What is Par?

[ERicJ]

Put that paragraph in your hypothetical-logical-extension pipe and smoke it ERicJ. :doh:

My hypothetical-logical-extension was meant to debate the merits of the "tube" argument.

I like CR Par for the convenience of initial use, and SA Par for the real world accuracy.

That "paragraph" you refer to reminds me of this old cartoon:

You have this nice formula to calculate par except for the most interesting situations where you leave it up to no formula or data at all.

I'd bet that even the most experienced designers would still estimate par wrong on some newly designed holes. With SA Par there's no guesswork, the actual players' performance lets you know what par should be.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Theoretically, CR Par is always right even before playing the hole based on the parameters used as long as the length is measured properly. The DGCD Hole Forecaster can also do a good job of forecasting the SA on each hole in advance of playing them also.

 

[ERicJ]

The DGCD Hole Forecaster can also do a good job of forecasting the SA on each hole in advance of playing them also.

The issue I have with that is that the Foliage & Object Density is subjective, right?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's objective in reality once the scores are thrown but not easy to define precisely in advance. The thing is, even if you're off by a factor of one either way in estimating the average foliage factor, it only amounts to an error of +/- 0.1 in scoring average. That's not going to matter for the par estimation unless you have a tweener hole in the first place. And if it's a tweener, the designer has the prerogative to go up or down with the par value anyway.

 

[Olorin]

Bump. New members might want to know about this thread.

 

[cydisc]

Oh, god, no...

 

[DSmith]

Revenge of the Course Par Thread! :clap:

 

[ssejhill]

Tee colors vary wildly around the country. Courses should be moving toward the PDGA standard designations (from longest to shortest) of Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green, Purple, but it's a very slow process as people get educated about these standards.

Purple and Putting both start with "P". That must be where the Purple Tees would be.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That's true. I suspect some players could putt-jump from many purple tees even though an 8-year old might need a 130g driver.

 

[Jodabro]

Par matters

Ok, I've read enough to voice my opinion. The whole point of this thread is to debate what is par? As defined by Wkipedia... Par (score) is a predetermined number of strokes that a scratch golfer should require to complete a hole.

So I agree is an intermediate player can reach the green (circle 10m/33ft) in one throw it should be a par 3. In ball golf their is an average of two short holes per course, 220-250 yrds... these are not labeled par 2, but par 3's. So I don't believe par 2's should exist.

The question is how far can a scratch disc golfer throw? As far as pro par vs par goes... The reason for pro is said to be for farther tee boxes, but it doesn't make sence to me to change par and change the distance of a hole. For example a short tee(RED or whatever you call them) is 310ft and par 3 and then the long tee 375ft and par 4. WHAT? the reason to play the long tee is because you have out grown the short tee box, why be given an extra stroke for 65ft, when the reason to play long is probably because you can throw 100ft longer then before.

Pin movement doesn't effect par on a ball golf course either and it shouldn't in disc golf. I've read someone saying par doesn't matter in a tournament anyway its strokes/throws. I disagree ALL golf is you vs the course & weather, not who is walking with you.

 

[Olorin]

Lots of good information in here. If you're new to DGCR it's worth checking out.

 

[DavidSauls]

Ah, an oldie but a goodie.

If you're new to DGCR it's worth checking out.

It should almost be mandatory.

 

[billnchristy]

Ok, I've read enough to voice my opinion. The whole point of this thread is to debate what is par? As defined by Wkipedia... Par (score) is a predetermined number of strokes that a scratch golfer should require to complete a hole.

So I agree is an intermediate player can reach the green (circle 10m/33ft) in one throw it should be a par 3. In ball golf their is an average of two short holes per course, 220-250 yrds... these are not labeled par 2, but par 3's. So I don't believe par 2's should exist.

The question is how far can a scratch disc golfer throw? As far as pro par vs par goes... The reason for pro is said to be for farther tee boxes, but it doesn't make sence to me to change par and change the distance of a hole. For example a short tee(RED or whatever you call them) is 310ft and par 3 and then the long tee 375ft and par 4. WHAT? the reason to play the long tee is because you have out grown the short tee box, why be given an extra stroke for 65ft, when the reason to play long is probably because you can throw 100ft longer then before.

Pin movement doesn't effect par on a ball golf course either and it shouldn't in disc golf. I've read someone saying par doesn't matter in a tournament anyway its strokes/throws. I disagree ALL golf is you vs the course & weather, not who is walking with you.

I like a lot of the reasoning here and going by the definition of PAR is that PAR should = Pro par because a scratch player is a pro (or a bagger).

So there should, in reality, if we were going to play the multi-par game, be par & rec par.

 

[bikinjack]

Pin movement doesn't effect par on a ball golf course either and it shouldn't in disc golf. I've read someone saying par doesn't matter in a tournament anyway its strokes/throws. I disagree ALL golf is you vs the course & weather, not who is walking with you.

This part I completely disagree with, especially the bold part. For instance, hole 11 at Rankin Lake is a completely different hole in the long position than in the short. The first part of the long uses the same fairway as the short, but you want to be on opposite sides of the fairway on your drive, depending on pin position, as well as the fact that it's gonna take at least one more throw, probably two or three, to get to the pin.

The difference is that typically, you don't move the entire green in ball golf, but you often do in disc golf.

 

[grodney]

For what it's worth, I don't like courses with multiple pin placements. Especially if the alternate location drastically changes the hole.

I personally think multiple pin locations is one of the most overrated aspects in courses. (Multiple baskets per hole is a different story.)

Anybody with me?

 

[Dave242]

The people who like the multiple pin placements that drastically change the holes are the folks who play that course multiple times per week and get bored.

I am actually more puzzled by why some courses have multiple locations that are all essentially the same (baskets are all within 20-40' of each other). Why would you even expend the effort to move things around when it only modifies the hole (and throw required) very minimally?

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not a big fan of multiple pin placements, but I actually like them more if they do drastically change the hole.

Where they don't, I rarely find the pin placements equal. I find myself glad it's in my favorite position, or disappointed if it's not.

Multiple baskets is a rarity. I've only encountered them once, and I'm not sure if that was a permanent situation or just my lucky day.

 

[1978]

I would like to make a few points.

Alternate pin locations that drastically change the hole:

I think this is ok if the course is in an area of low course density...where new courses can't be built. This adds variety to the course with out permanantly pouring concrete.
I think this is ok if the altimate intention is to purchase additional baskets when funds are available.
I think this is ok if it is in response to erosion concerns and the alternate basket forces players to walk a completely different line.
I wouldnt mind alternate locations for tournaments to create scoring separation especially if this replaces the use of temporary baskets.
What I do not like is not having the ability to compare my score on a course to others because of crazy changes in placement.
In some cases foliage can drastically change a hole. I, suppose, I wouldnt mind changing pin locations to counteract the affect of seasons on the difficulty of the course.
Some DG clubs do not have the support of local parks and rec. I would support changing pin locations in heavy plant growing months to reduce the amount of work and $ required to keep the course at a playable level. For example, shorter holes in the summer because grass cannot be mowed on the longer hole.

Alternate locations if it doesnt drastically change the hole:
I like this if the intention is to relieve worn areas of stress so that they can re-grow. (ex. Hill sides)
I like this if the intention is to add a different look at places that do not have nearby courses and have a high player base. Ex. Turn a 250' hole from a RHBH Hyzer to a RHBH An-hyzer.

I dont agree with alternate locations if the intent is to disuade golfers from playing by putting pins in long positions during the most popular DG months.

I tried to do this on a few holes at Bailey Road Park. Aside from the erosion factor which I hope to avoid, I have noticed a big excitement factor when I move 1 of the 3 pin locations to a different spot.


I will say that I DO NOT LIKE SLEEVES because the baskets are easier to steal. Oh and you have to dig them about 12" farther than just planting a pole.

 

[1978]

If a season causes a certain part of the hole to be used by other park visitors or creates a dangerous condition, I would support the use of alternate locations. For example. In the fall fields might not be used for sunbathing and a longer location might be safer or an area in the fall is swampy but totally dry in the summer.

 

[grodney]

1978, your posting privileges might be revoked if you keep making sense.