Par Talk

[Cgkdisc]

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.

Those are the original Steady Ed par values for rec courses built up to around 1990 and still valid today for many older and junior beginners. My girlfriend has been playing for a few years now and still doesn't throw past 150 off the tee. She would be challenged to shoot par on a course following those original values.

 

[DavidSauls]

One of my local courses (Earlewood) still has those Steady Ed pars on the signs. SSA about 46, par 68.

 

[DG_player]

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.

These look like holes that were designed to be a par 5 but ended up being too easy, and ended up tweener holes.

With the exception of the red, which I agree is clearly a par 4, I don't know that it would be much easier to explain why it should be a par 4, rather than a 5.

 

[PMantle]

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.

The smart ones do. Did you not see that this was about golf?

 

[biscoe]

Does anyone not think that designers should be laying out holes with a specific par in mind?

 

[DavidSauls]

Does anyone not think that designers should be laying out holes with a specific par in mind?

They certainly should be.

One issue of par is that it must be applied to all holes, good or bad.

One alleviating factor is that it most matters at top-level events, and as the sport grows at the top, standards are raised.

That said, where there is a good designer, certainly he's designing with par in mind---how he expects a hole to be played, and what scores he expects it to produce. Except, perhaps, where he designs a hole where he expects 2s, but is reluctant to label it thus and calls it a "birdie hole" par-3. But if the results show that his expectations were wrong, if he misjudged it originally, or time changes the landscape, disc technology, or top-level skills, perhaps a change is in order. Either a change in the hole itself---not always possible---or a change in the assigned par.

 

[PMantle]

And now we are back to the tee box problem. This thread is like groundhog day lol.

 

[biscoe]

They certainly should be.

Given this my next question is:
Is the idea that par is not set by the designer but by the TD nonsensical?

This thread is like groundhog day lol.

You can say that again...and again...and again...
















...and again.

 

[Monocacy]

Given this my next question is:
Is the idea that par is not set by the designer but by the TD nonsensical?

Hmm. I am neither so perhaps this is an ill-considered question, but I'll ask anyway.

If you have a pro tournament at a course designed for top pros (Hawk Hollow, Clark's Run, Idlewild, etc.), I agree it makes sense to go with designer par.

But what if the next weekend a TD holds a tournament for 12 and under players at the same course. Would it make sense for small children to play pro par, or would it make more sense for the TD to assign a more realistic par for the players in that tournament?

(overlooking the question of whether pro courses are the most suitable venue for a children's tournament)

Or what if you have an older course, and over time disc technology improves, trees fall, wooded holes open up, etc. and the course genuinely plays easier. If the designer is no longer involved with the course, would it make sense for the TD/club/etc. to adjust par?

(I am genuinely interested, not trying to be a smarta$$).

 

[DavidSauls]

Given this my next question is:
Is the idea that par is not set by the designer but by the TD nonsensical?

Fair point.

Ideally, it's the designer. Ideally, the designer does it right, and nothing ever changes.

The TD becomes the de facto designer with course changes, time changes, putting a tournament on a course with ill-designated pars (or perhaps pars designated for other skill levels), added temp holes, and because the TD has an interest in the missed-hole penalty being as equitable as possible.


There is also a question as to whether "as determined by the designer", or whatever it says (I'm too lazy to quote verbatim), means that the designer is the arbiter of par, which should be set according to the rest of the definition, or whether the designer has absolute authority, regardless of the rest of the definition.

 

[biscoe]

Fair point.

Ideally, it's the designer. Ideally, the designer does it right, and nothing ever changes.

The TD becomes the de facto designer with course changes, time changes, putting a tournament on a course with ill-designated pars (or perhaps pars designated for other skill levels), added temp holes, and because the TD has an interest in the missed-hole penalty being as equitable as possible.


There is also a question as to whether "as determined by the designer", or whatever it says (I'm too lazy to quote verbatim), means that the designer is the arbiter of par, which should be set according to the rest of the definition, or whether the designer has absolute authority, regardless of the rest of the definition.

I am too lazy to look as well but am pretty sure it is addressed in the rulebook as 'as determined by the director". However, the only reason it is in the rulebook at all is for the missed hole penalty- par is irrelevant to the rules of play otherwise. I feel like that one reference has been extrapolated beyond its usefulness.

 

[biscoe]

Hmm. I am neither so perhaps this is an ill-considered question, but I'll ask anyway.

If you have a pro tournament at a course designed for top pros (Hawk Hollow, Clark's Run, Idlewild, etc.), I agree it makes sense to go with designer par.

Neither HH nor CR are designed for top pros, both are blue level courses (OK- maybe blue plus).

But what if the next weekend a TD holds a tournament for 12 and under players at the same course. Would it make sense for small children to play pro par, or would it make more sense for the TD to assign a more realistic par for the players in that tournament?

(overlooking the question of whether pro courses are the most suitable venue for a children's tournament)

Overlooking that question is the source of virtually all the debate in this thread which at its core is really about players playing holes not suited to their skill level and TD's having to pick a number. If forced into it I would say that choosing some other par number is more appropriate than having little kids play to blue level pars.

Or what if you have an older course, and over time disc technology improves, trees fall, wooded holes open up, etc. and the course genuinely plays easier. If the designer is no longer involved with the course, would it make sense for the TD/club/etc. to adjust par?

(I am genuinely interested, not trying to be a smarta$$).

The PDGA finally limited rim width a few years back (should have done so considerably earlier imo) so hopefully that is a non-issue at this point. For the most part I do not believe that non-catastrophic removal of obstacles on a hole changes par- obviously if the obstacles caused forced layups, etc the case would be different. In general a hole which loses a few trees just becomes easier relative to par but par stays the same. Holes which would potentially change were in all likelihood not true par whatevers to begin with but lay on the cusp.

 

[Steve West]

Given this my next question is:
Is the idea that par is not set by the designer but by the TD nonsensical?...

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it is that the phrase "as determined by the Director" must have supremacy over all of the rest of the definition. If there was any avenue at all available for a player to save a throw by appealing the par on a particular hole, well, that debate might go on for years. Theoretically.

However, par is only set by the Director when there is a Director, which is during a tournament which is playing by PDGA rules. The designer sets the par for all non-tournament play. Also, the TD can choose to use the designer's pars - and usually does. So, most pars are set by the designer.

 

[Steve West]

These look like holes that were designed to be a par 5 but ended up being too easy, and ended up tweener holes.

With the exception of the red, which I agree is clearly a par 4, I don't know that it would be much easier to explain why it should be a par 4, rather than a 5.

If you didn't have the distances, and the numbers were not shown on the horizontal scale, which set would you say represented the expected score?

 

[Jimb]

Overlooking that question is the source of virtually all the debate in this thread which at its core is really about players playing holes not suited to their skill level and TD's having to pick a number. If forced into it I would say that choosing some other par number is more appropriate than having little kids play to blue level pars.

Can of worms being opened here. Probably re-opened actually.

Why not leave par at pro level regardless of who is playing? So what if I'm three or five over on a hole when playing it to the best of my ability? Gives some perspective to how good top pros really are maybe.

I don't actually have a preference or any stake in this. It was just a thought.

 

[Karl]

It was just a thought.

And a good thought at that!

 

[biscoe]

Can of worms being opened here. Probably re-opened actually.

Why not leave par at pro level regardless of who is playing? So what if I'm three or five over on a hole when playing it to the best of my ability? Gives some perspective to how good top pros really are maybe.

I don't actually have a preference or any stake in this. It was just a thought.

That was my preference in the beginning- simpler, easier to quantify. I don't think it does justice to the game of golf in the long run however.

 

[DavidSauls]

Both pro-level and skill-level par have merits, and neither is entirely satisfactory.

I think it would help to nail down pro-level par, reach better agreement on exactly what it is and get it more uniformly applied. It seems to me that disc golf is moving in that direction.

With that, setting skill-based par (blue-level courses, white-level courses, etc.) would be a little easier. It would involve designating the intended skill level for particular courses but, once that's accomplished, it would be easier to agree on what is par for that skill level.

One virtue of pro-level par---or, at least, starting with pro-level par---is that some of the uses of a well-set par apply mainly to top-tier events. Those are the uses for spectators, following the competition and roughly measuring how well players are doing. Not a lot of people following results at the local C-tier, or casual rounds.

 

[Steve West]

Can of worms being opened here. Probably re-opened actually.

Why not leave par at pro level regardless of who is playing? So what if I'm three or five over on a hole when playing it to the best of my ability? Gives some perspective to how good top pros really are maybe.

I don't actually have a preference or any stake in this. It was just a thought.

Pro-level par is the only real par, just like Open is the only real competition.

However, people prefer having a shot at winning erstaz competition over being humiliated in real competition. So, we have something like eleventy-eleven divisions available.

When playing a course outside of an event, the competition is the par for the course. People prefer having a chance to be under (or within sight of) a softer par instead of being humiliated by real par.

And, just like all those other divisions need to describe who is not allowed to enter them so they are consistent from event to event, the skill-level pars should be labeled as something other than just "par" and be consistent from course to course.

 

[Karl]

Pro-level par is the only real par, just like Open is the only real competition.

Agreed...although the use of your "Pro-level" rankles me because I know of a lot of players who call themselves "pros" and are not exactly 'the best' (as I assume you're alluding to).

And as for any other "par" (which I don't believe in), we could really have fun...!
Sham par
Fake par
Quasi par
Counterfeit par
Pseudo par
Bogus par
Fraudulent par
Mock par
Phony par
Pretend par
Fabricated par
Imposter par
Your (very own personal) par
Not my par