Par 3 isnt viable for some holes

[DiscJunkie]

Because there are a ****-ton more rec players than "experts" in disc golf, and we don't know yet what the limits of "expert play" are. The evolution of the player and player skills is out pacing course design for the most part. That much is clear just looking at older courses that were designed 20 and 30 years ago. "Par" on some of those courses was posted when everyone was playing with lids and was based on the concept of "expert" play. Those pars are a joke now.

That isn't to say that developing a standard for par isn't a desirable goal in disc golf. It's saying that with the pace of the game's evolution at this point, whatever standard we might decide on might be rendered obsolete before it even becomes widespread.

So in the meantime, if posting some pars at "rec" level means placating new players and keeping them interested enough to stick with the game until they reach a point where a more "expert" par isn't as intimidating or discouraging, I think there's no harm.

I like this line of reasoning.

 

[iacas]

Ball golf also has the advantage of being much more well established. You can literally turn on the TV at any time of any day and see some sort of golf coverage.

Yup. We've got a whole channel.

Disc golf is still seen as a hobby, this means people will be much quicker too dismiss it as "too hard."

Then those people are pussies. What do you want?

Goodness I'm tired of all this PC crap. We don't keep score in 10-year-old soccer (never mind that everyone playing or watching knows the score). We let people think they shoot "par" on a disc golf course when they shoot 79 on a 5500-foot course. Yippee.

That's stupid.

And I don't think it "keeps" as many players interested as you think. If players have fun, they'll come back. What does "golf is more established" have to do with anything? The new player doesn't care that they were playing golf in the 1700s. They just care if they have fun, hit one or two "good" shots (for THEM), are outside enjoying the company of friends, etc.

I don't think you have any proof at all, except what seems to make sense to you, that inflated pars make disc golf more enjoyable. People know when they're being lied to. They know when someone else is better than them. They know when someone that's introducing them to the game throws a putter and drops it in for a two the hole probably isn't a "par five."

Bottom line is we're not ****ing golf.

Nah, you just borrowed heavily from it, even to the point of abusing terms like "green" and "stroke" and "putter/driver" and such.

Golf has been around for hundreds of years to establish a baseline standard for "expert" play.

Disc golf is evolved enough to know what experts are. If experts get significantly better in the next decade, par could be revised (as unlikely as that is to happen).

Our baseline for "expert" play is ever-changing.

I disagree.

And even if that was accurate, just define a baseline and go from there. I guarantee you it would not be that a 400-foot wide open hole is a par four because a newbie can't throw 200 feet.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

If the usual player cannot drive to the circle from the tee, be it from distance, trees, whatever, I think there could be a case for designating a hole a par 4 or greater. The concept of par always being three seems to be regional or more recent. There are several courses in my area with the original pre-Leopard pars listed. Many holes I can drive with a mid range are designated as par 4 and up based on these signs. The whole concept of par is to allow players to have some semblance of an idea what a typical player does on a certain hole. I think it's fair to use pars other than 3 on signage.

Now, what would be very interesting is a Par 2.5, 3.1, 3.75, etc, since so very often our holes are designed to be playable in 2-4 strokes. :dons flame proof suit:

The usual player drives 300-320'. So a 360', wide open hole should be a par 4? Where the pros are throwing midrange off the tee for an eagle?

The traditional golf comparison is spot on. I know I suck at it, I don't expect when I break 100 that I "shot par." I shot bad compared to good golfers but maybe better than my buddy. If I practiced hard enough, I could get down to that level, not the other way around

 

[bradharris]

And I don't think it "keeps" as many players interested as you think. If players have fun, they'll come back. What does "golf is more established" have to do with anything? The new player doesn't care that they were playing golf in the 1700s. They just care if they have fun, hit one or two "good" shots (for THEM), are outside enjoying the company of friends, etc.

The fact that it's more established makes people less likely to dismiss it. People take up golf having seen it on tv, talking to friends about it, and hearing countless stories of golf lore. So they take up golf with the mindset that they want to learn the game and try to be good at it.

Disc golf on the other hand is a niche activity that a new player will try, just to see what it's all about. Very few players take up the game the first time with the mindset that they're going to devote a lot of time and effort into becoming a better player.

I don't think you have any proof at all, except what seems to make sense to you, that inflated pars make disc golf more enjoyable. People know when they're being lied to. They know when someone else is better than them. They know when someone that's introducing them to the game throws a putter and drops it in for a two the hole probably isn't a "par five."

It's game theory. If you give someone a seemingly attainable goal, they become more engaged in trying to reach that goal. If the goal is so far off that they don't think they'll ever be able to reach it, they'll be much more quick to dismiss the activity.

 

[sneakytiki]

The usual player drives 300-320'. So a 360', wide open hole should be a par 4? Where the pros are throwing midrange off the tee for an eagle?

The traditional golf comparison is spot on. I know I suck at it, I don't expect when I break 100 that I "shot par." I shot bad compared to good golfers but maybe better than my buddy. If I practiced hard enough, I could get down to that level, not the other way around

Agreed. A 360' par 4 is ludicrous, except for maybe heavily wooded and on a steep uphill grade. If that were the cutoff my home course would jump to a par 70 or something from a 58. It has one hole that is 620' downhill, par 3 and a 700ish' flat par 4. Sure those are tough holes and I bogey them more than I par them, but when I do make par it feels great.

 

[JC17393]

I guess I have to ask why there has to be just one standard? What's wrong with having two sets of pars on a course, one for the "experts" and one for the "recs"? I suppose that's really the only thing I take issue with, that there has to be one standard.

As I said, my course is a par 55 by "expert" standards, but a par 70 on the scorecards. The people that understand or generally shoot close to "expert" par are playing the course with that as their standard/goal. Those that don't understand it or think it is unattainable are perfectly happy to strive for the scorecard par. I don't see anything wrong with that. The sport isn't going to fall apart because of it.

 

[sneakytiki]

It's game theory. If you give someone a seemingly attainable goal, they become more engaged in trying to reach that goal. If the goal is so far off that they don't think they'll ever be able to reach it, they'll be much more quick to dismiss the activity.

If someone tries DG and they stop because the par is discouraging them, I am sorry they will be missing out... but I don't think it is the duty of the course designer (or whoever establishes par) to try and set attainable goals to make newcomers feel engaged. Individuals need to find their own drives, set their own goals.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Arguing about par is silly. There is a standard. Without a standard, ANY par designation is indefensible. But if you still want to argue, open up the following link and argue with the document that loads.

PDGA Par Guidelines

 

[PMantle]

If a sport, any sport, uses a term, it should have meaning. Saying "everything is a par three" renders the term meaningless. It's one of the dumbest statements I've encountered in my life. That's saying a lot considering the number of plaintiff's lawyers I've dealt with.

 

[padenbaumer]

well me and the crew play everything as par threes, even if you think its dumb pmantle.
i just cant look at a 3 on a scorecard and think 'birdie'

 

[bradharris]

I guess I have to ask why there has to be just one standard? What's wrong with having two sets of pars on a course, one for the "experts" and one for the "recs"? I suppose that's really the only thing I take issue with, that there has to be one standard.

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is multiple tees. You can set par for a particular hole and then set tees such that par is attainable for the different skill levels.

The other option is to set different par designations.

I've seen both done and I think both are reasonable.

 

[iacas]

The traditional golf comparison is spot on. I know I suck at it, I don't expect when I break 100 that I "shot par." I shot bad compared to good golfers but maybe better than my buddy. If I practiced hard enough, I could get down to that level, not the other way around

Yup.

The fact that it's more established makes people less likely to dismiss it. People take up golf having seen it on tv, talking to friends about it, and hearing countless stories of golf lore. So they take up golf with the mindset that they want to learn the game and try to be good at it.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Heck, if anything, seeing someone like Tiger Woods hit a shot would lead people to think they can be good like him sometime soon. They'd get MORE discouraged playing golf than disc golf.

In disc golf, all they have to compare themselves to is the person they're playing with, the person introducing them to the sport, and that person is unlikely to be Will Schusterick or the "Tiger Woods" of disc golf.

So your argument works against you, somewhat. Players are less likely to be intimidated because disc golf is less established. They don't know what "good" is as much as they do with golf.

Disc golf on the other hand is a niche activity that a new player will try, just to see what it's all about. Very few players take up the game the first time with the mindset that they're going to devote a lot of time and effort into becoming a better player.

So the game either hooks them or it doesn't.

It's game theory. If you give someone a seemingly attainable goal, they become more engaged in trying to reach that goal. If the goal is so far off that they don't think they'll ever be able to reach it, they'll be much more quick to dismiss the activity.

Nah. "You throw these things towards and eventually into that basket with the chains." That's the goal, and it IS attainable.

Very very few golfers get down to scratch. People don't quit golf because it's too difficult. They quit because it's costly, and takes a long time. Two things that are in favor of disc golf.

People LIKE challenges.

Agreed. A 360' par 4 is ludicrous, except for maybe heavily wooded and on a steep uphill grade. If that were the cutoff my home course would jump to a par 70 or something from a 58. It has one hole that is 620' downhill, par 3 and a 700ish' flat par 4. Sure those are tough holes and I bogey them more than I par them, but when I do make par it feels great.

Realistic, actual "pars" reward people more than fake pars.

Until someone is near par, they can still sense achievement because they can still improve over their last round, their last hole, etc. They can still beat their buddies.

I guess I have to ask why there has to be just one standard? What's wrong with having two sets of pars on a course, one for the "experts" and one for the "recs"? I suppose that's really the only thing I take issue with, that there has to be one standard.

And what do you do when you're in between?

If someone tries DG and they stop because the par is discouraging them, I am sorry they will be missing out... but I don't think it is the duty of the course designer (or whoever establishes par) to try and set attainable goals to make newcomers feel engaged. Individuals need to find their own drives, set their own goals.

Yup.

 

[PMantle]

well me and the crew play everything as par threes, even if you think its dumb pmantle.
i just cant look at a 3 on a scorecard and think 'birdie'

You should not ever think "birdie" since you do not understand par. There is no birdie or bogey without par.

 

[bradharris]

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Heck, if anything, seeing someone like Tiger Woods hit a shot would lead people to think they can be good like him sometime soon. They'd get MORE discouraged playing golf than disc golf.

Agree to disagree. Obviously as a golf pro you have a more inflated view of ball golf and the motivation to play it. As someone that's never played anything more than putt-putt, I have a very distant view of the sport. The "correct" answer is probably somewhere in between.

FWIW, I agree with your basic premise that par should be based on what the elite players can shoot. However, I don't think most disc golfers see it that way.

In a perfect world, we would have nicely laid out courses with red, white, blue and gold tees that are well designed so that a rec player playing the reds and an elite player playing the golds can use the same par and expect to shoot similar scores.

This kind of set-up will be the exception rather than the rule for a long time though.

 

[bhadella]

When traveling back to South Bend, IN to visit my wife's family; I played George Wilson Park in Mishawaka. This course hosted the '96 PDGA Worlds (along with other courses in the area). Par was set as 71 on a 5472 ft course at the time of Worlds and has stayed the same. I shot -20 (51) relative to par in a very heavy wind. Normal conditions probably would have taken 2-3 strokes off of it. And on my best day, I'm a run of the mill Intermediate player. A touring pro would probably shoot a 37-38 (might miss one putt or upshot) shooting 33 or 34 shots under par. Par is arbitrary.

 

[larrod25]

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is multiple tees. You can set par for a particular hole and then set tees such that par is attainable for the different skill levels.

The other option is to set different par designations.

I've seen both done and I think both are reasonable.

This ^^

In ball golf there will ALWAYS be multiple sets up tees that make par attainable for different skill levels. I too have seen this done well in disc golf. However, there are many courses that do not have room for multiple tees. Having both Pro/Adv level pars and Int/Rec level pars on the tee signs is very useful.

Using the "all 3s" method for scoring is very easy and a valid way to add scores. As previously stated par does not matter in competition.

I also agree with something else BradHarris posted regarding course design and reviews. My favorite disc golf holes are par 4s in the 475-600 range than absolutely cannot be reached from the tee. Holes that require and accurate drive to a landing area, then an accurate approach to the 10M circle. Holes like this really close the gap between accurate average distance throwers and guys who can just throw really far.

The OP mentions a specific course, which I have played numerous times. Hole 4 is 500+' uphill to in a wide open field. Literally no obstacles, no OB. While many will argue that this is a par 3, I would love to see what the SSA for this hole is for the last few tournament rounds. It is not and easy 3, and I would say it requires at least 550' of distance to have a putt from the circle.

Hole 5 is also 500+ feet (to the long basket), and while the tee shot is downhill across the same field as hole 4, the basket is up a hill across a tree/shrub lined creek. The basket is actually only about 2 ft below the tee pad. The creek is about 450' from the pad. Oh, and there is a walking trail along the backside of the basket (maybe 20' of clearance) that is also OB. In order to have a putt at this hole, you have to throw at least 500' from the pad, over a creek/trees, and short of an OB path. Again, this hole is not and easy 3, and any 2 should definitely be considered an Eagle.

to the OP, FWIW, my best round out there is a 58 casually, and a 62 in competition. Pro/Adv players will regularly shoot 48-50 in competition.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/99878
That is a link to the results for a tournament held there in Feb. You can get an idea of how wide the scoring spread is between the top and bottom.

 

[YellowWraith]

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[DavidSauls]

[1] This thread may blow up. Threads debating "par" tend to do so.

See.

 

[dantheman0721]

Not sure why this is still thought. Seems like every course I play with a 500' hole has it marked as par 4...

Maybe in your area. All 3 of my local courses have at least one crazy long hole (or at least specific long pin location) which is still considered a par 3. It's only frustrating because it makes your score not sound as good as it really is, but when your playing with your buddies, your all going off the same par, so it's still fair.

If anyone has played Shady Oaks in Orangevale, hole 5 on the "C" location...good god, it's like over 600' and has an army of trees and a creek in the back. It's still considered a par 3, so I'm usually happy to get out of there 2 over. But hey I'm not complaining

 

[New013]

where's prerube when you need him

or Olorin who has brought up several points why par does matter in scoring

as Mr. Sauls has pointed out already in this thread there's a difference between what par for a hole is and how you score that hole. you can score a hole anyway you want, par has nothing to do with that. for some courses it might actually make more sense to score everything based on 4 throws per hole.

that does not mean the par for each hole is 3 or 4. if you don't like the concept of par or care about it then don't worry about it. i just don't want to hear you tell people it doesn't matter or that it doesnt exist because it does. it's in the rulebook. if the governing body that sets the rules for sanctioned play uses par to adjust scoring in any way then par exists and should be set accordingly based on the length and setup of the hole.

... and i hate you all for making me care about this subject again. i need to let it go.