When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[Emoney]

Who cares about pars and birdies. U should be practicing shots and trying to throw the lowest total strokes. The "3 is par" system is just a simple way for me to keep track of my strokes.

When it counts (at tournaments) they use the total number of strokes to determine your place. Thats the goal, lowest number of strokes for your round. My opinion

 

[DirtyMittenDG]

there are far too many variables to realistically make a formula for what par should be....it's far easier/practical to think of par in more subjective terms. The hole in question is probably a 3.4 or 3.5 and its given a 3.

Where did you come up wit that 3.4-3.5 system? Doesn't sound very subjective.

 

[Stud Muffin]

there are far too many variables to realistically make a formula for what par should be....it's far easier/practical to think of par in more subjective terms. The hole in question is probably a 3.4 or 3.5 and its given a 3. This kind of hole actually is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47140

I don't know how to say this right, so I am going to say it as well as I possibly can.

I play a lot of DG, and I play this course a lot. Until Farmington goes up, I consider this my home course.

I have made par or better on every hole, but 6. Never have I made a par.

For something to be a 3.4 or a 3.5, then at some point, you would need to make a '3'. I have never made a 3. 4 and 5 are my usual score.

Now am I great, no. But I make 3's on number 8:

A 490' par 4. I make 3's on that throwing over a lake.

#5 is considered a par 4:

It is slightly uphill at the very end, the basket placement, and 580'. I have never made a 3 here either, but I have made 4's.

I wrote on the Gateway website about it, because David McCormack designed it. It is just not realistic, #6 being a par 3.

 

[bigbeano]

When is a par 3 unrealistic? How about on that 228 foot hole number 4 you should park with your putter? For every one of those on a course, there should be a hole like the one you described, just to even things out.So keep in mind that sometimes a hole that "should" be a par 4 is assigned a par 3 to even things out, because you can't assign a par 2 to the holes that deserve them.

There is at least one course I can think of in this area that has several holes marked as par 2. Oakwood Park in Cottage Grove... the ridiculous part about it is that one of them is almost 300' through thick trees. If I remember right I think I had to make a 25' putt just to make 4 on that hole the one time I played there. Anyway, point being someone apparently feels that you can assign a par 2 to hole. I disagree, but what do I know...

 

[optidiscic]

Your saying that "in your opinion" the hole at question is a 3.4-3.5, right? Cus if you were stating thats what it is or what it should be, then it wouldn't be a subjective thought.

sure I was guessing the hole avg scores are closer to 3.4 than 4......thus it is a tweener hole (the best holes in DG) and assigned as a par 3 (there are 4 actual par 4s on the course so it must have been thought out)
The subjectiveness comes in due to the level of player....a good player SHOULD be able to throw a drive just over the crest of the hill and sail downhill to within 100 feet of the basket....upshot...and putt out. A good player might hit a long approach and birdie it and some days he might shank his drive and require a second drive and upshot and putt...or he may go oob and bogey that way. Your idea of what a good player should do is very subjective.

 

[Stud Muffin]

sure I was guessing the hole avg scores are closer to 3.4 than 4......thus it is a tweener hole (the best holes in DG) and assigned as a par 3 (there are 4 actual par 4s on the course so it must have been thought out)
The subjectiveness comes in due to the level of player....a good player SHOULD be able to throw a drive just over the crest of the hill and sail downhill to within 100 feet of the basket....upshot...and putt out. A good player might hit a long approach and birdie it and some days he might shank his drive and require a second drive and upshot and putt...or he may go oob and bogey that way. Your idea of what a good player should do is very subjective.

That would be a 560' drive.

This is number 7, and this is shooting back up the same hill:

It is downhill, but not some super massive drop off. I am not saying someone could not throw 560', but in relation to 'par' that is unrealistic.

Par is what a scratch golfer can shoot.
Of course, a scratch golfer is someone that can shoot par, so all we have achieved is circular reasoning.

Still, even ball golf has it's standards on this:
"The male scratch golfer hits his tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots. The female scratch golfer can hit her tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots."
http://golf.about.com/cs/golfterms/g/bldef_scratchgo.htm

 

[optidiscic]

I agree its probably not a 3....its probably a weak 4 or an easy 3 for Gold Players.....This argument happened on my home course. It was a par 4 but played more like a 4.5. It was rarely 4'd and most took a 5 or 6 on it. Climo hit a 3 and thought he had an eagle only to learn it was a birdie (disgusted)....I got a 4 on it once in 5+yrs....the problem was the hole was a weak 5 but a difficult 4 for gold level players....for most players the par set at 4 was absurd. Bottom line is that 1000 rated players probably avg over a 3 but not quite a 4 and thus its a pro 3 albeit a tough one.....for the rest of us its just a reminder that we are not 1000 rated.

 

[dreadlock86]

That is sort of what I am getting at.

There should be a universal number for drive length. A realistic number. If you took the average drive of every PDGA member, and averaged them all out, NOT just the open players, and used that number.

Then use elevation and average wind to make things as precise as possible. Also factor in risk/reward.

Then establish what is a 'expected 2' area? 100', 125'? Whatever it would be, use it universally across all DG courses.

Then par would no longer be an opinion, but a decision of math. If the average drive length is outside of the expected 2 zone, then it is a par 4. If the average length of 2 drives is still outside of the expected 2 zone, then call it a 5.

wind should never be a factor in par. risk/reward practically by definition should not be factored into par.

It is just not realistic, #6 being a par 3.

perhaps not for you. and regardless, there's no principle that says we should be able to make par.


and many people have pointed out already that if the par is on the fence between 3 and 4 then it's the designer's decision. par is really just the designer's way of saying "here's the shot(s) i expect you to be able to execute to score well on this hole". apparently here he wants you to throw a 400' downhill drive and a 200' downhill approach. why is that unrealistic?

 

[Stud Muffin]

I agree its probably not a 3....its probably a weak 4 or an easy 3 for Gold Players.....This argument happened on my home course. It was a par 4 but played more like a 4.5. It was rarely 4'd and most took a 5 or 6 on it. Climo hit a 3 and thought he had an eagle only to learn it was a birdie (disgusted)....I got a 4 on it once in 5+yrs....the problem was the hole was a weak 5 but a difficult 4 for gold level players....for most players the par set at 4 was absurd. Bottom line is that 1000 rated players probably avg over a 3 but not quite a 4 and thus its a pro 3 albeit a tough one.....for the rest of us its just a reminder that we are not 1000 rated.

I understand what you are saying totally.

What I am getting at is 1000 rating should not = big arm.

Tiger Woods is a ball golfer with majors with a big drive.
Justin Leonard is no where near as long, but won a Major.

We should not look at Avery, Nikko, and Schusterick and say, "that is average arm par".

 

[craftsman]

Two 300ish shots and a putt with light woods and solidly defined ob.....sounds like a 3 to me, and i am no big arm by any means.

 

[gcr_russell]

Two 300ish shots and a putt with light woods and solidly defined ob.....sounds like a 3 to me, and i am no big arm by any means.

Exactly my thought. Even a small armed 1000 rated player has their 3 chance here this way. With a smaller arm and still having a 1000 rating means they're more deadly within their range. Sure the Avery's may have long putts with a low percentage of making them. But 300' man will have a long upshot/short drive with a high percentage of being in the circle for their 3 as well.

 

[dreadlock86]

What I am getting at is 1000 rating should not = big arm.

why not??

 

[KenTyburski]

Some people have already mentioned each of the points I will highlight, but three things stand out to me.

One, every time I go out on course, I'm just playing against myself anyway: did I shoot poorly, average, really well, or the best round I have ever played? Did I choose the right disc? Off the tee? For my approach? What would I do differently, and how could I improve my game for the next time? If you are frustrated about not being able to ever hit a three, I'd say.. Work on your accurate distance, then a solid approach, and always work on your putting, and think about it as improving your game, not lowering your score. The score will come.

Two, ratings are based on round scores, not on individual hole scores. So those high-rated players might be able to par or hit a crazy long deuce putt on that hole. So what? I know I can't do that yet, and I'd drive myself crazy trying to think I can. If you can never take a three, then you're just going to have to find another stroke out there. Either way, the one hole is always part of a larger round.

Three, par is so subjective. When I first started playing my local course, it was about a par 65 as marked. But the people that did the original marking had no idea what "real" disc golf "par" was, by way of the PDGA guidelines. Those guidelines are one, just guidelines, and two, written to make decisions just like this one. Now the course, with its most recent updates, is a par 54 from the white tees and 57 from the blues. And the course, to me, seems loads shorter than it used to feel. When I first played it, I thought I could never break 50. I knew I would someday, because I knew I wanted to. Then, once I hit that magic 50, I knew I had to shoot 49. Now my best local round is 44, because my game just kept getting better. And I think there is only one hole I have never deuced.

You'll hit a three. But if you don't? So what? Enjoy the challenge, and work on getting 4's consistently. Then the threes will start coming faster than you know it.

(FWIW, this hole sounds like a Wraith, Buzzz, VooDoo for a three in my game.

 

[KenTyburski]

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.

 

[DiscJunkie]

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.

 

[pchitti]

Its still all going to a total at the end,so it doesn't really matter,call it a par 20 if that makes you feel better.

Thats my usual response to this question about different holes.

 

[ForTheGlory]

I think we all get too hung up on what "par" is. I also find on my home course that some par 3's are out of my range and I'm OK with that. The PDGA site has this chart for suggested pars which I found really useful:

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

I realized that I'm not crazy and that some holes are just not meant to be par 3 for someone of my limited skill level. I record total number of throws per round anyway so I judge my progress on that score instead of how many over par I am.

I really found this chart helped me feel better about the scores I was throwing and hope it can help someone else out too.

 

[Sneaky Alligator]

No hole deserves a par 2. An ace shouldn't ever be a single birdie. And I don't like that "make up par" philosophy. lol

then the only eagles should be aces

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

I'm not clear what you're saying---"SSA on it slipped below 4.5" doesn't make sense to me, since "SSA" refers to the course as a whole. Do you mean the SA (Scoring Average), or average score, of 1000-rated players on a particular hole?

It's a valid standard, though it does result in a bunch of Par-2s on shorter courses.

(Just asking for clarification, since I'm in the "par doesn't matter much" school).

 

[biscoe]

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.

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

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