Par vs Pro Par

[Olorin]

Par? is it relevant?

Deep sigh...

Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:

1.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
2.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
3.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]So that players can judge their progress by comparison to a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] One of the first questions that most new players ask is "What is par on this hole?" We should be able to give them a consistent and universally accepted answer.
4.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as "6 down" rather than "48".
5.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The reality of disc golf being a golf type game is that the terms "par", "under par", "bogey" and "birdie" naturally accompany the sport. It would be strange to have a sport with the word "golf" in it that doesn't use these terms. If we're going to use the term "par" then it should have a standard method of determining it.
6.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Par is a key factor for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable "portability error". A very useful Difficulty Factor is Level Scoring average minus Level Par. This will only be useful if there are consistent, universal standards for par, though.
8.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
9.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]If the term "par" is defined in a multitude of ways by many different people then the term loses its meaning, so it becomes worthless along with the related terms such as "birdie, bogie…".
10.)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]To be able to determine handicaps.

 

[Olorin]

The problem with using course par, is that there is no consistency from course to course on what a par 3, 4, or 5 is.

Amen! Preach it!

 

[Olorin]

Yesterday Tim Skellenger tossed a double eagle on the 901' par 5 hole #12 at the USDGC:

http://www.usdgc.com/10/02/jared-pennington-double-eagle-on-12

Pretty sweet. 900' in two throws... just thinking about that makes me want to run out and start heaving discs!

ERic

Naw, it was just a nice birdie!

 

[Donovan]

Naw, it was just a nice birdie!

Dang, I have been away a whole day and you said what I was thinking. BAH!

 

[Donovan]

I have been basically taking any courses that have mostly par 3's set up on then and playing them as all par 3's. Now the courses that have various pars set up on them that are fairly realistic, I have been recording those as the posted pars. This is not a steady way of keeping track of course statistics for the masses, which is why I asked the original question in this thread. However, it is about as fair a shake as I could come up with.

I very much against all holes are par 3's, having recreational level pars (par 5 straight ahead 320 feet hole, and I will "never" (never is a strong word, but I feel it is a bad concept) be a fan of par 2's.

 

[Donovan]

That's not really true.

Check out the fantastic Caddy Book for the USDGC. There's lots of Pros there playing holes that are not par 3.

The Caddy book rocks! This is how I keep preaching Hole signs should be marked. Lots of different footages listed. I of course got the idea of this from the ball golf caddy books back in the day.

 

[Donovan]

BTW, great list of 10 Olorin!

Having a standard for pars in disc golf will never come to rest at distance alone.

We will need to determine the value of so many things, like:
length of a tunnel shot
how far out and sharp the turn is on a dog leg hole
do the number of new trees vs old tree effecting the route
on and on...

Once someone builds a weight system or value system to the many factors that make up the difficulty rating system per hole for our game, then it will have to be taken out tested by various levels of play. When we can figure out the flaws in the ratings then we will adjust them and test it again.

Once we have a good general system for a difficulty rating system then finding a simple math equation to help come up with a par will be simple.

This will be tough to do, but not impossible. Until something like this idea, or a better idea is developed, I still am a fan of having some various levels of players play the hole and come up with an average par. With that I believe the pros scores should count twice when they do the averages, because that is where everyone's game would be at the optimum level.

 

[Olorin]

The difference between ball golf and our sport is that unfortunately, disc golfers are often left to the course designers (or lack thereof) to determine par. This is often a very subjective determination, and in some cases, the determination never gets made.

I think it would be cool idea if a forum like this could begin to establish realistic pars for courses reviewed on the site.

I vote for using Close Range Par as the standard. Once everyone sees the elegance of wisdom of it the world will be a better place. (Go here for the start of an explanation of CR Par... if you dare!)

 

[Donovan]

I vote for using Close Range Par as the standard. Once everyone sees the elegance of wisdom of it the world will be a better place. (Go here for the start of an explanation of CR Par... if you dare!)

I think that is a very reasonable way to look at par. Here is my initial questions:

So I am guessing by how I read this, you do believe in par 2's?
I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?

 

[Disc Golf Greg]

I play the posted Par unless I'm at my local course (closet course to me). Then I use all Par 3's. Also I think Par 2 is kind of weird. Par in Golf has always been 3, 4, or 5 and it should be no different for Disc Golf if you ask me. 2 for Par is way to short and seems pointless, and a 6 seems to long and what the hell would a 2 be on a Par 6. Triple Eagle is something I never wanna hear.

 

[Lewis]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole. This is why most disc golf holes are par 3, while most ball golf holes, which expect skilled players to need two putts, are par 4. This, in turn, is why disc golf courses tend to set par for a round at 54, and ball golf courses tend to set par at 72. The extra 18 strokes in ball golf are one more expected putt per hole.

 

[Olorin]

I think that is a very reasonable way to look at par. Here is my initial questions:

Q: So I am guessing by how I read this, you do believe in par 2's?
A: Yes, they're theoretically possible but if any even exist they are incredibly rare with CR Par. You really need to read the whole CR Par document (available at DR Resources) b/c there are some tables that can't be posted on here. The lengths of Close Range for each skill level are:
Gold 100 ft
Blue 90 ft
White 80 ft.
Red 70 ft.
Green 60 ft.
So to be a par 2 a Blue level hole has to be 90 ft or less. Ever seen one on a Blue level course? I doubt it. Maybe on a Green level course, but not a Blue.
BTW, the PDGA currently uses Score Average (SA) par as it's standard, but the dirty little secret is that to be true to this method there have to be thousands of par 2s all throughout the world. The powers that be just skirt the issue by ignoring this and just calling them par 3s, even if doing so is contrary to their own methodology. One of the reasons for developing CR Par was to resolve this par 2 problem.

Q: I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
A: Yes, one should.

Q:And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?
A: Theoretically almost anything is possible. It's conceivable that designer could have this intention. Have you ever seen a hole like this in the real world? There's nothing in CR Par that would disallow this.

 

[Olorin]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole. This is why most disc golf holes are par 3, while most ball golf holes, which expect skilled players to need two putts, are par 4. This, in turn, is why disc golf courses tend to set par for a round at 54, and ball golf courses tend to set par at 72. The extra 18 strokes in ball golf are one more expected putt per hole.

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

 

[Olorin]

because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole.

From the PDGA stats guru, Chuck Kennedy:
"Statistically, when considering all courses, the number of "close range" shots in DG is 30 per 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Of course, the actual ATG factor will vary from course to course. On an 18 hole course to average 1.67 means that on 12 holes (66%) a player will take 2 throws, while on 6 holes (33%) of the time he/she will make it in 1 throw. So he takes 1 throw to finish on 1 out of 3 holes."

 

[discinvan]

Here is a Blog from David McCormack ( owner of Gateway) about his philosophy on Par. I agree with him on this. They are designing a new course in my home town and they are making all holes as par three. I personally think some of the holes are long enough 450' + that for an average player ( par player) on average they will shot a 4. \http://gatewaydiscs.blogspot.com/2008/06/disc-golf-pilosophy-101.html

 

[ERicJ]

Q: I understand intended path. SO does this also mean you would measure the holes with this in mind?
A: Yes, one should.

Who decides what the "intended path" is? And whose intention are we talking about?

If you answer "the course designer", what if they're no longer around? Or perhaps more relevant: who is this all important designer to tell you how you should throw a hole?

Hole measurements should give players the raw information and allow the player to decide how they want to approach the hole.

That's my $0.02,
ERic

 

[Donovan]

Q:And does this also mean that a hammer or thumber will never be the intended path?
A: Theoretically almost anything is possible. It's conceivable that designer could have this intention. Have you ever seen a hole like this in the real world? There's nothing in CR Par that would disallow this.

I have not. I guess that is why I asked. I hate to make it confusing, but ERicJ and I both see this side of this issue. Intended line of flight is a real tough one for me. if a tree is dead in the center of the hole and the tree is fuller on one side, how do you determine what the intended fairway really is? That is just one example I have had with measuring holes or determining a par on a hole that has multiple routes to the pin. I just find that confusing unless it is marked that it is figured a certain way.

 

[stargator231]

i play everything as a par 3 unless its a huge course with holes that are around 1000 feet

 

[Lewis]

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

The difference is that we're not using the same terminology. When I say "putt," I don't mean to include 70-foot approach shots. A 70-footer is what I think of as an "approach," and I tend to think of a "putt" as 30 feet or less. My analogy with ball golf doesn't exactly fit the "close range" terminology of disc golf, but I stand by the point.

 

[Olorin]

Sorry, but this not correct. From the PDGA rule book:
"Par: As determined by the director,the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

The difference is that we're not using the same terminology. When I say "putt," I don't mean to include 70-foot approach shots. A 70-footer is what I think of as an "approach," and I tend to think of a "putt" as 30 feet or less. My analogy with ball golf doesn't exactly fit the "close range" terminology of disc golf, but I stand by the point.

Actually, the "close range" terms are only used by those who use the Close Range Par method. The PDGA definition above was written well before CR Par was developed, so the PDGA term means something different than I use in the context of CR Par. The PDGA is also not referring to 70 ft. approach shots as "close range". In the PDGA definition "two close range throws to hole-out" refers to 2 putts, which are defined as 10m (32.5 ft) or less.

In addition, if you were only allowing 1 putt then you'd have to move in the distance to a radius that a player of a given skill level would make 100% of the time. Even 1000 PR Gold level players don't make 100% of their putts from 30 ft. I have no idea what that length would be? 25 Ft? 20 Ft.? Who knows? But for Blue, White, and Red level courses, with a corresponding par for that level, the 100% putting circle would be even closer.