Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
I don't have a problem with challenging holes, that's the point everyone is missing b/c people in disc golf equate birdie with easy (b/c like you said, there are a lot of easy holes that should be par 2s). My point of contention is that having holes where it is nigh impossible score under par on is not a solution to having so many par "should be 2" 3s. It shouldn't be an either/or situation. I don't like the distribution of your example, regardless of the par assigned. Those are both unacceptable percentages IMO.The world's full of them---we just don't admit they're par-2s.
Take a hole that has this distribution, excluding low-percentage outliers:
2 60%
3 30%
4 10%
If you kick that hole's ass and make every throw perfectly, you get a 2. That 2 doesn't gain you any ground on the competition. It just keeps you from losing ground---a survival hole.
We call it a par-3, and call those birdies, but they're not, not really.
So the same would be said for a hole with this distribution:
3 60%
4 30%
5 10%
We can call that a par-4 and say most people are birdieing it. But those 3s aren't gaining any ground on the competition; the 4s are losing.
It can play just as fair, and reward skill and not luck. If you're of sufficient skill level---i.e.; much better than me---come visit and I'll show you a few.
Or imagine a double-island hole. Tee to a fair-sized island, 275' to the center. Then 275' from that center to a basket on another fair-sized island. Execute well, and it's a 3. Most players of a certain skill will do just that. But enough will miss the first island, or miss the second island, or miss the putt, to get a 4, or even a 5. The higher scores won't be due to luck, at all. But the 3s will be survivors.
Right but that's an entirely different debate. All of those holes need much tougher greens/better design to make them better holes. The "par or die" holes where under par is virtually impossible are flawed in a similar manner, they need something to move the needle from random luck to skillful execution so that players at least have the opportunity to try and get a real advantage.Um...changing those to par 2s only changes them from "birdie or die" holes to "par or die" holes, both of which are "score 2 or die" holes. Which means there's absolutely nothing different.
Disc golf is already too much of a marathon IMO. These holes that create a "score this or die" mentality are just filler holes that only benefit endurance and players during optimal conditions. Winners should be determined by executing with versatility and accuracy instead of simply outlasting the competition by being better big hyzer and putting robots.That's not entirely true. It may not affect your score relative to par, but it increased your total number of throws, and depending on or your competitors did, may have increased your advantage or decreased your deficit relative to the rest of the field, so it DID affect your score.
So, if we have a really dumb hole where 100% of Open players get 3, Gold par is 4?
What good does that do anybody?
Should every hole be bogeyable?
Is a par 4 with
10% 2
30% 3
60% 4
just as "bad" as the mirror-image par 2?
BrotherDave, we'll just have to disagree, as a matter of taste.
I love these survival holes. I wouldn't want a whole course of them, but I love a few of them. And I don't think of them as fillers---I think of them balancing out the easy-birdie holes (which I enjoy as well).
...if you have a hole that the majority of open players score a 3, then yes it should be a par 4 for gold...
if we cant decide on what par is, how the hell are we gonna decide if something is a birdie?
Can't have reward without risk.Should every hole be bogeyable?
I just disagree with the narrative that these types of holes are solutions to the far too numerous easy-birdie holes. A hypothetically good course should have few of either type IMO. To separate the wheat from the chaff the majority of the holes should pull players playing well in one direction and pull players playing poorly in the opposite direction. If a hole does not pull players into multiple directions then it is IMO not a particularly good (dynamic) hole. A hole in which a player cannot achieve a birdie despite flawless play (and consequently is lumped with others in limbo) is not a dynamic hole.BrotherDave, we'll just have to disagree, as a matter of taste.
I love these survival holes. I wouldn't want a whole course of them, but I love a few of them. And I don't think of them as fillers---I think of them balancing out the easy-birdie holes (which I enjoy as well).
Exactly.The game is all about the "golf shot" and the consistent putt. A quality drive on a par 3 with a good putt near the circle is a sporting birdie. A long accurate drive then an accurate approach with a good putt on a par 4 is sporting a birdie. A good tee shot, a superior fairway drive, a well place approach, then in the basket on a par 5, that's...(wait for it)...good golf. Your total score versus your best score on the course/hole is the best way to measure your progress. +or- par is just convenient for marking competitors during play and in a conversation after a round. Over par with a trophy is OK with me.
My rating is 862. ... A quality course should have no easy birdies for "duffers" like me.
A hole that I frequently birdie is useless in separating me from the 950 rated player.
Par is expressed in whole numbers; that makes it insensitive to the nuances we all talk about when we call a hole an easy birdie, a tough par, or a tolerable bogey.
Let the sign-makers worry about the numbers they paint.