Is 36 down okay? What should par be?

[Steve West]

I'm not advocating for change to baskets or saying that our scores are a problem. I'm saying that the reason the scores are so low is because of putting being too easy.

But I don't support a change to it. There's a difference between identifying an issue and saying whether said issue should be addressed.

Is the issue that 51 is "low", or that 13 under is "low"?

 

[_MTL_]

The relation to par.

Since our sport has no standardization of par course to course, we can only use that as a comparison.

 

[Steve West]

The relation to par.

Since our sport has no standardization of par course to course, we can only use that as a comparison.

We have a standard. That's what I used for the Gold par graph above. We just need more TD's to use it. What could get them to do that?

 

[_MTL_]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

What I'm saying is we regularly compete on courses with pars ranging from 54 to 64 and sometimes that range is extended to 72.

Golfers only compete on a range from 70-73. Huge difference.

 

[SonicGuy]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

What I'm saying is we regularly compete on courses with pars ranging from 54 to 64 and sometimes that range is extended to 72.

Golfers only compete on a range from 70-73. Huge difference.

What we need is a guy with $10 million to design a dozen courses with enough land and features to create a tour with similar high par high challenge courses.

How does your journalism gig pay, can we count on you?

 

[_MTL_]

What we need is a guy with $10 million to design a dozen courses with enough land and features to create a tour with similar high par high challenge courses.

How does your journalism gig pay, can we count on you?

Considering I don't have a job in journalism, probably not.

 

[Old Dog]

It is Disc Golf not Ball Golf... why insist on comparing the two. Does it really matter that the pro DGs are winning with scores of -25 or -30 whereas their BG counterparts are winning with scores of -13?

We don't compare the scores of basketball to soccer. The object of both games is the same... put the ball in the net more times than your opponent. I guess basketball must be too easy because teams routinely do it 30 or 40 times a game whereas soccer teams only manage to do it 3 or 4 times a game. And they have a bigger net !!.

DG scores are what they are is what I'm saying. If it takes a -20 to finish in the money so be it.

 

[Steve West]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

What I'm saying is we regularly compete on courses with pars ranging from 54 to 64 and sometimes that range is extended to 72.

Golfers only compete on a range from 70-73. Huge difference.

Ah, I see. That does add a wrinkle of complexity. It may very well be better for the game to play on all tournaments on par 65s (or whatever number is best). I don't know.

Until then, if we set par correctly, at least we would know what a good score is across all ranges of difficulty. The trouble I see is that some courses that use par of 54 to 64 for tournaments are really par 47 to 58.

 

[Steve West]

It is Disc Golf not Ball Golf... why insist on comparing the two. Does it really matter that the pro DGs are winning with scores of -25 or -30 whereas their BG counterparts are winning with scores of -13?

We don't compare the scores of basketball to soccer. The object of both games is the same... put the ball in the net more times than your opponent. I guess basketball must be too easy because teams routinely do it 30 or 40 times a game whereas soccer teams only manage to do it 3 or 4 times a game. And they have a bigger net !!.

DG scores are what they are is what I'm saying. If it takes a -20 to finish in the money so be it.

I don't care about golf. I want to compare one disc golf course to another, one player's performance to another, etc.

That is more like comparing one marathon route to another. (What's a fast time on this mountain course that's all uphill, vs. a sea level flat course?) If we said a good time on this course is 6 hours, and almost everybody finished 2 hours before that, then that wasn't really such a good time, was it?

The definition of par in disc golf does that just fine, but we're not using it all the time. If it takes -20 to finish in the money, par was not set according to the definition.

 

[Jenga54]

We have a standard. That's what I used for the Gold par graph above. We just need more TD's to use it. What could get them to do that?

Is your Gold par based on this, by length only? http://www.pdga.com/documents/par-guidelines

Makes sense, as those 400' Par 4 become Par 3, I'm sure a good number of Par 3 become Par 2.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't care about golf. I want to compare one disc golf course to another, one player's performance to another, etc.

That is more like comparing one marathon route to another. (What's a fast time on this mountain course that's all uphill, vs. a sea level flat course?) If we said a good time on this course is 6 hours, and almost everybody finished 2 hours before that, then that wasn't really such a good time, was it?

The definition of par in disc golf does that just fine, but we're not using it all the time. If it takes -20 to finish in the money, par was not set according to the definition.

I'll agree with this. If there is a standard it is very loosely interpreted. Some courses I regularly play I routinely score a stroke or two below par and then there are others I'm lucky if I finish 12 over.

 

[Steve West]

Is your Gold par based on this, by length only? http://www.pdga.com/documents/par-guidelines

Makes sense, as those 400' Par 4 become Par 3, I'm sure a good number of Par 3 become Par 2.

Those guidelines are one method of applying the real standard which is the definition in the rules.

When scoring data is available, I use a method where par is the lowest score where at least 75% of the throws by the typical 1000-rated player are good enough for par. This 75% figure is the limit. Any hole that comes near having only 75% of throws be good enough for par is very tough to par. Any tougher and it would be higher par. On average, 90% of throws by 1000-rated players are good enough to get properly set Gold par.

Close Range Par can also work well (but close range ought to be 200 feet, not 100 feet).

Another method that works is based on average score of players that average a 1000 rating; but not just rounding the average. The range for par 3 is 2.56 to 2.75 and the range of average scores for each higher par is 1.2 bigger than the previous.

Another method is asking an expert (1000-rated) player what score they would not be unhappy with on each hole.

Another method is finding a course total score that would be rated about 1000 to 1020 and allocating that total par to each hole by difficulty.

None of these methods will produce as many par 2s as you might think. There were none at Harry Myers, for example. The definition is pretty strict: for a hole to be par 2, the tee needs to be in close enough range that an expert expects a 2. That range varies by the difficulty of the hole, but the numbers I've run show that the very shortest par 3 is probably 165 feet, and the very longest par 2 is probably 285 feet.

Most of the problem of too-high par is the longer 3s being called 4s, and the longer 4s being called 5s.

Another big problem is carelessly using the course par for MPO competitions when course par was set for Advanced or lower skill levels.

 

[Jenga54]

I think I like a combination of these two - Pars set by distance per Rating, and Close Range set by rating. Using the PDGA link provided above, the goal there is to set par according to distance able to be covered by Gold, Blue, etc. rated players. Close range should work this way too - Gold 200' Blue 165' White 150' Red/Green 125'

The thing that really shakes it up are the holes that are legit Par 4 for the 1000 rated player, maybe 600' with a dogleg. However, these crazy teenagers are throwing up and over, airing out a 575' foot shot over all the trees that make mere mortals take a 2 shot Drive/Approach to the pin. I guess if you can do that, you deserve the strokes under par.

So in that sense, are we really talking about Par for 1000 rated rounds, or the guys shooting 1050-1080 rounds?

For the most part - I think that Gold Par thing works - That 400' "Par 4" really is a drive and putt if played great, and a drive plus 80' notagolfshot and a putt for 3.

 

[KniceZ]

Not sure where you're seeing 400 ft is par 4 for gold (1000 rated). Heavy foliage par 4 starts at over 525. For us roughly 900 folks, a light foliage,450 par 4 might be a little easy but it's not an automatic birdie.

 

[Jenga54]

Not sure where you're seeing 400 ft is par 4 for gold (1000 rated). Heavy foliage par 4 starts at over 525. For us roughly 900 folks, a light foliage,450 par 4 might be a little easy but it's not an automatic birdie.

Nick Hyde Hole 9, see pics

 

[pjhayes7]

Just drop all pars on a hole by one and be done with it. This is a non issue other than appearances. Low score in relation to par makes it look easy, but we know that is not the case.

 

[KniceZ]

Nick Hyde Hole 9, see pics

Looks like a prime example of what Steve has been talking about. This shouldn't be a 4.

FWIW - I don't think we should have different standards for different rated players. It should be based on the 1000 rated player. Then I'll know how much improvement I need. I don't need to have a 900 rated par so I can score under "par" to make me feel better. With one rating system I can more easily compare course difficulty.

 

[DiscAnarchy]

Gosh dang DGCR, quit trying to suck all of the fun out of DG. Most throwers could care less about par, and it is irrelevant in my opinion anyway. People have been playing everything as a par 3 for DECADES only because it makes it easier to keep score.

As a beginner, this was hard for me at first. Some of the longer holes were really Par 4 or even Par 5.

But making everything a Par 3 regardless of distance really does make it easier to keep score in your head.

On some holes, I will still consider a 4 a good score for me, and it doesn't matter if it's a "bogey."

 

[Jenga54]

As a beginner, this was hard for me at first. Some of the longer holes were really Par 4 or even Par 5.

But making everything a Par 3 regardless of distance really does make it easier to keep score in your head.

On some holes, I will still consider a 4 a good score for me, and it doesn't matter if it's a "bogey."

The 'Par 3 Everything' comes from old/crappy new course design without real Par 4 and Par 5 holes.

 

[VictorB]

I think it's easy - courses that have an SSA, make that score par for the DGPT/NT/Majors. The SSA is based off of what a 1000 rated player should be able to average at a given course, right?

Or, just don't worry about it. No matter what par is the scoring spread of the field will still be the same.