wolfmandragon
* Ace Member *
He made it Sat. He went long OB, but he had an easy putt for par.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
18 Down @ Waco: Soft?
- Thread starter DiscFifty
- Start date
He made it Sat. He went long OB, but he had an easy putt for par.
SD86
Banned
I know there's other threads on what "par'" should be, so I don't want to re-hash it all here. So I'll make these few points:
That's part of my point: make them 'challenging' enough for the McBeast-class pros, and they become sheer torture for anyone not in that super-elite class. We like seeing players challenged, but I don't think it would be fun watching them outright suffer.
For example, Little Mulberry Park in North Gwinnett County, Ga. They've had some pro tournaments there. Feldberg participated in a recent one, and Matt Dollar has run (and filmed) a few. It's a challenging mostly-woods course, suitable for pros, but when I would play with my casual group there, we'd become exhausted quickly by just how grueling it could be for us. And I've recommended to people to NOT go there for family events; that there are more suitable courses for families with kids elsewhere in the county. So the point is: Is it worth it to make courses so grueling so that the very few top-elites in the game will be challenged, only to see those courses not used by anyone else because they're ridiculous and become 'not fun' to play?
And this is getting to be re-hashing, but re-setting pars isn't the answer. It's artificial. And as I've said... the day they put a Par-2 hole on a course, disc golf becomes a joke, not serious, and something to be laughed at and correctly derided as 'putt-putt'.
I'm not really accepting the premise that DG and ball golf are quite the same in this area of discussion, but I understand the point you're trying to make. My point to it is that there will always be a few Tiger Woods/Jordan Spieths (sp?) and McBeth/McMahons blitzing by the rest of the field, and there's only so much (and never enough) that can be done about it.
That's part of my point: make them 'challenging' enough for the McBeast-class pros, and they become sheer torture for anyone not in that super-elite class. We like seeing players challenged, but I don't think it would be fun watching them outright suffer.
For example, Little Mulberry Park in North Gwinnett County, Ga. They've had some pro tournaments there. Feldberg participated in a recent one, and Matt Dollar has run (and filmed) a few. It's a challenging mostly-woods course, suitable for pros, but when I would play with my casual group there, we'd become exhausted quickly by just how grueling it could be for us. And I've recommended to people to NOT go there for family events; that there are more suitable courses for families with kids elsewhere in the county. So the point is: Is it worth it to make courses so grueling so that the very few top-elites in the game will be challenged, only to see those courses not used by anyone else because they're ridiculous and become 'not fun' to play?
And this is getting to be re-hashing, but re-setting pars isn't the answer. It's artificial. And as I've said... the day they put a Par-2 hole on a course, disc golf becomes a joke, not serious, and something to be laughed at and correctly derided as 'putt-putt'.
I'm not really accepting the premise that DG and ball golf are quite the same in this area of discussion, but I understand the point you're trying to make. My point to it is that there will always be a few Tiger Woods/Jordan Spieths (sp?) and McBeth/McMahons blitzing by the rest of the field, and there's only so much (and never enough) that can be done about it.
Last edited:
Lazerface
Eagle Member
It's weird. I think the 18 Down at the GLO was closer to "perfect" relative to PAR, but I'm more impressed with the WACO round because of the challenge. If you ask Paul what a "perfect" round is at WACO it would be something like -21. There are 2 Par 4s labeled as 5s I can think of and hole 18 is not a Par 4 IMO.
Let´s hope it´s not just ballgolf courses
But it´s hard, McBeths -18 is in a way good for the sport, in another way it´s bad . . . .hard to tell which is best
Agreed. I'm a big fan of watching Paul do his thing, but that eagle on 18 looked like he could do it with his eyes closed.
To be clear, I'm talking about courses for elite events, not everyday play. And I've made the point that the way to do this, particularly on private courses, is having flexible enough set ups so that the course can be dumbed down (for lack of a better word) for general use and then stretched out for these elite events. I use Maple Hill as a prime example considering they have the Gold course but also three other configurations available all the time that are far better suited for the family groups and lesser skilled players. The Red layout there is a really good course for beginner/Rec type players (all par 3s, everything under 350 or so, no water carries).
Ultimately, I think what I'm saying is we need more courses in the vein of ball golf in the sense that ball golf courses will have shorter sets of tees for the average players and hole locations on the greens that are far more user-friendly than the ones they'd choose for a PGA Tour type event. And I think there is a far greater chance of building these kinds of courses on private property than in public parks. We just have the freedom of creativity to go beyond simply extra sets of tees to make courses longer and tougher for the pros.
I remember seeing that. Absolutely ridiculous. I was trying to find it. Can't remember if it was 2017 or 2018.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
I think you mean: "the day they correctly label the already existing par 2s". As opposed to calling them must-get, deuce or die, not happy with a par on this hole, etc.
But don't worry too much. There aren't many holes that could be labeled par 2 still being used on the biggest events.
There weren't any at GLO or WACO. It was some of the holes labelled par 4 or 5 that were the problem.
I love Idlewild. If I lived in that little area I'd probably play Idlewild 3 out of every 5 rounds and Lincoln Ridge the other 2, with trips up to other great courses in the area eating slightly into those. I'd definitely play Idlewild a lot more than Lincoln Ridge, and I consider Lincoln Ridge one of the best deuce or die courses I've ever played (some people contest that designation - to which I respond that at the Bluegrass Open one year every single one of the 24 holes was deuced by my card). Idlewild is just plain more my type of fun.Idlewild was designed to test the top players when the Teebird was the top end driver. It still isn't much "fun" for them with today's tech... but that all depends on your definition of fun. Some people find the idea of being challenged on pretty much every single shot of a round fun...
SD86
Banned
Okay, we're not quite talking the same thing here, so I'll try again by saying it this way: even if one builds a DG course specifically for 'elite' events, one of two things is going to happen. Either the super-elites like McBeth will continue to make a mockery of the course and the scores, or the vast majority of even the pro field will be destroyed by that course.
What I was saying is that there is no in-between. We have to accept these ridiculously low scores by some like McBeth, or we'll have to create courses that crush the life and fun out of all but about six players in the world.
SD86
Banned
No, I meant what I said and said what I meant, which is NOT what you're trying to put in my mouth. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, so let me see if I can make it where it will not be misunderstood:
If there is ever... EVER... a hole set to Par-2 on a professional DG course during a professional DG tournament, then Disc Golf will never... EVER... become a mainstream sporting event. If there is ever a Par-2 on a course, Disc Golf will be treated as a worthless, gimmicky kiddie game like 'putt putt'. Disc Golf would be spoken of with pure derision, and correctly so. Any respectability that the sport has would be wiped out and flushed down the toilet by the mockery made of it by having a Par-2 hole on a course.
Par-2 = humiliation. Par-2 = no respect. Par-2 = Epic Fail for Disc Golf.
I hope that's not too ambivalent...
opcorn:tahoe
Newbie
So, if you have a public course available to all levels, designed for all levels to have 'fun', be challenged and engaged, in which the tee signs list par for different levels on each hole, and you call a short/lightly wooded 180' to 200' hole (for example) a par2 for the pro/gold level, that would destroy the sport? This hypothetical hole would be fun and challenging to beg/rec levels, and maybe one of the easiest par3s for advanced/blue levels... Many courses are visited and played by top pros occasionally. But why not list the true par for their level when they do visit? If an NT was ever hosted at the course, the Par2 hole could probably be eliminated for the competition. Courses are frequently modified/rearranged to cater to such events, and you would not have to sacrifice the accessibility to beginner/average players that helps grow the sport by keeping that 'short' hole in the routing during normal play. I completely agree with your point that par2s SHOULD NOT be designed into pro level tournaments (or any tournaments for that matter) which get exposure/coverage. But if its understood that a hole during casual play is only a par2 for gold/pro, what's the harm. The pros might appreciate it? If you want to call yourself a pro, then play the 'pro par', then it makes it harder to scorch the course at the level you are playing... Any feedback from pro level players here? When visiting courses while traveling, pros could play with advanced players at their own pars and be more competitive (handicap). Eg: "We tied at minus 8" instead of say the pro winning by 6 strokes at minus 16? If its reasonable to adjust par4s back to par3 and par5s back to par4, why not adjust some par3s to par2s? I'm not adamant about such a 'scheme' but it intrigues me. I think the 'look' and 'feel' of the course/landscape itself is much more important for disc golf's respect than having occasional par2s listed on signs for top levels... Thoughts?
tahoe
Newbie
Oops, I meant minus 14. I can do math...
wolfmandragon
* Ace Member *
God forbid that a pro finish a round with par.
This is not a 'what is par' argument. What we are seeing are actual athletes starting to play. The courses have to be made tougher to keep them exciting. More guardians for the green, more tee boxes placed where it forces low lines, more doglegs and a few open long shots to reward power players.
Courses like that will challenge all players.
SD86
Banned
I agree this is not a 'what is par' argument.
Once again... IMHO, the current courses seem to be sufficiently challenging the majority of the pros entering the fields. But there are some, such as McBeth and McMahon, that are too good for even those courses. And "McBeth-proofing" courses to make it tougher for those at his level... are going to do far more than just "challenge" the majority of the field.
Now that may not matter much, since those lower cards (almost) never get filmed and we don't see those less-elite players all that much (yes, yes, I know; CCDG does a good job of filming some lesser tournaments, and Dollar has filmed some, too), so the point may be moot to many of you.
*ALL* I was saying is that the disparity between the McBeth-level elites and the main body of the field is such that it cannot be reconciled. And I continue to believe it will never be reconciled in a way that can keep someone from whining about it one way or the other.
Idlewild was designed to test the top players when the Teebird was the top end driver. It still isn't much "fun" for them with today's tech... but that all depends on your definition of fun. Some people find the idea of being challenged on pretty much every single shot of a round fun...
Honestly, the most memorable rounds for me from Cincy are the few times I played Idlewild and the Flying Pig Open; I played a ton of rounds at Mt Airy and honestly like playing the course more day to day...but there's just something about tangling with the holes at Idlewild that makes that course SO. MUCH. FUN.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Not really. Get the inflated pars out of the picture, and most of the evidence points to the disparity not being much bigger than in golf. They live with -4 or -5 per round being a typical winning score. With the very rare -12 to -14.
That's about where disc golf scores relative to par would be, if par was set based on the play of 1000-rated players. I would think it would not be all-that-disheartening for pros above the minimum suggested rating of 970 to play against the par for 1000-rated players. They'll get under par sometimes. Usually when they cash.
We will have a few more scores more under -14 than golf does, but that reflects the nature of the game, and I'm OK with the occasional exceptional score.
(I see you referred to the "main body of the field". Yeah, the no-hope donators might get discouraged. That's a problem with divisions, not par or courses. By that I mean there should be lower-skill/play-for-cash divisions available.)
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
It does feel rather good when I play a couple of those holes well.:thmbup:
I took a 3 on 15 once. Fairway ace from about 230 near the top of the hill going down to the green. The second shot was the first time I really threw a disc 400+ on flattish ground when meaning to do so, lol...
...man its hard to believe that was 5 years ago already...:|
Last edited:
No, they'll get under par when they get under par. It has NOTHING to do with the "cash line".
Why are you so insistent on trying to make the two synonymous? For a couple of years now I keep bringing this up (and the fallacy of it) after you again state / infer such and yet you STILL keep stating it.
What's your point?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
I agree that the cash line does not set par. I agree they are not synonymous. No point being made. It's just kind of handy that they happen to occupy similar territory.
It's like a railroad track and a highway. There not the same thing and one does not define the other, but they can often be found paralleling the same river.
