Legit Par 2's?

[Steve West]

Alas, this interpretation of "close range" is not clear in the rules, and certainly not universally agreed upon.

You don't think so? How many experts attack a hole with a plan that ends: "...and then I'll two-putt"?

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think "close range" is clear. Some "experts" might consider it 50', or 100', or 150'....

I'll bet many haven't given it much thought at all.

Certainly this thread, and 8,451 others like it, indicate that it's not agreed upon.

 

[Steve West]

I don't think "close range" is clear. Some "experts" might consider it 50', or 100', or 150'....

I'll bet many haven't given it much thought at all.

Certainly this thread, and 8,451 others like it, indicate that it's not agreed upon.

Fair enough. The bigger point is that we don't need to change the actual definition to solve most or all of the problems people are having with par.

For now, let's work on understanding that "reach plus two" is just one interpretation.

 

[iacas]

Steve, your definition of "errorless" is too similar to "perfect" for my tastes. "Errorless" play does not mean the best score possible. I think it's closer to the average than your version of "errorless" play.

Imagine a tight 350' hole with a ten foot gap 100 feet off the tee. "Errorless" play in your book would have someone hitting that gap and having a 30' putt, which would be an "error" if they missed.

That hole is not a par 2. It's still "errorless" play if they nick one of those trees, have an obstructed 75' "putt" that they put beneath the basket, and drop in for three.

 

[Steve West]

Steve, your definition of "errorless" is too similar to "perfect" for my tastes. "Errorless" play does not mean the best score possible. I think it's closer to the average than your version of "errorless" play.

Imagine a tight 350' hole with a ten foot gap 100 feet off the tee. "Errorless" play in your book would have someone hitting that gap and having a 30' putt, which would be an "error" if they missed.

That hole is not a par 2. It's still "errorless" play if they nick one of those trees, have an obstructed 75' "putt" that they put beneath the basket, and drop in for three.

I agree that par should not mean the perfect score or best possible score. You're forgetting an important part of the definition: "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play".

I agree that hole is not a Par 2, because an expert player would not get a 2 often enough to be expected to score it. Only about 10% of 1000-rated players would get through the gap and land close to the target. That's not a high enough proportion to "expect" that score. Even without the gap, only about 15% would get close to the target. That's still not enough.

I also would not define errorless play as how a player would play the hole if he knew he could do no wrong. The player will not expect that he could never miss the gap, and therefore decide to throw 360 degree run-up with a driver. Errorless play would involve making an adjustment to increase the odds of hitting the gap.

Let's say this hole was shorter so that without the gap it would be a par 2. At some point the gap is so small that errorless play would be to try something other than simply ignoring the gap and throwing for the target. With a gap that is small enough to change how players approach the hole, even a short hole can become a par 3.

Par will usually be very close to SSA. Throwing even par would produce a round rating of approximately 1020, vs. 1000 for SSA.

In fact, I've calculated that simply using SSA's with x.6 instead of x.5 as the cutoff for par comes very close to the definition of par for the vast majority of holes. For example, instead of rounding the SSA's in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 to par 3, assign a par 3 to the SSA's in the range 2.6 to 3.6.

I calculated this by looking at the score that the 37th percentile player scored on each hole, calling that par, and comparing that to SSA. The 37th percentile is where I think players can reasonably start expecting a score.

You could also get to the .1 approximate difference between rounded SSA and par by saying that 1000-rated players make about one error about every 9 or 10 holes. Or, roughly 2 per round. So, errorless play by a 1000-rated player would be about two throws better than average, or rated 1020, which is right in between cashing and winning.

Holes where par is not close to SSA are holes where errors produce large increases in score.

Let's look at your example of a par 3 hole. If that gap is turned into a double mando with no drop zone, the average score will go up as the 5's and 7's pile up. But, even if the average score gets above 4, it would still be a par 3. Players would still be approaching the hole expecting to get the first throw through the gap and the second throw close enough to putt. Par 3.

As an aside, I think your example of nicking a tree is more of a case of an error with not enough consequences to prevent the player from saving par.

 

[iacas]

I agree that par should not mean the perfect score or best possible score. You're forgetting an important part of the definition: "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play".

I'm not missing that part; I just feel your version of it pushes your expectations too close to perfect.

And to be clear I said my feeling is that par should be closer to the average than your version of errorless play, not that it should be the average.

Let's say this hole was shorter so that without the gap it would be a par 2.

That's kind of jumping ahead there since this entire discussion is really about what constitutes a legit par 2. And in my book, as stated previously, if the hole is a par 2 by my definition, it's a lousy hole that should be blown up and redesigned.

My intent is not to talk about "what is par?" though obviously in discussing "par 2" holes the various definitions of par are loosely related. Anyway, I hope to have stayed on the topic, and refrained from going on about "par" itself too much.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I was searching around regarding par 2s and ended up here. Im sure we have talked about it other places but seemed like a solid foundation vs starting my own thread.

The more courses i play the more i feel like par 2 (gold level tees for sure) should be used. I know people say all the time that par doesnt REALLY matter vs total score and sure that's true but why have par on any hole or level and not just a running total with course levels vs confusing tees and mismatching ideas of what is par 2 vs par 4.

It seems to cheapen the image of the sport with so many easy birdies at a "professional" level (whatever that is....) but i think aces are like a normal ball golf birdie.

I could probably play 10 rounds of stick golf and not even have a CHANCE to get a birdie while you could bring a rec player out to most any course and they have a chance at getting one. Some people seem to claim that shorter holes are just filler holes but i don't see them that way at all. Ive played shorter holes (par 2s) which are much more fun and require a actual shot to be shaped vs many par 4s with 2 big drives and tap in. One fills up tons more space and provides very little excitement from pro scoring to rec throwers. We need more technical design and pars which match the high tech equipment. With some of these very US high speed drivers even the noodles and company peeps are hitting 300'

Here is one of my favorite par 2 holes locally. Not even sure of many others. Its gold level tee on ball golf course @under 300' ...

All this being said i dont really have a point just kind of talking out loud. Why not more par 2s' eh?!

 

[Aim For The Chains]

PDGA not a fan of par 2 holes?

Seems odd they would use the verbiage of a hole being too short. I didnt think that was really a problem regardless of the skill level. More about design and the shot required.

 

[1978]

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.

That would make a wide open 550' hole a par 2 for most upper level pro's, I dont like the metric described above. Minimum should be par 3, period. anything over 100' is basically luck to make. So birdies are basically fairway aces now...err...you need to get a hole in one to get a birdie, thats silly. Even 80-100 yard hole in ball golf are par 3s and all the ladies tees... Calling something a par 2 seems kind if Hipster'ish. Disc golf is not for the 1% of people that we all know...75% of the sport are people that are as likely to throw behind them as they are in front of them.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I personally feel that people who think they are getting a "birdie" 2 on a flat straight sub 200' hole and pretending to shoot -5 under at a 9 hole course are the "hipsters"

Kind of the trophy for everyone thing. It only matters at a professional level anyway so why not correct it? Play every course for par 3 if you want to for all I care. Thats not the point here.

"Par doesnt matter" bc it isnt legit and uniform to begin with given current disc technology.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Until DG putting is made as interesting and challenging as ball golf, we'll continue to have some par 2s on most courses for our highest level of play. There is no natural golf "law" that players should have the "right to birdie" each hole. The "ability to birdie" exists in ball golf but not the "right to birdie". There's no question the "ability to birdie" is more fun from a game design standpoint.

 

[DavidSauls]

What's so special about a "birdie" if everyone gets one?

We have plenty of effectively-par2 holes, no matter what we call them. Holes that, if you don't get a 2, you're losing ground.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Would you consider gold tee par 2s at your course?

 

[araytx]

Would you consider gold tee par 2s at your course?

The problem is that there aren't design standards. What you're thinking in your mind as a "legit" 225' par 2, might be really different from the 225' holes I'm thinking of. Another problem is "is there trouble near the basket, like OB, like a jail of a shule, a huge drop off elevation change, etc."? What about those 225' holes with a 10-foot gap close to the tee? I can see a hole being a "legit" par 2 if there are not those obstacles, but with them the player who throws right under the basket, catches an ugly edge and has a disc roll away, is now struggling to make bogey. Whereas, if it were a par 3, he/she might play the hole differently.

So in answer to your question, yes, I'd consider a par 2 hole, depending upon the deisgn of that hole -- not solely based on length.

 

[DavidSauls]

Would you consider gold tee par 2s at your course?

We only have one hole in which the Open division has averaged below 2.5.

Now, that's a shaky data set but it's the best we have. I'm in the "par doesn't matter very much" camp but, if we were establishing pars for the sake of a live scoreboard, I'd call that a "par 2", and perhaps a few others. As it is, there aren't going to be any cameras or live broadcasts or throngs of spectators here, so it doesn't matter a whole lot.

I'm a 900-rated player and, on one of our local courses, there are a couple of holes that are effectively par-2s. I know that I need to get a 2---that if I don't, I'm losing ground to most of the field. And that's in my age-protected Am divisions. Imagine what the Pros are doing.

If a 2 is the expected score, is the standard, then I'm for owning up and calling it a par-2. If that means no birdies on that hole, I'm fine with it. I'm a fan of tough-pars, anyway---holes where you have to execute to save par, and the risk is in bogey or worse.

 

[Gblambert]

We're just finishing up two 18 hole courses that include tees for red, white, blue and gold level players, but it's not what you'd think. The red, white, and blue tees are located on the big course, with overall lengths of 4300', 5400' and 6400'. The gold tees are located on our mini course with an overall length of 1900'.

We labeled the tees on the mini course as gold level because of the close range par guidelines that show only gold level players are expected to get up and down in 2 strokes 90% of the time at a distance of 100'. Since the average hole length on the mini course is a little over 100', it seemed like a good fit.

Shot Lengths for each level according to the guidelines in the following close range par document: https://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/CRpar

Level - Drive Length - Close Range - Fairway Throw
Gold. - 400. - 100. - 330
Blue. - 340. - 90. - 270
White. - 300. - 80. - 240
Red. - 260. - 70. - 210
Green. - 210. - 60. - 170

Experienced players play the course as a par 2 while new players and children play it as a par 3. The current course record of 36 was carded by a very good player, but it took 2 aces to get that score.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=7821

 

[1978]

The problem is that there aren't design standards. What you're thinking in your mind as a "legit" 225' par 2, might be really different from the 225' holes I'm thinking of. Another problem is "is there trouble near the basket, like OB, like a jail of a shule, a huge drop off elevation change, etc."? What about those 225' holes with a 10-foot gap close to the tee? I can see a hole being a "legit" par 2 if there are not those obstacles, but with them the player who throws right under the basket, catches an ugly edge and has a disc roll away, is now struggling to make bogey. Whereas, if it were a par 3, he/she might play the hole differently.

So in answer to your question, yes, I'd consider a par 2 hole, depending upon the deisgn of that hole -- not solely based on length.

Guess that is the point. creating interesting hole and challenging holes that are "fair"!!! is more important than what you call the par.

 

[Steve West]

...
Here is one of my favorite par 2 holes locally. Not even sure of many others. Its gold level tee on ball golf course @under 300' ...

All this being said i dont really have a point just kind of talking out loud. Why not more par 2s' eh?!

Local players keep moving the Gold tee markers on that hole back to 320 feet (from 249). I guess it would threaten their manhood to play a par 2. Or, maybe they never learned to throw less than 320 and don't feel like that's a skill a "real" player needs to have.

 

[apdrvya]

this one

aced a 90ft tone pole...

 

[Jabumbo]

The only thing I hate more than a Par 2 hole is when the same hole has multiple Pars for different tees.