When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[Olorin]

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.

That's only IF you hold to the SA Par philosophy. I do not. Myself and others have any entirely different outlook about the fundamental nature of par that is expressed with this idea:

"Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a clear tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues."

 

[dreadlock86]

why not??

Because throwing long is just one part of the game.

if your original statement meant that distance shouldn't be the only thing, then obviously. but having a competitive distance potential is absolutely required. this means don't be bitter when a hole demands that you execute a long shot to score well. a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.

 

[DiscJunkie]

That's only IF you hold to the SA Par philosophy. I do not. Myself and others have any entirely different outlook about the fundamental nature of par that is expressed with this idea:

"Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a clear tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues."

I appreciate your candor and forthrightness.
However much I respect your approach, I disagree with your conclusion.

Anything set in an outdoors environment will change.
No matter how a hole is designed, it changes over time. Aging may occur because of weather damage, normal arbory aging, normal trampling or players may find some special way to defeat the designer's intent. In extreme cases, this may even change the par of the hole.
Using SSA is a way to track the way the hole is being at each successive tourney and set the par at a level that reflects the way the hole is played today, in an objective way.
Typically,heavily wooded courses get easier over time, lightly wooded courses tend to get togher.
The designer or club may want to tweak the design to adjust the SSA to levels they desire.

I suspect that I won't change your mind, Olorin, just wanted to elaborate on a different POV.

 

[Cgkdisc]

dreadlock86 - a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.

Not exactly. One shot par 3 holes shouldn't be longer than what 80-90% of the players in that skill level can reach. Power is already over rewarded in DG and holes longer than this guideline get into the unfair realm. Where extra long distance should be rewarded is on par 4s and 5s where the bomber for that skill level gets a shorter upshot (not putt) on par 4s and might be able to reach the basket in two throws on some par 5s for a potential eagle.

 

[Olorin]

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.

GR Par is more commonly called "Traditional Golf (TG) Par". Along with the illustrious grodney, others who use it include some of the biggest names in DG course design: John Houck, Harold Duvall, Stan McDaniel, Dave Dunipace.

TG Par is very close to CR Par. The main difference is only the size of the "putting area/ close range".

 

[Cgkdisc]

Those "biggest names in DG course design" may use TG par because it takes them 2 putts to hole out other than Stan. In his case, his fairways are narrow enough that it many times takes 2 throws to get near the green on his 1-shot holes and then his solid 1-putt to get in...

 

[Clempson13]

par is completely irrelevant. if it's a par 3, and you and everyone else make it in 4, then you are still even score-wise.

 

[DiscJunkie]

par is completely irrelevant. if it's a par 3, and you and everyone else make it in 4, then you are still even score-wise.

I think there is some value to a "good" par designation.
I play one course that is a Par 67, or in that range, and I play all but one of them as par 3's. I'm usually in the low 50's
My home course is a Par 63, and on a few holes (#3, #6, #8, #15), it brightens my day just to make Par.

You and others are very correct that only the final score matters, but one way I avoid nerves in a tourney is to "play the course, not the other players". Par then becomes very relevant to me.

 

[DiscJunkie]

GR Par is more commonly called "Traditional Golf (TG) Par". Along with the illustrious grodney, others who use it include some of the biggest names in DG course design: John Houck, Harold Duvall, Stan McDaniel, Dave Dunipace.

TG Par is very close to CR Par. The main difference is only the size of the "putting area/ close range".

I use this method to figure a "reasonable" par on some courses that are way over my head or way too easy. This lets me know how well I'm doing by my abilities.

The OP talked about a hole that is a 650' Par 3. That's ridiculous to me, so I'd play it as a Par 4. I think the OP's original question is, should that be a Par 3. I would bet that whether you use SSA or TG Par, you would conclude that it should be a Par 4.

 

[Monocacy]

I use this method to figure a "reasonable" par on some courses that are way over my head or way too easy. This lets me know how well I'm doing by my abilities.

Good idea. Where possible, I try to develop my "personal par" before a tournament, listing which holes I will try to reach in one and which holes I will try to reach in two. Even so, it is difficult to throw a safe shot when every instinct (often wrongly) tells you to ignore the punishing rough and go for it.

 

[Lewis]

If the hole would be set as a par 3 if the tee pad were placed where the planned landing zone is for a player's drive, there is no non-stupid reason to set the full version of the hole as a par 3.

 

[Giv'r]

I still don't see why it matters. If you usually throw a 4 when you play, just be happy when you do actually throw a 3.

 

[Jax11]

IMO, Dave Mac knows what he is doing when it comes to course design. I played a temporary course this past weekend on one of his relative's private land that he designed with legitimate par 4's and par 5's and it was phenomenal.

With that said, I agree this hole would fall under the "3.5" category. Based on sheer distance alone it could be a par 4, but given the fact that there is no set line or intended line you have to throw it should be a par 3, you can basically throw a controlled distance line on your first shot. I suggest trying some different lines or throwing styles to stretch yourself (in turn expanding your game) , in order to get that three. I don't know what the ground is like, but you could try a roller, make sure you get it standing up enough and let it ride the fence so it doesn't go too far off course. You could also throw a RHFH flex shot out over the OB and let the headwind turn it back in play.

I have played several 600 ft open field shot par 3's and believe you can par all of them if you can throw 300' and execute your at least 2 out of 3 of the shots to near perfection.

 

[zepphead33]

Always par 3, does not matter how long it is. It's not like the par screws up your score.

 

[Danger]

Par 2:

 

[jenb]

So how about this hole? 540 feet in the short pin position. 590 feet in the long pin position, and it is set way back in the trees at a right angle. This tee is classified as the blue tee, not the gold tee. Is par 3 reasonable for a blue tee on this hole?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=191&mode=media&view=hole&hole=1&page=1#

 

[jenb]

That should say 590 feet in the long pin position.

 

[CwAlbino]

Think about this, most people call all 3's "pro" par. There are opposite sides of the coin, but a pro should 3 that hole the majority of the time.

So how about this hole? 540 feet in the short pin position. 590 feet in the long pin position, and it is set way back in the trees at a right angle. This tee is classified as the blue tee, not the gold tee. Is par 3 reasonable for a blue tee on this hole?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=191&mode=media&view=hole&hole=1&page=1#

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

 

[KniceZ]

There seems to be a completely different perspective on par between ball and disc golf. The average ball golf player is unlikely to ever par a real course (par 3 courses aside). How many golfers do you know that have a zero handicap? While the average disc golfer is discouraged if they can't throw par.

Is this a continuation of the "all kids are winners" attitude of youth sports. Let's not even keep score and give everyone a participation trophy!!

 

[PhattD]

I think if top pros come in and average 3.5 to 4.49 it's a par 4. I think if top pros come in and average less than 2.5 it's a par 2. I don't get what the difference is between "playing" a hole as a par 3 or a par 4. If your home course has a 940' wooded par 3 and one day someone changes the sign to sat par 4 are you going to play the hole any differently? A 4 on a hole that pros average 4.5 on is a better score than a 3 on a hole they average 2.5 on regardless of what the guy in the parks department decided par should be. If you don't think any hole should be a par 2 don't make any holes that easy.