Legit Par 2's?

[DavidSauls]

The argument that there shouldn't be pitch-&-putt courses, or courses designed for lower than gold level players, is irrelevant. They exist. In overwhelming numbers, actually. With land constraints and the apparent desires of the great majority of disc golfers, as judged by the amount of play these courses receive, they will continue to be built. And to have pars assigned, by one formula or another.

 

[Jesterian]

For something to be par two you'd essentially have to be putting from the tee box.

Add some OB to those holes, plant some trees, and make them legit. Nothing wrong with short par threes.

 

[iacas]

Which definition?

Typing off the cuff here, because I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought the PDGA defines par with "two throws from close range", but doesn't specify "close range" as being in the 10-meter circle, or putting, or anything else. Pretty vague, if you ask me, but no reason someone couldn't call 150' "close range".

Or are you citing another definition?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/800-introduction/80002-definitions

Par
As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

I get what you're saying, but 150' isn't close range. That person would be stretching to call it "close range."

I also understand and appreciate that putting in disc golf is much easier than it is, relatively, in golf. But I support changing that too.

For something to be par two you'd essentially have to be putting from the tee box.

Add some OB to those holes, plant some trees, and make them legit. Nothing wrong with short par threes.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying.

You can have an "easy" course for beginners without making "par twos." Something as simple as putting the basket beside a thick tree will be enough to force a good number of 3s without really doing much to annoy the beginner.

 

[New013]

you're putting your opinion on to something and saying it's fact. there is no defined distance for close range so you can not say that you are coming from a more factual position. it's just bad logic.

 

[Halcón]

Iacas, you agreed with me that experts would park a 150' open hole off the tee every time. But now you're saying that it's not close range?

 

[DavidSauls]

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/800-introduction/80002-definitions

Par
As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

I get what you're saying, but 150' isn't close range. That person would be stretching to call it "close range."

I also understand and appreciate that putting in disc golf is much easier than it is, relatively, in golf. But I support changing that too.

I'd stretch it, then. If it were up to me, close range would be the distance from which a scratch disc golfer will finish the hole in 2 shots, say, 80% of the time. This would match the "two throws....to hole out" concept. (And, for those wishing closer parallels to golf, it would be closer to the golf green, where the far edge is a place where pros rarely get in in 1, but often in 2).

Regardless of how we label it, or desires to re-design courses or targets, if there's a hole where the majority of the leaders are getting a "2", then a "3" is losing ground. Call it a "par 3", but "par" will be a bad score. Call it what you want, but players are playing it as if a "2" is the standard.

 

[Steve West]

Two close range throws is how we finish most holes. Get the second-to-last throw within your putting radius so that you'll put the next throw in the basket. So, if you are trying to get within your putting radius from the tee, that's a par 2.

If the rule had meant to say "allow two attempts to put the disc in the target" or, "plus two for putts", it would have said so. It doesn't, because that's not how we play. Our two close range throws are an upshot and a putt.

This misperception that you always need to allow two putts for par is the cause of most of the problems people have with par.

 

[iacas]

you're putting your opinion on to something and saying it's fact. there is no defined distance for close range so you can not say that you are coming from a more factual position. it's just bad logic.

I'm not saying something is fact. I simply disagree with how you're defining "close range."

Redesign the hole. Par two holes shouldn't exist.

I'd stretch it, then. If it were up to me, close range would be the distance from which a scratch disc golfer will finish the hole in 2 shots, say, 80% of the time. This would match the "two throws....to hole out" concept. (And, for those wishing closer parallels to golf, it would be closer to the golf green, where the far edge is a place where pros rarely get in in 1, but often in 2).

You can't really relate it to golf. Pros scramble from close to the green less than 80% of the time, and even if you go out to a few yards off the green we're still talking about only the last 5% of the hole's distance. It doesn't relate, because again putting a ball into a small hole is much more difficult than putting a disc into a basket with chains.

Call it a "par 3", but "par" will be a bad score. Call it what you want, but players are playing it as if a "2" is the standard.

Again, and I think we all agree - it's a poorly designed hole. Change it and make it a legit par three. I don't think par 2s have any place in the game unless it's some sort of putting only course (like mini golf that's got par 2s and par 3s).

(Come to think of it, a putting only course sounds kind of fun.)

Two close range throws is how we finish most holes. Get the second-to-last throw within your putting radius so that you'll put the next throw in the basket. So, if you are trying to get within your putting radius from the tee, that's a par 2.

If that was the case, there would be a whole helluva lot more par 2s out there. There are par threes that most "touring" pros will birdie most of the time. Or par fours they'll birdie most of the time that are still legit par 4s and not par 3s.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm all for legit par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

I just think that if you've got a par 2, you've screwed up somehow. Even the PDGA recommends strongly against having a par 2 hole.

That's all I'm really saying in the end.

 

[DavidSauls]

I believe, in fact, there are a ton of Par-2 holes out there. We just don't call them that, to maintain the Inalienable Right to Birdie.

I can show you courses where half the holes are really Par-2s, in that the Pros get 2s more than half the time. Heck, I can show you entire courses like this.

I don't agree that they're poorly designed. Just that they're poorly designed for pros. And, in limited cases, they even work well for pros.

 

[DSmith]

I think the point is that there are people installing courses intended to be Gold level courses and dumping in filler holes under or around 200ft and calling them par 2.
I'm talking about wide open or close to wide open with pretty much zero risk and reward.
These have no place on a gold level course and they don't add any substance to the overall layout other than being filler holes.
:thmbdown:
It's lazy design...there I said it, are you guys happy now?

 

[DavidSauls]

If that's the point.....then I retract, and agree. On a gold course, there's little room for a par-2. Perhaps one with enough danger or O.B. that there's pressure not to screw it up, but that would be about it.

 

[coupe]

Two close range throws is how we finish most holes. Get the second-to-last throw within your putting radius so that you'll put the next throw in the basket. So, if you are trying to get within your putting radius from the tee, that's a par 2.

What he said.

I think the point is that there are people installing courses intended to be Gold level courses and dumping in filler holes under or around 200ft and calling them par 2.
I'm talking about wide open or close to wide open with pretty much zero risk and reward.
These have no place on a gold level course and they don't add any substance to the overall layout other than being filler holes.

I agree holes like this have no place on Gold level courses, but as long as pro tournaments continue to be played on existing courses, there will be holes for which the appropriate par for Gold, and in many cases Blue, level players is 2.

 

[iacas]

In response to nobody in particular:

I think that if you have a hole that's has a scoring average of less than 2.5 for 1000-rated players, you've got a lame hole (or they're playing from inappropriate tees).

 

[DavidSauls]

In response to nobody in particular:

I think that if you have a hole that's has a scoring average of less than 2.5 for 1000-rated players, you've got a lame hole (or they're playing from inappropriate tees).

....or a course not designed or intended for 1000-rated players.

Though, to my taste, a couple of pressure-to-birdie holes can be fine. Holes that produce a spread of something like:

2 60%
3 30%
4 10%

Especially if the hole is a particularly interesting to throw, a big downhill ace run or a tight tunnel or with dangerous O.B., or whatever.

 

[prerube]

In response to nobody in particular:

I think that if you have a hole that's has a scoring average of less than 2.5 for 1000-rated players, you've got a lame hole (or they're playing from inappropriate tees).

or the course is designed for beginners and children...ok, I see I was beat to the punch

 

[DavidSauls]

or the course is designed for beginners and children...ok, I see I was beat to the punch

....and old broken-down disc golfers.

We need a place to play, too.

 

[iacas]

or the course is designed for beginners and children...ok, I see I was beat to the punch

150' in wide open space nine times in a row "for beginners and children" doesn't sound like something that will convert a lot of them into disc golfers.

Rather, it sounds boring. I don't think I'd have gotten interested if I thought the sport was throwing 150' in open space. Yawn.

A putting only course sounds interesting - you could put trees in the way, bushes, elevate some baskets, put them on steep slopes, etc. - but the expense of baskets for holes averaging 80' might be too much to overcome.

 

[Stardoggy]

150' in wide open space nine times in a row "for beginners and children" doesn't sound like something that will convert a lot of them into disc golfers.

Rather, it sounds boring. I don't think I'd have gotten interested if I thought the sport was throwing 150' in open space. Yawn.

A putting only course sounds interesting - you could put trees in the way, bushes, elevate some baskets, put them on steep slopes, etc. - but the expense of baskets for holes averaging 80' might be too much to overcome.

My 12 year old son and 9 year old daughter would think it's great, as they're both just beginning and would have a chance to 2 there that they wouldn't have anywhere else.

Perspective, my friend.

 

[DavidSauls]

I know some 5-7 year old disc golfers who have competed in tournaments, both juniors (with other 5-7 year olds) and junior divisions of other sanctioned events. 150' wide open is a good bomber hole. Though 100' with a couple of trees is even better.

 

[tom12003]

A putting only course sounds interesting - you could put trees in the way, bushes, elevate some baskets, put them on steep slopes, etc. - but the expense of baskets for holes averaging 80' might be too much to overcome.

You just defined the tiki course at the Blockhouse--par 2s every hole, play with one disc, and although the holes are between 55 and 150 ft the hole measurements are in inches. This is a MUST play, fun course for all levels.