Par Talk

[Steve West]

...

Nice try Steve, but honestly you couldn't be more off base.

I know. Sorry. No more pre-coffee postings.

 

[DG_player]

We're already seeing events that have eliminated the par 2s. For example, that's why the tee on hole #1 at USDGC was moved back 8 feet.

Was that a typo or was it really just 8 feet? That seems like an awfully small change to move a hole from a par 2 to a par 3.

 

[DanJon]

Was that a typo or was it really just 8 feet? That seems like an awfully small change to move a hole from a par 2 to a par 3.

8-10 feet can really change a hole depending on where you put the new tee position vs the previous one.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Wasn't the basket also moved back and sideways up the hill?

 

[dwindacatcher]

I think the pro level tournaments do it right (for the most part). Every hoke is three unless the green is basically unattainable causing you to have a layup shot. Obviously there is a handful of players that can push that, but I literally mean a handful in the entire world.

 

[Rockwell]

What myself and others (assumption) can't seem to accept is holes in which players are no longer putting for birdie, since that is literally the only way to "fix it" if we are just talking about adjusting PAR and leaving aside course design elements.

It's not a great answer when you consider the multiple points made by Steve, but it's an honest one.

Perhaps we need to extend our definition of what a putt is to include many approach shots that we intend to land near the basket. These essentially mimic a ball golf long putt from the fringe that they are trying to roll next to (or in) the cup.

Note: This would include tee shots that are within a certain distance and difficulty range.

 

[Rockwell]

On par 2. I don't relish the notion of par 2 either. The reason I argue for it is that I suspect TDs would modify holes that came in at par 2 very quickly. For exactly the reasons that gdub lays out for disliking the use of it. Now that supposition isn't necessarily correct, and gdub is right; a Major with a par 2 is a bad idea.

Don't many of us really enjoy those holes that would be a "par 2" and would hate to see them lengthened for the sake of length? (now if they want to plant more trees or move earth around and make the greens more interesting, I'm all for that.)


One facet of our game that we ask a skilled golfer to display is the ability to throw controlled approach shots (think putters, mids, and fairways). Yes, we get this with some of our best par 4s and 5s, but driving distance off the tee on these holes leaves players with vastly different approaches often. A "par 2" essentially asks every player to throw that "approach" from the same distance and spot. And often, these are some of our holes with the most fun factor for a wide range of players. Even Lizotte, a known crusher, has stated he often prefers technical short holes.

All that to say, while I love par good par 3s, 4s and 5s for a variety of reasons, I also love short, interesting holes sprinkled in without the need to change them so they take 3 shots for an expert to make rather than 2.

 

[gdub58]

Don't many of us really enjoy those holes that would be a "par 2" and would hate to see them lengthened for the sake of length? (now if they want to plant more trees or move earth around and make the greens more interesting, I'm all for that.)


One facet of our game that we ask a skilled golfer to display is the ability to throw controlled approach shots (think putters, mids, and fairways). Yes, we get this with some of our best par 4s and 5s, but driving distance off the tee on these holes leaves players with vastly different approaches often. A "par 2" essentially asks every player to throw that "approach" from the same distance and spot. And often, these are some of our holes with the most fun factor for a wide range of players. Even Lizotte, a known crusher, has stated he often prefers technical short holes.

All that to say, while I love par good par 3s, 4s and 5s for a variety of reasons, I also love short, interesting holes sprinkled in without the need to change them so they take 3 shots for an expert to make rather than 2.

Absolutely agree with a qualification: during events staged for the top players, add enough technical risk (whether it be naturally occurring such as trees or artificially added bunkers or OB) such that getting a two requires a really precise throw.

If that's the case, we may still quibble about the "expert expectation" being reasonable enough to debate whether the hole still qualifies as a par three or not, but at least it's not so easy that it can't be argued as such.

 

[Lazerface]

Perhaps we need to extend our definition of what a putt is to include many approach shots that we intend to land near the basket. These essentially mimic a ball golf long putt from the fringe that they are trying to roll next to (or in) the cup.

Note: This would include tee shots that are within a certain distance and difficulty range.

You are correct, but it would be hard to get buy in I'm sure. The lag putt of disc golf could be about a relatively open 250-300 foot shot. Pros are like 95% up and down on these shots. It's really what this conversation all boils down to. There are certainly 40 foot putts in ball golf that would be harder to two putt than a 300 foot up and down in disc golf. This is pretty much why disc golf PAR is not "accurate".

Now you just have to convince people that they are putting for birdie from 250 feet away.

 

[Steve West]

Perhaps we need to extend our definition of what a putt is to include many approach shots that we intend to land near the basket. These essentially mimic a ball golf long putt from the fringe that they are trying to roll next to (or in) the cup.

Note: This would include tee shots that are within a certain distance and difficulty range.

That's what "allowing two throws within close range" means. The layup and a putt. It never meant two putts.

I think the pro level tournaments do it right (for the most part). Every hoke is three unless the green is basically unattainable causing you to have a layup shot. ...

This philosophy is the root cause of par inflation. Two things are wrong with it. First, when the layup throw is easy enough so that experts expect to one-putt, those holes are still par 3s, not par 4s. The throw to get there, plus the two-close-range-throw combination of layup and putt.

And a much smaller part of the problem is that on some holes it takes zero throws to get to that layup throw. Those are par 2s.

Don't many of us really enjoy those holes that would be a "par 2"
…
short, interesting holes sprinkled in without the need to change them so they take 3 shots for an expert to make rather than 2.

I hope we leave it up to each TD as to whether to include them, without outright banning these holes, or shaming TDs into never using them.

 

[BionicRib]

You are correct, but it would be hard to get buy in I'm sure. The lag putt of disc golf could be about a relatively open 250-300 foot shot. Pros are like 95% up and down on these shots. It's really what this conversation all boils down to. There are certainly 40 foot putts in ball golf that would be harder to two putt than a 300 foot up and down in disc golf. This is pretty much why disc golf PAR is not "accurate".

Now you just have to convince people that they are putting for birdie from 250 feet away.

That's where I think the argument is at right now. Keep it as is and convince people that you are putting for birdie from the tee pad on a majority of so called par 3s or throw enough gimmicky ob or obstacles in their way to keep par as is.

Either way because of the differences in opinion on par amongst designers/clubs/players and tds all over, that issue will never be resolved in our lifetimes imo.

Does this mean either side of the argument should give up?......never. but it would be nice to see some more consistent ideas be tested so we can put some of these arguments to rest.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The "No labeling par 2" argument has no rational backing or data support. Since we have few spectators, it's basically a "faith based" argument that par 2s would detract from how our sport looks and turn off spectators. At this point, no one knows what will turn on the spectator flood. It's unlikely the answers to the par question will be an important part of that.

 

[Steve West]

That's where I think the argument is at right now. Keep it as is and convince people that you are putting for birdie from the tee pad on a majority of so called par 3s or throw enough gimmicky ob or obstacles in their way to keep par as is.

Either way because of the differences in opinion on par amongst designers/clubs/players and tds all over, that issue will never be resolved in our lifetimes imo.

Does this mean either side of the argument should give up?......never. but it would be nice to see some more consistent ideas be tested so we can put some of these arguments to rest.

Only a small fraction of the existing par 3s could be labelled par 2.

What could possibly be more consistent than applying the actual, official, since the beginning of the sport, definition of par? It's already happening. Sure, there are some people who still need to get on board, but the trend among the leading TDs and course designers is to do a better job of setting par according to the definition.

 

[stevefolfer]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reasoning for not having par 2.5 or par 3.5 holes. Other than it being impossible to par those holes. My friends and I talk all the time about a hard par 3 being more like a 3.5 or an easy par 3 being more like par 2.5.

 

[DavidSauls]

The "No labeling par 2" argument has no rational backing or data support. Since we have few spectators, it's basically a "faith based" argument that par 2s would detract from how our sport looks and turn off spectators. At this point, no one knows what will turn on the spectator flood. It's unlikely the answers to the par question will be an important part of that.

It has the force of Tradition behind it, and that's a powerful force. The Inalienable Right to Birdie has been with us since the beginning.

 

[DavidSauls]

Only a small fraction of the existing par 3s could be labelled par 2.

What could possibly be more consistent than applying the actual, official, since the beginning of the sport, definition of par? It's already happening. Sure, there are some people who still need to get on board, but the trend among the leading TDs and course designers is to do a better job of setting par according to the definition.

My beloved local course is full of them.

 

[BionicRib]

Only a small fraction of the existing par 3s could be labelled par 2.
.

Personally I think it should be more than a fraction. Especially for the elite. I remember Chuck and others kicking around the idea of having a super gold level standard of par/design. 300ft with a few trees here and there is a 2 for those guys.

As lazèface put it......that type of hole is like having a 40ft putt on a green in ball golf. The top golfers don't expect to make it in one putt, but they are discouraged to walk away with anything more than 2 putts. Same mentality in disc golf when standing on the tee 300ft away.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It has the force of Tradition behind it, and that's a powerful force. The Inalienable Right to Birdie has been with us since the beginning.

There are traditional par 2s in minigolf so it's not like the concept hasn't been around long before DG. The failure to effectively create "traditional" par 3s, 4s and 5s like regular golf started early on when our sport's developers did not foresee the issues of today by initially creating a more robust putting environment by figuring out our equivalent aerial version of surface putting in BG. Of course even our founders' initial efforts, where putting with lids on single chains was more difficult than today, were later undermined by allowing the beveled edge disc, adding the inner set of chains and eventually wider rim discs with better plastic.

Each improvement changed the game enough to where ratings for Super Class events using more frisbee-like discs had to be separated from regular event ratings because the games were now enough different. What's been happening in the area of course design has been applying tweaks, primarily with penalties, to regain the right balance in play elements. It's "a" way to go. But it's possible experimenting with more challenging and less punitive methods, a better way can be found to produce more appropriate scoring distributions.

 

[lyleoross]

There are traditional par 2s in minigolf so it's not like the concept hasn't been around long before DG. The failure to effectively create "traditional" par 3s, 4s and 5s like regular golf started early on when our sport's developers did not foresee the issues of today by initially creating a more robust putting environment by figuring out our equivalent aerial version of surface putting in BG. Of course even our founders' initial efforts, where putting with lids on single chains was more difficult than today, were later undermined by allowing the beveled edge disc, adding the inner set of chains and eventually wider rim discs with better plastic.

Each improvement changed the game enough to where ratings for Super Class events using more frisbee-like discs had to be separated from regular event ratings because the games were now enough different. What's been happening in the area of course design has been applying tweaks, primarily with penalties, to regain the right balance in play elements. It's "a" way to go. But it's possible experimenting with more challenging and less punitive methods, a better way can be found to produce more appropriate scoring distributions.

I'm not sure anyone takes mini golf as a serious sport? Although, I'm guessing some would say the same about us.

 

[lyleoross]

You are correct, but it would be hard to get buy in I'm sure. The lag putt of disc golf could be about a relatively open 250-300 foot shot. Pros are like 95% up and down on these shots. It's really what this conversation all boils down to. There are certainly 40 foot putts in ball golf that would be harder to two putt than a 300 foot up and down in disc golf. This is pretty much why disc golf PAR is not "accurate".

Now you just have to convince people that they are putting for birdie from 250 feet away.

I think Lazer has hit the nail. A forty foot putt on a textured green is a tough shot, but does get made. A 150 ft upshot is about the equivalent (give or take). Right now we are considering a 60 foot shot as a putt, we need to move that back in my opinion. That of course makes you rethink holes. It also makes you realize the fundamental difference between disc golf and ball golf. We can't match their drive length and we are proportionally very different when it comes to putting and driving. It might behoove the Pdga to write a white paper defining what a drive is and what a putt is. I know that sounds bureaucratic, but if you do that you can start thinking about what components you need in a challenging hole. Clearly, if a putt is 150 feet, then a 300 foot open hole is just two really good putts, or a chip and a drop in.