54 or course par?

[DavidSauls]

The only problem I have about the way people keep score is that when I ask what they shoot on a certain course they cant tell me or the number is off because of how they keep track of their score.

Fair enough. But if they're keeping by "all-par-3", they're probably confused by your scores.

Virtually everyone I know gives scores based on all-par-3, or just gives their total score. In my world, the folks who pay attention to the course par and give scores over/under it, are the exceptions.

In fact, it's so prominent that tournament scores are added this way and, if a tournament has more than 18 holes, people have to be reminded to tally their score accordingly. Inevitably, someone won't.

 

[Speedly]

Just use Easy Scorecard Pro, put course par in there. App keeps track for you, problem solved.

 

[Emoney]

Spookyspence, the thread got big because everyone's rehashing 3 or 4 issues that have been debated endlessly, with no resolution.

Since you're new to it, I'll try to clarify something from the "par 54" camp:

We don't "play" that 699' hole as a par-3. We scorekeep it that way. We play it for the best chance of the lowest score, for our particular ability.

One reason we don't pay much attention to the course par is one of the other issues in this thread---there are a half-dozen philosophies on how to set par, and any given course might be set using any of these, or none at all. So it's not portable; my -4 on my course and your -4 on your course are not equal, even if based on the course par. Absent a consistently applied system of par, it's meaningless.

So it's "ease" of scorekeeping that we base it on over/under 3 (or 4 or whatever). I can do this in my head without trying to remember what the par was on a hole, and at the end translate it to a score. If I'm +8, that's 62. If the "course par" is 58, I'm +4 by course par, if you please.

This may strike you as stupid but, to those of us who keep score this way, it's not stupid at all.

We have a winner!!

 

[_MTL_]

When keeping score in your head or for casual play or league play, just keep score whatever you feel is the easiest way. My local courses are par 56 and 57, but I certainly keep score in my head as 54 and if someone asks what I shot and I shot 54, I'll say even.

But for tournament directors, it's VERY important that par is labeled correctly in events for the reason that missing holes is a par + 4 penalty, not a 7 as people usually say.

I've heard a story at a worlds where a woman was starting on hole X and it was 1,000 feet. She was joking that she would likely get an 8 and the best she could do would be 7. She missed the hole to start the round and received a 7, since the TD labeled the hole as 3 on the scorecard. She then showed up for the next hole and the 7 was the best score on the hole.

It was never proven that she did this intentionally did this - b/c if she did, automatic DQ based on intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage - but it was rumored for sure.

The worst example of par I've ever seen was at the 2007 Pro Worlds in Highbridge. Chuck was the TD and he has heard my rants since that tournament. And I will say, outside of the pars, the event was fantastic by all accounts.

There were 3 holes that week that I can't understand how anyone on the planet could call them a par 3, but sure enough, they were listed as par 3's.

The first was hole 1 at the gold course. The hole was 500 feet or so and was straight for about 300 feet and then turned directly right and uphill to the pin. I spotted this hole during the A pool and no one got with in 50 feet and no one deuced it. Literally some of the best players in the world - and no one can birdie it and no can even get a putt.

The second was hole 5 (I think) at Granite Ridge. This hole was about 550 feet, uphill, and hyzered somewhat hard at about 300 feet. It really was a pretty simple 3 - you threw a big hyzer and then had a 200 foot wide open upshot. I never saw anyone close, but I know some people 2'd it with a throw in.

The third was hole 9 at Granite Ridge. It was 600 or so feet, downhill, and pretty wide open. There was OB right the entire hole. I heard of one player getting to the pin for a putt.

The argument for these being 3's was the scoring average of around 3.3. To me, 3.3 scoring averages are terrible holes, unless they are truly reachable par 3's.

Likely, if 10 players played these three holes, you would have 7 3's, 2 4's and 1 5. Maybe you get 7 3's and 3 4's. Either way, not a lot spread.

However, a reachable par 3 with that spread is a great hole. While it produces the same average, the numbers are a lot more varried. You would see roughly 2 2's, 5 3's, 2' 4's and 1 5.

My point in all of these was there is no way that three par 3's should have literally a total of 1 putt for birdie over the course of 2 rounds amongst the best players in the world. Had a player missed one of these holes, they would have recorded a 7 instead of an 8. That's not right.

Get par right for your PDGA tournament. However, playing with friends, who cares. In the end, par is nothing more than an easier way of keeping score. Of course in disc golf, its not. Missing a hole should be an auto DQ in my opinion, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Waah, waah. Holes with a 3.3 scoring average can be par 3s and there's nothing wrong with a few 2-shot par 3s. That's what it worked to be with maybe one per course at Highbridge. Granite Ridge is a blue level course and those "Blue par 4" holes averaged around 3.6-3.8 for blue level players. As will happen on most blue level courses with par 4s, those that average 3.6-3.8 will average 3.3-3.4 for gold level players. You don't leave the gold par at 4 just to make the gold level players feel good when 2 out of 3 of them get 3s.

Ball golf has been doing this for several years now on a few championship courses with a 280-300 yard par 3 that deliver 0-5 birdies in the whole tournament and lots of bogeys. You don't want a bunch of these type of holes but 1 or 2 in a round have their place in both games.

 

[Steve West]

Use 54 all the time? OK.

My wife will be glad to hear she scored "42 under" at Orchard Trail Park.

 

[jeverett]

The first was hole 1 at the gold course. The hole was 500 feet or so and was straight for about 300 feet and then turned directly right and uphill to the pin. I spotted this hole during the A pool and no one got with in 50 feet and no one deuced it. Literally some of the best players in the world - and no one can birdie it and no can even get a putt.

The second was hole 5 (I think) at Granite Ridge. This hole was about 550 feet, uphill, and hyzered somewhat hard at about 300 feet. It really was a pretty simple 3 - you threw a big hyzer and then had a 200 foot wide open upshot. I never saw anyone close, but I know some people 2'd it with a throw in.

The third was hole 9 at Granite Ridge. It was 600 or so feet, downhill, and pretty wide open. There was OB right the entire hole. I heard of one player getting to the pin for a putt.

Hi MTL,

It's a little off-topic for this thread, but using measures other than the rough PDGA length-to-par guideline, I'd agree with you that the three holes you mention each raise the question of being a legitimate par 3 (or not).

Using Close Range Par (CR Par), for example, that hole 1 is not a par 3. The 300ft. drive to hit the turn is no problem for Gold-level players.. CR Par has the average accurate drive for a Gold-level player at 400ft. However for the dogleg, CR Par has the 90% chance for finishing out in 2 throws at 100ft.. or too short to make it to the basket. So even Gold-level players are looking at a 300ft. drive, followed by a 200ft. fairway drive, followed by 2 putts, for a par 4. Using intended number of drives instead, once again the hole is designed for two drives before putting, or 2 drives + 2 putts = par 4. Is it a good par 4? Maybe.. that's where a scoring distribution is needed. As mentioned previously in this thread, ideally you want fewer than 70% of the target players (averaged 1000-rated Gold-level players, in this case) scoring the same on the hole. If the scoring distribution is too low, relocating the basket (still keeping the par as 4) may help.

The second hole you mention sounds like a tweener.. at 550ft., that's outside of the recommended maximum distance for a par 3 by CR Par guidelines. After an accurate 400ft. drive, your average Gold-level player is still looking at a 150ft. upshot followed by a putt.. so outside of the 100ft. guideline for a 90% chance of finishing in 2 throws, but also very unlikely to be bogied. It would be interesting to see a scoring distribution for this one, but I'm guessing a lot of 3's (too many, in fact). If over 70% of the target group is getting a 3 on this hole, it definitely could use tweaking.. probably either a shorter basket position (and still a par 3), or a much longer basket position to make it a legitimate par 4.

The third hole sounds like borderline par 3 by PDGA guidelines.. but by more accurate guidelines (e.g. CR Par) realistically a par 4. How much is the downgrade elevation on the hole? Unless it's >33ft. down, the hole is probably playing longer than the CR Par maximum par 3 (400ft. drive followed by 100ft. for a 90% chance of finishing out in two).. as a rough estimate, each foot of elevation change adds/subtracts 3 feet of effective distance. With the OB on the right, players probably aren't throwing maximum distance or rollers, either, so the 400ft. accurate drive is probably what most will do. Depending on the downgrade, players would be left with a 100-200ft. upshot.. which if it's pretty open probably means a lot 3's (probably too many). If over 70% of the target group is getting a 3 on this hole, maybe find a way to guard the basket (or move it deeper) for a more legitimate par 4?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Actual scoring for Open gold players at PW2007
Gold Hole 1: 63% 3s, 33% 4s, 4% 5s = 3.4 avg
Granite Hole 5: 67% 3s, 29% 4s, 4% 5s, 1% 6s = 3.4 avg
Granite Hole 9: 2% 2s, 69% 3s, 24% 4s, 5% 5s = 3.3 avg

 

[jeverett]

Actual scoring for Open gold players at PW2007
Gold Hole 1: 63% 3s, 33% 4s, 4% 5s = 3.4 avg
Granite Hole 5: 67% 3s, 29% 4s, 4% 5s, 1% 6s = 3.4 avg
Granite Hole 9: 2% 2s, 69% 3s, 24% 4s, 5% 5s = 3.3 avg

Would that scoring distribution happen to be normed to a 1000-rating average? If so, it looks to me like:

A par 4 (Gold 1) with reasonable scoring spread.

A par 4 (hole 5) which could use maybe a very slight tweak (e.g. slightly longer basket position) for a slightly higher number of 4's (but at under 70% 3's the hole is still doing what it is intended to do).

A par 3 (hole 9) tweener, which could probably use either a shorter basket position or a much longer position and a par 4 treatment. Scoring distribution is still (slightly) under 70% 3's, though.

 

[Cgkdisc]

None of the holes need any tweaking. There's nothing wrong with a few par 3s with scoring spread skewed upward with bogeys versus downward with birdies.

The Granite Ridge holes were designed as par 4s for blue level and have appropriate scoring averages and spreads for blue level. There are many blue par 4s all over the world that become legit par 3s for gold level. It's the same logic for blue par 3s with 2.6-2.7 scoring average that truly become par 2s for gold at 2.3-2.4 scoring average. But in this case, the whining is deafening from pros that you can't have par 2s. So they're set at an inflated par 3.

 

[Spookyspence]

Fair enough. But if they're keeping by "all-par-3", they're probably confused by your scores.

Virtually everyone I know gives scores based on all-par-3, or just gives their total score. In my world, the folks who pay attention to the course par and give scores over/under it, are the exceptions.

In fact, it's so prominent that tournament scores are added this way and, if a tournament has more than 18 holes, people have to be reminded to tally their score accordingly. Inevitably, someone won't.

That is the problem! Not everyone keeps score the same way! Its kinda 50/50

And how is it confusing to keep your score based off the the holes you play? The game has a scoring system that works perfectly fine, and I don't see why people get annoyed when you use it.

 

[jeverett]

None of the holes need any tweaking. There's nothing wrong with a few par 3s with scoring spread skewed upward with bogeys versus downward with birdies.

The Granite Ridge holes were designed as par 4s for blue level and have appropriate scoring averages and spreads for blue level. There are many blue par 4s all over the world that become legit par 3s for gold level. It's the same logic for blue par 3s with 2.6-2.7 scoring average that truly become par 2s for gold at 2.3-2.4 scoring average. But in this case, the whining is deafening from pros that you can't have par 2s. So they're set at an inflated par 3.

The problem with simply converting a par 4 Blue-level hole isn't necessarily the skewed score distribution.. it's intended flight lines. At the Gold-level, are the pros really intended to find some line to the basket that the blue-level players aren't? Or are they just as limited by the available flight lines as the blue-level players? Without seeing hole 1, I can only guess that an accurate drive from a Gold-level player isn't any closer to the basket after their first drive than an accurate drive from a blue-level player. Neither are in the 100ft. range after said accurate drive, making this hole by definition a par 4 at both skill levels.. and a reasonably-well designed one, by the scoring spread distribution. Hole 5 same thing. If the ideal drive for a Gold-level player is still placing them outside 100ft., that's not a par 3 (or it could just be a badly-designed par 3). Hole 9 is the only one that sounds like the intended flight line actually elongates.. and at the blue level it's a definitely par 4, but at the Gold-level is a tweener. That would be the one hole that I could really see it might be worth it to tweak.. that and any of those par 2 candidates you mentioned.. but that's another story.

 

[DavidSauls]

@Spookyspence

I don't get annoyed when people use the course par. It's perfectly understandable. However, some of them get annoyed when I don't, which I find odd.

Bear in mind that many people who use all-par-3, started out using course par. I know I did, so I have the perspective of having used both to keep score, and I definitely know which I prefer. With so many others using all-par-3, you must concede that we can't all be idiots.

 

[mjoyce]

Just use Easy Scorecard Pro, put course par in there. App keeps track for you, problem solved.

done and done

 

[DavidSauls]

And how is it confusing to keep your score based off the the holes you play?

Not too confusing. But---

(1) Scoring by course par in my head, I've reached a basket and forgotten what the par was. Especially in a large group with some bad throws along the way. Never happens with all-par-3.

(2) I've played courses where par wasn't shown on the sign, and I didn't have a scorecard. Not an issue with all-par-3.

(3) When writing scores on a scorecard and totaling them, it's much easier not to refer to each hole's designated par. You just scan across, drop a stroke for 2s, add a stroke for 4s, etc.

(4) I've played some courses with really ridiculous pars designated. What to do? Shoot 20 under? Call pars what I think they should be? Or just use the same system I use everywhere else?

(5) Scoring by course par puts me out-of-step with 95% of the players I play with. Your world may be 50/50, by mine's not.

(6) I find no advantage to scorekeeping based on the course par.

 

[DavidSauls]

done and done

Don't have a smartphone, don't want a phone on the course, don't want to stop and enter scores each hole when I can MORE EASILY keep score in my head, doesn't solve the problem of inconsistently set scores, doesn't really solve anything except the math.

 

[Cgkdisc]

To jeverett - Hole 1 was designed as a 2-shot par 3 and never was designed as a par 4 for blue. Your use of CRP analysis fails for a hole like this. The actual scoring distribution and average bear this out on this hole and Granite hole 5. Granite 5 was not one of my favorite blue holes for gold level but still worked as a tough par 3. Few got within 100 ft due to the fairway shape. Or if they did, it may have required a technical shot over or around a wall of trees. Hole 9 is a bomber hole where gold level players could get closer to the pin by taking a more direct angle over the marsh in addition to their average distance being longer than blue level.

 

[scarpfish]

If people complaining about the all par-3 score keeping method ever have to check a large amount of scorecards during a tournament, I think then they'll understand why its so popular.

As for doing my own in head scorekeeping, due to the all par-3 method, I can play 18 holes very quickly and at the end of the round, only have to recall the holes that I got something other than a '3' on (score book suggests this is around 25% of the holes played on the home course) to get my round score.

 

[mjoyce]

Not too confusing. But---

(1) Scoring by course par in my head, I've reached a basket and forgotten what the par was. Especially in a large group with some bad throws along the way. Never happens with all-par-3.

(2) I've played courses where par wasn't shown on the sign, and I didn't have a scorecard. Not an issue with all-par-3.

(3) When writing scores on a scorecard and totaling them, it's much easier not to refer to each hole's designated par. You just scan across, drop a stroke for 2s, add a stroke for 4s, etc.

(4) I've played some courses with really ridiculous pars designated. What to do? Shoot 20 under? Call pars what I think they should be? Or just use the same system I use everywhere else?

(5) Scoring by course par puts me out-of-step with 95% of the players I play with. Your world may be 50/50, by mine's not.

(6) I find no advantage to scorekeeping based on the course par.

Don't have a smartphone, don't want a phone on the course, don't want to stop and enter scores each hole when I can MORE EASILY keep score in my head, doesn't solve the problem of inconsistently set scores, doesn't really solve anything except the math.

(1) 1 off the tee into the tree, 2 throw it towards the basket, 3 miss put, 4 make tap in

(2) ^ doesn't matter what par for the hole is what matters is how many strokes you get

(3)I prefer to just add the numbers together to get a total.

(4)total strokes

(5)I know people that do it both ways but most I play with just tell you how man strokes they shot in a round on a course.

(6) I find no advantage to scorekeeping based on the course par.

I do like the easy scorecard though it takes no time at all to enter the score into the phone. If you don't have a smartphone and don't have a phone on the course I understand your preference and to each his own.

It's nice to also have access to a record of all of your rounds at your fingertips so you can see your progression.

 

[Spookyspence]

If people complaining about the all par-3 score keeping method ever have to check a large amount of scorecards during a tournament, I think then they'll understand why its so popular.

As for doing my own in head scorekeeping, due to the all par-3 method, I can play 18 holes very quickly and at the end of the round, only have to recall the holes that I got something other than a '3' on (score book suggests this is around 25% of the holes played on the home course) to get my round score.

I can see why all par 3 is popular okay, its easy! But when someone gives me a +/- score for a course they played its not accurate if they use this type of scoring. If everyone said the total number of strokes they had OR just kept track of their score like they are suppose to they could give me a accurate score.

I just don't see what the problem with keeping track of your score like you are suppose to is.......I could only imagine if people that play ball golf played every course as all par 3.