Par 3 isnt viable for some holes

[iacas]

Obviously as a golf pro you have a more inflated view of ball golf and the motivation to play it.

No. I could say that "obviously as someone who isn't heavily involved in golf you don't have a clue why people play golf or not." I don't have an "inflated view" - I have a more detailed view. I understand it better. I know more about it.

People don't quit golf because they can't quickly attain pars. We have threads where people are proud - genuinely proud - of their first par, birdie, or eagle. My kid was happy as heck when she got her first bogey.

People like it when they achieve things that are difficult. A beginner who gets a "birdie" on a 320-foot par five doesn't feel satisfaction. They feel "this game's a joke, I'm already making birdies?" Even if they don't think that, they feel it deep down. They know they aren't as good as the fake score tells them.

FWIW, I agree with your basic premise that par should be based on what the elite players can shoot. However, I don't think most disc golfers see it that way.

I'm glad we agree on that. It's all I'm really saying.

In a perfect world, we would have nicely laid out courses with red, white, blue and gold tees that are well designed so that a rec player playing the reds and an elite player playing the golds can use the same par and expect to shoot similar scores.

I don't really agree with that though. So we're 1 for 3.

Golfers who play the forward tees (let's say they're black, blue, white, gold, red) aren't going to keep up with Tiger Woods. Heck, you can put a "bogey golfer" 150 yards from every hole and he probably won't beat Tiger Woods.

In ball golf there will ALWAYS be multiple sets up tees that make par attainable for different skill levels.

No, the purpose of multiple tees is to make the green reachable in regulation (par-2) possible.

It's a subtle - but important - distinction.

Having both Pro/Adv level pars and Int/Rec level pars on the tee signs is very useful.

And again, I ask: what if you're in the middle?

What's the problem with just letting the "int/rec" player make a bogey? Why do we have to go so far to protect their egos? You have two guys, one shoots 53 and that's -1 to the pro/adv par, and the other shoots 70 and that's -2 to the int/rec level - but they're miles apart in terms of ability.

Golf doesn't have different levels of par for different kinds of players.

My favorite disc golf holes are par 4s in the 475-600 range than absolutely cannot be reached from the tee. Holes that require and accurate drive to a landing area, then an accurate approach to the 10M circle. Holes like this really close the gap between accurate average distance throwers and guys who can just throw really far.

I like those holes too. But they're not par 6s for sucky players. They're par fours. And players should feel good about themselves when they finally manage to make a par there.

The OP mentions a specific course, which I have played numerous times. Hole 4 is 500+' uphill to in a wide open field. Literally no obstacles, no OB. While many will argue that this is a par 3, I would love to see what the SSA for this hole is for the last few tournament rounds. It is not and easy 3, and I would say it requires at least 550' of distance to have a putt from the circle.

The 8th hole at Oakmont can play 300 yards. Long holes are rare, and an anomaly, but sometimes they're still the right par.

(Personally I'd add something of an obstacle to that hole and make it a true par 4, or move the tee up a little and make it a not-so-weird par 3. Kind of like the second hole you mention - it has obstacles.)

----------

Anyway, just my opinion. I think people feel more satisfaction and a better sense of reward with realistic pars determined based on the "skilled" or "expert" golfer level (I didn't say elite - Tiger would average 4 to 4.4 on most par fives at most golf courses), and they can more realistically judge their progress and place in the game.

Standardization is an issue, but farting around with this "rec level par" stuff only delays standardization, without any true benefits IMO.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Golf doesn't have different levels of par for different kinds of players..

Completely false. There are implicit par guidelines for multiple skill levels from junior, seniors, women, men and championship. It's just more subtle to see it for some levels because the difference between hole lengths from tee to tee level is a smaller percentage of hole length than in disc golf. Most tees are set for the same par on the hole. But a par 4 hole from the junior tees might be called a par 3 if Tiger's level played it.

I don't believe there are official handicap tables other than for men and women (Juniors maybe?). It's not uncommon for a women's tee to be par 5 when the men's is par 4 on a hole. The whole concept for skill level pars in disc golf was borrowed from that procedure in ball golf. We don't do it by age/gender as such but just by measured skill level. Par in ball golf is actually what an "expert" player within that gender or age level would be likely to shoot on a hole.

 

[iacas]

Completely false.

No it isn't.

There are implicit par guidelines for multiple skill levels from junior, seniors, women, men and championship. It's just more subtle to see it for some levels because the difference between hole lengths from tee to tee level is a smaller percentage of hole length than in disc golf. Most tees are set for the same par on the hole. But a par 4 hole from the junior tees might be called a par 3 if Tiger's level played it.

The fact that you had to stretch this discussion to include juniors - and by juniors you really mean "players under the age of about 14" because high school golfers play regular tees - goes to the point that it's not different.

AJGA events are contested from regular tees with regular pars. My daughter is 10 and is already playing from the standard forward tees.

I already addressed women, and seniors fit the same bill. They play different tees (due to their distance deficit), but the instances where par is different for them are rare. On most courses, if it's par 72 for the men who choose to play the longest set of tees, it's a par 72 for the women who choose to play the forward set.

Heck, for that matter, it's a par 72 for the men who choose to play the forward set of tees, too - the course rating and slope will just be lower.

Eight at Oakmont is a par three every day of the year.

Does the USGA or PGA occasionally convert a short par five into a long par four for the U.S. Open? Yes. But again, even that's rare - it amounts to one or two holes per year.

And as you probably know, Chuck, par is an expert golfer - a scratch golfer - not Tiger. Tiger's a +6 or so. He's not scratch, so he's not an "expert golfer" per the definition.

I don't believe there are official handicap tables other than for men and women (Juniors maybe?).

Official handicap tables? There are recommendations for how to set par. I rate courses, and a 470-yard hole tends to be the generally accepted cutoff (based on a 250-yard drive and a 220-yard second shot) for a par 4 or par 5, but if the hole plays uphill, it can easily be a 470-yard par four, or if downhill you can easily have a 500-yard par four, even on a course that Tiger Woods will never set foot upon.

Heck, my home course has a 481-yard par four. It's tough, but we don't call it a par 7 because sucky golfers need to feel good about themselves.

It's not uncommon for a women's tee to be par 5 when the men's is par 4 on a hole.

I already addressed women earlier in the thread. That simply addresses the difference in distances men and women hit the golf ball.

There are not separate pars for SKILL LEVELS among men and women. A hole is not a par 3 for a good male player and a par 5 for a "recreational" male player.

The whole concept for skill level pars in disc golf was borrowed from that procedure in ball golf.

Then whoever "borrowed" it screwed it up in the process. You'll never visit a golf course and be confused as to what the par is for any given hole.

We don't do it by age/gender as such but just by measured skill level. Par in ball golf is actually what an "expert" player within that gender or age level would be likely to shoot on a hole.

Age level doesn't play a role in par either. Just gender… and occasionally for small kids (pre-high school), but again, that's simply because of DISTANCE, not "skill level." My kid could have a swing as good as Tiger Woods but because she's 48" tall and swinging a 34" driver (or whatever), she's not going to hit it 320 yards.

 

[mashnut]

No. I could say that "obviously as someone who isn't heavily involved in golf you don't have a clue why people play golf or not." I don't have an "inflated view" - I have a more detailed view. I understand it better. I know more about it.

And yet you think that after 1 year and 15 courses played you have a better idea of how par should work in disc golf than people who have designed more courses than you've played....

 

[iacas]

And yet you think that after 1 year and 15 courses played you have a better idea of how par should work in disc golf than people who have designed more courses than you've played....

And as I'm sure you know, I was clearly speaking about par as it relates to golf, and responding directly to a comment about that.

 

[New013]

i'm not going to pretend to be an expert. though to me it would make sense for there to be one consistent standard for par no matter what level of course; and it would make sense for that standard to be based on a professional players expectations for that hole.

the more consistent you make anything the easier it is for newer players to understand.

 

[mashnut]

And as I'm sure you know, I was clearly speaking about par as it relates to golf, and responding directly to a comment about that.

In the rest of this thread you've mocked the current disc golf standards, and held up golf as what we should aspire to. I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of your points, but the way you're doing it is a bit hypocritical. You tell anyone who makes a point about golf that you know better, but when anyone disagrees with your points about disc golf suddenly the experience difference is irrelevant.

 

[thugjitsu]

We have a hole that is only ~460 but due to tons of ob, basket is on an island, and the drive for an eagle is either an extremely tight gap other a huge flex shot that needs a lot of height to get there. Length isn't and shouldn't be the determining factor.

 

[nevets4433]

TS...a good course design takes into account the obstacles in the course, and the hole length, and applies the hole par accordingly.

Some courses simply don't have established "par," and the default seems to have become all par 3s. I would talk to the course architect or whoever is currently in charge of a course. Just because some holes don't have established pars doesn't mean they definitely need to default to 3 pars.

 

[nevets4433]

No it isn't.

Actually, there are plenty of courses that have holes that have different pars on them depending on the tees.

I have played multiple courses where there are holes that play as par 4s for men and par 5s for women.

And have you ever watched a US Open? Almost yearly the Pros play holes as par 4s from the same length that members play as par 5s.

 

[iacas]

In the rest of this thread you've mocked the current disc golf standards, and held up golf as what we should aspire to.

There are no "current disc golf standards" to mock.

Yes, I've said they should create standards, and I believe golf provides a good example of what those standards could/should be.

You tell anyone who makes a point about golf that you know better, but when anyone disagrees with your points about disc golf suddenly the experience difference is irrelevant.

That's not how I perceive it as going. I've corrected some comments made about how it is in golf, but I haven't discounted anyone's experience in disc golf.

But again, there aren't any current standards in disc golf. I believe there should be. Whether they're like golf's or not, I don't really care - but I think some standards should be created and enforced. The maintainers of old/existing courses could update their signs with the new standards.

We have a hole that is only ~460 but due to tons of ob, basket is on an island, and the drive for an eagle is either an extremely tight gap other a huge flex shot that needs a lot of height to get there. Length isn't and shouldn't be the determining factor.

No, it shouldn't - I agree with that. It's a big factor but not the only factor.

Some courses simply don't have established "par," and the default seems to have become all par 3s. I would talk to the course architect or whoever is currently in charge of a course. Just because some holes don't have established pars doesn't mean they definitely need to default to 3 pars.

I have played multiple courses where there are holes that play as par 4s for men and par 5s for women.

I addressed that. It's not a difference in skill level - it's a difference in distance potential due to gender.

A man playing a hole will play it as a par four from any set of tees. If he plays the "red tees" it doesn't become a par 5 for him because he stinks.

I already addressed this. Those exceptions are also fairly rare.

 

[nevets4433]

I already addressed this. Those exceptions are also fairly rare.

here is a forum link of people discussing holes around north America that play as lower par values from the back tees

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47773.html

its not as rare as you would think. I was a collegiate golfer and faced such holes on occasion. I know holes like these are not what you would call commonplace, but they are far from unheard of

 

[iacas]

its not as rare as you would think. I was a collegiate golfer and faced such holes on occasion. I know holes like these are not what you would call commonplace, but they are far from unheard of

You don't know how rare I think it is. That thread lists about ten holes, of the hundreds of thousands (or millions) around the world. I'll say again: it's rare. And that goes the opposite direction: shorter tees, lower par. Disc golf often assigns HIGHER par to shorter tees because "lesser skilled" players are playing them. That's the opposite.

---------------------------------------------------------------


To be clear, I "don't particularly like" two things:

1 - "Everything is a Par Three"
Though on some older courses, where the maximum length of the holes is 350' or so, everything might be a par three.

2 - Adjusting Par Based on Skill Level
The USGA will play back-to-back U.S. Opens at Pinehurst next year. It'll be a par 70 or so for the men at 7200 yards or so. It'll be a 71 or 72 or so for the women at 6600 yards or so. The difference accounts for the distance difference (as does the overall total yardage). When average players, or guys that can't break 100, play the course, it will not be a par 95 - it will be a par 72 or so.

If a disc golf course is 8600 feet and par 66 from the gold or blue tees, I think it should likely be par 66 from the red tees. It just might measure 5300 feet or so.

The par 4/5 golf example has been brought up a few times, and I say - fine. Use that too. If someone chooses to play the red tees on a disc golf course because they lack distance like a woman in golf tends to lack distance, they can play the occasional "long-ish" hole as a par 4 when it's a par 3 from the other tees. Again, it's rare in golf, and it would likely be rare in disc golf too.

Disc golf doesn't guarantee players rather wide fairways, so "par" won't relate quite as strictly to distance as it does in golf, but generally speaking, par should be what an "expert" disc golfer would get on a given hole from the back tees. Then keep the other tees the same par, with the rare exception of allowing for an 820-foot hole to play as a par four for the gold tee players and a par five for someone on the red tees at 650 feet or so.

If by posting as often as I have in the past day or two about this, I've mislead anyone into thinking I care a tremendous amount about this topic, I apologize. I don't.

So I'll stop now (or try to). Cheers.

 

[Halcón]

So I'll stop now (or try to). Cheers.

You promise?

 

[JC17393]

If a disc golf course is 8600 feet and par 66 from the gold or blue tees, I think it should likely be par 66 from the red tees. It just might measure 5300 feet or so.

A ton of disc golf courses (I'd estimate at least 50%, probably more like 75-80%) only have one set of tees to work with, and between the areas we're given to work with and the whims and desires of the powers that be (parks depts, etc), adding tees isn't always a feasible option. So the solution of having two or three sets of "par" for a given course is the solution we're left with. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, either. Unless you are stuck in the ball golf oriented "there can be only one par" mindset.

Par is different for different skill levels. It's that way in ball golf. It's that way in disc golf. We just have two different ways of executing the same theory.

 

[iacas]

Par is different for different skill levels. It's that way in ball golf. It's that way in disc golf. We just have two different ways of executing the same theory.

Again, it really isn't that way in golf, no. It's that way rarely in golf, and almost always when it comes down to male/female and the distance differential.

Loosely, a male "expert" (scratch) golfer hits the ball 250 and 220. A female "expert" (scratch) golfer hits the ball 210 and 190 yards (both are tee shots and then any shot after that). Those are guidelines for establishing par for each player type. Elevation, etc. can shift those guidelines a bit, as can hazards and things that force layups.

When you define two kinds of par for a disc golf hole, you're leaving out a whole bunch of people in the middle. A guy who shoots 90 on a golf course shouldn't think he broke par because he played the "rec par" of 95. He shot 90. That's my opinion.

But let's at least get the facts correct here… eh? Golf doesn't have par 72s for pros and par 95s for "rec golfers."

If 95% of disc golf courses have one set of tees, then… they'll have one set of pars. Maybe on the occasional hole it's a par 4 for men and 5 for women, or 3 and 4, but I don't agree with setting "rec level" pars.

Heck, that's an even simpler version of my position: I don't agree with having "rec level" par ratings. I think par should be "expert level."

 

[mashnut]

Iacas, you're missing the point that JC and others have been trying to make, I can't tell if that's intentional or not. Golf has multiple tees on every hole. That allows for different skill levels to have a par that at least somewhat reflects the level of golf they're playing. As much as you keep saying that the shortest tees and longest tees are the same par, that's oversimplifying things. It's entirely possible that the longest tee on a particular par 3 hole is the same length as the shortest tee on a different hole that's par 5. That says to me that if golf only had one tee and wanted to cater to the range of skill levels they do currently, they'd have to adjust the pars similar to what people are suggesting for disc golf.

Also, when you set up two tees in golf, what about the people in the middle of those two levels? You can say that about anything that's differentiated, there's always going to be a middle ground. Why isn't that an argument against different tees in golf the way you're making it sound like it's an argument against different pars on a single tee?

 

[JC17393]

Again, it really isn't that way in golf, no. It's that way rarely in golf, and almost always when it comes down to male/female and the distance differential.

Loosely, a male "expert" (scratch) golfer hits the ball 250 and 220. A female "expert" (scratch) golfer hits the ball 210 and 190 yards (both are tee shots and then any shot after that). Those are guidelines for establishing par for each player type. Elevation, etc. can shift those guidelines a bit, as can hazards and things that force layups.

When you define two kinds of par for a disc golf hole, you're leaving out a whole bunch of people in the middle. A guy who shoots 90 on a golf course shouldn't think he broke par because he played the "rec par" of 95. He shot 90. That's my opinion.

But let's at least get the facts correct here… eh? Golf doesn't have par 72s for pros and par 95s for "rec golfers."

If 95% of disc golf courses have one set of tees, then… they'll have one set of pars. Maybe on the occasional hole it's a par 4 for men and 5 for women, or 3 and 4, but I don't agree with setting "rec level" pars.

Heck, that's an even simpler version of my position: I don't agree with having "rec level" par ratings. I think par should be "expert level."

At this point, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Mashnut nailed the point I'm driving at.

In ball golf, the par stays the same, so the tees are changed to accommodate various skill levels.

In disc golf, the tee stays the same, so the par is changed to accommodate various skill levels.

It's two sides of the same coin. It's two routes to get to the same end. Neither is right or wrong. They both work for their given sport.

 

[iacas]

Iacas, you're missing the point that JC and others have been trying to make, I can't tell if that's intentional or not. Golf has multiple tees on every hole. That allows for different skill levels to have a par that at least somewhat reflects the level of golf they're playing. As much as you keep saying that the shortest tees and longest tees are the same par, that's oversimplifying things. It's entirely possible that the longest tee on a particular par 3 hole is the same length as the shortest tee on a different hole that's par 5. That says to me that if golf only had one tee and wanted to cater to the range of skill levels they do currently, they'd have to adjust the pars similar to what people are suggesting for disc golf.

I understand what you're saying, but again golf does not draw the distinctions between the par for the hole played from various tees. If a sucky golfer wants to play the same tees as a scratch golfer, the par is no different for him just because he's lousy.

In disc golf it seems like they would be assigned a different par. In fact, the tees FORWARD of the back tees might have a HIGHER par for the lousy disc golfer.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Also, when you set up two tees in golf, what about the people in the middle of those two levels?

But again, they're still playing the same par for the holes. They're not trying to decide when to make the jump from playing a course as a par 95 to playing it as a par 72.

I'm happy to be done, and just say we have different opinions on this, but if you're going to address me or the points I've made, I'm probably likely to respond.

 

[mashnut]

I understand what you're saying, but again golf does not draw the distinctions between the holes. If a sucky golfer wants to play the same tees as a scratch golfer, the par is no different for him.

In disc golf they would be. In fact, the tees FORWARD of the back tees might have a HIGHER par for him.

That doesn't make sense to me.



But again, they're still playing the same par for the holes. They're not trying to decide when to make the jump from playing a course as a par 95 to playing it as a par 72.

I'm happy to be done, and just say we have different opinions on this, but if you're going to address me or the points I've made, I'm probably likely to respond.

That's a cop out. Disc golfers could randomly choose between the pars on the sign too and play the same par as "scratch" disc golfers. The point is the thinking behind the design, not whether or not people actually play the tee/par appropriate for their level. You're ignoring the idea that if golf had only one tee, designers would find a way to make it accessible to different levels, they obviously think that's important since golf courses have multiple tees currently. Disc golf's solution to that exact same problem is differentiating pars. It's exactly the same.

You also are missing the point on the middle ground. You said earlier that differentiating par left someone in the middle. What about people who are between the intended skill levels of tees on a golf course? They are deciding between options that can differ by several strokes with respect to par, it just happens by a different length in golf and different par in disc golf. Again, it's a different solution to the exact same problem.