distance question

[Halcón]

I like to play everything under 500' as par 2's.

:clap:

 

[UnitedPuppySlayer]

I think you're in the great minority in believing a 619 ft hole should be holed out in 3 throws.

Apparently I'm in this great minority also.

 

[Halcón]

I guess we have some pretty great players around here.

Let's rephrase. On any given course, the expected number of throws for a given hole that is 619 feet should be 4. (or 5 if you're a brand new player)

Obviously if you have a great arm and can throw 600 feet accurately in 2 throws then you're most likely getting a 3 on it. But, "expected number of throws" or "par" should not be 3, unless it's a gold tee.

 

[Tiny]

I guess we have some pretty great players around here.

Let's rephrase. On any given course, the expected number of throws for a given hole that is 619 feet should be 4. (or 5 if you're a brand new player)

Obviously if you have a great arm and can throw 600 feet accurately in 2 throws then you're most likely getting a 3 on it. But, "expected number of throws" or "par" should not be 3, unless it's a gold tee.

I'm thinking they say they can throw 550ft accuracy (in 1 shot). Then their AMAZING putt.

I personally would have to see the hole to depend if I'm getting a 3 or a 4. (or 5+ in bad circumstances lol)

 

[whentherainscome]

I just started getting 3's on some 600'+ holes, driving about 330'. The challenge there is getting that fairway/midrange drive in putting range. A lot of times I'm doing a drop-in 4 after missing a 40'/50' putt.

But I totally agree that par is a nebulous thing. There's a ridic tourney hole here that they changed from a par 4 to 5 this year. It's the same hole, though. There's definitely a difference in the mental game, walking away thinking "almost finally birdied it, but par's good" instead of "almost finally par'd it, but bogied it again... blerg." It's stupid, I know, the numbers are the same, but it makes a difference going into the next hole.

 

[craftsman]

Welcome Michigan brother to discn and to dgcr
Being that youre from the mitten, i strongly urge you to resist the temptation of using par to feel better and instead just man up ....no seriously :|

When new, it can be hard to break down and tackle holes within your limits bc your abilities are constantly changing, but break it down into your comfort zones with a focus on accuracy and the threes will come.

As far as drivers go, i reccomend discraft's cyclone.
It isnt very nose angle sensitive which means it wont stall and fade as much and it has tun and fade so it has a lil more dependability then some of the mor understable drivers.

Gl

 

[GTii]

Fairly certain he is playing Begg Park and is referring to hole 1.

I'm not sure if I have met or played with you before but I am from kalamazoo which is obviously right next door to battle creek. Battle creek has a lot of good disc golfers and quite the active club. A great guy to talk to about leagues and stuff is Chad curtis at Getaway sports, also plenty of discs and bags etc there for purchase as well. I'd be glad to meet you for a round at begg park sometime and help you work on distance. I always told myself I was going to park and birdie that hole one day. I can get to almost a jump putt. Would be happy to help you out with your throwing form from short to long throwing.

 

[craftsman]

@ big sky:

Umm...619...300, 300, & a 19' putt sound feasable.

 

[Halcón]

@ big sky:

Umm...619...300, 300, & a 19' putt sound feasable.

Yes. What percentage of disc golfers can make those three throws though? 5%? 10%? A 300 foot drive is much better than average. And a 300 foot approach shot is even harder to acheive.

What did Chuck Kennedy say? The average rating for a PDGA member is 900? Or something close to that. Most players would have great difficulty holing out in 3 on that hole.

Looking at the pic, it looks downhill, so that may help matters. Still should be an expected 4 though.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Welcome!
1) I will reiterate what sevaral have already said: beginners tend to benefit most by developing control with putters and mids before reaching for drivers. Most starting out never get drivers up to speed to develop the intended flight path.

If all you can do with a driver is get it to go straight for a short while and fade/hook hard at the end (towards the opposite hand when thrown backhand or the same hand when thrown forehand) then you're likely using a disc thats designed to be thrown faster than you're throwing it.

Once you feel start to get a feel for shaping lines with mids and putters, and can regularly throw close to 300', you'll find you get much better results with fairway drivers like the Leopard, JLS, Cyclone...

As for par for a 619' hole: Distance should not be the sole factor in determining par of a given hole. Hole shape, design, elevation change, obstacles, etc, should all be considered as well.

If it's a fairly open grip and rip, then iI think it should be par 3. As Craftsman pointed out, even people who don't have big "D" might be able to expect to hit a couple of 300 footers and stick a 19 foot putt for a well earned par - assuming well played/placed throws. And isn't that how par is determined? It assumes making decent shots, but not spectactular ones.

The same 619' could easliy be a par 4 or 5 if it has a tight or twisting fairway, especially if a 400' drive places your lie beyond a landing spot you'd need to hit to take a 2nd shot at the basket.

Depending on the situation, you could have a 600' par 3, followed by a 360' foot par 4.

Starting out, I wouldn't worry about what "par" is. I would focus on what you realistically expect to shoot in that hole and measure your performance relative to your game. Keep playing and you'll get a feel for what par seems appropriate.

 

[Tee1]

I could get a 3 on that if I threw a roller off tee, otherwise I'd be content with a 4. I play Paw Paw quite often so I've gotten used to very long tough holes that I rarely get a par on.

 

[whiplash]

Do what I did when I started out. I didn't worry about par or individual hole scores. Just my total round score. As long as that got lowered ever 2-4 rounds I was a happy camper. And I was happier learning a new shot even more than a lowered score. Think skills not scores at first. If I had to pick between what felt better, my lowest score or finally getting a disc to hyzer flip, the hyzer flip wins hands down.

 

[craftsman]

Imho par should not be easy nor average golf, it should be something you strive for.

 

[newhunter]

Fairly certain he is playing Begg Park and is referring to hole 1.

I'm not sure if I have met or played with you before but I am from kalamazoo which is obviously right next door to battle creek. Battle creek has a lot of good disc golfers and quite the active club. A great guy to talk to about leagues and stuff is Chad curtis at Getaway sports, also plenty of discs and bags etc there for purchase as well. I'd be glad to meet you for a round at begg park sometime and help you work on distance. I always told myself I was going to park and birdie that hole one day. I can get to almost a jump putt. Would be happy to help you out with your throwing form from short to long throwing.

Yes this is the first tee at Begg. My friends and I are usually there on Wednesday and Saturday. I'll try to let you know when we will be there next.

 

[Halcón]

Imho par should not be easy nor average golf, it should be something you strive for.

Hmm. That's a view I hadn't considered before.

Feelings about par are strong, as evidenced by the lengthy "what is par" type threads.

Maybe we should just get rid of par altogether, and just score like you would in a tourney. The mentality could change from, "I need to birdie this hole," to "I need to get a 3 on this hole."

I think the birdie/par/bogey culture is too ingrained though. Plus we still compare ourselves to ball golf in so many ways, where par is more structured.

 

[bombmk]

Imho par should not be easy nor average golf, it should be something you strive for.

Then you need to find a new word for it. Par is used in the sense of "average" or "norm".
It makes perfect sense to carry that over from ball golf in order to give people a point of reference. That does not stop anyone from redefining it for disc golf ofc. - but what purpose would that really serve?

Because we can all agree that in the end it does not matter at all. Total score is what matters.

But it does mean something in some scenarios:
1) Giving new players a sense of how they should be or are performing on a hole.

2) As a length/difficulty indicator when comparing courses. Having a course labelled as a par 54 is completely useless information if some courses are calling 600+ feet holes par 3's.

3) As a better, while not perfect, reference for evaluating a score. Two scores of 50 looks similar. If presented as -4 and -10, you get a better indication of the setting the 50's were scored in. Can it still be misleading due to course difficulty? Sure. But it is still more information than just "50".

Of course, given the distinct nature of integer values, it can never be a precise tool. We still have hard par 54's and easy par 54's. But labelling a 600+ feet hole a par 3 is not useful information at all.
A decent player should have a shot at parking a par 3 hole - or if very open, have a manageable upshot with a shot at the birdie. Two good 300 foot shots should not leave you with one putt for par.

If the term has to carry a common meaning at least. And if you deliberately not using it in the common meaning - why put the information on the teesign to begin with?

 

[ejvogie]

@ big sky:

Umm...619...300, 300, & a 19' putt sound feasable.

If you're throwing your drives 300' and can land them EXACTLY where you want them, then yes a 3 is feasible. However, if one's max D is 300, they're not likely throwing perfectly straight. So 300, 300 might still saddle them with a 75' upshot.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Imho par should not be easy nor average golf, it should be something you strive for.

^this.
Par defined (Google):The number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/par: The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

Neither first-class nor expert connote "average" or "typical."
More like, "What should a 1000 rated player get on this hole?"

Truth be told, there are many Par 3 holes that should be par 2's... pretty much any hole a good player dueces on a regular basis should be a Par 2.

That being said, the subject of par has been thrashed to death in other threads, and in tourneys, it comes down to playing better than the competion that day, reagrdless of what "par" is.

 

[bombmk]

Neither first-class nor expert connote "average" or "typical."
More like, "What should a 1000 rated player get on this hole?"

Yeah, I missed that distinction in my post. It _is_ used in the sense of average/norm - but for a par player. In that sense I will grant it should be something to strive for - for the non-par player.

But even a 1000 rated player is not going to average 3 on a 600+ foot basket.
The PDGA guidelines have 600 as the upper limit for par 3's. Sure, there might be more 3's than 4's. But 2's would be more or less out of the picture even for that level of player.

Would make a lot more sense to have it as an easy par 4 for the 1000 rated player - than a more or less birdieless par 3.

There is obviously an issue in adopting it from ball golf where it is more or less established as number of (good) strokes to get to the green + 2 putts. The nature of disc golf makes a good drive much more likely to leave you with one putt, than in ball golf - roughly speaking. Disc golf is much more about making the drive - in most cases. And the penalty for being just a tad off can be much harsher. On the other hand we are not penalized as harshly for going OB. So while it is comparable it is still somewhat apples and oranges.

But we should be able to agree that IF we are assigning pars - there should be some common standard to it?

 

[Halcón]

If the term has to carry a common meaning at least. And if you deliberately not using it in the common meaning - why put the information on the teesign to begin with?

That was one of my points. If DG is not going to create standards for par, like in ball golf, then we may as well not even use the term.

I'd have no problem with tee signs showing just the distance measured. In the end, your total number of throws is what matters anyway.