PMantle
* Ace Member *
I can't get on the par 2 train.
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
I can't get on the par 2 train.
We'll see if we can find you a ticket. Tell us where you would like to go, I'll bet the train goes there.
Then, look at whether #6, #10 and #17 are cool enough to survive as par 2s.
Does such a thing even exist? Are there any holes out there that scoring wise should be a 2 and are actually cool?
I think so. A par 2 hole could have a significant number of 3s and 4s and 5s, as long as the % of 2s the expert gets is enough to expect a 2 with errorless play.
It could be a hole where the bottom half of the field cannot hope to get a 2, to separate the great from the merely very good.
During the commentary either Nate or Jeremy pointed out that the pressure of a "must get" hole adds something different to the mix. Imagine the pressure if getting a 3 actually meant carding a bogey.
I can't get on the par 2 train.
I'm having a hard time remembering a hole that scored that way, that wasn't a short open par 3 with excessive island roping. My personal feeling is that these holes don't qualify as cool. They always seem like a cop out to me. It's as if the scoring average is too low for the TD, so they eliminate any bailout and excessively punish a slightly errant shot.
As far as the mental aspect, I'm not sure it's really relevant. Even if it was, I doubt a pro-level player feels anymore pressure from a "must get par" versus a "must get birdie".
There are some wooded par 2 holes that work. At least one comes to mind. De La. Basket on side of hill, guarding tree. The hole is flawed, but it's also iconic.
It could be a hole where the bottom half of the field cannot hope to get a 2, to separate the great from the merely very good.
During the commentary either Nate or Jeremy pointed out that the pressure of a "must get" hole adds something different to the mix. Imagine the pressure if getting a 3 actually meant carding a bogey.
How is that any different than the pressure of not losing a throw to your opponents? Calling it a bogey doesn't change anything that matters.
Why doesn't the score do that?
How is that any different than the pressure of not losing a throw to your opponents? Calling it a bogey doesn't change anything that matters.
For someone who claims to be unmotivated by the embarrassment of too many birdies, you certainly seem to place an inordinate amount of importance on the label applied to over and under par designations.
There was never a need to do this. What you're doing is not coming up with an accurate way to set par. You are coming up with another thing entirely. No idea what to call it. It's yours, so you ought to name it.I always thought one of the fundamental reasons I set out to come up with an accurate way to set par
There was never a need to do this. What you're doing is not coming up with an accurate way to set par. You are coming up with another thing entirely. No idea what to call it. It's yours, so you ought to name it.
Well, I guess I have to agree that there never was a need to come up with a way to set par accurately...
Well, I guess I have to agree that there never was a need to come up with a way to set par accurately, just as there never was a need to measure hole length accurately, or measure elevation accurately, or trim dead hanging branches, or have tee signs, or mow fairways, or register on-line, or, well, you get the point. No need, but they all help the experience.
I'll just stick with the notion that what I came up with is as accurate a way to set par as any. It certainly agrees with commentary on the videos, and can be proven to set par where the value of a birdie is very nearly equal to the value of a bogey.
Still, if you want to prove there is a better way to set par, please do so we can all adopt the better method. (It's not like I'm getting royalties or anything.)
Up to now, I haven't even figured out whether you think my method is biased high or biased low.
For disc golf I feel almost like "putting" can be considered anything inside 200ft for an experience player. You can use a putter for that after all. I still stand by the idea that the catchers are way to large. Anything made outside of 15ft should be an exciting accomplishment. This would make a par 3 actually play more like a par 3.
I don't feel like par can be found by any specific distance or formula. A 300ft hole could be a par 5 if its layed out in a way that it takes 3 or 4 throws to reach the catcher.