After reading this thread in its entirity, the upper hand in the argument easily goes to those favoring possible Pars above 3. While I agree that a uniform system should be employed for legitimacy, the absence of a system does not make the idea ignorant. My conundrum is this...I always keep score (which is what the question states) based on 3 because it is simpler. However, if a course has legit par 4s and 5s, I will look at the total course Par at the end of the round and adjust my score. For instance if I shoot a +6, then I see that the course has 3 holes considered by the designer to be Par 4, then it's an easy adjustment to +3.
Terry, I give you credit for sticking with this argument, but your points have been all over the board. You began on page 6 by stating "I know I am right on this", and your last post is begging Dave to "let it go" and "agree to disagree". Honestly by making those statements, you have pretty much admitted defeat in the discussion. Also, your original post began by alluding to the fact that par was not meant to make players feel good and that if they got a 4 on a hole greater than 600 feet, that it was a +1 and they suck. Your last post was totally flipped and stated that any course with Par 4s or 5s was designed erroneously and that not every disc golfer is a pro, so we average players shouldn't be expected to enjoy a tough course with Par 4s and 5s. So which is it? Are Pars above 3 designed for wimps or pros? Based on the incoherent nature of your argument, Dave wins because of his persistence on the argument. We all understand that it is mentally easier to keep score in your head based on Par 3. That's fine, but you can adjust to the correct Par at the end of a round. And most locals will know the designated Par for the course so the argument about comparing scores with another player is moot at best.
