Vibram Open 2012!

[chris deitzel]

or those holes that are 3.2-3.4 that no one ever twos could be easy par 4's. Seems like a simple idea. Who cares how many under par a pro shoots. It is irrelevant. I would prefer and easy par 4 that most people get a 3 on, than an harder par 3 that no one ever twos. But really it does not matter either way.

But to call a hole a par 2 just sounds plain stupid and does nothing to improve the sport or improve the scores.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's real simple, why is a hole that averages 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 not a Par 2 for that skill level? No logical argument against it. Par is/should be the most common score on the hole for that skill level.

 

[chris deitzel]

so if that hole was .2 higher and was a 2.6 then it would be a 3?

I agree to disagree. Hard arguing with the most stubborn person I have yet to meet.

 

[_MTL_]

By lowering the par to par 2 or par 3s on holes like 17, you are doing the following:

1. Rewarding a stroke to someone for missing the hole (par +4).
2. Making players feel bad about their score on the hole.
3. Making people who understand golf but not disc golf curious as to why no one can birdie a hole
4. Making the course appear to be harder than it is.

I'm 100% opposed to the concept of par 2. You want to talk abotu dumb? Now the outside world thinks of putt putt when they hear par 2.

 

[jtreadwell]

I can't imagine a par 2 being a very fun hole. It sounds like an approach and putt without the drive... My thought is that Par 2s should be minimized or eliminated altogether simply because they don't sound very fun. In the end, games and sports are meant to be fun after all.

 

[Script]

Chuck is losing it! Your so bogged down in numbers and statistics that you don't think emotion and reasoning (other than statistics) should play a part in anything.

The truth is... it does. If a hole averages a 2.4, then most likely, the hole is too easy for the players currently playing. I mean, this is why ball golfers don't play from the 120 yard par 4 tees. They'd average a 2.4. Unfortunately, we often don't have the luxury to modify holes for skill levels very often, therefore you get easy par 3s. NOT par 2s.

Answer me this, Chuck. You have a course that has 17 par "2s" and one par "3" (I'm thinking Kentwood in Raleigh). How would you rate par at this course? How would you distinguish a par 2 from a par 3, or would you call par a 17 under (Probably a 1070 rated round)?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The point is not that Par 2 holes that average under 2.5 should ever be designed for a specific skill level, just that they end up that way because we have gold level players playing tournaments mostly on courses that were not designed for gold level. So, you're regularly going to get holes that average less than 2.5 for gold level where par 3 was actually legit for Blue level players.

You either temporarily label those holes par 2 (and blue par 4s that average 3.2-3.4 are changed to par 3 like Granite 9) just for the tournament to better reflect the true par of the holes. OR you do what everyone currently does and just use the blue level pars for gold that are already posted on the holes. This produces the high "under par" values and makes the game look easier.

 

[Script]

No logical argument against it.

Not true. You are confusing logic with math. They are not equal.

 

[_MTL_]

The point Chuck is trying to make is that if you have a 175 foot hole in a field with no wind, a 2 on the hole is common. Very common. Common to the point where 3 feels like a bogey and if 10 people play it, there would be 7 2's and 3 3's, so your 3 feels like a bogey. And to garuntee a stroke earned on the hole, you have to ace it.

That still doesn't mean it's a par 2, though. It just means it's a very easy par 3.

 

[chris deitzel]

gold, blue. All this designing to a level is getting silly. Sure it is great to make a gold level course where par is 1000 rated or better, but those gold level courses can also be enjoyed by blue, white, purple, black, orange, green players. You don't have to design a course to only be for a certain skill level. How many 1000 rated players are there in the world?? Why would you design a course just for them?

If the hole averages less than par for the gold players, so be it. They are gold players and should be the bets players in the world and should score well on every hole. If they average less than par, what is the problem? Aren't they the best players in the game? Can't a gold level course have a few blue level holes thrown into the mix? Does the fact that those gold level players score better than the actual par really matter? Isn't it nice to have an easier birdie hole every now and then.

I'm making my course orange and black polka dot tees. While red level players may have a hard time on a lot of these holes, they may find themselves getting a birdie every now and then also.

Course design should follow one rule. The course should be fun!

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not advocating creating par 2s, just that they exist. We (disc golf leadership) choose to sweep it under the table for emotional reasons (which are just as valid) to in theory make us look more like golf and make sure you can birdie a hole.

 

[bradharris]

Wow epic thread drift.

Back on topic, players meeting for the VibrAM is about to start. I'm pumped for three days of good golfing!

 

[_MTL_]

Golf actually has a similar issue - where holes would be too easy for certain levels.

Which is why they have 3 - 4 tees each hole. The par on these doesn't change even though one can be hundreds of yards closer.

That is the solution. Multiple tees. Not adjusting par.

Considering the success golf has, I think it's silly when we don't follow their model.

 

[bergdawg]

Pars don't matter. :|

 

[chris deitzel]

I don't give a sh@t about ball golf. Disc golf is not ball golf. We cannot be compared. We are our own sport. We have our own nuances and quirks. And how many under par some of the best playersin the world shoot is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter. What matters is if you win, and how many you won by.

I have helped design tees for certain levels, and holes that a par doesn't change when you move the pin. And while this is a great concept, I can't think of how many times I have played that course and think "man if we could have put that pin over there, this hole would be awesome" Yet, because we don't want the par to change based on the pin location, it limited the design. If I had a chance to do it over, I would have gone for the more exciting pins, tees even if they changed the par of the holes and if it meant that the hole did not live up to a particular scoring spread for a set-level of players.

 

[_MTL_]

Pars don't matter. :|

Say that when you lose to someone who misses a 1,000 foot hole in a tournament and get's a 7 instead of a 9 b/c some idiot called it a par 3.

And that costs you a hundred dollars.

Btw, that has happened to me.

 

[Cgkdisc]

FWIW, it doesn't look like Maple Hill has any par 2s from the tees being played. It looked like either 13 or 14 might have had the lowest 1000-rated average from the stats yesterday, maybe 2.7ish. Dodge is into evaluating their hole stats from past events and we've discussed the ramifications a few times over the years. Looks like the pars are solid but perhaps even too low on a few holes.

 

[_MTL_]

I don't give a sh@t about ball golf. Disc golf is not ball golf. We cannot be compared. We are our own sport. We have our own nuances and quirks.

We can't be compared?!?

We have terms like par, birdies, bogeys, out of bounds? And we can't compare ourselves?

LMAO.

There is a reason why our name has the word golf in it and we are the only people in the world that call it ball golf.

Sure we should have different rules and such, like table tennis and tennis have different rules. But to flat deny and ignore golf is just dumb.

 

[Script]

You guys are both right. We ARE different from golf. However, the one common thing that we have with any other sport IS golf. We are going to have to have our similarities and our differences. Either par is adjusted and we get winning scores at E and losing scores at 100+ over. Or, we keep the par concept and live with winners shooting -50 sometimes.

IMO, the link between explaining the game to people who aren't familiar with it, is not to adjust a hole and make it a par 2. Mr and Mrs. noob go for a round at the local course. Sign says 2. They take 5 and 6. They get frustrated and never play again.

 

[chris deitzel]

I still call it frisbee golf to every new person I introduce the game to. They understand that.