-
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)
Should every hole be birdie-able?
- Thread starter bucky926
- Start date
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Not required for decent competitive design but birdie-able holes for your skill level are more fun. There are many open holes where players in a skill range will primarily produce two scores. For example, a hole might have 33% 2s and 67% 3s or maybe a few percent 4s with blown putts. That distribution is decent, not great, but is sometimes all you can do with the terrain.
On the other hand, a longer version of that hole might move to 67% 3s and 33% 4s with few 2s other than throw-ins or more powerful player moving quickly through that skill level. This birdie-less hole is technically as good as the birdie-no-bogey hole above for competition but just not as fun to play. At a length in-between these two holes you might see a distribution with 12% 2s, 78% 3s and 10% 4s which has three scores. But this distribution is probably weaker than the other two.
On the other hand, a longer version of that hole might move to 67% 3s and 33% 4s with few 2s other than throw-ins or more powerful player moving quickly through that skill level. This birdie-less hole is technically as good as the birdie-no-bogey hole above for competition but just not as fun to play. At a length in-between these two holes you might see a distribution with 12% 2s, 78% 3s and 10% 4s which has three scores. But this distribution is probably weaker than the other two.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
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?
Is a par 4 with
10% 2
30% 3
60% 4
just as "bad" as the mirror-image par 2?
TYVEK
Bogey Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 72
there will never be a hole that 100% of players will get the same score. if you have a hole that the majority of open players score a 3, then yes it should be a par 4 for gold. it comes down to players skill and consistency. some players falter and would shoot 4, sometimes players aren't on their game so they wouldn't always shoot a 3. you ask what good would that do anybody? it forces the competitors to always play their best, some will succeed and some will fail.
That would be a very strange distribution for a par 4. Would have to be a wide open tweener hole IMO.
I have a similar-ish hole on my course. Wooded 500 foot hole through the woods on a "bench" area of the hill. Downhill left, Uphill right. Slightly elevated basket with downhill behind it.
My guess is that distribution for Blue level players would look something like:
4% 2
20% 3
40% 4
30% 5
6% 6
Similar I guess in that it is a par 4 where an Eagle is possible if executed perfectly... however a 6 is possible by the same person if kicked off of a tree downhill through the woods.
However, the overwhelming majority will get either a birdie or par.
I'm excited to see how it plays out during a tournament.
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).
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).
Yup... I love the survival holes (a few of them)... it really makes you feel like your game is on if you can get through them.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
So, this hole where even the less-skilled players expect to get a 3 should be a par 4?
What's your definition of par? Or, rather, what purpose does par serve and how is that purpose better served by setting par to be one more than the score the majority of players expect to score?
FredV
Newbie
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.
That's why some people want to do it backwards---figure out what a birdie is (something they can get reasonably often), and set par a stroke above it.
Which is.....backwards.
Can't have reward without risk.
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.
Exactly.
FredV
Newbie
My rating is 862. If I play an 18 hole course totaling 6500 feet and finish even, I've done very well. When I play a course and end up 6 or 7 under par I probably haven't been made to make golf shots on each hole. 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.
Sorry Brother Dave...our posts just past each other.
Sorry Brother Dave...our posts just past each other.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
I agree that any hole that a player of the targeted skill level expects to birdie has par set too high. Par is the expected score with errorless play, so by definition, one can't expect a birdie.
But, a quality course designed for your skill level should have a few holes you can have a realistic hope for birdie, based on Red par.
Not true. The 950 rated player will birdie it MORE frequently. Over 18, 54, or 72 holes with such frequency differences, you'll see a difference between your scores and the 950 rated player.
If par is set correctly, the holes now called easy birdies would not be birdies, and the holes called tolerable bogeys would not be bogeys.
Properly set par is a useful tool. If you don't choose to take advantage of it, that's OK, but there is no advantage to anyone to be gained from trying to deprecate it.
I see it as being a range of difficulty, whether its a par 3, 4 or 5.
In ball golf, they have a handicap number assigned to each hole based on difficulty (1 being hardest hole on course, etc), and the hardest hole is not neccesary a par 5. Some par 5s will be eaiser than others, so will some 4s and 3s.
Some of the discussion here is how Ball golf has more clearly defined "ranges" of distances for various pars than does disc golf, but in both cases not all par 3s will have same challenge, nor should they.
Since we have the ability to throw a wider variety of challenges at players than ball golf does, such as heavy woods, ceiling shots, and more OB, distance is less formulaic than in Ball golf, and theres more grey area between whats a long par 3 or short par 4, etc
Part of the issue with the discussion of "survival holes" or "easy birdies" is what kind of player are you, and what kind of course are you playing? Due to the bigger spread in functional driving distances between divisions in DG than BG, an Open player on a red course should birdie alot of holes, while an Am on a championship course may feel like it is too challenging/long
If a course is a RED course, make par for Red players. If you want it more challenging, then put in longer tees and call them what they are, whether its white blue or gold.
I think the problems arise when you lump all courses into one bucket and say "this course has par thats too easy/hard", without taking note of who it was designed for? and are you playing above or below your "level"
Perhaps more often labelling the tees w correct color would go further in setting expectations for what is "proper" par, because there are more other contributing factors than distance.
John Houck has written good articles on how the same hole can do a good job of balancing risk and reward, creating scoring separation for one division, but not in others.
There are 4 sets of tees on most ball golf courses, and people tend to have a better idea which tee is "appropriate' for them and play from it. In disc, its less clearly defined, and do to space and budget constraints, most courses will probably never have 4 sets of sets. Also many courses will not reasonable be able to have "true" red or gold tees due to the land being used
With this in mind, I think every hole should be birdieable...for someone in the proper "level" for that course par. Some holes should make you work harder to earn it, and challenge you in different ways, but if it is impossible to birdie a hole, or everyone (of the skill level stated on the tees) birdies it, in neither case is that good course design.
In ball golf, they have a handicap number assigned to each hole based on difficulty (1 being hardest hole on course, etc), and the hardest hole is not neccesary a par 5. Some par 5s will be eaiser than others, so will some 4s and 3s.
Some of the discussion here is how Ball golf has more clearly defined "ranges" of distances for various pars than does disc golf, but in both cases not all par 3s will have same challenge, nor should they.
Since we have the ability to throw a wider variety of challenges at players than ball golf does, such as heavy woods, ceiling shots, and more OB, distance is less formulaic than in Ball golf, and theres more grey area between whats a long par 3 or short par 4, etc
Part of the issue with the discussion of "survival holes" or "easy birdies" is what kind of player are you, and what kind of course are you playing? Due to the bigger spread in functional driving distances between divisions in DG than BG, an Open player on a red course should birdie alot of holes, while an Am on a championship course may feel like it is too challenging/long
If a course is a RED course, make par for Red players. If you want it more challenging, then put in longer tees and call them what they are, whether its white blue or gold.
I think the problems arise when you lump all courses into one bucket and say "this course has par thats too easy/hard", without taking note of who it was designed for? and are you playing above or below your "level"
Perhaps more often labelling the tees w correct color would go further in setting expectations for what is "proper" par, because there are more other contributing factors than distance.
John Houck has written good articles on how the same hole can do a good job of balancing risk and reward, creating scoring separation for one division, but not in others.
There are 4 sets of tees on most ball golf courses, and people tend to have a better idea which tee is "appropriate' for them and play from it. In disc, its less clearly defined, and do to space and budget constraints, most courses will probably never have 4 sets of sets. Also many courses will not reasonable be able to have "true" red or gold tees due to the land being used
With this in mind, I think every hole should be birdieable...for someone in the proper "level" for that course par. Some holes should make you work harder to earn it, and challenge you in different ways, but if it is impossible to birdie a hole, or everyone (of the skill level stated on the tees) birdies it, in neither case is that good course design.
Last edited:
BuzzSharpe
Par Member
Sometimes, making Par with errorless play, or saving Par following an errant shot is the reward in and of itself. By and large, Birdie should be a rare and wonderful event. Eagle or better on a Par 4 or higher hole should be an exceptionally rare and wonderful event, Bogey or worse should be occasionally, or even often expected and accepted, dependent on an individual's skill level and the course's target skill level.
