What is Par?

[Cgkdisc]

It doesn't make sense to use a gold par standard on a course or layout that is designed for red level beginners and assign several of the holes as par 2s. A course designed for a skill level should have par assigned for that level same as they've done for ball golf.

 

[Timber]

Putt-Putt courses have par 2's. Maybe we should call our shorter old school courses PARC-PARC's (Pro Ace Run Courses) and move on. Perhaps these courses should be lighted with an attendant handing out discs, scorecards and pencils while charging $3-$4 to play a round where the 18th clown's mouth hole eats your disc.

 

[Steve West]

I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but what's the reason for setting par based on a player's skill level? Shouldn't par be based on the course alone, and not whether I'm a red or white or blue or gold level player?

It's not a stupid question at all. That school of thought is directly validated by one of the definitions of par in the rules: "The score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole."

As Chuck pointed out, the par you get by using only a top player as the Expert is less workable than if you have different pars for different types of players.

Par is more workable if the Expert is someone who is really good in the group the player is competing in. That way, if they player is way over par, everyone knows that player is way behind the leader.

The groups could be defined by Pro/Am, Male/Female, Age, Weight Classes, Years of Experience, or any way to group similar players together. But, we don't have a lot of data for most of those groupings. So, for now, we use Ratings.

It would be more difficult for us mortals to keep score in our heads if we have to keep adding 2 or 3 to our "over" total.

Also, different Pars (and/or different tees) allow for finer gradations between different holes. If we used gold par, every hole up to about 650 feet would be par 3. For green players, they would have no way to tell whether they should expect to get a 3, 4, 5, or 6. About the 5th throw on a hole, they'll get frustrated unless they are still on track to get par.

Also, it would be more difficult to tell whether a player is doing well or poorly in a tournament. Is "35 over after one round" good for an Advanced Grandmaster Female? Uh....

Using only one Par would be very similar to using only one set of tees for everyone. Yes, one tee length and one par would be the purest form of competition. It would quickly establish who is best. But that would be boring and nobody but the best players would have any incentive to play again. Different divisions, tee lengths, and pars allow all players to get the same kind of experience as the best players.

 

[Steve West]

A perfect drive a perfect approach and a solid putt is a birdie on a par 4.

Interesting. And if you did this, would you feel you are gaining on the field? Or just keeping up? If you are just keeping up, why wouldn't that be par?

Let's say you do a perfect drive 2/3 of the time, and a perfect approach 2/3 of the time, and a perfect putt 2/3 of the time. That means that you would score a 3 on 8 out of 27 holes, which is just under 1/3, so the Quantile method would set par to 4 in that case.

Sound about right?

 

[DavidSauls]

It doesn't make sense to use a gold par standard on a course or layout that is designed for red level beginners and assign several of the holes as par 2s. A course designed for a skill level should have par assigned for that level same as they've done for ball golf.

Of course, then we could debate not only how par was set, and whether it was set correctly under whichever method was used, but add to the debate what skill level the course was designed for, and whether the designer correctly designed it for that skill level......

Especially for the old courses or courses not designed for a particular skill level.

Then I can just try to remember that I average 12 over on gold courses and 7 over on blue courses and 2 over on red courses and.......uh, anyway, at least we've got player ratings and SSAs which are more or less consistent.

 

[optidiscic]

Interesting. And if you did this, would you feel you are gaining on the field? Or just keeping up? If you are just keeping up, why wouldn't that be par?

Let's say you do a perfect drive 2/3 of the time, and a perfect approach 2/3 of the time, and a perfect putt 2/3 of the time. That means that you would score a 3 on 8 out of 27 holes, which is just under 1/3, so the Quantile method would set par to 4 in that case.

Sound about right?

Depends on how you define perfect I suppose

I think of perfect as the ultimate throw...as in the best I can possible throw. When a pro throws the best he can possibly throw he deserves a birdie.

I think Par reflects error free golf...as in error free drive, and then error free second drive, solid approach, made putt for a par 4.

A bogey would require some type of mistake....a missed putt...a skewed drive...hitting a tree early on approach etc.

So to me when I throw to the best of my ability and par is set to my ability then I deserve a birdie......If I dont make a mistake it should be par....if I screw up I should bogey. and so on.....Eagles should include some element of luck though with improved skill the luck level is mitigated.

 

[Essington]

Wow, lots of information here, and even more opinions! I'll go ahead and toss in my 2 cents as well.

The way I see it (for rec players any way) par is (should be) an indicator to the difficulty a particular hole presents relative to the rest of the course, much the same way colored shapes indicate difficulty of a run on a ski hill.

I can go to any ski hill and know that a green (circle) run is going to be much easier than a blue (square) or black (diamond) run. It does have something to do with the slope of the hill, but other factors go into the rating as well, moguls trees, etc.

What happens if we apply that same mentality to a disc golf course? The distance from tee to basket tells only a portion of the difficulty of the hole ... It is a straight on 180' (green circle) ... with wind rows of trees at 100' and 150' (tougher, maybe blue square) ... and the basket sits on a 5' diameter rock 50' out in a lake (black diamond territory now).

So, now we take those ratings and convert them to something more "golf" like ... green circle - 3 ... blue square - 4 ... black diamond - 5 ... yellow triangle with red exclamation point - 7 (hope you brought extra discs).

It works well, and immediately makes sense to recreational players ... "The basket is about 300' that way, and it is a par 5" ... he now knows that the basket isn't that far away, but is likely in for some trouble on the way. The numbers have meaning (easy, intermediate, hard) and we've got score cards that mirror ball golf (mostly) so why not call it par.

Now, the thing that seems to be really contentious is how to arrive at the ratings. It also seems to be the most over thought. Just play the proposed course ... easy. We know if we made a good throw or not. play the hole a couple times, you can in your own head figure, "that was an easy 3" or, "I shouldn't have hit 18 trees, but the hole should still rank a 4". Remember, these are ratings relative to THIS course.

This is all based on providing the rec player with some additional information about a given hole. Tournament play is a different beast altogether, and not what a course is used for 90% of the time. Come tournament day, hand out score cards with all the holes listed as 3 ... or not at all for that matter, since money isn't really paid for over/under, but rather total strokes anyway.

 

[DavidSauls]

Actually, tournament play is the only time it absolutely does matter.

The penalty for missing a hole is based on par---so par has to be designated for each hole.

 

[Essington]

Come tournament day, hand out score cards with all the holes listed as 3 ... or not at all for that matter, since money isn't really paid for over/under, but rather total strokes anyway.

That was directed at the "everything is par 3" crowd.

Actually, tournament play is the only time it absolutely does matter.

The penalty for missing a hole is based on par---so par has to be designated for each hole.

Now I hadn't thought of that one ... but with my skill level, I'd have to side with the "everything is par 3" crowd come tournament time. I could just skip those nasty OB, Mando, water holes and take the 7 thanks. </sarcasm>

 

[Steve West]

Depends on how you define perfect I suppose

I think of perfect as the ultimate throw...as in the best I can possible throw. When a pro throws the best he can possibly throw he deserves a birdie.

I think Par reflects error free golf...as in error free drive, and then error free second drive, solid approach, made putt for a par 4.

A bogey would require some type of mistake....a missed putt...a skewed drive...hitting a tree early on approach etc.

So to me when I throw to the best of my ability and par is set to my ability then I deserve a birdie......If I dont make a mistake it should be par....if I screw up I should bogey. and so on.....Eagles should include some element of luck though with improved skill the luck level is mitigated.

I agree with all of that (assuming you are the archetypal player for your division).

But, the real problem is that we need to set par on all holes everywhere in a consistent manner. You will not have played every hole enough times to "know" what par is for your ability (let alone all other levels of ability).

Also, not all holes are designed in a way that makes the line between birdie, par, or bogey so clear. Some holes will give you a 2, 3, 4 or 5 without making you feel like you deserve it.

You might have a map with distances and trees marked (and you can walk the course, but maybe not play it yet it because hasn't been cleared). Or, you might have a whole bunch of numbers from a few tournaments.

Yet, we still need to set something as par for every hole. To do that, you need a general rule. Probably two: one for before the course is used for tournaments, and another for after.

 

[jimimc]

Par (score) is a predetermined number of strokes that a scratch golfer should require to complete a hole. That's it. A Gold Par is what a 1000 rated player should shoot on a hole. The par for a course is what a 1000 rated player should shoot on a course. If you don't care, that's cool, but par in the game of Golf is how you rate holes.

 

[optidiscic]

Par is a relative term that changes based on weather conditions, wind conditions, foliage, course maturation, high water low water, temperature and so on. By it's very nature it's a subjective unscientiffic term. Trying to quantify it is an exercise in futility although it's fun to try. The best process is probably ssa rounding up or down or tweaking basket positions to get the # closer to a whole number. There will always be hard 3s and soft 3s etc. Do we adjust par when the wind is blowing or the foliage full or the water high. No. Could u imagine? I think pro should be set at what top pros avg on every hole. How else can we measure our improvement I am finally getting some rounds in the 70s at a local pro course. I used to throw in the mid to high 80s I am creeping closer to the par 67. I'm fine being 10 over or 15 over etc. It's a measure of where I am. I agree par should be based on top player ability. There is no need for rec or am par etc.

 

[DavidSauls]

Now I hadn't thought of that one ... but with my skill level, I'd have to side with the "everything is par 3" crowd come tournament time. I could just skip those nasty OB, Mando, water holes and take the 7 thanks. </sarcasm>

Sidebar: The par+4 only applies if you miss a hole at the start of a round, as in being late. You can't skip a tough hole in the middle of a tournament round.

All-par-3 is really a scorekeeping system, and misuse of the word "par". One that I'm guilty of. On my course, par is set at 62, and even though I set that, if you ask me my score and I say "12-over", I shot 66. But when it comes to properly setting par---for the tournament scorecard, and for those who care more than I do---I'm interested in the competing ideas here, and the pros & cons of each.

 

[billnchristy]

Par (score) is a predetermined number of strokes that a scratch golfer should require to complete a hole. That's it. A Gold Par is what a 1000 rated player should shoot on a hole. The par for a course is what a 1000 rated player should shoot on a course. If you don't care, that's cool, but par in the game of Golf is how you rate holes.

Only problem with this is most courses would be like par 45 or something disgusting like that and nobody would want to play when a decent round of 65 is now 20 over. :thmbdown:

 

[jimimc]

That's why it's a Gold Par. Playing par 54 for scoring reasons on a 5500' course is the old stand by and nothing wrong with that, but when you are talking 10,000' courses designed to be played by top players I think there needs to be some type of set par. I don't think it has to be exact with the SSA because that does change all the time but I think it should be close. What would a 1000 rated player shoot on average? Not if the conditions were bad or if a couple of people got hot and changed the rating a point or two.

 

[Olorin]

Par is a relative term that changes based on weather conditions, wind conditions, foliage, course maturation, high water low water, temperature and so on.

I think that you're confusing the term "par" with difficulty. To me, none of those factors influence par at all, but they greatly affect the difficulty. This issue relates to the very core of what par is. Here's what I think, from the description of Close Range (CR) Par:

"Note that par is based on a "reasonable throw" along an intended flight path to a landing zone. One way to visualize this is to think of the flight path as a clear tube, with the shape of the intended flight path, extending from the tee to the landing zone. Everything inside of the tube is the intended flight path. Since foliage, obstacles, or OB are outside of the tube they have no direct effect on the disc. If a player hits a tree or goes OB, no matter how high the percentage of times it might happen, then it was not a throw that went in the intended flight path. If the fairways seem too narrow or the flight path unreasonable or there is too high a risk of going OB then these are design issues, not par issues."

 

[Karl]

BnC,

Your...
"Only problem with this is most courses would be like par 45 or something disgusting like that and nobody would want to play when a decent round of 65 is now 20 over."
...tells me you're a nice guy (taking others feelings into consideration) but might be just a wee too much coddling for my own taste.
When I took up ball golf (as an athletic 20yo), that first year I "averaged" about 115 (yup, a double-bogey was considered "good"!). The next year wasn't any better. Then things improved (slowly, with a LOT of hard work / practice) so that - 35 years later - I'm down to ~79s.
Was it worth it? Yup.
Do I have confidence that people really want a challenge (and not "get par for 18 holes" after 6 months of playing)? Yup.
Do I feel they'll think the sport cheap if they (who may not be a really good athlete) can attain par rather easily? Yup.
Do the majority of people lack attention spans (ADD'ers bigtime)? Yup.
Will this sport be a "flash in the pan" if we continue to "allow" every Tom, Dick, and Sally the ability to attain "par" with very little effort? Yup.

Karl

Ps: With all those "yups", I'm just full of positive answers today, aren't I?

 

[Porkchop]

Par is a design label.

If the hole was designed to be reached in 1 shot, it is a par 3.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 2 shots*, it is a par 4.
If the hole was designed to be reached in 3 shots**, it is a par 5.

If you can't easily tell how many shots a hole was designed to be reached in, there is probably a design problem with that hole.

And, yes, it does matter which skill level the hole was designed for.


Notes:
* Or, at the player's discretion, 1 heroic*** shot.
** Or, at the player's discretion, 2 heroic*** shots.
*** "heroic" implies risky and really really good.

^^^^^
This :hfive:

END THREAD

 

[DavidSauls]

"END THREAD"
???????

I bet not.

 

[billnchristy]

BnC,

Your...
"Only problem with this is most courses would be like par 45 or something disgusting like that and nobody would want to play when a decent round of 65 is now 20 over."
...tells me you're a nice guy (taking others feelings into consideration) but might be just a wee too much coddling for my own taste.
When I took up ball golf (as an athletic 20yo), that first year I "averaged" about 115 (yup, a double-bogey was considered "good"!). The next year wasn't any better. Then things improved (slowly, with a LOT of hard work / practice) so that - 35 years later - I'm down to ~79s.
Was it worth it? Yup.
Do I have confidence that people really want a challenge (and not "get par for 18 holes" after 6 months of playing)? Yup.
Do I feel they'll think the sport cheap if they (who may not be a really good athlete) can attain par rather easily? Yup.
Do the majority of people lack attention spans (ADD'ers bigtime)? Yup.
Will this sport be a "flash in the pan" if we continue to "allow" every Tom, Dick, and Sally the ability to attain "par" with very little effort? Yup.

Karl

Ps: With all those "yups", I'm just full of positive answers today, aren't I?

I agree with you but the problem is every Tom who's Dick n' Sally has already "come up" with their own par. With no real authority in our sanctioning body you cannot change par overnight.