Par vs Pro Par

[Olorin]

I've got no problem with a Par 2 hole, because skilled disc golfers only need about 1 putt per hole.

I'm really not trying to argue, but this is a unique view. Do you know of anyone with "a position of influence" in disc golf who holds this view? I used the term "a position of influence" as an attempt to designate someone with credibility and experience. I'm sure there are tons of casual rec players who have all sorts of wild ideas of their own that few other people would ever buy in to, so it's quite possible that there may be other players out there who support this "1 putt per hole" idea.

 

[ZMan44]

I agree 100%. It makes absolutely no sense to have a par 2 unless the hole is 50 feet or less...and I have never seen a hole like that. The main problem that I have with it is that, philosophically, I don't think that any disc golf hole should require the player to get an Ace in order to birdie the hole. If we start designating 150 to 200 feet holes as par 2s, the same principles discourage any possibilities for holes over a par 3. Let me explain.

If we say that most experienced disc golfers will get a 2 on a 180 foot hole, it would probably be an accurate statement. But then we get to a hole that is 500 long, by the same logic, this could only be a par 3 because the average experienced player probably drives around 300-350. From there they are the same distance away and by the same logic, in order to birdie they must "hole-out" from the fairway.

It just doesn't make sense. Typically I play everything as a par 3, and only for score keeping purposes. If I am at a really long course that has par listed and it seems reasonable, I will go along with the course. If you play a hole perfectly (not an ace, but exactly as it is designed), I think it is fair that you deserve a birdie. If you hit an amazing shot, you deserve an eagle. Just because a lot of Pros will birdie it, doesn't make the Par too "easy". There are plenty of 378 yard par 4s on the PGA tour that the ball golfers birdie 65+% of the time. Just because they birdie it more often than not, it is never discussed that par should be changed to a 3 for that hole....that would just be illogical.

 

[PhattD]

I'm really not trying to argue, but this is a unique view. Do you know of anyone with "a position of influence" in disc golf who holds this view? I used the term "a position of influence" as an attempt to designate someone with credibility and experience. I'm sure there are tons of casual rec players who have all sorts of wild ideas of their own that few other people would ever buy in to, so it's quite possible that there may be other players out there who support this "1 putt per hole" idea.

Just for my own perspective when thinking about par in disc golf I've always considered allowing only 1 putt. Of course I am thinking of the "green" being the 10m circle. I think we agree that a skilled player should sink more of those than not. So any hole short enough, and easy enough, to consistantly put your drive within 10m should be par 2, meaning that's what a skilled player should expect to get. My opinion of par is that it is really a score keeping convenience. In ball golf if you tell someone you came in at +6 for 18 they will assume you shot 78. Then they will wait to see what course you shot 78 at before they decide whether or not to be impressed. So I am in the it's all par 3 camp and I will be until we come up with a standard like ball golf has.

 

[Lewis]

PhattD, do you have a position of influence?

Seriously, though, the "par 3" standard is hard to argue with unless you see a pro playing a really short hole, or a recreational player playing a really long hole. To throw more fuel on the fire, looky here at a page on the pdga website (which I think I've also posted in another thread):


http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

According to that chart, players rated under 850 should play to par 4 on holes of over 350 feet, and to par 5 on holes of over 550 feet; similarly, players rated around 1000 or more should play par 2 up to about 250 feet. These are just guidelines, of course, and it's hard to imagine course designers setting up tee pads to accomodate them. However, it's a point in the case against the universal par 3 system.

 

[Geoffro]

But... par for who? A novice player, a REC player, INT, ADV... Pro? Male or female?

And... from where? From which tee? To which pin position?

DGCR is not set up to hold different par values for all those combinations.


I would rather see DGCR report the average score on each hole (from the DGCR Scorebook entries) per tee. But just like the other raging thread on course difficulty if you wanted an accurate number you'd need to know the skill of the player shooting those hole scores.

You could restrict the reported data to only players with PDGA ratings, but that limits your sample size... and has the added complexity that you really want to know the rating of the player at the time they played the hole. (Players get better and worse over time.) I guess DGCR could add a field to each scorebook entry that was "Player Rating at time played" and it would default to your current value. Knowing the skill of the player recording the score is the only way to qualify the data to something meaningful.

ERic

Thanks for this, ERic - good information and suggestions. I still believe some sort of standard needs to be established, whether through the website or otherwise.

 

[Olorin]

To throw more fuel on the fire, looky here at a page on the pdga website (which I think I've also posted in another thread):

http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

According to that chart, players rated under 850 should play to par 4 on holes of over 350 feet, and to par 5 on holes of over 550 feet; similarly, players rated around 1000 or more should play par 2 up to about 250 feet. These are just guidelines, of course, and it's hard to imagine course designers setting up tee pads to accomodate them. However, it's a point in the case against the universal par 3 system.

Whoa now. You'll cause a bigger inferno by misusing that document. That document refers only to setting par according to course layouts, Thus a Gold level layout uses Gold Par, a Red level layout uses Red par. It DOES NOT mean that if a Red level (850 PR) player goes to a Gold level course that he plays all holes according to Red Par. ALL players play the same par that matches the course layout level. Since the majority of courses only have one set of tees there is only one level. Courses with multiple tees can have multiple levels, though, according to each layout.

 

[Olorin]

similarly, Gold level layouts (italics for corrected wording) should play par 2 up to about 250 feet.

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

 

[Ryan P.]

I really do like PhattD's idea of having a set par on every course. However, with disc golf being recreational and professional, i don't think that we can make that happen. There will always be courses that demand a very good player to hit a 54 (straight up par 3 course), and other courses where the average player is usually right at a 54. the only good way to do it would be to make most courses more equal. however, if we always played every course as a 54, it would kill a lot of these talks about what par should be.

 

[ghova]

I like the way the dude at hyzer creek determines whether his pars are appropriate or not. http://www.hyzercreek.com/stats.htm
there are some very hard holes there but the pars are fair and if you play a hole well you will have a shot at a birdie on some easier holes, but usually you will be rewarded with a par. very well designed course.

 

[PhattD]

PhattD, do you have a position of influence?

Yes Missionary

 

[PhattD]

Whoa now. You'll cause a bigger inferno by misusing that document. That document refers only to setting par according to course layouts, Thus a Gold level layout uses Gold Par, a Red level layout uses Red par. It DOES NOT mean that if a Red level (850 PR) player goes to a Gold level course that he plays all holes according to Red Par. ALL players play the same par that matches the course layout level. Since the majority of courses only have one set of tees there is only one level. Courses with multiple tees can have multiple levels, though, according to each layout.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can't you pretty much play whatever par you want? I mean if you play a gold level course and you're more of a red level player can't you just figure what red level par would be and use that to judge if you had a good round? Maybe I'm not seeing what the purpose of "par" is.

 

[Donovan]

I really do like PhattD's idea of having a set par on every course. However, with disc golf being recreational and professional, i don't think that we can make that happen. There will always be courses that demand a very good player to hit a 54 (straight up par 3 course), and other courses where the average player is usually right at a 54. the only good way to do it would be to make most courses more equal. however, if we always played every course as a 54, it would kill a lot of these talks about what par should be.

I guess I really don't understand. So what if a pro shoots 18 under par on a course. In ball golf, they shoot crazy numbers on some courses, that does not make them change their pars. They are par 3 courses in ball golf, for the reason of making things easier for the people who don't hit the long drives, for people to improve their short game, and for the lack of space to put in a regular 18 hole course (among other reasons). However, that is just an example of how ball golf works. Why should our game be any different.

All par 3's for every course is a poor solution for our sport and it is not the direction we should promote. It would be nice if the truly par 3 courses were marked as par 3 courses, but that may take much time to convince those communities to adjust that as it will cost many of them money to do.

It will also help this cause to stop forcing the longer courses into having everyone think they should play them all as par 3's. That does no good to help the sport either. If that is how you keep score the easiest, then do it that way for you, but forcing others under that same umbrella, is not really helping the game evolve. I am guilty of this at times as well.

 

[Donovan]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can't you pretty much play whatever par you want? I mean if you play a gold level course and you're more of a red level player can't you just figure what red level par would be and use that to judge if you had a good round? Maybe I'm not seeing what the purpose of "par" is.

On a ball golf course it is the way people use to measure themselves against each other, equally, against that course.

Golf is a game against the course, but without having a hole by hole comparison, we will never be able to determine the hierarchy of the difficulties of the holes on a course to establish and all equal and fair handicap system, which is another future for our sport.

Ball golf is established and working well. Whether we like it or not, it is our best example of how we should look to the future. The last 2 posts are where my opinions are falling at this stage of the game. So take them as just that, opinions.

 

[PhattD]

If I remember correctly Ball golf went through some similar adjustments in it's early years too. The tradition of 18 holes is pretty much a random number base on the amount of land available at St. Andrews (I think). Even today Ball golf course vary greatly in difficulty even with the same par. So if you really want to get a codified standard that all Disc Golf course designers will follow first of all good luck and second see you in about a hundred years (ok that might be an exageration ).
I think that the first thing that needs to be decided is the purpose ie whatare you trying to accomplish by setting par? Do you want a standard to compare scores? ie if I shoot 2 down at my michigan course and you shoot 2 down at you home course we can figure we pretty close in skill? Or do you want a standard for course design ie 18 hole courses are par 60. Or maybe we just want a standard so if I travel down to Texas I can look at the scorecard see whatpar is and then I know around what I should shoot. Another complication is the fact that in ball golf players distance capabilities have a much smaller differential between a rank amateur and a pro. Tigers average drive is approx 300 yds 240 yds isn't all that hard even for a novice. Thats only a 25% increase. We've all seen novices out on the disc golf course where 200' is long and the top pros throw 500'. that's a 250% increase. Golf has a regulatory body that will send a team out to your course to set the rating and slope and this is after the course has already been built to be par 72. We can't even get score cards for half our courses. Much like odd and even the concept of par is a philosophical illusion. (well not really but it sounded cool)

 

[ERicJ]

It will also help this cause to stop forcing the longer courses into having everyone think they should play them all as par 3's. That does no good to help the sport either. If that is how you keep score the easiest, then do it that way for you, but forcing others under that same umbrella, is not really helping the game evolve. I am guilty of this at times as well.

In my best Olorin voice...
"Par on a hole and keeping score are completely different things."

Par on the hole can be '4' and you can still treat the hole as a '3' relative to keeping your score.

ERic

 

[ERicJ]

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

If scores on a hole are more often '2' than they are '3' I don't really have a problem with par on that hole being set at '2'.

That being said... I just got done "designing" a full course for my first time. I use quotes because I didn't really design it from scratch; it's a monster 10,000+ ft gold level course laid out on top of an existing 18-hole course. You play nine new holes forward and then turn around and play nine new holes backwards. It's awesome.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_files/2576/351ea3a6.jpg

Anyway... the guy I was designing this with and I were playing it and trying to come up with gold level par values for all the holes. We thought there were several marginal holes that could be 3 or 4. We'd decided on 12 par 3's and six par 4's. for a total of 60. That was a really tough par and anyone shooting that would have a great round. But that's what error free gold play should shoot.

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360'). My first time really applying CR par to see how it'd work. Total came out to 68. That's what's on the map I linked above. There are now a few easy 4's and an easy 5. I can see the upside of making an easy par so players get the ego boost of birdies now and then. And on this course if you can toss 450' you have a couple shots at eagles.

But the downside is that I think 68 is too easy a par for gold level. I think we'd get a more accurate par from just a few rounds of play from respectable players. So far there are nine complete rounds logged on the finished layout:

I'd guess that those average rounds drop by at least 2-3 strokes each with a couple more rounds played. We plan on running a Winter league on this course so it'll be interesting to see how the averages turn out.

In the end I guess it all comes back to the question of "What is par?" or as a course designer "What do you want par to be?". Should it be what you expect players (of the appropriate level) to shoot? Or should it be purely based on drive distance + ATG?

ERic

 

[Lewis]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because scoring average seems to me to be the right way to calculate par. Look at it this way: if "par" is the standard for high quality play, you shouldn't set it at 3 for a hole where quality play would earn you a 2. Likewise, you shouldn't set it at 3 where quality play would only earn you a 4. Par should be more about the difficulty of the holes themselves than about simplifying the math.

I suppose we have different concepts of what par means, and we'll have to muddle through until we find a common understanding.

 

[Olorin]

In my best Olorin voice...
"Par on a hole and keeping score are completely different things."

Not bad... not bad at all.

 

[Olorin]

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360'). My first time really applying CR par to see how it'd work. Total came out to 68. That's what's on the map I linked above. There are now a few easy 4's and an easy 5. I can see the upside of making an easy par so players get the ego boost of birdies now and then. And on this course if you can toss 450' you have a couple shots at eagles.

But the downside is that I think 68 is too easy a par for gold level.

...In the end I guess it all comes back to the question of "What is par?" or as a course designer "What do you want par to be?". Should it be what you expect players (of the appropriate level) to shoot? Or should it be purely based on drive distance + ATG?

ERic

That's cool that you're trying CR Par. I assume that you have the whole document that explains it. Many courses have "tweener" holes that could go up or down one. I wonder if that's the case here.

You should join the Disc Golf Course Design (DGCD) Group so that you have access to some great tools like the Hole Forecaster, and have dialogue with the best designers in the world. Houck, Duvall, Kennedy, McDaniel... Although they all have strong ideas about par. They're mostly split btwn old school TG Par or SA Par (spearheaded by Chuck Kennedy). I've been trying to make converts to CR Par, but Chuck is a strong voice on the other side.

I think the common sense approach is to use a blend of methods. Use CR Par, but tweak it as you get score data. Since it's a Gold course just remember to only use the scores of Gold level players (975-1025) for your averages. The ideal is to get the scores of 990-1010 PR players. Players below 975 will skew your averages. Even "Super Gold", the world class pros over 1025 PR, would also skew the data.

Can you make a thread on this course? I'd love to track how it goes.

 

[Olorin]

Then I decided to go back and revamp the pars according to CR par for gold (drive = 360').

For a Gold level course the Gold drive length is 390 ft. and the CR is 100 ft so holes are par 3 up to (effective) length of 490 ft.

(I wonder if you have an old version of the CR Par doc. The drive lengths were increased due to improvements in disc technology.)

So I guess that all of the par 3s that became par 4s have an effective length of over 490 ft?