What's wrong with deuce or die holes?

[optidiscic]

I laugh whenever I hear players complain about these holes.
Question #1 What constitutes such a hole?
Question #2 What's exactly so bad?
I think the hate for par 3 holes is related to this tired old follow the pack mentality.....I find most par 4s and 5s a bit boring as you can typically save par or salvage the hole due to multiple shots.......par 3s provide true pressure off the tee.

 

[DSmith]

A deuce or die hole is a hole with 2.1-2.4 scoring. In other words the majority of the scores are going to be 2's. By themselves they arnt bad but when you have an entire course of them they are awful for tournaments in which there is little scoring separation in the upper divisions and you pretty much have to deuce every hole to even consider cashing.

 

[DSmith]

Basically if you miss the deuce your screwed.

 

[dandaman]

There's not anything necessarily anything wrong with them, but if a course has a majority of these holes or even 1/3 to 1/2 of them it can be a bit frustrating if you're not driving well that day.

I personally like par 4's and 5's because (at least with correctly designed ones) an emphasis is placed on placement and/or upshots. If a course has a majority of their holes in the <375 range the strategy of placement or upshots is not nearly as high.

To answer your questions a duece or die hole (for me) is in the 250 ft range, has few obstacles between you and the basket and the majority of the field is going to birdie or at worse par it. Once again I think they are fine as long as there is not a lot of them. Too many the emphasis becomes who can park the most holes and get the fewest pars. That to me is an issue. If the majority of the holes are this way then it seems to me that a large part of disc golf strategy is not being used, and the best "golfer" is not necessarily the one with the lowest score.

 

[Dave242]

The job of a DG course in a competitive setting is to isolate and test different distinct DG skills. Accuracy, Course Management (risk/reward assessment), Distance, Putting, Scrambling (creative escape/recovery), and Throw-Shaping are the main skills. The goal of the course is to reward those who perform well and punish those who do not.

An analogy would be that when testing a car for the best all-around car, there are separate tests for acceleration, braking, cornering/handling, durability/quality, efficiency, safety, top speed, etc. The best car is a best combination of all of these.

Deuce-or-Die holes are by definition holes that everyone, no matter what their particular skill-set is, can and does routinely park the hole. So, what that is saying is that no one skill is being isolated and tested. So, Deuce-or-Die holes add nothing to purpose of the course (for competitive reasons.....but, yes they are fun and I do enjoy them a lot!).

You might argue that the skill of executing under pressure is being tested.....and that is true. BUT, that skill is already being tested on every other hole already (ideally) so why have a hole where that is the only thing being tested? Seems like a wasted hole.

 

[optidiscic]

All great points that I agree with. I think some players confuse par 3 as meaning deuce or die. I do think it's practically impossible to design a good par 4 or 5 hole that stands the test of time vs a well designed par 3.
I think over time most par 4s and 5s beat into weaker versions of themselves. Due to foliage being broken in and the inevitable expansion of landing zones. This has the effect of making a tough par 4 or 5 a more forgiving and easier to save par hole even with some bad shots.
A good par 3 (not a deuce or die) typically stands the test of time as the landing area typically is the green and plays as intended as after the first throw you are putting and not driving or approaching.
I think 1 deuce or die on a course is a good thing as it in a way separates the rec/novices from the field.

 

[sidewinder22]

All great points that I agree with. I think some players confuse par 3 as meaning deuce or die. I do think it's practically impossible to design a good par 4 or 5 hole that stands the test of time vs a well designed par 3.
I think over time most par 4s and 5s beat into weaker versions of themselves. Due to foliage being broken in and the inevitable expansion of landing zones. This has the effect of making a tough par 4 or 5 a more forgiving and easier to save par hole even with some bad shots.
A good par 3 (not a deuce or die) typically stands the test of time as the landing area typically is the green and plays as intended as after the first throw you are putting and not driving or approaching.
I think 1 deuce or die on a course is a good thing as it in a way separates the rec/novices from the field.

It sounds like you talking about two different things. One is course variety, and the other is the whole course. I tend to think of deuce or die as a course against a specific level of player, and not so much a hole or two. Courses that only have one set of tees would be better to have some variety than all deuce or die or all par 4/5. I like variety, I'm thinking of Camp Sank here.

Also you assume those par 4/5s are all in the same type of woods. Those more open par 4/5 holes would only be diluted by technology. I also have a hard time thinking Iron Hill gold won't stand the test of time.

 

[DavidSauls]

One merit of good par-4s (and par-5s) is that they require a fairway shot that is always different.

On a par-3, for the most part you throw the same drive every time you play the hole. Same disc, same route; it's just a matter of execution. On multi-par holes you have much more decision-making on that 2nd shot.

 

[Steve West]

I've done some work on wide-open holes which indicates the width of the scoring spread is smallest when the average score is 2.2. You get mostly 2's, a few 3's, and rarely a 1 or 4. The calculated width of the scoring spread is about 2.00.

When holes get shorter than this, the scoring spread widens until there are as many 1's as 2's., where the width is about 2.50.

As the average score increase from 2.2 the width of the scoring spread hits a local maximum when the average score is around 2.7. That's as many 2's as 3's and a few 4's. Calculated width = 2.65.

The scoring spread then flattens in relation to all higher scores. It goes down a little until the average score reaches 3.1. Width = 2.50.

Then it goes up slightly until the average score reaches 3.7. Calculated width of the scoring spread = 2.75.

Higher scores repeat this cycle, with just a little trend toward wider scoring spread for higher scores. Average score of 4.7 produces a width of 2.80, for example.

Caveat: these are based on work with my Throw Simulator, not actual data. I'm still looking for that big database of hole-by-hole-by-player scores. However, scoring spreads (for simple holes) always are at there widest when tow of the scores have equal percentages. They are at there narrowest when one score dominates. So, the average scores would only be off by the fraction of other scores that get mixed in.

So, anyway, holes that score too low just don't generate as much scoring spread.

 

[tom12003]

I'm still looking for that big database of hole-by-hole-by-player scores. However, scoring spreads (for simple holes) always are at there widest when tow of the scores have equal percentages. They are at there narrowest when one score dominates. So, the average scores would only be off by the fraction of other scores that get mixed in.

I thought I sent you the 565 hole-by-hole scores for last years Am Worlds at Plantation Ruins/Winget. There were 2 holes that might fit a "pure" deuce or die defn; both averaged 2.65. If you didn't deuce them, you probably lost ground to the field, but thats part of scoring separation in a tournament environment.

 

[solomon.trenton]

A deuce or die hole is a hole with 2.1-2.4 scoring. In other words the majority of the scores are going to be 2's. By themselves they arnt bad but when you have an entire course of them they are awful for tournaments in which there is little scoring separation in the upper divisions and you pretty much have to deuce every hole to even consider cashing.

this. a few are ok but creating a so-called "birdie alley" is pointless

 

[Peterb]

By themselves there's nothing wrong with these holes. A course full of them sucks. However, part of the challenge of our game is to be able to hit the lines you're supposed to hit. If you don't and you get a 3 (or worse), then yeah, that sucks for you, but you should be getting a 2. Nothing wrong with that if they are about a third of your course or less. Otherwise, it should be more of a challenge.

 

[StarFirebird]

Haha. I'm used to them.

My Local course only has 1 par 4 and the rest is a Par 3. Then this course 15 minutes down the road only has 3 par 4's and the rest Par 3. I'm used to it and I like it that way.

IMO it makes you a better disc golfer and increases your focus more and makes you better under pressure.

 

[joegraham]

Most disc golfers are used to these short holes, and a lot of older courses were designed for slower shorter discs, so many holes could have been par 3 but are now par 2. We are not used to playing longer modern courses, and now on ball golf courses for real par 4s and 5s. I played ball golf all my life and can't hardly get a par on ANY hole, so I'm used to the high scores. Ball golf course parss, as has been discussed in other threads ,are based on an expert flaw free round with 2 putts after hitting the green in regulation. Our disc golf long par 4 and 5 holes are really based on one putt for par for probably an above average player, not expert so there is a lot of difference between the sports.

I do think the PDGA par guidelines are really good and close to the above average player's abilities. I still get discouraged by not getting a 4 on Stafford Lake's 1000 foot downhill par 5 hole #9 though so I try to push myself to break "par".

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Hole 12b at Joralemon
175ft
Left 2 Right shot over a small knoll.

2s, 3s and 4s have been scored on it. Me and a guy from Florida have chained out before.

Deuce or Die holes ROCK !!

 

[biscoe]

there is nothing wrong with "deuce or die" holes. for the most part they are better holes than wide open 400 footers. the key is they need to be incorporated into a balanced course design which is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[DiscinFiend]

The job of a DG course in a competitive setting is to isolate and test different distinct DG skills. Accuracy, Course Management (risk/reward assessment), Distance, Putting, Scrambling (creative escape/recovery), and Throw-Shaping are the main skills. The goal of the course is to reward those who perform well and punish those who do not.

An analogy would be that when testing a car for the best all-around car, there are separate tests for acceleration, braking, cornering/handling, durability/quality, efficiency, safety, top speed, etc. The best car is a best combination of all of these.

Deuce-or-Die holes are by definition holes that everyone, no matter what their particular skill-set is, can and does routinely park the hole. So, what that is saying is that no one skill is being isolated and tested. So, Deuce-or-Die holes add nothing to purpose of the course (for competitive reasons.....but, yes they are fun and I do enjoy them a lot!).

You might argue that the skill of executing under pressure is being tested.....and that is true. BUT, that skill is already being tested on every other hole already (ideally) so why have a hole where that is the only thing being tested? Seems like a wasted hole.

:thmbup:

 

[solomon.trenton]

Hole 12b at Joralemon
175ft
Left 2 Right shot over a small knoll.

2s, 3s and 4s have been scored on it. Me and a guy from Florida have chained out before.

Deuce or Die holes ROCK !!

you need to post a picture of this awful hole

 

[superberry]

Crush the competition and deuce everything with skill.

 

[hawk12]

there is nothing wrong with "deuce or die" holes. for the most part they are better holes than wide open 400 footers. the key is they need to be incorporated into a balanced course design which is more than the sum of its parts.

^ This!!!