Any legit par 72 disc golf courses?

[roggenb3]

We just checked maps yesterday and the current Bear layout only has six holes for sure the same as my original design and three more that might be close without seeing them in person yet. So I'm not sure what the par would be on the current layout or perhaps the 71 listed is accurate. It's likely close from what I've heard from players over the years.

I think Bear is easily par 72 (though partly due to the lack of upkeep and terrible baskets). Maybe more. It's significantly harder than, say, Wilderness long to long, or Rollin Ridge Black to Black.

I've played it twice keeping score and shot 79, 81.

 

[Stardoggy]

I think Bear is easily par 72 (though partly due to the lack of upkeep and terrible baskets). Maybe more. It's significantly harder than, say, Wilderness long to long, or Rollin Ridge Black to Black.

I've played it twice keeping score and shot 79, 81.

I think that has much more to do with upkeep than anything. I found NoBo to be much harder (and longer, and more elevation changes) than Bear.

 

[roggenb3]

I think that has much more to do with upkeep than anything. I found NoBo to be much harder (and longer, and more elevation changes) than Bear.

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.

 

[ChrisWoj]

A topic, maybe a bit related?, I considered asking here has to do with earth moving and terra forming for a disc golf course as is done in ball golf.

From a money standpoint I don't see it being practical in disc golf but wonder about the possibilities.

In disc golf we are still very limited to the land as we find it. Some tree clearing or maybe a bit of building up a hill or flatting some ground, but think about ball golf where some of these championship courses are created by completely changing the land itself. Many use natural elements, but then there can still be a lot of work moving creeks, adjusting slopes, bringing in or moving large mature trees. I would love to see what the big name famous course designers could do for disc golf with Par 72 and unlimited construction budget could create.

I think in the mean time pushing much beyond what we currently see would be hard.

This is coming. Bit by bit people with money are stumbling across the sport as it grows. You should see the L shaped structure someone in my area just put in this past winter... easily 550 feet on the long side, 150 on the short side, well over 50 feet at the base and 25+ in height. Dug it all out of the ground inside of the L (created a pond) and from other areas around (opening creeks around the island hole and along a few others). And that island hole... the sloping is fantastic, plays amazing with the way he had it shaped and built....

The question is whether it'll grow enough for that to happen in a lot of places. I feel positive about the growth trends. But... who knows.

 

[ChrisWoj]

We just checked maps yesterday and the current Bear layout only has six holes for sure the same as my original design and three more that might be close without seeing them in person yet. So I'm not sure what the par would be on the current layout or perhaps the 71 listed is accurate. It's likely close from what I've heard from players over the years.

Looking at the courses individually at Highbridge.... How many times have you got to see each of them in what you'd consider their 'ideal' form - trimmed, best playing pin positions, etc. (or 'ideal' considering level of completion)?

 

[Putt for D'oh]

The environmental destruction wrought by ball golf offers lessons we shouldn't want to repeat.

Agreed, but also lessons on what could be done in an acceptable fashion.

It is interesting to see what has been done here and there for disc golf courses.
I never intended the idea of fully bulldozing wild lands, let alone the planting of monocultured non-native plants and spreading huge amounts of pesticides and fertilizers around. More working with what we have, but just a bit more invasive than simply removing some trees and building a small mound to put a basket on.

But I see property where disc golf exists already that is mostly used for the sole purpose of disc golf that could be an amazing course with what might be significant earth movement in some areas. I think about local courses and know that it is monetarily not feasible but wondered about the possibility and where it may already be happening.

 

[Vonbeezy1]

Foundation Park in Centralia IL is a par 72 when all in the far placements. five par 3s and five par 5s. 10,925. i dont know what the SSA is, but I would guess around 67-68.

Panther Creek is a Par 71

I shot a 66 from the reds in 2015 and it was 975. I don't believe they have ever played a tourney from blues, they rarely have sanctioned tourneys there anyways.

 

[dreadlock86]

I don't understand your thoughts. Would you mind expanding on this more for me?

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.

 

[Ryan P.]

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.

If that's the case, then as I said before, I don't understand that. I won't repeat my thoughts ad nauseum though.

 

[joecoin]

... You should see the L shaped structure someone in my area just put in this past winter... easily 550 feet on the long side, 150 on the short side, well over 50 feet at the base and 25+ in height. Dug it all out of the ground inside of the L (created a pond) and from other areas around (opening creeks around the island hole and along a few others). And that island hole... the sloping is fantastic, plays amazing with the way he had it shaped and built....

...

Where is this?

 

[biscoe]

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

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.

 

[Cgkdisc]

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.

 

[Stardoggy]

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.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

North Boundary is a par 71 monster.


…as has already been stated

 

[HarkeyPuck]

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

 

[Ryan P.]

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.

 

[Ryan P.]

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.

 

[biscoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hyzer Ale]

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

 

[scarpfish]

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.