- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,072
Here is the direct link to the PDGA recommended par values: http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf
You can find it on the Course Development page: http://pdga.com/cd_start.php
-
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)
What is Par?
- Thread starter Olorin
- Start date
You can find it on the Course Development page: http://pdga.com/cd_start.php
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:
1.) 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.) 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.) 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 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1.) 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.) 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.) 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.) In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7.) Par is an important 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.) 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.) 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.) To be able to determine handicaps.
1.) 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.) 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.) 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 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1.) 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.) 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.) 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.) In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7.) Par is an important 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.) 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.) 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.) To be able to determine handicaps.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
Close Range Par
Oh how I wish that disc golf had a standard and uniform method of determining par! At the moment, the closest thing the PDGA has is the "Score Average (SA) Par" system that Chuck Kennedy has used his considerable influence to make the PDGA standard. I believe that system has some inherent flaws, but Chuck has decreed that it's the standard to be used and no one with similar influence has questioned that.
I tried to attach a file with a proposal for a par system called "Close Range (CR) Par", but DGCR won't let me, so you'll have to get it in the Files section of my Yahoo Group "DG Resources".
The document has tables with suggested hole lengths for par 3, 4, 5 for each course level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green).
If the PDGA would only see the light and adopt CR Par as a uniform standard then we could finally close this and all other related threads.
Oh how I wish that disc golf had a standard and uniform method of determining par! At the moment, the closest thing the PDGA has is the "Score Average (SA) Par" system that Chuck Kennedy has used his considerable influence to make the PDGA standard. I believe that system has some inherent flaws, but Chuck has decreed that it's the standard to be used and no one with similar influence has questioned that.
I tried to attach a file with a proposal for a par system called "Close Range (CR) Par", but DGCR won't let me, so you'll have to get it in the Files section of my Yahoo Group "DG Resources".
The document has tables with suggested hole lengths for par 3, 4, 5 for each course level (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green).
If the PDGA would only see the light and adopt CR Par as a uniform standard then we could finally close this and all other related threads.
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 359
It's amazing to see the swing in "par"...my favorite (for ego building) is the State of Wisconsin....they seem to be VERY generous on the stated "par"...I would consistently "eagle" some of the par 4's...but like the earlier post, I tend to play most courses (in my head) at par 3, except for the monster holes
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
3 Methods of Determining Par
At the DG Resources Yahoo group I also added a long document in the Files/ Par section that contrasts the 3 main philosophies of determining par. It's long, but it should give you lots of background if you care to pursue this in more depth. If you're a member of DG Resources feel free to leave a message about your thoughts for that group.
At the DG Resources Yahoo group I also added a long document in the Files/ Par section that contrasts the 3 main philosophies of determining par. It's long, but it should give you lots of background if you care to pursue this in more depth. If you're a member of DG Resources feel free to leave a message about your thoughts for that group.
Ah... that's something I need! Thanks!
Nice post by Olorin on why we need par. I totally agree that because our sport is called "golf" you should use par,birdie etc and it is much easier to keep up with your score in relation to par. I believe the person who designed a course should determine the par and everyone should play it as posted. Again relating to ball golf,no one goes to a course and says "I think I'll play them all as 3's " Does not happen!! So, why would you do that for disc golf? Of course there will be easy and more difficult courses. When I played Ball golf years ago (I was pretty bad) I could shoot around +18 on my easy home municipal course. One day I went out of town and played a much nicer harder course and I shot around +45-50. Did that mean I should change the par on the course? I don't think so. There is a huge difference between the average local municipal ball golf course and the one that Tiger won the Open on, but the par is about the same. If you are a pro there are disc courses that might be too easy for you and a nice course for a pro would be beyond a lot of us. However par should be consistent. You just need to find the courses that fit your game. I don't even think that a certain # of feet has to equal to a certain par. Let the course designer set the par. Multiple tees can then help players find the level of play (in relation to par) that best suits them.
I agree with letting the course designer set par and that everyone should play it the way it is set. But the course designer should use PDGA standard for public par that was posted above. In fact I'll copy the link and repost it...
http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf
http://pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf
Russell Gore
Newbie
Olorin Wrote"There is a huge difference between the average local municipal ball golf course and the one that Tiger won the Open on, but the par is about the same."
Torrey Pines is the average local municipal ball golf course, for San Diego California. That is what is so great about the U.S. Open, they are all played on public golf courses. Bethpage Black a few years back is (or was) rated the number one hardest public course in America. As a matter of fact I believe they are going to be there next year or the year after. This is the reason that the Open draws the amount of people that it does. Anyone can come and watch the Pro's play on the course they play on daily!
Torrey Pines is the average local municipal ball golf course, for San Diego California. That is what is so great about the U.S. Open, they are all played on public golf courses. Bethpage Black a few years back is (or was) rated the number one hardest public course in America. As a matter of fact I believe they are going to be there next year or the year after. This is the reason that the Open draws the amount of people that it does. Anyone can come and watch the Pro's play on the course they play on daily!
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
THanks, Olorin. Torrey Pines may be the LOCAL municipal course for San Diego but it is anything but an AVERAGE municipal course. My point is that there is a wide difference in the difficulty of ball golf courses and I don't see why it has to be any different for DG.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
I think that everyone needs to know that the Public Par document is derived from another document of estimated scoring averages for various foliage. The document is called "Estimated hole scoring averages for each ratings range based on hole length". This, in turn, is derived from formulas invented by Chuck Kennedy (with input from others). The Public Par document is merely a simplified version of this one.
The underlying philosophy behind these documents is that par is determined by Score Averages (SA Par). Chuck Kennedy has been successful in making this the PDGA standard, but there are still pockets of rebel resistance out there. Notably, Harold Duvall and John Houck, among many other prominent course designers, favor using the Traditional Golf (TG) Par method. A few others of us favor using Close Range (CR) Par.
There is merit to using score averages, but it is also quite problematic. It's also fundamentally based on a certain vision of what par is that I happen to disagree with it.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
It would be a step in the right direction, but one of the big problems with par is that course designers and course pros use a myriad of ways to determine par. I suspect that most have no real system, just what "feels" right to them. The result is that when you see par posted somewhere it often means very little (expect for those holes that are par 3s no matter how you determine par -- but these are still the majority). At this time the words "par, birdie, bogey..." are basically worthless and meaningless. Sigh.
Par often makes NO sense
I agree that a course like Torrey Pines would be a harder course with the same par as many easier course, but thats a Gold vs. a Red Course: Same par, but more difficult. However, often a very inconsistent rule is used on courses.
case in point, my home course has a hole that is posted as 380ft on the tee boxes, but the basket has since been moved 150-200ft further away (and uphill, i might add). I talked to the assistant course designer, and he said all the holes are par 3s. What can you do? Par is not posted anywhere, but seriously? a 600ft uphill par 3? That strikes me as very bogus. Even some course designers seem to embrace the "all 3s" notion, which I think takes alot of flavor out of the game. Just as some holes should be significantly longer and harder than others, they should have different pars. Instead of just having an impossible hole that 99% of players will double bogey or worse, then have to "catch up" the rest of the round to break even, vary it up. Thats not the purpose of par.
What would ball golf be like if it were all par 3s, on every course, not just the short executive courses? You would have no way of judging how hard a hole was. It makes the learning curve for courses much steeper, because the ones who have played there before know which "easy" holes you have to birdie or eagle, to make up for the impossible ones that wreck your score later. This is a stupid state of affairs.
Ball golf courses have par 4s and 5s, and its never disputed. There is no reason why we shouldn't as well. If this means making the difficulty of the holes more varied on a course, then i'm all for it. No golfer wants to play executive courses all the time, likewise for DG. Dg has executive courses too, but most are at middle schools.
I agree that a course like Torrey Pines would be a harder course with the same par as many easier course, but thats a Gold vs. a Red Course: Same par, but more difficult. However, often a very inconsistent rule is used on courses.
case in point, my home course has a hole that is posted as 380ft on the tee boxes, but the basket has since been moved 150-200ft further away (and uphill, i might add). I talked to the assistant course designer, and he said all the holes are par 3s. What can you do? Par is not posted anywhere, but seriously? a 600ft uphill par 3? That strikes me as very bogus. Even some course designers seem to embrace the "all 3s" notion, which I think takes alot of flavor out of the game. Just as some holes should be significantly longer and harder than others, they should have different pars. Instead of just having an impossible hole that 99% of players will double bogey or worse, then have to "catch up" the rest of the round to break even, vary it up. Thats not the purpose of par.
What would ball golf be like if it were all par 3s, on every course, not just the short executive courses? You would have no way of judging how hard a hole was. It makes the learning curve for courses much steeper, because the ones who have played there before know which "easy" holes you have to birdie or eagle, to make up for the impossible ones that wreck your score later. This is a stupid state of affairs.
Ball golf courses have par 4s and 5s, and its never disputed. There is no reason why we shouldn't as well. If this means making the difficulty of the holes more varied on a course, then i'm all for it. No golfer wants to play executive courses all the time, likewise for DG. Dg has executive courses too, but most are at middle schools.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
Texconsinite,
I agree with all you say!
You're totally right about this! It's bogus not to call it a par 4.
The "everything is par 3" mentality is detrimental to DG and holding our sport back. It's antediluvian and out of touch with current reality.
(I understand why people use 3 as a convenient way to keep score in their heads, but that's a totally different and unrelated matter.)
I agree with all you say!
You're totally right about this! It's bogus not to call it a par 4.
This is the unfortunate reality that we live with.
The "everything is par 3" mentality is detrimental to DG and holding our sport back. It's antediluvian and out of touch with current reality.
(I understand why people use 3 as a convenient way to keep score in their heads, but that's a totally different and unrelated matter.)
The par has to be 3 mentality totally mystifies me too. As I stated earlier and Texconsinite says ball golf courses have variety of par and DG should too. I see a trend that Tex alluded to in his post. Once a course is eatablished it seems someone wants to go back and change holes to make them harder. I have seen many courses that I liked as they were, changed (for the worse) by making the holes longer. I recently played at Lake Bistineau outside of Shreveport La and the scorecard and map had (to me) reasonable length holes but when I played half the time I couldn't even see the baskets because they were so far from the tee. The length of the holes seem to have been increased by around 200 feet in many cases. And this is a fairly new course to begin with, not one that you would think needed an update.
We have all sorts of issues that will need to be dealt with. One is the multiple pin issue. Ball golf usually moves the pin around on the same green, sometimes the same hole will have two greens but not so far apart as to change the par for the hole. You adjust the difficultly level of the hole by the tee you shoot from, and you can decide that yourself as all tees are always available to play.
We have a lot of courses with one tee and an A placement that is a Par 3 but a C or even a D placement that is in a Par 4 placement 150 ft behind the A pin. Because there is only one basket, everybody has to shoot at that basket no matter if it happens to be in the A or D placement. So you as a player can't decide if you are playing the par 3 red placement, you may be forced to play the par 4 blue placement. Same hole, different par. So the par for the course ends up depending on who had the basket keys last and how they wanted to leave the course set up. Ball golf does not have this problem.
We have a lot of courses with one tee and an A placement that is a Par 3 but a C or even a D placement that is in a Par 4 placement 150 ft behind the A pin. Because there is only one basket, everybody has to shoot at that basket no matter if it happens to be in the A or D placement. So you as a player can't decide if you are playing the par 3 red placement, you may be forced to play the par 4 blue placement. Same hole, different par. So the par for the course ends up depending on who had the basket keys last and how they wanted to leave the course set up. Ball golf does not have this problem.
Oh, yea...forgot to add that if you are a 970 rated player, that par 4 for me really is a par 3 for you. So, it's a nightmare. No wonder people say "just call it a 3."
Also many courses do not have score cards that even tell you that par is different from the "B" pin position and the courses usually do not even have a way to tell you what position the pins are in anyway. Until courses are able to have enough baskets to have both (or all ) pin positions up at one time I really prefer that there only be ONE pin position so that you know where it is. Have as many tees as you like but leave the pin alone. I also don't like the idea that a par can be different for a different level player. Too confusing and most people I know don't have one anyway. As Olorin has stated handicaps as in ball golf would be good but right now nearly impossible to do because of these issues we are talking about.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,072
As a relatively new player (7 months and counting) I'm inclined to agree with this position.
Multiple pin positions are confusing. The little pinwheel on the tee sign works, but how do you know you can trust it if you can't see the basket or it's too far away to judge? I found this to be particularly annoying at DeLaveaga Park when I played there last week.
And while I can see the need for different par values at different skill levels for tournament penalty purposes... in general I think that too is confusing and somewhat condescending. For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that.
Anyway, there's my $0.02 based on where I am now and where disc golf course standards are now. I'll reserve the right to change that opinion as I get more disc golf experience.
