PAR

[Friz-Rocker]

Making a hole anything other than par 3 doesn`t do anything,but stroke somebody`s ego.The founders of the KDGA lengthen holes,then call them,"true par 4`s"while still scoring them as par 3`s.Who will ever forget Harvey Barger`s 1500 foot par 3 on the west bank.We also have plenty of golfers who can par 800-1000 foot holes.

[Anakha]

Making a hole anything other than par 3 doesn`t do anything,

I'll agree it doesn't do anything for scoring, but it is the way to determine a hole's difficulty, let's say you have a open hyzer 350ft hole, a tight, straight shot only 350ft wooded hole, and a 900ft bomb hole with the last 150ft tightly wooded or hard cut dogleg, you're gonna have a par 3,4,5 respectively.

[Schoen-hopper]

If a par 2 hole gives 2's, 3's, & 4's for a lower division, sure the hole has it's merit. If you want to evaluate par for a certain skill level, no problem. I just think the SSA should be given for reference.

You say rec. par should be listed only. I say what does this mean? Does it mean red par, white par, green par? It would make a big difference which one. It is my opinion that courses with SSA below 54 should be evaluated as par 60+ courses for lower skill levels.

Take a par 2 hole. 875 rated players might make a 3 on this hole 90% of the time. Now take a good par 3 hole. 875 rated players might make 3, 4, 5, or 6. Yes it's harder, but it's better. Gives the players a chance to show skill. If everyone cards the same score for a hole, it's like you didn't even play it.

Does par matter more to new players than proffesionals? I don't think so. If this is true, then it is because new players think that the game should resemble some type of golf and experienced players have come to realize that par means nothing in disc golf. It doesn't have to be this way. Good hole design, in my opinion, should yield around 60% pars and 20% both birdie and bogey. This type of hole gives meaning to the word par. That hole Friz mentioned had an (all divisions) scoring average of about 12 strokes. Only one 4 was ever carded and not many 5's. Why should this be a par 3? Most of the holes at last years Friz would be considered par 2's. What a bunch of crappy layouts compared to years past.

Anyways, I think if this sport is going to have some legitimacy, professional standard should be used. SSA's should be posted for several different course layouts, including short tees. You DO NOT need to play a PDGA event to get a World Class Par for a configuration. Here is the spreadsheet you need...

http://pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp200.xls

I would suggest posting the scratch hole scoring averages in tenths for each hole. You could then list the par in a bigger number in the color of the skill level the tees were designed for. Same thing with SSA. Post the gold as a unified standard and also include the Scoring average for the division.

Example: Say Herman Hill Park all short tees and pins averages 48. SSA is 48. This would make a Red SA of 61. Add 5 strokes for each skill level, or 50 points of rating difference with 1000. List both of these on the first tee.

Now look at hole 1. The hole scratch scoring average might be 2.4. Let's say your evaluating the short course for white, instead of red. Add .3 for each division break and you get a par 3 hole for white. 2.4 could be written in fine print on the sign with a larger "par 3" in white color.

Another neat thing about the decimal HSA is that you can calculate you individual par for a hole. Say the SSA is 2.4. My rating is 940. I take the difference between 940 and 1000 and get 60. That's 6 strokes per round. I divide 6 by 18 and get .33. I add .3 to 2.4 and get 2.7. I can now see that 3 isn't a terrible score for the hole as it is closest to "my par".

Too complicated? It isn't really. You wouldn't say that if the system was already implemented and understood. People just don't want to do any work in learning how to improve the game. Right now the term par is worthless. People now believe that the concept is worthless other than an easy score counter. It doesn't have to be this way though. The main thing that has to change is getting better course design to incorparate par 4 holes. And all holes should be evaluated in terms of scoring variety for the intended division.

[Anita]

Rec par would be red par or what a sub-800 player would shoot.

If you want to get all complicated with the "par" thing.... don't say I didn't warn you....

[Schoen-hopper]

Red par is 850-900. Under 800 could be up to a stroke per hole different, so it makes a difference. The average disc golfer is probably 850 with the average rated discer about 875. I don't think you should evaluate a course below that. Ball golf sets par that only 1% of golfers can achieve. I know that that isn't how we need to approach disc golf, but neither is par 5 signs on 300 foot holes.

As far as the complication goes, I can take the heat. Bottom line is this.... Do we want par to mean something or do we want to get rid of the term entirely? There is a lot that can be said for par 60+ courses. Par 4 style holes add a whole new dimension to the game when designed properly. We have been missing out all along. It's time this game developed into it's potential.

[Schoen-hopper]

Par is what a player expects to score on a golf hole. What's tough about that?

[Anakha]

Par is what a player expects to score on a golf hole.

Actually, it's what a low handicap player should expect to get on a hole.

And by definition-

A number assigned to an individual hole and to the full collection of holes on a course that represents the expected number of strokes it should take to play each hole. The value assigned to represent par is always comprised of two putts and the number of strokes it should take to reach the circle. For example, a par-3 hole is short enough that one shot is expected to put you in the circle, with two putts to follow. The length of a par-4 holes is sufficient to require two shots to reach the circle; a par-5 is deemed lengthy enough to require most players to need three shots to reach the circle. (circle=33' or green, if Ball golf)

And origin- http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/bogey_par.htm

[Anita]

Par is what a player expects to score on a golf hole. What's tough about that?

The problem is that "expert players" will shoot 2s on red caliber holes.

Open up THAT can of worms if you dare....

[bigchiz]

How does the PDGA define par?

[Anita]

How does the PDGA define par?

You know the answer to that, smarty-pants!

From the current rulebook:

"Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

Now the problem is that the PDGA definition makes you inflate "par" because of the "two close range throws to hole-out" part.

IMO, expert players don't need 2 "close range throws to hole-out". If they did, they wouldn't be expert now would they?

This is where the PDGA definition of "par" and the PDGA SSA and WCP are conflicting.

Remember, the PDGA only cares about "par" when assessing penalty strokes for missed holes.

Soooo......... put the rec. pars on the sign and forget that "real par" is until the PDGA gets a grip.

[Schoen-hopper]

I don't see any conflict. The problem lies in what you consider close range.

33 feet is not the range a pro averages 2 strokes from. It is more like 120'. When OB and trees are prevalent on and around the green, the green will tighten up smaller.

Pros average 2 strokes from the green in ball golf. Pros average closer to 1 stroke from 33 feet. That's why the "circle" is not a good definition for the disc golf green. It's actually much larger.

[Anita]

Someone higher up the disc golf food chain (Carlton Howard, I believe) has stated that the "two close range shots" are the 10m putting circle.

[Schoen-hopper]

The rules committee needs to step it up.

[Anita]

The rules committee needs to step it up.

Thank you!

This has been going around and around and around for years!

Now you see why I say to just put on the rec par and call it good.

[Anakha]

Now you see why I say to just put on the rec par and call it good.

Pro par, or a lower par, is better, as it makes a golfer strive harder to make under par. As does playing with a better player, or playing a higher division.