PAR

[Karl]

Chuck, you're at it again. Stating things in a way that is a "partial truth" and which "bolsters your certain tees for certain abilities" cookie-cutter approach (as there are a LOT of different abilities in dg other than 1000rated players, 950rated players, 900rated players, etc.).


In general - for those who don't know ball golf - there ARE par "differences", but they are minor off-shoots (seniors, juniors, women) of the major "men" catagory...which always have a hole's par based on distance. A 400yd hole is a par 4 for ALL men (except those minor divisions listed above) - whether they're a total duffer or a PGA pro.

So when you (Chuck) say all the stuff you say, you totally dance around the precise point that - in ball golf - there are NOT differences in par based on ability (except for minor situations).

Karl

 

[grodney]

Sorry, but the PDGA authority is there on course design considering those standards have been referred to in lawsuits several times over the years. Park Depts regularly seek out those standards and want to make sure they are followed by their designers.

Pffft. Those statements just don't hold any water.

They might be standards, but they are only standards by default.

Anybody using them either doesn't understand that, or doesn't care. Which is FINE.

But for anyone to state that the PDGA has any authority, they're making stuff up.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sorry Karl, not correct. There are specific par standards published for men, women and juniors plus unpublished guidelines for PGA, LPGA, Champions Tour and rec seniors used by the people who set those courses and the designers who design the alternate tees for those skill levels. The very fact that there might be five tees on a hole all with the same par indicates there are five different skill levels where pars are all 3s, 4s or 5s for that skill level distance. If Tiger plays the very shortest tee on many par 4s when there are five of tees, it would likely play as a par 3 based on the Championship par guidelines.

 

[Cgkdisc]

They might be standards, but they are only standards by default. Anybody using them either doesn't understand that, or doesn't care. Which is FINE. But for anyone to state that the PDGA has any authority, they're making stuff up.

Not sure why this bugs you so much other than a rebel mentality not uncommon in our sport. But go ahead and design a course with a safety issue and try to defend that design in court against the PDGA guidelines if something negative happens. The court is the ultimate arbitrator of authority. Good luck.

Insurance companies also look for authority to assign costs for policies. While many Park Depts are self insured, with more private courses going in, especially pay-for-play they are subject to meeting "accepted" guidelines to either afford or even get insurance.

 

[Terry C]

For rec play, your opinion is in line with the maybe 50-100 times more rec players than PDGA members who are fine calling everything par 3. So, no problem. You significantly outnumber us.

You are not correct from a professional standpoint because those in authority with the PDGA overseeing the sport regarding course design and standards say so. Competitive players within it mostly agree there are pars higher than 3. In fact, it's been in the rules of the sport for tournament play for more than 20 years.

Hopefully, you'll get the chance to visit Highbridge to see what courses with legitimate higher pars are all about. The pars from each set of tees are set for the intended skill level. Top rated Blueberry Hill has the L shaped hole mentioned earlier (#16) with a break to the right then a break to the left when the basket is in the long position and people seem to like its quirkiness. With skillful play, it can be birdied with a satisfying 4. Blue level par on the course ranges from 58-63 depending on where the pins are set.

Many of the players in southern Wisconsin including tourney players grew up on mostly par 3 courses. I saw angry posts online back when Highbridge first went in and Highbridge got critical emails from many of them after they played there due to the longer par 4 & 5 holes. I remember one player was incensed that some holes were so long. He said he's watched Barry Schultz play and if Barry could not birdie (2) them, the design was all wrong. :wall:

I would love to play Highbridge or Blueberry or a bunch of other amazing courses that are out there and I am sure that a lot of those courses are quite hard. I've played probably 10 unsanctioned tournaments over the years, last weekend I played my first pdga sanctioned tournament. I came in 4th in AM's. I missed 3rd place by 1 stroke and would have won some stuff if I would have putted better and not gone OB a couple times. The course I played at had several 700 foot holes (played as par 3). It was a great time. I wouldn't exactly call myself a noob recreational player, but Im not a pro either. I do have 15 years experience discing under my belt so I would hope that meant something when I say something about disc golfing. Honestly, like several other people have said the most important thing is just to finish the course with the fewest number of strokes so what par is or isnt really doesn't matter a whole lot when you think about it in simple terms like that.

I can not tell for sure if you are worked up or feel like I am a hater for discussing this with you. I have been shaking my head at you for time and time again totally missing simple logic, but I have not been stressing or doing anything hateful (no need for a bubble bath here! ). Disagreeing is not hating. Discussing is not hating.

Maybe my doggy comments were mistaken as hateful or belligerent.....but I just thought it was amusing that 2 goofy doggy avatars were going back and forth. So, I hope you know where I am coming from and I apologize if anything I have communicated has sounded uncivil.

I'm not angry with you dave, and I didn't miss the point you were making, I just disagree about what par should be and how disc golf courses should be designed to make courses fun and enjoyable for everybody, not just for top elite pro players who are throwing 600 feet drives and making 40 foot putts. Your doggy comments were actually an ice breaker for me because I felt like you were kind of jumping down my throat up to that point but when you made a joke about the dog avatar I saw that you were being cheeky and trying to lighten the conversation up and I actually appreciated that gesture. I laughed at the avatar comment you made. I respect your opinion dave and have no hard feelings, I too apologize if I came off a bit snappy. Sometimes my fingers start typing faster then my brain telling me to slow down and calm down a bit first, lol. Thanks for the closure though dave, lets just agree to disagree for now.

A couple of guys on a card at my tournament this past weekend were having a passionate discussion about this very subject in regards to a particularly long hole at one course. Maybe its all the time I've spent on here, but I simply didn't care to get involved, even though I agreed with one of them.

ha ha, that was probably a wise choice staying out of it, I need to learn how to take that approach sometimes. This is just one of those subjects where many people have many different opinions on what par should be and how disc golf courses should be designed. They should be fun for recreational players yet be challenging enough for the top players. I'm sure there will be people discussing this topic for a long time.

 

[Karl]

No you're not correct Chuck.
Par at any specific distances for Tiger would be the same for me (6-hcp). Period. What point about that statement don't you understand? And it would be the same par for a random male 26-hcper not of junior or senior status.

Twist it all you want Chuck; you'll fool a lot of people on this (and other boards) but you won't fool us all (thank god there are some people in dg that actually DON'T take your words as gospel...but first think about the situation and THEN determine if you're right or just blowing smoke).

Karl

 

[bazillion]

Sa-a-ay, why don't we all go out and have a nice friendly game of spank-the-chains??

 

[JesusShoes]

par 3 on everything

 

[Terry C]

par 3 on everything

"can I get an AMEN brotha!!!!"

 

[Cgkdisc]

Par at any specific distances for Tiger would be the same for me (6-hcp). Period. What point about that statement don't you understand? And it would be the same par for a random male 26-hcper not of junior or senior status

All males have the same par reference for handicapping purposes, but not the par on the holes for determining the over/under par for their skill levels. Section 16 shows the table for par for scratch women and scratch men golfers: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Rule-16/
That's two different skill standards for starters.

Next Appendix C discusses Junior Par. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Appendix-C/
That's another standard for par set for juniors which identifies four more skill levels - two for boys and two for girls from their tees but those tees will also have a mens and womens scratch par to be used if handicaps are involved.

In addition, the PGA, LPGA and Champions tour have their own set of guidelines for their pars which don't have to comply with the USGA but may overlap. This has been discussed by commentators during the three tour challenge event where reps from each tour play from three different tees with PGA longest and LPGA shortest.

And further, the golf course architects have design guidelines for senior pars although it wouldn't surprise me that they just borrow one of the Junior standards. There are guidelines for up to five sets of tees for rec play. However, all of those tees will have mens and/or womens scratch pars to be used as reference for handicap reporting and events. I've tried to crack the golf architects group but can't get in but have talked with a member about par guidelines.

 

[magictenor1]

par 3 on everything

You're living in the past.

 

[Terry C]

The past rocked, it wasn't broke so why fix it? people back then must have wanted their scores to appear lower in the future so they came up with higher pars.

 

[Dave242]

In my opinion par is the number of strokes a given skill level would be expected to score on a hole with errorless play like you said, but also my opinion is that there should be no par 4's and par 5's. Disc golf holes shouldnt be so long and difficult that they would require a profesional to average 4 or 5 strokes because then that means that an amateur can expect to get a 7 or maybe 8 strokes on that hole and thats not a well designed disc golf hole in my opinion.

This is maybe the most helpful and meaningful thing I have seen you write to help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks. Makes sense.

The reality is that many players and course designers feel differently than you and have different opinions and preferences. There are plenty of courses (the vast majority) that fit your preferences, so those should keep you and those with your preference happy. And there are a growing handful of courses that are clearly not par-54 courses - either by definition or where it is convenient to count your score versus every hole being a 3.

Maybe I will bookmark this page and paste the above paragraph after every time you contribute to the par conversation with "everything is a 3".

 

[craftsman]

So I understand varied par for spectator purposes but I worry that if I used it, it would limit my progress. I am now getting threes on the 700+ holes and fours on the ~1000 footers.
I use the all threes score keeping method and when I quote scores I use the same.
I can see the difference of approaching a shot excited to shoot for eagle/bird as to worrying about the four messin up a low score. My question is what will make me a better golfer???

 

[mashnut]

So I understand varied par for spectator purposes but I worry that if I used it, it would limit my progress. I am now getting threes on the 700+ holes and fours on the ~1000 footers.
I use the all threes score keeping method and when I quote scores I use the same.
I can see the difference of approaching a shot excited to shoot for eagle/bird as to worrying about the four messin up a low score. My question is what will make me a better golfer???

I'm skeptical of this argument, do you really play the hole differently based on what the par is? I play to get it in with the fewest number of strokes, whether it's a par 3 or a par 17. When I walk up to a 1000' hole (or any), my first thought is about how to play the hole, not about what the par is, and how I feel about my score depends on whether I think I could have done better, not necessarily about whether I'm over or under par.

 

[craftsman]

I don't know if I would approach it differently- that's why I'm asking if you guys that promote 4's & 5's think it helps your overall by assumingly getting a bird vs. a boge. If it doesn't, I can see the point. I'm not arguing, I just don't see the point of making it hard to keep score and reference eachothers score.
I can understand rewarding a three on a 700+ hole where a three seems to be the lowest possible score, but how does referencing it's par as a four/five help anything.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

Par is the expected score on a given hole. In ball golf there is a simple formula, the number of strokes it would take you to get to the green plus 2 putts. Obviously certain players will throw further than others and the distance in disc golf seems to be a wider variation in Disc Golf. So, Every hole should be at least a tee shot plus two putts making everything at least a par three though I am sure there are some holes in disc golf that might deserve a par 2. Not that I always do it but everything from 150 ft and in should be in with two throws. So, your green in Disc Golf is 150 ft. Now I know there are some top pros out there who can bomb a disc over 500 ft. However, it seems a number around 350 ft would be more appropriate for a minimum of someone looking to call themselves a pro. So, 350 ft plus 150 ft makes 500 ft. Disc Golf also has the privilage of being a sport where terrain comes much more into play as apposed to Ball Golf. So, if there are expected landing areas for given holes par may be adjusted for this as well. It is going to be a much more complex calculation in Disc Golf but there needs to be a standard and it cannot be all par 3.

 

[BrotherDave]

Meh, I just play whatever the posted par is, I hate telling noobs that I play certain courses as "all par 3's" because I sound like a Straq-head. Besides, if a course has par 4's and 5's that should be 3's I just take into account and smite the course with a snarky review.

 

[craftsman]

Do you guys use 4's & 5's on the am tees too?

 

[Dave242]

Par is the expected score on a given hole. In ball golf there is a simple formula, the number of strokes it would take you to get to the green plus 2 putts. Obviously certain players will throw further than others and the distance in disc golf seems to be a wider variation in Disc Golf.

I think the reason that it seems that way is that the vast majority of DG courses do not have nearly the number of alternate tees as most golf courses do. If everyone played from the men's tees you would see a pretty wide variation.

So, Every hole should be at least a tee shot plus two putts making everything at least a par three though I am sure there are some holes in disc golf that might deserve a par 2. Not that I always do it but everything from 150 ft and in should be in with two throws. So, your green in Disc Golf is 150 ft. Now I know there are some top pros out there who can bomb a disc over 500 ft. However, it seems a number around 350 ft would be more appropriate for a minimum of someone looking to call themselves a pro. So, 350 ft plus 150 ft makes 500 ft. Disc Golf also has the privilage of being a sport where terrain comes much more into play as apposed to Ball Golf. So, if there are expected landing areas for given holes par may be adjusted for this as well. It is going to be a much more complex calculation in Disc Golf but there needs to be a standard and it cannot be all par 3.

You have basically defined what Olorin has as with his Close Range Level Par . It takes into account both the level of player that at courses was designed for (or is best suited for) and the typical skills of those players. For the reasons which you state, I think is the best system - most logical and easiest to understand & implement.

Rather than have 4-5 tees per hole each with its own color (level) like most golf courses do, with the CR-Par model you can easily calculate what an expert player at each level would be expected to score (their Level Par). The intent is not that signs would list each level of par, but rather that the sign maker would determine whom the course is best suited for and list the appropriate par for that level of player. IMO opinion, a sign at the info kiosk explaining this would be very helpful.