What is Par?

[magictenor1]

I don't understand why everyone thinks having all par three is needed for scorekeeping. Are we saying disc golfers are stupid? I played ball golf for years and never used a scorecard. We knew what par was on each hole and kept up by 1 up, 1 down, 3 down etc. It's not that hard.

 

[Bubbajoe]

I tend to agree with the points that Olorin makes in his links, but #10.) "To be able to determine handicaps" doesn't get enough attention. If we had meaningful handicaps it would greatly simplify league play while making our selves easier to transition into for someone from a BG background to understand. This is important (to me anyway) as BG's are probably the single biggest group out there that we should be doing more to recruit.

As far as a par standard is concerned I believe in setting Par for gold level play knowing that it's going to reduce the majority of 9's in the ground to par 19-20 etc. I really don't see this as a problem as most people who understand par can see that most pitch and putt holes are 2's. It would also make tourney results a little more believable. I love this game and have nothing but respect for the top talents, but when you see scores -45, -50 down at the end of the tourney it looks like a joke.

 

[Cgkdisc]

A universal handicapping system is available for $10/year per person through Disc Golf United. Even though that's less than playing most 9-hole rounds of ball golf that seems to be too pricey for our disc golfers and league directors to use rather than try and do it themselves with handicaps not transferable outside their league.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't understand why everyone thinks having all par three is needed for scorekeeping. Are we saying disc golfers are stupid? I played ball golf for years and never used a scorecard. We knew what par was on each hole and kept up by 1 up, 1 down, 3 down etc. It's not that hard.

I don't know anyone who's said it's needed. Some, including I, have claimed that it's a scorekeeping shorthand.

 

[scarpfish]

I don't understand why everyone thinks having all par three is needed for scorekeeping. Are we saying disc golfers are stupid?

No, we're saying that for the purpose at hand, doing something else is unnecessary. For arriving at one's total strokes, all par three (+/- to 54) gets the job done, and done fast. Its the preferred method of most scorecard adding precisely for that reason.

I played ball golf for years and never used a scorecard. We knew what par was on each hole and kept up by 1 up, 1 down, 3 down etc. It's not that hard.

Most likely in ball golf your score is all over the place too. A relatively honed disc golfer on most courses is going to card a lot of threes. In such an instance, its simply easier for someone without a scorecard to treat threes as if they were zeroes and ignore them. Same applies for someone checking cards at a tournament where you have to look at dozens of scorecards and only have so much time to do them.

Here's the scorecard from my marathon feat from last week. I carded my scores from each round by reflecting on all of the non-3 holes each round, and then just filled in threes for the remaining holes, (which makes sense because more than 2/3rds of the holes were threes).

 

[Bubbajoe]

A universal handicapping system is available for $10/year per person through Disc Golf United. Even though that's less than playing most 9-hole rounds of ball golf that seems to be too pricey for our disc golfers and league directors to use rather than try and do it themselves with handicaps not transferable outside their league.

It's not the cost thats a deterent. The problem is without a meaningful universal par standard what good is a handicap?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Par is not used for the handicap system, just like it's not used for the PDGA ratings system which it is based upon.

 

[Olorin]

[FONT=&quot]A reply to David Sauls post from a different par thread (I added the numbers):

"1) The question is whether par should be based on an expert player, or a particular skill level. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2) And, more to the point, when set for the skill level for which the course was designed, who determines this? Certainly, you can ask the designer; but what standards is he using to determine whether it's a white-level course or red-level?

3) What about the many courses where a designer didn't take this into consideration, or which preceded the color scheme?

4) And how do you designate which level a course is designed for, when there may be a mix of holes suited to different skill levels of players on a single course?"

David,

These are all excellent an perceptive questions that should be asked more frequently.

I do not speak as an authority, so I will just give my ideas. I have no power or position, but I have been interested in this subject for quite a while. I am also a member of the DG Course Design Group and discussions with course designers-- especially Chuck Kennedy, John Houck, and Steve West-- have helped hone my ideas.

1) The question is whether par should be based on an expert player, or a particular skill level.
I think that par should be based on the expert play for each skill level.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Each course layout should have par standards for the level of that layout.[/FONT]
-[FONT=&quot]Level par seeks to help players enjoy disc golf more by giving them a scoring goal that is reasonable to attain. [/FONT]
-[FONT=&quot]There are already Green level courses for Juniors and new players. These courses are designed so that the holes are short enough for the best Green level players (824 rating) to be able to shoot par. As they improve, then they will move up to higher level courses. Players will progressively move up in playing courses that match their skill level: Green to Red to White to Blue to Gold.[/FONT]
-[FONT=&quot]The most compelling argument for separate par standards for each level is that the lengths of par 4s and 5s need to be based on the abilities of players at the appropriate level, not based on Gold level. A hole that is a par 4 for a Green or Red level player will probably only be a par 3 for a Gold level player. This can best be illustrated by looking at a Green level hole. Green level par 3s are up to 270 ft. (using "effective length"). However, for Gold CR Par the maximum length for a par 3 is 500 ft., so on a Green level course a hole with a length of 441-499 should be a Green CR Par 5, but with Gold CR Par they would be only par 3. On a 490 ft hole a Green level player will almost never get a 3, so holes like this would be unreasonable to call a par 3 for a Green level player. The barest minimum requirement for fairness in relation to par is that a par should be reasonably possible for the best players of a certain skill level. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Corollary 1:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For players of a Player level different from that of the course level the Level par has very little relevance. e.g.- A Gold level player on a Red course should expect to score many 2s on par 3 holes and 3s on par 4s, etc. Conversely, when a Red player plays a Blue level course they should expect to take many 4s on par 3s, etc. They would do better to compare their score to the Score Average for their Player level (if that is available). This situation is analogous to a traditional golfer who is a scratch player from the blue tees playing the red tees. He would score many 3s on the red par 4s. He will often score much lower than the posted Red par, so the red par has no relevance as an indicator of how he can expect to score.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Corollary 2:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Disc golfers need to get more comfortable with the concept of course playing levels. Currently the idea is not widely disseminated, so many players don't even know about the concept. Since most courses only have one set of tees, these courses only have one playing level, so this course may not be totally suitable to players of different levels. Players need to know that when they are playing a White level course they are playing from the equivalent of White tees on a course with multiple tee pads. In the future it would be ideal if the playing level of every course is identified and a uniformly established level (CR) par is well marked on signs and score cards. [/FONT]

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks. Corollary 2 is, of course, a big problem, and more or less the one I was addressing in my questions.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The general lack of multiple tees in disc golf (compared with ball golf) along with the still large installed base of older courses with most holes under 400 and lack of scorecards for rec rounds has led to much of the entrenched view that all holes are par 3. What isn't obvious is that ball golf does have separate par guidelines for each set of tees which represent their skill levels. But since most of our courses do not have tees for each skill level, the concept that par should be set for each skill level has not gained traction.

The other aspect that tends to hold back par for skill levels is the fact putting is relatively easier than ball golf. So even though legit par 4 holes on some newer courses extend to 600 feet, the fact that some rec players can still 3 those holes keeps the all par 3 concept alive. And the final kicker for those of us deeply involved in setting appropriate pars for skill levels is I suspect we still use par 3 as a scoring reference in our rec rounds since we usually don't have scorecards or we use the default par 3 setting in our scoring apps

 

[Olorin]

[FONT=&quot]A reply to David Sauls post from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a different par thread[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (cont.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Chuck can answer these questions far better than I because he has tons more direct experience, but I will share my thoughts, FWIW.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2) And, more to the point, when set for the skill level for which the course was designed, who determines this? Certainly, you can ask the designer; but what standards is he using to determine whether it's a white-level course or red-level? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Yes, ultimately labeling the course level is the designer's call. On many courses/layouts assigning the level is quite straightforward and obvious. At the very worst the level is a choice between two adjacent levels, i.e.- Red or White, White or Blue, so that narrows down your choices to two. For example, any decent designer won't label a Blue level course as Red.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So what is the standard used to determine the course level? There are several tools available to help make a data driven decision. Members of the DG Course Designers Group have a tool called the "Hole Forecaster" which is a spreadsheet that gives estimated hole scores after you enter various factors such as length, elevation changes, foliage density, etc. It also suggests par for the various course levels. I compare scoring averages for a given level to par for that level to determine the course level. On courses where the scoring average falls in between two levels the designer needs to decide if she intends for it to play "easier" or "harder". For example, a more difficult white level or an easier Blue level.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Tools such as the "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]PDGA Course Design Guidelines for each Player Skill Level[/FONT][FONT=&quot]", PDGA "Par Guidelines", and the more detailed "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on hole length" also help.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3) What about the many courses where a designer didn't take this into consideration, or which preceded the color scheme?
The course level can be determined from the Hole Forecaster or manually by looking up each hole (based on effective hole length) on the "Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on hole length" chart.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4) And how do you designate which level a course is designed for, when there may be a mix of holes suited to different skill levels of players on a single course?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That can often be less clear. In an ideal world some holes could be redesigned. But more often one can make a judgment call using the tools above. In some cases the best that can be done is to leave it as "it is a more difficult Red/ easier White".[/FONT]

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks.

 

[Mythy]

BUT is PAR really PAR???

thoughts on the fact that a long toss for me is about 200 and change...

I will throw further over time... but honestly... par? the term feels like golf golf... if I wanted to play golf I'd be doing it... I'm surprised (though still new to this activity) that par isn't on some fantastically flexible sliding scale that is as innovative and non-conformist as this activity itself...

 

[goosefraba1]

I don't know anyone who's said it's needed. Some, including I, have claimed that it's a scorekeeping shorthand.

Yep... I just keep score by 3s as shorthand. After the round, you can see how you did against course par. This makes scorekeeping easier on courses that are new to you... or ones without signs.

 

[scarpfish]

or ones without signs.

I've pretty much learned to ignore the par on tee signs when they're there. They're as inconsistent as the concept itself.

 

[Timeetyo]

I've pretty much learned to ignore the par on tee signs when they're there. They're as inconsistent as the concept itself.

I'm getting there as it can be annoying if you are worrying about it. I am much more often finding myself thinking "I want a 3, better get a 4" on this hole as it is much less frustrating than what may be arbitrarily placed on the tee sign. What REALLY drives me bonkers is a course that can't be consistent with itself. I've tried to wrap my head around this one at my local course:

Hole 6 (Par 3) 283'/344'/404': The hole plays slightly left to right. OB road curves L>R and defines the left fairway. Fairway itself is essentially the ditch, with a well defined \/ but is sufficiently wide. Right side is mostly all brush with 2 small breaks, A large tree is just to the right of the pin with branches messing with a (RHBH) fading approach. The pin is tucked up on the right side of the fairway at the top of the slope so there is definite roll away potential (although not too far). You are forced into a L>R approach (either anny or FH works). By far the hardest Par 3 on the course which generally has very friendly Pars as it is beginner oriented.

Hole 15 (Par 4) 264'/315'/404': Straight. No OB. Entire left side of fairway is just taller grass. There is a tree to the left of the pin that sort of protects a FH approach. On the right the 1st 3/4 of the fairway is wide open. The last 1/4 has some brush but it is short enough than you can easily come over it with a straight or hyzer line.

When I compare the 2 I just don't get it. I am all for making some variety in terms of hard/easy to par holes, but this one is rediculous. Needless to say I've taken a 2 (eagle) on 15 much more often than a 2 (bird) on 6. And i've definitely taken a 4+ (bogey+) on 6 more often (stupid OB) than a 4+ (par+) on 15.

 

[DavidSauls]

... I'm surprised (though still new to this activity) that par isn't on some fantastically flexible sliding scale that is as innovative and non-conformist as this activity itself...

Actually, that's a pretty good description of the current state of affairs.

Except that it's more accidental than deliberate.

 

[Mythy]

Actually, that's a pretty good description of the current state of affairs.

Except that it's more accidental than deliberate.

yeah... I'm thinking that if it was deliberate then it'd be a less enjoyable time than it is now...

I just keep throwing... and all will be well...

 

[Olorin]

I'm not dead yet. I'm getting better... really!
The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

 

[chevis]

I'm not dead yet. I'm getting better... really!
The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

glad you're not dead. there is a thread about par here you should read & (maybe) add to.