Par vs Pro Par

[ERicJ]

Can you make a thread on this course? I'd love to track how it goes.

The thread for the course right now is over on the HFDS message board:
http://www.hfds.org/vbull/forumdisplay.php?f=14

The details/results of the league will probably be posted either there or in the tournaments forum:
http://www.hfds.org/vbull/forumdisplay.php?f=10

ERic

 

[MattK]

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

I don't think that the fact that PDGA par is a type of SA par is hidden at all. The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it (I did one weekend, it was a heck of a read). Differing standards were discussed, and many people had their say.

There may be "tons" of holes that qualify as par 2s under the PDGA standard. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the standard. On the contrary, it means there is something wrong with the holes. If you want hole at the white or blue level to be a par 3 and the scoring average (at the 900 or 950 level) is <2.5 then the solution is to lengthen the hole or to put in more foliage, etc to increase the difficulty.

 

[ERicJ]

So I guess that all of the par 3s that became par 4s have an effective length of over 490 ft?

Yep, but I was using 360' + "close range" of 1/3 that, or 120' to get 480' for max par 3.

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.

For a Gold level course the Gold drive length is 390 ft. and the CR is 100 ft so holes are par 3 up to (effective) length of 490 ft.

(I wonder if you have an old version of the CR Par doc. The drive lengths were increased due to improvements in disc technology.)

I just know I saw a table posted on the message board that listed CR drives for the different levels. But I've been scouring the DGCR forums and can't find it.

Then I read this:

The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it[...]

...and I remembered that must have been where I saw the table. Of course the PDGA site is down again right now so I can't confirm, but that must have been what I was looking at the convinced me to try out CR par.

ERic

P.S. thanks for sending me the latest doc. Luckily for me, as well as my maps and scorecards none of the pars need to be changed. Whew!

 

[Olorin]

That's because the PDGA par system, implemented by Chuck Kennedy, uses Score Average (SA) Par. This is a little secret that the SA Par camp does their best to hide.

I've tracked score averages for the holes on over 100 course layouts and you'd be amazed at how many hundreds of par 2 holes there should be if we consistently used the SA par system. (That's one of the biggest reasons why CR Par was developed!) There would also be tons of par 2s on Blue and White level courses too, according to SA Par.

I don't think that the fact that PDGA par is a type of SA par is hidden at all. The discussion thread on the PDGA board for the subject was massive, and was quite active for a couple of years. Anyone who has the time can read it (I did one weekend, it was a heck of a read). Differing standards were discussed, and many people had their say.

OK, I wasn't clear. My bad. I meant to say that the secret is that using SA Par there should really be hundreds, if not thousands, of par 2 holes. The SA camp does their best to ignore and minimize this fact.

There may be "tons" of holes that qualify as par 2s under the PDGA standard. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the standard. On the contrary, it means there is something wrong with the holes. If you want hole at the white or blue level to be a par 3 and the scoring average (at the 900 or 950 level) is <2.5 then the solution is to lengthen the hole or to put in more foliage, etc to increase the difficulty.

Agreed that the holes should be changed. But in most cases they can't or won't be.

 

[Olorin]

Yep, but I was using 360' + "close range" of 1/3 that, or 120' to get 480' for max par 3.

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.

Are those lengths Effective length? If so, then they're tweeners that you could safely keep as par 3s

I just know I saw a table posted on the message board that listed CR drives for the different levels. But I've been scouring the DGCR forums and can't find it.

The CR Par document is stored at DG Resources in the Files section under Par. (see my signature for the URL). There are also several other useful par documents there too.

 

[Olorin]

Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies.

Par and Difficulty are DIFFERENT things.

As the designer, if you want the course to play more difficult in relation to par, then set the par lower. If you want it to play easier then set the par higher. A great recent example of the latter is hole 12 at the USDGC. Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles!

 

[magictenor1]

Par and Difficulty are DIFFERENT things.

As the designer, if you want the course to play more difficult in relation to par, then set the par lower. If you want it to play easier then set the par higher. A great recent example of the latter is hole 12 at the USDGC. Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles!

Exactly. There will always be harder and easier courses in relation to par just as in ball golf. Players will gravitate to courses they are comfortable with. When I played BG I was a real duffer and did not want to play a top notch US Open type course. It was too hard for my level of play. Discers will do the same. A course which is too easy for a pro might be just right for an AM player.

 

[ERicJ]

....hole 12 at the USDGC. Look at all of the eagles! I think it should be a par 4, but Harold keeps it as a par 5. I think for continuity to compare scores in relation to par over the years. Having an easy hole gives a psychological boost. I'm sure all those guys were still elated to get their eagles!

I agree with this a lot. That's one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards par values closer to the CR generated ones (68)... instead of what I think error-free play from a gold level player would be (60). If only one out of a 100 players shoots under par people will start to think of the course as "too hard" and may not want to come back. But if players can get close to CR par, and really good players can shoot under CR par... then it'll be viewed as a good challenging course. I don't think there will be many players who would ever call this course "too easy".

ERic

 

[ERicJ]

I've got a hole at 495' and another at 510'. Calling those par 4 I think will yield more than their share of birdies. I'm a border-line Red/White player and I'm disappointed in myself if I don't '3' those holes.

Are those lengths Effective length? If so, then they're tweeners that you could safely keep as par 3s

Yeah, there's really very little elevation on this course, and the trees are sparse. The big challenge is all the water and the length.

There are a lot of courses in the area where a good player throws a good drive, then only has to make an easy/short upshot and then an easy putt. They're mostly about the tee shot.

We wanted a course where even good players are left with making conscious decisions about what to do on their second and third shots. On many of these holes you'll be looking at another ~300' for your second shot. That's not an easy upshot for most players.

ERic

 

[Lewis]

I haven't yet played a wide open course like that. What part of the country (or world) are you in?

 

[ERicJ]

I haven't yet played a wide open course like that. What part of the country (or world) are you in?

This is the course I'm talking about: The LINKS at Quail Valley

Missouri City (suburb of Houston), Texas, U.S. of A.

ERic

 

[Huck]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.

And besides if you have played or ran a tournament you know that it is the total that matters. So if I play all of the holes in a round as PAR 3 and you play them all as PAR 4, and you shoot a -8 on the day and I shoot a +7 I still win.

So why is this debate so hot?? put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.

 

[PhattD]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.

And besides if you have played or ran a tournament you know that it is the total that matters. So if I play all of the holes in a round as PAR 3 and you play them all as PAR 4, and you shoot a -8 on the day and I shoot a +7 I still win.

So why is this debate so hot?? put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.

Right on the money Huck. Except for one thing... if it's a nine hole course my -8 beats your +7. other than that I second everything you said.

 

[Olorin]

The concept of PAR and the arguments concerning all 3 or variable are pointless untill there is a true universal guideline that says if this hole meets this criteria then it is par 4.

I couldn't agree more emphatically!

put some energy into coming up with a set guidelines that will define PAR on any course at any time.

Done. Please go to the DG Resources Yahoo Group and download the document on Close Range (CR) Par in the Files section.

 

[Rbuzz9]

Yeah, I would think that dog-legs and such would make the par change. A shot to get around the corner if you will...

And in ball golf, just the same as in disc golf, there will be tough par 3s and easy par 4s. I don't think that is a bad thing.

yeah near me there are a few shorter ball golf courses that have some par 4s that are the length of a par 3 but have a "dogleg" with a hidden green so it's nearly impossible to hit from the tees.

The International in Bolton, MA is very close to where i live -there is a 715 yd par 6


ill play by what the course says par is. If par isnt posted - they'd all par 3's
if given the choice between par and pro par - i'd personally take the latter even though i have no business doing so.

People should be consistent with whatever par they choose - all pro par or no pro par.

in the end whatever the par is it won't make you better

 

[Donovan]

Well, after reading all of this, I have come to a new conclusion for the present time of setting par. Some people know good course designers and some bad ones. Although, you just gotta love a guy who puts up courses no matter what!

Anyway, I like the thinking that the course designer needs to use his best judgment for now. I like the fact that ERicJ went out there and tried the various par methods and then considered adjusting them from there. That is truly the way it should be for now. I say this because none of the systems really take into account the length of the dog leg or the huge tree that sits right in front of a whole as it grew bigger later on, or the fact some people may have to lay up before a pond with range limitations.

I like the idea of a par and a pro par, a red par and a gold par. I think that just makes sense. Let the designer set these as he wants them played. The rest of us should enjoy it from there. This is sometimes a factor in how we feel about certain course designers.

Keeping score (regardless how you do it) is keeping score. Having pars to compete with on each hole is what makes each hole a fun challenge and something a little extra to shoot for....that is golf.

I have never confused tracking par and score keeping, besides what someone may quote to me , but if you don't take setting a course par seriously, you are missing out on what golf is all about.

 

[magictenor1]

Well, after reading all of this, I have come to a new conclusion for the present time of setting par. Some people know good course designers and some bad ones. Although, you just gotta love a guy who puts up courses no matter what!

Anyway, I like the thinking that the course designer needs to use his best judgment for now. I like the fact that ERicJ went out there and tried the various par methods and then considered adjusting them from there. That is truly the way it should be for now. I say this because none of the systems really take into account the length of the dog leg or the huge tree that sits right in front of a whole as it grew bigger later on, or the fact some people may have to lay up before a pond with range limitations.

I like the idea of a par and a pro par, a red par and a gold par. I think that just makes sense. Let the designer set these as he wants them played. The rest of us should enjoy it from there. This is sometimes a factor in how we feel about certain course designers.

Keeping score (regardless how you do it) is keeping score. Having pars to compete with on each hole is what makes each hole a fun challenge and something a little extra to shoot for....that is golf.

I have never confused tracking par and score keeping, besides what someone may quote to me , but if you don't take setting a course par seriously, you are missing out on what golf is all about.

That's the idea. Par is a way to test yourself against the course. A par and a pro par make sense for a lot of courses. No matter what there will still be harder and easier courses.