PAR

[Cgkdisc]

Of course, those guys are old school and their quotes are still close but a bit outdated. That was before the stats showed that 2 putts was almost twice number of putts experts take within 10m.

 

[bigghigg]

Probably not. So what does that have to do with disc golf? Maybe blending and mixing the two separate sports together is why you're confused. Ball golf is a completely different game then disc golf. You are trying to compare bowling to basketball and that doesn't work. We already had this discussion, just page back to it if you need to revisit it again.

No, it's like comparing ice hockey to floor hockey. They're both hockey. Par in disc golf, as in ball golf, should be an indication of the length/difficulty of the hole against a standard definition (which is separate topic). At the end of the day it's the number of throws/strokes that determines the final score. Using par is simply an easier way to keep track.

 

[DSCJNKY]

YAY!

But I can't take credit myself. I stole the heart of it from posts made by John Houck, Ken Climo, and Dave Dunipace on the old pdga message board.

They all agreed, and I can't think of 3 better authorities.

Yeah... That's pretty much a who's who in three different DG categories.

The most respected course designer. The Champ. And the guy who designs our discs (if you use innova).

Enough said.
DSCJNKY

 

[Dave242]

As far as the concept of what Par should be (a general definition)........you are right - "Enough said".

But as far as an actionable definition that can be put into the hands of organizers and designers it is lacking the following specifics and details that would be needed to correctly assign par to new and existing courses:
1) What does "reached" mean? Parked? In the "circle"? Something other distance wherein the 2 extra throws are expected to happen?
2) Who does this apply to (what level of player) and what are the specifics of how far they are expected to be able to throw?

These questions need to be answered before signs and scorecards can be made. If not defined for the folks doing so, this definition does very little in helping to establish consistent and meaningful numbers (other than help eradicate the "everything is par-3" backwards thinking).

 

[grodney]

Of course, those guys are old school and their quotes are still close but a bit outdated. That was before the stats showed that 2 putts was almost twice number of putts experts take within 10m.

hee hee. I know you're just messin', but 10m doesn't mean anything. (I don't disagree with your statement.)

Data I gathered in 2005 showed golfers in the 950-1000 range making right around 50% of their first putts. And by putts, I mean using a putting motion and trying to make it (hole outs and obvious layups excluded). This could be anywhere from a drop-in to 75 (or more) feet, depending on the player and the hole. Three-putts turned out to be a nearly negligible percent.

Therefore, the total number of putts per hole was right around 1.5.


(My data set was small and it's getting old. It would be mildly interesting to see similar data from today across a wide range of skill levels and holes.)

(I track my putts (as defined above) on the Elon Long course in Charlotte. After 8 rounds, my average is exactly 1.50 per hole. I'm not very good, so I would indeed expect it to be lower for better players.)

 

[grodney]

But as far as an actionable definition that can be put into the hands of organizers and designers i

I was going to say "actionable shmactionable", but I found this in my archives. I apparently made this years ago for just such instances.

This would apply to the vast majority of courses meant for normal public play. Or even minor- to medium-sized tournaments.

If you really want to confuse them, also mention that they should adjust 3 feet for every 1 foot of elevation change.

 

[Dave242]

If you really want to confuse them, also mention that they should adjust 3 feet for every 1 foot of elevation change.

I'm normally not a LOL sort of person (I laugh a lot on the inside though), but you almost had me there!

Good chart BTW since it is simple and intuitive (even though it is not along the CR-Par philiosophy). I like how it clearly shows the lengths that make tweener holes.

 

[grodney]

tweener holes.

Or as a great man once coined: The Grey Area.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ah, Yes, the Gray Zone
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/3OEYv7GnOGhU6GUfx6IKhlSogLhTHII5o5-YMAg6wsI-i*maeY8reiHSEj9etJLQzTiOhbY5M-psFxTIuZnJhWLnBoIoOiuG/grayzone2003chart.gif

 

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

This would apply to the vast majority of courses meant for normal public play. Or even minor- to medium-sized tournaments.

Very simple :clap: I would imagine that for gold level players you just add length and do the opposite for lower-ability players. Or put another way: This is where you put the "blue tees." The "am/red tees" are forward (and located with easier lines). The "gold tees" are further back and may implement more difficult lines...

 

[craftsman]

I'm ready for varied par as soon as you guys are ready

from all the forums I've read about par, what I've found is there are multiple ways to figure it, some I agree with more then others, but no one is on the same page. So how can varied par promoters pretend that it's the 3ers that are the problem. We have our facts straight- all 3's all the time, it's yourselves holding yourself back by not being in agreence.

I'll admit it helps access penalties, gives comparable scoring for tv coverage, and helps promote courses for thier intended level but that can't compare to easy scorekeeping and sharing with everyone on the same page.

 

[craftsman]

Grodney, that chart is pretty accurate- nice job

but when you ask someone how'd they shoot and they say 2 over how do you figure that out.

 

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

...I'll admit it helps access penalties, gives comparable scoring for tv coverage, and helps promote courses for thier intended level but that can't compare to easy scorekeeping and sharing with everyone on the same page.

Well, apparently everyone is not on the same page. Most "reformed ball golfers" are quite confused to learn what "par" is in DG...

I'd add that "real par" also helps in huge tournaments when a division is split into pools in order to play different courses. It allows us watching from afar accurately judge how are favorite players are doing...

 

[Dave242]

I'd add that "real par" also helps in huge tournaments when a division is split into pools in order to play different courses. It allows us watching from afar accurately judge how are favorite players are doing...

These tournaments are set up so they play the same set of courses before the "shuffle" (to rank the players by score), I usually use SSA to make that comparison.

SSA is wonderful.....much better than par will ever be as far as objectivity and consistency goes. But it has different (although related) uses.

 

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

I know, but the shuffle is after 3-or-so rounds. Yes at that point, total score is all that matters. However, total score is misleading before the shuffle if the courses have different "real par."

 

[Terry C]

I wil say that I like the longer and harder holes too, I just play em as threes

I like difficult courses and hard designed holes as much as anybody, I just prefer to play them as par 3's as well. I am noticing big differences in opinion from different parts of the country on this topic too which is very interesting.

I'm seeing that some people are blending the idea's that if you prefer disc courses to use all par 3, then you are a simple minded amateur that doesn't know anything about disc golfing. Thats an incorrect assumption to make. Personally, I dont know anyone who likes playing pars over 3 and I play with some very good golfers. For my area of the country par 3 is the standard. I guess I have to tell my disc golf club that they are all wrong because some guy on the internet said so.

 

[Dave242]

For my area of the country par 3 is the standard. I guess I have to tell my disc golf club that they are all wrong because some guy on the internet said so.

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too.

 

[Terry C]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too.

They will be very dissapointed. Remember when you found out Santa Clause didnt exist?

 

[chiefcastor]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too.

If it is on the internet it has to be true.

 

[tallpaul]

And don't forget to add that you read here that the governing body of the sport, the top player in the world, the top disc designer in the world and the top course designer in the world said so too.

Dave...what about Stan the man? How soon they forget......:doh: