Par 5’s are good for the game.

[Improbably]

What part of that says par 3?

Par is implicitly gold par. Other par-like numbers are ersatz par, but not really par.

The length under 500 feet strongly says par 3. A throw that goes OB is not errorless so cannot be taken for granted to increase par.

Performance of the general player population is not a good way to set par, even though many want it to be.

If you like the number 4 better you can use blue, white, or red par, just not actual par...

 

[biscoe]

The hole you detail here sounds like a par 3. This hole also sounds like a blue par 4, a white par 4, and a red par 4. To bring us back to the thread topic it also sounds like a green par 5 and a purple par 5.

Sounds more like a hole without a legitimate par for gold to me.

 

[DavidSauls]

It might have been better if this thread hadn't included "Par 5" at the start, but referred to longer, multi-throw holes, and changes making them easier (shorter, in this case, though it could also be done by removing trees).

It might have saved the descent into "what is par".

I'll return to my experience that holes are re-designed to be longer/harder, more often than they're made easier.

 

[kinka]

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.

This sums up disc golf as a whole. I came from 25 years of ball golf- scoring in discgolf is too easy.

 

[biscoe]

This sums up disc golf as a whole. I came from 25 years of ball golf- scoring in discgolf is too easy.

Name a traditional golf hole that is not birdieable.

 

[kinka]

Name a traditional golf hole that is not birdieable.

Its not that they are not birdieable. Its the birdie rate im referring to. Nothing wrong with a hole where par is an ok score. And if 3 or 4 people in a field of 72 manage a long range birdie- great for them- it spreads the field.

Oak Hill East #6 500y par 4. Only had 20 birdies all week. 220 pars, 162 Bogeys, 46 doubles and 7 others.

 

[elmexdela]

Regardless of how anyone scores, you're not going to make the hole easier so people can "birdie" it. I feel in the original situation, it's already a par 5 that was scoring 5.5 or so. You can't make a par 6, so people wanted a more "scoreable" hole and turned it into a par 4.5.

why cant you make a par 6

 

[Karl]

So is this whole topic just a push/pull over who's feelings to protect: course designers or players?

As a course designer, I can tell you it's not a case of 'protecting course designers feelings'...for we have none. We're heartless. Haha!
Well, almost. "Protecting" player's feelings is a very real thing though.

 

[kinka]

why cant you make a par 6

you can- the PDGA has a rating requirement if the design cares to follow. Par Guidelines The point others were making is there are multiple tee options or basket options for a reason. A well designed hole can be challenging enough for a Gold player, but also playable by a White. But that requires multiple tees or baskets, as well as people playing the correct tees for their skill, which never happens.

 

[random guy]

Yeah, we have a few holes at my local course that people are always complaining should be Par 4s, but then 90% of people would just birdy them.

While that birdy on your scorecard might feel good, at the end of the day it's about strokes.

 

[Steve West]

Name a traditional golf hole that is not birdieable.

There aren't any. I checked all 918 holes.



What is important to us is that there were only two holes that would have been un-birdie-able if par had been set according to the Par by Scoring Distribution method in the PDGA Par Guidelines. (Out of the 137 holes where par would have been set one lower by our guidelines.) So, golf does not simply pump up par to whatever it takes to get some birdies. We shouldn't either. A birdie-less hole is a result of design choices, not of improperly set par.

 

[Smigles]

A good course should have 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.

No i did not read any of the thread

 

[Steve West]

A good BALL GOLF course should have 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.

FTFY

 

[Improbably]

A good course should have 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.

No i did not read any of the thread

Set every course to that schedule regardless of each course's actual characteristics and most disc golfers will be much happier.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The midpoint for DGPT courses may end up around par 63-64 with most courses in the Par 60-66 range for MPO & FPO, especially temp layouts. Maple Hill, one of the top tour courses is only par 60, for example, and it provides good scoring separation, spectator/viewership and speed of play. Permanent private courses planned to at least breakeven as a pay-to-play would be wise to follow the multi shorter layouts model like Maple Hill where their longest gold layout with no par 5s was only played 4% of the rounds logged on UDisc during 2023 with over 70% on their White & Red layouts.

 

[Countchunkula]

I would hate it if all dg courses were par 72. My unscientific preferences would land in the high 50s, maybe low 60s for recreational play and low to mid 60s for competition.

Should there be courses with pars higher than that, sure, but they should be few and far between. Which I think is pretty much the current state.

 

[ru4por]

They are all par 3's......play better.

 

[DannyS]

I'm a fan of the Par 66 model for disc golf when the land allows for such a design.
Front 9 and Back 9 each contain 4 x Par 3's / 4 x Par 4's / 1 x Par 5

 

[Steve West]

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's that "par 6" on Northwoods Black...