I met a Par loving dufus

[BuzzSharpe]

^^^You know, disc golf isn't credited with existing 45 years ago.

Milo's got an 1150'+ hole #2, and yeah, you better believe its a par 5. But Hiller's par 3 15th at 575' is ok, and I've finally started parring it on a regular basis. Feels good---don't need it rated a par 4 to validate my existence.

No, Ed Hedrick's official sport only goes back 41 years to 1975. However, kids in the Pinewood Acres neighborhood in Burlington, NC threw Wham-O Frisbees from specified spots, like residential porches and sidewalks at designated targets, like trees, lamp posts, utility poles, basketball goal backboards and open storage shed doors during the late sixties. Before that, in 1965, the city of Newport Beach, Ca. held a fully documented, Wham-O sponsored, city wide Frisbee Golf tournament, with published rules, hole lengths, pars and penalties, with targets that included hula hoops. A couple of years later, the man who spearheaded that event developed and taught a class in Frisbee Golf at Fresno State. Earlier in the 60's, Rice University students played tournaments with trees as targets and players at Augusta's Pendleton King Park tossed Frisbees into 50 gallon barrel trash cans. The sport, or game, as it were, might date back to 1926, when students at Bladworth Elementary School in Saskatchewan threw tin plates at trees and fence posts and such, calling it Tin Lid Golf. Sort of sucks to think that our great American sport might actually be Canadian. History can be harsh.

 

[Jenga54]

Like it or not, courses are designed for PAR!
If you ever were lucky enough to design a course, you would think about PAR.

"Playing all 3s" I believe is a symptom of playing mostly short crappy "Par 3" courses, getting used to drive-putt-drive-putt boredom.

If you design a (good) course, you design baskets to be reached in 1, 2, or 3 shots. Like it or not, the courses you play were designed with PAR in mind, so you can enjoy them.

Old Golf has been around a great long time, why haven't they evolved by now to say "Par doesn't matter" - I believe it's because they play roughly Par 72 - Mostly Par 4s with a sprinkle of Par 3 and Par 5. This is what I long for.

Drive-Approach-Putt is wayyy more fun and interesting than drive-putt

 

[THUGNIFICENT763]

Sort of sucks to think that our great American sport might actually be Canadian. History can be harsh.

No different than basketball or hockey... Canucks are awesome at coming up with games.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Forget about DG par for a moment and consider why there are par 4s and 5s in ball golf. The idea is to have holes where the player lands in a location where they have to make a longer shot than an approach. Par 4s and 5s are the only holes where that random location, long shot can be made. Par 3 long shots always start from the same location.

Moving to disc golf, if all holes are reachable by the player skill level where the tees are set, then the skill to be able to judge and execute long throws from random locations is never tested. Pitch and putt courses essentially become closer to outdoor bowling. If the player can learn to groove the course so they can say, "I always throw X disc on this hole to park it," then doesn't that sound a bit too autopilot unless the wind is up?

I don't care if you want to call all holes par 3. But if there aren't several holes where players of a skill level are regularly challenged to make longer throws from random locations, I don't feel the course provides as complete of a disc golf experience and challenge.

 

[BuzzSharpe]

Like it or not, courses are designed for PAR!
If you ever were lucky enough to design a course, you would think about PAR.

"Playing all 3s" I believe is a symptom of playing mostly short crappy "Par 3" courses, getting used to drive-putt-drive-putt boredom.

If you design a (good) course, you design baskets to be reached in 1, 2, or 3 shots. Like it or not, the courses you play were designed with PAR in mind, so you can enjoy them.

Old Golf has been around a great long time, why haven't they evolved by now to say "Par doesn't matter" - I believe it's because they play roughly Par 72 - Mostly Par 4s with a sprinkle of Par 3 and Par 5. This is what I long for.

Drive-Approach-Putt is wayyy more fun and interesting than drive-putt

Kudo's Chris! Excellently and rationally reasoned. Though, just because a course is relatively short, by today's standards and par rated at 54, doesn't necessarily mean that it's crappy or boring.

 

[BuzzSharpe]

No different than basketball or hockey... Canucks are awesome at coming up with games.

And beer and blended whiskey. Maybe that's how they come up with the good games?

 

[BuzzSharpe]

Forget about DG par for a moment and consider why there are par 4s and 5s in ball golf. The idea is to have holes where the player lands in a location where they have to make a longer shot than an approach. Par 4s and 5s are the only holes where that random location, long shot can be made. Par 3 long shots always start from the same location.

Moving to disc golf, if all holes are reachable by the player skill level where the tees are set, then the skill to be able to judge and execute long throws from random locations is never tested. Pitch and putt courses essentially become closer to outdoor bowling. If the player can learn to groove the course so they can say, "I always throw X disc on this hole to park it," then doesn't that sound a bit too autopilot unless the wind is up?

I don't care if you want to call all holes par 3. But if there aren't several holes where players of a skill level are regularly challenged to make longer throws from random locations, I don't feel the course provides as complete of a disc golf experience and challenge.

And that is why you're a DGCR Maven and a Hall of Fame member, Chuck!:thmbup:

 

[smarkquart]

Old Golf has been around a great long time, why haven't they evolved by now to say "Par doesn't matter" - I believe it's because they play roughly Par 72 - Mostly Par 4s with a sprinkle of Par 3 and Par 5. This is what I long for.

Drive-Approach-Putt is wayyy more fun and interesting than drive-putt

For the most part I agree with this in that some of the best courses are those with a par, since we apparently have to discuss par in order to validate our view point, with at least 60 or higher.

However, maybe you feel this way but just did not put it in your statement, but the beauty of this sport is seeing the disc do incredible things in the air which includes flying straight into the chains off the tee box. Most Par 4s and above do not even offer this possibility. So my statement would be, no less than half and no more than three-quarters of the holes that are drive-approach-putt are way more fun and interesting than just drive-putt.

 

[Improbably]

Like it or not, courses are designed for PAR!
If you ever were lucky enough to design a course, you would think about PAR.

"Playing all 3s" I believe is a symptom of playing mostly short crappy "Par 3" courses, getting used to drive-putt-drive-putt boredom.

If you design a (good) course, you design baskets to be reached in 1, 2, or 3 shots. Like it or not, the courses you play were designed with PAR in mind, so you can enjoy them.

Old Golf has been around a great long time, why haven't they evolved by now to say "Par doesn't matter" - I believe it's because they play roughly Par 72 - Mostly Par 4s with a sprinkle of Par 3 and Par 5. This is what I long for.

Drive-Approach-Putt is wayyy more fun and interesting than drive-putt

I agree with everything you say but disagree with how you say it. Anticipated stroke count for different player skill levels is an important consideration in design. I have thought about it a lot for the roughly course and a half worth of holes I designed and built.

But the signs all say par 3. . .

 

[Steve West]

The first time I played was at Earlewood (which is a pitch and putt essentially) and when we arrived at hole #3 tee I noticed it was around 300' and noted as a par 5. When my friend took a 3 I said, congrats on the eagle and he just laughed saying 95% of holes in dg where par 3s and the par was marked incorrectly.

This is a good place for an introduction to skill-level based pars. That 5 on hole 3 is for Green tees, which are appropriate for players rated 800 or lower – emphasis usually on lower. Hole 3 has an appropriate Blue (950-rated) par of 3.
Every hole can be assigned a par for every skill level, but usually only the par for the intended skill level is shown.
One of the problems with pars at tournaments is that the TD will just adopt the course par – which was probably set for Blue or White level players – and use it for Open players, which, I think, have earned the right to have the TD figure out and use Gold par.

When people like par I roll my eyes a little but it's mostly a "to each his own" situation. They can have fun with their preferred abstraction and it doesn't hurt anyone.
What confuses me is the people who really care about par to the point of not only insisting that it matters, but claiming the game doesn't function without it.
I would really like to understand what they are thinking, or not thinking, to arrive at this conclusion.

The game could certainly function without par. It could also function without measuring the length of holes. But, the game is better with both being available and accurate.
Most people who dismiss par use an argument that is analogous to "Not all tee signs have accurate hole lengths, so hole length is irrelevant."

… if you have a 500'+ hole and some dunderhead has it at a par 3, …

For an extremely easy-to-3-for-its length hole, a hole could be up to 1000 feet long and be par 3 for Gold, or 800 feet for Blue. Those are extreme examples, like down a ski hill or something. But, I've designed 500+ foot par 3s at the Blue and Gold level.

Dunderheads unite!

 

[Cgkdisc]

As I've pointed out before, fun and challenge do not always intersect in hole design. Some of the most fun courses are not the best for fair competition and vice versa. Designing a course where every hole is fun and suitably challenging is sort of the Holy Grail for designers.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

Most people I know that play ball golf say they play bogey golf. That doesn't mean they're happy with +18, every round most of them do par a hole or three. But they know they're not pros and never will play scratch golf.
Disc golfers need to change their attitudes about par and realize most of us are not pros

Big part of this conversation really especially when people are complaining about 500 foot needing a par 4 attached to it.
I haven't looked at the thread about '"legit par 2's" but really if par were to be overhauled and we were to adjust par to the pros scoring many many many courses would end up with a lot of par 2's
I know the subject is a bit of a dead horse as far as how to better make the game more challenging to the pros who make high percentage of putts many of us consider layup distance, but really getting a drive into MY putting range and getting a disc into a top pros putting range IS worlds apart.
So would we be more or less worried as individuals about these par discussions if that number truly was based on the pros performance?

 

[Nemmers]

I've come to understand that "par" is irrelevant. Whether it's twelve-down or three-up, a 57 is a 57, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that it makes people new to the sport feel better (knowing they can shoot "par"), but in the final analysis only the total amount of strokes are what matter. The rest is just semantics and ego-strokes.

 

[Jenga54]

Parking a short hole has a unique thrill, Parking a long hole has a unique thrill, hitting an Ace has a unique thrill.

Playing a Par 4 or Par 5 better than last time, that is a unique thrill. As Chuck put so well into words what we try for - I see boredom in Drive-Putt - He nails it - boredom of the throwing spot! Then we all want:
Multiple Pins! Multiple Tees! Alternate Holes!

A simple Par 4 gives you all that diversity and strategy! - Where to land so the 2nd shot is good. Oops, not so great, now I have my very own "alternate tee" every time on a Par 4 hole.

For me, it's is way more reason to come back to a course, not to try and park a Par 3 a little closer. Sure we all want some aces. For me it's playing that Par 4 or 5 better than last time. Where to fly, where to land, how to land, where to approach. Then I can play the course over and over.

So back to Par - it's about having holes that are designed to be reached in 1, 2, or 3 shots. If you don't want to count scores at all, that's cool. I'm not surprised to hear the insight that the most scoring errors happen when pars are marked on the card - I'm going to make sure on my new events they are blank scorecards. it's easier to print, and the players just write their score. they'll probably still add it up "all 3s" - but that's just a math trick, not an influence on how the course plays.

 

[JeremyKShort]

The only way par could affect the outcome of the total score is if you play the hole differently somehow. Maybe if it's a par four then you think going for a four is fine, but if it's a par three then a four us bad. I dunno.

I do like pats to make sense so you have a basic idea if shooting par at a particular course is good, bad or just ok.

 

[THUGNIFICENT763]

this is the "old school" mentality that is still plaguing our sport and keeping it from progressing. im glad that more and more courses are starting to get away from this ridiculous thinking. there is no room for this outdated thinking anymore, we need to embrace the modern course designs and the appropriate par for the courses.

Par is important to have correct on any course. par is the best method of comparing your skill as a player to the course you are playing and how it was designed to be played by the course designer. if you have a 500'+ hole and some dunderhead has it at a par 3, every time you are going to leave that hole getting down on yourself because you can never shoot par. come on guys, lets get real and start taking par seriously.

 

[FriedInTheDesert]

I'm ok with par 4's but do it right. Design the hole as a par 4. Make it a challenge to hit the fairway. A good shot increases your chances of making birdie while missing the fairway takes birdie out of the picture. Don't just change a 550 foot hole to a par 4 because too many people are crying.

 

[jeremyhilss]

Hahahahaha I love when another what is par thread pops up. Im only on page two but Ive already got my popcorn muahahahahaha.

 

[BuzzSharpe]

This is a good place for an introduction to skill-level based pars. That 5 on hole 3 is for Green tees, which are appropriate for players rated 800 or lower – emphasis usually on lower. Hole 3 has an appropriate Blue (950-rated) par of 3.
Every hole can be assigned a par for every skill level, but usually only the par for the intended skill level is shown.
One of the problems with pars at tournaments is that the TD will just adopt the course par – which was probably set for Blue or White level players – and use it for Open players, which, I think, have earned the right to have the TD figure out and use Gold par.

The game could certainly function without par. It could also function without measuring the length of holes. But, the game is better with both being available and accurate.
Most people who dismiss par use an argument that is analogous to "Not all tee signs have accurate hole lengths, so hole length is irrelevant."

For an extremely easy-to-3-for-its length hole, a hole could be up to 1000 feet long and be par 3 for Gold, or 800 feet for Blue. Those are extreme examples, like down a ski hill or something. But, I've designed 500+ foot par 3s at the Blue and Gold level.

Dunderheads unite!

You've hit a nail right on the head again, Steve! Creekside in Archdale is a good example. It's designated as a Red/Blue course with two tees on most holes, usually with the same Par from each tee. For the handful of holes with only one tee pad, only one Par is listed on the sign for both skill levels, which is generally okay, as with Holes 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12, as the distance and difficulty of those holes fall within the parameters of par being the same for each skill level, with the acceptance that it would be considered a hard Red hole, and an easy Blue one. But such is not the case with Holes like 5, 7 and 13. When we were setting up Springwood, it was with the score card and overview sign instructions and tee signs that White and Blue most often share a pad, often, with different par ratings, and that players should play the tees most appropriate to their skill level. Of course, that was generally ignored, especially by skill diverse groups playing 'mob golf'.

 

[Karl]

"Skill-level based par" :thmbdown: :thmbdown:

A. "...what an expert golfer would expect to score on a hole..."
B. 850-rated 'expert'

Yeh, A. and B. go together well.... :wall: