PAR

[smitty]

The shots on a Par 4 or 5 at either any of these events are more then just grip and rip.

You may be forced to throw an "up shot" off the tee, then drive. There is trouble all over the place.

Most of the holes that I have seen or played like this around here, people complain about.

Hole 17 at Pratt is a perfect example. To play the hole the right way, you must throw a 250 foot shot to the opening, then a 300 foot shot to the basket. You can go over top if you want, but it isn't an EZ shot. People hate that hole.

Hole 5 in Pratt is the same way. 350 foot shot, then 150 foot upshot to the pin.

Both could be called par 4's.

The super long water hole in Wellington would probably have been called a par 5. It would should have been pretty EZ to get a 5 on. 200 foot, 200 foot, 100 foot, putt. That would get you a birdie 4.

What did you hear? To hard. I took a triple circle 9 on it! Scooba played it perfect and took and eagle 3.

[Ruder]

What also is great about a ~ par 72 golf is that you have more opportunities to make strokes back.

[Master Dyck]

But then won't you have to redesign every disc golf course there is just to get every course to 72 par? That doesn't sound feasible. Most ball golf courses that I've played have the same set up. 2 par 3s 2 par 5s and the rest par 4s. With a few exceptions here and there its all the same. Now we want to increase the basket distance and difficulty on disc golf courses to match ball golf status? Why? We've been playing disc golf the same way since the 70s. Why the change all of a sudden. Has disc golf become too easy for us? Are we trying to live up to ball golf standards? Just curious.

[Schoen-hopper]

I played all different types of par 4's and 5's this weekend. If you haven't played these types of holes, you are really missing out. I tried my best to get some of you guys to come up Ted's. They'll probably pull the course in a few weeks. This course is a perfect example of what a great par 70 disc golf course should be like. Not all the long, but tricky. There are some very subtle fairways that are speckled with "sweet spots" that will give you an advantage if you make to these landing areas. It is a course that requires both a good strategy and the execution for each shot.

Why would you want par 3 for everything. Some courses average 45 for pros and some average 65. If you are going to call a hole a par 3 when the best possible score is a 4, you might as well flush the term par. What does a newby think when you tell him that all the holes are par 3's? He probably thinks that it's ridiculous. Which it is!

What I'm in favor of is a universal standard for determining par. Players are just beginning to hear about new ideas for tees designed for certain skill levels, different pars on different holes, World Class Par, etc., so naturally it'll take a while before these things gain support. I believe that though ball golf has taken 1000 times the time and money to develop their game's rules and par system, disc golf is on the right track to both being better and staying more simple.

[Anita]

I'm of the opinion that the "par" on the sign should be a true reflection of the difficulty of the hole.

Making some dink hole a "par 3" when everyone (even me) gets a 2 is misleading. Makes you think you are good when you are really just average.

IMO, many older courses have been "shortened" because of the better discs of today. They have limited tees and limited pin positions. In many tournaments, pro players end up playing from red or white caliber tees just because that's all that is available. Not a crime, but just the way it is.

Because no one can agree on "what is par", I would just leave them off. If you have to put them on, use the red or "rec. par". They are the only ones who seem to think it matters. Tournament players understand that it is score that matters.

[Schoen-hopper]

I'm of the opinion that the "par" on the sign should be a true reflection of the difficulty of the hole.

Because no one can agree on "what is par", I would just leave them off. If you have to put them on, use the red or "rec. par". They are the only ones who seem to think it matters. Tournament players understand that it is score that matters.

While both statements are valuable, you can see the contrast. I can see that in ball golf, they don't make par 7's and 8's even though those are the scores that most players get. Does that scare players from playing (and even paying to do so)?

On the other hand, you can post par that is for the skill level of the tees. My problem is just that though. How do you determine the skill level of the tees? A par 62 red course might be preferable to a par 52 blue course. More scoring variety and such. If you judge strickly by course length, you would go with blue though.

That's why I'd prefer scratch par's listed. It would be more helpful if it was given in tenth's. If it is a par 3.4 for 1000 rated players, a typical player should not feel bad to get a four. List it just as 3 and it isn't as good. Of course you can include the par in whole numbers for a specific skill level. If you do this, you at least have to have the World Class Par listed for the course somewhere. Those par 5 signs on 300 foot holes can be misleading.

[superq]

for my initial question I should clarify I was talking about listing a pro and a public par, I think that a lot of newer golfers are put off by the 54 shots per round is par for the course philosophy. This year Topeka went back to playing handicap at our leagues, It has been a great way to talk to the recreational players on the course. We have had 6-7 brand new league players already this year and I think we will have more next week, it is nice to tell them "you will not be competing directly against anyone but yourself, If you improve week to week or overall through the season you will do great at league"

anyway back to par, I agree with a lot of what has been posted (with the exception of comments like make them all 3. that is a mentality that we dont need, "leave it the way that it has always been") I think that in order for the sport to grow then we really need to evaluate our courses. And I like what Anita said, can you see the look on peoples faces when they see par2 on the tee for the first time?

[Anita]

I understand that my comments seem to contradict each other. I DO like to put accurate "par" on the sign. The problem is that no one can agree what "par" is. There are methods out there (SSA, WCP) but it flys in the traditional "they are all par 3" mentality. That is really only a counting tool. So the easiest thing to do is just leave them off or go with "rec. par".

Now for the "big picture". The "par" for each tee should be determined by players of that rating. Red tee skilled players would be used to determine the red tees. White skilled players determine white tees, etc.....

The whole "par 2" thing is when higher skilled players are used to determine "par" on lower skill level holes. Can you honestly say that a 1000 rated player would average 3 (over time) on a 200' open hole?? No, they would average close to 2.

[Schoen-hopper]

I agree 100% Anita.

I'm just saying that there is some confusion for me in establishing exactly which color should be used for a given set of tees.

I'd say the biggest component of good design is scoring variety. Naturally a could that averages 65 for a division is going to have much better scoring variety than a course that averages 55. This will meet heavy resistance, however, as most people feel that par 65 is way too high.

Solution?

I think there should be SSA ranges for each skill level. It would be fine if they overlap some. You could make them so that they had the same scoring averages when you consider the division. For example...

White SSA could be 45-60.
Blue could be 50-65.

This would equate to par 55-70 within each division as blue par is 5 strokes more than scratch (gold) and white is 10 more.

Now, within each skill level, my proposal is that we would set "levels" for the SSA. How tough the course played withing each skill levels range of SSA would be rated for quick reference to course difficulty as skill level of the tees is certainly not a great indication. Whether you would want a 1-10 scale, use striped colors, use key words, or whatever.... we should give the players an indication of how tough of a red or blue course they are playing. SSA alone could do this, but I believe a quick reference rating system would make a better impression.

[bigchiz]

This is what you're seeking.

Suggested PDGA Par Guidelines
http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf

That, and similar documents, can be found at
http://www.pdga.com/cd_start.php

[Anakha]

That chart is pretty good, just add in O.B. and elevation change, and you got your method Q, then have a couple top rated peeps hit the course and evaluate.

[Schoen-hopper]

This is a better chart for estimating par before playing a particular layout.

http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oJlFRP7Ndi ... gChart.jpg

One thing to keep in mind is that if you use the public par document and a lot of the holes average around 2.6 throws or 3.4 throws, you might get a course who's par is about 8 strokes more or less than the scoring average.

In my opinion, this puts you back at square one, with par having a limited meaning. Better is to find out what the WCP is for the course and round the hole pars selectively so that the course adds up to the correct par.

[Anita]

.

In my opinion, this puts you back at square one, with par having a limited meaning. Better is to find out what the WCP is for the course and round the hole pars selectively so that the course adds up to the correct par.

This was suggested on Nebdisc a while back. That means that the dreaded "par 2" will rear it's ugly head on some signs. That gets some folks really chapped off.

Their argument revolves around "you don't get a chance at a birdie on a par 2 hole".

[Schoen-hopper]

Par 2's are bad holes. They might be good for a different skill level as par 3's.


If your course is tough enough to have an SSA of 54 or higher, you could round those 2.4 holes up to 3 and not have to make too many 3.4's into par 4's. With this selective rounding the wrong way method, you might actually be able to eliminate the par 2's.

But, they will still be bad holes..

[Anita]

"Par 2" is when someone of a higher skill level is used to determine "par" on lesser skilled tees.

They aren't bad holes, the "par" isn't calculated in an appropriate manner.

Some holes that were "white" or "blue" in the past (like 15-20 years ago) are now "red" due to the higher quality of both players and discs.

Again, just give the rec. par on the sign. "Par" doesn't matter to tournament players anyway.

Traveling/tournament players are concerned with WCP or SSA. Those are determined by tournament scores.