When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[dreadlock86]

Not exactly. One shot par 3 holes shouldn't be longer than what 80-90% of the players in that skill level can reach. Power is already over rewarded in DG and holes longer than this guideline get into the unfair realm. Where extra long distance should be rewarded is on par 4s and 5s where the bomber for that skill level gets a shorter upshot (not putt) on par 4s and might be able to reach the basket in two throws on some par 5s for a potential eagle.

interesting perspective and i can kinda agree with the highlighted. but i don't really see the distinction between long par 3's and par 4 or 5's the way you describe it. if power is rewarded on a par 4 why can't it fairly be rewarded on a long par 3?
if we disregard par and just look at strokes, what difference does it make? how does what we call par change what is fair about how far any particular player can throw?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The difference is that on par 3s, a player who can reach the green can regularly save a shot compared with someone AT THE SAME SKILL LEVEL/RATING who cannot with their longest throw. Imagine an extreme example course with mostly open holes in the 475-550 range. Maybe 15 of the top 50 players could reach these but still only a few birdies result to separate scores. So 35 players playing for 3s and only 15 who can reach by distance and can actually contend.

On par 4s, past a certain distance, ideally there should be risk/reward so the longer throwers risk something if they can throw past where everyone at that skill level can reach. However, if they can throw farther, they get rewarded with a shorter upshot where they can club down and be more accurate for the potential birdie 3 compared to others who have to use a more bladed disc from farther away likely with less accuracy.

Even on longer but reachable par 3s by most players in a skill level, the more powerful throwers can use rounder edged discs for more accuracy. They can also throw farther from standing and more awkward stances in the schule using rounder edged discs. So other than downhill floater shots, power is essentially rewarded on most throws which also enhances accuracy at the same time. Those who are accuracy specialists don't get the same benefit if a hole or shot is out of reach no matter how accurately they can throw.

 

[mattdabbs]

And, I have never flown a 3 on this hole...the best I've ever done is a 4. With that, I still feel I can get the 3 and it should be a par 3. One day...

I 3'd it 3 of the first 5 times I played it but very, very, very few times sense then.

 

[dreadlock86]

The difference is that on par 3s, a player who can reach the green can regularly save a shot compared with someone AT THE SAME SKILL LEVEL/RATING who cannot with their longest throw. Imagine an extreme example course with mostly open holes in the 475-550 range. Maybe 15 of the top 50 players could reach these but still only a few birdies result to separate scores. So 35 players playing for 3s and only 15 who can reach by distance and can actually contend.

On par 4s, past a certain distance, ideally there should be risk/reward so the longer throwers risk something if they can throw past where everyone at that skill level can reach. However, if they can throw farther, they get rewarded with a shorter upshot where they can club down and be more accurate for the potential birdie 3 compared to others who have to use a more bladed disc from farther away likely with less accuracy.

Even on longer but reachable par 3s by most players in a skill level, the more powerful throwers can use rounder edged discs for more accuracy. They can also throw farther from standing and more awkward stances in the schule using rounder edged discs. So other than downhill floater shots, power is essentially rewarded on most throws which also enhances accuracy at the same time. Those who are accuracy specialists don't get the same benefit if a hole or shot is out of reach no matter how accurately they can throw.

:thmbup: i'm convinced. thanks for the great answer

 

[bjreagh]

I feel distance is not really a factor that warrants adding a number to par. Risk/reward and odd shaped fairways (do not follow a normal disc flight path for the entire hole) where you must carefully place a couple of shots to me are reasons to make a hole a par 4 or 5. I am thinking of courses like Flyboy, Highbridge Gold, and IDGC Jackson that each have holes that fit this description and par is adjusted accordingly.

The farther you throw the better chance you have of getting pars on birdies on a couple more holes over the people just below you in distance range, but then you have the same advantage on a couple of holes over those just below you as well. I say all this and I am a relatively short thrower. I know I can't expect a 3 on a 900' hole, but some people can and good for them. I will get my stroke back on them when the next hole is in the woods!

 

[Stud Muffin]

To the OP, I think the real question is the elevation. If its way downhill then throwing well over 400 leaving a 200 foot approach makes it a reasonably hard par 3 and a very weak par 4

I play on a mountain all the time and people throwing 500 downhill is pretty common. Why are you throwing a flex shot? Just pump something low and hard with lots of spin. It will accelerate going downhill and get great D.

Sounds to me like you personally can't get a 3, but that doesn't mean it s not a hard 3

I have lots of room to the left. So to work the disc closest to the line from tee to basket, I throw a flex shot, but wind gusts do throw it over the fence OB. To play a hyzer line down the fence has not worked so well, also flipping over the fence OB. To play conservative, I do throw my Firebird/Predator to make sure in case of any gusts I make it back in play. If I fade to far left, I seriously extend the length of the hole. [of course, using the FB/Pred I do not have the length to reach in two.]

So for the chance to reach the circle in 2, I have to throw my Wraith or Teebird.

This is like a ball golfer with a max potential drive of 270 yards playing a 500 yard par 3.

 

[Stud Muffin]

if your original statement meant that distance shouldn't be the only thing, then obviously. but having a competitive distance potential is absolutely required. this means don't be bitter when a hole demands that you execute a long shot to score well. a good course will test different aspects of your game and one of those is distance. we should expect to have to make some long throws on a few holes.

It is not about bitter, but reasonable.

In ball golf, I do not remember ever playing a par 3 hole I did not have the capable distance to reach in 1, nor a par 4 in 2, or a par 5 in 3. Now in Major Championship tourneys, yes it happens, BUT you also see a majority of the best players shoot over par when that happens.

But in disc golf, we have 400' par 3s, which means only people who can drive 400+ ft will have the potential to have 2 putts at it. But in the case of #6 in Potosi, only those who can throw a disc 660ft + have the potential to have 2 putts at it.

 

[timothyasteele]

I agree with you 100% that the hole is not fair. I'm assuming it was put there to have everyone lose a stroke due to some other easier holes on the course, or to really challenge the very best disc golfers to try and make a par out there. 400 to 500 foot drive, long upshot, par putt. Seems do-able for a select few, but pretty ridiculous for most decent to good players. But whoever said life was fair, right? I mean, look at a lot of courses with ridiculously difficult holes. Some of the wooded courses with 5 - 10 foot gaps between trees haphazardly growing every which way with no really defined lines are more luck than skill. At least this hole is pretty open...

Tim S.

 

[dreadlock86]

It is not about bitter, but reasonable.

In ball golf, I do not remember ever playing a par 3 hole I did not have the capable distance to reach in 1, nor a par 4 in 2, or a par 5 in 3. Now in Major Championship tourneys, yes it happens, BUT you also see a majority of the best players shoot over par when that happens.

But in disc golf, we have 400' par 3s, which means only people who can drive 400+ ft will have the potential to have 2 putts at it. But in the case of #6 in Potosi, only those who can throw a disc 660ft + have the potential to have 2 putts at it.

sorry, i hope that didn't come off as if i were attacking.
i just don't consider too much what is "fair" on the course, i just take what it throws at me (unless it's ridiculous!). it's definitely a long hole and you probably won't see me carding a 3

 

[jongoff09]

There seems to be a completely different perspective on par between ball and disc golf. The average ball golf player is unlikely to ever par a real course (par 3 courses aside). How many golfers do you know that have a zero handicap? While the average disc golfer is discouraged if they can't throw par.

That is because it is so easy to putt in DG. In golf, the slopes of the green and the size of the hole make it really difficult to make putts outside of 5' for most people. In DG, most people can make 10-15', and even up to 20' putts a decent percentage of the time. So getting to that distance with a shot at par is pretty easy. Also, I believe that throwing a disc straight with your arm/hand is much easier than trying to hit a ball with a 44" stick in your hand and a flat surface as impact.

I love golf, but it is sooo frustrating :wall: . It is easier for me to hit a 90mph fastball than it is to hit a golf ball straight

 

[gotcha]

No hole deserves a par 2. An ace shouldn't ever be a single birdie.

So you've never played miniature golf?

http://www.proputters.com/history/2010s/2011/national/2011_ppa_national_championship.htm

 

[jenb]

I wouldn't be too happy if I 4'd that. Safe 450' wide open downhill shot, 140 up the the basket inside the circle, putt.

But it's actually 540 to the landing zone to be able to perform the up to the far pin position.

Also, it's a blue tee, which is supposed to be for 950 rated players. If it were a gold tee, then it would fit the criteria for a par 3, but as a blue tee, it's solidly in 4 par territory on the chart.

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/ParGuidelines.pdf

And I don't know about how any other people feel about it, but I am aggravated at seeing the top pro women finishing over par at worlds, with the leaderboard following them around displaying how far over par they are during the final 9. The women should be going from different tees or have different pars or something, because par is not just a number; it is a value judgement.

 

[gotcha]

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.
The value assigned to represent par for an individual hole is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the green. Holes typically are listed as par-3, par-4 or par-5, although par-6 is also occasionally encountered. A par-4 hole is going to be longer than a par-3 hole, and a par-5 longer than a par-4 (with rare exceptions).

On a par-3, an expert golfer is expected to need only one stroke to reach the green, followed by two putts. On a par-4, he should need two strokes to reach the green, followed by two putts; and so on.

For 18 holes of golf, the par is the total number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to require to complete the course.

 

[gotcha]

number of shots to reach close range plus 2 within close range with close range being approximately 120 feet says this deluded, opinionated hacker...

par when properly applied is a design concept rather than something derived from scoring averages after the fact...

But the scoring averages "after the fact" can help a designer tweak the design or choose an alternative pin placement (or tee area) to yield a better scoring spread on a particular hole.

 

[jenb]

Definition: Par is the number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to need to complete an individual hole, or all the holes on a golf course.
The value assigned to represent par for an individual hole is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the green. Holes typically are listed as par-3, par-4 or par-5, although par-6 is also occasionally encountered. A par-4 hole is going to be longer than a par-3 hole, and a par-5 longer than a par-4 (with rare exceptions).

On a par-3, an expert golfer is expected to need only one stroke to reach the green, followed by two putts. On a par-4, he should need two strokes to reach the green, followed by two putts; and so on.

For 18 holes of golf, the par is the total number of strokes an expert golfer is expected to require to complete the course.

If you had only one set of tees, that might be acceptable, but whn you have three sets of tees, white, blue, and gold, and the color coding for white and blue means something less than a scratch golfer, then your definition does not apply.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Members of the DGCD course designers group have access to software that accurately predicts scoring average on any new hole design (+/-0.3) in advance so you don't necessarily have to wait for an event to determine those averages other than for confirmation.

 

[Cgkdisc]

jenb - And I don't know about how any other people feel about it, but I am aggravated at seeing the top pro women finishing over par at worlds, with the leaderboard following them around displaying how far over par they are during the final 9. The women should be going from different tees or have different pars or something, because par is not just a number; it is a value judgement.

I've discussed this with the top women over the years, and in general, they prefer playing the same tees with the same par as the Open players on courses they both play at Worlds or NTs. If they play in separate events like women in ball golf, they don't mind having different tees than Open might use and an appropriate par for blue level. But that doesn't happen that often other than USWDGC.

 

[simpletwist]

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker. - Willie Nelson.

The perfect quote.

 

[denny ritner]

don't get what the difference is between "playing" a hole as a par 3 or a par 4. If your home course has a 940' wooded par 3 and one day someone changes the sign to sat par 4 are you going to play the hole any differently?

That has always cracked me up. It also cracks me up when players spend more time studying the tee sign, instead of walking up 100 ft. and looking at the hole.

 

[Brall]

I've discussed this with the top women over the years, and in general, they prefer playing the same tees with the same par as the Open players on courses they both play at Worlds or NTs. If they play in separate events like women in ball golf, they don't mind having different tees than Open might use and an appropriate par for blue level. But that doesn't happen that often other than USWDGC.

at first i was surprised that the pro women would prefer to play the same tees/pars as the guys until i put a little thought into it.

i realized that these top females are true competitors and do not need special treatment. and i can guarantee that they aren't looking at their over par numbers as a value judgement even if some spectators are. i'd be willing to bet that they'd feel the same about the comparison of top female ratings to male.