Started this to clean up the Best Course/hole thread.
What makes a par, and what should be the "standard"
Just because you have a tuff green, should you add a stroke to par.
Is it length?
0-350 par 3
350 to 500 par 4
500 plus par 5
Is it the amount of trash in the "fairway"?
Due to inactivity the KDGA forums have been locked. All past threads are still available. Please join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/kansasdiscgolf!
What makes a Par
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
In my opinion, it's everything rolled up together. Using the average score (formulated for a certain, specific, division) would be the most sensible way to determine the hole par. Sometimes on holes that average in between, you might have to round one way or the other to make the overall course par make more sense.
It'll never happen, but I had an idea that would give a very accurate description of hole difficulty. Figure out the HSSA or Hole Scratch Score Average. This is what a 1000 rated player would average on the hole. List it on the tee sign in tenths.
Then a player who sees a hole that says HSSA=3.3 would take his rating of 910 and subtract it from 1000, or about 9 strokes per round difference. 9 divided by 18 = .5. Add .5 on any of the holes to the HSSA and you get that players personalized par, which in this case would be 3.8. A 3 would be like a birdie and a 4 wouldn't be so bad.
It'll never happen, but I had an idea that would give a very accurate description of hole difficulty. Figure out the HSSA or Hole Scratch Score Average. This is what a 1000 rated player would average on the hole. List it on the tee sign in tenths.
Then a player who sees a hole that says HSSA=3.3 would take his rating of 910 and subtract it from 1000, or about 9 strokes per round difference. 9 divided by 18 = .5. Add .5 on any of the holes to the HSSA and you get that players personalized par, which in this case would be 3.8. A 3 would be like a birdie and a 4 wouldn't be so bad.
-
disclizard
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: At a course near you
I know that we all play courses as par three through out the whole course. But i do really wish disc golf would adapt to par four and par fives like our big brother ball golf . Also wish disc golf would implement dog legs and true OB far ways like ball golf. Grip it and rip it is the standard to most disc golf courses. but unless you play at One of the few true par 71 or so courses like the worlds course you never really get the feel for true disc golf potential. I would love to see the Doo Dah acually chalk out fairways on all of the Holes could you imagine the change in scores and difficulty for those who just rip it out there 400 feet and would accually have to control where the disc lands? I know not all of the guys who throw the bomb dont control or worry about where the disc lands but many really dont care as long as its as far out there as they can throw it. For instance , is it hole 5 at herman that runs along the river and hole six back along the road. if there was a chalk or rope line along the trees that devide those two holes there would be a big change as to how some of the long arm throwers would approach that hole.
Chain smoker
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
The reason its not really feasable on most courses would be that changes in the pin placement or trees or even conditions off the tournament stats you are basing for figures off of..... these would throw off your "HSSA".
Just an idea. I think it's silly we call everything a par 3.
Another idea would be to do what they do in golf. Give each hole a par and a handicap number. If a hole that had a 3.5 average was called a par 4, it might be considered the easiest hole on the course and get an 18 for the difficulty ranking. If a hole averages 4.3 and you are calling it a par 5, that hole should get the 18.
I played one of the toughest and best holes recently on that course in Round Rock at Williamson County Park. It was a double dog leg par 5. The fairway was pretty narrow and had jail to the left and right. 350 to the dogleg and another 330 to the next dogleg and then another 150 to the hole. I had two really good drives and a good 3rd shot that went just to long into the trees. Got a 5. I could see this hole having an HSSA of 4.8. Avanced players would definitely average over 5.
Just an idea. I think it's silly we call everything a par 3.
Another idea would be to do what they do in golf. Give each hole a par and a handicap number. If a hole that had a 3.5 average was called a par 4, it might be considered the easiest hole on the course and get an 18 for the difficulty ranking. If a hole averages 4.3 and you are calling it a par 5, that hole should get the 18.
I played one of the toughest and best holes recently on that course in Round Rock at Williamson County Park. It was a double dog leg par 5. The fairway was pretty narrow and had jail to the left and right. 350 to the dogleg and another 330 to the next dogleg and then another 150 to the hole. I had two really good drives and a good 3rd shot that went just to long into the trees. Got a 5. I could see this hole having an HSSA of 4.8. Avanced players would definitely average over 5.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
Those are holes 6 and 7. I would have to disagree on those holes. There are tons of chances to go OB on those holes and espescially for those throwing full power shots. We are going to get some trees planted soon that will help seperate those fairways.disclizard wrote:For instance , is it hole 5 at herman that runs along the river and hole six back along the road. if there was a chalk or rope line along the trees that devide those two holes there would be a big change as to how some of the long arm throwers would approach that hole.
I think those that can throw far should have an advantage in this game. Just not too much. To throw the disc far, you have to miss the trees, and put the correct release on the disc. Most long throwers would also tell you that the farther they try to throw it, the riskier the shot is.
It comes down to hole design. Holes that reward long throws or punish short ones are not appopriate for amateur skill levels. I like holes that offer several different strategies.
I would say diffculty and distance would decide what par was. Here in maine we play most as par 3s on all courses but some are just not going to be 3ed all the time the Eagle at Sabattus is a good example the holes have to be played perfect to get a 3 on alot of holes with OB around alot of the big holes to make the big arms tone it down and play placement. I know of at least 4 holes on this course that I disc down and make sure I have a clear 2nd shot and take 70-150ft off my drives cuz trouble is 10ft off the fairway or the river is 10ft behind the basket.Disc golf should move towards making players play smarter and have to back out of some drives. I can bomb 450 but that isnt always a smart move when 5-10 feet right or left can leave you playing a safe out back to the fairway. Putting lines down fairways that run side by side is done on alot of our wider open course so you cant bomb and not worry you cant be in the other fairway or your OB. Just wanted to say I am glad I found this forum it has giving me alot of new insight to the game and really good info THANKS KDGA
-
mrsenortyler
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Winfield
- Contact:
I always thought par should be just as it is in ball golf. How many strokes it takes to get to the "green" (Usually a pro, I guess we would use a 1000 rated player for our example) and then add two putting strokes. Par 3, one throw to get to pin, and two put for par. Same on a par five. 800ft? Two drives, and upshot to green, then two putt. Voila, a five.
The HSSA idea is intriguing, but I don't think the information it provides is really that relevant. Sure, a player could figure out what they were "supposed" to get on a hole. But that doesn't mean that the hole is still not a par four. When I play, I am trying to shoot the best score I can, not just trying to shoot a round that matches my PDGA rating.
The HSSA idea is intriguing, but I don't think the information it provides is really that relevant. Sure, a player could figure out what they were "supposed" to get on a hole. But that doesn't mean that the hole is still not a par four. When I play, I am trying to shoot the best score I can, not just trying to shoot a round that matches my PDGA rating.
Par is supposed to be the number of strokes that an expert player should complete a hole in. Whether we be talking disc golf or ball golf, or even miniature golf, I've never quite understood what all the fascination was with it. Most casual players who do any of these games are not going to achieve it over the length of a course anyways.
The fact that par is rounded to the nearest whole number on each hole, skewers it to the point of irrelevancy. I mean why is it so many of our "par 54" courses have SSA's in the high 40 range?
If I get a '4' on a hole, I don't take much stock into whether I got a "par" or a "bogey". The way I see it, I got a "four" and thats what I write on my scorecard.
As for the "everything is par 3" mantra that has long been an unofficial standard in disc golf, that more or less derives from two things.
1. Back when our early courses were established and everyone was throwing blunt edged discs, the holes really were par 3.
2. When you do a casual round, it simply makes the arithmetic easier to figure your score as you go along to use 3 as a standard for par regardless of hole length. If you get a 4, add 1. If you get a 2, subtract 1. When you're finished take your +/- par and apply it to 54 for your stroke score.
The fact that par is rounded to the nearest whole number on each hole, skewers it to the point of irrelevancy. I mean why is it so many of our "par 54" courses have SSA's in the high 40 range?
If I get a '4' on a hole, I don't take much stock into whether I got a "par" or a "bogey". The way I see it, I got a "four" and thats what I write on my scorecard.
As for the "everything is par 3" mantra that has long been an unofficial standard in disc golf, that more or less derives from two things.
1. Back when our early courses were established and everyone was throwing blunt edged discs, the holes really were par 3.
2. When you do a casual round, it simply makes the arithmetic easier to figure your score as you go along to use 3 as a standard for par regardless of hole length. If you get a 4, add 1. If you get a 2, subtract 1. When you're finished take your +/- par and apply it to 54 for your stroke score.
-
mrsenortyler
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Winfield
- Contact:
Yeah, and the thing is, you don't need a par 54 course to do that. That's how I keep track of my score in real golf.scarpfish wrote: 2. When you do a casual round, it simply makes the arithmetic easier to figure your score as you go along to use 3 as a standard for par regardless of hole length. If you get a 4, add 1. If you get a 2, subtract 1. When you're finished take your +/- par and apply it to 54 for your stroke score.
I agree the idea that par should be calculated in the same spirit as they do in ball golf. The thing is, there's a significant technical difference in how one would complete a ball golf hole versus a disc golf hole. Our "greens" are an often unmarked circle just shy of 33 feet from the basket. Most expert players who have their disc already inside that circle should be getting it in the chains with one throw. Hence why a standard DG hole is par 3. In another respect, a lot of those same players ought to be able to get their disc from the tee pad into that circle with one throw, hence why you could make a case that some of our shorter holes ought to be par 2s.mrsenortyler wrote:I always thought par should be just as it is in ball golf. How many strokes it takes to get to the "green" (Usually a pro, I guess we would use a 1000 rated player for our example) and then add two putting strokes. Par 3, one throw to get to pin, and two put for par. Same on a par five. 800ft? Two drives, and upshot to green, then two putt. Voila, a five.
Conversely, it would be a bit much to ask an expert ball golfer to do either of these things (with the exception of driving on a par 3 ball golf hole). They have to get a much smaller projectile into a much smaller target.
Par is what you should get on a hole. Then there comes easy par 4's and tough Par 4's and so on. Sometimes you gotta really work for the par, other times you just gotta play smart, other times you just need to get it out there.
I guess an Easy par 4 would be like a hole that is really long that most players would need 2.5 throws to get a reasonable putt to finish the hole. A tougher par 4 would be a hole that would be easily reachable in 2 throws for almost everyone, but a heavily wooded fairway or something causes it that you just might not make it there in 2 shots due to trouble.
Long and Skinnys' probably should have an extra shot added to the part due to high chances of out of bounds. A birdie should really feel like a birdie, not a have to. There are quite a bit of holes in Disc Golf where par 3's are actually par 2's.
I guess an Easy par 4 would be like a hole that is really long that most players would need 2.5 throws to get a reasonable putt to finish the hole. A tougher par 4 would be a hole that would be easily reachable in 2 throws for almost everyone, but a heavily wooded fairway or something causes it that you just might not make it there in 2 shots due to trouble.
Long and Skinnys' probably should have an extra shot added to the part due to high chances of out of bounds. A birdie should really feel like a birdie, not a have to. There are quite a bit of holes in Disc Golf where par 3's are actually par 2's.
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.
-
carlbren21
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:08 am
[quote="Schoen-hopper"]
Another idea would be to do what they do in golf. Give each hole a par and a handicap number. If a hole that had a 3.5 average was called a par 4, it might be considered the easiest hole on the course and get an 18 for the difficulty ranking. If a hole averages 4.3 and you are calling it a par 5, that hole should get the 18.
quote]
This has stood the test of time in Golf and works great.
I also agree with the idea that par should reflect the amount of strokes it takes an above average player to get to a hole and then add two. However, 30' from the basket is WAY EASIER of a green than most golf courses. In disc golf, you should make at least 70% of all shots inside 30'. In golf, unless your inside 5', or are a great putter (see Jim Furyk) you are going to 2 putt... many tiomes three putt after you hit the green. Greens in golf, unless your playing podunk country club, are many times 100' in diameter. In other words, that average disc golfer is going to have a 1-2 stroke average when hitting the green, while an abverage golfer will have a stroke average, likely between 2-3 when hitting a green. I guess what I am trying to say is the 'putt circle' shouldn't be the spot in which you add two and get your par, because the average strokes it takes anyone to get it in is far less than 2. Basically, disc golf courses on average, are FAR easier to shoot par or better than ball golf. I think the obvious thing to do is to either make the holes harder, or lower the pars and make par a GOOD score, not a so-so score.
Another idea would be to do what they do in golf. Give each hole a par and a handicap number. If a hole that had a 3.5 average was called a par 4, it might be considered the easiest hole on the course and get an 18 for the difficulty ranking. If a hole averages 4.3 and you are calling it a par 5, that hole should get the 18.
quote]
This has stood the test of time in Golf and works great.
I also agree with the idea that par should reflect the amount of strokes it takes an above average player to get to a hole and then add two. However, 30' from the basket is WAY EASIER of a green than most golf courses. In disc golf, you should make at least 70% of all shots inside 30'. In golf, unless your inside 5', or are a great putter (see Jim Furyk) you are going to 2 putt... many tiomes three putt after you hit the green. Greens in golf, unless your playing podunk country club, are many times 100' in diameter. In other words, that average disc golfer is going to have a 1-2 stroke average when hitting the green, while an abverage golfer will have a stroke average, likely between 2-3 when hitting a green. I guess what I am trying to say is the 'putt circle' shouldn't be the spot in which you add two and get your par, because the average strokes it takes anyone to get it in is far less than 2. Basically, disc golf courses on average, are FAR easier to shoot par or better than ball golf. I think the obvious thing to do is to either make the holes harder, or lower the pars and make par a GOOD score, not a so-so score.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
I agree that we need to make the greens harder, including the approach to the green. Slopes, strategically placed trees, and wind can make them tougher. We also need to consider the golf green at say 70' radius instead of 30'. Then we can get closer to the 2 stroke average and be able to loosely create hole pars from that.
I've heard discussion about making the baskets smaller. I wouldn't like that!
I've heard discussion about making the baskets smaller. I wouldn't like that!
-
carlbren21
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:08 am
Agreed on tougher greens. Slope and trees definately play a part in the difficulty, although wind is too much of a variable to count on. Maybe simply make the pole to the basket longer, meaning a miss will go farther?Schoen-hopper wrote:I agree that we need to make the greens harder, including the approach to the green. Slopes, strategically placed trees, and wind can make them tougher. We also need to consider the golf green at say 70' radius instead of 30'. Then we can get closer to the 2 stroke average and be able to loosely create hole pars from that.
I've heard discussion about making the baskets smaller. I wouldn't like that!
As far as expanding the 30' circle... I think it should stay the same for play (ie. jump putts allowed outside 30'), but simply be much larger when it comes to determining par... maybe even 100'. In my opinion, just because your on the 'green' shouldn't mean it should an automatic 2 putt and great chance at 1putt. You should have to work for your two putt, and hit a great shot for a 1 putt. Right now, inside thirty, is an almost automatic 2 and/or 1... even for a beginner! Face a beginner with a 30' putt in golf... that's not a gimmie two-putt.
Making baskets smaller would probably be the stupidest decision I have ever heard of. Whoever makes that decision should also be responsible to pay to replace all the baskets in the world... not rational... right? It is a great idea for a practice basket!!! I would definately buy one.