Cartograph
Newbie
Does the PDGA ever tell city's what pars their course holes need to be? or is it all made by the cities themselves?
-
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)
PDGA and Course pars
- Thread starter Cartograph
- Start date
There is no standard for par (well, no agreed upon standard) so par is determined by the course designer/powers-that-be. As a result, par doesn't really have a lot of meaning or use in disc golf. Not to say it shouldn't, but it doesn't at the moment.
SD86
Banned
There's no requirement that I know of, though there may be some guidelines somewhere.
One park here in my county, Lenora Park, has some pars such as Par 4 and even Par 5 on holes that would be Par 3s today. The pars were set in the days the Leopard was the longest range driver. With today's longer discs, those numbers become meaningless.
By way of contrast, East Roswell has some holes through the woods (tightly technical) that are 450 and 500 feet long... and listed as Par3s. Even the pros don't see that all the time (see the recent Maple Hill Open).
So there's no real standard, and except for bragging rights about birdes and eagles, etc., it doesn't matter. How many throws before putting it into the basket is what counts.
Par....LoL. The most meaningless word in disc golf.
Be nice....this is the newbie section.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
yes and yes
To even muddy this up even more... you also need to account for elevation. A 300 foot 15% grade down hill hole is much much easier to throw (wide open) than a 300 foot 15% grade uphill hole.
To bring our newbie up to speed---
"Par" is a hotly debated subject, one that has launched a hundred threads, most of which crashed badly. People are passionate about how par should be determined, and whether par is important or even relevant. I'd demonstrate, but there's no need as others will follow and do so.
The PDGA has no power or authority to control this. It has general guidelines, for par and much else, but it's left to each course---not generally the city, but the original course designer, or those who come after him.
"Par" is a hotly debated subject, one that has launched a hundred threads, most of which crashed badly. People are passionate about how par should be determined, and whether par is important or even relevant. I'd demonstrate, but there's no need as others will follow and do so.
The PDGA has no power or authority to control this. It has general guidelines, for par and much else, but it's left to each course---not generally the city, but the original course designer, or those who come after him.
grodney
* Ace Member *
And has caused par nerds to spend countless hours on the topic.
Back in 2003 I created this SWEET spreadsheet for analyzing the holes on a course, and assigning each a par, and telling you how stupid the hole was for your target audience.
You could input two different average drives (350-400 shown), thus comparing two separate groups (Ams vs Pros), or just comparing the low and high end of a single group.
For each hole, input the:
--Length
--Elevation Change
--Trouble (OB and trees, on a scale of 1 to 9)
Then it tells you the Par (for the given drive length), and how stupid it is. As well as a "feel", like the difference between a short par 4 and a long par 4. A really stupid hole would tend to have all the scores the same for a given group of players.
Example: Hole 18 below is 774 feet with no elevation change. For 350' throwers, it plays as a short par 5. But for 400' throwers, it's a really long par 4, in fact, with a stupid level of "7", you can expect that most players would take a 4 on it, thus providing no separation of skill on this hole.
And the whole thing was driven by a configuration table. So if you didn't like my definitions of Par 3,4,5, you could set your own parameters.
T t t t t t t t t t t too much time on my hands.
And has caused par nerds to spend countless hours on the topic.
Back in 2003 I created this SWEET spreadsheet for analyzing the holes on a course, and assigning each a par, and telling you how stupid the hole was for your target audience.
You could input two different average drives (350-400 shown), thus comparing two separate groups (Ams vs Pros), or just comparing the low and high end of a single group.
For each hole, input the:
--Length
--Elevation Change
--Trouble (OB and trees, on a scale of 1 to 9)
Then it tells you the Par (for the given drive length), and how stupid it is. As well as a "feel", like the difference between a short par 4 and a long par 4. A really stupid hole would tend to have all the scores the same for a given group of players.
Example: Hole 18 below is 774 feet with no elevation change. For 350' throwers, it plays as a short par 5. But for 400' throwers, it's a really long par 4, in fact, with a stupid level of "7", you can expect that most players would take a 4 on it, thus providing no separation of skill on this hole.
And the whole thing was driven by a configuration table. So if you didn't like my definitions of Par 3,4,5, you could set your own parameters.
T t t t t t t t t t t too much time on my hands.
How do I get my hands on this puppy?
grodney
* Ace Member *
hahahahaha, send me your e-mail and I can send it to you. Excel required (not sure which version).
Cartograph
Newbie
the reason i ask is because theres a lcoal course here that ive changed the hole info to what the scorecard says and some guy repeatedly changes everything to what he "Thinks" is what it should be. using the excuse as this is what the pdga officials are changing it to. eventually i said **** it and made a second tee for the real pars because me and my friends like to play with the course designed pars.
FWIW, the course designed pars are often a device to make recreational players (which are usually about 95% of the players most places) feel good. I remember the days when I bragged about "eagling" (is that even a word?) the baby hole at my home course twice in one day. (Note: that hole is all of 198', and according to the scorebook entries here I've recorded that same accomplishment now at least 276 times, likely far more than that).
Once you get your skills a bit more honed and start making threes pretty easily, you're going to come to the conclusion that "sign pars" are mostly a joke, as they have no consistency and are far too easy for journeymen players to accomplish.
To me, the only right answer is to not worry about pars and conclude it will always take you a number of shots to complete a hole. There's always going to be a numerical value you can write down for that. The low score still wins.
Once you get your skills a bit more honed and start making threes pretty easily, you're going to come to the conclusion that "sign pars" are mostly a joke, as they have no consistency and are far too easy for journeymen players to accomplish.
To me, the only right answer is to not worry about pars and conclude it will always take you a number of shots to complete a hole. There's always going to be a numerical value you can write down for that. The low score still wins.
TrustYourRubber
Eagle Member
If you want to be a macho-man, then play every hole as a par 3.
If you want to wise up and listen to the course designer's wisdom, then play the course pars as the signs say. A well designed course par will be set up so that par is what a 'beginner' would shoot on average on that hole. 95% of players are beginners, so it makes sense to tailor the course par to them.
If you want to wise up and listen to the course designer's wisdom, then play the course pars as the signs say. A well designed course par will be set up so that par is what a 'beginner' would shoot on average on that hole. 95% of players are beginners, so it makes sense to tailor the course par to them.
It has nothing to do with being macho, it has to do with accepting the fact that "par" in any type of golf is supposed to be a standard of excellence, and is supposed to be set at what an expert player, and not a beginner would shoot (and before anyone opens that can of worms again, yeah, I know, we've beaten that horse to death so much there's nothing left to beat).
The PDGA, the governing body of disc golf, has a stake in establishing an objective standard for this. Your so called revered "course designer" which could be some joe blow who talked his local parks department into putting up a course may not. In some theoretical multiverse scenario, two of these guys could build the exact same course. The only difference being is one of them consulted the PDGA chart to establish objective hole pars, and the other decided to just use what he thought would make beginning players feel good.
Then someone plays both courses and get the exact same score on every hole. Is the round on the second course a better one because its a (-9) 56 and not a (+2) 56?
Its simply ugly fact that on probably 99% of holes under 500 feet, expert players (as well as a great degree of players under that skill level) have no problem consistently carding 3 or less on such holes. Giving them higher pars just so a few beginners (who don't have a full perspective of the game and sport yet, and shouldn't be concerned with par) can feel good right off the bat, is just dumb. And when said beginner started getting their skills honed a little better, he's going to start realizing those 350' "birdie" sign par 3's which he's carding 75% of the time, aren't all that.
TrustYourRubber
Eagle Member
I disagree, because I've been playing with macho- macho- macho-men my entire disc golf career, and I've been continually frustrated with charting my own development. Finally, there was a new course that was put in with a course par set up for beginners in my area, and it started making sense to play the holes as different than par 3s, because it was set up as course par for beginners.
56 is 56 (on the same course). Non-recreational players should understand that 56 is 56, because it's not about how you shoot, as much as it is about how the other players shoot. If I shoot 56 and five players shoot 55, then I'm in sixth place. Par is totally irrelevant in this instance.
If you're talking about different courses, then 56 isn't the same as 56 on a more difficult course. It might be more difficult due to changes in elevation, longer holes, smaller fairways, more trees, etc.
Par is only relevant for recreational players, because they're playing themselves against the course designer. Steven Dodge recently posted a video on his disc golf blog about what is par? He stated that in ball-style golf it's what a scratch player (or someone who is pretty good) would shoot, whereas in disc golf par is what a beginner would shoot.
According to Mr. Dodge, in order to determine par for a given player in disc golf, take that player's longest average drive and then add two strokes once you get within 100' of the basket (simulating a two-putt).
Let's use a 501' hole as an example:
For a beginner with an average drive of 200' that hole is a par 5.
For a more experienced player with an average drive of 350' that hole is a par 4.
This is over-simplified, but it makes sense on its face, and it helps sort out a lot of the disillusionment/confusion more experienced players feel when they play a course with a beginner course par that they don't necessarily agree with or abide by.
Last edited:
So what you're saying is, par is dumb?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,841
Having both is good. Label your "par" as being for a specific skill level. Call it Red par or beginner par, or intermediate par or whatever.
Without any qualifiers, the word "par" refers to what an expert would expect with errorless play. This is usually much lower than what you've seen most places. It should be low enough that it works for the Open players in a big tournament. Perhaps that is what the other guy is setting it to.
Regular, unqualified par should be known for all courses. You might not want it on the tee signs, but if every course makes it available, we can compare performances across courses.
Steve Dodge and Jussi Meresmaa have set par really well for their tournaments. (They've also avoided including holes that should be labelled par 2.)
mrdans4
Bogey Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 66
Need to be in the circle @ PAR - 1. Every hole must be birdy able.
I just don't like looking at a pro shooting -55. Makes it look easy
