Any legit par 72 disc golf courses?

[Ryan P.]

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.

I understood you but didn't reply very clearly; I was saying that I don't think that our culture is trending this way. I would be very open to evidence saying that it is, but I think Economists have shown that our perceptions of how the larger world is changing is hit or miss, so I don't want to accept that our culture is changing that way without seeing a good bit of data on the topic. With that said, you could very well be right; I'm simply hesitant to accept this.

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.

This idea is intriguing. What, in your mind, makes this true? In other words, what differentiates an open par 4 from an open par 5 (other than length) that makes the majority of good, open, multi-shot holes par 4s instead of 5s?

 

[roggenb3]

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

I agree. I think this is the sweet spot. Somewhere in the 65-70 range.

 

[biscoe]

This idea is intriguing. What, in your mind, makes this true? In other words, what differentiates an open par 4 from an open par 5 (other than length) that makes the majority of good, open, multi-shot holes par 4s instead of 5s?

Length is really the answer... the more shots the more it becomes skewed to the long thrower to reduce it to simplest terms.

 

[dreadlock86]

thanks for all the thoughts, biscoe! i hadn't even considered land availability as a factor. plus this one made me lol.

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.

 

[Ryan P.]

Length is really the answer... the more shots the more it becomes skewed to the long thrower to reduce it to simplest terms.

I don't think that's a good answer. that assumes there are no obstacles at all, and that's not a good hole. I would imagine we both agree there. By open, I don't mean no trees/obstacles. I mean anything not considered "in the woods". Multi-shot holes in the open must have obstacles, or they are silly. But I want to see more good, risk/reward par 4s and 5s.

I'll get to see your course on video in a few weeks at the USWDGC. I'm sure I'll learn more about your philosophy then. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[biscoe]

I'll get to see your course on video in a few weeks at the USWDGC. I'm sure I'll learn more about your philosophy then. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yep. I will have designed and chosen the setup for both courses the FPO will play. (Loriella is the other.) I have made/am making a bunch of changes at HH. A few are prompted by residual rough ground from the 9 month monsoon season we had but most are tweaks to hopefully make it play more appropriately for the women. It will be 7999 ft and Par 65- 7 3's and 11 4's. All the 3's are gettable. A few of the Par 4's are not going to yield many birdies- one of those I preserved simply due to it being an iconic hole here and another because the amount of labor to change it would have been prohibitive. Two Par 5's did not make the cut- one because I wanted the space for something else and one primarily for flow reasons.

There is only one shot on the course where the big arms can let go with zero consequence and I left that as it is because I want to see them do it. Everything else has a price for making an error although the size of the error and the price vary quite a bit.

There will be drone footage of the courses on the Spotsy DG youtube within a few days.

 

[biscoe]

I don't think that's a good answer. that assumes there are no obstacles at all, and that's not a good hole. I would imagine we both agree there. By open, I don't mean no trees/obstacles. I mean anything not considered "in the woods". Multi-shot holes in the open must have obstacles, or they are silly. But I want to see more good, risk/reward par 4s and 5s.

We have been using differing meanings for open- i mean stuff that is very sparsely treed if at all, like most of Winthrop say. What you are referring to I would call semi-open.

 

[sidewinder22]

Heritage Hills was a par 71.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=10070

 

[Ryan P.]

We have been using differing meanings for open- i mean stuff that is very sparsely treed if at all, like most of Winthrop say. What you are referring to I would call semi-open.

Ah, makes a lot more sense. I defined my term earlier, I guess you missed it. I said open was anything with grass covering the ground. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Ryan P.]

Yep. I will have designed and chosen the setup for both courses the FPO will play. (Loriella is the other.) I have made/am making a bunch of changes at HH. A few are prompted by residual rough ground from the 9 month monsoon season we had but most are tweaks to hopefully make it play more appropriately for the women. It will be 7999 ft and Par 65- 7 3's and 11 4's. All the 3's are gettable. A few of the Par 4's are not going to yield many birdies- one of those I preserved simply due to it being an iconic hole here and another because the amount of labor to change it would have been prohibitive. Two Par 5's did not make the cut- one because I wanted the space for something else and one primarily for flow reasons.

There is only one shot on the course where the big arms can let go with zero consequence and I left that as it is because I want to see them do it. Everything else has a price for making an error although the size of the error and the price vary quite a bit.

There will be drone footage of the courses on the Spotsy DG youtube within a few days.

Great to hear. I'm okay with a minimal amount of completely wide open shots on a course, so I don't mind one at all. Those with length in their drives should be rewarded in some way.

 

[GeoWolf]

Blue Lake Park here in Portland, OR is listed as a par 69 with 5 par 3's, 9 par 4's and 3 par 5's. Mostly open with OB lined fairways.

 

[Steve West]

This idea is intriguing. What, in your mind, makes this true? In other words, what differentiates an open par 4 from an open par 5 (other than length) that makes the majority of good, open, multi-shot holes par 4s instead of 5s?

To me, it's the scores.

I looked at 133 holes labeled par 5 in recent events. Based on the scores actually recorded, if these holes had had their pars set for 1000-rated players, 79 of them would have been par 4. On these holes most (54%) of 1000-rated players got scores of 4 or better.

You could also look at length. The average length of those 79 holes was less than 850 feet. An Open player who can throw 400 or 450 feet should not expect to need 5 throws to complete an 850 foot hole.

There are a lot of reasons a true par 4 for Open players could get labeled par 5. Perhaps the tee signs pars were set for amateurs. Perhaps the TD or course designer does not have a pro arm. Perhaps par was set under the old mistaken notion that par includes two putts. Perhaps there was a desire for a par 5 - so the longest hole got the job. Perhaps the course owner wanted it to be listed as a par 72.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

While both forms of golf are played through the air, their relationships with space are totally different. DG plays through the space whereas ball golf mostly plays over. The big par 3 obstacles in ball golf can be length, bunkers, water, green design, and rough. Same w/ dg + disc golf can offer greater risk on the way to the green and even greater variety in par 3 hole shape. I think ball golf uses so few Par 3s because they limit hole shape horizontally.

DG remains limited here with the assumption of tee shot plus 2 putts bc that's what ball golf does. No reason to discount Par 3s. I think Iron Hill, for example, would be a better course with, say, 2 more Par 3s.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but the black diamond course at emory park in South Wales, NY is par 71. From the golds the ssa from last years fall classic came in at ~70. To be fair, the gold tees are very tight and long on the wooded holes, almost to a poke and pray level on a few, but it is a beautiful course. The tightly wooded front nine incorporates great use of elevation. The back nine opens up to more park style for a great balance between nines (both are still quite demanding). It would be interesting to see what the top pros would do here, but I don't think it has ever been host to anything higher than a B tier.

 

[scarpfish]

DG remains limited here with the assumption of tee shot plus 2 putts bc that's what ball golf does. No reason to discount Par 3s.

We really need to let "that's what ball golf does" go in respect to hole par, because a disc golf hole isn't completed in the same manner a ball golf hole is.

But, I suppose that's for another thread.

 

[Ryan P.]

To me, it's the scores.

I looked at 133 holes labeled par 5 in recent events. Based on the scores actually recorded, if these holes had had their pars set for 1000-rated players, 79 of them would have been par 4. On these holes most (54%) of 1000-rated players got scores of 4 or better.

You could also look at length. The average length of those 79 holes was less than 850 feet. An Open player who can throw 400 or 450 feet should not expect to need 5 throws to complete an 850 foot hole.

There are a lot of reasons a true par 4 for Open players could get labeled par 5. Perhaps the tee signs pars were set for amateurs. Perhaps the TD or course designer does not have a pro arm. Perhaps par was set under the old mistaken notion that par includes two putts. Perhaps there was a desire for a par 5 - so the longest hole got the job. Perhaps the course owner wanted it to be listed as a par 72.

I don't disagree that there are a bunch of par 5s that, for pros, should be listed as a par 4. However, that doesn't mean par 5s are harder to design (aside from needing more land) or can't be designed. It means that they haven't been designed as much.

In keeping with the gist of the thread, are you saying that we should standardize par to a score in the mid 60's? I don't want any sort of standardization. My thoughts and statements have been that we shouldn't have a standard, but that the par should be evenly distributed on courses. Since par isn't currently evenly distributed, I'd like to see a lot more courses with a higher par.

 

[Steve West]

I don't disagree that there are a bunch of par 5s that, for pros, should be listed as a par 4. ...

That's the only issue I was addressing.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

While both forms of golf are played through the air, their relationships with space are totally different. DG plays through the space whereas ball golf mostly plays over. The big par 3 obstacles in ball golf can be length, bunkers, water, green design, and rough. Same w/ dg + disc golf can offer greater risk on the way to the green and even greater variety in par 3 hole shape. I think ball golf uses so few Par 3s because they limit hole shape horizontally.

DG remains limited here with the assumption of tee shot plus 2 putts bc that's what ball golf does. No reason to discount Par 3s. I think Iron Hill, for example, would be a better course with, say, 2 more Par 3s.

The other aspect is the ground play and design of landing zones. The slope and undulations on a fairway are a HUGE part of ball golf hole design. You can take a wide open fairway and without super tight OB, rough that comes into play, and through just elevation changes and very gentle doglegs dictate what is a good and bad landing zone AND make risk reward for trying to bomb one or a placement shot off the tee. This of course is possible with Disc Golf but generally requires more space AND more obstacles. I think it is one of the reason we have the big open courses with all the OB rope for the Pros. Without obvious physical barriers its hard to design a placement landing zone rather than letting the pros rip distance off the tee.

By this same rational however, par 3's in Disc golf can be much more varied and present more and different challenges on the same course compared to ball golf. Use of more extreme elevation changes and ceiling height for starters.

This thread has had me looking around my local courses, most of which are par 54 type. SSE is 8 or 10 down on most and I can not come up with a decent par 5 design on the courses without putting out OB ropes to dictate certain routes into trees. True Par 5's in DG are kinda difficult. Good interesting Par 5's are REALLY hard and take a lot of land. Basically like NW gold 12, take a Blue par 5 through the trees and move the Tee back 350' in the trees.

 

[Ryan P.]

That's the only issue I was addressing.

cool beans

 

[Ryan P.]

The other aspect is the ground play and design of landing zones. The slope and undulations on a fairway are a HUGE part of ball golf hole design. You can take a wide open fairway and without super tight OB, rough that comes into play, and through just elevation changes and very gentle doglegs dictate what is a good and bad landing zone AND make risk reward for trying to bomb one or a placement shot off the tee. This of course is possible with Disc Golf but generally requires more space AND more obstacles. I think it is one of the reason we have the big open courses with all the OB rope for the Pros. Without obvious physical barriers its hard to design a placement landing zone rather than letting the pros rip distance off the tee.

By this same rational however, par 3's in Disc golf can be much more varied and present more and different challenges on the same course compared to ball golf. Use of more extreme elevation changes and ceiling height for starters.

This thread has had me looking around my local courses, most of which are par 54 type. SSE is 8 or 10 down on most and I can not come up with a decent par 5 design on the courses without putting out OB ropes to dictate certain routes into trees. True Par 5's in DG are kinda difficult. Good interesting Par 5's are REALLY hard and take a lot of land. Basically like NW gold 12, take a Blue par 5 through the trees and move the Tee back 350' in the trees.

Yeah, it takes a lot of land for sure to make a good par 5. The woods require less land, so there are certainly a lot more in there.