Is 36 down okay? What should par be?

[lyleoross]

BTW David,

When I say par 2 is acceptable to anyone, I base that on the knee jerk reaction that happens when a rational soul, like yourself or Steve, says we should call a par 2 a par 2. Such statements get the biggest push back of any in these discussions. The -36 discussion is softer and has more acceptance, until you start listening to the pro players. They seem pretty clear on their discomfort with such scores. Clearly they think top level courses should have more rigour to them.

 

[lyleoross]

Sorry, that should have been unacceptable....

 

[Steve West]

But if you accept it you're saying that Steve D. is wrong...

Actually, I accept it too, but only because I know our egos will do something about it if we score it, right or wrong. The point made here that there are legitimate par 2 holes in DG is sort of fine with me. I don't really believe it. If the hole has technical aspects to it in the three areas I've mentioned before, off the tee, down the fairway, or around the green, you're going to push par towards three. To be par 2 you have to either be open, or very short - if there is any real texture to the hole. That said, there are some very cool par 2 holes. They are visually appealing and fun to participate in when pros play them. I would certainly not advocate changing such holes, but I'd also argue that there shouldn't be six or seven of them at a major.

There's a whole 'nother thread about legit par 2s. But, I don't know how to point people to it.

I'd like to know whether the label Par 2 actually puts more pressure on players. Maybe players don't want to label any hole a par 2 because that would make those holes too hard.

And 36 down as a winning score is sometimes, rarely, OK: if the best players are there and the course is hard enough and there are enough rounds. But usually it indicates wimpy par. (As it would for a course like Maple Hill.)

 

[Karl]

Nope. Par should be unique to the skill level of the highest rated player group a hole is designed for... just like ball golf does it.

You saying 'nope' doesn't invalidate my statement. A 350yd bg hole is a 4par for the PGA and is a 4par for 36hcpers at the local muni. Same hole, same par. YOU (and some others) trying to shoehorn everyone into a few 'skill levels' is your foolishness - not mine and not everyones.

 

[gdub58]

Yes, there is only one real par. The one that is appropriate for Open.

OK - that works.

For the modified pars, you need to replace the "expert player" with something like "prototypical player". That's why they are not really par and should always have a modifier; like 'Intermediate Par". However, because there are about gajillionty-seven PDGA divisions, I prefer to use the color-coded skill levels.

Wait - now there are five pars for each hole? I mean, I get that only courses like Iron Hill Gold may have a different one for each level on a number of holes, but it can happen.

For the golfers out there, this is like pre-calculating all the handicapping formulae for a few standardized skill levels so players can go straight to net play.

We don't have net play - we have the gajillionty-seven divisions. It's similar to flighting in ball golf tournaments, but it's self assigned and could lead to improper par assignment for divisions.

Players that don't have a rating will quickly figure out which skill level results in scores that are closest to what they get when they play well. Then, once they know what they usually score in relation to that skill level, they can go to any other course with properly set modified pars and know about how well they played that day.

If I don't have a rating and decide I'm going to figure out my par level, on my next round would I think "you know, I scored about 4 throws more than I would have if I had played well, my score was 60, so which par on the par table is closest to 56 and that's my par level? Or do I wait until I play well and use that number to establish my level? Should I come to the same conclusion a certain number of times as a way of confirming my initial assignment? Also, going forward, is there a criteria for moving up to the next level (or moving down)?

Sure seems like gender and age is a better way of assigning modified pars.

Every tee/basket combo could have an appropriately labeled par assigned for all skill levels. That's what I'd like to see, knowing that players don't always play the "right" tees - or even know their skill level.

Five pars for every combination? We're going to need bigger tee signs.

However, some course designers might not want to show the modified pars for those skill levels that wouldn't enjoy the course. Chuck prefers to show only the modified par for the skill level the tee was designed for. That doesn't hurt the concept of par at all.

But isn't part of the fun of disc golf courses (and a way of providing variety in tournaments) playing the longs one round and shorts the next round? I'm afraid we're going to need all of the pars on all of the signs, or I guess an "*" is OK with a footnote to say that the tee isn't designed for someone of their skill level...

There are no sets of tees specifically for Women, Seniors, or Juniors; just different skill levels. For divisions that happen to be all Women, the appropriate modified par is based on the ratings of the top players in that division, just like divisions that are all Junior, or all Senior, or all Am.

What defines the top players in that division - a % or a fixed number? In the division for that tournament or across all tournaments? Or are you saying that Intermediate division would always have the same color? Sounds like it would be easier to just have ratings based divisions and force people to play in them - this would align with your ratings-based par system. That's a tough sell.

For tournaments, using Open par for all divisions would be acceptable, but I think it would be better if the TD offered pars that are appropriate for each division offered at that tournament (if that's too much work, use the modified par for the top division offered).

So, until we get the tee signs modified at courses, this system should at least be applied at all tournaments or just for majors/NTs? What would the TD do specifically - would they as part of their player's meeting have either a written or verbal listing of all OBs, mandos (which they do now), and the par for the hole depending on your color level? No thank you.


I'm sorry there's an overly sarcastic tone here, but all of this very Rube Goldberg to me.

The original question in this thread was if -36 was OK in tournaments. I am obviously in the "yes" camp, but for those who feel otherwise do you think they are concerned with -36 scores for just the Open division in tournaments where there may be spectators or do they want a fix for everything including the people in divisions like Advanced Grandmasters and Rec in their local C-tier? Me? I'll stick to looking at round ratings.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You saying 'nope' doesn't invalidate my statement. A 350yd bg hole is a 4par for the PGA and is a 4par for 36hcpers at the local muni. Same hole, same par. YOU (and some others) trying to shoehorn everyone into a few 'skill levels' is your foolishness - not mine and not everyones.

Sorry, Karl, you know very well that there are a separate pars for different skill levels in ball golf and even on the same tee where the "Women" or Junior par might be 5 and the men 4. Simple fact, not opinion. This topic has been well worn for years on this site and before. From the USGA Handicap table. https://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14401
Ball golf designers have additional rules of par for Juniors, Seniors, Championship
Yards Men........Women
Par 3 Up to 250..Up to 210
Par 5 417-690....401-590
Par 6 691+.......591+

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

I always assume everyone is cool.

A couple of things. You've made an assumption that our putting is easier. It is, but only because we make it that way. That is part of this discussion. It is possible to make putting as hard or as easy as you want it to be by shaping baskets and greens. We don't for both traditional and ego reasons. Again, DeLa is the poster child for hard putting. I don't know what the shots in the green are for that course, but I bet it's above the average and by a good bit.

Disc golf isn't easier or harder than Ball Golf; it's as easy or as hard as we make it. Hence the difference between the courses used at Worlds this year, and the courses that come up as being challenging. USDGC strives to build a challenging environment, and they succeed, albeit with some flaws. Ball Golf is the same. I learned BG in high school; we had a pitch and putt course next to campus. If you called every hole on that course a par 3, then most of the top players in the sport would shoot, oh, say, 12 down on average. If you redeveloped the courses used in the BG majors, you could do the same. The PGA doesn't do that. Don't know why... actually I do, and so does everyone else who posts here. The question becomes, where does DG want to be? pitch and putt or challenging? All sports start somewhere.

Making par harder. Beyond the fact that "make par harder" discussions, and everything that happens here is for fun, no really, it is, the PDGA has been tasked with a number of jobs by it's members. One of those is to grow the sport. There are a number of differing views on how to do that, but one thing that is clear, unless a sport sets itself up to be fair, and takes itself seriously, it doesn't grow. For us, it is guys throwing lids at trees in the park. Fun enough. There are many within this sport who want it to stay small, fun and local. There is nothing wrong with that except that it goes against what the majority of our members vote for when they take surveys. That is, our membership takes the sport seriously, and wants it to be taken seriously, all opinions here notwithstanding. The very fact that these discussions happen frequently, and often go with the question, how to grow the sport, is telling in and of itself.

For those who want the sport to be fun, and small... great! And that is how you should play and participate. For those who want the sport to grow and be a spectator sport... great, they should strive for that. For the first ten years I played I laughed at those who said we were growing a fan sport with serious traveling pros. At that time, every year three to six guys would get an RV and travel on their own. I was wrong. Today we have ten or twenty traveling groups with RVs and even more who travel on their own. We have a strong online viewing audience, albeit small and vocal. We have a huge fan base in Finland and are seeing a growing presence in US media. Do we want to help that or ignore it?

You make some good points.

I totally agree that disc golf can be made more challenging, and some courses used for major tournaments should be more challenging. But there has to be a limit.

I have to respectfully disagree when you say "Disc golf isn't easier or harder than Ball Golf". I stand by my point that disc golf is easier than ball golf. In disc golf you are throwing a disc into a relatively large basket. In ball golf you are taking a long crooked stick, and trying to hit a tiny ball into a tiny hole. They are just different... To me comparing par for the two is apples vs. oranges.

I think the beautiful thing about disc golf is it can be fun and inviting in a way that ball golf can't, but also have compelling professional competition. Best of both worlds IMHO

As for the grow the sport movement I wish it nothing but success, but I would argue that par has a minor part to play. The bigger issue, to me anyway, is the perception that it isn't a compelling competitive sport...you know the whole "hippies throwing Frisbees in the woods" thing. No offence to any hippies out there

The best players win and the competition is compelling as hell. The growth will come.

 

[DavidSauls]

But if you accept it you're saying that Steve D. is wrong...

Actually, I accept it too, but only because I know our egos will do something about it if we score it, right or wrong. The point made here that there are legitimate par 2 holes in DG is sort of fine with me. I don't really believe it. If the hole has technical aspects to it in the three areas I've mentioned before, off the tee, down the fairway, or around the green, you're going to push par towards three. To be par 2 you have to either be open, or very short - if there is any real texture to the hole. That said, there are some very cool par 2 holes. They are visually appealing and fun to participate in when pros play them. I would certainly not advocate changing such holes, but I'd also argue that there shouldn't be six or seven of them at a major.

Certainly not 6 or 7.

My thought about par-2s starts with honesty, but doesn't end there. Even as a fading duffer, I play holes on courses in local tournaments that I consider par-2s. I know if I don't get a 2, I'm losing ground to the competition. They are, to me, practical par-2s, regardless of how they're labeled. And changing the label won't change the holes.

Par-2s can be interesting with a tricky green, perhaps the threat of OB, or a tunnel or low ceiling or other factors that make them a little dangerous. They can also, of course, be terribly boring, especially for watching top players. It depends on the hole.

I am a minority fan of "tough par" holes, in general---holes where par, the expected score, perhaps the most common score, is good, where there aren't many birdies, but a risk of bogeys or worse if you don't execute. Survival holes. Holes that might produce a scoring average of 3.3, or 4.3, or......yes, 2.3. To my taste, these are good, challenging, grit-your-teeth holes. And they balance all the "birdie" holes on the course, where par may be common but there are a lot more birdies than bogeys.

Of course, they violate the Inalienable Right to Birdie, which is part of the anti-Par-2 campaign, and a general objection to these "tough par" holes.

I don't want a course full of them, but I like some, just for balance. As best I can tell, I'm pretty much alone in that.

 

[DG_player]

You saying 'nope' doesn't invalidate my statement. A 350yd bg hole is a 4par for the PGA and is a 4par for 36hcpers at the local muni. Same hole, same par. YOU (and some others) trying to shoehorn everyone into a few 'skill levels' is your foolishness - not mine and not everyones.

That's completely inaccurate. Go play a course that hosts PGA tour events and play from the championship tees. They're not even in the same ball park as the regular tees.

 

[gdub58]

Certainly not 6 or 7.

My thought about par-2s starts with honesty, but doesn't end there. Even as a fading duffer, I play holes on courses in local tournaments that I consider par-2s. I know if I don't get a 2, I'm losing ground to the competition. They are, to me, practical par-2s, regardless of how they're labeled. And changing the label won't change the holes.

Par-2s can be interesting with a tricky green, perhaps the threat of OB, or a tunnel or low ceiling or other factors that make them a little dangerous. They can also, of course, be terribly boring, especially for watching top players. It depends on the hole.

I am a minority fan of "tough par" holes, in general---holes where par, the expected score, perhaps the most common score, is good, where there aren't many birdies, but a risk of bogeys or worse if you don't execute. Survival holes. Holes that might produce a scoring average of 3.3, or 4.3, or......yes, 2.3. To my taste, these are good, challenging, grit-your-teeth holes. And they balance all the "birdie" holes on the course, where par may be common but there are a lot more birdies than bogeys.

Of course, they violate the Inalienable Right to Birdie, which is part of the anti-Par-2 campaign, and a general objection to these "tough par" holes.

I don't want a course full of them, but I like some, just for balance. As best I can tell, I'm pretty much alone in that.

So David, it sounds like you create your own par for holes, including some that are par 2, and you like holes where you expect to get a certain score but it can be difficult to achieve that score. I think a lot of us do the same thing, but I don't ever reference it in any way. I mean, we don't tell people "I shot -4 compared to my par expectation, so I had a pretty good day". Instead, we likely use the good 'ol +/- all par 3 reference when talking to others about our rounds, because it's a common language. On some courses I guess that can make us sound really good (since there are some courses with a lot of par twos), but the people we are talking to know if -8 is really good or just average for that course.

And I also agree that holes on which it is hard to achieve the expected score are great for the game.

Point is, I don't need a system to determine a "correct par" for me. If the consensus among pros is that they want the par changed on some holes (up or down) at a particular tournament, then they should push for that - it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

 

[lyleoross]

Certainly not 6 or 7.

My thought about par-2s starts with honesty, but doesn't end there. Even as a fading duffer, I play holes on courses in local tournaments that I consider par-2s. I know if I don't get a 2, I'm losing ground to the competition. They are, to me, practical par-2s, regardless of how they're labeled. And changing the label won't change the holes.

Par-2s can be interesting with a tricky green, perhaps the threat of OB, or a tunnel or low ceiling or other factors that make them a little dangerous. They can also, of course, be terribly boring, especially for watching top players. It depends on the hole.

I am a minority fan of "tough par" holes, in general---holes where par, the expected score, perhaps the most common score, is good, where there aren't many birdies, but a risk of bogeys or worse if you don't execute. Survival holes. Holes that might produce a scoring average of 3.3, or 4.3, or......yes, 2.3. To my taste, these are good, challenging, grit-your-teeth holes. And they balance all the "birdie" holes on the course, where par may be common but there are a lot more birdies than bogeys.

Of course, they violate the Inalienable Right to Birdie, which is part of the anti-Par-2 campaign, and a general objection to these "tough par" holes.

I don't want a course full of them, but I like some, just for balance. As best I can tell, I'm pretty much alone in that.

The best thing about having a debate discussion with older guys is that they arc towards rational thought and compromise. More fun and profitable.

 

[DavidSauls]

Right, gdub. I don't refer to my "personal par", or score in relation to it, either.

But if a hole can be said to have an expected score for my skill level, it can be said to have one for top pros. And that might be a 2. And it might even be a 2, and not a bad hole.

I don't know why top pros would particularly care how par is set on a given hole.

But from the perspective of the sport, if we're going to have par, I think we should define it in the best way possible. And there's no doubt we're going to have it. It's not terribly important, by why not have the best par possible? One that means something?

From the perspective of disc golf as a spectator sport, a limited perspective but where this thread begins, there are some small but real advantages to par fairly closely reflecting what the top pros are expected to shoot.

 

[lyleoross]

You make some good points.

I totally agree that disc golf can be made more challenging, and some courses used for major tournaments should be more challenging. But there has to be a limit.

I have to respectfully disagree when you say "Disc golf isn't easier or harder than Ball Golf". I stand by my point that disc golf is easier than ball golf. In disc golf you are throwing a disc into a relatively large basket. In ball golf you are taking a long crooked stick, and trying to hit a tiny ball into a tiny hole. They are just different... To me comparing par for the two is apples vs. oranges.

I think the beautiful thing about disc golf is it can be fun and inviting in a way that ball golf can't, but also have compelling professional competition. Best of both worlds IMHO

As for the grow the sport movement I wish it nothing but success, but I would argue that par has a minor part to play. The bigger issue, to me anyway, is the perception that it isn't a compelling competitive sport...you know the whole "hippies throwing Frisbees in the woods" thing. No offence to any hippies out there

The best players win and the competition is compelling as hell. The growth will come.

Nothing here I really disagree with. Question though, why do you think the BG hole isn't two feet wide and three deep? I'll stick with my notion that DG is easier because we make it that way. Personally, I'm advocating for a return to the tone pole. As with David, thanks for the rational discussion, lots of fun.

 

[DavidSauls]

The best thing about having a debate discussion with older guys is that they arc towards rational thought and compromise. More fun and profitable.

I'm in the odd spot of co-owning a private course, where we have to name a par on holes (because it's part of the penalty process for missing holes at tournaments), and at the same time thinking it's not terribly important. I'm trying to memorize what it is on 3 layouts, because visitors keep asking, but I invariably have to add up the 4s and 5s before I can tell them. And I live here.

But no one's broadcasting events from here, so there are no interim scores or players on different holes, for which it matters. Nor do we have enough 1000-rated players, or 1020+, to know for sure.

 

[teemkey]

So I guess the answer to the OP's question: "Is 36 down OK?" is that there are so many considerations and opinions in setting par more in line with elite level play, that, even though it's not ideal, it's OK as long as the lowest score wins.

 

[DavidSauls]

So I guess the answer to the OP's question: "Is 36 down OK?" is that there are so many considerations and opinions in setting par more in line with elite level play, that, even though it's not ideal, it's OK as long as the lowest score wins.

I think that was his conclusion.

 

[Steve West]

...
Point is, I don't need a system to determine a "correct par" for me. ...

But whole categories of people do. Including spectators and those playing a course for the first time, or competitors wondering how players on the other course in a tournament are doing. That's who we're trying to serve as best we can.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

Nothing here I really disagree with. Question though, why do you think the BG hole isn't two feet wide and three deep? I'll stick with my notion that DG is easier because we make it that way. Personally, I'm advocating for a return to the tone pole. As with David, thanks for the rational discussion, lots of fun.

http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/f/holesize.htm

Interesting article on the size of a ball golf hole.

Pretty arbitrary haha...

I'm guessing here, but disc golf is probably set on the basket dimensions. There are so many courses that changing seems impossible.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

Deleted duplicate post

 

[lyleoross]

http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/f/holesize.htm

Interesting article on the size of a ball golf hole.

Pretty arbitrary haha...

I'm guessing here, but disc golf is probably set on the basket dimensions. There are so many courses that changing seems impossible.

Baskets and BG holes seem to be arbitrary, but only to a point. My two foot wide BG hole example serves a purpose, no one does it because that size of a hole would make the game a mockery. Guys would hit buts from 60 feet at a higher frequency than we do.

There are basket standards at PDGA.com. Height, width etc. There has been a progression though. We've continually tried to make baskets catch better and have apparently succeeded. However, there was just an event in Idaho where they used the narrower practice baskets by DD. It's a different game.

Your notion that changing every course would be impossible is correct. But no one is suggesting that. Just like no one would suggest changing the cups at every ball golf course in the world. Instead you set a standard for your Majors, four or five events. What casual courses do, and should do is a different kettle of fish altogether.