#71  
Old 08-28-2019, 07:36 AM
biscoe biscoe is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 24.5
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,626
Niced 2,032 Times in 849 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadlock86 View Post
he's just saying that dg courses ought to have more par 3s than the typical ball golf course as par 3s are a more integral part of our game than ball golf and that our par 3s tend to be better, more interesting holes than in ball golf.
correct

Quote:
If that's the case, then as I said before, I don't understand that. I won't repeat my thoughts ad nauseum though.
John H and dreadlock86 have both stated it well and I don't know how to expound in much more depth than I already have. While we borrow a lot of nomenclature and some concepts from traditional golf (and I am an advocate for doing so), disc golf is not traditional golf. I have nothing against Par 5's where appropriate with space allowing. There are some great ones out there with Hole 5 on Iron Hill, Hole 6 on Whipping Post, and Hole 18 on Lake Marshall- Lions coming immediately to mind.

I have a hard time coming up with any open ones I consider great holes though. Those holes tend to be drudgery for all but the very specific range of player they are designed for, largely due to enormous disparities in throwing length across our skill levels that are not quite as severe in traditional golf. Length and difficulty tend to override fun and they tend to provide an inordinate advantage (imo) to longer throwers. If it were commonplace for disc golf to be dealing with 4 sets of skill appropriate tees per hole I would likely feel better about some of the Par 5's. That is not the case though. They also take up relatively enormous plots of our most difficult to attain resource- land. A well conceived Par 3 can be enjoyed by everyone and we have waaaayy more opportunities for variety and nuance in our Par 3's than traditional golf.

We also live in a day and age where in general people are becoming less willing to spend huge blocks of their most valuable asset (time) on any one activity. There is something to be said for being able to play a casual round in 2 hours or a tournament round in under 4, likewise the ability to play more than one in a day as you so choose.

TLDR- Traditional golf likes a setup of 4/10/4 in regard to Par 3/4/5. I feel disc golf is better suited (land dependent) to something like 8/8/2.
Sponsored Links

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-28-2019, 08:12 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.7
Courses Played: 692
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,249
Niced 1,609 Times in 730 Posts
Default

Agree with Biscoe on all points and would add that Hole 5 on Winthrop Gold has been considered one of the best holes in the sport as a mostly open Par 5 with 888 (hole 13) also an open par 5. Both of these open par 5s work due to required carries over water/parking lot that act a bit like dogleg bends on wooded par 5s where max power isn't always required to get to landing zones.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-28-2019, 11:09 AM
Stardoggy's Avatar
Stardoggy Stardoggy is offline
**SuIciDe AnKles**
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Plymouth, WI
Years Playing: 8.3
Courses Played: 528
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6,261
Niced 743 Times in 319 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roggenb3 View Post
I must play this course then - it's hard to imagine a woods course longer and more grueling than Bear.

Guess back East is now higher on the list. I gotta get my a 2nd trip to MH anyway.
If you get there (MH), make sure to go play 501. It's freakin' amazing.

Niced: (1)

Last edited by Stardoggy; 08-28-2019 at 11:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:06 PM
HarkeyPuck's Avatar
HarkeyPuck HarkeyPuck is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Years Playing: 10.5
Courses Played: 282
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,362
Niced 216 Times in 117 Posts
Default

North Boundary is a par 71 monster.


…as has already been stated

Last edited by HarkeyPuck; 08-28-2019 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:13 PM
HarkeyPuck's Avatar
HarkeyPuck HarkeyPuck is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Years Playing: 10.5
Courses Played: 282
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,362
Niced 216 Times in 117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roggenb3 View Post
I must play this course then - it's hard to imagine a woods course longer and more grueling than Bear.
Let me know and I’ll show you around
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:56 PM
Ryan P.'s Avatar
Ryan P. Ryan P. is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Asheboro, NC
Years Playing: 13.6
Courses Played: 56
Posts: 1,693
Niced 53 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
correct



John H and dreadlock86 have both stated it well and I don't know how to expound in much more depth than I already have. While we borrow a lot of nomenclature and some concepts from traditional golf (and I am an advocate for doing so), disc golf is not traditional golf. I have nothing against Par 5's where appropriate with space allowing. There are some great ones out there with Hole 5 on Iron Hill, Hole 6 on Whipping Post, and Hole 18 on Lake Marshall- Lions coming immediately to mind.

I have a hard time coming up with any open ones I consider great holes though. Those holes tend to be drudgery for all but the very specific range of player they are designed for, largely due to enormous disparities in throwing length across our skill levels that are not quite as severe in traditional golf. Length and difficulty tend to override fun and they tend to provide an inordinate advantage (imo) to longer throwers. If it were commonplace for disc golf to be dealing with 4 sets of skill appropriate tees per hole I would likely feel better about some of the Par 5's. That is not the case though. They also take up relatively enormous plots of our most difficult to attain resource- land. A well conceived Par 3 can be enjoyed by everyone and we have waaaayy more opportunities for variety and nuance in our Par 3's than traditional golf.

We also live in a day and age where in general people are becoming less willing to spend huge blocks of their most valuable asset (time) on any one activity. There is something to be said for being able to play a casual round in 2 hours or a tournament round in under 4, likewise the ability to play more than one in a day as you so choose.

TLDR- Traditional golf likes a setup of 4/10/4 in regard to Par 3/4/5. I feel disc golf is better suited (land dependent) to something like 8/8/2.

Thanks John.

I see where you're coming from. I appreciate you expanding on the idea of practicality. I didn't get that nuance earlier. Also, I would love to have more courses that are 8/8/2. That'd add up to a par of 66. However, the average par of courses in this world is a few strokes lower than that.

Are you approaching course design with this perspective even before you see the course? If so, I think that's faulty. If someone gave enough land for a DG course to have a par 72 layout, I'd say to go for it. Would you try and make the par lower in that case? That may not be a question right now, but it will be soon with the way the sport is growing.

I don't think your assumption about being willing to spend less time on one activity is true. Some people are that way, but that doesn't mean all people are.

And as for long open holes, there are great ways to design them for multiple skill levels. Not knowing of any good open holes doesn't mean they can't exist; it means you don't know of any.

In getting back to the main point of this thread, I agree that we shouldn't try to make every course a par 72. But I think the distribution of par needs to be more evenly distributed between par 54 and 72 than it is right now, which is incredibly skewed toward below 64ish.

Last edited by Ryan P.; 08-28-2019 at 12:56 PM. Reason: fixed bad grammar
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:00 PM
Ryan P.'s Avatar
Ryan P. Ryan P. is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Asheboro, NC
Years Playing: 13.6
Courses Played: 56
Posts: 1,693
Niced 53 Times in 32 Posts
Default

I'll add a TLDR for me as well:
I don't think we should standardize, but the courses in the world are very skewed toward a par of 54. There are plenty of good courses and holes out there for people that can't throw as far. There should also be courses and holes for people that can throw far, and for people that can throw far accurately. The more we try and develop those holes, the better we will get at them.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:24 PM
biscoe biscoe is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 24.5
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 6,626
Niced 2,032 Times in 849 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan P. View Post
Thanks John.

I see where you're coming from. I appreciate you expanding on the idea of practicality. I didn't get that nuance earlier. Also, I would love to have more courses that are 8/8/2. That'd add up to a par of 66. However, the average par of courses in this world is a few strokes lower than that.

Are you approaching course design with this perspective even before you see the course? If so, I think that's faulty. If someone gave enough land for a DG course to have a par 72 layout, I'd say to go for it. Would you try and make the par lower in that case? That may not be a question right now, but it will be soon with the way the sport is growing.
To the bolded- I try to approach each design with as few preconceived notions as possible other than adhering to some basic design concepts. Each piece of land is 100% different as are the wants/needs of each customer/disc golf community. Lake Marshall Lions will be a Par 72 when complete due to the preference of the land owner. Were it up to me completely it would likely be a few less than that. I definitely prefer a par 3 version of Hole 16 on that course to the Par 4 which has been built. A responsible designer has most of what he does dictated to him by the customer and the land itself.

Obviously I have pretty much got carte blanche to do as I wish at Hawk Hollow and its various iterations all wind up in the 63-65 vicinity. I built a Par 70 version we played a few times but it was considerably less fun than what we already had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan P. View Post
I don't think your assumption about being willing to spend less time on one activity is true. Some people are that way, but that doesn't mean all people are.
Obviously. I did not mean to imply all people are that way if I did so, merely that the trend in our culture at the very least is that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan P. View Post
And as for long open holes, there are great ways to design them for multiple skill levels. Not knowing of any good open holes doesn't mean they can't exist; it means you don't know of any.
My saying I can't think of a great open Par 5 is a far cry from saying good open holes can't exist. Obviously they can and do. IMO the enormous majority of them are Par 4's however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan P. View Post
In getting back to the main point of this thread, I agree that we shouldn't try to make every course a par 72. But I think the distribution of par needs to be more evenly distributed between par 54 and 72 than it is right now, which is incredibly skewed toward below 64ish.
It is trending upward all the time. I remember some of my local players coming back from Worlds in Port Arthur (Houck courses) in the mid-90's telling me about these holes where you had to throw more than one shot as if they were unicorns. Spencer Thurman created The Woodshed about the same time and designers in the Mid-Atlantic such as Joey Mela were some of the first to join the trend.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-28-2019, 01:43 PM
Hyzer Ale's Avatar
Hyzer Ale Hyzer Ale is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Years Playing: 10.3
Courses Played: 79
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 887
Niced 111 Times in 69 Posts
Default

I like par to be around 69 for championship courses. I feel that par 3s (when challenging and fair) are more apart of Disc Golf than they are ball golf.

7 par 3s
7 par 4s
4 par 5s

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #80  
Old 08-28-2019, 02:27 PM
scarpfish's Avatar
scarpfish scarpfish is offline
Resident Grouch
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brownbackistan
Years Playing: 16.4
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 8,145
Niced 730 Times in 256 Posts
Default

How much more land acreage do you think would be needed to create this par 72 course versus the par 54-60 courses that we have now? I could see in certain applications, that number being three times as much.

Which I think in regards to both public and private courses, explains why these things are rare beasts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Legit Par 2's? duckychucky Course Design 222 05-30-2016 10:41 PM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 11:53 AM
Disc golf of golf courses: the future of disc golf? & Sequoyah State Park in Oklahoma Dan H. Disc Golf Courses 27 06-19-2013 01:21 PM
Par 72 Disc Golf? kfellmy General Disc Golf Chat 9 05-04-2012 11:38 PM
I don't understand Disc Golf Par Piqsid General Disc Golf Chat 88 06-29-2010 09:13 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.