I met a Par loving dufus

[CreemCheese]

There used to be some locals who insisted on par, when everyone else uses all 3s.
After a whole, they would tell the card master they got a bogey, sometime that was a 4 other times a 6. If asked for a stroke count, they would go on about how you need to know a par to play a course.
If they have the card and someone says they got a bird, that went down as whatever it was for the hole. Tried calling it out once after a round, they convinced the TD that I was trying to cheat.

 

[thrembo]

 

[Emoney]

I play everything as a 3. Course par on most courses is a mess and outdated. Also. If the length of the hole is less than 800ft, i expect to have a realistic chance at a 3. Im not happy with a 4 on a hole i can reach in 3. Pretty simple.

 

[AndyJB]

I play everything as a 3. Course par on most courses is a mess and outdated. Also. If the length of the hole is less than 800ft, i expect to have a realistic chance at a 3. Im not happy with a 4 on a hole i can reach in 3. Pretty simple.

It depends on the layout of the hole, of course.

My local course, Widefield, has 18 as its longest hole. In the longest pin position, its around 575. The tee is very slightly elevated and the fairway is kind of a tunnel. Its very wide but you can go OB either side.

And people around here, during tournaments when par counts the least, go ape**** when its not a par 4. I mean, it becomes a huge issue for some people.

My rating is 858 and per my uDisc stats I have got a 3 on the longest postion 8 out of 13 times. There is a 220 foot hole on the same course that I have got a 3 on 4 out of 17 times (they dont change the pin position on that one as much). So if par really mattered, wouldnt that short hole be a better candidate for a higher par than the long hole?

And thats why I feel par is meaningless. Because someone who has a dynamite short game might get a 2 on that short hole 16 out of 17 times. But if they cant throw a long, fairly straight drive, they get a 4 on hole 18 at best.

Total score can be misleading too because of different hole sizes and layouts, but thats an argument for another time and place.

 

[Halcón]

If the length of the hole is less than 800ft, i expect to have a realistic chance at a 3.

Is your name Paul McBeth, by chance?

 

[jeffmonty]

I play everything as a 3. Course par on most courses is a mess and outdated. Also. If the length of the hole is less than 800ft, i expect to have a realistic chance at a 3. Im not happy with a 4 on a hole i can reach in 3. Pretty simple.

By this logic though, a 500' hole would be played par 2. I don't subscribe to this.

That said, I do realize par is meaningless in competitive rounds, but does have a place for some in casual solo rounds.

 

[breynnmike]

It matters how I'm feeling that day. If I just worked a 12 hour shift I care less about how I throw and just appreciate the fact that I'm playing. Some days I feel more competitive than other days. If I don't have a 12 or 13 after five holes I typically stop keeping track.

 

[Improbably]

And people around here, during tournaments when par counts the least, go ape**** when its not a par 4. I mean, it becomes a huge issue for some people.

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.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That said, I do realize par is meaningless in competitive rounds, but does have a place for some in casual solo rounds.

Other way around.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Someone tell McBeth next time he cards a 4 on a Par 4, that is going to be counted as a Bogey.

Well I'm pretty sure you can call that 4 anything you want, birdie, bogey, do do bird, whatever and Mr. McBeth is only going to care about whether or not he's winning.

 

[jeffmonty]

Other way around.

I'm not seeing how.

 

[Steve West]

For the Advanced Am/Pro level players, whose play is mostly, or at least muchly dedicated to tournament participation and/or preparation, playing with/against similarly skilled/ experienced players, Par IS pretty much meaningless, as it is the numerical stroke total that counts and matters in their final analysis of their performance, compared to the competition of the field.
...

[SARCASM]Knowing "the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole" has nooooo place in tournaments.[/SARCASM]

 

[Cgkdisc]

Par doesn't really matter for rec play since "default par 3" is simply an easy way for scoring without a card. It specifically matters in competitive play with regard to late penalties, tracking over/under for live scoring which will eventually be available for every player at every event, and the relatively untapped realm of tracking your personal stats in competition such as birdie, par, bogey percentages or par saves. Without legit par values, those stats either cannot be tracked or are meaningless.

 

[teemkey]

Par is useful to create an over/under summary number, like 4 over or 3 under. Hence a player can compare scores without having to resort to multi-syllabic, brain twisting three digit subtraction issues after a couple of rounds. It's just easier to use one or two digits than three.

 

[Improbably]

Par doesn't really matter for rec play since "default par 3" is simply an easy way for scoring without a card. It specifically matters in competitive play with regard to late penalties, tracking over/under for live scoring which will eventually be available for every player at every event, and the relatively untapped realm of tracking your personal stats in competition such as birdie, par, bogey percentages or par saves. Without legit par values, those stats either cannot be tracked or are meaningless.

I'm taking this as indication the PDGA has intention for par to become more important not less important in sanctioned play. I had always hoped 803.03G5 would be changed to completely remove par from sanctioned play.

 

[BuzzSharpe]

So does that mean that par is miscalculated on one or more of those courses?

The harder the course, the higher the par?

Shouldn't par be the true average of whatever amount of throws are taken on a given hole? Rounded up or down to the nearest whole number of course.

Good questions, all. 1) I can't speak from personal experience to Renny or Winthrop, since I've never played them. But from the Hole Info and map, I'd venture that Renny's assigned Par of 70 is probably about right. As for Winthrop, some of the distances seem short for Gold level Par 4's, without the apparent heavy foliage as on Renny. But I'd imagine 68 is, at least, close to correct. As for Cedarock, there are definitely a couple of the 4's that shouldn't be, as Gold holes, as #9 at Johnson Street shouldn't. And from a Gold perspective, every Hole at Beth Schnidt should be a 2, with the possible exception of #1 being par rated at 1.
2) Generally speaking, yes.
3) Generally speaking, not necessarily. Those throws might be being made by an inordinate number of highly expert players playing a Beth Schmidt or Cedarock Red, which are well below their skill level, or by a bunch of duffers, playing tees or courses well beyond their mediocre means.

 

[Steve West]

I'm taking this as indication the PDGA has intention for par to become more important not less important in sanctioned play. I had always hoped 803.03G5 would be changed to completely remove par from sanctioned play.

No one is currently being forced to use par for anything other than assigning penalties. But, look at how often it comes up in describing how hard a hole is, how tough a course is, how players are doing mid-round, statistics, commentators, and on and on.

I don't think it's going away, even if it were completely removed from the rulebook.

If par had never been invented, it would be re-invented several times a day; every time someone asks: "What's a good score on this hole/course?"

 

[BuzzSharpe]

That's a good observation, though you and I might use "intermediate level" differently. I'd say, "casual players". But I think it particularly applies when the latter group generally only plays one course.

I'll go along with that, David. Appreciate you understanding my basic point, though. And I agree with your second point, as well, with the possible addition of "or very few similar courses, if available in their area", as most casual players aren't going to venture far from home very often, if ever.

 

[BuzzSharpe]

No one is currently being forced to use par for anything other than assigning penalties. But, look at how often it comes up in describing how hard a hole is, how tough a course is, how players are doing mid-round, statistics, commentators, and on and on.

I don't think it's going away, even if it were completely removed from the rulebook.

If par had never been invented, it would be re-invented several times a day; every time someone asks: "What's a good score on this hole/course?"

EXACTLY, Steve! Especially that last sentence.

 

[reposado]

Some people care about par some people disregard par it's a matter of personal taste really.

Today I met a par devotee who insisted total stroke count is effected by the par value of the hole. I had to just agree to disagree and drop the topic with an otherwise nice dude who's understanding of basic arithmetic had been ruined by adherence to par centric thinking. I simply could not convince him my total stroke count would be the same regardless of the par values assigned to the holes we had played.

My trollish posit:

Those who care about par, care about par for either, and sometimes both, rational or irrational reasons.

Those who disregard par disregard par for rational reasons.

My more trollish conclusion:

Disregarding par is more often rational than caring about par.

i'd be more inclined to agree with an assessment of an individual whose understanding was faulty than one of an individual who's understanding was faulty