Assigning pars to a course without them

[teemkey]

Exactly, a tweener is between a par 3 and 4. It would be too easy to birdie if it's a par 4, but too hard to birdie if a par 3. Therefore, little separation since everyone is scoring 3s.

A non-tweener hole has good distribution of birdies, pars, and bogies for example.

Not sure that "too hard to birdie" is a compelling argument for a lower par.

 

[Steve West]

Not sure that "too hard to birdie" is a compelling argument for a lower par.

May be a reason to shorten the hole, but not a reason for a lower par. If 100% of the players get the same score, that must be par - even though it is impossible to birdie.

 

[jimimc]

On a lot of courses players refuse to play the tees or pins for their skill level. A hole that was deigned to be a difficult par 3 for Gold level players will be a dumb hole for a 940 rated player. The same can be said for a hole that's designed to be an Am par 4 when a top pro plays it. Par 5's get even worse.

 

[Smigles]

Par Schmar.

 

[Improbably]

Wouldn't it be great if all courses were universally par 3/54? Then we could actually get a good metric of relative difficulty of courses/configurations based on resultant data not anticipatory heuristics.

 

[DavidSauls]

What?

 

[DiscLoser1]

Wouldn't it be great if all courses were universally par 3/54? Then we could actually get a good metric of relative difficulty of courses/configurations based on resultant data not anticipatory heuristics.

Again, total throws are what are measured on scorecards and what win or lose tournaments. The +/- par number is simply an easier way to visualize scoring among players, and is a relative number based on assigned pars.

If all courses were par 54, the only difference of getting your 'good metric of relative difficulty of courses/configurations' would be using the +/- par number; we can and do compare courses/configurations using total throws, which is the only number that matters.

A pro does not look at pars; they look at the hole design and play for the lowest number of throws they should score. If that happens to be a 2 on a par 3 or a 2 on a par 4, it's still 2 throws.

 

[Smigles]

total throws, which is the only number that matters.

A pro does not look at pars; they look at the hole design and play for the lowest number of throws they should score. If that happens to be a 2 on a par 3 or a 2 on a par 4, it's still 2 throws.

Exactly.

We should never have started to even use par. It should stay in ball golf.

Unless we actually start playing with a handicap system like in ball golf, then it would make sense. But it's not required for anything else.


PS: Par stands for professional average. The only way to determine what par a hole is is to have pros play the course and then TAKE THE AVERAGE of their actual results. Wich would make almost all holes under 350 feet par 2.

 

[DavidSauls]

PS: Par stands for professional average. The only way to determine what par a hole is is to have pros play the course and then TAKE THE AVERAGE of their actual results. Wich would make almost all holes under 350 feet par 2.

Not with our current definition of "Pro".

 

[reposado]

Exactly.

We should never have started to even use par. It should stay in ball golf.

Unless we actually start playing with a handicap system like in ball golf, then it would make sense. But it's not required for anything else.


PS: Par stands for professional average. The only way to determine what par a hole is is to have pros play the course and then TAKE THE AVERAGE of their actual results. Wich would make almost all holes under 350 feet par 2.

but sometimes we do use a handicap system

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Not enough par 2s is holding the sport back.

:|

 

[Steve West]

...
A pro does not look at pars; they look at the hole design and play for the lowest number of throws they should score. If that happens to be a 2 on a par 3 or a 2 on a par 4, it's still 2 throws.

That number seems like it would be a good number to use as par. If only it could be officially defined in the rules that way. Something like:

Par
As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

(If the number of throws they should score is 2, they must be within close range on the tee.)

 

[Improbably]

Not enough par 2s is holding the sport back.

:|

Plenty of par 2s; most of them just say par 3 on the sign/map/scorecard.

 

[DiscLoser1]

That number seems like it would be a good number to use as par. If only it could be officially defined in the rules that way. Something like:

(If the number of throws they should score is 2, they must be within close range on the tee.)

But then you'd have all the uproar from those that insist on beginner tees and Am pars!:doh:

The beginner tee is the same tee as everyone else. If the hole is 600' and it takes you 10 throws, sorry, go practice in a field first. If taking 10 throws discourages you and ruins you on DG forever, grow a pair.

Anyway, Par in DG makes my head hurt, so I ignore it. Old and poor course design, personal opinions of designers, advances in disc technology, and the general newness of DG have rendered Par rating a mess.

It would be nice to have a standard going forward tho.

 

[scarpfish]

As determined by the Director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.

(If the number of throws they should score is 2, they must be within close range on the tee.)

This is why I've never liked the idea of "close range" par. It seems to be some means of transferring the whole notion of ball golf putting (up and down) to disc golf. An expert disc golfer on most holes 325' or shorter does not need two shots after his drive, as he is most certainly inside the circle by then and should be able to finish with one. Inside of 250' intermediate level ams are accomplishing this regularly.

 

[Halcón]

PS: Par stands for professional average. The only way to determine what par a hole is is to have pros play the course and then TAKE THE AVERAGE of their actual results. Wich would make almost all holes under 350 feet par 2.

We tend to overestimate how good our "pros" are.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Watch ball golf. That'll explain the how and why. It's gimmicky to have all par 3's IMO.

Par is defined as: the number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

Match the score to a number that is reasonable for first class players. Another train of thought is "if you can't ace it, it should probably be a par 4+".

If numbers don't matter to you, do you not get excited when you ace a hole? It's just a number after all. Or do you care when you go on a streak and get a bunch of birdie 2's? What happens when you have the mentality that you want to birdie every hole (high level competitors have this mindset, right?) and they step up to a par 3 700' hole?

I once played a par-6 ball golf hole that was 525yds. I played for an eagle on that hole, because that's what I thought I could score. I play a lot of 300yd holes that I play for the same score on. Some par 3s I play for a bogey on. Because the number on the sign doesn't affect the layout of the hole.

Does par matter to determine the winner? No, of course not. But there are other places where having a reasonable par makes your day just a little bit better.

"Yo, my round went fine. I ripped off three birdie 2s in a row, but then I got a bogey 4 on that thousand footer, then three more birdie 2s."
vs
"Yo, my round went fine. I had a streak of seven birdies in a row, including a birdie on that monster par 5."

Meh ... if they don't know what hole/course you're talking about, they don't care anyway. I shot a 33 at the Mark Twain Country Club! Aren't I great?!?

 

[reposado]

I once played a par-6 ball golf hole that was 525yds. I played for an eagle on that hole, because that's what I thought I could score. I play a lot of 300yd holes that I play for the same score on. Some par 3s I play for a bogey on. Because the number on the sign doesn't affect the layout of the hole.



Meh ... if they don't know what hole/course you're talking about, they don't care anyway. I shot a 33 at the Mark Twain Country Club! Aren't I great?!?

well if we are being honest, they don't care even if they know what hole/course you are talking about

 

[MikeM]

I'm a huge proponent of marking pars on courses. Because they make casual players feel better about themselves and have more fun when they get an "eagle". There is a course around me that has everything marked a 3. And yet, you have these holes in the woods that are shaped like giant N's. Where, it would be impossible for even a pro to get a 3. Noone who is a casual player wants to go play somewhere where they triple bogey every hole. That doesn't answer your question at all though...

 

[HarkeyPuck]

I personally like par. I think they're done fairly well in Pittsburgh. Moraine State Park is a par 66 from every tee. And that score of 66 usually rates around 900 (white) 950 (blue) 1000 (gold) Deer Lakes same par 66 and rates around 875 (red) 925 (white) 975 (blue). I think par is a good way of knowing where you are in relation to that score (66) at any point in the round. Also the +/- to par is a great way to see a leader board in golf, especially at tournament play at different tee times or courses with different difficulty ratings (like a Moraine to Knob Hill)