Par Talk

[lyleoross]

Questions:

1) when a designer puts in a golf course, is the par he sets during his planning process directed towards day to day play, tournament play, or play of advanced tournament players?

2) are courses in play ever modified for any reason to adjust hole structure or par?

3) is par ever adjusted on a course to accommodate a professional tournament?

 

[Cgkdisc]

At Pro Worlds in 2001, all four courses were par 54 and all four SSAs were within a shot of 54. We had par 2s, 3s, 4s and at least one par 5 on each course. Worked out well, no complaints, and this process was used for Pro Worlds courses in 2002. Yet this approach didn't gain traction moving forward into Pro Worlds 2003 where the local hosts didn't believe in par 2s. So the process stopped.

I had the chance to get par 2s in the layouts for PW2007 but no holes on the Gold course at Highbridge seemed to qualify. On the other courses which were designed for Blue or White level, we used those skill level pars even though the MPO played two of those courses. A handful of holes would have been legit par 2s for Gold level had we set them that way. The last high level event I can recall with a Par 2 was Am Worlds here in MN with one 120' "island" hole with a lay-up area for the young juniors who still wanted to get closer before hopping the OB circle to the island.

 

[DavidSauls]

Questions:

1) when a designer puts in a golf course, is the par he sets during his planning process directed towards day to day play, tournament play, or play of advanced tournament players?

2) are courses in play ever modified for any reason to adjust hole structure or par?

3) is par ever adjusted on a course to accommodate a professional tournament?

Golf is a red herring, anyway. It's a different sport; we can make par suit our sport.

I do not know, but strongly suspect, that golf can pre-determine pars because they have years and years of---gasp---scoring data, giving the designers a good idea of what to expect from a given distance. Then, of course, much greater freedom of design.

But I'm wrong about that.....so what? That's golf.

 

[PMantle]

Questions:

1) when a designer puts in a golf course, is the par he sets during his planning process directed towards day to day play, tournament play, or play of advanced tournament players?

2) are courses in play ever modified for any reason to adjust hole structure or par?

3) is par ever adjusted on a course to accommodate a professional tournament?

1) All. That's where the 5 sets of tees come in. We have had pro-level(Lower tier) tournaments on our public courses in this little po-dunk town.

2) Yes as to hole structure. This is mostly in response to the distance boom. This is how Augusta National reacted to people hitting wedges into par 5s. Instead of calling then 4s, which is what Steve would do, they lengthened the holes and/or added tree.

Par? Never heard of it.

3) No. Wait, I have heard of it at least once with a very short par 5 that had no way of being lengthened.

 

[gdub58]

Questions:

1) when a designer puts in a golf course, is the par he sets during his planning process directed towards day to day play, tournament play, or play of advanced tournament players?

2) are courses in play ever modified for any reason to adjust hole structure or par?

3) is par ever adjusted on a course to accommodate a professional tournament?

1) That depends on how the course is to be used. If the course being designed has hopes of being used for a tournament, the architect will leave plenty of room to include longer tees and will include design elements to provide the appropriate level of challenge for that use. This would include difficult greens, narrower fairways, and strategically placed hazards. They will also need to design the course to accommodate spectators which will lead to a lot of wasted space for daily play but is necessary if you want to have a chance to be a tour stop. If it is meant to be a private course for a high-end development, there would be an emphasis on aesthetics - large green/bunker complexes, wide rolling fairways, and so forth. Course par is not so much considered (it's going to be 72), but the order is - don't start or end with a par three, don't put two par threes or two par fives back-to-back, and so forth. These aren't hard and fast rules, but players like to have the non-par fours spread out. There will usually be five par fours, two par threes, and two par fives on each nine. Again, not a requirement but stray too far from that and the course loses credibility.

2) Rarely, unless it is a course being used regularly for a tour event (e.g. Augusta National), and then the changes are to keep up with changes in equipment. Beyond that, you may see some new bunkers added or minor changes made because of weather damage or disease but generally it is just too expensive and disruptive to make significant changes.

3) Again, it is uncommon but it can happen. A 525 yard hole that plays as a par five for members may be shortened to 490 and made into a par four to provide the appropriate challenge for tour players. You will not see par fours made into par threes because they are different type of designs. A short par four would have bunkers in the fairway and smaller, tighter greens that wouldn't work as a long par three.

 

[gdub58]

Golf is a red herring, anyway. It's a different sport; we can make par suit our sport.

I do not know, but strongly suspect, that golf can pre-determine pars because they have years and years of---gasp---scoring data, giving the designers a good idea of what to expect from a given distance. Then, of course, much greater freedom of design.

But I'm wrong about that.....so what? That's golf.

It's not about the scoring data - it's purely a distance thing. If a green can be reached by the average golfer in two shots it's a par four.

You are absolutely correct that we can't use the same simple formula for disc golf, as there is a different set of variables that can impact the expected score. Scoring data can only provide an evaluation of how a particular hole played on a particular day by a particular group of players and is less useful for determining par. Scoring data can help TDs tweak a hole if it is playing differently than they intended, but beyond that it is little more than an interesting bit of information for commentators to discuss - BigSexy does that a lot and it does make them sound more informed.

As I mentioned in my other response, ball golf course designers start the process with their intended market in mind - tournament course, resort course, beginner-friendly course, etc. For the most part, disc golf design up to this point has not had that luxury. When you designed your course, how did you go about it? Did you strive to ensure that you had a certain number of par threes, fours, and fives? Did you design it with a certain skill level player in mind? Or, did you take certain natural features (ponds, hills, corridors in the woods) and build holes to take advantage of them? Ball golf course design doesn't do much of that any more - they create ponds and hills with earth movers.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not about the scoring data - it's purely a distance thing. If a green can be reached by the average golfer in two shots it's a par four.

It's a sidebar, but didn't that derive from scores? Didn't they have data and experience and, at some point, conclude that from certain distances it should take 2 shots to reach the green, and top players should expect 2 shots on the green, and that would be a 4? Surely it wasn't a happy accident?

I assume golf course designers are basing their designs on the accumulated experience over many years. But, as I admitted, I'm fairly ignorant about golf---so perhaps not.

 

[lyleoross]

Golf is a red herring, anyway. It's a different sport; we can make par suit our sport.

I do not know, but strongly suspect, that golf can pre-determine pars because they have years and years of---gasp---scoring data, giving the designers a good idea of what to expect from a given distance. Then, of course, much greater freedom of design.

But I'm wrong about that.....so what? That's golf.

Okay, so ball golf has never or very rarely adjusted it's holes or par for any reason.

Has golf ever adjusted any of its elements to accommodate advancing or changing play in any way?

 

[Zanguini]

Course design now takes into account longer professional driving distance and you will find more fareway bunkers and smaller fairway in the area where pro's tend to land drives...

 

[trifocal]

Course design now takes into account longer professional driving distance and you will find more fareway bunkers and smaller fairway in the area where pro's tend to land drives...

I agree and enjoy those elements on my second throw. It takes me 2 good throws to get to where Ricky would be in one. It's challenging putting an entire round together that way.

 

[PMantle]

Okay, so ball golf has never or very rarely adjusted it's holes or par for any reason.

Has golf ever adjusted any of its elements to accommodate advancing or changing play in any way?

This was addressed above twice.

 

[lyleoross]

This was addressed above twice.

I'm sorry, I can't find it. Could you help me out?

Thanks in advance.

 

[biscoe]

Golf is a red herring, anyway. It's a different sport; we can make par suit our sport.

I do not know, but strongly suspect, that golf can pre-determine pars because they have years and years of---gasp---scoring data, giving the designers a good idea of what to expect from a given distance. Then, of course, much greater freedom of design.

But I'm wrong about that.....so what? That's golf.

It's not that hard. Here are my predictions for the San Francisco Open based on distance alone- this takes no elevation into account since I don't have easy access to those numbers. I bet Steve winds up with the same thing on at least 16 holes after the fact.
Par 4's: 1,6,8,9,18
Par 5's: 5, 10
Par 3's: the rest

It appears they call Hole 5 a Par 4 so there may be a lot of elevation involved. 36 feet of elevation would make it a Par 4 by distance as I figure it. (350 per shot plus 2 within 150)

 

[Steve West]

...Scoring data can only provide an evaluation of how a particular hole played on a particular day by a particular group of players..

For setting par we can, and ideally would, use several rounds of data. Sometimes from several years of events (when the hole hasn't changed). As for the group of players, all the players who ever played that hole can be used together. Also, the group of players can be standardized to a specific rating.

 

[Steve West]

It's not that hard. ...

Yeah, it should be pretty easy. Par should usually be the most boring score. Nothing happens when a player gets par. It also has to be a common score.

We're not trying to find precious gems or annoying rocks, we're trying to label what's topsoil.

 

[teemkey]

The first rule of entertainment is to never be boring. So ...

 

[Steve West]

The first rule of entertainment is to never be boring. So ...

...make every hole a 200 foot long island hole with a tiny skippy green?

 

[teemkey]

...make every hole a 200 foot long island hole with a tiny skippy green?

And snakes!

 

[Chaz58]

...make every hole a 200 foot long island hole with a tiny skippy green?

Kind of like that 17th hole at Sawgrass in ball golf?

 

[Steve West]

Kind of like that 17th hole at Sawgrass in ball golf?

That one has more pars than any other score. So, I guess it's boring?