.com/). There's lots of Pros there playing holes that are not par 3.

The Caddy book rocks! This is how I keep preaching Hole signs should be marked. Lots of different footages listed. I of course got the idea of this from the ball golf caddy books back in the day.

[Donovan]

BTW, great list of 10 Olorin!

Having a standard for pars in disc golf will never come to rest at distance alone.

We will need to determine the value of so many things, like:
length of a tunnel shot
how far out and sharp the turn is on a dog leg hole
do the number of new trees vs old tree effecting the route
on and on...

Once someone builds a weight system or value system to the many factors that make up the difficulty rating system per hole for our game, then it will have to be taken out tested by various levels of play. When we can figure out the flaws in the ratings then we will adjust them and test it again.

Once we have a good general system for a difficulty rating system then finding a simple math equation to help come up with a par will be simple.

This will be tough to do, but not impossible. Until something like this idea, or a better idea is developed, I still am a fan of having some various levels of players play the hole and come up with an average par. With that I believe the pros scores should count twice when they do the averages, because that is where everyone's game would be at the optimum level.

[Olorin]

The difference between ball golf and our sport is that unfortunately, disc golfers are often left to the course designers (or lack thereof) to determine par. This is often a very subjective determination, and in some cases, the determination never gets made.

I think it would be cool idea if a forum like this could begin to establish realistic pars for courses reviewed on the site.

I vote for using Close Range Par as the standard. Once everyone sees the elegance of wisdom of it the world will be a better place. (Go here (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30)for the start of an explanation of CR Par... if you dare!)

[Donovan]

I vote for using Close Range Par as the standard. Once everyone sees the elegance of wisdom of it the world will be a better place. (Go here (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30)for the start of an explanation of CR Par... if you dare!)

I think that is a very reasonable way to look at par. Here is my initial questions:

So I am guessing by how I read this, you do believe in par 2's?
I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?

[Disc Golf Greg]

I play the posted Par unless I'm at my local course (closet course to me). Then I use all Par 3's. Also I think Par 2 is kind of weird. Par in Golf has always been 3, 4, or 5 and it should be no different for Disc Golf if you ask me. 2 for Par is way to short and seems pointless, and a 6 seems to long and what the hell would a 2 be on a Par 6. Triple Eagle is something I never wanna hear.

[Lewis]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole. This is why most disc golf holes are par 3, while most ball golf holes, which expect skilled players to need two putts, are par 4. This, in turn, is why disc golf courses tend to set par for a round at 54, and ball golf courses tend to set par at 72. The extra 18 strokes in ball golf are one more expected putt per hole.

[Olorin]

I think that is a very reasonable way to look at par. Here is my initial questions:


Q: So I am guessing by how I read this, you do believe in par 2's?
A: Yes, they're theoretically possible but if any even exist they are incredibly rare with CR Par. You really need to read the whole CR Par document (available at DR Resources) b/c there are some tables that can't be posted on here. The lengths of Close Range for each skill level are:
Gold 100 ft
Blue 90 ft
White 80 ft.
Red 70 ft.
Green 60 ft.
So to be a par 2 a Blue level hole has to be 90 ft or less. Ever seen one on a Blue level course? I doubt it. Maybe on a Green level course, but not a Blue.
BTW, the PDGA currently uses Score Average (SA) par as it's standard, but the dirty little secret is that to be true to this method there have to be thousands of par 2s all throughout the world. The powers that be just skirt the issue by ignoring this and just calling them par 3s, even if doing so is contrary to their own methodology. One of the reasons for developing CR Par was to resolve this par 2 problem.

Q: I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
A: Yes, one should.

Q:And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?
A: Theoretically almost anything is possible. It's conceivable that designer could have this intention. Have you ever seen a hole like this in the real world? There's nothing in CR Par that would disallow this.

[Olorin]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole. This is why most disc golf holes are par 3, while most ball golf holes, which expect skilled players to need two putts, are par 4. This, in turn, is why disc golf courses tend to set par for a round at 54, and ball golf courses tend to set par at 72. The extra 18 strokes in ball golf are one more expected putt per hole.

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

[Olorin]

because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole.

From the PDGA stats guru, Chuck Kennedy:
"Statistically, when considering all courses, the number of “close range” shots in DG is 30 per 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Of course, the actual ATG factor will vary from course to course. On an 18 hole course to average 1.67 means that on 12 holes (66%) a player will take 2 throws, while on 6 holes (33%) of the time he/she will make it in 1 throw. So he takes 1 throw to finish on 1 out of 3 holes."

[discinvan]

Here is a Blog from David McCormack ( owner of Gateway) about his philosophy on Par. I agree with him on this. They are designing a new course in my home town and they are making all holes as par three. I personally think some of the holes are long enough 450' + that for an average player ( par player) on average they will shot a 4. \http://gatewaydiscs.blogspot.com/2008/06/disc-golf-pilosophy-101.html

[ERicJ]

Q: I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
A: Yes, one should.

Who decides what the "intended path" is? And whose intention are we talking about?

If you answer "the course designer", what if they're no longer around? Or perhaps more relevant: who is this all important designer to tell you how you should throw a hole?

Hole measurements should give players the raw information and allow the player to decide how they want to approach the hole.

That's my $0.02,
ERic

[Donovan]

Q:And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?
A: Theoretically almost anything is possible. It's conceivable that designer could have this intention. Have you ever seen a hole like this in the real world? There's nothing in CR Par that would disallow this.

I have not. I guess that is why I asked. I hate to make it confusing, but ERicJ and I both see this side of this issue. Intended line of flight is a real tough one for me. if a tree is dead in the center of the hole and the tree is fuller on one side, how do you determine what the intended fairway really is? That is just one example I have had with measuring holes or determining a par on a hole that has multiple routes to the pin. I just find that confusing unless it is marked that it is figured a certain way.

[stargator231]

i play everything as a par 3 unless its a huge course with holes that are around 1000 feet

[Lewis]

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

The difference is that we're not using the same terminology. When I say "putt," I don't mean to include 70-foot approach shots. A 70-footer is what I think of as an "approach," and I tend to think of a "putt" as 30 feet or less. My analogy with ball golf doesn't exactly fit the "close range" terminology of disc golf, but I stand by the point.

[Olorin]

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

The difference is that we're not using the same terminology. When I say "putt," I don't mean to include 70-foot approach shots. A 70-footer is what I think of as an "approach," and I tend to think of a "putt" as 30 feet or less. My analogy with ball golf doesn't exactly fit the "close range" terminology of disc golf, but I stand by the point.Actually, the "close range" terms are only used by those who use the Close Range Par method. The PDGA definition above was written well before CR Par was developed, so the PDGA term means something different than I use in the context of CR Par. The PDGA is also not referring to 70 ft. approach shots as "close range". In the PDGA definition "two close range throws to hole-out" refers to 2 putts, which are defined as 10m (32.5 ft) or less.

In addition, if you were only allowing 1 putt then you'd have to move in the distance to a radius that a player of a given skill level would make 100% of the time. Even 1000 PR Gold level players don't make 100% of their putts from 30 ft. I have no idea what that length would be? 25 Ft? 20 Ft.? Who knows? But for Blue, White, and Red level courses, with a corresponding par for that level, the 100% putting circle would be even closer.

[Olorin]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole.

I'm really not trying to argue, but this is a unique view. Do you know of anyone with "a position of influence" in disc golf who holds this view? I used the term "a position of influence" as an attempt to designate someone with credibility and experience. I'm sure there are tons of casual rec players who have all sorts of wild ideas of their own that few other people would ever buy in to, so it's quite possible that there may be other players out there who support this "1 putt per hole" idea.

[ZMan44]

I agree 100%. It makes absolutely no sense to have a par 2 unless the hole is 50 feet or less...and I have never seen a hole like that. The main problem that I have with it is that, philosophically, I don't think that any disc golf hole should require the player to get an Ace in order to birdie the hole. If we start designating 150 to 200 feet holes as par 2s, the same principles discourage any possibilities for holes over a par 3. Let me explain.

If we say that most experienced disc golfers will get a 2 on a 180 foot hole, it would probably be an accurate statement. But then we get to a hole that is 500 long, by the same logic, this could only be a par 3 because the average experienced player probably drives around 300-350. From there they are the same distance away and by the same logic, in order to birdie they must "hole-out" from the fairway.

It just doesn't make sense. Typically I play everything as a par 3, and only for score keeping purposes. If I am at a really long course that has par listed and it seems reasonable, I will go along with the course. If you play a hole perfectly (not an ace, but exactly as it is designed), I think it is fair that you deserve a birdie. If you hit an amazing shot, you deserve an eagle. Just because a lot of Pros will birdie it, doesn't make the Par too "easy". There are plenty of 378 yard par 4s on the PGA tour that the ball golfers birdie 65+% of the time. Just because they birdie it more often than not, it is never discussed that par should be changed to a 3 for that hole....that would just be illogical.

[PhattD]

I'm really not trying to argue, but this is a unique view. Do you know of anyone with "a position of influence" in disc golf who holds this view? I used the term "a position of influence" as an attempt to designate someone with credibility and experience. I'm sure there are tons of casual rec players who have all sorts of wild ideas of their own that few other people would ever buy in to, so it's quite possible that there may be other players out there who support this "1 putt per hole" idea.

Just for my own perspective when thinking about par in disc golf I've always considered allowing only 1 putt. Of course I am thinking of the "green" being the 10m circle. I think we agree that a skilled player should sink more of those than not. So any hole short enough, and easy enough, to consistantly put your drive within 10m should be par 2, meaning that's what a skilled player should expect to get. My opinion of par is that it is really a score keeping convenience. In ball golf if you tell someone you came in at +6 for 18 they will assume you shot 78. Then they will wait to see what course you shot 78 at before they decide whether or not to be impressed. So I am in the it's all par 3 camp and I will be until we come up with a standard like ball golf has.

[Lewis]

PhattD, do you have a position of influence? ;)

Seriously, though, the "par 3" standard is hard to argue with unless you see a pro playing a really short hole, or a recreational player playing a really long hole. To throw more fuel on the fire, looky here at a page on the pdga website (which I think I've also posted in another thread):


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

According to that chart, players rated under 850 should play to par 4 on holes of over 350 feet, and to par 5 on holes of over 550 feet; similarly, players rated around 1000 or more should play par 2 up to about 250 feet. These are just guidelines, of course, and it's hard to imagine course designers setting up tee pads to accomodate them. However, it's a point in the case against the universal par 3 system.

[Geoffro]

But... par for who? A novice player, a REC player, INT, ADV... Pro? Male or female?

And... from where? From which tee? To which pin position?

DGCR is not set up to hold different par values for all those combinations.


I would rather see DGCR report the average score on each hole (from the DGCR Scorebook entries) per tee. But just like the other raging thread on course difficulty if you wanted an accurate number you'd need to know the skill of the player shooting those hole scores.

You could restrict the reported data to only players with PDGA ratings, but that limits your sample size... and has the added complexity that you really want to know the rating of the player at the time they played the hole. (Players get better and worse over time.) I guess DGCR could add a field to each scorebook entry that was "Player Rating at time played" and it would default to your current value. Knowing the skill of the player recording the score is the only way to qualify the data to something meaningful.

ERic

Thanks for this, ERic - good information and suggestions. I still believe some sort of standard needs to be established, whether through the website or otherwise.

[Olorin]

To throw more fuel on the fire, looky here at a page on the pdga website (which I think I've also posted in another thread):

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

According to that chart, players rated under 850 should play to par 4 on holes of over 350 feet, and to par 5 on holes of over 550 feet; similarly, players rated around 1000 or more should play par 2 up to about 250 feet. These are just guidelines, of course, and it's hard to imagine course designers setting up tee pads to accomodate them. However, it's a point in the case against the universal par 3 system.

Whoa now. You'll cause a bigger inferno by misusing that document. That document refers only to setting par according to course layouts, Thus a Gold level layout uses Gold Par, a Red level layout uses Red par. It DOES NOT mean that if a Red level (850 PR) player goes to a Gold level course that he plays all holes according to Red Par. ALL players play the same par that matches the course layout level. Since the majority of courses only have one set of tees there is only one level. Courses with multiple tees can have multiple levels, though, according to each layout.

[Olorin]

similarly, Gold level layouts (italics for corrected wording) should play par 2 up to about 250 feet.

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

[Ryan P.]

I really do like PhattD's idea of having a set par on every course. However, with disc golf being recreational and professional, i don't think that we can make that happen. There will always be courses that demand a very good player to hit a 54 (straight up par 3 course), and other courses where the average player is usually right at a 54. the only good way to do it would be to make most courses more equal. however, if we always played every course as a 54, it would kill a lot of these talks about what par should be.

[ghova]

I like the way the dude at hyzer creek determines whether his pars are appropriate or not. http://www.hyzercreek.com/stats.htm
there are some very hard holes there but the pars are fair and if you play a hole well you will have a shot at a birdie on some easier holes, but usually you will be rewarded with a par. very well designed course.

[PhattD]

PhattD, do you have a position of influence? ;)


Yes Missionary :cool:

[PhattD]

Whoa now. You'll cause a bigger inferno by misusing that document. That document refers only to setting par according to course layouts, Thus a Gold level layout uses Gold Par, a Red level layout uses Red par. It DOES NOT mean that if a Red level (850 PR) player goes to a Gold level course that he plays all holes according to Red Par. ALL players play the same par that matches the course layout level. Since the majority of courses only have one set of tees there is only one level. Courses with multiple tees can have multiple levels, though, according to each layout.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can't you pretty much play whatever par you want? I mean if you play a gold level course and you're more of a red level player can't you just figure what red level par would be and use that to judge if you had a good round? Maybe I'm not seeing what the purpose of "par" is.

[Donovan]

I really do like PhattD's idea of having a set par on every course. However, with disc golf being recreational and professional, i don't think that we can make that happen. There will always be courses that demand a very good player to hit a 54 (straight up par 3 course), and other courses where the average player is usually right at a 54. the only good way to do it would be to make most courses more equal. however, if we always played every course as a 54, it would kill a lot of these talks about what par should be.

I guess I really don't understand. So what if a pro shoots 18 under par on a course. In ball golf, they shoot crazy numbers on some courses, that does not make them change their pars. They are par 3 courses in ball golf, for the reason of making things easier for the people who don't hit the long drives, for people to improve their short game, and for the lack of space to put in a regular 18 hole course (among other reasons). However, that is just an example of how ball golf works. Why should our game be any different.

All par 3's for every course is a poor solution for our sport and it is not the direction we should promote. It would be nice if the truly par 3 courses were marked as par 3 courses, but that may take much time to convince those communities to adjust that as it will cost many of them money to do.

It will also help this cause to stop forcing the longer courses into having everyone think they should play them all as par 3's. That does no good to help the sport either. If that is how you keep score the easiest, then do it that way for you, but forcing others under that same umbrella, is not really helping the game evolve. I am guilty of this at times as well.

[Donovan]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can't you pretty much play whatever par you want? I mean if you play a gold level course and you're more of a red level player can't you just figure what red level par would be and use that to judge if you had a good round? Maybe I'm not seeing what the purpose of "par" is.

On a ball golf course it is the way people use to measure themselves against each other, equally, against that course.

Golf is a game against the course, but without having a hole by hole comparison, we will never be able to determine the hierarchy of the difficulties of the holes on a course to establish and all equal and fair handicap system, which is another future for our sport.

Ball golf is established and working well. Whether we like it or not, it is our best example of how we should look to the future. The last 2 posts are where my opinions are falling at this stage of the game. So take them as just that, opinions. :cool:

[PhattD]

If I remember correctly Ball golf went through some similar adjustments in it's early years too. The tradition of 18 holes is pretty much a random number base on the amount of land available at St. Andrews (I think). Even today Ball golf course vary greatly in difficulty even with the same par. So if you really want to get a codified standard that all Disc Golf course designers will follow first of all good luck and second see you in about a hundred years (ok that might be an exageration ;) ).
I think that the first thing that needs to be decided is the purpose ie whatare you trying to accomplish by setting par? Do you want a standard to compare scores? ie if I shoot 2 down at my michigan course and you shoot 2 down at you home course we can figure we pretty close in skill? Or do you want a standard for course design ie 18 hole courses are par 60. Or maybe we just want a standard so if I travel down to Texas I can look at the scorecard see whatpar is and then I know around what I should shoot. Another complication is the fact that in ball golf players distance capabilities have a much smaller differential between a rank amateur and a pro. Tigers average drive is approx 300 yds 240 yds isn't all that hard even for a novice. Thats only a 25% increase. We've all seen novices out on the disc golf course where 200' is long and the top pros throw 500'. that's a 250% increase. Golf has a regulatory body that will send a team out to your course to set the rating and slope and this is after the course has already been built to be par 72. We can't even get score cards for half our courses. Much like odd and even the concept of par is a philosophical illusion. (well not really but it sounded cool)

[ERicJ]

It will also help this cause to stop forcing the longer courses into having everyone think they should play them all as par 3's. That does no good to help the sport either. If that is how you keep score the easiest, then do it that way for you, but forcing others under that same umbrella, is not really helping the game evolve. I am guilty of this at times as well.
In my best Olorin voice...
"Par on a hole and keeping score are completely different things."

Par on the hole can be '4' and you can still treat the hole as a '3' relative to keeping your score.

ERic

[ERicJ]

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.
If scores on a hole are more often '2' than they are '3' I don't really have a problem with par on that hole being set at '2'.

That being said... I just got done "designing" a full course for my first time. I use quotes because I didn't really design it from scratch; it's a monster 10,000+ ft gold level course laid out on top of an existing 18-hole course. You play nine new holes forward and then turn around and play nine new holes backwards. It's awesome.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_files/2576/351ea3a6.jpg

Anyway... the guy I was designing this with and I were playing it and trying to come up with gold level par values for all the holes. We thought there were several marginal holes that could be 3 or 4. We'd decided on 12 par 3's and six par 4's. for a total of 60. That was a really tough par and anyone shooting that would have a great round. But that's what error free gold play should shoot.

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360'). My first time really applying CR par to see how it'd work. Total came out to 68. That's what's on the map I linked above. There are now a few easy 4's and an easy 5. I can see the upside of making an easy par so players get the ego boost of birdies now and then. And on this course if you can toss 450' you have a couple shots at eagles.

But the downside is that I think 68 is too easy a par for gold level. I think we'd get a more accurate par from just a few rounds of play from respectable players. So far there are nine complete rounds logged on the finished layout:

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q193/ejubin/Largo_ssa_081008.jpg

I'd guess that those average rounds drop by at least 2-3 strokes each with a couple more rounds played. We plan on running a Winter league on this course so it'll be interesting to see how the averages turn out.

In the end I guess it all comes back to the question of "What is par?" or as a course designer "What do you want par to be?". Should it be what you expect players (of the appropriate level) to shoot? Or should it be purely based on drive distance + ATG?

ERic

[Lewis]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because scoring average seems to me to be the right way to calculate par. Look at it this way: if "par" is the standard for high quality play, you shouldn't set it at 3 for a hole where quality play would earn you a 2. Likewise, you shouldn't set it at 3 where quality play would only earn you a 4. Par should be more about the difficulty of the holes themselves than about simplifying the math.

I suppose we have different concepts of what par means, and we'll have to muddle through until we find a common understanding.

[Olorin]

In my best Olorin voice...
"Par on a hole and keeping score are completely different things."

Not bad... not bad at all.

[Olorin]

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360'). My first time really applying CR par to see how it'd work. Total came out to 68. That's what's on the map I linked above. There are now a few easy 4's and an easy 5. I can see the upside of making an easy par so players get the ego boost of birdies now and then. And on this course if you can toss 450' you have a couple shots at eagles.

But the downside is that I think 68 is too easy a par for gold level.

...In the end I guess it all comes back to the question of "What is par?" or as a course designer "What do you want par to be?". Should it be what you expect players (of the appropriate level) to shoot? Or should it be purely based on drive distance + ATG?

ERic

That's cool that you're trying CR Par. I assume that you have the whole document that explains it. Many courses have "tweener" holes that could go up or down one. I wonder if that's the case here.

You should join the Disc Golf Course Design (DGCD) Group so that you have access to some great tools like the Hole Forecaster, and have dialogue with the best designers in the world. Houck, Duvall, Kennedy, McDaniel... Although they all have strong ideas about par. They're mostly split btwn old school TG Par or SA Par (spearheaded by Chuck Kennedy). I've been trying to make converts to CR Par, but Chuck is a strong voice on the other side.

I think the common sense approach is to use a blend of methods. Use CR Par, but tweak it as you get score data. Since it's a Gold course just remember to only use the scores of Gold level players (975-1025) for your averages. The ideal is to get the scores of 990-1010 PR players. Players below 975 will skew your averages. Even "Super Gold", the world class pros over 1025 PR, would also skew the data.

Can you make a thread on this course? I'd love to track how it goes.

[Olorin]

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360').

For a Gold level course the Gold drive length is 390 ft. and the CR is 100 ft so holes are par 3 up to (effective) length of 490 ft.

(I wonder if you have an old version of the CR Par doc. The drive lengths were increased due to improvements in disc technology.)

So I guess that all of the par 3s that became par 4s have an effective length of over 490 ft?

[ERicJ]

Can you make a thread on this course? I'd love to track how it goes.The thread for the course right now is over on the HFDS message board:
http://www.hfds.org/vbull/forumdisplay.php?f=14

The details/results of the league will probably be posted either there or in the tournaments forum:
http://www.hfds.org/vbull/forumdisplay.php?f=10

ERic

[MattK]

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

I don't think that the fact that PDGA par is a type of SA par is hidden at all. The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it (I did one weekend, it was a heck of a read). Differing standards were discussed, and many people had their say.

There may be "tons" of holes that qualify as par 2s under the PDGA standard. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the standard. On the contrary, it means there is something wrong with the holes. If you want hole at the white or blue level to be a par 3 and the scoring average (at the 900 or 950 level) is <2.5 then the solution is to lengthen the hole or to put in more foliage, etc to increase the difficulty.

[ERicJ]

So I guess that all of the par 3s that became par 4s have an effective length of over 490 ft?

Yep, but I was using 360' + "close range" of 1/3 that, or 120' to get 480' for max par 3.

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.

For a Gold level course the Gold drive length is 390 ft. and the CR is 100 ft so holes are par 3 up to (effective) length of 490 ft.

(I wonder if you have an old version of the CR Par doc. The drive lengths were increased due to improvements in disc technology.)

I just know I saw a table posted on the message board that listed CR drives for the different levels. But I've been scouring the DGCR forums and can't find it. :mad:

Then I read this:
The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it[...]
...and I remembered that must have been where I saw the table. Of course the PDGA site is down again :rolleyes: right now so I can't confirm, but that must have been what I was looking at the convinced me to try out CR par.

ERic

P.S. thanks for sending me the latest doc. Luckily for me, as well as my maps and scorecards none of the pars need to be changed. Whew!

[Olorin]

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

I don't think that the fact that PDGA par is a type of SA par is hidden at all. The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it (I did one weekend, it was a heck of a read). Differing standards were discussed, and many people had their say.


OK, I wasn't clear. My bad. I meant to say that the secret is that using SA Par there should really be hundreds, if not thousands, of par 2 holes. The SA camp does their best to ignore and minimize this fact.

There may be "tons" of holes that qualify as par 2s under the PDGA standard. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the standard. On the contrary, it means there is something wrong with the holes. If you want hole at the white or blue level to be a par 3 and the scoring average (at the 900 or 950 level) is <2.5 then the solution is to lengthen the hole or to put in more foliage, etc to increase the difficulty.

Agreed that the holes should be changed. But in most cases they can't or won't be.

[Olorin]

Yep, but I was using 360' + "close range" of 1/3 that, or 120' to get 480' for max par 3.

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.

Are those lengths Effective length? If so, then they're tweeners that you could safely keep as par 3s

I just know I saw a table posted on the message board that listed CR drives for the different levels. But I've been scouring the DGCR forums and can't find it. :mad:

The CR Par document is stored at DG Resources in the Files section under Par. (see my signature for the URL). There are also several other useful par documents there too.

[Olorin]

Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies.

Par and Difficulty are DIFFERENT things.

As the designer, if you want the course to play more difficult in relation to par, then set the par lower. If you want it to play easier then set the par higher. A great recent example of the latter is hole 12 at the USDGC (http://discgolfunited.com/leaderboard/round.cfm?thisLayout=YES&round=4). Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles!

[magictenor1]

Par and Difficulty are DIFFERENT things.

As the designer, if you want the course to play more difficult in relation to par, then set the par lower. If you want it to play easier then set the par higher. A great recent example of the latter is hole 12 at the USDGC (http://discgolfunited.com/leaderboard/round.cfm?thisLayout=YES&round=4). Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles! Exactly. There will always be harder and easier courses in relation to par just as in ball golf. Players will gravitate to courses they are comfortable with. When I played BG I was a real duffer and did not want to play a top notch US Open type course. It was too hard for my level of play. Discers will do the same. A course which is too easy for a pro might be just right for an AM player.

[ERicJ]

....hole 12 at the USDGC (http://discgolfunited.com/leaderboard/round.cfm?thisLayout=YES&round=4). Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles!
I agree with this a lot. That's one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards par values closer to the CR generated ones (68)... instead of what I think error-free play from a gold level player would be (60). If only one out of a 100 players shoots under par people will start to think of the course as "too hard" and may not want to come back. But if players can get close to CR par, and really good players can shoot under CR par... then it'll be viewed as a good challenging course. I don't think there will be many players who would ever call this course "too easy".

ERic

[ERicJ]

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.
Are those lengths Effective length? If so, then they're tweeners that you could safely keep as par 3s
Yeah, there's really very little elevation on this course, and the trees are sparse. The big challenge is all the water and the length.

There are a lot of courses in the area where a good player throws a good drive, then only has to make an easy/short upshot and then an easy putt. They're mostly about the tee shot.

We wanted a course where even good players are left with making conscious decisions about what to do on their second and third shots. On many of these holes you'll be looking at another ~300' for your second shot. That's not an easy upshot for most players.

ERic

[Lewis]

I haven't yet played a wide open course like that. What part of the country (or world) are you in?

[ERicJ]

I haven't yet played a wide open course like that. What part of the country (or world) are you in?
This is the course I'm talking about: The LINKS at Quail Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=2576)

Missouri City (suburb of Houston), Texas, U.S. of A.

ERic

[Huck]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.:)

And besides if you have played or ran a tournament you know that it is the total that matters. So if I play all of the holes in a round as PAR 3 and you play them all as PAR 4, and you shoot a -8 on the day and I shoot a +7 I still win. :p

So why is this debate so hot?? put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.:cool:

[PhattD]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.:)

And besides if you have played or ran a tournament you know that it is the total that matters. So if I play all of the holes in a round as PAR 3 and you play them all as PAR 4, and you shoot a -8 on the day and I shoot a +7 I still win. :p

So why is this debate so hot?? put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.:cool:

Right on the money Huck. Except for one thing... if it's a nine hole course my -8 beats your +7. :D other than that I second everything you said.

[Olorin]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.:)

I couldn't agree more emphatically!

put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.:cool:

Done. Please go to the DG Resources Yahoo Group and download the document on Close Range (CR) Par in the Files section.

[Rbuzz9]

Yeah, I would think that dog-legs and such would make the par change. A shot to get around the corner if you will...

And in ball golf, just the same as in disc golf, there will be tough par 3s and easy par 4s. I don't think that is a bad thing.

yeah near me there are a few shorter ball golf courses that have some par 4s that are the length of a par 3 but have a "dogleg" with a hidden green so it's nearly impossible to hit from the tees.

The International in Bolton, MA is very close to where i live -there is a 715 yd par 6


ill play by what the course says par is. If par isnt posted - they'd all par 3's
if given the choice between par and pro par - i'd personally take the latter even though i have no business doing so.

People should be consistent with whatever par they choose - all pro par or no pro par.

in the end whatever the par is it won't make you better

[Donovan]

Well, after reading all of this, I have come to a new conclusion for the present time of setting par. Some people know good course designers and some bad ones. Although, you just gotta love a guy who puts up courses no matter what! ;)

Anyway, I like the thinking that the course designer needs to use his best judgment for now. I like the fact that ERicJ went out there and tried the various par methods and then considered adjusting them from there. That is truly the way it should be for now. I say this because none of the systems really take into account the length of the dog leg or the huge tree that sits right in front of a whole as it grew bigger later on, or the fact some people may have to lay up before a pond with range limitations.

I like the idea of a par and a pro par, a red par and a gold par. I think that just makes sense. Let the designer set these as he wants them played. The rest of us should enjoy it from there. This is sometimes a factor in how we feel about certain course designers.

Keeping score (regardless how you do it) is keeping score. Having pars to compete with on each hole is what makes each hole a fun challenge and something a little extra to shoot for....that is golf.

I have never confused tracking par and score keeping, besides what someone may quote to me ;) , but if you don't take setting a course par seriously, you are missing out on what golf is all about.

[magictenor1]

Well, after reading all of this, I have come to a new conclusion for the present time of setting par. Some people know good course designers and some bad ones. Although, you just gotta love a guy who puts up courses no matter what! ;)

Anyway, I like the thinking that the course designer needs to use his best judgment for now. I like the fact that ERicJ went out there and tried the various par methods and then considered adjusting them from there. That is truly the way it should be for now. I say this because none of the systems really take into account the length of the dog leg or the huge tree that sits right in front of a whole as it grew bigger later on, or the fact some people may have to lay up before a pond with range limitations.

I like the idea of a par and a pro par, a red par and a gold par. I think that just makes sense. Let the designer set these as he wants them played. The rest of us should enjoy it from there. This is sometimes a factor in how we feel about certain course designers.

Keeping score (regardless how you do it) is keeping score. Having pars to compete with on each hole is what makes each hole a fun challenge and something a little extra to shoot for....that is golf.

I have never confused tracking par and score keeping, besides what someone may quote to me ;) , but if you don't take setting a course par seriously, you are missing out on what golf is all about. That's the idea. Par is a way to test yourself against the course. A par and a pro par make sense for a lot of courses. No matter what there will still be harder and easier courses.