Assigning pars to a course without them

[Cgkdisc]

From a practical standpoint, if the goal is to get the disc in the basket, there's only one "Make" on each hole. The other throws are "good misses". If you think of it this way, there are many more par 2s that are assigned par 3. A good 250 ft throw that misses the basket but is on the "green" and a good putt that's made looks a lot like a par 2. That's why when Steve says calling everything par 3 isn't too far off on most courses, it's because the handful of par 4s are offset by the par 2s called par 3s. The average SSA of long tee courses played in PDGA events is still under 54 despite the exception courses like the IDGC, Highbridge and maybe 50 other goldish courses.

 

[DavidSauls]

The only thing that disc golf (or really any other variant of golf that doesn't use ball golf equipment) has in common with ball golf is the objective of taking a projectile and moving it from a starting point to a finishing point in as few attempts as possible. The means by which people in both games go about completion of a hole are entirely different, which is why trying to use a ball golf standard to establish a concept of par in disc golf will never work. The mathematics of setting par on each and every hole at a whole number don't help either. Its why we see so many Par 54-57 disc golf courses with SSA's in 40's.

That's more a factor of the methods and interpretations of establishing par, than the nature of the game. If we established par by, say, the average score of 975-1025 rated players on a given hole, you wouldn't see as much discrepancy with the SSAs.

Of course, you'd have to live with par-2s, and people would scream about their unalienable right to birdie.

I'm not saying that's the best way to determine par---only that the answer is in how we do it. The concept of par could work. But, given our traditions and lack of uniformity, it won't.

 

[Clue]

I'm starting a league here in Des Moines and the second round will be played on a course that has no pars assigned to any holes. Now, during the tournaments such as the Des Moines Challenge they've gone with the default of every hole being a par three. Seems to be the consensus among most players here in the Iowa capitol to play it that way, too.

However, with no pars assigned either by the course tee signs, by the city that installed it or (so far as I can tell) the PDGA, I'm wondering how "official" playing every hole as a par 3 is. Not only that, but if you look at past results, few below the pro level even scored under par at this course. Even some of the pros shot over par, so I have to wonder how reasonable and legitimate the normally-played pars are in the first place.

Nemmers, I'm not sure where you got your information because this isn't true at all. Ewing regularly plays around par 61 or 62 especially at the Challenge and certainly did for the Open (prorated to 18 holes). It's likely the signs do not have par because it changes with the multiple pin positions on most of the holes.

That being said, Ewing is one of the toughest courses to assign par to because there are SO many tweener holes. In some setups there are at least 5 holes that are 450+ but reachable by many, making them too tough to be a par 3 and too easy to be a par 4. The holes I believe to be definitively par 4s are 5 long, 7 long, 10, 12 long, 13 long, 14 long, and 18 both long pins. The only hole I'd really listen to an argument for is 2 long, but it's only because of how many trees are on the hole. 90% of drives or more usually hit something and do not make it to the green despite being reachable because it's downhill.

If you want any help, feel free to holler anytime.

 

[scarpfish]

That's more a factor of the methods and interpretations of establishing par, than the nature of the game. If we established par by, say, the average score of 975-1025 rated players on a given hole, you wouldn't see as much discrepancy with the SSAs.

Of course, you'd have to live with par-2s, and people would scream about their unalienable right to birdie.

Or more realistically, we'd have to accept the concept of a Par 2½, or Par 3½ and people would scream that you couldn't achieve par.

The thing is, if we want par to be simplified so everyday joes can use it has some means to establish their progress, its not going to be terribly meaningful in comparing one course with another. If you want it to be meaningful, so we can truly establish how hard a course is, its not going to be simplified.

 

[tjh0188]

I've played this course as par 3 for everything. It made me sad. Mcbeth would probably shoot less than a handful down if it was all par 3, and he would have to play pretty ambitiously to do so. If a few of the tougher holes were labeled par 4, he might play more conservative or more ambitious, depending on conditions, in order to maintain his score or to try to distance himself from the competition. Par influences how you choose to play! A course should have a reasonable par for the typical advanced player, not for one extreme of the spectrum or the other.

 

[DavidSauls]

I can guarantee you that McBeth wouldn't change how he plays a hole, based on what par is assigned to it.

No one should.

 

[ru4por]

I can guarantee you that McBeth wouldn't change how he plays a hole, based on what par is assigned to it.

No one should.

:thmbup::thmbup: Lol, I play them all to get a 1, listed par has zero impact on that.

 

[kevdiv48]

Leave them as par 3's.

 

[goosefraba1]

I'm in the camp of moving a teepad/basket 20-30 feet can mean the difference between a par 3 and a par 3.5... or par 3.5 and 4. Just try to avoid tweener holes in general for the targeted division. That makes the whole course more competitive in my mind... and much better for tournament play.

 

[Improbably]

Just try to avoid tweener holes in general for the targeted division. That makes the whole course more competitive in my mind... and much better for tournament play.

Aren't tweener holes for the targeted division what makes the course more competitive and better for tournament play? Separation is a good thing.

 

[MichaelWebster]

Aren't tweener holes for the targeted division what makes the course more competitive and better for tournament play? Separation is a good thing.

A tweener hole is one where everyone scores the same, not much separation. For example, a wide open 450 foot hole for male advanced players: nearly everyone is going to get a 3. It's not very 2-able, but it's not a par 4 either.

 

[b-mart]

Here's how I view par... I probably only drive in the 250' range. May break 300' if conditions are perfect. If I can have a bad shot (hit a tree, grip lock, etc) and still par the hole, then the par is set too high. Take Shelton Springs. One of the red tees there is a 450' par 4 where you throw out of the woods into a field on a big forehand hyzer. The basket is back in the trees. I parked my drive in the opening to go back into the woods yesterday. My 150' upshot hit a tree, so I had to lay up from 90' away for a drop in par. In my book, that shouldn't be a par 4, because I screwed up and still didn't get a bogey.

But my friends, who are all better than me with way bigger arms? They don't think a hole should be par 4 if they can't park a perfect drive for birdie on it. So they think that same hole I mentioned SHOULD be a par 4. It is what it is. I play to course par, and if it isn't there I look at overall score. That won't change regardless of what the par is.

 

[ThrowBot]

A tweener hole is one where everyone scores the same, not much separation.

I always thought the opposite. For example, a "tweener" might be between a par 3 and a par 4. That creates some separation, although there are definitely to get bigger spreads of scores with risk/reward design elements.

 

[ToddL]

I always thought the opposite. For example, a "tweener" might be between a par 3 and a par 4. That creates some separation, although there are definitely to get bigger spreads of scores with risk/reward design elements.

A good distribution might be something like 25% birdies, 50% pars, 25% bogeys.

A tweener hole will give you more like 50% birdies and 50% pars. Or 50% pars and 50% bogeys. We kinda like the 3 stroke spread more than the 2 stroke spread.

 

[DavidSauls]

A tweener par, and a tweener distance. The latter is worse, if it results in too many of the same scores.

 

[MichaelWebster]

I always thought the opposite. For example, a "tweener" might be between a par 3 and a par 4. That creates some separation, although there are definitely to get bigger spreads of scores with risk/reward design elements.

Exactly, a tweener is between a par 3 and 4. It would be too easy to birdie if it's a par 4, but too hard to birdie if a par 3. Therefore, little separation since everyone is scoring 3s.

A non-tweener hole has good distribution of birdies, pars, and bogies for example.

 

[Improbably]

Not only don't we agree on the concept of par apparently we don't agree on the definition of tweener either.

 

[DavidSauls]

Not only don't we agree on the concept of par apparently we don't agree on the definition of tweener either.

It's between two other things. That much we know.

 

[scarpfish]

I've pretty much attributed the term 'tweener' to mean a hole with poor scoring separation. Holes that are largely very difficult to birdie, very easy to par, and any bogeys they hand out are due more to operator error than difficulty.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I've pretty much attributed the term 'tweener' to mean a hole with poor scoring separation. Holes that are largely very difficult to birdie, very easy to par, and any bogeys they hand out are due more to operator error than difficulty.

I think it started that way but it has morphed over the years to include holes with split scoring where scoring average for a skill level is around 3.5. Essentially we now have defined open holes with "tweener length" where there are more than 70% 3s (or 4s) AND holes with "tweener scores" averaging about halfway between integer scores.