Another "Every Hole Being a Par 3" Thread

[Jesse B 707]

its just an easy way to keep your score without a card
/thread

 

[smarkquart]

I guess I would hope that the field was even enough that taking that 7 on ANY hole would be enough to take them out of the money. The way I see it, it's either going to penalize them ~4 or ~5 strokes (difficult 3 vs. easy deuce). I don't think that one stroke difference in a penalty is much to worry about. Hopefully the quality of the field and course chosen for the particular tournament level are properly matched.

I would throw just out there that some holes, although very few, taking a 7 or an 8 is not that detrimental. While a lucky few would play the hole well enough for a birdie or better, and that could possibly propel them to the top of the money, there are a few holes where enough players would blow that single hole so that there is still a good chance that you could money. Think of Hole 4 at Blue Ribbon Pines. That was two monster shots made by Cale to get that eagle on the Clash video, I have hit 3 twice but am well enough to know that I should be able to hit 4 more often than not. However, taking a 7 or 8 on that hole because you were late is not going to be that different from the horde that took anywhere from 5 to 8 anyway.

Now, this is of course is an exception because not only is the hole difficult, but the course is 27 holes and lot can happen in that time. It is not like Plymouth Creek Hole 8 where it is nothing but tight woods constantly veering right, protected on the left by the stream where it is a solid Par 5 (and listed as such). Unless you have a pure miracle shot, you cannot go more than 200 feet at a time after the initial drive. It is basically drive, lay up and around the right curve, approach, play for 4 but settle for 5. Since it is only 12 holes, taking anything more than 6 basically is going to kill you.

 

[HeartlessCynic]

Par is just a way to measure performance. At my local course there are really forgiving "Rec par" tee signs with total of 12 stroke difference. When I get done with a round I know that by par 3's I'm 2 over and mad at myself. I know that by rec par I'm 10 under and I'm mad at myself.

I think it depends on if you look at the numbers correctly or not.

I can't remember what my total score was at the tourney but I know that I was 20 strokes behind the leader, 10 strokes behind 2nd, and 1 stroke ahead of 4th and that's all that really matters.

 

[banzai7]

It'd be nice if par was consistent. I'm pretty used to shooting +5 or so around here in CT. But when I go up to Maine, I'm shooting like -10 or so on the course pars there. Sometimes pars are just too easy. Btw there are pdga guidelines!

 

[Dr. Burd]

Btw there are pdga guidelines!

I've seen the graph governing par via hole length by intended competitive level. I haven't seen another document, so if you know where it is, feel free to link it.

The visual I referenced above is in no way comprehensive, nor does it address current expected competency at certain distances given a player's rating. There is a much wider array of hole difficulty than is estimated by "Light Foliage" or "Heavy Foliage". Also, the distances listed are significantly shorter than you would expect. I don't think a 1000 rated player would have too much trouble with a 600 ft. Par 4 displaying "Light Foliage".

-------------------------------------
Regionally specific discussion below
-------------------------------------
For those in my area, this would make Lakewood Hills #8, North Valley #15, & Hyland SSA #18 Par 4. Those holes are too open (and have negative elevation changes) for that to make any sense, but according to the PDGA chart linked previously, those are solid Par 4s.

I'd be interested to see how many local Open players shoot 3 on those holes over 70%, "Eagle 2" them 5%, and shoot 4 another 20% of the time. That doesn't really sound like a Par 4 to me... Hell, *I* shoot 4s at Lakewood #8 & there's no reason not to shoot 3 at Hyland #18.

The problem is determining what rating the course is designed for, and the PDGA's influence is too small in scope for it to be a known standard. You can't walk up to a course bulletin board and go "Ok, red tees." or mark multiple tees as necessary. So, as with almost all sports and life itself, the standard to measure yourself against becomes the best players in the world. Everything is approached as if it's made for Championship level play. As someone mentioned earlier, I could shoot 2 over at the local 9 hole shorty and be mad at myself, or I could shoot 10 under the public par and be FURIOUS.

Assuming this "championship standard", Plymouth Creek #8 is a Par 4 by the PDGA table, not Par 5 as was stated. That's probably the only valid Par 4 in the area I've played (I haven't played Blue Ribbon Pines), and if the Majestic went to this course, I would expect to see several birdies. Furthermore, I would expect those birdies to be the deciding factor that separated the top card from the second. If you've played the course you will certainly agree that this IS as it should be. Although there are quite a few technical shots required by Plymouth Creek, this is the one that requires distance AND accurate line-shaping.

 

[JHBlader86]

Par should really be assessed based on obstacles and how the fairway is designed. Here in BG Hole 15 at Ephram White is 725 ft and a Par 3, but Hole 3 at Holler in the Hills is the same distance, maybe 20 ft. longer but a Par 5. The reason for 2 strokes is because Whites hole is a straight shot, whereas Hollers hole is an S-Curve driver, followed by throwing into the woods with an OB rope to the left and a creek to the right.

 

[Cgkdisc]

For those in my area, this would make Lakewood Hills #8, North Valley #15, & Hyland SSA #18 Par 4. Those holes are too open (and have negative elevation changes) for that to make any sense, but according to the PDGA chart linked previously, those are solid Par 4s.

I'd be interested to see how many local Open players shoot 3 on those holes over 70%, "Eagle 2" them 5%, and shoot 4 another 20% of the time. That doesn't really sound like a Par 4 to me... Hell, *I* shoot 4s at Lakewood #8 & there's no reason not to shoot 3 at Hyland #18.

Having designed those three holes, I can tell you that they are par 4s as marked for blue level players and have been tested for scoring spread and average for that 950 average player skill level. For example, gold scoring average was 3.5 at Pro Worlds on NV #15 and is 3.8 as designed for a blue level par 4. Most of the courses I've designed in the past decade and several in the 90s before ratings have tees marked with the skill level color and pars assigned accordingly. Many were tested in events and adjusted as needed so they are now the proper pars for that skill level per the more detailed version of that PDGA table used by members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group.

 

[Dr. Burd]

... the more detailed version of that PDGA table used by members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group.

Uh, link please? Or do I need to know the secret handshake? :roll:

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are several course design materials only accessible to DGCD members and this is one of them. For membership info:

http://www.discgolfcoursedesigners.org/discgolfwiki/

 

[emiller3]

As far as I'm aware, all of the courses that have gone in in the last two years here in southern Colorado have some legitimate par 4's and 5's. Is this becoming the trend elsewhere? Seems like its the way things are going here.

But yeah, on one course in town, it's a bad round if you're over par. On another, +5 is a respectable score. But with a deuce or die course, there's not much you can do about that. That happens in golf as well, though. I'm fine with it, I go play the easier course when I need to build some confidence.

 

[Dr. Burd]

But with a deuce or die course, there's not much you can do about that. That happens in golf as well, though. I'm fine with it, I go play the easier course when I need to build some confidence.

I think Deuce or Die is a competitive mentality, and in no way should affect people's opinions of the course itself. Unfortunately, it seems that most people DO have a negative impression of these short courses. Just because a course doesn't beg for 400'+ of D, doesn't mean it holds no challenge or technical merit.

One of my favorite courses is a 9-hole in the area (Garlough Park, for those in the Cities). In a tournament setting with a strong field, the winner would probably be shooting solid rounds of 7 under or better (there are two straight shot ace runs under 200 ft.) This course still forces you to make some kind of shot on almost every hole, and without proper management, you'll quickly slip to the bottom of the field.

At the same time, there are a lot of fairly worthless courses with 9 holes of flat, straight, repetitive & boring shots to be made with little risk involved. So I hope you reserve your derision for the appropriate courses.

 

[emiller3]

Uh, derision? I think you misunderstood me. I have nothing against short courses, I was commenting on the idea of universal par and the notion of setting par to 2 on easier courses to make them more difficult. You can't set par at 2 just to make a deuce or die course harder.

I never said short = deuce or die, I enjoy short courses that are challenging. I do not enjoy playing deuce or die courses on a regular basis.

 

[Dr. Burd]

Uh, derision? I think you misunderstood me. I have nothing against short courses, I was commenting on the idea of universal par and the notion of setting par to 2 on easier courses to make them more difficult.

Bah, my apologies. I meant to mention that my comments were not directed toward you but completely forgot. I was merely utilizing your statements as a digressive springboard.

"Your derision" was a reference to something which I'm certain you reserve for the perfect target, and not something you hold for our beloved "Par 2" courses of the world.

 

[emiller3]

I have a soft spot for the easiest course here in town, it's the one I learned on and there's something satisfying about being able to reach almost all of the greens on a well executed drive. Still enough of a challenge to keep me coming back. The wide open courses (like on a former par 3 ball golf course) with greens that are all within a putter's reach get old pretty quick, but I'm still good for a few rounds on them when I go somewhere on business. Basically, I'll give anything a try. Sorry if I made it sound like your courses stink, I'm spoiled

 

[Euphoric Nightmare]

How's this...

PAR = What you shot last time you played the hole/course

 

[juju1]

How's this...

PAR = What you shot last time you played the hole/course

Probably the worst idea for par that I have ever heard. Good work though, keep trying.

 

[jsun3thousand]

How's this...

PAR = What you shot last time you played the hole/course

F+

 

[Spinach D1]

Its all relative. I appreciate the idea of all 3s since there are no scorecards.

 

[craftsman]

Good players shoot under/bad players shoot over. Increasing par is a disservice, it only blurs the line. Plus threes are easier to keep track of.