Kansas Disc Golf Association

_dm4 · Post by **_dm4** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:00 pm

_dm4 wrote:Just make um all 3's!

I can't believe Q keeps getting credit for this!

Master Dyck · Post by **Master Dyck** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:27 pm

I will second DM4's comment for the second time!!!

Ring · Post by **Ring** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:34 pm

Don't fix what ain't broken!! Par is fine the way it is now, and there ain't to many that would aurgue that

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:06 pm

Thread echoes.....

The way things are now suggest that all holes are the same difficulty and all of the courses are the same difficulty. The system is obviously broken. The only arguement I can see for all par 3 is that it makes adding scores easier. Sorry, but that arguement is very weak. It also discourages future courses to be built to a higher standard.

J, there is a table for foliage thickness and length that calculates hole par. Using actual scoring data that also factors in OB, etc. is the best method though.

Ring · Post by **Ring** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:36 pm

I agree with ya Mike, I think ya have many intresting points that should be experimented with

Anita · Post by **Anita** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:52 am

J wrote: As this states, a standard golf hole is par 3, 4 or 5. It is expected to have a drive and two putt opportunities. I personally have never seen a standard golf hole at under par 3, so why should disc golf be any different?

Because we have short holes and it is easier to putt in disc golf. Most "experts" don't need 2 putts on a hole under 300'

J wrote:
People know the difference between a 2 under on Jones west and a 2 under on Jones east in Emporia, so I don't see what the big deal is if most holes under 500 are par three? Its obvious when one plays that one course is more difficult than the other.

Are you suggesting that a hole under 200' is the same difficulty as a hole over 450'? I would agree that "expert" players should make a 3 on a 450' hole. I wouldn't expect them to shoot 3 on a 200' hole. To say that they have the same "par" isn't right. Let the scores determine what the "par" is. Calling a 200' dinker a "par 3" is misleading as to the real difficulty of the hole/course.

J wrote: Of course, I tend to prefer Q's comment.... just make it easy on yourself and play everything par 3.

eupher61 · Post by **eupher61** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:54 pm

Anakha wrote: Pars are useless except to rate hole difficulty.
And to say- "Hey, look at me, I'm Birdie-licious!"
It's all about total strokes in the end, I don't care if I bogey every hole, as long as I score lower than my opponents.

My sentiments exactly. If "par" in the course of a round really meant anything aside ego, it might be important. It can be useful in the design/evaluation process, to determine if a hole is suitably designed. But, the suitable question puts a negative on a transition hole, one which admittedly isn't up to the standard of the surrounding holes but just has to be that way. Ideally, those would be rare, maybe one per course, but sometimes...

par is just a number, like age.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:38 pm

When you say transition holes, do you mean an "in be tweeen(er)" hole?

Chuck calls these tweener holes because they intentionally average around 2.5 or 3.5 strokes. In situations where there are few trees and no OB, it can be better to have only 2 possible scores for the hole, because 3 is unrealistic.

A par 3 that gets 20% 2's, 60% 3's, and 20% 4's would be a great hole providing that the hole is fair. Some par 3's would average 90% or more scores as 3's. This would be a bad distance for the hole. Better would be to move it so that the scoring average would be around 2.5 or 3.5.

This is not optimal in my opinion, but most of the time the land used for course design is less than optimal.

Never-the-less, you can still give one of these holes a par value based on a best fit scenario using the world class par calculator.

_dm4 · Post by **_dm4** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:57 pm

That actually made sense to me.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:57 pm

Thanks for clearing up the tweener.

That is one of the debating points I have with Chuck. He likes making holes that average between whole numbers, with 2 scores possible. I like holes that average around whole numbers, with 3 or more scores possible. If 90% of the scores are 3's on a hole that averages 3.0, yes there is a problem. Sounds like the hole is wide open. In these cases, you have to move the hole to a distance so that the scoring average will be in between whole numbers. Wouldn't it be better to have obstacles for challenge and scoring disparity?

My point is that par should be expected, with both birdie and bogey a not so remote possibility. You won't get this on a hole that averages 2.5.

Ring · Post by **Ring** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:55 pm

I played La Mirada today which is usually a 36 hole course on 100 acres of land.. They are having a huge tourny there next weekened and have stretched the 36 holes to only 18

.. All par 4 and 5 with two or three par 3 thrown in there. The first round was a little shaky as far as never playing like that before and not knowing where to land.. By the 2nd round I shaved 7 strokes off my first round score.. This was absolutely the funnest rounds of golf I have ever played.. Having to throw your 1st shot into certain spots to set up your 2nd shot was very challenging.. If you didn't land in these spots alote of times you had absolutely no chance to birdie and were playing for par.. Even though the holes were all very long you didn't really have to bomb your first drive and sometimes even your second.. It was mainly about accuracy on where ya land.. Getting par on some of these holes made ya feel like getting a birdie on a regular course.. And when ya did Birdie it was great knowing you played the hole perfect.. And thats the only way to Birdie these holes is play them perfect.
This in my opinion is hands down the best way to play disc golf and new courses installed should try this

Very Very impressed with this new form of Disc Golf

Blows all par 3 course out of the water

McCabe · Post by **McCabe** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:58 am

McCabe wrote:Par 4's and 5's are the future of this sport, thats all there is to it..look at the USDGC, and the Players Cup, and 80% of the NT's, all have par 4's and 5's.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:13 pm

Right on Ring. I bet La Mirada par 70 would be killer. You should play next weekend.

Schoen-hopper · Post by **Schoen-hopper** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:15 pm

Another of the extreemly rare par 70 courses is having a tournament next weekend. Idlewild in Kentucky. Wish I could go!

Ring · Post by **Ring** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:50 pm

Schoen-hopper wrote:Right on Ring. I bet La Mirada par 70 would be killer. You should play next weekend.

Its only a par 67 so I guess there was a couple more par 3 then I thought. This also a PDGA National Tour event only for Pros.. Plus I ain't paying $150 to play a tournament.. Im gonna go watch though suppose to be some big time names there

3 rounds 1 a day starting Friday. Im gonna go watch who wins Sunday.

6 par 3
11 par 4
1 par 5

And that 1 par 5 ain't no joke.. You gotta throw over, then down a hill, land in the opening of the trees, throw through the trees to bottom of hill, throw up hill through palm trees, basket tucket in corner under two trees with O.B. road on left and behind basket. I played it 3 times and got two 5 and one 4

If ya ever played La Mirada its from 40 ft to the left of 3 tee pad to hole 6 basket..

McCabe prolly knows what im talking about. This hole is just sick

PAR