What is Par?

[ERicJ]

Also, SSA means the play of a 1000 rated player, so that is the standard that the PDGA has set. If you used a different PR you would have to adjust to be equal to a 1000 PR anyway. It's also the most consistent way to compare SSA to Gold Par.

Yep! I'm coming around to the "difficult is par vs. SSA" way of thinking... but only if par is a unilaterally, consistently applied gold level par.

You can't have course designers or par-setters using their judgment to decide that this CR par 4 is too easy so I'll change it to a par 3. Because then you've lost the consistency that guarantees a valid SSA vs. par comparison.

Of course that has the implication, with CR par, that there will be easy par 4's and hard par 3's that have distances within a few feet of each other. And on top of that the par 4 hole may have more 3's scored on it than the par 3 hole... (implying that the par 3 hole has more 4's scored, not 2's).

ERic

 

[ERicJ]

I think that Rec par is bogus and should be abolished. It's a big contributor the haze of confusion surrounding DG par. I wish that it were taken off of DGCR too. Par is par. There should only be one standard for par. In our area, a few courses have a Rec par posted, but no regular players pay any attention to it. After playing a few rounds people quickly realize that Rec par is just an empty feel good system, so they stop paying any attention to it. IMO par should mean something and Rec par reduces it's value.

I played "Rec Par" for the first two months that I played DG, after that I've tracked most of my DGCR scores in the scorebook vs. all 3's.

ERic

 

[ERicJ]

I agree that par should not be set for just the average disc golfer. However, I alos don't think it should be set near the level of what Doss, Climo, Feldberg, and Jenkins expect to get on a hole. Par should be difficult to attain, and it shouldn't be lowered so that others can feel good about themselves. It was stated on another thread that par should be what an elite level player expects to get on that given hole.
[...]
But I think maybe basing par off of a level slightly below the elite pro level is best for everyone.
[...]
In short, par should be difficult to attain, and most of us, myself included, should feel fortunate to hit it every now and then. However, I don't feel like the true definition of par is what Climo expects to shoot on a hole.
[...]
How we determine par should be based on what is expected by someone...the identity of that someone is the real debate.

Doss - 1032, Climo - 1032, Feldberg - 1040, Jenkins - 1027. Those guys are the top of the heap and a decent clip above your "typical" 1000 rated player. On a course with SSA=50.4 those guys are shooting 3-4 strokes better than a 1000-rated player.

I think setting par for a 1000-rating is a fair standard. Hard to shoot for the majority, but fair. And a good goal for most of us.

ERic

 

[ZMan44]

Well, this discussion could go on forever...But here's what we all seem to agree on:

1) Rec par is stupid. There is only one "par".
2) Some form of universally accepted par needs to be implemented...whether it is the method of determining par that we endorse or not. Even if we disagree with the method, we need some sort of a standard.
3) Par should not be an easily attainable number.
4) The game of disc golf is growing and longer courses are being opened. The common sense that a longer hole might require a higher par value, makes it very important that we determine a standard.

With the math, I think a 1000 rated player is a good basis for par as it increases from 3. As for par 2s, I am still against those but that discussion was for another thread. Just out of curiosity, if we came up with a standard par, what do you think the percentage of holes that would be a par 3 would be? I would wager that it would be close to 90%. If it was that high, I think it might help motivate course designers to add trickier elements or even more length, which could be good for the sport down the road.

 

[Olorin]

Originally Posted by ERicJ
For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that.

Originally Posted by Olorin
Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

Some of us are a little slower than others.

 

[magictenor1]

I am not up on the rating system for players but I am still not convinced that a 1000 rated player is the standard we should set par by.
From everything I have read that is a very high level player. Again, why not set it lower, say for a 900 rated player (pulled that # out of a hat) which makes par more attainable for more players. I also don't think 2 different sets fo par for different ability levels is wrong either, whether we call thel "rec" or "pro", it's just another way to make the game fairer for all. In BG women use different tees and sometimes have different pars than men. When a pro event comes to town holes are sometimes changed from par 5 to par 4 to make the course more difficult for the better players. I don't see why these ideas can't be used in DG.

 

[Olorin]

In BG women use different tees ...

Actually, in TG women have different standards to set par. These merely reflect the physiological difference that women don't hit as far as men. I think that someday DG should also develop par standards for women too, but that's for another day. Right now DG needs to get the male par standards more universally adapted and applied first.

 

[DGtourist]

I'm in favor of going by the par standard of the 1000 level player with the belief that it will step up your game and create less confusion.

"dude I got a couple pars yesterday!"
"No way really? That's cool I got par last weekend over at Badass Course."

 

[magictenor1]

Actually, in TG women have different standards to set par. These merely reflect the physiological difference that women don't hit as far as men. I think that someday DG should also develop par standards for women too, but that's for another day. Right now DG needs to get the male par standards more universally adapted and applied first.

Sure. Different standards for different levels of ability. Juniors sometimes too. i think that wass the idea of "rec par" , something a child or woman or beginner could aspire to.

 

[Olorin]

Sure. Different standards for different levels of ability. Juniors sometimes too. i think that wass the idea of "rec par" , something a child or woman or beginner could aspire to.

Actually, TG par is based on length, so I think the different standards reflect the physical limitations of those who can't hit as far as men (women and juniors). It's based on the reality that even the best women are not physiologically able to hit as far as men. The same is true in DG; just look at the ratings and throw lengths of the top women in the world compared to the top men. The women's TG par standard is NOT based on ability, so I don't think that this argument holds for Rec par in DG.

 

[Olorin]

Help wanted

I've been trying to find what I've posted about Close Range (CR) par, and especially Gold CR Par, but I can't really find much. I thought I'd explained it on here, but maybe I only put links up to other places. I've tried searches but still can't find anything. Does anyone remember seeing an explanation of CR par and can point me to it?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

 

[ERicJ]

Yeah, that DGCR limit of 30 seconds between searches is a pain in the butt sometimes. Combine that with the restriction on short word searches and I can see why you're having trouble searching for "CR Par".

Is this the post for which you were looking:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30

There was also this thread:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11319
and it's spin-off:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11658

Remember that a google search, limited by site, is your friend!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/+"cr+par"

ERic

 

[Olorin]

Is this the post for which you were looking:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866&postcount=30

There was also this thread:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11319
and it's spin-off:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11658

Remember that a google search, limited by site, is your friend!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/+"cr+par"

ERic

ERic,

You're amazing! That's the one. Thanks.

And thanks for the tip on google. I never knew you could search by site like that.

 

[Olorin]

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion. I don't think that a Green (800 PR) or Red (850 PR) level player should even expect to get many pars on a Gold level course. In this regard, TG is a good example to follow.

I'm going back to believing that the standards used to set hole lengths on every level of course should be only Gold standards. On lower level courses you can still have short holes that are appropriate for lower skill levels, but they would just be holes that are short par 3s for Gold players. There should not be par 4s on Green, Red, or White courses unless they follow Gold standards. (For Gold CR Par these would be holes with an effective length over 500 ft.)

Thanks to many of you who have contributed very good points to these discussions and helped hone my thinking on these issues.

I learn from dialogue, so I'd be glad to hear what you think.

I thought that I had posted a link to an explanation of Gold CR Par but I can't find it anywhere, so go to this Gold CR Par explanation to learn more.

 

[Olorin]

Gold CR Par

Here is most of the explanation of Gold CR Par

Gold CR Par

Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for a first-class player to reach "close range" then take 2 throws to hole out.[1] For men a "first class player" is a 1000 rated, Gold level player. The average drive length for a 1000 PR player is used as the main guideline for calculating par. This drive length is a length that 2/3s of 1000 PR players can throw with an average drive.

Keep in mind that "effective length" is used instead of "actual length". "Effective length" takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups.[2] Forced lay-ups cause a shot to be shorter than the maximum distance; they can be caused by water carries, fairway bends such as L or S shapes, and severe doglegs. A forced lay-up is counted as one shot toward the basket. From that shot's landing zone the course designer will determine how many more shots, if any, are needed to reach close range, then add 2 to complete the hole.

Fairway throws, used on multi-throw holes, are 80% of the length of tee shots. The Fairway throw length is based on the reasoning that you lose approximately 20% of your driving distance when throwing from the fairway.

Close Range is the distance from which first-class players can get "up and down" in two throws approximately 90% of the time. It is much longer than the 10 meters used to define a disc golf putt. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in traditional golf. Since disc golf holes usually take less than 2 putts to complete adding this close range component helps score averages to be closer to par.

Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues.

Many holes are not designed for the best shots to be made at full power, though. A course designer can use narrow fairways, dense foliage, and nearby OB so that the smarter throw will be a shorter shot using a more accurate disc. In these cases the designer will determine reasonable throws that are intended to reach a landing zone that is shorter than that of the full power length. On these holes par is the number of shots to reach each landing zone until one gets to close range then add 2 to hole out.

 

[SimonCarr]

I haven't read through all the posts on this topic, so I apologize if someone has already said this...

To me, the best way to come up with par is to think of a hole like this... If it is possible to throw a perfect drive and be in putting range, then it should be a par 3. If it takes a perfect drive and a really good approach to be in putting distance, then it is a par 4. Par 5's are tricky, because there are not many true par 5's out there. Pro level courses (Idlewild, Nocamixon, Winthrop Gold etc) have par 5's, but the vast majority of courses out there don't have any par 5's.

 

[Olorin]

To me, the best way to come up with par is to think of a hole like this... If it is possible to throw a perfect drive and be in putting range, then it should be a par 3. If it takes a perfect drive and a really good approach to be in putting distance, then it is a par 4. Par 5's ...

That's basically a good method. You just have to define some of the factors like--
-What is the skill level of this player? What is the length of the drive?
-What length is "putting range"?
-How long should an approach shot be? Again it depends on the skill level of the "expert" player.

Gold CR Par attempts to answer these questions and give numbers to be used.

 

[SimonCarr]

Well, I think players of all skill levels should be able to birdie a typical par 3. I guess there is no good answer for a typical drive, as the fairway/throwing lane can really dictate the amount of distance for a good drive. On an open hole, I would think anything 450 or less is a par 3. In the woods, it may be closer to 250.

I know my method is totally subjective.. but when I am playing a course that is how I judge whether the hole should be a par 3 or par 4.

 

[harr0140]

There are criteria set forth by the PDGA when it comes to par recommendation which seems adequate here.

If I can link to the site I will otherwise I will scan it in.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

 

[ShaZaun]

Par is usually something I'm hoping to make it in.......