Obviously as a golf pro you have a more inflated view of ball golf and the motivation to play it.
No. I could say that "obviously as someone who isn't heavily involved in golf you don't have a clue why people play golf or not." I don't have an "inflated view" - I have a more detailed view. I understand it better. I know more about it.
People don't quit golf because they can't quickly attain pars. We have threads where people are proud - genuinely proud - of their first par, birdie, or eagle. My kid was happy as heck when she got her first bogey.
People like it when they achieve things that are difficult. A beginner who gets a "birdie" on a 320-foot par five doesn't feel satisfaction. They feel "this game's a joke, I'm already making birdies?" Even if they don't think that, they feel it deep down. They know they aren't as good as the fake score tells them.
FWIW, I agree with your basic premise that par should be based on what the elite players can shoot. However, I don't think most disc golfers see it that way.
I'm glad we agree on that. It's all I'm really saying.
In a perfect world, we would have nicely laid out courses with red, white, blue and gold tees that are well designed so that a rec player playing the reds and an elite player playing the golds can use the same par and expect to shoot similar scores.
I don't really agree with that though. So we're 1 for 3.
Golfers who play the forward tees (let's say they're black, blue, white, gold, red) aren't going to keep up with Tiger Woods. Heck, you can put a "bogey golfer" 150 yards from every hole and he probably won't beat Tiger Woods.
In ball golf there will ALWAYS be multiple sets up tees that make par attainable for different skill levels.
No, the purpose of multiple tees is to make the green reachable in regulation (par-2) possible.
It's a subtle - but important - distinction.
Having both Pro/Adv level pars and Int/Rec level pars on the tee signs is very useful.
And again, I ask: what if you're in the middle?
What's the problem with just letting the "int/rec" player make a bogey? Why do we have to go so far to protect their egos? You have two guys, one shoots 53 and that's -1 to the pro/adv par, and the other shoots 70 and that's -2 to the int/rec level - but they're miles apart in terms of ability.
Golf doesn't have different levels of par for different kinds of players.
My favorite disc golf holes are par 4s in the 475-600 range than absolutely cannot be reached from the tee. Holes that require and accurate drive to a landing area, then an accurate approach to the 10M circle. Holes like this really close the gap between accurate average distance throwers and guys who can just throw really far.
I like those holes too. But they're not par 6s for sucky players. They're par fours. And players should feel good about themselves when they finally manage to make a par there.
The OP mentions a specific course, which I have played numerous times. Hole 4 is 500+' uphill to in a wide open field. Literally no obstacles, no OB. While many will argue that this is a par 3, I would love to see what the SSA for this hole is for the last few tournament rounds. It is not and easy 3, and I would say it requires at least 550' of distance to have a putt from the circle.
The 8th hole at Oakmont can play 300 yards. Long holes are rare, and an anomaly, but sometimes they're still the right par.
(Personally I'd add something of an obstacle to that hole and make it a true par 4, or move the tee up a little and make it a not-so-weird par 3. Kind of like the second hole you mention - it has obstacles.)
----------
Anyway, just my opinion. I think people feel more satisfaction and a better sense of reward with realistic pars determined based on the "skilled" or "expert" golfer level (I didn't say elite - Tiger would average 4 to 4.4 on most par fives at most golf courses), and they can more realistically judge their progress and place in the game.
Standardization is an issue, but farting around with this "rec level par" stuff only delays standardization, without any true benefits IMO.