Par 4 and 5 Design Mistake

[keepitfun]

For any designer considering par 4 and 5 or even 6 please be aware that often higher par holes emerge as easier to par or birdie and can potentially weaken the challenge of your course

All too often a par 4 allows for a chance for recovery for an errant initial drive. Despite added length of the hole or even rough or woods many times a design allows a player to recover without being tested if his initial drive was errant. This is why often a well designed par 3 allows for greater scoring separation than many par 4s and 5s and 6s. The pressure on a par 3 hole is often greater off the tee as there is not as much chance for recovery.

In this age of greater distance due to disc technology and accrued wisdom and shared knowledge of how to gain maximum distance it is alarming to me how often par 4s and 5s become the blander holes and the par 3 holes truly are more significant.

In short, designers should attempt to punish errant shots where recovery requires skill and is where recovery is not routine......this is not simple and there are many challenges and things to consider.

Just a thought that doesn't come up enough and I know not many will care about but I think it is vital to the sport to create such holes and make every throw important

I think a par 4 requires a good shot followed by a good shot and not a bad shot followed by a good shot to earn a birdie chance.

 

[Jimb]

I think a par 4 requires a good shot followed by a good shot and not a bad shot followed by a good shot to earn a birdie chance.

Interesting post. Good food for thought.

In regards to your comment that I quoted, what do you think about a bad shot, followed by a great recovery shot, for a birdie chance?

I'm ok with that. And, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that this is a philosophy used by John Houck in his designs. I'm pretty sure he uses an acronym that I can't remember. But I think this is basically the gist of it.

:thmbup:

 

[InnocentCrook]

I like to break down par 4's and 5's so that each "throw" should be a decent hole. If I put a basket at the landing zone, would that be a fun hole? Ask the same question when standing at the landing zone and looking to the basket. (Or second landing zone in the case of a par 5.)

 

[DavidSauls]

We have Par 4s & Par 5s that give players multiple chances to screw up. That attempt at a great recovery shot is sweet if it works, but might mean double-bogey, or worse, if it doesn't.

 

[Golden Tuna]

This will undoubtedly devolve into the Par conversation. But, I'm intrigued, so I will ask you to clarify something:

You said, "I think a par 4 requires a good shot followed by a good shot and not a bad shot followed by a good shot to earn a birdie chance"

Since "good" is relative, are we talking a good shot for MPO, FPO, MA1, MA2, or MA3?

Should we not say (for example) a 250' shot followed by a 250' shot, followed by a 175' shot to earn a putt for birdie.
>Then the question(s) are, "on a wooded course, or wide open", "is there ob", "what are conditions like"?

Could there be a reason the PDGA rule book is written with such ambiguity...

 

[DavidSauls]

All too often a par 4 allows for a chance for recovery for an errant initial drive. Despite added length of the hole or even rough or woods many times a design allows a player to recover without being tested if his initial drive was errant. This is why often a well designed par 3 allows for greater scoring separation than many par 4s and 5s and 6s. .

Comparing a poorly-designed par-4s & -5s with well-designed par-3s?

Likewise, a well-designed par-4 will create better scoring separation than a poorly-designed par-3.

*

Since par-4s and par-5s require multiple long throws, perhaps it would be fairer to compare them to a sequence of two par-3s.

 

[Steve West]

Most poorly designed par 4s will produce better scoring separation than most well-designed par 3s. Increasing the average score on a hole by making it longer usually has a strong effect on scoring spread.

However, the broader point that par 4 and 5 holes are not as efficient as par 3s is still valid. Sure, the extra distance almost always "works", but not as well as if that distance had been used for more par 3s or par 2s.

 

[keepitfun]

Interesting post. Good food for thought.

In regards to your comment that I quoted, what do you think about a bad shot, followed by a great recovery shot, for a birdie chance?

:thmbup:

without getting too caught up in semantics and mathematics I would define the shots as

bad throw equals zero
good shot equals one throw
great shot equals 2 throws

thus 2 good throws would equal a bad shot plus a great shot:clap: now putt for birdie

 

[Steve West]

without getting too caught up in semantics and mathematics I would define the shots as

bad throw equals zero
good shot equals one throw
great shot equals 2 throws

thus 2 good throws would equal a bad shot plus a great shot:clap: now putt for birdie

How often do you throw and end up no closer to the target and in no better position? Almost never. Sure, a lot of times you don't end up as close as a good throw would have gotten you, but you gained something. I'd say bad throw is more like one-half.

Great throw would be two throws, but usually a Recovery throw would only make up for a bad throw. Two good throws to a putt is a par 3. A bad throw plus a Recovery throw and putt is a par 3.

A great throw and a putt is a birdie on a par 3.

 

[keepitfun]

I like to break down par 4's and 5's so that each "throw" should be a decent hole. If I put a basket at the landing zone, would that be a fun hole? Ask the same question when standing at the landing zone and looking to the basket. (Or second landing zone in the case of a par 5.)

landing zones, or places from which the next shot is optimal and playable, open up a can of worms and I agree it is a good design practice in general but

-how big do we make the landing zone
-be wary of the design practice of cutting up a hole into short increments that do not allow further penetration towards the green, you know that hole that is 600 foot par 5 but split into 200 foot segments that force 3 precise shots in a row to get to the green but you must play landing area to landing area.....while there is a test of skill in making 3 perfect 200 foot throws in a row, underrated by many, to achieve birdie It has been my experience that these grinders test consistency rather than tempting a great shot, they also tend to limit the advantage of more capable players....I like it used in moderation as consitency is a test of skill but these holes are wildly unpopular on courses where it is overused
-then there are the obvious concerns of landing zone disc golf on sharp turning holes: is the rough thick enough to thwart cheater lanes and if not are the throws long enough and straight enough to not tempt a cheater lane....a 300 foot drive to a landing zone that produces a clear look to a basket 200 feet away is superior to a hole that is a 200 foot drive to a landing zone that enables a 300 foot approach to the basket....generally the latter will provide a better cheater line, unless yo have dense foliage that eats disc but again that's no fun either

I agree with landing zone golf but only if the fairway can be further penetrated along the fairway....generally of course there are no absoluts<3

 

[keepitfun]

We have Par 4s & Par 5s that give players multiple chances to screw up. That attempt at a great recovery shot is sweet if it works, but might mean double-bogey, or worse, if it doesn't.

this sounds oddly like Carolina golf where the longer warm and lush growing season provide the thicketest of thickets of the fairway...it also sounds punishing of bad shots which imo is good

 

[keepitfun]

This will undoubtedly devolve into the Par conversation. But, I'm intrigued, so I will ask you to clarify something:

You said, "I think a par 4 requires a good shot followed by a good shot and not a bad shot followed by a good shot to earn a birdie chance"

Since "good" is relative, are we talking a good shot for MPO, FPO, MA1, MA2, or MA3?

Should we not say (for example) a 250' shot followed by a 250' shot, followed by a 175' shot to earn a putt for birdie.
>Then the question(s) are, "on a wooded course, or wide open", "is there ob", "what are conditions like"?

Could there be a reason the PDGA rule book is written with such ambiguity...

I have little interest in this thread disappearing into the what is par ether and being lost but for purposes of this thread I will say that for the intended skill level most designers know what a good shot is.....trying to quantify information into a uniform set of rules makes for awful course design with little room for uniqueness or imagination....we've all played that weirdo course or hole that we enjoyed but was not really a statistical gem :thmbup:

OB in my experience is used best to tame players from throwing reckless or to force a particular shot or to simply test distance ....there are some players who love the adrenaline of OB and the way scores can rollercoaster on a scorecard and then there are players who loathe it......I think the love of OB and the disdain for it are both overblown

 

[keepitfun]

Comparing a poorly-designed par-4s & -5s with well-designed par-3s?

Likewise, a well-designed par-4 will create better scoring separation than a poorly-designed par-3.

*

Since par-4s and par-5s require multiple long throws, perhaps it would be fairer to compare them to a sequence of two par-3s.

someone is paying attention...touche...my overall point is that longer is not always better

 

[keepitfun]

Most poorly designed par 4s will produce better scoring separation than most well-designed par 3s. Increasing the average score on a hole by making it longer usually has a strong effect on scoring spread.

However, the broader point that par 4 and 5 holes are not as efficient as par 3s is still valid. Sure, the extra distance almost always "works", but not as well as if that distance had been used for more par 3s or par 2s.

this is only true because of added throws which statistically adds to the chance of a player messing up....more throws equals more probability of making a mistake

my point is that a poor player can throw a bad throw on a 550 foot par 4 and if it is not truly punished can often save his score via a ROUTINE Par save....the better player's advantage is then neglible

we can do so much better

the more I read your post and my reply I think we are in agreement

 

[DavidSauls]

this sounds oddly like Carolina golf where the longer warm and lush growing season provide the thicketest of thickets of the fairway...it also sounds punishing of bad shots which imo is good

Some of those---but other types of higher-par holes, too. None where distance is the primary factor, though.

 

[Steve West]

this is only true because of added throws which statistically adds to the chance of a player messing up....more throws equals more probability of making a mistake

my point is that a poor player can throw a bad throw on a 550 foot par 4 and if it is not truly punished can often save his score via a ROUTINE Par save....the better player's advantage is then neglible

we can do so much better

the more I read your post and my reply I think we are in agreement

You think a 550 foot hole is par 4? There's your problem.

 

[keepitfun]

You think a 550 foot hole is par 4? There's your problem.

ok whatever distance you desire...the point remains the same

in my experience 550 is typically a par 4

unsure if that is too long or too short for you

 

[Karl]

All posts 10 thru 14 inclusive in this thread are yours. The International Laws of Internet Thread Posting states thou shalt not post more than 3 consecutive posts on any thread. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Steve West]

ok whatever distance you desire...the point remains the same

in my experience 550 is typically a par 4

unsure if that is too long or too short for you

Too short for Open. Often a par 4 is wrongly thought to be one drive long. That's why you see a lot of 550 foot "par 4s". To me, if players can save par with a routine throw, it is probably because par wasn't set low enough.

However, a 550 foot hole will probably generate too many 3s for Open, so it likely wouldn't be a good hole for them no matter the par.

 

[Steve West]

Too short for Open. Often a par 4 is wrongly thought to be one drive long. That's why you see a lot of 550 foot "par 4s". To me, if players can save par with a routine throw, it is probably because par wasn't set low enough.

However, a 550 foot hole will probably generate too many 3s for Open, so it likely wouldn't be a good hole for them no matter the par.

A part got cut out. Should say "often a par 4 is wrongly thought to be anything that is more than one drive long".