All holes should be par 3!

[snappyfingers]

 

[sneakytiki]

Ehh. I think that's fair for the most part but at my home course. Its easier to birdie about 6 of the holes then to par one that is a par 4..

I don't see why birdieing 6 holes first makes it easier to later hit par on a par 4... I guess maybe I could see the boost in confidence from the birdies making it easier I suppose...

I'll show myself out.

 

[kingjames1014]

"Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."

 

[ohtobediscing]

^^^:clap::clap::clap:

The par issue has already been resolved. Play them all as threes to make keeping score easier, measure your score against the course par to see how you did.

What we are arguing about now is what par on specific holes is.

This is the way we play, and then compare our total to what should be course par.

Lately, storyboy, some gauntlets may have been smacked in some faces over what par should be on hole #15 on some course in NC.:|

 

[rakeyohn]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=2601&p=03b1a6de

I've three'd this hole once. Played it for 4 years now. Once. Sorry but unless you have a complete gun and two perfect 500ft worth of power drives you get no 3.
Enjoy your all 3's. But if we want disc to be a real sport then varying pars is a necessity.

That link was supposed to go to #2..

 

[Pwingles]

Throw less times than whoever youre playing and "par" is irrelevant

 

[storyboy]

Throw less times than whoever youre playing and "par" is irrelevant

Can't argue with that!

 

[bradharris]

Throw less times than whoever youre playing and "par" is irrelevant

But what if you throw less because you were late and missed a few holes. Now par is relevant again. :doh:

 

[zenbot]

A sad but true story:

At a worlds once, they listed every hole as a par 3. There was an 800 foot hole that should have been marked a par 5. A group of women started on this hole. One of them was late and missed the hole. she got a 7 (par plus 4). Everyone who played the hole took 8's.

Now this girl picked up a stroke on the group simply because she missed the hole.

There were rumors that she did it intentionally, but couldn't be proven.

That is why par can't always be 3.

Maybe it's a bum rule. If we're both late on a shotgun start and your hole is par 5 and mine is par 3 is it fair that you take a 9 and I only take a 7?

 

[Karl]

But what if you throw less because you were late and missed a few holes. Now par is relevant again. :doh:

But that instance could and SHOULD yield a DQ. Now we're back to par being irrelevant.

 

[mashnut]

Maybe it's a bum rule. If we're both late on a shotgun start and your hole is par 5 and mine is par 3 is it fair that you take a 9 and I only take a 7?

I don't see a problem with that since there's an expected difference of 2 strokes between those two holes anyway. If the rule was just 7 for any hole missed, then I'm only taking 2 penalty strokes if I miss a huge par 5 hole and you're taking 4 penalty strokes for missing a par 3 (or even 5 strokes if it's a short par 3 that most players can get in 2).

 

[zenbot]

Right. Right.

Not thinking clearly. I was caught up on the example cited where the 800' hole was par three.

 

[mashnut]

It definitely depends on a reasonable definition of par being used by the TD, you can get some funky issues if they just make everything a 3 or don't assign par consistently.

 

[zenbot]

Let's just go bowling, mashnut.

 

[mashnut]

I'm in!

*takes up bowling*

*moves to bowlingalleyreview.com*

 

[Pwingles]

Let's just go bowling, mashnut.

Was it you who dressed as Sadam? Post that ish again for my amusement

 

[zenbot]

 

[magictenor1]

Par is for comparing scores across courses, not players on the same course. One could easily use number of strokes for that comparison. For this reason it is important to have well laid out criteria for par that can be followed for all courses in a consistent way. IDEALLY in a perfect world a single player playing two different courses with equally good rounds should shoot the same with respect to par. If they shot a +2 on one course and shot equally well at another course the next day they should have a +2 there as well. All par 3's would be far from achieving that.

I know this isn't the case now. It is hard to achieve that kind of consistency, especially with very short courses without having par 2's. The main point I am trying to make is the purpose of par. For it to mean anything it needs to be consistently judged based on hole difficulty across all courses for it to be useful in any meaningful way.

That would make all courses the same level if +2 was the same on every course. That is not what par should do. Within different levels of courses consistency would be good.

 

[jcf5083]

Couldn't have said it better myself Tim.

 

[discoholic]

I like pie

Really..? I think every par should present a birdie opportunity for a "good" player. Don't make me define "good" (the birdie defines it). We can all bogey it, no matter the par.

Anyway, it was fun reading this thread. I would like to be .14159 under on every hole. That would only be -2.54 for the round, it might be irrational but seems fair to me. I actually clicked bowlingalleyreview.com, I was disappointed Mashnut