Whats par for you?

[mohmandm]

I think they should set some standard for marking par. I play everything as 3 but there are some holes that are meant to be 4 or 5. Stoney Creek's last hole... I guess in the end it doesn't really matter if everyone is using the same system.

 

[Adaven]

What would a true par 5 in disc golf look like. Most of the courses around me are fairly short, not much over 350', but we have a lot of wooded courses. There is one course out here that boasts some holes in the 600' range and 3 is tough but not impossible for me, but it would be impossible for many people who throw less than 250'. That being said I can see a 600' being par 4 but what would it take to make it a par 5, is it simply distance or would it include more technical aspects as well as being incredibly long?

 

[Dave242]

"Close Range Par" (or CR Par) is a really good approach that should be adopted as it is conceptually very easy and intuitive (although it takes a lot of words to explain thoroughly):
http://sites.google.com/site/discgolfcoursedesign/Home/par/GoldCRpar


Close Range Par
Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for a first-class player of a particular skill level to reach "close range" then take 2 throws to hole out.

 

[Dave242]

What would a true par 5 in disc golf look like. Most of the courses around me are fairly short, not much over 350', but we have a lot of wooded courses. There is one course out here that boasts some holes in the 600' range and 3 is tough but not impossible for me, but it would be impossible for many people who throw less than 250'. That being said I can see a 600' being par 4 but what would it take to make it a par 5, is it simply distance or would it include more technical aspects as well as being incredibly long?

Here are some flyby videos that might be helpful in visualizing (these are big so they might take a while to load):

Renny Gold #4 - would be a 5 most places except this is a gold course so the expectation for Gold players is to make it through the gap in 1 throw. Fairway shape is what get's par up.

Renny Gold #13 - Mainly length, but fairway shape forces you to land shots in strategic landing zones.....or else take a bogey (or worse).

Renny Gold #18 - Length and forced carries over OB "lakes"

Hornet's Nest Web #3 - The shape is a big horse-shoe

Hornet's Nest Web #16 - L shaped hole that takes 2 really, really good shots to make it to the turn.

 

[crawdad62]

We just got our course and there's one hole that's >700 which they marked as a par 6! It's something like 779' which is pretty danged far but a 5 is doable. I can be in scoring range in two or three every time and I don't throw that far. But there's also a couple of holes that are >550 and >650 that are par 4's. So I really don't get the logic. Anyway the pars are just something to gauge yourself for the course not the player. In the end your TOTAL score is what counts. If two people were playing and one use the signage and the other used all 3's in the end you'd still say I shot a 62 what did you get?

 

[Adaven]

Almost 1000' feet, that is unbelievable. I would be so tired after a hole like that I don't know if I would be able to continue. The horse shoe hole is just as crazy. Thanks for the visual dave.

 

[valkyrie]

I play the course par, its all 3's except a few watter holes (for people who dont want to risk it)

 

[Midnightbiker]

Almost 1000' feet, that is unbelievable. I would be so tired after a hole like that I don't know if I would be able to continue. The horse shoe hole is just as crazy. Thanks for the visual dave.

Check out the distances in the tournament I played in on Saturday:

First round:

Hole 1 -956'

Hole 6 - 675'

Hole 12 - 550

Hole 18- 625

Hole 20 - 705


Round 2

Hole 1 - 530

Hole 19 - 825

Hole 21 -550


It was the hardest tournament I have ever played in. Along will tons of OB, those were some of the longest holes we had to play.

 

[glax]

Check out the distances in the tournament I played in on Saturday:

First round:

Hole 1 -956'

Hole 6 - 675'

Hole 12 - 550

Hole 18- 625

Hole 20 - 705


Round 2

Hole 1 - 530

Hole 19 - 825

Hole 21 -550


It was the hardest tournament I have ever played in. Along will tons of OB, those were some of the longest holes we had to play.

What were the pars for this, all 3's??? That's scarey long!

 

[magictenor1]

I really don't understand they're all par 3 menatality. I played ball golf for years and still do ocassionally. Some course are all par 3s and that's what they are referred to as. But most courses are not. I've played some courses where making par was very difficult and others where it was not. Lenght was not the only factor.

We write our score everytime and we play each hole as the course lists it. I look at some baskets and say, wow that was an easy par 4. And then I look at others and say how in the hell am I ever supposed to get there in 3.

Par IS what the course designer says it is and for me that is the end of the discussion.

I agree 100%.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I really don't understand they're all par 3 menatality. I played ball golf for years and still do ocassionally. Some course are all par 3s and that's what they are referred to as. But most courses are not. I've played some courses where making par was very difficult and others where it was not. Lenght was not the only factor.

We write our score everytime and we play each hole as the course lists it. I look at some baskets and say, wow that was an easy par 4. And then I look at others and say how in the hell am I ever supposed to get there in 3.

Par IS what the course designer says it is and for me that is the end of the discussion.

This is where I tend to lean in this discussion.

 

[valkyrie]

Also, most of the courses by me are all par three, so you dont have to pick what par you want to play.

 

[Dave242]

Par IS what the course designer says it is and for me that is the end of the discussion.

That is the beauty of the CR Par definition:
Close Range Par
Par is calculated by the number of reasonable throws intended by the course designer for a first-class player of a particular skill level to reach "close range" then take 2 throws to hole out.

This definition puts it in the hands of the course designer. .....and any course designer worth his/her salt has a certain skill level they are designing the course for.

CR Par formalizes the maximum "reasonable" distances for each skill level. This is in place not to "force the hand" of the designer, but to assign par to existing courses where the course designer no longer is actively interested/involved.

 

[craftsman]

I agree with cr par if were gonna get the sport on the same page throughout but I play all threes. I think challenge is a good thing. I played my first two years without ever coming close to winning and still loved it. Pars only work if all signs are in tact. For those of us that travel, three work easier. Also, I don't throw big d but can still three a 600. Follow the fairway- it will lead you to the basket

 

[DavidSauls]

This definition puts it in the hands of the course designer. .....and any course designer worth his/her salt has a certain skill level they are designing the course for.

Among the problems are that not all course designers are "worth their salt", and not all courses are designed by experienced course designers.

I'm also less certain even most disc golf courses are designed for a certain skill level. Some are clearly for top players or beginners; some designed with multiple tees, each set suitable for different skills. But most courses I've played seem designed for a broader range of players.

 

[Dave242]

Among the problems are that not all course designers are "worth their salt", and not all courses are designed by experienced course designers.

you can lead a horse to water........

CR Par (I need to start calling it "Level CR Par") gives a course designer an easy too to determine Par in a way that would be standard and conceptually easy intuitive. Other methods do not do as good a job at this.

I'm also less certain even most disc golf courses are designed for a certain skill level. Some are clearly for top players or beginners; some designed with multiple tees, each set suitable for different skills. But most courses I've played seem designed for a broader range of players.

A standard definition for Par needs to be able to address the course designers needs AND be used to look backwards and correctly assign Par to existing courses. Level CR Par does that.

I have put together a tool that helps those interested to determine which level a course is best suited for. I am still working out a few details before I go public with it. You are right though, this is a challenge and there is nothing to say for example that a Blue level course is not suitable for another level....just that it is best suited for Blue.

If things are set up well that way, difficulty will become much more "portable". People will eventually come to know how difficult a Red Par-64 course is.

The multiple tee problem is not a problem at all.....it should be just like golf: The Gold Tee is a Par-X for Gold players, the shorter Blue tee is Par-X for Blue players, and so on. If a White player plays from the Gold tees, that is fine, but "they are on their own" and should know that they are in for a potentially frustrating experience.

Will this sort of standardization ever happen??? Probably not.....or at least not for a long time. But........you at least need a good standard to get the ball rolling if it is ever going to start to get adopted. That is what Level CR Par is all about.

 

[DavidSauls]

Don't get me wrong---I like the idea of standardized par. I'd like to see it happen, though I'm skeptical it will.

Personally, I favor SA (scoring average) par, but CR has its merits as well. It would be more useful to me to have the same skill-level par shown on all courses, or perhaps all-skill-levels shown on signs, rather than one course posting blue-level pars, another white-level, etc.

Anything would be an improvement to people posting "I shoot 6-under. What division should I play?", without any idea of the basis of the par they beat by 6 throws.

And, just for myself, I don't find it terribly important. Desirable, yes.

 

[ERicJ]

Check out the distances in the tournament I played in on Saturday:

First round:

Hole 1 -956'

Hole 6 - 675'

Hole 12 - 550

Hole 18- 625

Hole 20 - 705


Round 2

Hole 1 - 530

Hole 19 - 825

Hole 21 -550


It was the hardest tournament I have ever played in. Along will tons of OB, those were some of the longest holes we had to play.

Yeah... Birdshot likes to play all their events as par 3 for all holes.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9466&year=2009&include_ratings=1#Open

 

[Olorin]

I think they should set some standard for marking par.

I couldn't agree more! That's the whole purpose for Close Range Par? Have you had a chance to check it out?

to be honest I think this is one thing our sport as a whole should try to improve on.

I agree 100%!

Normally I'll play all 3's, although most of the courses around here really are all par 3's, but generally if it's over 500 ft. I'll play it as a 4. I just don't think it's reasonable to say you should be in and out of a 600 ft. hole in 3 and if you do you should get a birdie for your efforts.

This is close to the idea of Close Range par. Here are the guideline lengths for where par 4s start for each course level:
Gold = 501
Blue = 431
White = 381
Red = 331
Green = 271

 

[TalbotTrojan]

Yeah... Birdshot likes to play all their events as par 3 for all holes.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9466&year=2009&include_ratings=1#Open

I recently played in a tournament that did this even on the 800' uphill hole. Now I realize that I am in the group that will call everything under 500' a par three and even a downhill 600' hole as a par three. I still think that even the reason of making it easier to count scores is just lame.

I like what is being done to standardize par throughout all courses. When it more resembles ball golf there will be some legitimate ideas of what par is.