Par 5’s are good for the game.

[Jwalker92]

My home town has a newer Houck designed course. The only par 5 on the course averaged over par most of the year. The powers that be decided the hole was too hard and moved the basket 100' closer down the hill.

I think this was the worst decision. It's a very well designed hole. In golf, you are required to throw a good drive and make your putt on par 3's. Two good drives on par 4's, and 3 good drives on par 5's. I have 400' of power and if I throw two good drives and an ok third shot, I usually have a putt for bird. Most par 4's are soft as it is, they require one good drive and a good upshot for the bird.

What's the problem with having hard holes? Why wouldn't you want to challenge yourself and the field to get better at the game? In typical Houck fashion, you are required to hit two landing zones to make the birdie. If you miss one, you're probably going to par, if you miss two, you're most likely going to bogey. We need to stop making courses softer and learn that taking a bogey on a hard hole is ok. The bottom 1/2 of the field doesn't need to have an opportunity to birdie every hole.

 

[Cerealman]

Good thoughts. I agree with most of what you said. Love me some well-designed par 5s.

Interestingly, I've noticed in my area that occasionally the powers that be decide that a well-designed hole is getting birdied/parred too often and decide to make the hole harder so that almost no one will birdie it.

That's annoying too. I dislike the tinkering. Just figure out the best design and stick with it. I wonder if Houck is aware of the change.

Did the powers that be say they moved the basket because it "was too hard"? Or was there possibly another reason in play, such as safety, erosion or maintenance issues?

You mentioned the bottom half of the field and them not needing to be able to birdie every hole. I agree. However, if you're throwing 400 feet, you're an outlier among the players out there, and most of them are probably still not making birdie on that hole, right?

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd add the question of who the field is, and what skill level the course is designed for.

I'm not sure who the "we" is in "We need to stop making courses softer." I know the "we" I'm part of, when re-designing holes, has almost always made them harder, and in fact is currently stiffening an already-challenging par 5.

 

[the1discChallenge]

I'd add the question of who the field is, and what skill level the course is designed for.

I'm not sure who the "we" is in "We need to stop making courses softer." I know the "we" I'm part of, when re-designing holes, has almost always made them harder, and in fact is currently stiffening an already-challenging par 5.

I agree with this. There can be hard courses that aren't on the pro tour and that's great, actually. If the par 5 in question was the only one in a 300'-and-under park course, sure it would be out of place. But if the course has a good mix of shots and distances, there can be the one hard hole on the course. Unless the hole is in a poor place by a playground or building, there's no reason to take something down because it's too hard, especially a par 5.

 

[biscoe]

While there are no hard and fast "rules," in general Par 5's should be among the easiest holes on a course to score on.

Whether an individual hole can be deemed "too easy" or "too hard" is really dependent on what the design goals are for a course to begin with.

 

[Jwalker92]

You mentioned the bottom half of the field and them not needing to be able to birdie every hole. I agree. However, if you're throwing 400 feet, you're an outlier among the players out there, and most of them are probably still not making birdie on that hole, right?

65 MPO players at the 2023 Titan Open. Round 1 had 14 Birdies, 61 Pars, 16 Bogies, 3 Dbl Bogies and one Triple Bogey.

 

[Jwalker92]

I'd add the question of who the field is, and what skill level the course is designed for.

I'm not sure who the "we" is in "We need to stop making courses softer." I know the "we" I'm part of, when re-designing holes, has almost always made them harder, and in fact is currently stiffening an already-challenging par 5.

The course has two tee-pads on each hole. MPO players from the longs generally score 60 on the long par 64 layout. MPO players from the short pads generally score 55 on the shorter par 64 layout.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

That's a real bummer, hole was great as it was and PLENTY fair. There's 2 teepads for a reason.

 

[Jwalker92]

While there are no hard and fast "rules," in general Par 5's should be among the easiest holes on a course to score on.

Whether an individual hole can be deemed "too easy" or "too hard" is really dependent on what the design goals are for a course to begin with.

Why should it be the easiest hole to score on?

 

[mostlynorwegian]

My home town has a newer Houck designed course. The only par 5 on the course averaged over par most of the year. The powers that be decided the hole was too hard and moved the basket 100' closer down the hill.

I think this was the worst decision. It's a very well designed hole. In golf, you are required to throw a good drive and make your putt on par 3's. Two good drives on par 4's, and 3 good drives on par 5's. I have 400' of power and if I throw two good drives and an ok third shot, I usually have a putt for bird. Most par 4's are soft as it is, they require one good drive and a good upshot for the bird.

What's the problem with having hard holes? Why wouldn't you want to challenge yourself and the field to get better at the game? In typical Houck fashion, you are required to hit two landing zones to make the birdie. If you miss one, you're probably going to par, if you miss two, you're most likely going to bogey. We need to stop making courses softer and learn that taking a bogey on a hard hole is ok. The bottom 1/2 of the field doesn't need to have an opportunity to birdie every hole.

You mention the course has long and short positions for tee pads. So. It sounds like their may also be room to bring up the need for having two baskets on several of the holes so players that have the distance, or time for a longer round can play just the long positions.

 

[biscoe]

Why should it be the easiest hole to score on?

Mathematically it only requires a 20% reduction in number of shots as opposed to 25% or 33%, psychologically it prevents the holes from being absolute misery to lesser players and having a disproportionate impact on scoring across the entirety of a course.

Par 5's in golf tend to play very easy for longer hitters and very difficult for shorter hitters. Since we are less structured (some would say we have no structure at all) in design in disc golf it again reverts to the question of what the goal is for a course to begin with.

 

[Steve West]

When the hole was 919 feet it was just on the par 5 side of the line between being a tough par 4 and a par 5. For players in the field who were 970-rated (the suggested minimum rating for playing in the MPO division) and up, 26% of them got the birdie 4.

Sounds like a good Gold par 5 to me.

At 100 feet shorter, it will no longer be a legit par 5 for MPO. It should become a par 4 for MPO, but only a few percent would get the birdie. Unless they keep the par at 5, in which case 43% will be getting a score which is called "birdie" but isn't.

 

[Dcinmd]

Is there an issue with have two pins positions and moving the basket at different times of the year to make everyone happy?

 

[@CD-]

Are enough people playing the course to 'break in' the rough as expected when the course was designed? Is the annual foliage growth maintained to keep the intended airspace/landing zone area correct?

I think there should be aspirational holes or nemesis holes that you feel really good getting a birdie and potentially force a bit of 'smart par' golf when players rarely birdie it. Scoring separation is a concern for competition so if the scoring spread is ok I'd leave it alone. Maybe players will figure it out and improve their golf game

 

[Jwalker92]

When the hole was 919 feet it was just on the par 5 side of the line between being a tough par 4 and a par 5. For players in the field who were 970-rated (the suggested minimum rating for playing in the MPO division) and up, 26% of them got the birdie 4.

Sounds like a good Gold par 5 to me.

At 100 feet shorter, it will no longer be a legit par 5 for MPO. It should become a par 4 for MPO, but only a few percent would get the birdie. Unless they keep the par at 5, in which case 43% will be getting a score which is called "birdie" but isn't.

The sleeve is still in for the long. Hopefully for the A-Tier it gets placed there. I agree, in the shorter location, 3 is almost impossible, 4 is relatively easy and 5 should be almost a guarantee for mpo players.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

If the sleeve is in for the long still, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Considering the freezing/thawing stage we are at right now, this will help mitigate the erosion and safety concerns that being higher on the hill present.

 

[the1discChallenge]

While there are no hard and fast "rules," in general Par 5's should be among the easiest holes on a course to score on.

Whether an individual hole can be deemed "too easy" or "too hard" is really dependent on what the design goals are for a course to begin with.

One of the Jomez guys made a comment about this in a commentary about how in traditional golf, par 5s are more scoreable, where in disc golf they're typically harder. I think at least in the woods, longer means more challenging despite the ability to chop up the hole into smaller bit-sized throws. At least to stay competitive in the highest percent of the field. You know the top players are going to be ripping 430'+ tunnel shots where your four 200'ft chip shots and a putt–while smart and will get the par every time– just won't compete. I think the inherent challenge of a disc golf par 5 comes in part from the field necessitating challenge.

 

[Countchunkula]

^Not every gold par 5 needs to be as tough as Northwood Black 12 (in fact the vast majority need to be much easier). In general, think the idea that a par 5 should play easier than lesser par holes for the intended skill level is valid. For sure there will be outliers.

I'd argue that players ripping 430' tunnel shots and those going 200' at a time probably shouldn't be competing in the same division.

 

[GripEnemy]

I'm FAR from a course design guru but am (to myself) very opinionated about the subject.

Par should be earned not given. Hence, a birdie or eagle should truly be earned. I strongly dislike "deuce or die" holes and there should not be a par 5 version of that. There's no worse feeling than taking par on one of those 3s I mentioned. If I feel gross about taking a 5 on a "par 5" something is wrong.

I comprehend and agree with the discussion for beginner courses, more teepads/baskets, etc but that shouldn't make an already existing course suffer by shortening holes.

Give me (and the pros) par 90 all day.

YMMV

 

[chevis]

just echoing intended skill level needs considered.

i really dislike some players/designers believing every hole should be birdiable... i know steve has his metric for good holes, but i feel that ~50% of the field getting a par is a good separator. a hard hole is memorable.