Any legit par 72 disc golf courses?

[Orchestra]

The Rock at Stonewall in Germanton, NC is a par 70 ball golf course that also has permanent disc golf baskets set up for a par 70 disc golf course. It has held a couple of PDGA events.

 

[jjtwinnova]

The new No Boundary course in Pittsburgh, (Cranberry Township) PA is a legit Par 71. It hasn't had a rated round yet, but the pros who have played it have said par will be over 1000 rated.

 

[Casey 1988]

Jeez I hope not. I love the diversity of course types and pars and challenge that this sport offers, it's why I don't play 'ball golf' anymore, monotony. I wish there were more longer par 54 courses with crazy tough holes. Todays top pros eat up the par 4s and 5s because most take the challenge off of the tee shot. I think disc golf should make every effort to NOT standardize or follow ball golf......except the money of course.

Traditional Golf can have Variety just that Majority of USA Courses tend to be the boring style that does not allow for as much variety. The Links style courses and the old no longer made this way hill style from United Kingdom have much more verity to the holes using the natural layout of the land as a challenge to contrast the modern flattened out land style golf course or the flat piece of land course. In fact near me 20 miles away there is a 9 hole links course that is tough due to using the natural layout of the land, native grasses to the region or grasses that could survive the area much better without watering in my area.

Disc Golf on the other hand does not need flattened land to make a course or even the grass changed to play the sport, why it is more common to see Disc Golf courses is that for $2,000 with mid priced Championship baskets the course can be made more of them then there are traditional golf places that need the money and land to make a great course.

 

[Casey 1988]

Shorewinds blue course at lakeside state park in western NY is a par 71 and plays every bit as challenging as par would indicate. I think these type of courses are great for tournament golf, but for casual, everyday play a fun yet demanding par 3 course is just fine.

I have relatives near there in both Tonwanda and Liverpool/Rochester NY, I might get a chance to play said course in the future if we ever travel to the area.

 

[BrotherDave]

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.

I think they did some serious earth moving for this course in Europe (Tampere Disc Golf Center):


On the subject, I think Disc golf should logically evolve into being the best Disc Golf it can be, not necessarily into mimicking ball golf as closely as possible. One must meditate upon the essence of Disc Golf to find these answers.

 

[takman]

Nice summarization of my thoughts takman. I don't think we should be striving to make changes to be more like golf.

Keep in mind I'm not opposed to par 72 courses, just any 'standardization' (like somehow that's better) than the inconsistent courses we have now.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not sure if it applies to this but the bear at Highbridge Hills is listed at 71. Chuck would know more about this but all I know is that course was crazy hard. I only played the bear proper once. It was woodland bear before that. That course is nothing like a golf course though.

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.

 

[johnrhouck]

I believe there was considerable earth moved in construction of Parc des Familles, a John Houck course in a Louisiana cypress swamp.

"Considerable" describes it pretty well. Every inch of every fairway got 6-8" of sand. But none of it was mounding or anything like that -- not this time.

Undulations on the fairway probably have more of an impact in ball golf, since it's more of a ground-based game. But I do think we'll start seeing more earth-moving in the future.

As for par 72, I'm not sure we want courses with only four par threes. Or sport is deeply rooted in par threes, and we have the ability to make so many more interesting par threes. And we can still make good par threes where a driver is a good choice off the tee, which doesn't happen in ball golf.

I think the fewest I've ever done on one course was seven par threes, and I didn't have any desire to go lower than that, even when I could have. FWIW.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

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.

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

 

[Ryan P.]

"Considerable" describes it pretty well. Every inch of every fairway got 6-8" of sand. But none of it was mounding or anything like that -- not this time.

Undulations on the fairway probably have more of an impact in ball golf, since it's more of a ground-based game. But I do think we'll start seeing more earth-moving in the future.

As for par 72, I'm not sure we want courses with only four par threes. Or sport is deeply rooted in par threes, and we have the ability to make so many more interesting par threes. And we can still make good par threes where a driver is a good choice off the tee, which doesn't happen in ball golf.

I think the fewest I've ever done on one course was seven par threes, and I didn't have any desire to go lower than that, even when I could have. FWIW.

The fact that we can make more interesting par threes (I guess you mean more interesting than ball golf) isn't an argument for more pars 3s. We can make more interesting par 4s and 5s as well. The same logic should apply to them.

 

[Ryan P.]

As far as my thoughts:

1. I would love seeing more variety in courses. I don't like standardization either, and I'm glad we're getting away from "every hole is a par 3" on both the scorecard and in design. In my ideal world that would include some long, open courses that are par 72 and some wooded ones that are 72.

2. From what I've seen, most of the courses that are a true par 72 range from mostly wooded to heavily wooded. I've yet to see a par 72 course that has even 5 open holes. Does anyone know of one?

3. For an open par 72 course, I can only imagine lots of elevation changes and length. The open 4s and 5s that I've played either need to be longer or have more elevation challenges. Length goes against making it easy to install (as most parts don't want to devote that much space).


Two thoughts on personal preference.

1. I'm tired of seeing par 3s. I've seen the same old par 3s on courses, and I'm more interested in seeing new and unique par 4s and 5s. I know they are out there, but if I find the par 3s I haven't played on a course with 17 other par 3s that I have played, it won't be a fun day for me.

2. There are many ways to improve current courses, and moving earth is one of them. I agree that we should be careful about the environment, and there are ways of doing that while moving dirt. But moving dirt/adding rocks/adding bushes all involve more work/increased difficulty/increased par.

 

[dreadlock86]

As for par 72, I'm not sure we want courses with only four par threes. Or sport is deeply rooted in par threes, and we have the ability to make so many more interesting par threes. And we can still make good par threes where a driver is a good choice off the tee, which doesn't happen in ball golf.

what's a good par three design that you haven't seen yet?

also, do you think there are course features that we haven't seen yet that could become commonplace in the future if greater resources were available?

 

[Casey 1988]

The fact that we can make more interesting par threes (I guess you mean more interesting than ball golf) isn't an argument for more pars 3s. We can make more interesting par 4s and 5s as well. The same logic should apply to them.

Yeah but what John Houck is saying is that more of the Par 3 then anything get boring after a while so boring that they are what are the par 2 on a par 3 now a few of these are on aging courses from when best tech for discs to play disc golf with was what are now called putter discs from these companies, but the majority are just on land that a 18 hole course could be better suited to making a 9-15 hole course or a spot where a 9 hole course should not go in. Sorry I do not think less then 9-8 holes should be a course unless they are making and calling it a practice and warm up type course/first time player course.

 

[ru4por]

As far as my thoughts:

1. I would love seeing more variety in courses. I don't like standardization either, and I'm glad we're getting away from "every hole is a par 3" on both the scorecard and in design. In my ideal world that would include some long, open courses that are par 72 and some wooded ones that are 72.

2. From what I've seen, most of the courses that are a true par 72 range from mostly wooded to heavily wooded. I've yet to see a par 72 course that has even 5 open holes. Does anyone know of one?

3. For an open par 72 course, I can only imagine lots of elevation changes and length. The open 4s and 5s that I've played either need to be longer or have more elevation challenges. Length goes against making it easy to install (as most parts don't want to devote that much space).


Two thoughts on personal preference.

1. I'm tired of seeing par 3s. I've seen the same old par 3s on courses, and I'm more interested in seeing new and unique par 4s and 5s. I know they are out there, but if I find the par 3s I haven't played on a course with 17 other par 3s that I have played, it won't be a fun day for me.

2. There are many ways to improve current courses, and moving earth is one of them. I agree that we should be careful about the environment, and there are ways of doing that while moving dirt. But moving dirt/adding rocks/adding bushes all involve more work/increased difficulty/increased par.

Well thought out, Ryan.

I don't really want to play any wide open par 72 courses. We have a few on golf courses and it just feels like field work. I guess a golf cart and a cooler of beer could be a fun afternoon with a few friends, but that is really not what my game is about anymore.

 

[biscoe]

As far as my thoughts:

1. I would love seeing more variety in courses. I don't like standardization either, and I'm glad we're getting away from "every hole is a par 3" on both the scorecard and in design. In my ideal world that would include some long, open courses that are par 72 and some wooded ones that are 72.

2. From what I've seen, most of the courses that are a true par 72 range from mostly wooded to heavily wooded. I've yet to see a par 72 course that has even 5 open holes. Does anyone know of one?

Lake Marshall- The Lions will have that many mostly open holes when complete.

3. For an open par 72 course, I can only imagine lots of elevation changes and length. The open 4s and 5s that I've played either need to be longer or have more elevation challenges. Length goes against making it easy to install (as most parts don't want to devote that much space).

The difficulty with designing even decent open par 5's in disc golf is the huge disparity in throwing distances of players. If they are long enough for the long throwers to be challenged to birdie they become a boring slog for the rest. If they are short enough to be interesting for the bulk of the field the long throwers eat them up like candy and eagles are commonplace. In my experience I can come up with good par 4 holes at the drop of a hat on virtually any property. Good par 5's on the other hand require better land and exponentially more brain power on my part.

 

[biscoe]

As for par 72, I'm not sure we want courses with only four par threes. Or sport is deeply rooted in par threes, and we have the ability to make so many more interesting par threes. And we can still make good par threes where a driver is a good choice off the tee, which doesn't happen in ball golf.

I agree completely with this.

 

[JC17393]

3. For an open par 72 course, I can only imagine lots of elevation changes and length. The open 4s and 5s that I've played either need to be longer or have more elevation challenges. Length goes against making it easy to install (as most parts don't want to devote that much space).

The course used at the Music City Open in Nashville this year is probably a good example of what true par 72 looks like on an "open" course. It measured 13,496 feet and 71 was rated exactly 1000. There's a drone flyover preview video up, obviously done before the course was installed, and it's a lot of open space with some elevation change. Looks like torture to me.

 

[Smigles]

I think the Tampere Disc Golf Center (Finland) did some terra forming. I think some of the elevation and ponds were man-made specifically for the course. That place looks badass:
https://www.discgolfpark.com/course/tampere-disc-golf-center/

I'll definitely need to check it out next time I'm in Finland...

Jussi talks a bit about the logistics and whatnot during the opening event coverage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ7iDSdI2B4

 

[Ryan P.]

Well thought out, Ryan.

I don't really want to play any wide open par 72 courses. We have a few on golf courses and it just feels like field work. I guess a golf cart and a cooler of beer could be a fun afternoon with a few friends, but that is really not what my game is about anymore.

I wasn't as clear as I should have been with my distinction between open and wooded. I think the simplest way to communicate the distinction is that an open hole has grass in the fairways/around the green, and a wooded course does not. That isn't always the case (hole 12 at northwood comes to mind), but it's an easy way to communicate my ideas.

With that said, I agree that it'd be really hard to design. There would have to be multiple tees (I'm thinking 3 at a minimum, but 4 or even 5 would be better). There would need to be a ton of elevation, as well as other hazards (bushes, water, well placed trees, etc.) However, the disparity between the relative few that exist and the amount of courses in the world doesn't seem right in my mind. However, maybe I just haven't played them ...

 

[Ryan P.]

Lake Marshall- The Lions will have that many mostly open holes when complete.



The difficulty with designing even decent open par 5's in disc golf is the huge disparity in throwing distances of players. If they are long enough for the long throwers to be challenged to birdie they become a boring slog for the rest. If they are short enough to be interesting for the bulk of the field the long throwers eat them up like candy and eagles are commonplace. In my experience I can come up with good par 4 holes at the drop of a hat on virtually any property. Good par 5's on the other hand require better land and exponentially more brain power on my part.

Glad to know they are being built.

I agree that it takes more brain power, but part of that is due to the fact that disc golf hasn't built those courses. The fact that relatively few exist makes it harder to think about the possibilities. The more people try and get it wrong, the more we will get it right.

People with more distance should have an advantage on some holes. But they should also be punished accordingly for a bad shot. I think that's a good start to thinking about how to design those holes. Make sure there is water, trees, or some obstacle next to the ideal landing zone, or make someone with more power have to take a different and harder line to use their distance advantage.

The sum of all my thoughts are that there should be more courses like this (par 72, both wooded and open), and it's going to take some time and some failures to make good ones, but we should try and eventually we will make good ones. I think we should make them because there is a huge disparity between the amount of par 54 courses and par 72 courses. Heck, I'd love to see a par 76 course. I certainly don't want to get rid of good par 54 courses.

Is anyone able to get into the database and see what the par is for all 18 hole courses around the world? I'd love to see a standard distribution broken down by nation and state. I'm looking at you Tim G opcorn: