Is 36 down okay? What should par be?

[DavidSauls]

David, I understand the perspective. I don't understand why that's the only perspective that matters, or why it's important who started the thread. If changing par will affect people other than the OP, I think those people deserve not to have their thoughts dismissed. It's a pretty interesting discussion, and I'm interested in learning more about what others think.

To your point about the top pros not being outliers, is that really true? That's a genuine question and not meant to be argumentative. I suppose I'm asking whether even within the tiny group of disc golfers that are touring pros, it it true that most are throwing the super-low numbers that are perceived as a problem, or is it limited to just a few at the top of the leaderboard at the end of the tournament? .

I'm not trying to be dismissive. It's just that there are 8,511 other threads about par; this one started with a particular perspective, and it seems to be useful to continue in that direction.

In that perspective---top pros at top events---they're not outliers. And in the perspective of trying to make disc golf a spectator sport, at these top events, there are some advantages to a better standard of par. Some of which apply before the leaderboard at the end of the tournament: being able to tell from interim scores how players are doing, even if they're on different holes, and being able to describe whether a 4 on a given hole is gaining or losing ground on the field, or keeping pace (par).

I'm not dismissive of the other thoughts. My personal feelings is that par isn't terribly important. Nor do I think making disc golf a spectator sport will be successful. But since that was the original topic, I thought I'd pull back towards it.

 

[lyleoross]

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. And I'm down with having different pars for different skill levels, just as I'm down with keeping the par number the same but having different tees for different skill levels. In traditional golf the USGA sometimes adjusts par on some holes during the US Open. A par 5 during the season suddenly becomes a par 4 for that tournament. I see no reason why DG TDs couldn't do that during tournaments.

Sounds like I might have misunderstood the suggestion, which I thought was to redefine par across the board for all skill levels.

Not by my measure. Steve talks about setting par by 1000 rated players, but that is only relative to top tier events.

 

[DG_player]

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. And I'm down with having different pars for different skill levels, just as I'm down with keeping the par number the same but having different tees for different skill levels. In traditional golf the USGA sometimes adjusts par on some holes during the US Open. A par 5 during the season suddenly becomes a par 4 for that tournament. I see no reason why DG TDs couldn't do that during tournaments.

Sounds like I might have misunderstood the suggestion, which I thought was to redefine par across the board for all skill levels.

This is a rare outlier. Ball golf generally handles it by having different length tees, where par is appropriate for your skill level. There are some high quality old courses, such as Oakmont, where certain holes don't have adequate length. For instance hole 9 at Oakmont simply does not have enough room to provide a championship par 5 length tee, so they change it to a par 4.

However what ball golf does is totally different from what is being suggested here. They are not changing the traditional definition of par, which is X shots plus 2 putts. I think this is what is often found repulsive about the idea of a par 2. I doubt most people who find par 2's repulsive would be against reducing par on a par 4 or par 5, if it could routinely be reached in less shots by the top pros.

 

[F.Luke]

Different pars for different skill levels seems asinine though for some reason your average disc golfer feels good shooting under par on inflated par courses.
An anecdote: I spoke to a casual golfer at my home course recently. His statement, "I didn't like this course and thought is was too hard until I looked at the pars."
Me, "how'd you do?"
"8 down."

Mind you scorecard par says 71. His 63 is still not good. The short course he was playing is true par 58. Those negative numbers somehow made him happy.
Your average ball golfer is content to shoot over par their entire career.

 

[DG_player]

Par isn't the problem - create a compelling viewing experience that will draw people in. I think we are making good progress to that end, but there's a lot of work yet to be done.

One of the things that would make the viewing experience more compelling, is if these par 2 / par 3 holes weren't even there. Watching 4 pros throw a hyzer bomb on a wide open hole isn't exactly compelling.

Saying they made par rather than birdie doesn't change that fact.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

Here is the article from the OP.

https://www.dgpt.com/news/par-vs-expect

I agree completely with the last sentence in the article. "The key to thinking this is okay is understanding why it is happening and accepting it. 36 down to win a disc golf tournament is about right. And that's okay

IMHO it only matters if you care what people who don't understand disc golf think.

 

[Karl]

Different pars for different skill levels seems asinine though for some reason your average disc golfer feels good shooting under par on inflated par courses.
An anecdote: I spoke to a casual golfer at my home course recently. His statement, "I didn't like this course and thought is was too hard until I looked at the pars."
Me, "how'd you do?"
"8 down."

Mind you scorecard par says 71. His 63 is still not good. The short course he was playing is true par 58. Those negative numbers somehow made him happy.
Your average ball golfer is content to shoot over par their entire career.

Thank God there's at least one person on this message board that gets it!

 

[DavidSauls]

One of the things that would make the viewing experience more compelling, is if these par 2 / par 3 holes weren't even there. Watching 4 pros throw a hyzer bomb on a wide open hole isn't exactly compelling.

Saying they made par rather than birdie doesn't change that fact.

Perhaps, but that's a bit of a red herring. Most of the holes that come to mind, that might be characterized as Par-2s, aren't wide-open hyzer bombs.

Not having them in big events, or more than a couple on a course, is probably still a good idea. Not having horribly boring ones, such as you describe, is definitely a good idea.

 

[Steve West]

Sounds like I might have misunderstood the suggestion, which I thought was to redefine par across the board for all skill levels.

Not redefine, use the existing official definition. Perhaps with more emphasis on the "score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole" part, and recognition that two close ranges throws means an upshot and a putt, not two putts, because that gives us the most practical and useful pars.

It's understandable to think that "reach plus two" is the current definition, because a lot of people have that stuck in their heads. They think R+2 IS par, and that doesn't work, so they say we should get rid pf par, when they mean we should get rid of R+2.

I don't know when the current definition was put into place, or whether the the old "throws to reach plus two" was ever official, but I know that on lots of holes it's not the score an expert would expect.

As for other skill levels, while i think it's a great idea to apply the concept of par to those skill levels, only Gold or 1000-rated par is really Par. The rest of the skill levels need to have a modifier attached. That way, rec players who score under Red Par (or 850 par or Recreational Par) know they're not good enough to go pro.

 

[josephreese]

As for other skill levels, while i think it's a great idea to apply the concept of par to those skill levels, only Gold or 1000-rated par is really Par. The rest of the skill levels need to have a modifier attached. That way, rec players who score under Red Par (or 850 par or Recreational Par) know they're not good enough to go pro.

One par to rule them all. Would par for the course be the same for the ladies as for the gents?

 

[Steve West]

One par to rule them all. Would par for the course be the same for the ladies as for the gents?

The various levels of skill are the same for men and women. A 900-rated player is a 900-rated player.

 

[Karl]

IMO, "pars for different 'skill levels' (whatever that means)" is a bunch of bull. Any combination of 1T and 1B has ONE par. Doesn't matter if you're 600rated or 1050rated, female or male, blue (smurf) or green (martian) , hindi or jewish, tall or short, righty or lefty, predominantly rhbh or a roller queen, etc. Just doesn't matter. ONE par for one tee / basket combination...based on "the best". And it's "sacred" (read: really, really hard to obtain).

 

[Cgkdisc]

IMO, "pars for different 'skill levels' (whatever that means)" is a bunch of bull. Any combination of 1T and 1B has ONE par. Doesn't matter if you're 600rated or 1050rated, female or male, blue (smurf) or green (martian) , hindi or jewish, tall or short, righty or lefty, predominantly rhbh or a roller queen, etc. Just doesn't matter. ONE par for one tee / basket combination...based on "the best". And it's "sacred" (read: really, really hard to obtain).

Nope. Par should be unique to the skill level of the highest rated player group a hole is designed for... just like ball golf does it.

 

[gdub58]

Nope. Par should be unique to the skill level of the highest rated player group a hole is designed for... just like ball golf does it.

The various levels of skill are the same for men and women. A 900-rated player is a 900-rated player.

These are two very different constructs. Neither is practical for the way the vast majority of disc golf courses are designed today, but perhaps that's not the point.

Chuck: Is your idea to do this only at the major tournament level and/or is your goal for all course designs (that have the budget and available land) to do this? How many different tee/par combinations do you envision? Would it be similar to ball golf where there is a men's, women's, and seniors' setup?

Steve: Same questions I suppose, but doesn't a ratings-based system restrict itself to more experienced players who know what it means to have a rating and knows what theirs is? Also, doesn't your method of tying the definition of par to "expert player" mean that you only have one par, since there really aren't any 900 rated experts? Or are you saying that a women's expert is rated differently than a men's expert, which would leave you with Chuck's approach?

 

[lyleoross]

Here is the article from the OP.

https://www.dgpt.com/news/par-vs-expect

I agree completely with the last sentence in the article. "The key to thinking this is okay is understanding why it is happening and accepting it. 36 down to win a disc golf tournament is about right. And that's okay

IMHO it only matters if you care what people who don't understand disc golf think.

Let me begin by writing that I like SD. But what he pulled here is a film flam. He cites that par 2 is unacceptable. Why? Because the greater community, read that people who know about BG, don't accept it. Then he tells us -36 is okay, neglecting to mention that BG fans and the public in general would find -36 equally unpalatable. Indeed, they'd have a nice laugh at our need to inflate par to make it look like we're playing awesome.

What Steve is really saying can be summed up very shortly. I accept -36 because it makes me feel good about my sport, I can't accept par 2 because it makes me feel bad about my sport.

The -36 number is a carefully crafted number. Huh? you say. Yep. One of the more common comments concerning this topic goes something like, "our pros are just that good.". In a vacuum, that statement means nothing. They're better than the course? Ams? Ultimate players? And what happens at DeLa, or the EO, or USDGC? Do they all take a bad pill before they start? cause that -12 per round goes away but fast. The underlying notion being sold, is that they're that good relative to pro BGers, who never shoot -36, ever. We like that our guys "look" better than BGers.

The reason I like to toss out the, well, add a stroke to every hole idea is that most players choke on the idea. They see that it looks silly. In two years of discussing this, only one poster has accepted that idea. Gdub, a former BGer who understands our par is out of wack and honestly doesn't seem to care much. For the rest of us, we've come to a place where we accept -36. It's an inflated meaningless number, but it makes us feel good. But if we inflate it too high, we get out of our comfort zone and it's embarrassing.

Neither par 2 nor -36 are acceptable. That is because neither is an accurate description of high skill to the pubic in general. Par 2 isn't acceptable to anyone, and by their comments, -36 isn't acceptable to our pro players. If our goal is to show that disc golf is a high skill sport worthy of attention, and not some guys hucking frisbees at barbecue pits, neither par 2 nor -36 does that.

Please remember, we're not talking about you and your bud, drinking beer and flinging discs, we're talking about our premiere events. Like Gdub, I don't give a darn what makes you happy. Although bragging to the guys in the locker room that you shot twelve down in DG is gonna make them spit up their beer so they can laugh at you.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

I'm just stating my opinion, and trying to poke a fun at the seriousness of this conversation a little too. I respect your opinion, but disagree that making par harder for disc golf matters much. Ball and disc golf are just different...and that's ok. Bot are great sports.

I played ball golf too. +18 was average for me, and I felt great the first time I broke 85. Disc golf courses have a lot more variety...some I feel great getting close to even (WR Jackson) and others I feel like -8 is about average for me. There are around 7000 courses in the ground from what I hear on the internets, and the variety is a big part of the appeal IMO. It doesn't take long to understand that disc golf par isn't as standardized or as hard, nor could it be...the amount of variety in course design alone makes that nearly impossible IMHO. Also, as mentioned many times before putting is much harder in ball golf. The two are just different. Disc golf is easier...and there is nothing wrong with that.

Ball golf is way more "standardized" (boring) if you will. The courses are all relatively similar. The shot shaping is pretty insignificant compared to disc golf. So to me setting par is much easier...also the growth was probably much slower since the effort to install a golf course is so great. This probably is another factor in how standardized ball golf par is.

Also, I don't drink beer or have friends...but thanks for assuming I was cool

I guess my point is having an easier par is not detrimental to disc golf's growth IMHO. To me it's part of the appeal.

 

[Steve West]

These are two very different constructs. Neither is practical for the way the vast majority of disc golf courses are designed today, but perhaps that's not the point.

Chuck: Is your idea to do this only at the major tournament level and/or is your goal for all course designs (that have the budget and available land) to do this? How many different tee/par combinations do you envision? Would it be similar to ball golf where there is a men's, women's, and seniors' setup?

Steve: Same questions I suppose, but doesn't a ratings-based system restrict itself to more experienced players who know what it means to have a rating and knows what theirs is? Also, doesn't your method of tying the definition of par to "expert player" mean that you only have one par, since there really aren't any 900 rated experts? Or are you saying that a women's expert is rated differently than a men's expert, which would leave you with Chuck's approach?

Yes, there is only one real par. The one that is appropriate for Open.

For the modified pars, you need to replace the "expert player" with something like "prototypical player". That's why they are not really par and should always have a modifier; like 'Intermediate Par". However, because there are about gajillionty-seven PDGA divisions, I prefer to use the color-coded skill levels.

For the golfers out there, this is like pre-calculating all the handicapping formulae for a few standardized skill levels so players can go straight to net play.

Players that don't have a rating will quickly figure out which skill level results in scores that are closest to what they get when they play well. Then, once they know what they usually score in relation to that skill level, they can go to any other course with properly set modified pars and know about how well they played that day.

Every tee/basket combo could have an appropriately labeled par assigned for all skill levels. That's what I'd like to see, knowing that players don't always play the "right" tees - or even know their skill level.

However, some course designers might not want to show the modified pars for those skill levels that wouldn't enjoy the course. Chuck prefers to show only the modified par for the skill level the tee was designed for. That doesn't hurt the concept of par at all.

There are no sets of tees specifically for Women, Seniors, or Juniors; just different skill levels. For divisions that happen to be all Women, the appropriate modified par is based on the ratings of the top players in that division, just like divisions that are all Junior, or all Senior, or all Am.

For tournaments, using Open par for all divisions would be acceptable, but I think it would be better if the TD offered pars that are appropriate for each division offered at that tournament (if that's too much work, use the modified par for the top division offered).

The mapping of skill levels to divisions is on page 4 here.

 

[DavidSauls]

Neither par 2 nor -36 are acceptable. That is because neither is an accurate description of high skill to the pubic in general. Par 2 isn't acceptable to anyone, and by their comments, -36 isn't acceptable to our pro players.

Minor quibble, but Par 2 is acceptable to me. Perhaps not 99.98% of the disc golf world.

Or, at least, I'm willing to be honest and call holes that, if that's what the pros are getting and expect to get. As long as we persist in having such holes on the course in our top events. I'm even fine with having 1 or 2, as long as they're interesting holes.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm just stating my opinion, and trying to poke a fun at the seriousness of this conversation a little too. I respect your opinion, but disagree that making par harder for disc golf matters much. Ball and disc golf are just different...and that's ok. Bot are great sports.

I played ball golf too. +18 was average for me, and I felt great the first time I broke 85. Disc golf courses have a lot more variety...some I feel great getting close to even (WR Jackson) and others I feel like -8 is about average for me. There are around 7000 courses in the ground from what I hear on the internets, and the variety is a big part of the appeal IMO. It doesn't take long to understand that disc golf par isn't as standardized or as hard, nor could it be...the amount of variety in course design alone makes that nearly impossible IMHO. Also, as mentioned many times before putting is much harder in ball golf. The two are just different. Disc golf is easier...and there is nothing wrong with that.

Ball golf is way more "standardized" (boring) if you will. The courses are all relatively similar. The shot shaping is pretty insignificant compared to disc golf. So to me setting par is much easier...also the growth was probably much slower since the effort to install a golf course is so great. This probably is another factor in how standardized ball golf par is.

Also, I don't drink beer or have friends...but thanks for assuming I was cool

I guess my point is having an easier par is not detrimental to disc golf's growth IMHO. To me it's part of the appeal.

I always assume everyone is cool.

A couple of things. You've made an assumption that our putting is easier. It is, but only because we make it that way. That is part of this discussion. It is possible to make putting as hard or as easy as you want it to be by shaping baskets and greens. We don't for both traditional and ego reasons. Again, DeLa is the poster child for hard putting. I don't know what the shots in the green are for that course, but I bet it's above the average and by a good bit.

Disc golf isn't easier or harder than Ball Golf; it's as easy or as hard as we make it. Hence the difference between the courses used at Worlds this year, and the courses that come up as being challenging. USDGC strives to build a challenging environment, and they succeed, albeit with some flaws. Ball Golf is the same. I learned BG in high school; we had a pitch and putt course next to campus. If you called every hole on that course a par 3, then most of the top players in the sport would shoot, oh, say, 12 down on average. If you redeveloped the courses used in the BG majors, you could do the same. The PGA doesn't do that. Don't know why... actually I do, and so does everyone else who posts here. The question becomes, where does DG want to be? pitch and putt or challenging? All sports start somewhere.

Making par harder. Beyond the fact that "make par harder" discussions, and everything that happens here is for fun, no really, it is, the PDGA has been tasked with a number of jobs by it's members. One of those is to grow the sport. There are a number of differing views on how to do that, but one thing that is clear, unless a sport sets itself up to be fair, and takes itself seriously, it doesn't grow. For us, it is guys throwing lids at trees in the park. Fun enough. There are many within this sport who want it to stay small, fun and local. There is nothing wrong with that except that it goes against what the majority of our members vote for when they take surveys. That is, our membership takes the sport seriously, and wants it to be taken seriously, all opinions here notwithstanding. The very fact that these discussions happen frequently, and often go with the question, how to grow the sport, is telling in and of itself.

For those who want the sport to be fun, and small... great! And that is how you should play and participate. For those who want the sport to grow and be a spectator sport... great, they should strive for that. For the first ten years I played I laughed at those who said we were growing a fan sport with serious traveling pros. At that time, every year three to six guys would get an RV and travel on their own. I was wrong. Today we have ten or twenty traveling groups with RVs and even more who travel on their own. We have a strong online viewing audience, albeit small and vocal. We have a huge fan base in Finland and are seeing a growing presence in US media. Do we want to help that or ignore it?

 

[lyleoross]

Minor quibble, but Par 2 is acceptable to me. Perhaps not 99.98% of the disc golf world.

Or, at least, I'm willing to be honest and call holes that, if that's what the pros are getting and expect to get. As long as we persist in having such holes on the course in our top events. I'm even fine with having 1 or 2, as long as they're interesting holes.

But if you accept it you're saying that Steve D. is wrong...

Actually, I accept it too, but only because I know our egos will do something about it if we score it, right or wrong. The point made here that there are legitimate par 2 holes in DG is sort of fine with me. I don't really believe it. If the hole has technical aspects to it in the three areas I've mentioned before, off the tee, down the fairway, or around the green, you're going to push par towards three. To be par 2 you have to either be open, or very short - if there is any real texture to the hole. That said, there are some very cool par 2 holes. They are visually appealing and fun to participate in when pros play them. I would certainly not advocate changing such holes, but I'd also argue that there shouldn't be six or seven of them at a major.