What is Par?

[gwillim]

I'd like to take this time to say that Milo McIver is awesome! The normal 27 hole layout is a par 89, not 81.

For the Beaver State Fling, we divide the course into two, and add 9 more holes making two complete 18 hole courses. Each course is a par 60! That's right, not 54, and we score and record it as a par 60. Each 18 has one par 5 and 4 par 4s on it. There are at least two par threes on each course that could easily be counted as a par 4 as well, but they are too close to the border.

If a hole is an obvious par four, count it as four. It annoys me that some TDs, course designers, course stewards, and such refuse to progress in this manner. A couple miles away from Milo McIver there is another course called Timber Park. It's listed as a par 54 18 hole course on all the paperwork, as well as all the recordings for tournaments and such. However, hole 17 is over 700' with O.B. on both sides and a large obstacle in the middle of the fairway. Why is this not a par 4? The topography is such that getting a 2 on the hole would take a fairway ace, and getting a three requires two really good shots and a putt.

It's time we decided to start taking our sport a little more serious and treat our courses and literature with the respect they deserve, accurate pars are a big step in my opinion.

-Ryan

 

[Three Putt]

This is all stuff that would get taken care of if courses were pay for play. As it is they are free in public parks, so there is not the money or the infrastructure in the sport to develop the things we are talking about. We as players will have to be willing to pump a lot of money into course coffers if we expect these sorts of things. Tee signs take money. Multiple concrete tees take money. Three or four pole holes per hole so you can play whichever pin placement you choose takes a BUNCH of money. As it stands, you are expecting volunteers to do this stuff for free. You see how that is working. We talk a lot about the sport being taken more seriously, but the first step in that is going to come out of your wallet. Just make sure you are ready for that.

 

[gwillim]

This is all stuff that would get taken care of if courses were pay for play. As it is they are free in public parks, so there is not the money or the infrastructure in the sport to develop the things we are talking about. We as players will have to be willing to pump a lot of money into course coffers if we expect these sorts of things. Tee signs take money. Multiple concrete tees take money. Three or four pole holes per hole so you can play whichever pin placement you choose takes a BUNCH of money. As it stands, you are expecting volunteers to do this stuff for free. You see how that is working. We talk a lot about the sport being taken more seriously, but the first step in that is going to come out of your wallet. Just make sure you are ready for that.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that a course has to be pay to play to work like this. It does take money, but foresight is much more valuable. If such things were taken into consideration at the conception it would be much easier. Most better courses have tee signs, making them correct isn't any more difficult when you already have to make them.

Also, if people band together and form clubs for their region, it should be one of the main functions of the club to take care of the courses. Which means work parties to install new tee pads, keep the tee signs graffiti free, keep the place maintained overall. Also, if structured correctly the club should be able to fund such things as concrete for new pads, baskets, etc.

Like minded people in large groups can get a lot of positive things done. I don't think each of us opening our wallets and pouring money out to make things work is the only way to progress.

 

[bcross822]

I found this document online as a guide. It is pretty good. I dont remember the link. It is attached.

 

[Godard]

I actually like courses such as Tyler where the par can change drastically. The problem comes when using the scorecard function on this site... everything has to be changed manually. Ugh!

 

[Three Putt]

if people band together and form clubs for their region, it should be one of the main functions of the club to take care of the courses. Which means work parties to install new tee pads, keep the tee signs graffiti free, keep the place maintained overall. Also, if structured correctly the club should be able to fund such things as concrete for new pads, baskets, etc.

This is exactly the system that has been in place for the last 25 years. This IS how disc golf is structured. So, the results are already there for you to judge. In some places, the Clubs have done very well by the sport. In other places, the results leave a lot to be desired. I know a lot of people that agree with you that the thing to do is to keep doing what we have always done and one day we will get "there," wherever "there" is. I personally think that continuing to do the same thing will result in a lot more of what we already have. No big deal, since I'm not all that displeased with what we have. But if you want all these pie-in-the-sky improvements that have been discussed on this thread, I don't see the current system ever getting us "there." Just my opinion.

 

[Olorin]

I found this document online as a guide. It is pretty good. I dont remember the link.

Here are some links again (they're also further up in this thread):
Determining Par
Estimated Hole Scoring Averages...

 

[bcross822]

cool, thanx for posting the links.

 

[gwillim]

....

 

[Olorin]

A first class player = 1000 PR.

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion. I don't think that a Green (800 PR) or Red (850 PR) level player should even expect to get many pars on a Gold level course. In this regard, TG is a good example to follow.

I'm going back to believing that the standards used to set hole lengths on every level of course should be only Gold standards. On lower level courses you can still have short holes that are appropriate for lower skill levels, but they would just be holes that are short par 3s for Gold players. There should not be par 4s on Green, Red, or White courses unless they follow Gold standards. (For Gold CR Par these would be holes with an effective length over 500 ft.)

Thanks to many of you who have contributed very good points to these discussions and helped hone my thinking on these issues.

I learn from dialogue, so I'd be glad to hear what you think.

 

[magictenor1]

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

 

[Olorin]

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

Analogous to traditional golf I think that par should only be attainable by a first class player, because then it means something to get a par. [FONT=&quot]In TG the standard for men is "The scratch golfer is an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke-play qualifiers competing in the U.S. Amateur Championship." [/FONT]That's obviously quite different from DG, but it's hard to compare the skill level of a sport with millions of players (TG) to one with tens of thousands (DG). To me, a 1000 rated player is an expert.

Also, SSA means the play of a 1000 rated player, so that is the standard that the PDGA has set. If you used a different PR you would have to adjust to be equal to a 1000 PR anyway. It's also the most consistent way to compare SSA to Gold Par.

I'm not even sure what level "average" would be since you've got tournament DGers and purely recreational players (the majority). Where would you draw the line for "average"?

 

[magictenor1]

I know that "average" is a very general term. You mention the majority are rec players and I would not disagree with that assessment. My thought is why not set the difficulty level to the majority instead of the expert. I do see your point about the scratch golfer and I am not strongly for either approach, just brainstorming I guess you could say. I think that maybe this is where the concept of pro par is useful. Set the par standard to a "rec player" level but have pro par for when advanced players play the course. It seems to me that could work for all DG'ers. In general I usually agree with your thoughts on par and the need for better and more consistent applications of it.

 

[Rbuzz9]

i agree - par should be set in a similar fashion to ball golf. -you should have to be very good/elite to score par or lower for a round on an avg course. This doesnt mean the avg rec player won't be able to par any holes - it just means they will have a tougher time doing it consistantly.

par is something to strive for. I dont get why people have a problem with shooting over par and have to rationalize a different scoring system so they are shooting closer to par.

just not a fan of the "feel good" scoring.

 

[Olorin]

Why set the standard at the more advanced level?. Wouldn't a more "average" skill level be better overall?

Let's brainstorm from the other direction. Why should par set at "average"?

I fear that by making it too easy that when players are throwing "par" after playing a few times then people might well think that the game is kind of dumb.

 

[Olorin]

I think that maybe this is where the concept of pro par is useful. Set the par standard to a "rec player" level but have pro par for when advanced players play the course. It seems to me that could work for all DG'ers.

I think that Rec par is bogus and should be abolished. It's a big contributor the haze of confusion surrounding DG par. I wish that it were taken off of DGCR too. Par is par. There should only be one standard for par. In our area, a few courses have a Rec par posted, but no regular players pay any attention to it. After playing a few rounds people quickly realize that Rec par is just an empty feel good system, so they stop paying any attention to it. IMO par should mean something and Rec par reduces it's value.

In general I usually agree with your thoughts on par and the need for better and more consistent applications of it.

Thanks!

 

[Rbuzz9]

lots of people dont want to accept they aren't that great.

 

[Olorin]

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion.

For those who are interested, a necessary corollary to this idea is that there is only Gold CR Par. There aren't separate standards for Blue, White, Red, or Green par. That also makes the whole system a lot easier to use.

 

[ZMan44]

I agree that par should not be set for just the average disc golfer. However, I alos don't think it should be set near the level of what Doss, Climo, Feldberg, and Jenkins expect to get on a hole. Par should be difficult to attain, and it shouldn't be lowered so that others can feel good about themselves. It was stated on another thread that par should be what an elite level player expects to get on that given hole. I still think that our ideas from par have to be based somewhat (not solely) on traditional golf. Say (I am making this up because I am too lazy to go and find an actual account...but this does happen) for instance at the Masters, Tiger birdies hole #7 each of his 4 rounds. By the logic being presented, and applying it to disc golf, we are saying that this hole should be amended to a par 3 since he can honestly expect to attain that score. But that would never happen because the hole itself requires a drive, an approach, possibly a birdie putt (or a pitch) and then another putt. It would still be a par 4.

I think that there should be easier holes on each course...and there should definitely be harder ones on each course. If I go out and travel to a course and shoot a 58 I would consider it a moderately difficult course. If I shoot in the 60s then I would consider it a hard course. If I shoot in the 40s, it's an easy course. But I think maybe basing par off of a level slightly below the elite pro level is best for everyone. I would still expect the Pros to birdie a lot of the holes with this format, but they should birdie them because they are Pros.

In short, par should be difficult to attain, and most of us, myself included, should feel fortunate to hit it every now and then. However, I don't feel like the true definition of par is what Climo expects to shoot on a hole. And while par may have been designed in ball golf to be difficult, the term has come to mean "expected". "Par for the course" is a term that means exactly what someone should expect. How we determine par should be based on what is expected by someone...the identity of that someone is the real debate.

 

[ERicJ]

And while I can see the need for different par values at different skill levels for tournament penalty purposes... in general I think that too is confusing and somewhat condescending. For normal play I'd rather see par for a 1000 rated player and judge my (presently) 849 rated self against that.

Par should be based on the play of a first class player. I've recently changed my mind, and would now go back to defining a first class player as a 1000 PR, Gold level player. I believe that this should be the standard that par should be based on.

I no longer believe that there should be separate par standards for each course level. This is only a feel good concept and it adds lots of confusion. I don't think that a Green (800 PR) or Red (850 PR) level player should even expect to get many pars on a Gold level course. In this regard, TG is a good example to follow.

I'm going back to believing that the standards used to set hole lengths on every level of course should be only Gold standards. On lower level courses you can still have short holes that are appropriate for lower skill levels, but they would just be holes that are short par 3s for Gold players. There should not be par 4s on Green, Red, or White courses unless they follow Gold standards. (For Gold CR Par these would be holes with an effective length over 500 ft.)

Devil's Advocate: Here's the argument for different par for different levels. Say you've got a tournament hole that's a very difficult 800' (gold level) par 4 hole. You've got a group of Novice/MA4 players assigned to shotgun start on that hole. If any of those players are weak armed, but savvy players... if they think they'll score an 8 or more they can "unintentionally" show up late and miss the hole taking the par+4 penalty. If the par were accurately set for Novice/MA4 maybe it'd be a par 6 or 7 and the penalty would be too severe in that case.

Another example would be a "tin-cup" island hole. There's a course near Houston (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2656) that involves one of those. The signature hole is the "Tin Cup Island hole" that requires you to land your tee shot on a grass island (bounded by concrete driveway) from ~250'. After three misses (with penalties) you then have to throw, lying six, from a metal cage ("jail") about 60' out. Scoring 8's is not uncommon on that hole. Once on the island it's an easy putt. My first round I scored a '2' in my second round I missed the island on my first throw and landed on my second scoring a '4'. Assuming error free drives/approaches play it's a par 3 with two close range shots to hole out. My girlfriend took an 11 and a 10 on that hole in two rounds. http://picasaweb.google.com/ericjubin/ShawshankIII

ERic