PAR

[discwombat]

Just a quick question about how you keep score?
On your regular courses do you keep score:
1. against the posted par.
2. against a par 3 on all holes.
3. no par, just the total number of throws.
4. Tally against who I am playing with.
5. Other

[ERicJ]

You should use the "Trhead Tools" to make this into a poll question.

I keep track on a paper scorecard, or my watch (http://www.timex.com/gp/product/B000NHVB2G/ref=sr_11_1/103-8480629-9700663).

ERic

[discwombat]

I was making the poll when you responded. Its up now.
Scott

[Ty9339]

the group i play with gets pretty competitive but we always play to the par for each hole and then add it up at the end. at the course we play its all par 3's but we travel to other course where it differs... when i first started playing though we didn't keep score at all because we were that bad hahaha... have fun everyone spread the sport and enjoy it because you never know when you're playing your last round (RIP SDK we miss you on the course and everywhere else)
BANG CHAINS

[Ty9339]

discwombat... thats a great picture very obvious its his back hand :)... does your daughter play, cause i just started my 9 year old cousin and he's convinced he will be the tiger woods of disc golf haha... good poll by the way
BANG CHAINS

[grube.fresh]

i use 3 as par exept when pro par and rec par are 4 or 5

[taxman]

i put against a par three on all holes. only because it's easy then for me to keep track in my head of my final score. of the courses near me most are either par 3 holes anyway, or the par isn't marked on the course. this way when i finish the course and i'm sitting +3 then i just add that to 54 and i'm all set.

i would prefer to have a score card and be able to see all of the pertinent data for the course just like a ball golfer. but not many of the courses by me have score cards available (to my knowledge).

[discwombat]

discwombat... thats a great picture very obvious its his back hand :)... does your daughter play, cause i just started my 9 year old cousin and he's convinced he will be the tiger woods of disc golf haha... good poll by the way
BANG CHAINS

Yes she plays a little bit. love to play with me in the backyard, but can only stand 4 or 5 holes on the course. :) 5 to 10 yard drives make for a very long hole. Often I will make her 2nd throw for her and she will play from there.
Scott

[timg]

I normally carry a little memo pad in my bag that I use to record my scores/putts when I feel like keeping track of my score for that round.

[Donovan]

Just like the other thread, I marked other. I do the course par if it is a long or difficult course, otherwise I use 3's...so it is both for me.

[jedwards]

i would prefer to have a score card and be able to see all of the pertinent data for the course just like a ball golfer. but not many of the courses by me have score cards available (to my knowledge).

Just an offer -- if you would like scorecards for your local courses just let me know what courses you play most often and I would be happy to make some scorecards that you can print and use.

[Midnightbiker]

I keep my score on a score card as well as the score of my friends. At the end of the round, I just start with 54, and add or subtract that depending on the score for each hole, using a par 3 as a base, and I get the final score. This method works very fast , weather the course has par 3, 4 or 5 holes, it dosen't matter, the final score is always the same.

[Olorin]

Par? Did someone say Par? Yipppeee! Another par thread!!

[Olorin]

At my DG Resources Yahoo Group there's a blank score card that you could use to get you started. If you have the hole lengths for a course that you play regularly you can just type them in. I made a score card for every course in the Triangle area of NC this way.

[sidewinding]

I play against three different things simultaneously. As I am playing I will have these three goals in mind.

1. Friends - Par does'nt really matter. Whoever has the lowest score wins. My goal is to beat whoever I am playing with.

2. Par - My goal is to beat the course by scoring below par. I use the courses posted par unless it is obviously mis-marked.

3. My own course record - My goal is to beat my own course record by scoring below it. I use the courses posted par unless it is obviously mis-marked.

[Olorin]

Yee-hawww! Another thread about par!! I'm beginning to get a little blue in the face, though. :D

[Olorin]

I checked "Other" b/c none of your options fit. Since there is no real consistency in determining par the pars marked on signs are often worthless. (If only someone had a consistent standard for par that was universally applied!!) Of course, this only applies to holes that are obviously mismarked and questionable par. The majority of holes really are par 3s.

So on a new course I mark my score then when I get home I use a handy dandy spreadsheet to calculate the CR Par (and the SA Par and TG Par too). Then I'll determine the course level and compare my score to the correct level par.

So the closest answer was marking my score, but I think several of you on here know that I do think par is important.

[Olorin]

P.S.- When I add up my score I do it in relation to a base of 3 on each hole to quickly get a total. But this has nothing to do with par; it's merely a scoring convenience. (Did I make that distinction clear enough? :))

[ERicJ]

P.S.- When I add up my score I do it in relation to a base of 3 on each hole to quickly get a total. But this has nothing to do with par; it's merely a scoring convenience. (Did I make that distinction clear enough? :))
That's one of those tricks that isn't at all obvious, but once someone shows it to you you'll add golf scores that way the rest of your life.

ERic

[Olorin]

Yeah, I learned it playing TG but added the score in relation to 4.

Of course, in TG you can also easily track your score in relation to par... because they have consistent standards with a universal system applied by qualified people!!!

Sorry for shouting...

[sidewinding]

That's one of those tricks that isn't at all obvious, but once someone shows it to you you'll add golf scores that way the rest of your life.

ERic

I am a little slow.:o Can you please explain the trick?

[ERicJ]

P.S.- When I add up my score I do it in relation to a base of 3 on each hole to quickly get a total. But this has nothing to do with par; it's merely a scoring convenience. (Did I make that distinction clear enough? :))

That's one of those tricks that isn't at all obvious, but once someone shows it to you you'll add golf scores that way the rest of your life.

I am a little slow.:o Can you please explain the trick?

As you read across the scorecard...

you think of each '3' as a zero off set and ignore those,
you think of each '4' as a +1 and add that,
you think of each '5' as a +2 and add that,
...
you think of each '2' as a -1 and subtract that,
you think of each '1' as a friggin' great shot, and subtract -2.

Then add the typically small delta value to a base value of 54.

It's based on the presumption that most of the hole scores will be '3' and you want to minimize the adding you need to do.

So if you scorecard looked like this:

3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

You'd add along the running total in your head, ignoring the 3's and say "+1", "+2", "+3", "+2". 54+2 = 56.

Some people count all the (+) numbers first and then go through again for all the (-) numbers.

Usually it's much faster than: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22....

You do have to remember to change the base value when playing non-18-hole courses. E.g. your base for a 21-hole course would be (54+9)=63.

ERic

[Cool Daddio]

i would prefer to have a score card and be able to see all of the pertinent data for the course just like a ball golfer. but not many of the courses by me have score cards available (to my knowledge).

I really like having a scorecard in my pocket as well so I made my own for the three courses I play regularly and turned the files over to one of the local disk sellers. Everyone is happy. :D There is a PDGA guide for setting pars if you play somewhere that they are not posted.

Being a bit obsessed I also used a google earth satellite photo and photoshop to create a course map for my home course for the newbies that come to our course. :eek:

[DWill]

I'm old school. I use par 3 for every hole, it's just easier mathematically for me to keep track of my score. At some courses, tee signs don't exist or post a par, so this way I just add my score based on par 54. If I shot plus 6, then I shot a 60, regardless if it's a par 54 or 66 course.

[Lewis]

Being a bit obsessed I also used a google earth satellite photo and photoshop to create a course map for my home course for the newbies that come to our course. :eek:

Glad I'm not the only one. :)

[ERicJ]

I really like having a scorecard in my pocket as well so I made my own for the three courses I play regularly and turned the files over to one of the local disk sellers. Everyone is happy. :D There is a PDGA guide for setting pars if you play somewhere that they are not posted.

Being a bit obsessed I also used a google earth satellite photo and photoshop to create a course map for my home course for the newbies that come to our course. :eek:
Which course did you map? I've done the same for many of the courses in Houston (the LINKS (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2576&mode=lf), Moffitt (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=680&mode=lf), FC Aquatic Ctr (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1264&mode=lf), Imperial Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2561&mode=lf), Mozola (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1397&mode=lf), MacGregor (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=646&mode=lf), TB Powell (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=170&mode=lf), TB Wilmont (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=171&mode=lf), Community Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=938&mode=lf), Nottingham (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=607&mode=lf), Pecan Grove (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2562&mode=lf), Burke Crenshaw (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=445&mode=lf), Cedar Brook (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1086&mode=lf), and Crosspoint (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=356&mode=lf)) and a few out of town ones as well (Mulligan Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1590&mode=lf), Hudson Springs (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=539&mode=lf), Pleasure Island (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=937&mode=lf), and Schaefer (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=873&mode=lf)). I also try to upload a Google Earth KML file to DGCR so others can use it to check out the course for themselves.

ERic

[brokenfixed]

I mainly only play with my wife, we used to keep a notepad and mark the strokes, but lately we've just been keeping track of strokes in our head and determining who won at the end of each hole and keeping that score in our heads. One 18 hole round we played the score was 6 for me, 6 for her, and 6 holes that we tied on...haha We had to play another 12 hole round just to settle bragging rights. (I won 7-0 cause her little arms couldnt hang..haha)

[Jungle Tim]

I really like having a scorecard in my pocket as well so I made my own for the three courses I play regularly and turned the files over to one of the local disk sellers. Everyone is happy. :D There is a PDGA guide for setting pars if you play somewhere that they are not posted.

Being a bit obsessed I also used a google earth satellite photo and photoshop to create a course map for my home course for the newbies that come to our course. :eek:

me too!! but i got majorly carried away (see attached although colours are a bit off)!! I got ours laminated!!! so its reusable if you have a dry marker.....

but then they changed the pins!!! damn!

[jdawg24]

I marked other too for the same reasons previously stated by a few folks. Many new courses have legit par 4's & par 5's....many old courses have holes that are marked as par 4's on the signs but are really par 3's. If a hole is 600'+, it's not a par 3...

[magictenor1]

As you read across the scorecard...

you think of each '3' as a zero off set and ignore those,
you think of each '4' as a +1 and add that,
you think of each '5' as a +2 and add that,
...
you think of each '2' as a -1 and subtract that,
you think of each '1' as a friggin' great shot, and subtract -2.

Then add the typically small delta value to a base value of 54.

It's based on the presumption that most of the hole scores will be '3' and you want to minimize the adding you need to do.

So if you scorecard looked like this:

3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

You'd add along the running total in your head, ignoring the 3's and say "+1", "+2", "+3", "+2". 54+2 = 56.

Some people count all the (+) numbers first and then go through again for all the (-) numbers.

Usually it's much faster than: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22....

You do have to remember to change the base value when playing non-18-hole courses. E.g. your base for a 21-hole course would be (54+9)=63.

ERic I have always kept score this way and 1st did it for ball golf. I have never used a score card and no one else that I play with does either. I do keep up by the posted par but at the end you can still know what your numerical score is ie if posted par is 64 and you are +3 you shot 67.

[Olorin]

EricJ,

How do you get those nested quotes with the person's name like you did in #22? Do you have to write it somewhere else then cut and paste with the code? I can only get the most recent post to quote. (If Tim is lurking out there maybe he can answer too.)

[Donovan]

EricJ,

How do you get those nested quotes with the person's name like you did in #22? Do you have to write it somewhere else then cut and paste with the code? I can only get the most recent post to quote. (If Tim is lurking out there maybe he can answer too.)

I first click the Multi-Quote reply button to make it a ["-] (bottom right corner middle button) first and then hit the Reply with Quote button ["Reply]. At this point I just move all the end quotes notations on each one of the quote sections to the end of all the quotes and put them one after each other.

[ERicJ]

Yep, multi-quoting isn't very hard with the multi-quote button. I just cut/paste the start quote tag(s) from the other quote(s) to the top of the message.

The "Preview Post" button is your friend to see if it looks like what you want. :D

ERic

[discflinger]

3 IS the magic # and simplicity is far under appreciated.

[leppard]

During the round, against a par 3 on all holes. After the round, No par per hole, just the total number of throws and record on a spreadsheet when I get home.

[cbeckett22]

I always play the posted par, but at my home course every hole is par 3, so.. yeah.

[Trashthrasher]

Against a par 3 on all holes.

[wolito]

usually just count everything as par 3, since some course dont have accurate signs and may not know what the par is on that hole anyway.

[howardb]

usually just count everything as par 3, since some course dont have accurate signs and may not know what the par is on that hole anyway.



"Ditto"

[TalbotTrojan]

I will typically make my own determinations on what par is and base it on that. Of course that generally means that everything is a par 3 since there are so very few holes that are anything but.

[Camgolfer]

I will typically make my own determinations on what par is and base it on that. Of course that generally means that everything is a par 3 since there are so very few holes that are anything but.

Hole 10+11 St. Paddy's Day. Par 5... One of the hardest holes I have played.

[DiscJunkie]

It depends on the course.
My home course has posted pars that are realistic and not all par 3's.
Most other courses, I just use Par3 for all holes.

[bazillion]

Just a quick question about how you keep score?
On your regular courses do you keep score:

<snip>


Okay, so what's a "regular" course?

One that's all par 3? :D

[TalbotTrojan]

Hole 10+11 St. Paddy's Day. Par 5... One of the hardest holes I have played.

I agree with you on that one considering even the top pros struggled to get a 5. I think the TD even counted it as a par 5 as the 21 hole par was a 66 meaning there are three fours or one four and a five. 6 & 7 is a four and there are no other legit fours on the course so that means 10 & 11 is counted as a five in my book. What a great hole though.

[elevated plastic]

3 IS the magic # and simplicity is far under appreciated

yep.

[Mr Mirth]

Indeed, more oft than not it's 3s for me.

[Jukeshoe]

Play what's posted, unless it's completely ridiculous...then play Par 3's.

[richardmmill]

Play them all par 3. Then its easy to figure out total strokes with out having to add it all up every hole. 3x18=54 then +/- what ever you shot that round. Keeps it pretty easy I think.

[DSCJNKY]

Just like the other thread, I marked other. I do the course par if it is a long or difficult course, otherwise I use 3's...so it is both for me.

Yes. I will ignore weakly signed 4's and 5's... but definitely will take the strokes when the signed Par is deserved.
DSCJNKY

[hedfan1]

It depends on the course and who I'm playing with.

[chuckdisc]

A par 3 for all hole

[adam423]

I ask Olorin what I should do before every round.

[Cradical]

par 3 for all holes. For scoring reasons rather than for anything else. Only write down your score if you didn't get a three. Makes it way easier.

[Terry C]

I played in a pdga tourney today on a course with several holes originally marked as a par 4-5 but the TD made every hole a par 3. Every hole is par 3 always. I have never, and would never play with people using a par that is anything other than 3. Thats pretty lame and almost seems like a way to feel better about sucking at disc golf.

Ive said it before and I will say it again. Every hole is par 3. 2000 foot hole = par 3, 10 foot hole = par 3.

I know some people will try to argue with me about that but unfortunately I am right about this and check the poll results, most people agree with me. Ball golf = par 3,4,5,6. Disc golf always = par 3.

[Terry C]

I marked other too for the same reasons previously stated by a few folks. Many new courses have legit par 4's & par 5's....many old courses have holes that are marked as par 4's on the signs but are really par 3's. If a hole is 600'+, it's not a par 3...

If a hole is 600 it is par 3. If a hole is 700-800-900-1000 then it is still a par 3. The course designer should have known better than creating holes that are unrealistically long. Unfortunately players should not get rewarded for the designers bad layout and the hole being overly long by extending the par to a 5 or something silly like that. The hole is par 3, and on a 1000 foot hole I understand that a par 3 will never happen but thats the designers fault that nobody will ever make par 3 on that hole. A 1000 foot hole should be 2 seperate holes and designed better.

It depends on the course.
My home course has posted pars that are realistic and not all par 3's.
Most other courses, I just use Par3 for all holes.

I would rather end up being 20 over par playing every hole as a par 3 then end up being even because I was playing every hole as a 5. There should never be a disc golf hole thats longer then 1000 feet. And there should never be anything other then a par of 3 for every hole.

[Dave242]

If a hole is 600 it is par 3. If a hole is 700-800-900-1000 then it is still a par 3. The course designer should have known better than creating holes that are unrealistically long. Unfortunately players should not get rewarded for the designers bad layout and the hole being overly long by extending the par to a 5 or something silly like that. The hole is par 3, and on a 1000 foot hole I understand that a par 3 will never happen but thats the designers fault that nobody will ever make par 3 on that hole. A 1000 foot hole should be 2 seperate holes and designed better.

Dude - you need to get with the times. .....or play the old-school easy courses and stay away from a real golfing experience.

Multi-throw holes make for so much better golf. On reachable holes, after 1-3 rounds you have it figured out exactly what you are going to do and then it is just up to having to execute. On multi-throw holes, your drive will seldom leave you with the same 2nd shot round to round. So the is so much more creativity and need for shot making skill that your basic reachable hole.

(I know, I know.....I am taking the bait of an "everything is a 3" troll).

[Dave242]

I know some people will try to argue with me about that but unfortunately I am right about this and check the poll results, most people agree with me. Ball golf = par 3,4,5,6. Disc golf always = par 3.

You are wrong about everything being par 3 and you are wrong about what the poll is telling you. Hint: read the title/question of the poll.

[Dave242]

I guess I'm a little like Mike Vick and just can't resist a good old dog fight. Which dog is will chew the other one up and spit him out:

A)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/image.php?u=8505&dateline=1261107084

or
B)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/image.php?u=169&dateline=1236125510

[LeewayeDiscGolf]

i put against a par three on all holes. only because it's easy then for me to keep track in my head of my final score. of the courses near me most are either par 3 holes anyway, or the par isn't marked on the course. this way when i finish the course and i'm sitting +3 then i just add that to 54 and i'm all set.

i would prefer to have a score card and be able to see all of the pertinent data for the course just like a ball golfer. but not many of the courses by me have score cards available (to my knowledge).

My son and I carry our homemade generic scorecards every round. That way we can fill the info. in as we go. And if the info. isn't available it still gives us a spot to write the score down.

[Terry C]

I guess I'm a little like Mike Vick and just can't resist a good old dog fight. Which dog is will chew the other one up and spit him out:

A)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/image.php?u=8505&dateline=1261107084

or
B)
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/image.php?u=169&dateline=1236125510

Ive played courses with 1000 foot holes that are marked as par 4-5. I like the challenge but I will stick to playing it as a par 3. If my buddy asked me what my score was for that course, and I said "I was only 3 over!!" and he asked "but you were playing par 3 right?" I would then have to say "no, but it was a hard course" or something lame like that. I have had people tell me they had such and such a score and then went on to tell me they play all par 5's or whatever and I think those people are goofy. Those are the "frolfer" people.

Nothing personal dave, I just play everything as par 3 always. For 15 years I have played every hole on every course as par 3. Theres nothing wrong with a good healthy debate though and Im not gonna turn into the "par is 3" troll, lol. I respect other peoples opinions.

As far as our avitars having a death match, I think my dog would win cause hes smart and crafty, just look at his toupee!! Your dog looks like he's mixed with a human and thats not fair, my dog would take him down, then after the fight he would do your dogs taxes for him!!

[villup]

Playing everything par 3 makes it easy to keep score. Regardless of what the par is, at the end of the round you still have the same score. In the end, what really matters is your number score ,not how many strokes over or under par you were. Par 3 is the standard. When I hear someone say they were 5 under par for their round, or whatever, I assume they are using the par 3 method of scoring. Its also an easy way to see how your game compares with other peoples games.

[Cgkdisc]

I played in a pdga tourney today on a course with several holes originally marked as a par 4-5 but the TD made every hole a par 3. Every hole is par 3 always. I have never, and would never play with people using a par that is anything other than 3.
Michigan has typically been behind the times on course design for many years with using par values higher than 3 being part of that other than the other Terry C, Terry Calhoun who is a member of the DGCD and a few other exceptions like when the PDGA Worlds team came in to help get pars set properly a few times.

[Cgkdisc]

Not intending to rip on Michigan but it's been frustrating getting those who could be leaders in advancing course designs in MI to participate in the larger dialog among designers going on around the world. Those of us outside MI can see the difference when we visit there compared with what is happening with design advances in other hopping disc golf areas. Top-rated Flip City is a good example where it looks like it's a traditional par 3 layout based on its tourney SSA values, not even close to the Championship courses with true par 4s & 5s in other DG areas (Idlewild, Highbridge, Renny, Nocky, WR Jackson and now many others). So it's not surprising that many Michigan players would think that par 3 is the only type of disc golf hole.

[Terry C]

Not intending to rip on Michigan but it's been frustrating getting those who could be leaders in advancing course designs in MI to participate in the larger dialog among designers going on around the world. Those of us outside MI can see the difference when we visit there compared with what is happening with design advances in other hopping disc golf areas. Top-rated Flip City is a good example where it looks like it's a traditional par 3 layout based on its tourney SSA values, not even close to the Championship courses with true par 4s & 5s in other DG areas (Idlewild, Highbridge, Renny, Nocky, WR Jackson and now many others). So it's not surprising that many Michigan players would think that par 3 is the only type of disc golf hole.

I have seen some terrible course designs around here so I understand what your saying. The course I played the tourney at today had fairways crossing each other and had us throwing over the road being used by cars and over a field being used by kids. A couple of the baskets are literally five feet from parking lots full of cars when they have an empty field with much better places they could have put them. Its a pretty bad design and its not like they dont have room to work with, some holes are 600-700 feet, they are just laid out poorly. Even by reducing the pars all to par 3 there were pro's ending up like 10 under. Playing the actual pars marked on the tees and they would have been like 20 under and thats just silly.

I have only played courses in Michigan (25 or so) so I get your point. I need a good disc golf road trip to experience some of these other courses out there. Its just that every hole at every course I have ever played has been played as par 3 by everybody I have ever played with so its hard for me to get away from that par 3 mentality I guess.

[Dave242]

Ive played courses with 1000 foot holes that are marked as par 4-5. I like the challenge but I will stick to playing it as a par 3. If my buddy asked me what my score was for that course, and I said "I was only 3 over!!" and he asked "but you were playing par 3 right?" I would then have to say "no, but it was a hard course" or something lame like that. I have had people tell me they had such and such a score and then went on to tell me they play all par 5's or whatever and I think those people are goofy. Those are the "frolfer" people.

There is no problem at all if you want to keep track of your score on every hole with 3 as the standard. BUT......that is not the definition of par.

From the USGA (since I found it most quickly in a search):
"Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

So, to the world your definition makes no sense.....at least on courses where there are holes that an expert would not be expected to make a 3 on. If anything, you are sounding like a frolfer person.

[Dave242]

Even by reducing the pars all to par 3 there were pro's ending up like 10 under. Playing the actual pars marked on the tees and they would have been like 20 under and thats just silly.

The thing is, the par on the signs is often/usually for recreational players. Of course Pro's will tear up scores versus par when comparing Pro's to recreational players. It is analogous to PGA pros playing from the ladies tees on the courses they play.

[Terry C]

There is no problem at all if you want to keep track of your score on every hole with 3 as the standard. BUT......that is not the definition of par.

From the USGA (since I found it most quickly in a search):
"Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

So, to the world your definition makes no sense.....at least on courses where there are holes that an expert would not be expected to make a 3 on. If anything, you are sounding like a frolfer person.

Am I wrong or cant Jenkens, Climo, Doss and those "expert level" players get a 3 on a 1000 foot hole rather easily? IMO there should never be any hole longer than 1000 feet anyway. Thats a rediculous distance to throw a disc even if your a pro. And if you agree with me on that then there would never be anything other then 3 for par on any hole.

I understand your logic but then for a hole to be par 4 the hole would be like 1500 feet, a par 5 would be like 2000 feet, a par 6 would be like 2500 feet and I have never seen a disc golf hole that long and I dont think I would even enjoy playing it. It would be like throwing a driver from my porch to the disc golf course a mile down the road.

[RussMB]

Now on my home courses, I'll do par 3 only. Everywhere else I play, unless it's not posted, I'll play the par listed. If it's not, I'll play par 3. I keep a mini clipboard in my bag, and a notebook. If I have a printer available, I'll come here to the DGCR and print off the scorecard and map from the course page. ...cause thats just how I roll!:cool:

[Terry C]

From the USGA (since I found it most quickly in a search):
"Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

So, to the world your definition makes no sense.....at least on courses where there are holes that an expert would not be expected to make a 3 on. If anything, you are sounding like a frolfer person.

I wouldn't equate the definition of "par" from a ball golf website and transfer that definition to disc golf, that dosent apply. Ball golf and disc golf are completely different games with different types of equipment and have totally different course layouts. Disc golf courses aren't several miles long like ball golf courses. A ball will travel hundreds of yards when hit with a golf club while a disc will travel only hundreds of feet when thrown by hand. Completely different games altogether.

Par is 3.

[ejvogie]

None of the courses around here have any legitimate par 4s or 5s, so I play them all as a 3. Easier for me to keep score in my head that way. There's some work being done on 1 course here that may give some higher pars, but the guy in charge of the project may never be back in town :(

[Nathanbr2]

Just like the other thread, I marked other. I do the course par if it is a long or difficult course, otherwise I use 3's...so it is both for me.

Mine is very similar to this. I tend to play with a lot of newer players, who only have 150-175 foot drives (which makes a par 3- 600 footer a 6,7,8 on up :wall:). Typically to counter this, and keep them coming back, we just play anything over 400ft as a par 4 (gotta love those 399 foot holes :clap:). Par 5's are for pansies.:thmbdown:

If i'm playing with some of my better friends, who won't give up after a bad round, we generally play Straight Par 3's. Just to expediate scoring.

[Dave242]

Am I wrong or cant Jenkens, Climo, Doss and those "expert level" players get a 3 on a 1000 foot hole rather easily? IMO there should never be any hole longer than 1000 feet anyway. Thats a rediculous distance to throw a disc even if your a pro. And if you agree with me on that then there would never be anything other then 3 for par on any hole.

I don't agree with you on that, but there are hole designs that use other design elements besides sheer length that produce pars higher than 3.

Consider a hole that is an L shape followed by another L shape - heavily wooded so no shortcuts are possible with generous 40' wide fairways. 250' to a right angle bend, another 250' to a right angle bend, followed by another 250' to the basket. What would an expert player be expected to shoot on that hole?

[Dave242]

Am I wrong or cant Jenkens, Climo, Doss and those "expert level" players get a 3 on a 1000 foot hole rather easily?

I am not sure if Climo has the arm for it, but I think it is possible for those other guys to get a 3 maybe 1 out of 10 tries, but it is a little comical that you take one part of the definition and highlight it, but ignore the other part about taking 2 throws to hole out (thereby making it a par 4). By your logic here anything under 500' should then be a par-2.

[NDABRUSH]

I wouldn't equate the definition of "par" from a ball golf website and transfer that definition to disc golf, that dosent apply. Ball golf and disc golf are completely different games with different types of equipment and have totally different course layouts. Disc golf courses aren't several miles long like ball golf courses. A ball will travel hundreds of yards when hit with a golf club while a disc will travel only hundreds of feet when thrown by hand. Completely different games altogether.

Par is 3.

Completely different games.

[NDABRUSH]

I don't agree with you on that, but there are hole designs that use other design elements besides sheer length that produce pars higher than 3.

Consider a hole that is an L shape followed by another L shape - heavily wooded so no shortcuts are possible with generous 40' wide fairways. 250' to a right angle bend, another 250' to a right angle bend, followed by another 250' to the basket. What would an expert player be expected to shoot on that hole?


That hole makes me want to peal my skin from my body.:p

[magictenor1]

I am not sure if Climo has the arm for it, but I think it is possible for those other guys to get a 3 maybe 1 out of 10 tries, but it is a little comical that you take one part of the definition and highlight it, but ignore the other part about taking 2 throws to hole out (thereby making it a par 4). By your logic here anything under 500' should then be a par-2. I'm with you there Dave. Terry C is fixated on par is 3 and is not going to let logic get in his way.

[Jukeshoe]

I started off playing the posted pars, but after going to a few courses with ridiculously lenient pars, I've decided to play it by ear. If it seems way too easy I'll go by all Par 3's, if it seems fair I'll play the posted pars.

[simpletwist]

I print the score card for each round from the links provided on this site. Then I use it to write the scores. There's some truly easy par 4s I play and some impossible par 3s. Its all a matter of how much lower you finish than those you play against. I record most of my scores so I see if I'm improving or not. Lately for a change of pace though, we haven't been keeping score at all.

[leppard]

Really the total number of throws is all that matters.

[Dave242]

Really the total number of throws is all that matters.

For scoring purposes you are correct. But to help a player understand whom the course was designed for, published Par can be good to know. There are other good and valid reasons why par is important too.

A course with thoughtful design has challenge built in for the target audience/player to achieve par, excitement & satisfaction designed in for birdies and disappointment & frustration built in for bogeys or worse. Playing courses that are targeted at ones skill level will produce those emotions....and those emotions are a huge part of why many people (the ones with at least one competitive gene in their bodies) get addicted to DG.

Now, if I play a course that is too short for me birdies are routine/boring, pars are disappointing and bogeys have nothing to do with the course punishing me and everything to do with my poor performance. Likewise, courses that are too long for me are impossible to birdie (so I miss out on that excitement) and have pars that are typically routine (shortish upshot every time). So the only emotion left is the disappointment & frustration of screwing up. To me, that is not a lot of fun since there is no upside and only downside in trying to do my best.

Of course in real life, most courses seem to try to offer a little to everyone which makes only half the holes (at best) good, rewarding and fun for any given person. But still, you can get a pretty good idea of whom the course was designed for by looking at the par listed on the signs.

[Terry C]

Really the total number of throws is all that matters.

correct, give this man a dollar.

I am not sure if Climo has the arm for it, but I think it is possible for those other guys to get a 3 maybe 1 out of 10 tries, but it is a little comical that you take one part of the definition and highlight it, but ignore the other part about taking 2 throws to hole out (thereby making it a par 4). By your logic here anything under 500' should then be a par-2.

Well this will be the end of this wonderfully entertaining conversation were having but to reply to the previous post, I say this...

huh?? you lost me there with 2 holes to hole out, making it a par 4 essentially making it a par 2???

#1. A 500 foot hole is 99.9% of the time marked as a par 3.

#2. If the "green" that you are referring to for disc golf is considered "the circle" that is commonly talked about by everyone then it doesn't take 2 putts to make that shot, a 2 shot putt definitely is not the standard. Pros and even average amateurs for that matter make that shot within the circle consistently. I get mad at myself if I miss a shot within the circle/green because it shouldn't happen. A 2 shot putt would be a bad putt for me or any of the guys I play with.

#3. I too found it comical that you were quoting a ball golf websites definitions to make a point about disc golfs meaning of par. I guess you could equate throwing darts at a dartboard to firing a rifle at a target on a shooting range too and say they are the same sport with the same rules and standards because they both have a projectile going at a target. Disc golf and ball golf are different games with different standards, different rules, different layouts, different equipment, just simply different.

#4. Par is 3

[Terry C]

Consider a hole that is an L shape followed by another L shape - heavily wooded so no shortcuts are possible with generous 40' wide fairways. 250' to a right angle bend, another 250' to a right angle bend, followed by another 250' to the basket. What would an expert player be expected to shoot on that hole?

That kind of hole sounds ridiculously hard, really frustrating and not fun at all to me. A player who was anything less then a top professional would get a 10 by the sounds of that. I guess if somebody created a wacky hole like that then I could see it being par 4 or 5, but thats taking things to an extreme just to make a point.:\

I played a horrible course layed out terribly with several holes like that once. It was created by a bunch of kids that had no idea what they were doing and it sucked to play. Myself and the group I went with all vowed none of us would ever return and we haven't.

[biscoe]

terry- what do you consider the word par to signify in relation to a golf hole? is it a shorthand way of keeping score? does it represent the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play? is it something some moron just put on a sign for his own edification?

imo you guys are debating semantics more than anything else.

[Terry C]

terry- what do you consider the word par to signify in relation to a golf hole? is it a shorthand way of keeping score? does it represent the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play? is it something some moron just put on a sign for his own edification?

imo you guys are debating semantics more than anything else.

Yeah biscoe, first of all thank you for not typing me an angry post that instigates an argument like some others ive gotten. Second, Im done debating this any more because Ive said my thoughts on this and sometimes one has to agree to disagree. If one watches two people arguing from a far then it is hard to tell who the fool is. I think 99% of the time a disc golf hole should be designed and played as a par 3. I cant say 100% of the time because there are always exceptions like a hole that would make a figure eight and then you throw over a 350 foot wide pond and then zig-zag through trees and make a 200 foot putt through a tunnel to the basket or something wacky like that.

In my opinion par is the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play like you said, but also my opinion is that there should be no par 4's and par 5's. Disc golf holes shouldnt be so long and difficult that they would require a profesional to average 4 or 5 strokes because then that means that an amateur can expect to get a 7 or maybe 8 strokes on that hole and thats not a well designed disc golf hole in my opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Im not angry at anyone or anything I just have my opinion, that par should be 3.

I think its funny that Im getting a bunch of haters jumping on me about making a simple statement like par is 3. I have been playing for over 15 years and so what makes these guys right and me wrong? Because my opinion is different from theirs so Im wrong? How so? I think if you asked anybody I disc with then the people hyping up par 4's and 5's would be called wrong. RELAX and take bubble baths or something, lol

[Cgkdisc]

For rec play, your opinion is in line with the maybe 50-100 times more rec players than PDGA members who are fine calling everything par 3. So, no problem. You significantly outnumber us. :)

You are not correct from a professional standpoint because those in authority with the PDGA overseeing the sport regarding course design and standards say so. Competitive players within it mostly agree there are pars higher than 3. In fact, it's been in the rules of the sport for tournament play for more than 20 years.

Hopefully, you'll get the chance to visit Highbridge to see what courses with legitimate higher pars are all about. The pars from each set of tees are set for the intended skill level. Top rated Blueberry Hill has the L shaped hole mentioned earlier (#16) with a break to the right then a break to the left when the basket is in the long position and people seem to like its quirkiness. With skillful play, it can be birdied with a satisfying 4. Blue level par on the course ranges from 58-63 depending on where the pins are set.

Many of the players in southern Wisconsin including tourney players grew up on mostly par 3 courses. I saw angry posts online back when Highbridge first went in and Highbridge got critical emails from many of them after they played there due to the longer par 4 & 5 holes. I remember one player was incensed that some holes were so long. He said he's watched Barry Schultz play and if Barry could not birdie (2) them, the design was all wrong. :wall:

[culinarywiz]

I play all 3's, but I'm ready to start playing course par's again.

[Dave242]

I think its funny that Im getting a bunch of haters jumping on me about making a simple statement like par is 3. I have been playing for over 15 years and so what makes these guys right and me wrong? Because my opinion is different from theirs so Im wrong? How so? I think if you asked anybody I disc with then the people hyping up par 4's and 5's would be called wrong. RELAX and take bubble baths or something, lol

I can not tell for sure if you are worked up or feel like I am a hater for discussing this with you. I have been shaking my head at you for time and time again totally missing simple logic, but I have not been stressing or doing anything hateful (no need for a bubble bath here! :) ). Disagreeing is not hating. Discussing is not hating.

Maybe my doggy comments were mistaken as hateful or belligerent.....but I just thought it was amusing that 2 goofy doggy avatars were going back and forth. So, I hope you know where I am coming from and I apologize if anything I have communicated has sounded uncivil.

[volklgirl]

Here (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf) is the PDGA's chart on determining par.

[scarpfish]

A couple of guys on a card at my tournament this past weekend were having a passionate discussion about this very subject in regards to a particularly long hole at one course. Maybe its all the time I've spent on here, but I simply didn't care to get involved, even though I agreed with one of them.

[villup]

Par is not the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play. Par does not change for different skill levels. I think, like in ball golf, par is par. I don't play ball golf very well, but I don't expect the par to be higher because my skill level is lower than it would require to make a par. Handicapping is a different story. I think it's used to make the game more competitive for players of different skill levels. I don't really know how it works and I have never really seen it in disc golf.

[Cgkdisc]

Par is not the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play. Par does not change for different skill levels. I think, like in ball golf, par is par.
That is not correct. Pars are set for each of their defined skill levels in ball golf but they always have different tee sets for the skill levels. The par from their color tees is usually the same for each skill level but not always. There are holes where even the shorter tee for women will be a par 5 while the blue tee for men will be a par 4. If women play the back tees, their par will be one shot higher than the men on several holes if it's indicated. Same for the junior and senior pars.

[grodney]

those in authority with the PDGA overseeing the sport regarding course design and standards say so.

That statement is a little pinchy.

Has the PDGA been granted any official capacity for overseeing disc golf in any way? (Real question, I don't think I know the answer.)

[Cgkdisc]

The PDGA rules are accepted as the rules for the sport globally by the Word Flying Disc Federation. Not sure what other authority might rival the PDGA and WFDF as valid overseers of the sport?

[grodney]

Point being, just because there aren't currently any rival authorities, it doesn't make their authority "official" in any way.

The PDGA is the official governing body of PDGA tournaments. Duh, that's pretty obvious. Not the governing body of the game/sport. Or of tournaments. Just PDGA tournaments.

They also oversee standards (target, disc, course?, semantics(par)?) with respect to their tournaments.

Any authority other than is really just self-appointed, right? It may seem official by default, with the strong history and the lack of other entities, but it's really just tradition. Right?

[Cgkdisc]

To my knowledge, all other non-PDGA regional tournament series and any other standalone events called tournaments abide by PDGA rules globally and even say that in their series or event flyers. I've never even seen an alternative rules for the game proposed or posted anywhere. Have you? In my post regarding par, I specifically said the PDGA oversees tournament play and that par 3 is the norm for rec players, most who only loosely play by PDGA rules but aren't governed by them.

[magictenor1]

Point being, just because there aren't currently any rival authorities, it doesn't make their authority "official" in any way.

The PDGA is the official governing body of PDGA tournaments. Duh, that's pretty obvious. Not the governing body of the game/sport. Or of tournaments. Just PDGA tournaments.

They also oversee standards (target, disc, course?, semantics(par)?) with respect to their tournaments.

Any authority other than is really just self-appointed, right? It may seem official by default, with the strong history and the lack of other entities, but it's really just tradition. Right? If we follow your logic that the PDGA is not in charge and does not have authority then who does? That would mean we could all play by whatever rules we wanted to, make it up as we went along. Somebody has to make the rules for any sport and for ours I am pretty sure that the PDGA is it.

[magictenor1]

To my knowledge, all other non-PDGA regional tournament series and any other standalone events called tournaments abide by PDGA rules globally and even say that in their series or event flyers. I've never even seen an alternative rules for the game proposed or posted anywhere. Have you? In my post regarding par, I specifically said the PDGA oversees tournament play and that par 3 is the norm for rec players, most who only loosely play by PDGA rules but aren't governed by them. I agree with almost everything you said except the part about rec players. I am one and I always play the listed par. I find that the more of a rec player someone is (ie not too serious, doesn't play tournies) the more likely they are to play posted par instead of all 3's. I find it is the more serious Dg'ers that say all par 3. this is a generalization of course and there may be regional bias as well. I can't speak to what pros think since I don't know any.

[grodney]

Not sure it matters, but the RDGA probably has rules (there is a page at discgolfassoc.com), though they aren't for tournament play. And Larry Hols probably penned his own set of rules back in the r.s.d days.

Regardless, my point was: The PDGA, nor any other group, has any authority over course design (and the accompanying lingo). I was simply pointing out that the PDGA doesn't officially have authority over anything (other than self-appointed authority for their own existence (and the WFDF selection of their rules)), and certainly not for course design.

That's why I said your statement was a little pinchy. You didn't *say* the PDGA has any official capacity overseeing course design. But you sorta implied it, especially as a Consultant and with a much-varied (pro to schmo) audience at hand.

The quote, for reference, was "those in authority with the PDGA overseeing the sport regarding course design and standards say so.".

It's all good. I think everyone understands that there isn't really an official word on this.

[Cgkdisc]

Sorry, but the PDGA authority is there on course design considering those standards have been referred to in lawsuits several times over the years. Park Depts regularly seek out those standards and want to make sure they are followed by their designers. Within the next few years, that authority will be ramped up even more with some things in the works. Worlds courses have been tweaked by PDGA designers like Houck, Gentry and myself in preparation for the events. We'll be visiting NC several times in that regard before the 2012 Worlds. Probably not to toughen up the courses like we usually need to do but to ease them up so they're not so brutal for some divisions.

[jkdisc]

the thing is, does "par" matter? just go see who throws less.

[Karl]

Chuck, you're at it again. Stating things in a way that is a "partial truth" and which "bolsters your certain tees for certain abilities" cookie-cutter approach (as there are a LOT of different abilities in dg other than 1000rated players, 950rated players, 900rated players, etc.).


In general - for those who don't know ball golf - there ARE par "differences", but they are minor off-shoots (seniors, juniors, women) of the major "men" catagory...which always have a hole's par based on distance. A 400yd hole is a par 4 for ALL men (except those minor divisions listed above) - whether they're a total duffer or a PGA pro.

So when you (Chuck) say all the stuff you say, you totally dance around the precise point that - in ball golf - there are NOT differences in par based on ability (except for minor situations).

Karl

[grodney]

Sorry, but the PDGA authority is there on course design considering those standards have been referred to in lawsuits several times over the years. Park Depts regularly seek out those standards and want to make sure they are followed by their designers.

Pffft. Those statements just don't hold any water.

They might be standards, but they are only standards by default.

Anybody using them either doesn't understand that, or doesn't care. Which is FINE.

But for anyone to state that the PDGA has any authority, they're making stuff up.

[Cgkdisc]

Sorry Karl, not correct. There are specific par standards published for men, women and juniors plus unpublished guidelines for PGA, LPGA, Champions Tour and rec seniors used by the people who set those courses and the designers who design the alternate tees for those skill levels. The very fact that there might be five tees on a hole all with the same par indicates there are five different skill levels where pars are all 3s, 4s or 5s for that skill level distance. If Tiger plays the very shortest tee on many par 4s when there are five of tees, it would likely play as a par 3 based on the Championship par guidelines.

[Cgkdisc]

They might be standards, but they are only standards by default. Anybody using them either doesn't understand that, or doesn't care. Which is FINE. But for anyone to state that the PDGA has any authority, they're making stuff up.
Not sure why this bugs you so much other than a rebel mentality not uncommon in our sport. But go ahead and design a course with a safety issue and try to defend that design in court against the PDGA guidelines if something negative happens. The court is the ultimate arbitrator of authority. Good luck.

Insurance companies also look for authority to assign costs for policies. While many Park Depts are self insured, with more private courses going in, especially pay-for-play they are subject to meeting "accepted" guidelines to either afford or even get insurance.

[Terry C]

For rec play, your opinion is in line with the maybe 50-100 times more rec players than PDGA members who are fine calling everything par 3. So, no problem. You significantly outnumber us. :)

You are not correct from a professional standpoint because those in authority with the PDGA overseeing the sport regarding course design and standards say so. Competitive players within it mostly agree there are pars higher than 3. In fact, it's been in the rules of the sport for tournament play for more than 20 years.

Hopefully, you'll get the chance to visit Highbridge to see what courses with legitimate higher pars are all about. The pars from each set of tees are set for the intended skill level. Top rated Blueberry Hill has the L shaped hole mentioned earlier (#16) with a break to the right then a break to the left when the basket is in the long position and people seem to like its quirkiness. With skillful play, it can be birdied with a satisfying 4. Blue level par on the course ranges from 58-63 depending on where the pins are set.

Many of the players in southern Wisconsin including tourney players grew up on mostly par 3 courses. I saw angry posts online back when Highbridge first went in and Highbridge got critical emails from many of them after they played there due to the longer par 4 & 5 holes. I remember one player was incensed that some holes were so long. He said he's watched Barry Schultz play and if Barry could not birdie (2) them, the design was all wrong. :wall:

I would love to play Highbridge or Blueberry or a bunch of other amazing courses that are out there and I am sure that a lot of those courses are quite hard. I've played probably 10 unsanctioned tournaments over the years, last weekend I played my first pdga sanctioned tournament. I came in 4th in AM's. I missed 3rd place by 1 stroke and would have won some stuff if I would have putted better and not gone OB a couple times. The course I played at had several 700 foot holes (played as par 3). It was a great time. I wouldn't exactly call myself a noob recreational player, but Im not a pro either. I do have 15 years experience discing under my belt so I would hope that meant something when I say something about disc golfing. Honestly, like several other people have said the most important thing is just to finish the course with the fewest number of strokes so what par is or isnt really doesn't matter a whole lot when you think about it in simple terms like that.

I can not tell for sure if you are worked up or feel like I am a hater for discussing this with you. I have been shaking my head at you for time and time again totally missing simple logic, but I have not been stressing or doing anything hateful (no need for a bubble bath here! :) ). Disagreeing is not hating. Discussing is not hating.

Maybe my doggy comments were mistaken as hateful or belligerent.....but I just thought it was amusing that 2 goofy doggy avatars were going back and forth. So, I hope you know where I am coming from and I apologize if anything I have communicated has sounded uncivil.

I'm not angry with you dave, and I didn't miss the point you were making, I just disagree about what par should be and how disc golf courses should be designed to make courses fun and enjoyable for everybody, not just for top elite pro players who are throwing 600 feet drives and making 40 foot putts. Your doggy comments were actually an ice breaker for me because I felt like you were kind of jumping down my throat up to that point but when you made a joke about the dog avatar I saw that you were being cheeky and trying to lighten the conversation up and I actually appreciated that gesture. I laughed at the avatar comment you made. I respect your opinion dave and have no hard feelings, I too apologize if I came off a bit snappy. Sometimes my fingers start typing faster then my brain telling me to slow down and calm down a bit first, lol. Thanks for the closure though dave, lets just agree to disagree for now.;)

A couple of guys on a card at my tournament this past weekend were having a passionate discussion about this very subject in regards to a particularly long hole at one course. Maybe its all the time I've spent on here, but I simply didn't care to get involved, even though I agreed with one of them.

ha ha, that was probably a wise choice staying out of it, I need to learn how to take that approach sometimes. This is just one of those subjects where many people have many different opinions on what par should be and how disc golf courses should be designed. They should be fun for recreational players yet be challenging enough for the top players. I'm sure there will be people discussing this topic for a long time.

[Karl]

No you're not correct Chuck.
Par at any specific distances for Tiger would be the same for me (6-hcp). Period. What point about that statement don't you understand? And it would be the same par for a random male 26-hcper not of junior or senior status.

Twist it all you want Chuck; you'll fool a lot of people on this (and other boards) but you won't fool us all (thank god there are some people in dg that actually DON'T take your words as gospel...but first think about the situation and THEN determine if you're right or just blowing smoke).

Karl

[bazillion]

Sa-a-ay, why don't we all go out and have a nice friendly game of spank-the-chains??

[JesusShoes]

par 3 on everything

[Terry C]

par 3 on everything

"can I get an AMEN brotha!!!!"

[Cgkdisc]

Par at any specific distances for Tiger would be the same for me (6-hcp). Period. What point about that statement don't you understand? And it would be the same par for a random male 26-hcper not of junior or senior status
All males have the same par reference for handicapping purposes, but not the par on the holes for determining the over/under par for their skill levels. Section 16 shows the table for par for scratch women and scratch men golfers: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Rule-16/
That's two different skill standards for starters.

Next Appendix C discusses Junior Par. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Appendix-C/
That's another standard for par set for juniors which identifies four more skill levels - two for boys and two for girls from their tees but those tees will also have a mens and womens scratch par to be used if handicaps are involved.

In addition, the PGA, LPGA and Champions tour have their own set of guidelines for their pars which don't have to comply with the USGA but may overlap. This has been discussed by commentators during the three tour challenge event where reps from each tour play from three different tees with PGA longest and LPGA shortest.

And further, the golf course architects have design guidelines for senior pars although it wouldn't surprise me that they just borrow one of the Junior standards. There are guidelines for up to five sets of tees for rec play. However, all of those tees will have mens and/or womens scratch pars to be used as reference for handicap reporting and events. I've tried to crack the golf architects group but can't get in but have talked with a member about par guidelines.

[magictenor1]

par 3 on everything You're living in the past.

[Terry C]

The past rocked, it wasn't broke so why fix it? people back then must have wanted their scores to appear lower in the future so they came up with higher pars.

[Dave242]

In my opinion par is the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play like you said, but also my opinion is that there should be no par 4's and par 5's. Disc golf holes shouldnt be so long and difficult that they would require a profesional to average 4 or 5 strokes because then that means that an amateur can expect to get a 7 or maybe 8 strokes on that hole and thats not a well designed disc golf hole in my opinion.

This is maybe the most helpful and meaningful thing I have seen you write to help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks. Makes sense.

The reality is that many players and course designers feel differently than you and have different opinions and preferences. There are plenty of courses (the vast majority) that fit your preferences, so those should keep you and those with your preference happy. And there are a growing handful of courses that are clearly not par-54 courses - either by definition or where it is convenient to count your score versus every hole being a 3.

Maybe I will bookmark this page and paste the above paragraph after every time you contribute to the par conversation with "everything is a 3". :D

[craftsman]

So I understand varied par for spectator purposes but I worry that if I used it, it would limit my progress. I am now getting threes on the 700+ holes and fours on the ~1000 footers.
I use the all threes score keeping method and when I quote scores I use the same.
I can see the difference of approaching a shot excited to shoot for eagle/bird as to worrying about the four messin up a low score. My question is what will make me a better golfer???

[mashnut]

So I understand varied par for spectator purposes but I worry that if I used it, it would limit my progress. I am now getting threes on the 700+ holes and fours on the ~1000 footers.
I use the all threes score keeping method and when I quote scores I use the same.
I can see the difference of approaching a shot excited to shoot for eagle/bird as to worrying about the four messin up a low score. My question is what will make me a better golfer???

I'm skeptical of this argument, do you really play the hole differently based on what the par is? I play to get it in with the fewest number of strokes, whether it's a par 3 or a par 17. When I walk up to a 1000' hole (or any), my first thought is about how to play the hole, not about what the par is, and how I feel about my score depends on whether I think I could have done better, not necessarily about whether I'm over or under par.

[craftsman]

I don't know if I would approach it differently- that's why I'm asking if you guys that promote 4's & 5's think it helps your overall by assumingly getting a bird vs. a boge. If it doesn't, I can see the point. I'm not arguing, I just don't see the point of making it hard to keep score and reference eachothers score.
I can understand rewarding a three on a 700+ hole where a three seems to be the lowest possible score, but how does referencing it's par as a four/five help anything.

[TalbotTrojan]

Par is the expected score on a given hole. In ball golf there is a simple formula, the number of strokes it would take you to get to the green plus 2 putts. Obviously certain players will throw further than others and the distance in disc golf seems to be a wider variation in Disc Golf. So, Every hole should be at least a tee shot plus two putts making everything at least a par three though I am sure there are some holes in disc golf that might deserve a par 2. Not that I always do it but everything from 150 ft and in should be in with two throws. So, your green in Disc Golf is 150 ft. Now I know there are some top pros out there who can bomb a disc over 500 ft. However, it seems a number around 350 ft would be more appropriate for a minimum of someone looking to call themselves a pro. So, 350 ft plus 150 ft makes 500 ft. Disc Golf also has the privilage of being a sport where terrain comes much more into play as apposed to Ball Golf. So, if there are expected landing areas for given holes par may be adjusted for this as well. It is going to be a much more complex calculation in Disc Golf but there needs to be a standard and it cannot be all par 3.

[BrotherDave]

Meh, I just play whatever the posted par is, I hate telling noobs that I play certain courses as "all par 3's" because I sound like a Straq-head. Besides, if a course has par 4's and 5's that should be 3's I just take into account and smite the course with a snarky review.

[craftsman]

Do you guys use 4's & 5's on the am tees too?

[Dave242]

Par is the expected score on a given hole. In ball golf there is a simple formula, the number of strokes it would take you to get to the green plus 2 putts. Obviously certain players will throw further than others and the distance in disc golf seems to be a wider variation in Disc Golf.
I think the reason that it seems that way is that the vast majority of DG courses do not have nearly the number of alternate tees as most golf courses do. If everyone played from the men's tees you would see a pretty wide variation.

So, Every hole should be at least a tee shot plus two putts making everything at least a par three though I am sure there are some holes in disc golf that might deserve a par 2. Not that I always do it but everything from 150 ft and in should be in with two throws. So, your green in Disc Golf is 150 ft. Now I know there are some top pros out there who can bomb a disc over 500 ft. However, it seems a number around 350 ft would be more appropriate for a minimum of someone looking to call themselves a pro. So, 350 ft plus 150 ft makes 500 ft. Disc Golf also has the privilage of being a sport where terrain comes much more into play as apposed to Ball Golf. So, if there are expected landing areas for given holes par may be adjusted for this as well. It is going to be a much more complex calculation in Disc Golf but there needs to be a standard and it cannot be all par 3.

You have basically defined what Olorin has as with his Close Range Level Par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar). It takes into account both the level of player that at courses was designed for (or is best suited for) and the typical skills of those players. For the reasons which you state, I think is the best system - most logical and easiest to understand & implement.

Rather than have 4-5 tees per hole each with its own color (level) like most golf courses do, with the CR-Par model you can easily calculate what an expert player at each level would be expected to score (their Level Par). The intent is not that signs would list each level of par, but rather that the sign maker would determine whom the course is best suited for and list the appropriate par for that level of player. IMO opinion, a sign at the info kiosk explaining this would be very helpful.

[Dave242]

I don't know if I would approach it differently- that's why I'm asking if you guys that promote 4's & 5's think it helps your overall by assumingly getting a bird vs. a boge.

I will copy what I wrote above to explain why it is important to me:
-----------------------
A course with thoughtful design has challenge built in for the target audience/player to achieve par, excitement & satisfaction designed in for birdies and disappointment & frustration built in for bogeys or worse. Playing courses that are targeted at ones skill level will produce those emotions....and those emotions are a huge part of why many people (the ones with at least one competitive gene in their bodies) get addicted to DG.

Now, if I play a course that is too short for me birdies are routine/boring, pars are disappointing and bogeys have nothing to do with the course punishing me and everything to do with my poor performance. Likewise, courses that are too long for me are impossible to birdie (so I miss out on that excitement) and have pars that are typically routine (shortish upshot every time). So the only emotion left is the disappointment & frustration of screwing up. To me, that is not a lot of fun since there is no upside and only downside in trying to do my best.
-----------------

One of the 5 components that I factor into my grade's (that go into my rating) for my reviews is "rewarding birdies". I do this since I am an almost prototypical Blue level player (throw maybe 20-30' shorter than average), so my hope is that similar players can benefit from what I share.

Basically, what I am saying is that if a course is too long for me it is better suited for Gold level players and if it is too short for me it is better suited for Red or White level players. So, CR-Par for that level should be used for course par.

[craftsman]

I get that using varied par will yield better reviews, but do you think that mentality of going for eagle/bird helps your score vs. taking a stroke or two?

[Dave242]

Not at all. I play every hole with a strategy to maximize my chances to score the lowest I can.

Some Gold level par 4's and 5's are rewarding for me to get just par on. I do not play them to get birdies - 3's or 4's. Here is an example: Renny Gold #11 - "Be the Disc!" video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_13G.mpg). 1,042' Gold Par-5. OB lines the fairway all the way down on both sides (fairway is around 100' wide narrowing to around 80' near the basket).

I am a Blue level player and throw 300' accurately, 340' max.....so let's say 320' is perfect play - the best I can possibly expect of myself (including throwing from the fairway). 320' x 3 throws = 960' which leaves me an easy 82' (2 throws to get up and down). This means 5 is the best I can ever realistically hope for (unless my D improves).......but the measly upshot of 82' leaves me less than thrilled. That is the math.....but in reality with the wind and the cedar trees dotting the fairway, a 5 is actually pretty satisfying to me.

If I throw safer (the smarter option) with a 300' drive and 2 275' fairway throws, that gets me to 850' and leaves me 192' to get up and down in (which I can do almost all the time). So, playing safer does not hurt my score and is still not super fun scoring wise. And finally if I get super aggressive and go for my 340' max on every throw (3 x 340' gets me to within 22'), I am almost certain to go OB at least once and not gain a thing (more likely lose a stroke).

Now, for a Gold player who can throw say 380' accurately, 2 throws gets him 760' and leaves him 282' to get up and down for a rewarding birdie 4.

Hopefully I demonstrated that the par on the sign does not dictate my strategy AND that how knowing that Par-5 is set for Gold level players can give me a good idea that the hole may not suite a Blue level player well.

[JesusShoes]

I understand the fight for the sign par......... but i just can't use it because of all the tournaments I play in....... sign par makes you feel better than you really are. :)

[juanbond]

....

[Ukeubuuke]

Sign par is a good morale booster for beginners like myself.

[chiefcastor]

I usually just play everything par 3 because that is what the scorecard app on my phone defaults to.

[Dave242]

I understand the fight for the sign par......... but i just can't use it because of all the tournaments I play in....... sign par makes you feel better than you really are. :)

Sign par is a good morale booster for beginners like myself.

I do not know if either of you meant this, but these posts back to back made an important point.......at least to me:

How good we feel about ourselves and our game SHOULD be based purely how we are performing (and improving) to our own standards. It "should" be this way since golf is an individual sport - one in which we can only control how we perform (if it was full-contact DG, that would be different :D)

BUT.......I think the psychology for many is to compare how we are doing to other players. In the case of tournament play, that comparison is very easy to make and to see. In essence what Ukeubuuke is saying is that he is comparing himself to others by the use of the Par on the sign.

So, if you are using the (flawed) psychology of feeling better about your game by comparing your score to sign par, it is very important to understand who that Par is for. Is it for a Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, or Pro level player (Red/Green, White, Blue, or Gold level)?

The analogy would be for me (a novice ball golfer) to go to a Par-4 tee used at the US Open and feel discouraged that I can never get a 4. Makes no sense at all.

[craftsman]

Thanks Dave.

[grodney]

It's been a while since I posted this, and I'm REALLY BORED, so:

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.


It's really that simple.

[magictenor1]

I get that using varied par will yield better reviews, but do you think that mentality of going for eagle/bird helps your score vs. taking a stroke or two? I don't think it affects my score because I am always trying to go low. As Dave has said it is psychological. I am probably a middle of the road player. I absolutely hate to step up to a hole and know that I have no chance of getting a par. I do not like to play courses where I have no chances at birdie. That is all psychological. My score doesn't change but the idea of par ie the whole concept is about what you hypothetically should shoot. therefore Holes that almost no one can make a 3 on should not be labeled as par 3's

[Dave242]

It's been a while since I posted this, and I'm REALLY BORED, so:

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.

It's really that simple.

Good* definition. Sounds like you are not in the Scoring Average Par (SA-Par) camp. :)

* Good in general, but "reached" is not specific enough - there is a big difference in being under the basket and close enough to expect to get "up and down" almost all the time. Also, there needs some specificity in defining the length each skill level is expected to be able to throw. (.....enter the CR-Par definition (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar))

[grodney]

* Good in general, but "reached" is not specific enough - there is a big difference in being under the basket and close enough to expect to get "up and down" almost all the time.

Ah, yes, "reached" means that you're putting.

Not that you're in the circle.

Not that you can get up-and-down almost all the time.

But that you're putting.

It's purposely vague, but that is what is meant.

[deBebbler]

If a hole is 600 it is par 3. If a hole is 700-800-900-1000 then it is still a par 3. A 1000 foot hole should be 2 seperate holes and designed better.

I would rather end up being 20 over par playing every hole as a par 3 then end up being even because I was playing every hole as a 5.

Concur. And unfortunately, I often do. :mad:

Dude - you need to get with the times. .....or play the old-school easy courses and stay away from a real golfing experience.

Multi-throw holes make for so much better golf. On reachable holes, after 1-3 rounds you have it figured out exactly what you are going to do and then it is just up to having to execute. On multi-throw holes, your drive will seldom leave you with the same 2nd shot round to round. So the is so much more creativity and need for shot making skill that your basic reachable hole.

(I know, I know.....I am taking the bait of an "everything is a 3" troll).

So there is no value to placing the disc in the same place every time, huh?

And since I live directly below the Mackinac Bridge, I have no problem being labeled a Troll.


Sign par is a good morale booster for beginners like myself.

And the longer you play it, the longer you will be a beginner.

I first click the Multi-Quote reply button to make it a ["-] (bottom right corner middle button) first and then hit the Reply with Quote button ["Reply]. At this point I just move all the end quotes notations on each one of the quote sections to the end of all the quotes and put them one after each other.

I can't believe I didn't think of that! :doh:

And EVERY hole is par 3, played from pro tees. Period. How much effort are you going to put into improvement if you routinely put up a 5 under "par" playing amateur tees, and course pars?

Played doubles with our local league for the first time yesterday (I am ALWAYS working when these things are scheduled :mad:) They asked me my level of play and I saw the looks of appreciation when I said "I always play pro tees, and usually play bogey golf." If I'm not mistaken, there was even a little respect too for the implicit "suck it if you don't like it" in my answer.

Nothing pisses off leaguers more than when a newcomer says they play 5-6 over and neglect to say that is from amature tees, course par, on a good day and then proceed to sink their partner's game.

BTW, my partner and I put up a 9 under (24 holes) and were one stroke away from $$$. We often flipped a coin to see which drive we would use, and a nice amount of my putts, fluttering like mad, went into chains. :D

[DiscJunkie]

I do not know if either of you meant this, but these posts back to back made an important point.......at least to me:

How good we feel about ourselves and our game SHOULD be based purely how we are performing (and improving) to our own standards. It "should" be this way since golf is an individual sport - one in which we can only control how we perform (if it was full-contact DG, that would be different :D)

BUT.......I think the psychology for many is to compare how we are doing to other players. In the case of tournament play, that comparison is very easy to make and to see. In essence what Ukeubuuke is saying is that he is comparing himself to others by the use of the Par on the sign.

So, if you are using the (flawed) psychology of feeling better about your game by comparing your score to sign par, it is very important to understand who that Par is for. Is it for a Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, or Pro level player (Red/Green, White, Blue, or Gold level)?

The analogy would be for me (a novice ball golfer) to go to a Par-4 tee used at the US Open and feel discouraged that I can never get a 4. Makes no sense at all.


No disrespect to Dave242, but...
I don't agree with the reasoning here, if I understand it correctly.
I take for example the young Tiger Woods. He tells the story of how his father would set par for him on each hole based on his skill level. This was to keep him from becoming too discouraged and trying too play above his skill level. Tiger says that it allowed him to feel good about his progress without fretting about a posted par that was above his skill level; or conversely, becoming too satisfied about a posted par that was below his skill level.
Since I learned on a couple of courses that had very easy posted pars, it allowed me to enjoy the game immensely, while I progressed to the point where I am now (pretty much everything is a Par 3).
Now I ignore posted pars on MOST, not all, courses. But it sure helped when I was new to the game.

[Dave242]

They asked me my level of play and I saw the looks of appreciation when I said "I always play pro tees, and usually play bogey golf." If I'm not mistaken, there was even a little respect too for the implicit "suck it if you don't like it" in my answer.

Nothing pisses off leaguers more than when a newcomer says they play 5-6 over and neglect to say that is from amature tees, course par, on a good day and then proceed to sink their partner's game.

League play is a blast and doubles makes it even more fun. I am jealous of you that you have a good league on a good course close by.

One question: Why did you relate your ability to them in terms of par rather than just saying something like "I typically shoot a 96 on this course from the Pro tees"? (96 is 24 holes at a "bogey 4" on each)

If I was the TD (and I have indeed run TONS of league events) and the newcomer said anything in terms of par, I would immediately ask for clarification as in "what score is typical from what tees?" IMO it is the "leaguers'" fault for hosing those players' partners NOT the newcomer.

[Dave242]

No disrespect to Dave242, but...
I don't agree with the reasoning here, if I understand it correctly.
I take for example the young Tiger Woods. He tells the story of how his father would set par for him on each hole based on his skill level. This was to keep him from becoming too discouraged and trying too play above his skill level. Tiger says that it allowed him to feel good about his progress without fretting about a posted par that was above his skill level; or conversely, becoming too satisfied about a posted par that was below his skill level.

I think we are exactly on the same page. What Tiger's dad did was essentially tell him, "You are playing from the men's tee so ignore the listed par-4 since you are not a man yet. If you play this hole perfectly, what you will do is hit your first shot to that tree, your second shot 40 yards short of that sand trap, pitch onto the green and hole out in 2 putts. If you get a 5 you should be very pleased and I will be proud of you. If you manage to hole out with just one putt you will have a birdie 4!"

What both you and I (and Earl) are advocating is playing to one's skill level......not comparing one's self with others.

[Dave242]

And the longer you play it, the longer you will be a beginner.

Since I learned on a couple of courses that had very easy posted pars, it allowed me to enjoy the game immensely, while I progressed to the point where I am now (pretty much everything is a Par 3).
Now I ignore posted pars on MOST, not all, courses. But it sure helped when I was new to the game.

It is not me you are disagreeing with, it is deBebbler and the folks who think like him.

[deBebbler]

League play is a blast and doubles makes it even more fun. I am jealous of you that you have a good league on a good course close by.

One question: Why did you relate your ability to them in terms of par rather than just saying something like "I typically shoot a 96 on this course from the Pro tees"? (96 is 24 holes at a "bogey 4" on each)

If I was the TD (and I have indeed run TONS of league events) and the newcomer said anything in terms of par, I would immediately ask for clarification as in "what score is typical from what tees?" IMO it is the "leaguers'" fault for hosing those players' partners NOT the newcomer.

Yeah, that was me thinking faster than I type (and limited post editing time in DGCR forum :mad:). I actually said I play pro tees, everything par 3 and play bogey golf. Even though I can't ever get there, I still know the Usual Suspects that were present and realized that math should be kept to a minimum. ;)

I have come to like my local course more. I prefer the Old Ski Hill type courses we have around here (and really miss the defunct course at Sugar Loaf in Leelanau County) for the significant variety of holes they offer. River Road is often swampy, and it took a long time to get past that. Now I really appreciate how it can be a big wind tunnel and reliably challenge me. Also, I have always had a great close course nearby (Great Woods in Lansing, Hickory Hills & Sugar Loaf in Traverse City, etc.) After scanning the DGCR Map View of courses, and seeing areas where there is only one course close by (and it is 9 holes), I bitch much less about my Local. . . but I still end up driving often to play a ski hill.

True, about the "leaguer's fault" part, too.

[deBebbler]

And the longer you play it, the longer you will be a beginner.

Since I learned on a couple of courses that had very easy posted pars, it allowed me to enjoy the game immensely, while I progressed to the point where I am now (pretty much everything is a Par 3).
Now I ignore posted pars on MOST, not all, courses. But it sure helped when I was new to the game.

It is not me you are disagreeing with, it is deBebbler and the folks who think like him.

I can't see DiscJunkie disagreeing with me at all. If anything, he is reinforcing my point. He played course par as a beginner, and now ignores most posted pars since he is no longer a beginner.

In the end, you are playing against yourself. The only one standing in the way of feeling good about playing "bogey golf on Pro Par 3" is the same one standing in the way of paring those same holes....you. (well, not you personally, Dave242 :D)

[craftsman]

Dave, he didn't have to say what par he plays cause here in the mitten it's assumed three;)

I beleive dgscene uses all threes too, granted it's originated by a mi. tosser.

I saw a guy yesterday after I finished a warm up at willow. Nice kid, but when I asked him what he shot he said 15 down from the longs! I had just shot -3 on the shorts so I asked for clarification. Turns out he played all fives. IMHO he could be a better golfer if he played all threes from the ams.

[Cgkdisc]

So if setting par on the holes as 3s instead of 5s will make a player better, then par really does matter. In that case, we could all get even better if some holes are set as par 2s? :)

[Olorin]

the thing is, does "par" matter? just go see who throws less.
Why Par Matters (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/Par-Important)

[Olorin]

I think that part of the confusion in this debate is because some people are talking about whether or not to play "Sign par". In my experience, the vast majority of sign pars are worthless because they are based on vague and unreliable standards, plus they're usually "Rec par" instead of par for a certain skill level. Although the PDGA has standards for par, as does CR Par, these are rarely used by the vast majority of courses. So I don't use Sign par since I never really know how they derived their numbers. Instead I use "True Par" (which just happens to be CR Par (http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar)), and it has to be calculated from the effective length of the hole.

[craftsman]

So if setting par on the holes as 3s instead of 5s will make a player better, then par really does matter. In that case, we could all get even better if some holes are set as par 2s? :)

I know your being smart but i do think it would help, though I could be wrong. I use the "2's" to try to help balance the long holes. I'm far from being a great player so if I can average four strokes, with the ocassional three on a hole that's sign says par 5- how is that number accurate? Why factor in two putts?

I'm not against varied par, I think it'd be cool to say I eagled a hole, I just like how easy it is to keep and compare scores.
Do you guys play varied par on the am tees?

[Cgkdisc]

Seriously, I believe top players, and even further from the top players, think of certain holes as par 2s in terms of their expectations where a 3 feels like a bogey. So par does matter for many in dealing with the mental game as you suggest. If a hole listed as a par 5 is 3'd by anyone with a putt (versus a 150' upshot) other than a top pro, I agree it's not a par 5 for that skill level.

[magictenor1]

I don't agree with the idea that if you are -5 or +5 changes how you try to play. I am always looking to play my best and improve my score. If I am playing a difficult course then my focus might be on trying to limit bogies wheras on an easy course it might be making as many birdies as possible but I am always trying to score my best. When you watch ball golf tournies you see the par 5's are the holes where good players expect to pick up birdies (and eagles sometimes) so I don't mind seeing an easy (relatively) par 5 sometimes.

[Terry C]

Dave, he didn't have to say what par he plays cause here in the mitten it's assumed three;)

I beleive dgscene uses all threes too, granted it's originated by a mi. tosser.

I saw a guy yesterday after I finished a warm up at willow. Nice kid, but when I asked him what he shot he said 15 down from the longs! I had just shot -3 on the shorts so I asked for clarification. Turns out he played all fives. IMHO he could be a better golfer if he played all threes from the ams.

Thats the problem, that kid thought he was an awesome disc golfer because he ended up being 15 under par, only because he was playing par 5's, thats pretty stupid.

He was actually around 15-20 over par if he were playing par 3. This score indicates his skill level much better than the other way he was keeping score.

If I played a hard course I could say Im 20 strokes under par and I am the best discgolfer in the land (of course only if I play all par 5's)

[Terry C]

18 holes x3 for par= 54.
18 holes x5 for par= 90.

Thats a huge differece in what par ends up being. To me if you are making everything a par 5 it is probobly just a method you have created to feel better about yourself because you cant end up after 18 holes being anywhere near par, so you are making the par higher to make your game look better then it really is.

[DSCJNKY]

It's been a while since I posted this, and I'm REALLY BORED, so:

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.


It's really that simple.

All of this is correct. It really is that simple.
DSCJNKY

[Terry C]

Flip City, the number 1 rated course in the USA uses all par 3's for all 24 holes. Thats a tough course. I end up being 5-10 over par on it all the time. I would be pissed off if they changed the pars to 4-5's. Almost everyone would just keep playing it as a par 3 course like they play any other course with par 4-5's.

[Cgkdisc]

Based on the tournament SSAs, it is essentially a par 3 course though.

[craftsman]

Haha. There's a thread on dgrus named ace country. The op is asking why on dgscene there's a Michigan ace everyday- maybe cause we use 3's
;)

[Terry C]

Haha. There's a thread on dgrus named ace country. The op is asking why on dgscene there's a Michigan ace everyday- maybe cause we use 3's
;)

Those damn filthy par 3 using michigan bastards!! lol

[Cgkdisc]

Not surprising since the Ace Race event originates from Michigan.

[sirflicksalot]

use posted par but if there is none i do all 3 all the way

[Terry C]

use posted par but if there is none i do all 3 all the way

The problem with that is a lot of courses list the holes as par 4-5 to make it nice and easy for the noobies when actually they should be listed as par 3.

[Dave242]

Flip City, the number 1 rated course in the USA uses all par 3's for all 24 holes. Thats a tough course. I end up being 5-10 over par on it all the time. I would be pissed off if they changed the pars to 4-5's. Almost everyone would just keep playing it as a par 3 course like they play any other course with par 4-5's.

Looking at the list of raw lengths (not effective length that factors in elevation - and I know there is elevation!) from the long tees:
* There are 4 holes out of 24 that would be considered par-4's using CR-Par for Blue level (2, 2A, 15, 16).
* 2 of those 4 are extremely short par-4's. 15 is 446' which is only 16' past the 430' threshold, and 16 is 477' (47' past the threshold). Neither of these would be Gold Par-4's by CR-Par standards.
* There are 5 holes shorter than 200' - and most of those I assume are expected to be deuced by Blue level players and higher.

So, as Chuck mentioned (regarding SSAs), this certainly seems like a "par-3" type course and a course that is totally reasonable that everyone would use "all par-3" for easy scoring.

That said, just because the #1 DGCR User-rated course in the country has only 2-4 true par-4's (and no par-5's) does not make your argument any more legit. Neither does the fact that you have been playing 15+ years and you have always done it that way. Heck, even I have been playing that long and I consider myself a relative newcomer to the game.

[Dave242]

The problem with that is a lot of courses list the holes as par 4-5 to make it nice and easy for the noobies when actually they should be listed as par 3.

Changing a number on a sign (or scorecard or website) does absolutely nothing......nada.......zilch.........squat to make the hole design play easier or harder. Nor does it do anything to make them seem harder or easier. Absurd!

[DSCJNKY]

Flip City, the number 1 rated course in the USA uses all par 3's for all 24 holes. Thats a tough course. I end up being 5-10 over par on it all the time. I would be pissed off if they changed the pars to 4-5's. Almost everyone would just keep playing it as a par 3 course like they play any other course with par 4-5's.

The USDGC... one of the Top tournaments in the country, and played by all the top players in the country/world... uses Par 4's and 5's. I don't remember hearing any of the pros complaining about the Par there.

Therefore, if Par 4's and 5's are seen as legit by the Top pros, then they should be legit for you too.
DSCJNKY

[mykeg44]

I usually play 3 for every hole, but if I'm having a bad day, I'll usually switch to the posted pars to make myself feel better.

[Terry C]

I usually play 3 for every hole, but if I'm having a bad day, I'll usually switch to the posted pars to make myself feel better.

Pars higher then 3 make everybody feel better about their score, thats why people like high pars so much.

Apparently I am the martar for the par 3 people now. Tons of people feel the same as me, as I see from reading everybody's posts in this thread, but all the par 4-5-6 lovers need someone to be angry at because their logic isn't being subscribed to by everybody. So bark away boys. I still think everything should be par 3, even after all the stellar statistics and garbage people have been spouting off to try to convince us otherwise.

[Terry C]

Changing a number on a sign (or scorecard or website) does absolutely nothing......nada.......zilch.........squat to make the hole design play easier or harder. Nor does it do anything to make them seem harder or easier. Absurd!

Nope, it only makes guys like yourself feel better about their scores when they are under par because the courses par is jacked. If the par posted on the hole makes squat...zilch...nada of a difference then why do you get so damn worked up whenever someone says par should be 3?

Why are you still arguing with me? I'm beginning to feel your apology to me wasn't very genuine now David.:thmbdown:

[bettsjc]

There are a few courses here in the Charlotte area which par reflects a "rec player" standard. I also feel it is more prevelent on beginners courses. Mint Hill's 9 hole course labels a few 250' holes as par 4 and a 350ish' hole at par 5. At Kilborne TPC there are 2 holes posted par 4s(#12,#17), but among club members and intermediate local players it is known to play as all par 3s.

As far as my feelings about par in general...
-It does make it a ton easier to remember what you're shooting to think of all holes as par 3s, but the fact of the matter is that some holes ARE NOT commonly shot in 3 or even 4 shots. On a 500' hole, it would take an average player(with excellent shots) to possibly not even be able to par the hole.

But you have to have some sort of standard of judging difficulty of a course. If they were all par 54, how would you be able to tell course difficulty unless you've played it. And what's the fun in the game if par is unreachable?

Usually club members in the area are much more familiar with understood pars rather than the posted pars. I say play whichever makes you feel better about what you're shooting and what your level of play may be. Chances are that if you are real competitive with disc golf you probably know what actual par is on any given hole.

[Terry C]

The USDGC... one of the Top tournaments in the country, and played by all the top players in the country/world... uses Par 4's and 5's. I don't remember hearing any of the pros complaining about the Par there.

Therefore, if Par 4's and 5's are seen as legit by the Top pros, then they should be legit for you too.
DSCJNKY

Inflated pars aren't "legit" for me, probably a substantial percentage of pros dont think so either. A professional disc golfer playing a particular tournament doesn't regulate that courses pars, they have absolutely no control over that.

Every single touring pro playing in a perticular tournament has to accept whatever rules and pars the tournament demands otherwise they cant play in the tournament. That doesn't mean all pros subscribe to the "pars should be higher then 4 philosophy". They have to accept it because they want to play in the tournament and they have no choice of the matter what the pars for that course are.

This as a good argument for higher pars? Because some pro tournaments have some holes that aren't marked par 3?

[Dave242]

Apparently I am the martar for the par 3 people now. Tons of people feel the same as me, as I see from reading everybody's posts in this thread, but all the par 4-5-6 lovers need someone to be angry at because their logic isn't being subscribed to by everybody. So bark away boys.

If the par posted on the hole makes squat...zilch...nada of a difference then why do you get so damn worked up whenever someone says par should be 3?

Why are you still arguing with me? I'm beginning to feel your apology to me wasn't very genuine now David.:thmbdown:

Why do you feel like discussing and disagreeing is the result of anger and is coming from being all worked up?

Actually, this discussion is helping me makes sense of the thinking of the par-3 folks: I happen to be a logical/analytical person and I am learning that the arguments for par from many people are rooted in emotion - how their scoring makes them feel.......and they relate that to par.

The emotion of scoring is very real - I feel it a ton and I posted about it (and copy-pasted that post later....although I hate doing that). But, that scoring/emotion is (and should be) related to how one scores against your potential, not against other people (golf is an individual game).

One parting question: Are all 18 hole ball golf courses par-54? Please explain why or why not.

[Cgkdisc]

The original guidelines for par from the DGA when they sold signs with their baskets up until maybe 2000 was:
Par 3: under 200'
Par 4: 200'-265'
Par 5: over 265'

Sort of unrealistic, even in the 90s for Rec Par. But some existing signs for par on older courses probably follow those old guidelines.

[tallpaul]

Our local designer; now, with at least 8 courses to his credit; still believes in posting course pars for the very recreational player....in an attempt to ENCOURAGE new players; rather than DISCOURAGE them. He (and, I believe rightfully so) feels, that as you become addicted and a more regular player; you will soon realize that holes are largely played all as threes.
In the newest upcoming design of what is already our best course; he is planning some real par 4 holes; even for gold level players.
These are really the holes we are discussing; correct? These are the types of holes that will leave blue level players wondering what to play as par (a couple of these may very well be more like par 5's for blue level players/especially tourney tee to tourney pin).
He may have to make them par 7s or 8s for the rec designation!!! :)

[Dave242]

There are a few courses here in the Charlotte area which par reflects a "rec player" standard. I also feel it is more prevelent on beginners courses. Mint Hill's 9 hole course labels a few 250' holes as par 4 and a 350ish' hole at par 5. At Kilborne TPC there are 2 holes posted par 4s(#12,#17), but among club members and intermediate local players it is known to play as all par 3s.

That in not 100% accurate. For the five 18 hole courses that are highlighted on cdgc.com and Veterans Park (Mint Hill is not a CDGC course technically), the pars listed on the scorecards online are accurate. The club and the course designers agree (I happen to know since I was a club leader, spent a lot of time getting consensus and making those scorecards). They match correctly the level of play the courses were designed for. Those pars are used in sanctioned tournament play to assess penalties correctly for showing up late and to report to the PDGA.

For example, Kilborne (a White level course) holes 4, 5 (long basket), 12, 15 (LB), 16 (LB) & 17 (LB) are all par-4's (easy par-4's, but still par-4's). The signs at Kilborne unfortunately do not correspond - the club never felt it was a financial priority to make new ones rather than put resources towards new courses (or upgrading existing).

Now......for scoring purposes, the "all par-3" method works great at Kilborne. I used it myself for dozens and dozens of rounds over 10 or so years - lots of good times and great memories!

[Terry C]

One parting question: Are all 18 hole ball golf courses par-54? Please explain why or why not.

Probably not. So what does that have to do with disc golf? Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work. We already had this discussion, just page back to it if you need to revisit it again.

[Dave242]

Probably not. So what does that have to do with disc golf? Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work.

With the risk of making you think I am angry, what you say here is absurd.

Disc golf is a copycat game patterned after ball golf. It was invented with people saying, "Hey let's throw our Frisbees around and see who can hit targets in the least number of throws." That concept was exactly like golf and the game was born with exactly the same scoring mentality (striving to get the lowest number of strokes/throws from tee to target trying to complete a predetermined course). The terminology is very similar: par, birdie, bogey, eagle, drive, putt, you get "stroked" for penalties (although we do not stroke, we throw), tees, doglegs, greens, fairways.

The world (and disc golfers) is conditioned to think of golf by golf terms and concepts. If we do not want to seem like frolfers, we should get away from the biggest area in our tradition that makes no sense - "everything is par 3".

[DSCJNKY]

......Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work. .....

Uh... Have you ever played ball golf?
And, why do you think they have ball golf courses with disc golf courses on them?

Last I checked, (which was the last time I bowled), they didn't have a basketball court on the lanes.
DSCJNKY

[AdamCaudle]

Probably not. So what does that have to do with disc golf? Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work. We already had this discussion, just page back to it if you need to revisit it again.

Idk, Disc Golf and Ball Golf are very similar objective wise, While basketball and bowling are not.

[Terry C]

Hitting a small ball several hundred yards with a club into a hole is exactly like throwing a disc several hundred feet with your hand into a basket. The rules of ball golf and disc golf are exactly the same. P.S, I have a bag of magic beans for sale if you want to climb the stalk up to the castle.

They do both have the word "golf" in the name so I guess they are the same thing, my bad.

Par is 3

[WillA]

Okay. I try to stay out of this but... "Par is 3" just doesn't make any sense at all. And that attitude holds the game back.

The truth is that "par" is whatever the course signs or event organizer says it is. You can play it as 3, or 2, or 8. But that's not par. That's Terry.

Now there are certainly a lot of courses where par is set too high. That's because our game is still young. We'll get it all sorted out. But the Luddite notion that every hole has to be a 3 doesn't help.

[craftsman]

I think it nice that I can say, "hey Terry, what cha shoot at brewer white?" and I can get an easy to compare score without having to look up pars since I only play there a few times a year.

[craftsman]

I wil say that I like the longer and harder holes too, I just play em as threes

[AdamH]

I think because the majority of holes are par 3, players tend to think of everything as par 3. So when you encounter a par 4 on the course, it's easier to act as if it's a par 3 rather than make an exception for one or two holes. I'm not saying this is correct, just the way it often is.

Total number of throws is the way to go IMO. One of the courses in my area is a par 58. And if you shoot par you did pretty darn well. A 58 was rated about 960 in the tournament there last month and if you shoot a 54, that's a couple points shy of a 1000 rated round :eek:

[magictenor1]

With the risk of making you think I am angry, what you say here is absurd.

Disc golf is a copycat game patterned after ball golf. It was invented with people saying, "Hey let's throw our Frisbees around and see who can hit targets in the least number of throws." That concept was exactly like golf and the game was born with exactly the same scoring mentality (striving to get the lowest number of strokes/throws from tee to target trying to complete a predetermined course). The terminology is very similar: par, birdie, bogey, eagle, drive, putt, you get "stroked" for penalties (although we do not stroke, we throw), tees, doglegs, greens, fairways.

The world (and disc golfers) is conditioned to think of golf by golf terms and concepts. If we do not want to seem like frolfers, we should get away from the biggest area in our tradition that makes no sense - "everything is par 3".
Right on target Dave. The idea that our sport is not related to ball golf is ridiculus. If you look under course design at the thread from John houck design you will see some interesting thoughts on this very subject.

[grodney]

All of this is correct. It really is that simple.
DSCJNKY

YAY!

But I can't take credit myself. I stole the heart of it from posts made by John Houck, Ken Climo, and Dave Dunipace on the old pdga message board.

They all agreed, and I can't think of 3 better authorities.

(Plus, they're right! That is, I agree!)

To review:
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.

[Cgkdisc]

Of course, those guys are old school and their quotes are still close but a bit outdated. That was before the stats showed that 2 putts was almost twice number of putts experts take within 10m. ;)

[bigghigg]

Probably not. So what does that have to do with disc golf? Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work. We already had this discussion, just page back to it if you need to revisit it again.

No, it's like comparing ice hockey to floor hockey. They're both hockey. Par in disc golf, as in ball golf, should be an indication of the length/difficulty of the hole against a standard definition (which is separate topic). At the end of the day it's the number of throws/strokes that determines the final score. Using par is simply an easier way to keep track.

[DSCJNKY]

YAY!

But I can't take credit myself. I stole the heart of it from posts made by John Houck, Ken Climo, and Dave Dunipace on the old pdga message board.

They all agreed, and I can't think of 3 better authorities.


Yeah... That's pretty much a who's who in three different DG categories.

The most respected course designer. The Champ. And the guy who designs our discs (if you use innova).

Enough said.
DSCJNKY

[Dave242]

As far as the concept of what Par should be (a general definition)........you are right - "Enough said".

But as far as an actionable definition that can be put into the hands of organizers and designers it is lacking the following specifics and details that would be needed to correctly assign par to new and existing courses:
1) What does "reached" mean? Parked? In the "circle"? Something other distance wherein the 2 extra throws are expected to happen?
2) Who does this apply to (what level of player) and what are the specifics of how far they are expected to be able to throw?

These questions need to be answered before signs and scorecards can be made. If not defined for the folks doing so, this definition does very little in helping to establish consistent and meaningful numbers (other than help eradicate the "everything is par-3" backwards thinking).

[grodney]

Of course, those guys are old school and their quotes are still close but a bit outdated. That was before the stats showed that 2 putts was almost twice number of putts experts take within 10m. ;)

hee hee. I know you're just messin', but 10m doesn't mean anything. (I don't disagree with your statement.)

Data I gathered in 2005 showed golfers in the 950-1000 range making right around 50% of their first putts. And by putts, I mean using a putting motion and trying to make it (hole outs and obvious layups excluded). This could be anywhere from a drop-in to 75 (or more) feet, depending on the player and the hole. Three-putts turned out to be a nearly negligible percent.

Therefore, the total number of putts per hole was right around 1.5.


(My data set was small and it's getting old. It would be mildly interesting to see similar data from today across a wide range of skill levels and holes.)

(I track my putts (as defined above) on the Elon Long course in Charlotte. After 8 rounds, my average is exactly 1.50 per hole. I'm not very good, so I would indeed expect it to be lower for better players.)

[grodney]

But as far as an actionable definition that can be put into the hands of organizers and designers i

I was going to say "actionable shmactionable", but I found this in my archives. I apparently made this years ago for just such instances.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/partable.jpg

This would apply to the vast majority of courses meant for normal public play. Or even minor- to medium-sized tournaments.

If you really want to confuse them, also mention that they should adjust 3 feet for every 1 foot of elevation change.

[Dave242]

If you really want to confuse them, also mention that they should adjust 3 feet for every 1 foot of elevation change.

I'm normally not a LOL sort of person (I laugh a lot on the inside though), but you almost had me there!

Good chart BTW since it is simple and intuitive (even though it is not along the CR-Par philiosophy). I like how it clearly shows the lengths that make tweener holes.

[grodney]

tweener holes.

Or as a great man once coined: The Grey Area.

[Cgkdisc]

Ah, Yes, the Gray Zone
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/3OEYv7GnOGhU6GUfx6IKhlSogLhTHII5o5-YMAg6wsI-i*maeY8reiHSEj9etJLQzTiOhbY5M-psFxTIuZnJhWLnBoIoOiuG/grayzone2003chart.gif

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

This would apply to the vast majority of courses meant for normal public play. Or even minor- to medium-sized tournaments.

Very simple :clap: I would imagine that for gold level players you just add length and do the opposite for lower-ability players. Or put another way: This is where you put the "blue tees." The "am/red tees" are forward (and located with easier lines). The "gold tees" are further back and may implement more difficult lines...

[craftsman]

I'm ready for varied par as soon as you guys are ready;)

from all the forums I've read about par, what I've found is there are multiple ways to figure it, some I agree with more then others, but no one is on the same page. So how can varied par promoters pretend that it's the 3ers that are the problem. We have our facts straight- all 3's all the time, it's yourselves holding yourself back by not being in agreence.

I'll admit it helps access penalties, gives comparable scoring for tv coverage, and helps promote courses for thier intended level but that can't compare to easy scorekeeping and sharing with everyone on the same page.

[craftsman]

Grodney, that chart is pretty accurate- nice job

but when you ask someone how'd they shoot and they say 2 over how do you figure that out.

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

...I'll admit it helps access penalties, gives comparable scoring for tv coverage, and helps promote courses for thier intended level but that can't compare to easy scorekeeping and sharing with everyone on the same page.

Well, apparently everyone is not on the same page. Most "reformed ball golfers" are quite confused to learn what "par" is in DG...

I'd add that "real par" also helps in huge tournaments when a division is split into pools in order to play different courses. It allows us watching from afar accurately judge how are favorite players are doing...

[Dave242]

I'd add that "real par" also helps in huge tournaments when a division is split into pools in order to play different courses. It allows us watching from afar accurately judge how are favorite players are doing...

These tournaments are set up so they play the same set of courses before the "shuffle" (to rank the players by score), I usually use SSA to make that comparison.

SSA is wonderful.....much better than par will ever be as far as objectivity and consistency goes. But it has different (although related) uses.

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

I know, but the shuffle is after 3-or-so rounds. Yes at that point, total score is all that matters. However, total score is misleading before the shuffle if the courses have different "real par."

[Terry C]

I wil say that I like the longer and harder holes too, I just play em as threes

I like difficult courses and hard designed holes as much as anybody, I just prefer to play them as par 3's as well. I am noticing big differences in opinion from different parts of the country on this topic too which is very interesting.

I'm seeing that some people are blending the idea's that if you prefer disc courses to use all par 3, then you are a simple minded amateur that doesn't know anything about disc golfing. Thats an incorrect assumption to make. Personally, I dont know anyone who likes playing pars over 3 and I play with some very good golfers. For my area of the country par 3 is the standard. I guess I have to tell my disc golf club that they are all wrong because some guy on the internet said so.

[Dave242]

For my area of the country par 3 is the standard. I guess I have to tell my disc golf club that they are all wrong because some guy on the internet said so.

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too. :D

[Terry C]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too. :D

They will be very dissapointed. Remember when you found out Santa Clause didnt exist?

[chiefcastor]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too. :D

If it is on the internet it has to be true.

[tallpaul]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too.

Dave...what about Stan the man? How soon they forget......:doh:

[magictenor1]

One of the more interesting aspects of this debate (to me at least) is that I have not seen anybody for the all par 3 give a real justification for it. They all seem to be saying this is my opinion but not why they think it should be so. The other side of the coin has the very real reason that out our sport grew out of ball golf and BG doesn't have just par 3's. Terry C and others: How about it. What is your reasoning?

[Terry C]

One of the more interesting aspects of this debate (to me at least) is that I have not seen anybody for the all par 3 give a real justification for it. They all seem to be saying this is my opinion but not why they think it should be so. The other side of the coin has the very real reason that out our sport grew out of ball golf and BG doesn't have just par 3's. Terry C and others: How about it. What is your reasoning?

The main reason I stated 10 pages ago:

In my opinion par is the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play, but also that there should be no par 4's and par 5's. Disc golf holes shouldnt be so long and difficult that they would require a profesional to average 4 or 5 strokes because then that means that an amateur can expect to get a 7 or maybe 8 strokes on that hole and thats not a well designed disc golf hole in my opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Im not angry at anyone or anything I just have my opinion, that par should be 3.


I have been reading over and over that the par 3 people dont want to listen to the par 4-5 peoples reasoning. A lot of the par 3 supporters reasons are just simply being blown off as being stupid and dismissed without thought. There has been a lot of people supporting the "every hole should be par 3" argument. Those people are being ignored because its not what the others want to hear.

[Terry C]

Agree to disagree gentlemen, I dont really care anymore honestly. We are not going to change your minds and you will not change ours.;):o

[discpicable]

End thread.

[Dave242]

The main reason I stated 10 pages ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry C
In my opinion par is the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play, but also that there should be no par 4's and par 5's. Disc golf holes shouldnt be so long and difficult that they would require a profesional to average 4 or 5 strokes because then that means that an amateur can expect to get a 7 or maybe 8 strokes on that hole and thats not a well designed disc golf hole in my opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Im not angry at anyone or anything I just have my opinion, that par should be 3.

I have been reading over and over that the par 3 people dont want to listen to the par 4-5 peoples reasoning. A lot of the par 3 supporters reasons are just simply being blown off as being stupid and dismissed without thought. There has been a lot of people supporting the "every hole should be par 3" argument. Those people are being ignored because its not what the others want to hear.

Not ignoring, blowing off or dismissing your words; here is a thought out response to what you posted. And I will not make any judgment on whether or not what you say is stupid.

What you are saying is that since you personally do not want there to be any holes anywhere that take professionals more than 3 stokes to complete, then everything needs to be called par-3. (Am I misrepresenting your post in my rewording of it?)

The problem is that there are holes that take the best players in the world more than 3 strokes to complete. So, despite your personal desire, there are par-4's......by your very own definition!

[Dave242]

Agree to disagree gentlemen, I dont really care anymore honestly. We are not going to change your minds and you will not change ours.;):o

You are correct as far as the people writing on this thread. But the vast majority of thoughtful readers who have not formed opinions one way or the other will hopefully have seen the arguments on both sides of the debate and a chose the side that makes more sense.........and the ranks of the "everything is par-3" crowd will dwindle.

.....and that will be after they are done shaking their heads at the knuckleheads like me who will not let it drop. :doh:

[mashnut]

You are correct as far as the people writing on this thread. But the vast majority of thoughtful readers who have not formed opinions one way or the other will hopefully have seen the arguments on both sides of the debate and a chose the side that makes more sense.........and the ranks of the "everything is par-3" crowd will dwindle.

.....and that will be after they are done shaking their heads at the knuckleheads like me who will not let it drop. :doh:

That's definitely true of me, not from this thread specifically but from others like it with you, Olorin and Chuck discussing how to set par. Those discussions made me look at the holes I play in terms of how well they separate out different levels of players and how well they fit with the overall level of the course.

[Terry C]

What you are saying is that since you personally do not want there to be any holes anywhere that take professionals more than 3 stokes to complete, then everything needs to be called par-3. (Am I misrepresenting your post in my rewording of it?)

The problem is that there are holes that take the best players in the world more than 3 strokes to complete. So, despite your personal desire, there are par-4's......by your very own definition!

There are and will be courses designed with par 4-5's. I know this and that is fine. If someone is a top professional then that is the course for them. God bless them for being so good at disc golf, but I feel there is a design flaw with that particular type of course. They should have designed the course to accommodate a wider range of players, not just designed for professionals who play there. 99% of players aren't pro and never will be, so why design a course with such difficulty? I think a more balanced course design would offer holes that challenge a variety of levels of players and the holes posted as par 3. Again, this is just my personal opinion and I'm sure you will find reasons to keep arguing with me to convince me otherwise. I'm honestly past tired of repeating myself to you dave, so soon I will abandon this thread and leave it to another person who understands what I have been saying for over 10 pages of posts. It is clear you cant, or dont want to understand what I'm trying to politely tell you over and over and over again.

The one who talks the loudest and the most is not always right dave. That seems to be your strategy, nothing you have offered as reasons to make courses with pars over 3 has been convincing to me. Heres an idea, maybe just let it go dave, agree to disagree? Apparently your ego wont allow you to do that.

[craftsman]

One of the more interesting aspects of this debate (to me at least) is that I have not seen anybody for the all par 3 give a real justification for it. They all seem to be saying this is my opinion but not why they think it should be so. The other side of the coin has the very real reason that out our sport grew out of ball golf and BG doesn't have just par 3's. Terry C and others: How about it. What is your reasoning?

Do you have me on ignore?
I'll recap:
easy to keep and count score
creates challenge- if you birdie a bunch of the <350's and the >600's then where do you pick up strokes?
Keeps it easy to compare scores to others without having to lookup courses to figure out par
it's simple and everyone is one the same page- though I disagree with Terry about long holes being a design flaw, I like 1000ft holes

now let me say it's not fair to put 3'ers against cr, ssa, and make up whatever you want to feel better about yourself instead of getting better.

I'll be down for varied par once everyone is on the same page. As was mentioned before Terry Calhoun's pars make sense to me but I can't remember which ones are varied, all threes are simply easier to remember.

I'll admitt I'm a ssa fan in secret but until we get one standard I feel all threes is superior.
Me n Terry:"what cha score at brewer white" "two over" me thinking- 54+2=54
varied par fans: "what cha score at brewer white" "two over" " which par system" " what ever they answer" "hold on, let me look up all the holes and/or scoring average to compare scores"

[ZMan44]

After reading this thread in its entirity, the upper hand in the argument easily goes to those favoring possible Pars above 3. While I agree that a uniform system should be employed for legitimacy, the absence of a system does not make the idea ignorant. My conundrum is this...I always keep score (which is what the question states) based on 3 because it is simpler. However, if a course has legit par 4s and 5s, I will look at the total course Par at the end of the round and adjust my score. For instance if I shoot a +6, then I see that the course has 3 holes considered by the designer to be Par 4, then it's an easy adjustment to +3.

Terry, I give you credit for sticking with this argument, but your points have been all over the board. You began on page 6 by stating "I know I am right on this", and your last post is begging Dave to "let it go" and "agree to disagree". Honestly by making those statements, you have pretty much admitted defeat in the discussion. Also, your original post began by alluding to the fact that par was not meant to make players feel good and that if they got a 4 on a hole greater than 600 feet, that it was a +1 and they suck. Your last post was totally flipped and stated that any course with Par 4s or 5s was desinged erroneously and that not every disc golfer is a pro, so we average players shouldn't be expected to enjoy a tough course with Par 4s and 5s. So which is it? Are Pars above 3 designed for wimps or pros? Based on the incoherent nature of your argument, Dave wins because of his persistence on the argument. We all understand that it is mentally easier to keep score in your head based on Par 3. That's fine, but you can adjust to the correct Par at the end of a round. And most locals will know the designated Par for the course so the argument about comparing scores with another player is moot at best.

[craftsman]

Let me also say that I have very big dg goals for myself. From what Dave describes, I am a blue level player but I'm not okay with that. I see many guys bombing on long holes for threes, I want that! I don't even want to shoot even, I want under!
Ssa for my home course for '98-'07 was 55 for the 2000 worlds. I'm only a few behind that and I think playing all threes helps. At pro/am this Monday my partner and I shot -11, two behind first. We did not get one four.

[craftsman]

Let me also say that I have very big dg goals for myself. From what Dave describes, I am a blue level player but I'm not okay with that. I see many guys bombing on long holes for threes, I want that! I don't even want to shoot even, I want under!
Ssa for my home course for '98-'07 was 55 for the 2000 worlds. I'm only a few behind that and I think playing all threes helps. At pro/am this Monday my partner and I shot -11, two behind first. We did not get one four.

[mashnut]

I'm only a few behind that and I think playing all threes helps.

I've heard this statement a few times, and I still don't understand how changing the par changes how well you do on a hole or how quickly you improve as a player.

[Cgkdisc]

The most insidious problem with the par 3 mentality has nothing to with numbers but with public perception. In essence, you get what you promote. You talk to the media and say our courses are par 3, they compare it with golf and it seems like a recreational game and not an emerging legitimate sport. You counter with the fact that we really do have some long holes on courses but we just call them par 3 so it's easy for scoring. The reporter says, "You mean you don't use scorecards?" Another negative. You talk with the Park Director about getting a new course and (s)he gets the impression it's a game not a sport when you talk all par 3s. They don't think as much land is needed compared to what is needed. So, your designers and players sustain the par 3 ideals and your state remains stuck in neutral.

Both Worlds in Michigan had the shortest, easiest set of courses in their five year window. Ann Arbor in 2000 had the shortest courses in the past decade and Kalamazoo in 2008 had the shortest between 2005 and 2010. Feldberg came back home and won Worlds in Michigan after honing his game on tougher courses. It would be a surprise if any course longer than Flip City was the top rated course in Michigan. It's king of the par 3s and they apparently learned how to do it well.

Now the vast number of Michigan rec players may care less about playing well elsewhere at the highest levels. But they also may not know what they're missing playing courses having par 4s & 5s designed to test their specific skill level. Rec players are the core market for Highbridge out in the boondocks where all courses have par 4s & 5s for all skill levels and they are traveling there in droves, even if all they have are par 3 courses at home. The blue level Steady Ed at PDGA HQ in Georgia is the most popular of the courses at the IDGC and it definitely has several par 4s & 5s. So it doesn't seem to be scaring rec players away.

However, I will say that at every site that has more than one course on it, the shortest course will be the most popular in terms of usage, even at Highbridge. So "par 3" is alive and will continue as the norm and expectation for the vast majority of players.

[Terry C]

After reading this thread in its entirity, the upper hand in the argument easily goes to those favoring possible Pars above 3. While I agree that a uniform system should be employed for legitimacy, the absence of a system does not make the idea ignorant. My conundrum is this...I always keep score (which is what the question states) based on 3 because it is simpler. However, if a course has legit par 4s and 5s, I will look at the total course Par at the end of the round and adjust my score. For instance if I shoot a +6, then I see that the course has 3 holes considered by the designer to be Par 4, then it's an easy adjustment to +3.

Terry, I give you credit for sticking with this argument, but your points have been all over the board. You began on page 6 by stating "I know I am right on this", and your last post is begging Dave to "let it go" and "agree to disagree". Honestly by making those statements, you have pretty much admitted defeat in the discussion. Also, your original post began by alluding to the fact that par was not meant to make players feel good and that if they got a 4 on a hole greater than 600 feet, that it was a +1 and they suck. Your last post was totally flipped and stated that any course with Par 4s or 5s was designed erroneously and that not every disc golfer is a pro, so we average players shouldn't be expected to enjoy a tough course with Par 4s and 5s. So which is it? Are Pars above 3 designed for wimps or pros? Based on the incoherent nature of your argument, Dave wins because of his persistence on the argument. We all understand that it is mentally easier to keep score in your head based on Par 3. That's fine, but you can adjust to the correct Par at the end of a round. And most locals will know the designated Par for the course so the argument about comparing scores with another player is moot at best.

Zman, I will keep this short and sweet for you dude, I stated that I felt a par 3 system was what I personally felt was a better system and stated the reasons why several times. Then I got followed around by an annoying troll for a week trying to convince me otherwise with unconvincing facts. After a week of BS and back and forth troll dodging I realized this conversation was troll food so I asked to just agree to disagree to make it go away. I still do and will always feel the same about par should be 3. I'm just not playing the feed the troll game anymore. If me stopping arguing means " I LOSE" then I lose in your eyes and thats fine. By the polls results it appears most people prefer to keep score as par 3, so some people obviously feel the same as me. They are just being passive and avoiding the troll hoard.

I have already gotten a few PM's from people who agree with me, I guess I am their spokesperson but I am done with this. If people want to keep asking me the same things then they can go back 10 pages and re-read what I have already written.

[craftsman]

It makes me figure out what I need to do to achieve a three. I could simply throw four hyzers and a putt to get a five on a 1000footer but instead I dwell on how I need to throw farther and how I need to approach on the inside line which wound require me to throw a long hflip that turns over a lol to put me on the right side, then another turnover to get to the green. I'll also have to throw a harder putt to get three.
It doesn't matter how pretty a shot is because the reward for a hole or round is the score. It's like when you had/have a teacher that gives you a B+ instead of an A even though your paper was better then everyone elses because they know if they give you a A you won't strive further. I know I'd still want to go as low as possible but I'd be way more content with a 4or5 if it's what I was suppose to get.
I heard a saying that I go by: Get your pars and the birdies will come. If I followed that with varied par, how could I get better?
I see some really great players around here and none of them are okay with a five.

Here's my question, how does playing varied par help you improve?

[mashnut]

It makes me figure out what I need to do to achieve a three. I could simply throw four hyzers and a putt to get a five on a 1000footer but instead I dwell on how I need to throw farther and how I need to approach on the inside line which wound require me to throw a long hflip that turns over a lol to put me on the right side, then another turnover to get to the green. I'll also have to throw a harder putt to get three.
It doesn't matter how pretty a shot is because the reward for a hole or round is the score. It's like when you had/have a teacher that gives you a B+ instead of an A even though your paper was better then everyone elses because they know if they give you a A you won't strive further. I know I'd still want to go as low as possible but I'd be way more content with a 4or5 if it's what I was suppose to get.
I heard a saying that I go by: Get your pars and the birdies will come. If I followed that with varied par, how could I get better?
I see some really great players around here and none of them are okay with a five.

Here's my question, how does playing varied par help you improve?

Interesting. I can see where you're coming from, I guess I just have a different attitude when I play. I look at a hole and think about what shot will give me the best chance to get the best possible score on a hole regardless of what the posted par is. On a wide open 1000' hole, I'm going to throw as far as I can on the first couple shots so I have the best possible chance of getting a 4, because I know anything lower than that would be luck based on my personal distance and skill level. By the all par 3 method, I'd be shooting for bogey, and by most other par methods I'd be aiming for a birdie, but that doesn't change how I approach the hole. Par is independent of how I look at a hole and what I expect myself to get.

[Ukeubuuke]

I wish I could speak with more experience, but I've only been playing for a month. I suppose I'll just ask a question, which has possibly been answered. Was this a debate for ball golf in it's early life, and how was an organized system agreed upon?

[Dave242]

Thanks for your explanation Craftsman, and for all you wrote TerryC. It has me thinking along the lines of psychology and what Par is "telling" us. Like Mashnut, I divorce my thinking and expectations from what anything but the hole before me is presenting/challenging me with. For those who do not do that maybe things are like this (just thinking out loud):

Some people might hear Par saying, "This is what really good people shoot. If you achieve this score you have arrived!"

Others may hear this command, "This is how this hole is supposed to play for you so plan your shots accordingly."

Others may hear, "Is this a challenge?! Par schmar - I'll do better than that or I am not a real man!"

and I'm sure there are others.

......back to the Penguins game

[craftsman]

Cgkdisc, I can dig what your saying there and I don't want my scorekeeping system to hold back the sports expansion but most of the courses have varied par, we just don't follow em. Mason county boasts some lenght but the courses aren't ready to host an event that big. The new Kensington is definatly a harder course deserving of varied par but we just don't play em as varied. Same for cass Benton holes 3&18. Terry's ponds at lakeshore has a more open feel with ob pits and some nice lenghths but we still don't vary par when we play em.

The courses your talking about were built in the 90's or early 2000's. The new ones are definatly beefing up. Independence lake was a nice addition being down the road from Hudson.

I'm not saying I want all 70's style courses. I like a challenge. I play the tobaggan as all threes.

Do you really feel our scorekeeping is holding back our progression? I will admitt I hear complaints about ponds being too open or indy's rough being too rough but I'm all for it. Maybe it's just state pride but I thought mi. was a leader in dg hosting a variety of courses. Your giving me the impression that were behind others. How long are these other courses? I mean most of the courses I play are at least five or six thousand feet with a couple 700-1000 footers. I have some DVDs and the courses don't look much harder then some I've played.

[Dave242]

I wish I could speak with more experience, but I've only been playing for a month. I suppose I'll just ask a question, which has possibly been answered. Was this a debate for ball golf in it's early life, and how was an organized system agreed upon?

There is an article linked to on pdga.com that is pretty interesting reading that is exactly what you are looking for - History of Par (http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/par4.html)

[Cgkdisc]

Where they can do it, new courses are going in with lengths over 7000 feet for 18 holes. The upgrade happening to my home course is going from about 6200 to 6800 feet and it will have six par 4s for blue level. Highbridge Granite is a blue level course that can get over 8000 feet and the gold is over 9500 feet. Check the thread about East coast courses being over-rated. Many of those are over 7000 up to 10,000 feet. I don't think Michigan has any permanent courses that average more than 400 ft per hole (maybe Ludington?). Timber Ridge for Worlds did but I don't think that's in the ground any more. Michigan is a par 3 hotbed but other areas like PA, DE, NY, MD, VA, MA, NC, GA, OR, WI (north), IN (PW2010), WV, KY and MN have more higher par courses these days and more coming.

[Cgkdisc]

There is an article linked to on pdga.com that is pretty interesting reading that is exactly what you are looking for - History of Par
Yeah, let's get the "half par" discussion underway for even more precision. Let's see how CR Par handles that...:)

[craftsman]

Cdkdisc, it's not that I want to play easy courses and play rec all my life. I have every intention to play pro within the next five years. When I watch the clash videos it seems they are all going for three or two strokes on every hole reguardless of length or terain. Granted sometimes you have to settle for a four. So I think to myself of all the things I need to do to achieve the same.

[Dave242]

The Clash videos are great, but keep in mind these are the top 0.01% of golfers in the world and they are playing doubles (triples in one of them I think) so the risk is WAY reduced for the reward they are gunning for. Designing courses around that standard would not make much sense.

[Cgkdisc]

When they are going for 3s on those videos, many of those are going to be birdies on par 4 holes. There usually aren't more than two par 5s on even the longest courses where a 4 might make someone happy in a Clash video.

[Dave242]

Yeah, let's get the "half par" discussion underway for even more precision. Let's see how CR Par handles that...:)

If we could use fractional pars per hole, I would be blowing the SSA (per hole) horn. :hfive:

[Cgkdisc]

If we could use fractional pars per hole, I would be blowing the SSA (per hole) horn. There has been talk among the cognoscenti about going this way but several practical implementation issues need to be worked out.

[craftsman]

Were growing but we still have to provide variety. Kensingtons black lotus is a movement in that direction with 7 over 400, with only two of those being under 500. We have a lot of 54ers because we have a lot of courses. They're usually set up in clusters varying in difficulty.

[DSCJNKY]

For all my Par 3 friends:
Go play Nevin, Renny Gold, Milo, or Winthrop Gold using the Par 3 system. Have fun! Talk to me about Par after the round... when you're 30 over. Then we can have a real discussion about what Par is. Thanks.
DSCJNKY

[Cgkdisc]

Were growing but we still have to provide variety. Kensingtons black lotus is a movement in that direction with 7 over 400, with only two of those being under 500. We have a lot of 54ers because we have a lot of courses. They're usually set up in clusters varying in difficulty.
Sounds good that they're mostly over 500. Unless holes are tightly wooded or doglegs, many holes in the 375-475 ft range are power tweeners and not bona fide par 4s for blue and gold level. Usually have to get to 475-600 for fair blue level par 4s and up to 700 for gold level par 4s, again based on foliage density.

[magictenor1]

I am totally a rec player but I like to see par 4's and 5's for my level. I totally agree with mashnut that I don't see how the par of a hole makes you better. I always try to get the best possible score on each hole. If I shoot -5 I am trying to get to -6 and if I shoot +9 I am trying to get to +8, par makes no difference. I really don't even understand the idea that you have to keep score that way. I played ball golf for years and we never used a scorecard. I don't believe that DG'ers are not smart enough to simply keep up by +1, -1 etc. I have never used a scorecard for either sport and it's not that complicated.

[DavidSauls]

Well. This has spread from just keeping track of score to about seven different debates, stretching to course design and definitions of par.

Personally, I span a lot of them.

I have a private course and it's clear evidence I don't believe all courses should be par 3s, or that long, tough par 4s or par 5s are only of interest to the top 1% of players. I'm old, 920-rated (and falling), 280' driving....and yet I love these multi-shot holes.

"Par", for us, is a design issue. How do we want a hole to play out? Some are old-school par 3s, which most players can park with a well-executed drive. For others, I'd say we design with something like CR par, then validate par with scoring averages plus a mix of experience an intuition. (If you're quite happy to get a 3, it's probably a birdie and the hole is par 4. If you're disappointed with a 4, it's par 3). Designed with about 975-rated players in mind, so it's bluish gold or goldish blue.

I'm also one who thinks par doesn't matter a lot, but we have to set it (for late players at tournaments), and some visitors---of all skill levels and experience---care a lot and constantly ask and even debate what's par on certain holes.

But when we play, we track score by "all par 3". Which should probably be called "base 3" or "over/under 3" instead. For simplicity.

We're not actually playing to the par---not the "par 3", not the "course par". We're playing for the best score on each hole.

[AdamH]

I'm also one who thinks par doesn't matter a lot, but we have to set it (for late players at tournaments), and some visitors---of all skill levels and experience---care a lot and constantly ask and even debate what's par on certain holes.

But when we play, we track score by "all par 3". Which should probably be called "base 3" or "over/under 3" instead. For simplicity.

We're not actually playing to the par---not the "par 3", not the "course par". We're playing for the best score on each hole.

I agree. It's all about total score rather than par. If I shoot 54 on some courses it means I played like crap, but on other courses a 54 is an incredible round. I use a base 3 system to keep track of my score because it's easiest, but if I get a 4 on the par 5 hole I'm pretty stoked!

In a tournament it's our score against other players scores. During casual play I compare my score to previous rounds and see how I did. Par doesn't really matter that much to me.

[Cgkdisc]

To add another debate to this thread, I would say that wise players don't even go for the best score possible on every hole regardless of par. Exhibit A would be ace runs. I would say most higher level players do not go for aces but play for birdie 2s on the holes they can reach. Exhibit B would be tricky holes where the risk/reward aspects dictate not going for the best score you could potentially shoot because it has a high probability it could result in a score 2 or more throws worse.

[Cgkdisc]

I use a base 3 system to keep track of my score because it's easiest, but if I get a 4 on the par 5 hole I'm pretty stoked!
Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor:)).

[DavidSauls]

Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor:)).

I stand defeated.

I'm still searching for a phrase to replace "all-par-3" scorekeeping so we don't annoy Olorin quite so much with our abuse of the word "par".

[Dave242]

Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor:)).

It took me a second.....but it would indeed be strange to card a nice even 2000 for a even-par round on 18 holes!

[Dave242]

The Carolina Clash (National Tour event) is happening right now. Scores (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9643&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open) are coming in for Hornet's Nest Web layout. Par is 70 (18 holes) and SSA is 998, so that means World Class Par (Gold level par) is also right at 70 (69.7 to be more precise). This is how it should be.

[Cgkdisc]

It's only realistically possible on wooded courses like Charlotte's Web and Renny to get the gold level par close to SSA. For more open long courses, other than Winthrop Gold with it's unrelenting OB penalties, the proper gold par is more likely 3-5 higher than SSA. Apparently, Nikko threw in a 150' second shot for a 2 on the 540' hole 5 at the Web. Must have been a par 3... ;)

[Dave242]

What?! Nikko only threw 400' on his drive. I thought all the top pros throw like 500-550' on command! :cool:

[Pete Kwaz]

Every hole is a par 3. Posted pars are for wimps. LOL

[Dave242]

It's only realistically possible on wooded courses like Charlotte's Web and Renny to get the gold level par close to SSA. For more open long courses, other than Winthrop Gold with it's unrelenting OB penalties, the proper gold par is more likely 3-5 higher than SSA.

Using some of the reasoning skills I have learned recently:
You are wrong. I am right. There are no open holes. Everything is wooded and long. SSA always matches Par.

Seriously though - why is that? That does not seem intuitively obvious to me (but it is late on a Friday afternoon).

[Cgkdisc]

Well designed wooded holes produce a scoring spread with a decent percentage of scores on either side of "true" par on the holes. Well designed open holes are more likely to only have two scores with significant percentages with par having the higher percentage and the other main score being lower (birdie). So the gold scoring average diverges toward the lower side of par on more open courses.

[bikinjack]

Well designed wooded holes produce a scoring spread with a decent percentage of scores on either side of "true" par on the holes. Well designed open holes are more likely to only have two scores with significant percentages with par having the higher percentage and the other main score being lower (birdie). So the gold scoring average diverges toward the lower side of par on more open courses.

At the risk of starting a new debate in this thread, I'll ask this:

So, in other words, open holes are easier?

[mashnut]

At the risk of starting a new debate in this thread, I'll ask this:

So, in other words, open holes are easier?

More like, open holes don't have much risk so they don't do a good job of separating scores.

[hedfan1]

There are a few courses where when I play I add my score up assuming that all holes are par 4's because the course is that difficult. By the end of a round I was at -1 and he was +1. We felt pretty good about our game then added the +18 that we had added to the course and then the score was +17 to +19 as if we had played all par 3's. We both kind of laughed at our scores and went on.

But when I was on hole 16 with a 45 foot shot at the pin I felt good about my game because my score was at even so I shot with confidence and made it to -1 on that shot. If I was counting them all 3's I would have been sitting at +15 and that kind of number can really throw you off your game and just give up really trying. So it helps keep the counting easier and the confidence up! False confidence it might be but whatever...

[hedfan1]

What?! Nikko only threw 400' on his drive. I thought all the top pros throw like 500-550' on command! :cool:

Your DogFace is pretty sweet!

[Cgkdisc]

More like, open holes don't have much risk so they don't do a good job of separating scores.


The table of scoring distributions for open holes displayed below is not uncommon for a specific skill level. Every 30 feet of added length adds 0.1 to the scoring average. The scoring spreads look OK for the first three lengths in the table. However, once you get where one score is 70% or more of the scores, it's not considered a good hole for that skill level. You can see that the better spreads are when the scoring average is less than the par of 3 for all of these holes. That's why I said that "well designed" open holes will have scoring averages below par so the SSA comes in 3-5 shots below par for the course. For wooded par 3 holes, when the average is around 3.0, there might be 60% 3s and maybe 20% 2s and 20% 4s or even a percentage of 3s less than 60. But the point is, the average score on well designed wooded holes can come close to matching the par for those holes.

Percentage of Each Score - Open Holes
2s 3s 4s Avg
42 56 2 2.6 Length
34 62 4 2.7 Length+30'
27 66 7 2.8 Length+60'
20 70 10 2.9 Length+90'
13 74 13 3.0 Length+120'
8 75 17 3.1 Length+150'

[Steve West]

...For more open long courses, other than Winthrop Gold with it's unrelenting OB penalties, the proper gold par is more likely 3-5 higher than SSA....

Tsk, tsk, tsk. "800. Definitions ... Par means errorless play".

So, you can't count those scores that have an OB penalty when figuring par.