PAR

[Dave242]

I wish I could speak with more experience, but I've only been playing for a month. I suppose I'll just ask a question, which has possibly been answered. Was this a debate for ball golf in it's early life, and how was an organized system agreed upon?

There is an article linked to on pdga.com that is pretty interesting reading that is exactly what you are looking for - History of Par

 

[Cgkdisc]

Where they can do it, new courses are going in with lengths over 7000 feet for 18 holes. The upgrade happening to my home course is going from about 6200 to 6800 feet and it will have six par 4s for blue level. Highbridge Granite is a blue level course that can get over 8000 feet and the gold is over 9500 feet. Check the thread about East coast courses being over-rated. Many of those are over 7000 up to 10,000 feet. I don't think Michigan has any permanent courses that average more than 400 ft per hole (maybe Ludington?). Timber Ridge for Worlds did but I don't think that's in the ground any more. Michigan is a par 3 hotbed but other areas like PA, DE, NY, MD, VA, MA, NC, GA, OR, WI (north), IN (PW2010), WV, KY and MN have more higher par courses these days and more coming.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There is an article linked to on pdga.com that is pretty interesting reading that is exactly what you are looking for - History of Par

Yeah, let's get the "half par" discussion underway for even more precision. Let's see how CR Par handles that...

 

[craftsman]

Cdkdisc, it's not that I want to play easy courses and play rec all my life. I have every intention to play pro within the next five years. When I watch the clash videos it seems they are all going for three or two strokes on every hole reguardless of length or terain. Granted sometimes you have to settle for a four. So I think to myself of all the things I need to do to achieve the same.

 

[Dave242]

The Clash videos are great, but keep in mind these are the top 0.01% of golfers in the world and they are playing doubles (triples in one of them I think) so the risk is WAY reduced for the reward they are gunning for. Designing courses around that standard would not make much sense.

 

[Cgkdisc]

When they are going for 3s on those videos, many of those are going to be birdies on par 4 holes. There usually aren't more than two par 5s on even the longest courses where a 4 might make someone happy in a Clash video.

 

[Dave242]

Yeah, let's get the "half par" discussion underway for even more precision. Let's see how CR Par handles that...

If we could use fractional pars per hole, I would be blowing the SSA (per hole) horn. :hfive:

 

[Cgkdisc]

If we could use fractional pars per hole, I would be blowing the SSA (per hole) horn.

There has been talk among the cognoscenti about going this way but several practical implementation issues need to be worked out.

 

[craftsman]

Were growing but we still have to provide variety. Kensingtons black lotus is a movement in that direction with 7 over 400, with only two of those being under 500. We have a lot of 54ers because we have a lot of courses. They're usually set up in clusters varying in difficulty.

 

[DSCJNKY]

For all my Par 3 friends:
Go play Nevin, Renny Gold, Milo, or Winthrop Gold using the Par 3 system. Have fun! Talk to me about Par after the round... when you're 30 over. Then we can have a real discussion about what Par is. Thanks.
DSCJNKY

 

[Cgkdisc]

Were growing but we still have to provide variety. Kensingtons black lotus is a movement in that direction with 7 over 400, with only two of those being under 500. We have a lot of 54ers because we have a lot of courses. They're usually set up in clusters varying in difficulty.

Sounds good that they're mostly over 500. Unless holes are tightly wooded or doglegs, many holes in the 375-475 ft range are power tweeners and not bona fide par 4s for blue and gold level. Usually have to get to 475-600 for fair blue level par 4s and up to 700 for gold level par 4s, again based on foliage density.

 

[magictenor1]

I am totally a rec player but I like to see par 4's and 5's for my level. I totally agree with mashnut that I don't see how the par of a hole makes you better. I always try to get the best possible score on each hole. If I shoot -5 I am trying to get to -6 and if I shoot +9 I am trying to get to +8, par makes no difference. I really don't even understand the idea that you have to keep score that way. I played ball golf for years and we never used a scorecard. I don't believe that DG'ers are not smart enough to simply keep up by +1, -1 etc. I have never used a scorecard for either sport and it's not that complicated.

 

[DavidSauls]

Well. This has spread from just keeping track of score to about seven different debates, stretching to course design and definitions of par.

Personally, I span a lot of them.

I have a private course and it's clear evidence I don't believe all courses should be par 3s, or that long, tough par 4s or par 5s are only of interest to the top 1% of players. I'm old, 920-rated (and falling), 280' driving....and yet I love these multi-shot holes.

"Par", for us, is a design issue. How do we want a hole to play out? Some are old-school par 3s, which most players can park with a well-executed drive. For others, I'd say we design with something like CR par, then validate par with scoring averages plus a mix of experience an intuition. (If you're quite happy to get a 3, it's probably a birdie and the hole is par 4. If you're disappointed with a 4, it's par 3). Designed with about 975-rated players in mind, so it's bluish gold or goldish blue.

I'm also one who thinks par doesn't matter a lot, but we have to set it (for late players at tournaments), and some visitors---of all skill levels and experience---care a lot and constantly ask and even debate what's par on certain holes.

But when we play, we track score by "all par 3". Which should probably be called "base 3" or "over/under 3" instead. For simplicity.

We're not actually playing to the par---not the "par 3", not the "course par". We're playing for the best score on each hole.

 

[AdamE]

I'm also one who thinks par doesn't matter a lot, but we have to set it (for late players at tournaments), and some visitors---of all skill levels and experience---care a lot and constantly ask and even debate what's par on certain holes.

But when we play, we track score by "all par 3". Which should probably be called "base 3" or "over/under 3" instead. For simplicity.

We're not actually playing to the par---not the "par 3", not the "course par". We're playing for the best score on each hole.

I agree. It's all about total score rather than par. If I shoot 54 on some courses it means I played like crap, but on other courses a 54 is an incredible round. I use a base 3 system to keep track of my score because it's easiest, but if I get a 4 on the par 5 hole I'm pretty stoked!

In a tournament it's our score against other players scores. During casual play I compare my score to previous rounds and see how I did. Par doesn't really matter that much to me.

 

[Cgkdisc]

To add another debate to this thread, I would say that wise players don't even go for the best score possible on every hole regardless of par. Exhibit A would be ace runs. I would say most higher level players do not go for aces but play for birdie 2s on the holes they can reach. Exhibit B would be tricky holes where the risk/reward aspects dictate not going for the best score you could potentially shoot because it has a high probability it could result in a score 2 or more throws worse.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I use a base 3 system to keep track of my score because it's easiest, but if I get a 4 on the par 5 hole I'm pretty stoked!

Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor).

 

[DavidSauls]

Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor).

I stand defeated.

I'm still searching for a phrase to replace "all-par-3" scorekeeping so we don't annoy Olorin quite so much with our abuse of the word "par".

 

[Dave242]

Actually using "base 3" for scoring would really motivate players to birdie holes since shooting a par 3 on a hole would show up as a 10 on your scorecard (geek humor).

It took me a second.....but it would indeed be strange to card a nice even 2000 for a even-par round on 18 holes!

 

[Dave242]

The Carolina Clash (National Tour event) is happening right now. Scores are coming in for Hornet's Nest Web layout. Par is 70 (18 holes) and SSA is 998, so that means World Class Par (Gold level par) is also right at 70 (69.7 to be more precise). This is how it should be.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's only realistically possible on wooded courses like Charlotte's Web and Renny to get the gold level par close to SSA. For more open long courses, other than Winthrop Gold with it's unrelenting OB penalties, the proper gold par is more likely 3-5 higher than SSA. Apparently, Nikko threw in a 150' second shot for a 2 on the 540' hole 5 at the Web. Must have been a par 3...