Actually, we use the TERM "par" the same; in both sports it is the score expected with expert play. Granted, we aren't as good at setting par according to the definition. Yet. Many tournaments are starting to get it right.
Even if par is set analogous to ball golf (score expected of an expert), we will see a few far-under scores, for two reasons. One, we just prefer to offer more (legit) birdie opportunities to more players. Two, the difference between the "expert" player and the very best players is bigger than it is in golf.
Paul's first 18 under would have been 15 under if par had been set according to the disc golf definition. His second would have been 12 under. Still incredible, but it would not indicate a problem with par. It would indicate how well Paul actually played those days.
If players can hit every putt, then par should be based on the score the experts expect to get with one putt.
Pretty well? Yes. Good enough? Well...
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is based on errorless play of an expert. If we take that expert to be the 1000-rated player, then par would be the score that a 1000-rated player would get with no errors. But, 1000-rated players do make some errors. On a course that severely punishes errors, the 1000-rated player would average a few throws over par. Therefore, an even-par round should be rated higher than 1000. Up to about 1030. That would imply par on this course maybe should be five parlecules lower.