Par Talk

[biscoe]

Two come to mind. They are holes that play well, are cool and fun to play, and we were arguing about the par to begin with. The best data we had was the open division and, after seeing their scores over a few years, I relented to setting the higher par. I still whine about it, and am surprised that the holes score as high as they do. If I was sole owner, I might have left them as originally set.

But that's being fairly casual about par because, as I said, we're not hosting elite-level events or a lot of 1000-rated players. For the past few years we haven't held singles tournaments, so it matters even less.

Since it is only a couple would you mind giving a physical description of the holes? (distance/elevation/forced layups/tightness)

 

[DavidSauls]

Since it is only a couple would you mind giving a physical description of the holes? (distance/elevation/forced layups/tightness)

Diamond 6

629', double dogleg, gentle elevation gain (mostly off the tee, and approaching the green)
Fairway about 25' wide for the first 150', then maybe 40' the rest of the way.
Lined by dense woods.

Drive to landing area, gentle dogleg right, throw to landing area, gentle dogleg left, throw slightly uphill to basket, guarded by 2 small trees, about 25' short and to either side of a straight path so you can't safely hyzer in. In the middle of the second segment is a tree, too far to hit with a drive, but it offers two narrower windows and forces you to decide which to take on your second shot.

I argued that all you have to do is restrain yourself, throw 240' straight and hit the mark, 200' straight, 200' straight, and drop it in. Add a little for the elevation. But it's reasonable; even I've done it before.

But the temptation's there to get around the corner off the tee, and to get around the corner for a second shot, and nail that elusive "3". Which is beyond my ability, but others do manage from time to time.

But over several years of tournaments, the open division never averaged better than 4.6. And it wasn't a bunch of 7s and 8s and OB that inflated that average; it was equal or slightly more 5s than 4s.

Steve would attribute it to errors. But it seems that there's just enough trouble along the way to accumulate on a long hole, or to cause players to be extremely cautious, because if they miss the woods are dense enough to cost a stroke or two.

I called it a "tough 4", yielding a few birdies and lots of bogeys. We changed it to a 5.

Garnet 15

490'
Dogleg right, tee shot slightly uphill, big elevation from landing zone to basket.

The drive is across a pond, 210-240' to clear water (the shorter distance means a longer second throw), with the shore rising 5-10' to the ideal landing area. Which is around the corner, to the right. Cut it too tight, and there are tall trees and an extension of the pond. Cut it too left, there are dense woods. But there's a better chance for a 3 if you get around the corner, and keep it in the fairway; if you just drive straight, you can land safe but leave a big throw for the next one.

The second leg is up a steep hill, with dense woods on either side. In the center of this fairway are two tall trees, in a line along the line of play and about 60' apart, which force you to choose a side or, sometimes, to slalom between them. Basket's on the slope; rollaways aren't a big concern but if you don't quite reach it, it's a steep uphill putt.

It started as a "Tough 3". An unbirdieable 3, which I'm comfortable with. Good drive, good upshot, putt. Except that the 3s were, apparently, tougher than I thought.

*

Now, I suspect that if we had an event where the open division averaged close to 1000 rating, or we had enough high-rated players to select out a significant group that averaged 1000, they'd beat those numbers. We've had some, but not enough. So don't really have a reason to set par accurately for them, nor results to judge whether we did. And, like many designers, we haven't been around them enough to really know what to expect.

I'll also footnote that one of the design philosophies I've quoted to visitors is, "We like tempting people to do something foolish". Which these holes demonstrate.

Steve is defining errors as something like throws that cost a stroke. I understand that. I see the line as much fuzzier; the throw that isn't perfect, and might cost a stroke 20% of the time. Is that an error? Do it once, and it probably won't cost a stroke. Do it multiple times on a long hole, and it might. And that's what we find on a number of holes out here.

P.S. if you go through our course photos to look at those holes---which I can't imagine you would do---the hole numbers are out of sync. This is the result of trying to squeeze 2 overlapping layouts into a website note designed for it, and a recent re-numbering. Ignore the DGCR hole numbers, and read the descriptions. Diamond 6 is described as "Hole 6". Quartz 15 is described as "17A (Quartz)".

 

[DavidSauls]

Sorry for the essay. I can be concise when discussion hole design, in general. Caveat about asking me about hole design at Stoney Hill.

 

[biscoe]

Sounds like a 5 and a 4 to me.

 

[biscoe]

Looking at the pics I can see Hole 6 conceptually as a difficult Par 4. 17 is a par 4 all the way.

 

[DavidSauls]

On the bright side---within the parameters we're using, which is the entire open division at our events---only once have the results indicated that one of our Par 3s should clearly be a Par 2.

Though I imagine there'd be a bunch of them if we had a 1000-rated field.

 

[Steve West]

Testing a method.

Bold predictions for the Las Vegas Challenge (LVC) Disc Golf Tournament presented by Innova Champion Discs:

The two holes that are changing pars - Factory Store (was Terrex) #14 from par 4 to par 3, and Infinite Discs (was DGV) #9 from par 3 to par 4 – will have accurate pars.

None of the other hole changes will be enough to warrant a change in par.

Eight of the other holes - Factory Store #2, Factory Store #11, Factory Store #12, Factory Store #18, Infinite Discs #3, Infinite Discs #8, Innova #9, and Innova #14 - will continue to have par 1 too high.

 

[Steve West]

As you might expect, Phil's so-called "12 under" bothered me. I'd say he got a 60 on a par 69 course, not on a par 72 course. Explain to me why these holes should be par 5.

 

[PMantle]

They are par 5s because the designer said so. That's the end. Golf doesn't use scoring to determine par. And it wasn't so called, it simply was 12 under par.

If the ownership or management of a golf course believes a hole is too easy relative to par, the par isn't changed. Instead, the Hoke is either lengthened or some design change is made.


Steve, you struggle with par because you came into this not really understanding it, and refuse to change your misunderstandings despite what you see over and over again.

 

[TAFL]

You really seem to struggle with the idea of par because you don't seem to understand the definition of it. That definition is actually not "whim of the designer," although that is what we end up with some of the time. I hate to be the person to burst your little bubble, yet I also feel compelled to report there is no Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus, either.

 

[DavidSauls]

Well, it's certainly a simpler process if you ignore the definition, or make no attempt to conform to it.

Perhaps we should make the distinction and not say, "par on this hole is wrong", but that "par on this hole is contrary to the definition". Myself, I'm not bright enough to see the distinction, but it'll probably help those who can.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are two well-defined groups on this topic: the PARDANTIC camp (traditional golf) and the PARTISTIC camp (using data to determine). I'm in the PARTICULAR group as a designer who walks between the camps depending on the situation.

 

[PMantle]

You really seem to struggle with the idea of par because you don't seem to understand the definition of it. That definition is actually not "whim of the designer," although that is what we end up with some of the time. I hate to be the person to burst your little bubble, yet I also feel compelled to report there is no Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus, either.

In golf, what you're calling the definition of par is never, ever followed. So, you're dead wrong. It's the whim of the designer, period. The courses are going to be par 72 or 70 from the get go. The so called definition has zero to do with it. That was an after the fact attempt to describe what designers do before having any real idea what scratch golfers would shoot on the theoretical course.

 

[Steve West]

They are par 5s because the designer said so. That's the end. Golf doesn't use scoring to determine par. And it wasn't so called, it simply was 12 under par.

If the ownership or management of a golf course believes a hole is too easy relative to par, the par isn't changed. Instead, the Hoke is either lengthened or some design change is made.


Steve, you struggle with par because you came into this not really understanding it, and refuse to change your misunderstandings despite what you see over and over again.

If it were disc golf, I would agree with your "because". However, I don't see anything equivalent to our "as set by the TD" in golf. Where do you get that from?

Obviously, a mistaken pre-understanding of a topic can limit one's point of view. I'm glad to see you don't think I had one of those. I had to start from scratch and look at official, original sources.

But, for the sack of argument let's look at it from your point of view: Wouldn't you agree that these holes need to be changed for Par 5 to be the score that an expert player would be expected to make for these holes?

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm a little curious as to why ownership or management might believe a hole is too easy relative to par, and in need of lengthening or design change, unless based on results of actual play.

 

[PMantle]

If it were disc golf, I would agree with your "because". However, I don't see anything equivalent to our "as set by the TD" in golf. Where do you get that from?

Obviously, a mistaken pre-understanding of a topic can limit one's point of view. I'm glad to see you don't think I had one of those. I had to start from scratch and look at official, original sources.

But, for the sack of argument let's look at it from your point of view: Wouldn't you agree that these holes need to be changed for Par 5 to be the score that an expert player would be expected to make for these holes?

No, because, I , like everyone else in golf, rejects the so called definition of par. Well, I don't know if rejects is correct. They don't know it because it's ignored by everyone that matters. Hell the Tour's slogan beginning last year and going into this year is, "Live Under Par". lol

Literally one tournament organizer wants tournaments to end up with a winner close to par. That's the USGA, and they host exactly one tournament per year for the top men.

As many have pointed out over and over again, within a given par, there will be easy holes that play closer to the lower number, and hard holes that play closer to the higher number. No one in golf cares.

 

[PMantle]

I'm a little curious as to why ownership or management might believe a hole is too easy relative to par, and in need of lengthening or design change, unless based on results of actual play.

Oh, it's the results of play, but they don't change the par.

 

[Steve West]

Literally one tournament organizer wants tournaments to end up with a winner close to par. That's the USGA, and they host exactly one tournament per year for the top men.

Mis-stating the case you are arguing against is not a valid way to argue. (But you already know that, don't you?)

No one is advocating for a par where the winner is close to par (in ordinary conditions). Of course the winner will be a few or several under par, whether golf or disc golf, especially over a number of rounds. Par is "good", and winners have to be lucky and good.

Closer to par, yes, but not at or above par as you are misrepresenting.

We're just saying par would work better (and, by the way, would fit both sports' definitions) if it weren't set so low that every player in contention is under par.

As many have pointed out over and over again, within a given par, there will be easy holes that play closer to the lower number, and hard holes that play closer to the higher number. No one in golf cares.

Yes, there will be easy holes and hard holes. No one is saying all holes need to be hard in relation to par. We're saying there is a limit to how easy a hole can be before par should be lower.

Do you agree with that? Or can a hole that averages 2.5 be a par 5?

Just as there is a limit to how hard a hole can be before par should be higher.

You would not change the pars on these three golf holes, correct? You would also not adjust the holes to play harder, correct? What if they had been labelled par 3? Is it OK to change par to make holes easier in relation to par? Or, would you adjust these holes to play easier if they have been set at 3?

 

[PMantle]

Mis-stating the case you are arguing against is not a valid way to argue. (But you already know that, don't you?)

No one is advocating for a par where the winner is close to par (in ordinary conditions). Of course the winner will be a few or several under par, whether golf or disc golf, especially over a number of rounds. Par is "good", and winners have to be lucky and good.

Closer to par, yes, but not at or above par as you are misrepresenting.

We're just saying par would work better (and, by the way, would fit both sports' definitions) if it weren't set so low that every player in contention is under par.




Yes, there will be easy holes and hard holes. No one is saying all holes need to be hard in relation to par. We're saying there is a limit to how easy a hole can be before par should be lower.

Do you agree with that? Or can a hole that averages 2.5 be a par 5?

Just as there is a limit to how hard a hole can be before par should be higher.

You would not change the pars on these three golf holes, correct? You would also not adjust the holes to play harder, correct? What if they had been labelled par 3? Is it OK to change par to make holes easier in relation to par? Or, would you adjust these holes to play easier if they have been set at 3?

What am I misrepresenting?

There is no golf hole that would average 2.5 that would be designated a par 5. It's just not possible. That's because golf course designers adhere to something not unlike the PDGA guidelines on par. Par 5s are going to be over 500 yards, so that is going to take two full shots to get on the green. Holing out from the fairway on a par 5 is just really rare. So, you're going to have two full shots to even reach, then you have the difficulty of golf putting.

I never said anything about what I would do. I just presented you with what happens and what does not happen in golf.

 

[blake833]

Just because he has an LSU avatar, please don't think everyone around here thinks par is just based on whatever a designer says it is. Most of us Louisianans do know that's not a great measure.

For example, there's a course in Baton Rouge where every hole over 200' is par 4, 300' a par 5; the course par is 76, but the SSE is only 46, or a 30 under. The designer may say an open 320' hole is a par 5, but unless you are just starting to play this game, you can probably set a more realistic expectation for yourself.