When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[Stud Muffin]

why not??

Because throwing long is just one part of the game.

Let's say, for example, I could throw a really crazy line with my Roc. A unique crazy line.

Then I design a really nice course, and on 12 of the holes, you have to be able to throw this really unique crazy line to score. So people, like myself, who can score on the crazy line do well, and those that can not just do what they can.

Then other courses start making their holes with a majority being this crazy line. So I am now looking like a very good player, much higher rated, and people who can not do not score as well. It is not that I am a complete player, it is just the courses are playing into my strength.

Now take out 'crazy line' and put in 'long'. Just super long wide open holes. Those that can throw long are naturally going to shoot better, have a more consistent lower score. More and more parks make longer and longer holes.

The game is definitely moving into a phase where courses just plays into a long thrower's strength. I like throwing long, and I like seeing people throw a disc a long way, but I have also seen Feldberg make a 4 on a 300' par 3, because he missed a gap and hit a tree.

But back to my par issue, I appreciate this link:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

It appears the standard is 400'.

Still, in being congruent with the course, it is odd you play 5 a shorter hole, a par 4, then 6 a longer hole, a par 3, then 8 a much shorter hole, a par 4. That is all I am getting at.

 

[Stud Muffin]

Edit: Because I became a preachy idiot.

Incidentally, I didn't notice that you've been playing for eternity. You'll get the three. Have faith that the perfect set of three throws is still out there. You know they are.

Well I practice hard, and maybe someday soon, it will become a easy 3 for me too. ...maybe.

I play a course that has several Par 4's and 5's. One of our holes was adjusted from a 5 to a 4 because the SSA on it slipped below 4.5. It's a tough but not impossible 4.
Does anyone play sanctioned tourneys on this course? If so, it should have an SSA figured for it and adjusted if necessary. It's science, not wild-a** conjecture. Par on any hole should be determined by it's rounded SSA, not the deluded imaginings of a bunch of opinionated hackers.
Par is not subjective, it's simple math.
Just a thought.

Not that I know of. It just went in 1 year ago.

 

[jmitch]

It doesn't matter what the par on the hole is. What does matter is the final number of shots per round. Don't worry about the par is, just try and play each shot to the best of your ability.

 

[Olorin]

The Answer

Stud Muffin,

In all humility (well maybe not) here is the answer to your OP:

1. Determine the Course Level. Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green
2. Calculate the Effective Length of the hole. (Eff Length = Actual length +/- [Elevation change * 3])
3. Apply the Close Range Par guidelines for a hole of the course level. CR Par it THE best method for determining par! (But I may be just slightly biased in that assessment.)
4. Enjoy playing your par 4 hole, because that's what it will come out as even for a Gold level course.
5. Ignore everyone who says that par does not matter. See Why par is necessary.

P.S.- The What is Par? thread has lots more helpful information.
P.P.S.- If you really want to do LOTS more reading check out all of the DGCR threads about par.

 

[Olorin]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range

QFT! Listen to Biscoe!

 

[DavidSauls]

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

Scoring averages and scoring spreads help validate the design concepts.

 

[biscoe]

true... validate... not dictate.

 

[New013]

and we're back at the par discussion again...

the reason why par matters in ball golf is because most courses are set up to be par 72, therefore you set up your course so you generally have 4 par 3's, 10 par 4's, 4 par 5's.

in disc golf the designers don't really follow this layout so there is no standard par for the course that designers try to meet.

 

[denny ritner]

Stud Muffin,

In all humility (well maybe not) here is the answer to your OP:

1. Determine the Course Level. Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green
2. Calculate the Effective Length of the hole. (Eff Length = Actual length +/- [Elevation change * 3])
3. Apply the Close Range Par guidelines for a hole of the course level. CR Par it THE best method for determining par! (But I may be just slightly biased in that assessment.)
4. Enjoy playing your par 4 hole, because that's what it will come out as even for a Gold level course.
5. Ignore everyone who says that par does not matter. See Why par is necessary.

P.S.- The What is Par? thread has lots more helpful information.
P.P.S.- If you really want to do LOTS more reading check out all of the DGCR threads about par.

This^^^

 

[Olorin]

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

IMNSHO par is a design concept but scoring averages should also be used to establish the course level and that determines par. The level score averages validate the par values. Also, on tweener holes the Level Score Avg will help the designer decide whether to go up or down with the par value they assign. (Note to the par naysayers out there: yes, this does add a subjective element. That's because course design is both a science and an art.)

 

[denny ritner]

 

[scarpfish]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range with close range being approximately 120 feet says this deluded, opinionated hacker...

I say in 99% of cases, number of shots to reach the 10 meter circle, plus 1. On a standard 335' hole, a scratch player better get a whole lot closer than 120'.

 

[Thumber]

To the OP, I think the real question is the elevation. If its way downhill then throwing well over 400 leaving a 200 foot approach makes it a reasonably hard par 3 and a very weak par 4

I play on a mountain all the time and people throwing 500 downhill is pretty common. Why are you throwing a flex shot? Just pump something low and hard with lots of spin. It will accelerate going downhill and get great D.

Sounds to me like you personally can't get a 3, but that doesn't mean it s not a hard 3

 

[mattdabbs]

Hole 18 at Cliff Stephens is 695 feet. Your drive has to stay low through a hole in the trees about 200 feet out. After that you have another 200 feet to a lake on the right and train tracks up a hill on the left. So you have to be able to throw a lazer drive 400 feet no more than 15 feet high to get within 300 of the pin for your second shot. Then you have to avoid the lake and tracks. It is a par 3 but I would say it is a legit par 4.

 

[Alin]

Hole 18 at Cliff Stephens is 695 feet. Your drive has to stay low through a hole in the trees about 200 feet out. After that you have another 200 feet to a lake on the right and train tracks up a hill on the left. So you have to be able to throw a lazer drive 400 feet no more than 15 feet high to get within 300 of the pin for your second shot. Then you have to avoid the lake and tracks. It is a par 3 but I would say it is a legit par 4.

And, I have never flown a 3 on this hole...the best I've ever done is a 4. With that, I still feel I can get the 3 and it should be a par 3. One day...

 

[yearofrolling]

I'd say anything under 150' should be par 2.

 

[grodney]

par when properly applied is a design concept

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.

If that's too hard and/or you need guidelines that work on a vast majority of courses for the vast majority of players, you can use this:

 

[DavidSauls]

I wonder what percentage of holes, if you use this definition and the PDGA's definition and CR-par and SA-par, you get the same "par" for? Or at least 75% of these systems?

 

[DiscJunkie]

Like I said before, if there is an SSA for this course and for the hole then the debate is over.
Take the SSA for the hole and round the number.
This really isn't as difficult as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Olorin]

I hereby declare that Grodney Par (GRP) is a concept but no standard.