Is 36 down okay? What should par be?

[DGPT]

In this week's article, we discuss a brief history of par, why it seems odd to have 30 or 40 down winning tournaments, and what we could/should do about it.

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

I'd love to know what you all think.

 

[DanJon]

Well today's elite pros are playing on outdated courses.

But we can't just make some holes par 2's, otherwise people (players and hardcore fans) would whine.

From an outsider's perspective, it makes our little sport look super easy when guys are shooting 15 down on 18 holes (or 30 some down for 2-3 rounds).

Shooting par should be seen as a challenge, not as a given.

 

[jjtwinnova]

The reason the great scores is because the players are getting better. With pros taking 2s on 350 foot holes, there isn't anything to do about it. Making holes longer isn't the answer, as it won't appeal to us noodle arms or casual players, and adding unnecessary obstacles is just stupid. Well designed holes with the pros in mind will still produce really good scores. Some people are just that good.

 

[cdunlapb12]

Because it looks easier doesn't mean the sport is easy. Who cares what non-disc golfers think. If they're gonna pick up the sport as a beginner they're gonna do it regardless of what the top pros are shooting. This argument about the scoring being wrong is dumb. Why can't it just be the way disc golf is.

 

[zontar]

Because it looks easier doesn't mean the sport is easy. Who cares what non-disc golfers think. If they're gonna pick up the sport as a beginner they're gonna do it regardless of what the top pros are shooting. This argument about the scoring being wrong is dumb. Why can't it just be the way disc golf is.

totally agree on this. play it for what it is. you can figure out if par seems high or low....

 

[discallday]

Well today's elite pros are playing on outdated courses.

But we can't just make some holes par 2's, otherwise people (players and hardcore fans) would whine.

From an outsider's perspective, it makes our little sport look super easy when guys are shooting 15 down on 18 holes (or 30 some down for 2-3 rounds).

Shooting par should be seen as a challenge, not as a given.

Can we just make some par 2.5s, 3.5s, etc. a la VisionQuest? I wouldn't advocate for further sub-dividing pars (as it would make adding score difficult for those of us not using ironman or similar scoring, as well as the fact that it wouldn't be elegant - I'd hate having a non-integer total par for a round), but half-pars (for pro-par) would more accurately represent the difficulty of some holes. I'd be opposed to a movement to re-par all existing courses with this mindset, but perhaps A/B tiers and above could use this when they encountered holes whose average scores were not close to an integer.

 

[sidewinder22]

Today's stick golf pars are set for perfect drive/approach to the green that allow for a 2 putt. If you are 2 putting in disc golf that usually means you screwed up big time - this is where the great par disparity comes from between stick golf and disc golf and really is a technical non-issue IMHO.

Also pars are typically based on 1000 rated pros/SSA, not 1050 rated elite pros!

 

[cdunlapb12]

Changing the pars of courses doesn't change the difficulty of a hole. The pros are gonna make 2's whether it's Par 2 or Par 3.

 

[SD86]

In this week's article, we discuss a brief history of par, why it seems odd to have 30 or 40 down winning tournaments, and what we could/should do about it.

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

I'd love to know what you all think.

This was discussed a lot during Worlds, so I'm sure the threads on Worlds have a lot of data for you.

IMHO, DG courses on ball golf courses that are wide open are going to have a lot of low scores. My recommendation is to have more holes (if not the entire course) going through woods or having technical situations like DeLaveaga.

 

[DavidSauls]

This has been kicked around ad nauseum. Acceptance of the way-under-par winning scores is certainly the easy way to handle it.

Other than caring what non-disc-golfers think---if there are any thinking about it at all---what does it matter? And even those theoretical spectators could get used to a different scoring standard in a different sport. Heck, you can get used to it in the same sport. I'm a baseball fan, and a college baseball fan, and until some changes were made a few years ago, a good score in pro baseball was a bad score in college baseball.

Well, Steve, there is one thing---and that's tied into your goal of making disc golf a spectator sport. If we had a "par" that closely reflected what the top players shoot, then we could follow the scores of players on different holes, and have a pretty good idea of how they were doing relative to each other.

But that's about it. From my viewpoint, it would be nice to have a better standard, but isn't terribly important. Perhaps you could use a different system and assign pars strictly for the DGPT events---"pro pars" or something---and everyone else could continue their casual play under the standard "easy par" system.

 

[joecoin]

Get rid of par. Develop a scoring system based on not only numbers of throws but totalxd length of combined throws.

Example:

320 foot hole

Player A drives to 3 feet from basket. Putts for a total of 2.
Player B drives to 15 from basket and also putts for total of 2.

Player A gets a better score since he was closer on his drive.

 

[Steve West]

...From my viewpoint, it would be nice to have a better standard, but isn't terribly important.

We already have a good standard. The problem is that TDs don't follow it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Get rid of par. Develop a scoring system based on not only numbers of throws but totalxd length of combined throws.

Example:

320 foot hole

Player A drives to 3 feet from basket. Putts for a total of 2.
Player B drives to 15 from basket and also putts for total of 2.

Player A gets a better score since he was closer on his drive.

But player B made a longer putt.

 

[ru4por]

Par is for spectators. Count your throws, add them up for your score. If your score is lowest, you win.

 

[DavidSauls]

We already have a good standard. The problem is that TDs don't follow it.

No, we have a vague standard constructed of poorly-defined terms.

 

[Halcón]

This has been kicked around ad nauseum.

/thread

 

[Steve West]

No, we have a vague standard constructed of poorly-defined terms.

And yet, the events that make an effort to assign appropriate pars are all moving toward similar pars. Perhaps vague is good enough when you just need to assign a 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Or, perhaps it's less vague than you remember. http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par.pdf

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, perhaps it's less vague than you remember.

Nope, not sure who the "expert players" are, but it's the ill-defined "close range" that really causes trouble.

I salute your efforts. I just don't think the PDGA definition---or the equally vague PDGA chart of hole distances and foliage---works.

Then again, it doesn't matter much too me. I'm of the philosophy that if we're going to have "par", we should do the best we can, but that having a good standard would be nice, but not important. Under that rationale, I'm interested in the arguments you, and others, have made.

 

[jeffmonty]

Because it looks easier doesn't mean the sport is easy. Who cares what non-disc golfers think. If they're gonna pick up the sport as a beginner they're gonna do it regardless of what the top pros are shooting. This argument about the scoring being wrong is dumb. Why can't it just be the way disc golf is?

The reason the great scores is because the players are getting better. With pros taking 2s on 350 foot holes, there isn't anything to do about it. Making holes longer isn't the answer, as it won't appeal to us noodle arms or casual players, and adding unnecessary obstacles is just stupid. Well designed holes with the pros in mind will still produce really good scores. Some people are just that good.

I agree. I think we just need to mentally get past -30 or -40 being a ridiculous score and accept it for what it is.

 

[BarstampLover]

smaller targets?
smaller halo/basket for majors?
inward slanted adaptor to edge of basket diameter, for smaller landing area?
just throwing it out there.