Please settle this argument...

[CWSfan16]

This all started when my friend almost eagled a par 4 today. He claimed that this would have been his 2nd eagle ever. I asked what about his aces on par threes (he has three aces) and he claimed that they are not eagles. He claimed that they are not considered eagles, they are only aces. I tried to state that they are the exact same thing. He stated that even though they are the same score, they are not the same thing. The basis of his argument is that he states that for an eagle to count, you must throw more than one shot. So, based on his logic, one can never achieve an eagle on a par three (it would ONLY be considered an ace); one can never achieve an albatross on a par four.

Essentially here is the argument? Is an ace and an eagles on a par three the exact same thing.

 

[The Hammer]

Essentially here is the argument? Is an ace and an eagles on a par three the exact same thing.

Yes.

 

[j0atz]

Same thing...2 strokes under par as far as I know.

 

[c_a_miller]

I say Eagle and Aces are the same thing just different names.

An Eagle is defined as: A hole played in two strokes under par
An Ace is defined as: When a player throws the disc directly from the tee into the hole with one stroke

So an Ace is not always an Eagle because you can ace a par 4, and an eagle is not always an ace because you can shoot a 2 on a par 4. But an ace on a par 3 could also be called an Eagle, however Ace does sound cooler than an Eagle.

 

[Pwingles]

Square and rectangle argument imo

 

[The Hammer]

I say Eagle and Aces are the same thing just different names.

An Eagle is defined as: A hole played in two strokes under par
An Ace is defined as: When a player throws the disc directly from the tee into the hole with one stroke

So an Ace is not always an Eagle because you can ace a par 4, and an eagle is not always an ace because you can shoot a 2 on a par 4. But an ace on a par 3 could also be called an Eagle, however Ace does sound cooler than an Eagle.

It's like saying a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not nessecarily a square.

 

[mudslinger]

I call them double birdies to be consistent

 

[Bamm]

I'd never call an ace on a par 3 an eagle. I may be wrong (hey, it's happened) but to me you have to be on at least a pat 4 before you can get a legitimate eagle.

 

[jtreadwell]

You win the argument. Now please tell me you bet something on this.

 

[The Hammer]

I call them double birdies to be consistent

....and an ace on a par 4 is a fire-birdie.

 

[General Scales]

I'd never call an ace on a par 3 an eagle. I may be wrong (hey, it's happened) but to me you have to be on at least a pat 4 before you can get a legitimate eagle.

That's my belief.

 

[Bamm]

The op might "technically" be right but I doubt if he chains a shot from the tee he's gonna run around saying he threw an eagle..........

 

[Scared_Discless]

Stupid argument...I'd say that he almost birdied a par three - par 4's are a made up by bad disc golfers.

 

[DangeRuss]

This thread is dumber than 99% of the crap in the landfill.

 

[Scared_Discless]

....and an ace on a par 4 is a fire-birdie.

or an albatross

 

[The Hammer]

or an albatross

no, fire-birdie.

 

[juju]

If I don't throw any shots on a par 3, is that considered an albatross or DNF? opcorn:

 

[chillis]

This thread is dumber than 99% of the crap in the landfill.

You've read the entire landfill? Your opinions must be razor-sharp.

 

[rd.bittle]

Eagle on par three
Ace on par three

Same thing, both better than me.

 

[the_pwnerator]

Stupid argument...I'd say that he almost birdied a par three - par 4's are a made up by bad disc golfers.

I hate this argument. If all holes are par 3, then par is USELESS. Just count strokes.

If you're using par, then par 2's, 4's and 5's can definitely exist. I'm not going to play the 750 footer at my home course as a par 3, and I'm not gonna play the 155 footer as a par 3.