The Par 6

[Billy K2]

While there aren't many courses out there with a par 6, some courses have crazy long holes with a par of 6(Or maybe even 7). My question is, at what distance do you think would be appropriate to call a par 6?

 

[Pbmercil]

I would prefer par 6 not to be a thing at all. If a potential hole is THAT long, I think the better solution is to make it shorter and a true par 5 instead of the weird and pointless "par 6"

 

[scarpfish]

I believe the monster hole (#8) at Highbridge Gold is a Par 6.

Confirmed. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=383&mode=hi

I would prefer par 6 not to be a thing at all.

Yeah, me too. Aside from the novelty factor, there's not much practicality for such holes.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

Par 6 huh? So a 4 for the MPO?

 

[grotto]

That obnoxious par 4 that I keep getting a 6 on should be a par 6!

But seriously, do we need par 6 holes?

 

[DavidSauls]

For pure distance, it would have to be considerably more than 1350'. For a hole with sufficient doglegs, landing zones, or other features, there is no set distance.

But I'm with the rest, wondering why we'd ever want a par-6.

I once proposed and campaigned for a hole that might have been a par-6. I was wisely outvoted. It would have really been grueling.

Then again, I've been campaigning for some safari-type holes that would be about par-9s. So far, no takers.

 

[sidewinder22]

Quaker's Challenge hole 3 is a 935' par 6. It's flat but crazy tight wooded lanes and if you get off the fairway your only option is to pitch out if you even can. Personally I'd rather play two or three holes.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

. Personally I'd rather play two or three holes.

:hfive: you know... Wtf is the point? Waste of space.

 

[sidewinder22]

:hfive: you know... Wtf is the point? Waste of space.

DG par 6 is like a BG par 7. I like DG par 4s, which are like par 5s in BG. Some par 5s are ok, but begin to lose something and is mostly why hardly anyone builds par 6 in BG.

 

[Nasty Nate]

I'm still waiting on that par 2...

 

[Smigles]

I love big holes. We often play crazy safari holes, like from tee 1 to basket 9 and the second hole back to basket 18.

They get really interesting when you gotta pick a route, for example if you go around the left side or right side of a lake that you can't throw over in one shot.

We have enugh pitch & putt courses. Why all the hate for longer holes??

 

[Cgkdisc]

Par 6s are truly par 5s because par is set incorrectly on many holes everywhere (see all the par discussions). Many MPOs have the arm to reach the Par 6 at Highbridge in 3 throws since it's downhill providing chance for a birdie 4.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Really all comes down to how important you think putting is. If you think putting is a part of disc golf that should be minimized, maybe you throw some par-6's on the course you're building. I don't think I've seen anyone truly want to minimize the importance of putting on the course to that level so I doubt we'll ever see true pro-par-6's as anything more than a novelty.

 

[Horsman]

I believe the monster hole (#8) at Highbridge Gold is a Par 6.

Confirmed. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=383&mode=hi



Yeah, me too. Aside from the novelty factor, there's not much practicality for such holes.

It is, but honestly it only needs to be a par 5. The one time I have played the course I had an easy putt for 4 and took and easy 5. The hole plays a lot down hill as well so maybe if it were flat land or uphill then I could see it but in its current state I dont think so .

 

[sloppydisc]

I'm still waiting on that par 2...

Springwood in Burlington, ND has or had one. It is or was a pointless filler hole. Although it would make a decent hole for kids or beginners. I played it once and got par. :\

 

[grodney]

What is the average drive, or average range of drives, of your target audience? 300? 350? 400? Let's call it X.

Par 3: range from 65% of X to 100% of X.
Par 4: 100% of X, plus 50% to 80% of X.
Par 5: 100% of X, plus 90% of X, plus 50% to 80% of X.
Par 6: errrrmmmmmm, I guess 100%, plus 90%, plus 90%, plus 50% to 80%.

Adjust for foliage and trouble/OB.

Adjust for elevation.

Adjust %'s up or down as meets your particular design philosophy.

 

[sisyphus]

The pdga does have some suggested guidelines. I've played a few legit par 2's, and some holes seem to evolve into them as former Wham-O courses lose trees .
Truly, listing a hole as a 'par 6' might help newer players feel better about the reality of their game, but to build a hole intended to force NT players to take a 6 if played 'correctly', seems excessive. Say, a long and winding trek through the woods, where only the guys with mind-bogglingly crisp accuracy over 400' would reach 'near distance' in four... The rest of the world would take 10-12 strokes, I'm sure.

 

[Nasty Nate]

Springwood in Burlington, ND has or had one. It is or was a pointless filler hole. Although it would make a decent hole for kids or beginners. I played it once and got par. :\

You gotta birdie that one!

Yea it seems like par 6 doesn't make sense because it would throw off the par for the course. But I don't really know enough about golf rules and standards to have a valid opinion on it.

 

[whitefedora]

Great chart grodney. I do think you mean longer on the elevation factor or rise instead of drop. One of the two qualifiers seems backwards though.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

It is, but honestly it only needs to be a par 5. The one time I have played the course I had an easy putt for 4 and took and easy 5. The hole plays a lot down hill as well so maybe if it were flat land or uphill then I could see it but in its current state I dont think so .

Yeah and being a "gold" course it should have fitting pars.

DG needs way more par 2s, too!