When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[HarkeyPuck]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

 

[Giv'r]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

Exactly. :hfive:

 

[Stud Muffin]

When the posted par is 4 or 5. Shoot as low as a score as possible. Then next time try and beat that score. Idk... My $0.02

Par is not supposed to be an opinion based rating. It is supposed to represent a number of shots to reach a basket, and either 1 or 2 putts.

You can say 18 holes is a par 17 or par 117, and it is still irrelevant.

It is just frustrating that it is not congruent.

I play Jokerest in Festus, MO, amd it has +300' par 4's.
I play Jefferson Barracks in St Louis, and it has +300 par 3's.
I play Festus, MO, and it has a +600' par 3...

 

[BENFTS]

At the Potosi course I play often, there is a 650' par 3. It is downhill, but it is OB completely down the right side, and traditionally always facing a head wind. This means most flex shots end up OB.

Even with a good Flex shot, I still am still 300-250' out. This again, is traditionally facing a head wind, and OB down the right line. Is this a realistic distance to be making an 'approach' shot? There are Par 3's not as long as this approach shot on this course.

I do not throw far by this forum's standards. Some days better than others, but 300-330 range. Still, with the people I play DG with, I look like a mad bomber compared to them. There is no way they are making three unless they put it in 200' away.

I look at it like this, some people are very accurate, and can birdie technical holes with ease. Some people can throw really long too. If they can birdie long par 4's with ease, then they can do it, that still should be no reason to call a par 4 on a legitimate par 4 a bogey.

It just doesn't seem fair.
And, for the record, I have never made a 3 on the hole. It is an awesome challenge, and I do not beat myself up over making a 4, just hate that the scorecard does.

I use a pro pig off the tee at top of the world and it's 500' easy with a big downhill, try throwing somethng slow and really throw at the same angle of the hill. If putters can go 500' you can throw them that far too with som nice downhill and a steady headwind to keep it floating.

So yea, a 4 on a par 3 is a bogey.

 

[Stud Muffin]

I use a pro pig off the tee at top of the world and it's 500' easy with a big downhill, try throwing somethng slow and really throw at the same angle of the hill. If putters can go 500' you can throw them that far too with som nice downhill and a steady headwind to keep it floating.

So yea, a 4 on a par 3 is a bogey.

...it's not that kind of downhill. About a 20' drop from tee to basket.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

Par is not supposed to be an opinion based rating. It is supposed to represent a number of shots to reach a basket, and either 1 or 2 putts.

You can say 18 holes is a par 17 or par 117, and it is still irrelevant.

It is just frustrating that it is not congruent.

I play Jokerest in Festus, MO, amd it has +300' par 4's.
I play Jefferson Barracks in St Louis, and it has +300 par 3's.
I play Festus, MO, and it has a +600' par 3...

But there are some holes out there that if we followed some formula, that would be par 2's. I agree that 650' par 3 is a TAD long, but what are you gonna do? Play it at a par that our think is fair. We have a course here that the listed par is 55. For league it's 54 because the only par 4 is a wide open downhill hole. But when playing with my friends we play it as a 4. You know what a good score is there. Don't let a sign or card make you feel bad if you throw a good 4 shots.

 

[jenb]

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

I watched the top card of the VPO play that hole today. Nikko Locastro, Eric McCabe, Paul Ulibarri, Jeremy Koling, and Nolan Grider all landed in position to shoot up the pike, but the majority could not penetrate the thick trees on the second shot to be able to putt for par. If the majority of the top pros can't 3 a hole, you know the par is set too low. Would you agree?

 

[HarkeyPuck]

At Major Tourneys maybe not. I know people hate the ball golf comparisons, but there are many times I've seen pros finish over par for 4 rounds, with the winner being even or +/- 1.

 

[Dave242]

At Major Tourneys maybe not. I know people hate the ball golf comparisons, but there are many times I've seen pros finish over par for 4 rounds, with the winner being even or +/- 1.

1 of the reasons people hate them is because they don't apply. All they need to do to make the course much harder is grow grass longer and mow differently to make the fairways narrower.

 

[Stud Muffin]

But there are some holes out there that if we followed some formula, that would be par 2's. I agree that 650' par 3 is a TAD long, but what are you gonna do? Play it at a par that our think is fair. We have a course here that the listed par is 55. For league it's 54 because the only par 4 is a wide open downhill hole. But when playing with my friends we play it as a 4. You know what a good score is there. Don't let a sign or card make you feel bad if you throw a good 4 shots.

If the 2 putt rule of par, which is not unrealistic, was made, a par 2 would have to be at or shorter than 10 meters. Personally, I believe the 2 putt par circle should be at least 50'.

 

[Stud Muffin]

I watched the top card of the VPO play that hole today. Nikko Locastro, Eric McCabe, Paul Ulibarri, Jeremy Koling, and Nolan Grider all landed in position to shoot up the pike, but the majority could not penetrate the thick trees on the second shot to be able to putt for par. If the majority of the top pros can't 3 a hole, you know the par is set too low. Would you agree?

yes :thmbup:

 

[HarkeyPuck]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

 

[Stud Muffin]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

Just depends on the philosophy, is par supposed to be an skilled person's ability, or should only the greatest athletes be able to achieve par?

I am more for part 1.

Pro's do not care how far under par they shoot, they care how they place. I definitely see par a Am issue, not a pro one.

 

[jongoff09]

I was trying to say that it's not always a bad thing when the pros find a hole tough. Which to us mortals we probably find that hole extremely hard. Not every hole should be either a par or birdie. Some holes it should be rewarding to get par. If par is routinely broken, then it's not really par. At the PFDO, Josh Anton was something like -37 for the tournament. Almost -10 per round. Should par be lower in this case?

What is wrong with a pro being so low in relation to par? I don't have a problem with it. I like the golf definition of par where it is strokes to green +2. By that definition, DG scores will be lower in relation to par than golf scores because of how easy it is to putt in DG compared to golf. I like the PDGA's par guidelines for this reason. You should be rewarded with making it to the "green in regulation" (golf term) and only taking one putt. A par shouldn't be the best that anyone can do on a hole.

 

[denny ritner]

If the 2 putt rule of par, which is not unrealistic, was made, a par 2 would have to be at or shorter than 10 meters. Personally, I believe the 2 putt par circle should be at least 50'.

more like 150 ft. for a wide-open basket.

 

[Stud Muffin]

more like 150 ft. for a wide-open basket.

I want to say I got 10 meters because that is the established putting circle, so on a 150' hole, you would need 1 shot to get inside the putting circle, and then 2 putts.

I would say that for relationship to par, the circle should be extended to 50-100', or simply, what is an expected 1? 30', 40', 50'?

 

[HarkeyPuck]

I was using this as an example that par works both ways. We shouldn't change hard par 3's to 4's, just like we shouldn't lower par on easier holes. I have no problem with the pros shooting well. Seeing them on my home courses made me realize how good they are and gave me motivation to get better. What I was saying is that you wouldn't change par on these courses just because they shot so low & I don't think you should change par on a hole because they shoot a high score.

Pickin' up what I'm throwing in the schule?

 

[HeadsUpHolloway22]

Last time i was at Potosi which was last week on tuesday, they had par 5 written on the post. Along with hole 5 and 8. Are you reading it wrong or am i?

 

[Stud Muffin]

Last time i was at Potosi which was last week on tuesday, they had par 5 written on the post. Along with hole 5 and 8. Are you reading it wrong or am i?

That was written by casual players, not the course designer, David Mac. Here is the 'official' par for Potosi:
http://gdstour.com/the-potosi-course-update-back-nine/

 

[jimimc]

Wouldn't all this just be easier to use the average score of the players each tee or layout is intended for? If the SSA of a Gold course is 72 then the pars on the holes should equal 72. The same for White tees. If 72 on the white tees are a 900 rated round then the White or Am par should total up to 72. It's not that hard to take the average score for just the golfers the tees were intended for and either adjust the par or the hole some how.