Legit Par 2's?

[duckychucky]

That back 9 is a bit too easy for anyone with some developed skills. I enjoyed playing them but it is a pitch and putt.

If its one pitch and one putt isn't it by definition: par 2.
And doesn't that make it challenging for that level.
Truly duece or die.


Once again its just an option on scorecard, not tees or tee map.

 

[kcplease]

It's always disappointing to hit an ace and call it a birdie. Make no par 2's. People are going to shoot what they shoot, why not make it look more impressive with a par 3. I mean, how depressing would it be to shoot an 18 and have that be called par? I think it should only be a par 2 if the hole is 10m or in. Please, don't make a hole that short.

 

[Brokensaint]

Instead of par 2, ever, plant a tree in front of the basket. Or the tee. Or something. Make it a mando roller hole or something appropriate rather than a par 2.

 

[scarpfish]

It's always disappointing to hit an ace and call it a birdie.

Why? Its still an ace. If you can a 150' wide open hole in one throw what difference does the par matter.

Make no par 2's. People are going to shoot what they shoot, why not make it look more impressive with a par 3.

Because 'par' in any type of golf is supposed to define a standard of excellence, not intermediate/recreational level player feel-goodery.

I mean, how depressing would it be to shoot an 18 and have that be called par?

Unless you're on a nine hole course, it wouldn't be.

I think it should only be a par 2 if the hole is 10m or in. Please, don't make a hole that short.

No, that would be Par 1. But yes, don't make a hole that short.

Instead of par 2, ever, plant a tree in front of the basket. Or the tee. Or something. Make it a mando roller hole or something appropriate rather than a par 2.

In the case of many such holes, a singular obstacle as such, or perhaps even two of them would not make much of a difference to a scratch level player.

I don't think Par 2 should ever be designed for, but if you guys would understand the concept of what par is supposed to represent and would see the ridiculously high percentage of times sub 200' holes are completed in two strokes by open level players, you'd understand that on many of our existing holes, particularly ones on pitch and putt nine holers and 20+ year old courses, its an ugly mathematical reality that has to be accepted.

I also think people would do themselves a great service in stop fetishizing about Par and just worry about your numerical score.

 

[BrotherDave]

Are these Par 2's legit?

One hole is 150' from the "Blue" tee with an open fairway; 209' long from the "Gold" tee with an open tee pad with the basket tucked behind a grove of short trees. RHFH seems to be the obvious line from the gold tee.

(gold tee is back and left of this pic so that those trees visible on the left would be on the right)

The other hole is 187' from the "Blue" tee with a wide open but somewhat narrow fairway flanked by a park road running parallel along the left and a wooded tree line running parallel along the right. The "Gold" tee is 231' long and plays the same.

 

[Halcón]

If I didn't get a 2 on either of those "Blue" tees, I'd be really ticked off. Those are definitely legit par 2's.

Basically those short tees are like Ace Race holes.

 

[iacas]

No. 150' is not even "close range" as in "plus two close-range throws." They're just really easy par threes.

 

[jeverett]

No. 150' is not even "close range" as in "plus two close-range throws." They're just really easy par threes.

Well, that's one way to look at Par. Another (of many) is to look at the scoring average for whatever target skill group (e.g. Gold) the tee is for. At 150ft., I'd guess that the scoring average for Gold level players would be coming in at pushing below 2.5, or by scoring average a Par 2.

Imo.. yes, there are 'legit' Par 2's.. that should not exist on courses, but still do. i.e. they are holes that need redesign for the target group, and should not be expected to adequately serve their function on a course in tourney play.

 

[iacas]

Well, that's one way to look at Par. Another (of many) is to look at the scoring average for whatever target skill group (e.g. Gold) the tee is for.

I think the target skill group is a lousy way to determine par. That's what leads to red tees of 295' playing as par fives because they have a few trees.

I'm not going to get into it again (plenty of threads for that), but fwiw, my definition matches golf's pretty well: par is what an expert (1000 rated or so) should take to reach the "green" plus two close-range shots (putts).

My golf background influences my thinking here. A bogey golfer doesn't "shoot even par" when he shoots 90. He shot his handicap, NET even par, perhaps, but… whatever.

 

[Halcón]

Iacas, by golf's definition, we can't have par 2's. Is that correct? If you're adding "plus 2" to the drive, then no matter how short the hole, it's gonna be a par three, which is ridiculous. Those holes would be a cake walk for an "expert" disc golfer. They'd park 'em every time.

 

[coupe]

No. 150' is not even "close range" as in "plus two close-range throws." They're just really easy par threes.

For Blue and Gold level players, an unobstructed 150' throw with no significant elevation change or hazards around the basket, such as OB in close proximity, precipitous drop-offs, or danger of a long roll away, IS close range.

In normal weather conditions, the overwhelming majority of Blue and Gold level players would EXPECT to need no more than two throws to finish out a hole from that distance, so if "par" is going to based on the number of throws a scratch level player should require to complete a hole, a 150' hole should be par 2.

 

[Stardoggy]

It's been said a million times on here, but comparing golf putting to disc golf putting is just not the right way to look at it. Assuming a "green" of no more than 10m, it should really be whatever it takes to drive to a green, plus 1 for putting, as exceptional players expect to make everything within the circle. A 10m putt for a pro DG'er is like an 8' putt for a pro golfer.

"Green", as it is used in this breakdown of scoring, are two completely different things.

 

[DSmith]

Are these Par 2's legit?

One hole is 150' from the "Blue" tee with an open fairway; 209' long from the "Gold" tee with an open tee pad with the basket tucked behind a grove of short trees. RHFH seems to be the obvious line from the gold tee.

(gold tee is back and left of this pic so that those trees visible on the left would be on the right)

The other hole is 187' from the "Blue" tee with a wide open but somewhat narrow fairway flanked by a park road running parallel along the left and a wooded tree line running parallel along the right. The "Gold" tee is 231' long and plays the same.

These are good holes for Red and White level but not for Blue and Gold. The reason you ask? Because theres no friggin scoring spread! Its going to be 2's 99% of the drives off the tee for 950-1000 rated players. To birdie you need to ace...really? To Bogie you would really have to throw a bad shot hitting something early or miss a putt which for the high rated players will very rarely happen. They are just terrible holes for blue and gold level. The only way holes like these would work for that level would be if you really amped up the risk and reward on them, but it would take alot.

 

[iacas]

Iacas, by golf's definition, we can't have par 2's.

Nope. You can't.

If you're adding "plus 2" to the drive, then no matter how short the hole, it's gonna be a par three, which is ridiculous.

No it's not. Don't make wide open 150' holes.

Those holes would be a cake walk for an "expert" disc golfer. They'd park 'em every time.

I agree. But so? Don't make wide open 150' holes. You don't see 30-yard holes in golf. The only par 2s you see in golf have other holes with clown mouths and windmills on them.

For Blue and Gold level players, an unobstructed 150' throw with no significant elevation change or hazards around the basket, such as OB in close proximity, precipitous drop-offs, or danger of a long roll away, IS close range.

Not per the definition, but I agree that most good players will get up and down on such a hole. Don't make them. There's no real place in the game for "par 2s."

 

[New013]

you're a par elitist... par 2's are people to

 

[Halcón]

Iacas, there is a place in the game for pitch and putt courses, and those really short holes. Kids play them. Women play them. Heck, I'd play 'em and have fun getting some birdies for once in my life.

We need those courses (holes) for the fun they offer, and that's the most important part of the game.

 

[BrotherDave]

These are good holes for Red and White level but not for Blue and Gold. The reason you ask? Because theres no friggin scoring spread! Its going to be 2's 99% of the drives off the tee for 950-1000 rated players. To birdie you need to ace...really? To Bogie you would really have to throw a bad shot hitting something early or miss a putt which for the high rated players will very rarely happen. They are just terrible holes for blue and gold level. The only way holes like these would work for that level would be if you really amped up the risk and reward on them, but it would take alot.

That's exactly what I think as well. These holes probably shouldn't exist on a supposed blue/gold level course, just doesn't seem to be much of a point.

Not per the definition, but I agree that most good players will get up and down on such a hole. Don't make them. There's no real place in the game for "par 2s."

This is pretty much how I feel as well. A par 2 just seems to scream poor filler hole.

Iacas, there is a place in the game for pitch and putt courses, and those really short holes. Kids play them. Women play them. Heck, I'd play 'em and have fun getting some birdies for once in my life.

We need those courses (holes) for the fun they offer, and that's the most important part of the game.

Thing is, if this was on a pitch and putt course meant for rec, women and kids, these holes would still be a par 3 usually. :\ But these are on what's supposed to be a gold level course. Even hole 17 at USDGC is a par 3, they just have to put hay bales down beside a lake to make it an island green.


Does anyone think that the first hole from the gold tee (not pictured, no pic unfortunately) is a par 3 out of curiosity? There are actually some trees as obstacles on this hole.

 

[iacas]

Iacas, there is a place in the game for pitch and putt courses, and those really short holes.

I disagree.

Kids play them. Women play them.

My wife and 10yo daughter are pretty happy to play at places like Moraine, Knob Hill, Deer Lakes, etc. Maybe they're weird.

And if "fun" was the most important thing, then every course would be set up like an Ace Race. Besides, fun has different definitions. I wouldn't have very much fun playing a bunch of short wide open holes, or holes that needed an ace to "birdie."

 

[Halcón]

Well Iacas, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BroD, you're right. They would be Par 3's on a pitch and putt.

I could see where the gold tee from the first pic would be a par 3. It would likely be birdied often by pros, but it doesn't seem like a gimmie 2 with those obstacles, and the line needed.

 

[DavidSauls]

Not per the definition, but I agree that most good players will get up and down on such a hole. Don't make them. There's no real place in the game for "par 2s."

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?