View Single Post
  #801  
Old 01-11-2013, 05:11 PM
Casual Squishy Casual Squishy is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidewinder22 View Post
Agreed. There seems to be about the same scoring separation as ball golf if you look at tourney results, only difference really is the number under par. If it is the number under par that is the issue then we should be using par 2 and 2.5 and 3.5 to reflect the actual SSA of that hole.


Par Par, Pardy Par Par.. So many people are so hung up on being like golf. When Disc Golf was brand new, even then PAR did not mean PAR as defined in golf. In golf:
In golf, par is the pre-determined number of strokes that a scratch (or 0 handicap)[1] golfer should require to complete a hole, a round (the sum of the pars of the played holes), or a tournament (the sum of the pars of each round). Pars are the central component of stroke play, the most common kind of play in professional golf tournaments. The term is also used in golf-like sports such as disc golf with the same meaning.
From day one in Disc Golf PAR did not mean the same thing, it was a guideline that people put on course signs to give the average Wham-o player a guesstimate as to how many throws it might take to play a hole, at the end of a round as tournaments became more popular no one cared what +12 or -12 looked like to outsiders, what matters is your total score at the end of the day. While we share many common elements with golf and it's not unreasonable to try and emulate it in some ways we are NOT golf.

Let me try and put this a different way, look at skiing and snowboarding. Skiing had been an established sport for decades before snowboarding came along. Did snowboarders try and emulate skiing in every way to bring it into mainstream? No, they took the things from skiing that were natural to both sports, (slalom, timed competition, skiislopes etc.) Took things from other simliar mechanics like skateboarding and never once tried to tell the world that they were "Just like skiing." (except as an incentive to get people from both to try it because there were obvious overlaps in the skillsets).

Snowboarding also had many of the exact same stereotypes that Disc Golf has, slackers, stoners, people who couldn't afford to be "A real Skiier", unfashionable dressers... pretty much all of it. Did they try and change to emulate what was "Politically correct?" Or "Socially expected?" Snowboarding developed its own culture and said to hell with other sports in that regard, we'll take what we need and lose what we don't and snowboarding is on the fast track to outdo skiing in popularity(and money) in the very near future.
Snowboarding and Disc golf both started in the same generation and both grew at about the same pace for a decade or two, but snowboarding has mass visual and spectator appeal, something disc golf and golf will never have just due to the nature of speed of play.

We're not Golf, and we never will be.
We could change old course easy 2 holes to par 2 and it would not change the structure of disc golf one bit. Birdies and eagles and pars and bogeys are all just nomenclature and while dueces and threes and fours might be a more appropriate terminology and render the word "Par" as impotent as it already is meaningless in who wins and who loses.

Par in golf does have a set definition, Par in disc golf never did other then as an imperfect means of copying a scoring system people were already familiar with.

I have a friend that started playing again last year who continually gets bent out of shape over "par." When he stopped playing disc golf was still in that "Everything is a par 3" stage, holes were mostly short and when there was a tough hole the mentality was "I hope I don't get a bogey on this one, but I probably will." Now when we play a par 54 course that also happens to have an SSA of 54 he gets all bent out of shape mentally because he shot a "10 over" or whatever. Is he right? No, but that's what we get when we insist on having a "par" system that started off as informal guidlines on how to make a tee sign and is trying to morph into what the PGA definition of the word PAR is. Either way, its still all in the players head, if they just ignored it and payed attention instead to what they as a player at their given skill level should expect to score on a hole there would not even be an issue, scores would just be count ups and the words birdie and bogey would become meaningless. That's not going to happen either so maybe we should just embrace what we are and accept that at some courses "Way under par" will always be the norm, and and other courses "Way over par" is what most of us will shoot. Or change the "par 3's" on alot of holes to "par 2" and not worry about how it looks image wise to golf.

Either way, like most other internet threads in the end it always becomes a bunch of people endlessly tryng to argue and redefine the meaning of the word the. And that wasn't really something that had anything to do with the original question of the thread or the point McBeth brought up about smaller baskets.

More longer courses are coming, but that doesn't mean there's anything broken about Disc Golf as it is now. It is what it is and will be what it will be because it was what it was.

this was supposed to include the quote that sidewinder quoted and was in reference to that one. There's nothing wrong with what sidewinder posted assuming what DG really needs is to perfectly emulate golf in every detail.
Reply With Quote