Vibram Open 2012!

[chris deitzel]

won't ever be a par two in this area. A hole that you have to ace to get better than a par just sounds stupid. Why change the par from 3 to 2 just so you can be happy with the SSA?? If you are going for a specific SSA, design the course to that skill level. Don't adjust a par 2 to a 2 just so you can be happy with the numbers!! Am I the only one who thinks that that sounds stupid?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's not that you should ever design Par 2 holes, it's just that gold level players come to town for major events like NTs and Worlds and have to play Blue level courses where some of the shorter par 3s are truly par 2s for gold. So you either set par properly temporarily for the event or you end up with inflated scores under par. I'm thinking there are some shorter blue par 3s in the Pittsburgh area with scoring averages in the 2.6-2.7 range that play as gold par 2s (i.e. 1000-rated average under 2.5).

 

[throwfromthewoods]

All scores the same, to me anyways.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely understand the need for par and the rating system. I'm not trying to knock it. Gives players a place. Gives players something to work for. And that's fine.

But Wysoki or Macbeth will take XX throws to finish Y course, no matter what par is set at.

The difference between a 1000+ rated player and me is not the difference in our rating numbers; it's that they take far less throws to complete a course. But I'm also a very casual guy about playing. Not very competitive. It's a game, a passion, a hobby, a sport I don't play professionally. These guys DO play it professionally, so maybe I'm not the best person to chime in. But there's my .02 anyways.

 

[MrHighlandPark]

won't ever be a par two in this area. A hole that you have to ace to get better than a par just sounds stupid.

I'd be curious to know what the word "par" means to someone who thinks that there should be no such thing as a par 2. Can it be defined?

 

[jeverett]

I'd be curious to know what the word "par" means to someone who thinks that there should be no such thing as a par 2. Can it be defined?

Personally, I define it as "number of intended drives to reach close range, plus two". Thus yes, I agree with Chris that from a game design standpoint, there should never be par two holes.

 

[mashnut]

Wouldn't that depend on how you define close range? If players at the skill level the course is designed for would expect to get up and down just about every time from a range that's longer than the hole wouldn't the tee fall into close range making it a par 2?

 

[jeverett]

Wouldn't that depend on how you define close range? If players at the skill level the course is designed for would expect to get up and down just about every time from a range that's longer than the hole wouldn't the tee fall into close range making it a par 2?

Ah yes, you could theoretically have a hole where the total distance is within 'close range' (or an average score of <2.00).. in my opinion, though, these holes really should just not exist on actual courses. I know, the reality is less perfect, what with blue-level courses sometimes being used for gold-level play.

 

[_MTL_]

There is no argument that makes par 2 valid.

None.**

End of discussion.

**Unless the hole is less than 50 feet

 

[vw02]

is there anywhere to watch coverage of this?

 

[NOStheBOSS]

A hole that literally an entire elite pro field doesn't birdie isn't the US Open. Even the hardest holes at the US Open have birdies on it every single round.

Hole 17 is an easy par 4 with a terrible title as a par 3.

We are NEVER going to be like golf in teens of scoring until putting is harder. All lowering par to make it look better is doing is making the course appear harder than it is.

As Cam Todd once said "you are never going to a make a hole I Can't birdie"

You say you are tired of someone shooting -14, but that is exactly what Wysocki just did.

Ricky shot a -10, and that is considered a freak round. You'll see a lot of -5 rounds in the US open but those are freak rounds as well. Come Sunday, -1 is your winner (at the US open). We'll see how this pans out, but I doubt Ricky is going to shoot 4 straight 1100's

 

[Cgkdisc]

MTL is for padding par to make the top guys feel even better by making holes that average 3.2-3.4 par 4s. If a hole that averages 3.2-3.4 is just a tough par 3 then a hole that averages 2.2-2.4 is a tough par 2.

 

[Scoot_er]

MTL is for padding par to make the top guys feel even better by making holes that average 3.2-3.4 par 4s. If a hole that averages 3.2-3.4 is just a tough par 3 then a hole that averages 2.2-2.4 is a tough par 2.

How about making the hole a true par 4.....or 3? Or just list the whole as a 3.4???

Playing a par 2 is laughable....and I would consider it a bad tournament hole.....like I already do with those "gotta-get" birdies.

I also disagree that MTL wants to pad the par.....in reality he probably agrees with me that the course par should be close to the SSA.....

Par 2 = waste of time in a tournament.....even if listed as a par 3.

 

[unclemercy]

aha at par two chuck. just stop it already.

 

[Cgkdisc]

No one against Par 2s has posted logical reasons against par 2s, just emotional reasons. The facts support par 2s being needed on occasion. A hole averaging 2.3 is a Par 2. It's wishful thinking that we average 2 putts per hole like ball golf.

 

[chris deitzel]

logical - it is stupid to have a hole that can only be aced to score better than the listed par. It makes no sense Chuck!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Emotional not rational. Sorry. There's no universal law that says a hole has to be easily birdieable.

 

[Menacewarf]

Certainly no hole at Maple hill gold averages under 2.4. If any is usually a birdie for these guys it would be 15, but a 300 foot roc shot through the woods won't average near that low I wouldn't think.

 

[_MTL_]

MTL is for padding par to make the top guys feel even better by making holes that average 3.2-3.4 par 4s. If a hole that averages 3.2-3.4 is just a tough par 3 then a hole that averages 2.2-2.4 is a tough par 2.

Sighs.

It's not padding the par. It's just common sense that if you have an entire field of world class players and NO ONE get's a two, it's not a par 3!

Never in golf do you see a guy hit a driver as hard as he can looking to get an easy chip for 3 and it's called a par 3. Never.

 

[Cgkdisc]

On ball golf terms, you're correct that if no one gets a 2, it's a poor par 3 although there are "stupid" extended par 3s for US Opens that yield only one or two 2s in the event (poor scoring spread). But the same isn't true in disc golf due to the way our holes are designed and putting stats. A hole that averages 3.2-3.4 with few or no 2s is still a par 3 and a 2.3 average is really a par 2.

 

[_MTL_]

This is a never ending discussion.

Just in my opinion with things like this, logic > numbers.