I just got done watching the NY States championship episode of DiscTV. Great episode. Probably the best one that I've seen.

The one glaring annoyance is that "par" doesn't mean what the average viewer (i.e. someone familiar with ball golf) expects it to mean. In fact, "par" was defined differntly throughout the episode.

- When Sullivan is talking to the course pro, he (the course pro) mentions that pro par is around 62.
- When Brian is interviewing Leslie Demark, she claims par is 68 (Ok, realisitically, I have no problem with "par" being defined differently for women than it is for men when playing the same layout).
- When Brian is describing the rounds, he falls back to the useless old standard of par = 54. In fact they go out of their way to have a diagram of each hole that shows the trees, lists the distance, and lists par. But par is always 3! What's the point??? He mentions Schweberbergers course record of 2. "They may not sound like much, but on this course...". [B]Hello!! Par is supposed to be some kind of standard so we can compare different holes and courses. If we insist on calling every hole a par-3, it loses it's usefullness.

Warwick uses the WCP concept for setting the par on almost all of the four possible options on each hole (just no par 2s and there's probably only one anyway). At least one course setup (maybe long-short) is par 62 and the long-long is par 68, both which may have been played at that event. Those numbers are right on the WCP calculations. DiscTV hasn't done a segment on 'par' yet so maybe that should be one for next season.

They talk about par for the whole course but each hole is still calculated as par 3. So, Schweberger's course record 56 was called 2 even though par for that setup is 68 and he really shot -12

By the way, the old course record for long to long was 62 by Steve Brinster, so Schweberger's 56 broke the record by 6!! Joe Klosky also tied the old record of 62. I think the 56 record will never be broken.

Here, here on the Par 3 issue! That is the one thing that totally befuddles any new player. "Par" means something and to have a Par of 3 on every cotton pickin hole on every cotton pickin final 9 of our only nation wide program just makes me scream!

It does our sport a dis-service in the public eye.

Reachable off the tee box = PAR 3. Reachable fairly easy in two good shots = PAR 4. Reachable in two mammoth shots or easily in three = PAR 5. This example based on a player of good level. We call ourselves golf yet my examples are the parameter of true golf PAR.

Maybe we should start using the ball golf method of using circles and squares on the score card for birdies and bogies instead of just using 3 all the time. It's really easy to add up all the circles and squares.

Kenny, that's exactly what the par number on the sign should be. That simple. Calculated WCP rating is a different concept which gives a number for how the whole course and each individual hole is actually played by pros, and yields valuable information for player and course ratings.

Not this topic again! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif I've been advocating the simple approach to defining par for as long as I've been DISCussing stuff on this board. The distance that the hole plays should be the only factor in determining par.

Now all the statistic guru's will chime in and say that such a number has no real use, and that WCSA (or the ill concieved name WCP) is much more meaningful, yada yada yada.

Everything isn't a par 3. At the very least there are par 4, 5, and a few par 6 sprinkled about. I won't go to the Par 2 place, since that gets DD all in a lather! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

btl.

We have tried a new (to me) way of keeping score at most of the Indiana tournaments that I have played. When you get a three, just put a dash, line ,hyphen, this "-". Then write down the numbers for a 1,2,4, or 5 and so on. When you add 'em up, the only numbers are plus's or minus's. It is way easier and faster. Although, I was glad to have an eraser on my pencil since I kept writing down a three!

The champ speaks the truth.

bee tee el
distance cant determine par
I know of many 400' shots that are par four
because you cant get near the hole in one shot

So, the Champ's round of 43 at the Tournament course was 18 under par? According to the Champ's guidelines for par, the seven holes that took two shots to reach should be par 4s and the rest would be par 3s? That would make the Tournament course Par 61. I think most would consider that par inflated.

I think the Scratch Scoring Averages for that course were around 51 or so. The Dragon hole 15 was a legit par 4 and I suspect that everyone in the MPO pool was kicking themselves if they didn't get a 2 on holes 4, 8, 16 & 17 at minimum.

BTW, KC, no disrespect intended. That was an awesome round by all standards and I got to see part of it. I wish par in disc golf was as simple as ball golf. But unfortunately it's not, and for good reasons. Our hole design options are much more varied and wide ranging than ball golf, and that's the great thing that keeps us all coming back for more.

Ken's idea of par makes sense on a certain level.

I think that it is safe to say that it is not as accurate as WCP, but lacking a WCP it would give players a general idea of par. Certainly it beats the stuffing out of the "Every Hole is Par 3" idea of par.

Look at it this way; Ken shoots a 43 on a course which by his definition of par is a par 61, but by WCP is a par 51. The 18 under of his system is next to meaningless next to the 8 under of WCP to players not at the event who know their Player Rating and their home courses WCP.

We need one standard, and it seems logical to pick the one that is more accurate, and stick with it.

Perhaps it's hard to accept, but there is a chance that Disc Golf could actually better than Ball and Stick Golf at certain things. At least I like to think so. Among other things our idea of Par could easily be one of them.

We need two systems. An easily understandable and respectable par number on the sign that means what Ken said and also is understandable from other fields, such as ball golf. It seems a little arrogant to use an arcane system for par when ball golf's system works fine and is easily understood. Not distance. Throws. We also need Chuck's rating system for statistical analysis of the course, holes, and players. When the two numbers don't agree, course design changes can remedy that.

Back to the "Great par debate" as it pertains to Disc TV... If Brian would just forget any reference to "par" on the final scores, it would be better. It is the number of strokes that counts. Having "-32" or " 27" for a final score is silly especially when the round scores are listed just before it.

Like I said before, having "par 3" on every hole be it 230 ft. or 650 ft. on national TV does our sport a dis-service.

Throws and distance can't be completely divorced - obviously you have to pick a distance that a typical "throw" is. Most of the discgolf holes that I have played / seen could be classified by distance and meet KC's requirements. Only when there are drastic obstacles or doglegs does the distance formula break down.

What is the Par of a wide open, 485 foot hole? At what distance does a wide open hole go from a par 3 to a par 4?

btl.

Par is part and parcel of any form of golf isn't it? Playing a hole without mistake and allowing two putts once on the green is the ball version, seems okay for our flavor too. Tiger can reach the green on the occasional par 4, does that make the hole a par three? Stokely can reach holes in one toss that would take me 2 of my version of gargantuan crushes to reach, dem's da breaks. Who among us has not taken a four and dusted the rest of their card with that? I know I've walked off holes with a five (Ozarkian golf comes to mind) and been plenty satisfied.

Is par relative to the abilities of each golfer?

If you have a Player Rating it is...

Throws to reach the green (10m circle???) 2 does not work well for disc golf because putting is so much easier realative to ball golf. Putts from 20' and in are almost gimmies to DG top players while they would be quite challenging for BG pros. And putts from 20' to 35' are pretty routine in DG while that's definetly two shot territory to a ball golfer.


Ken, consider a wide open 500' hole with no real hazards or OB. Few players can consistantly reach the 10m circle, but almost any halfway decent pro would be very disapointed to take a 4 on that kind of hole. Stretch it out to 750' or so, then it is a true par-4.

I've played two of Reese's Fly-18 BG/DG courses, and I agree with his designs in terms of par. I've played Houck's Circle-R, and I think his par values are slightly inflated. Those courses are definetly not par-54s, but there not qutie par-62 (or whatever he calls them) either. Finally, as much as I hate the idea of par-2s, I think it is more meaningful to call a hole a par-2 instead of an incredibly easy par-3. At Minnesota worlds, there were definetly some par-4s and par-5s mixed in, yet course par (WCP) was right around 54. For those that can do math, that means there have to be some holes with par less than 3.

The Disc Golf Course Design group is looking at two systems. For short tees defined as 18-hole courses under about 4800', use an updated version of Ed's old Rec Par which starts with holes under 300' as par 3, 300'-500' as par 4 and over 500' par 5. Par on a few holes might be boosted if especially difficult. No par 2s.

The second system for 18-hole course layouts longer than 4800' would be to use stats to determine WCP per hole from event scoring averages. Par on a hole could range from the dreaded par 2 up to even par 6 (which is really the par on USDGC #11).

That sounds like SUCH a bad idea to me Chuck. Par should be easily defined on any disc golf hole, and should be the same at every course in the country. We need two systems that apply to every course - ie two systems that co-exist. You are talking about two systems that will be mutually exclusive, based on the overall lenght of the course? That just sounds like a really BAD idea to me.

btl.

What does seem bad is two definitions of par for the same hole. We're talking about a par standard for the so called Rec tees that is much less inflated than the original DGA standard which is still on the books in the PDGA Course Design document. Then, duplicating the par standard of ball golf on the tees more likely played by tournament players. Yes, I said duplicate. True WCP on a hole is virtually identical to the par in ball golf. BG par is within a half stroke plus/minus what a scratch/World Class golfer would average on a hole. Our WCP has the same definition.

Unfortunately, unless we "sterilize" hole designs and make putting tougher, we're NEVER going to match the simple BG par system of strokes to the green plus 2 putts.

Par Pronunciation (p�r)
n. An amount or level considered to be average; a standard: performing up to par; did not yet feel up to par.

An equality of status, level, or value; equal footing: a local product on a par with the best foreign makes.

The established value of a monetary unit expressed in terms of a monetary unit of another country using the same metal standard.

The face value of a stock, bond, or other negotiable instrument: sold the bond at par.

Sports. The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

tr.v. Sports parred, pars To score par on (a hole or course) in golf.

adj. Equal to the standard; normal: a solid, par performance. Of or relating to monetary face value.

Idiom:
par for the course Usual; typical: Unfortunately, such short-sightedness is par for the course these days.

[From Latin pr, equal, that which is equal.]


_____

do you think they meant expert to be a professional level, or expert to be what the pdga defines it as? :^p

i'd have to agree that every hole on the planet being designated as "par 3" is kind of funny and silly, however as long as all competitors in an event play be the same "par system" it really isn't THAT big of a deal.

if we all throw from the same tboxs and all play by the (silly par3) for every hole-- how is that worse than some complex system?

it all works out the same. the best golfer wins by throwing less discs.

don't misunderstand, i'm not against you folks spending tons of volunteer hours on something like this-- but aren't there more important issues?

It's true that having volunteers spend time to figure out how to increase the "sub par" PDGA membership levels in the LA/MS area would have a bigger payoff but this is certainly more fun.

One system for Par -The one that Ken stated. A rating number (not par) would be the second number. Throws works for Par because it takes obstacles and elevation changes into account. Finally, it is not a 10 meter green. It is throws to get a putt, which for most of the Pros is 60 feet or more.

Golf has guidelines for thier pars for over 300 years.Disc golf should observe this.There are some exceptions for our sport that are obvious.Fly 18 courses play the same par as the course. The distance with difficulty factor and elevation all a factor.Top pros will shoot 3 to 8 under par just like GOLF.The rest of us struggle for par.A good hole should be boogieable parable and birdieable.Kenny has played many of our courses on golf courses an agrees with the PAR.A true test of risk and reward and fair.GOLF is not easy but fair.FLY 18 is the closest to golf that we have.Please try one and tell us what you think.This is just my opion but I am not ALONE!!!

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 07:06 am:


So, the Champ's round of 43 at the Tournament course was 18 under par? According to the Champ's guidelines for par, the seven holes that took two shots to reach should be par 4s and the rest would be par 3s? That would make the Tournament course Par 61.

Yes. That's why it was a perfect round.

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 07:15 am:


BTW, KC, no disrespect intended. That was an awesome round by all standards and I got to see part of it. I wish par in disc golf was as simple as ball golf. But unfortunately it's not, and for good reasons. Our hole design options are much more varied and wide ranging than ball golf, and that's the great thing that keeps us all coming back for more.

Again, I disagree. If you think that is true, you haven't seen enough ball golf holes. There are short/long, tight/open, uphill/downhill, and shots that go in every direction, just like in ball golf. It really can be as simple as ball golf.

I'm not sure if par at the Bob Hope in Las Vegas is 72, but let's just say that it's the same as the US Open. A 10-12 under at the Bob Hope is pretty common, but anything under par in the US Open is pretty tough. That doesn't mean that the par is wrong, it's just an easier course.

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 09:09 am:


True WCP on a hole is virtually identical to the par in ball golf. BG par is within a half stroke plus/minus what a scratch/World Class golfer would average on a hole. Our WCP has the same definition.

Except that no matter how easy the hole is, it would never be a par 2, or if they actually averaged near 4 strokes on an easy par 5 at a municipal course it would still be a par 5.

"Unfortunately, unless we "sterilize" hole designs and make putting tougher, we're NEVER going to match the simple BG par system of strokes to the green plus 2 putts. "

Why not. Your only answer is the statistics don't support it. Stats are only one way to measure it, as Dave just said throws work pretty well because they take into account elevation and obstacles. That reminds me of hole 14? at Hornet's Nest. It's a very tight gap and probably under 250ft. I could see the average being near 4 on that hole, but there's no way it would ever be a par 4.

I just don't understand why we are making it so difficult. Here we have Dave Dunipace and Ken Climo saying, "It takes two throws to get near it, must be a par 4." Sounds good to me.

I haven't been on a ball golf course in quite a while, and hate to get back into this discussion, but don't the ball golf holes have 2 numbers on the score cards for each hole ? One to indicate the PAR, and another to indicate how easy it is to make par ?

Anita is bringing up the most important reason to get everyone talking the same language. We talk about DG rules/etiquettes/policies as they pertain to DGers all day long. We hardly talk about how these things pertain to non-playing fans and possible DG recruits (general public - our friends and family). WWW says it doesn't matter because we are playing the same holes and we (DGers) all understand what's going on, but that doesn't help Joe Q Public when he happens to turn on DiscTV. If our lone national TV show uses "par" or "birdie" in two different ways during the same show, we have a problem. I want to recommend my fantasy football league members to check out Disc TV this week, but I don't want to have to send a Word doc beforehand explaining what "par" may or may not mean.
I feel that the definition of "par" in DG is one of the most important issues that needs to be settled. First impressions mean EVERYTHING is this society. Not having a definition for "par" is a bad first impression.

BG doesn't have any par 2s because none of their holes have scoring averages under 2.5. Disc Golf does.

Using KC par at Worlds he ended up shooting about 120 under. Not sure that makes disc golf look too professional. It's as inflated as the old DGA par system with rec par about 72.

BG par is inferior to WCP because it doesn't incorporate the difficulty directly into the values. BG has to add their slope factor to adjust scores and correctly compare two par 72 courses with obviously different difficulties. In all fairness, BG didn't have Excel (for WWW entertainment) in the late 1800s when the terms par and bogey appeared nor in the mid-1900s for handicapping. We have the chance to do it better.

The other numbers on a BG scorecard are the ranked hole difficulties for handicapping and sometimes they put the actual scoring average for each hole on there.

Seems like their are a lot of "Apples & Oranges" comparisons going on here.

Perhaps we need to get on the same page if we hope to get anywhere with this.

Par in disc golf is currently 3 for every hole regardless of length or difficulty.

We could use a simple logical extention of Ball Golf's idea of par (i.e. Ken's), but it has limitations as have been pointed out.

Or we could use a system devised for Disc Golf that is based on 1000 rated disc golfers and what they would average on the course, otherwise known as World Class Par. This system only works for courses that hold PDGA events <FONT SIZE=" 2">AND SEND IN CORRECTLY FILLED OUT TD REPORTS</FONT>, and it is intellectually challenging for many.

So what do we do?

Well are we Bubbas or PDGA Disc Golfers?
In my opinion we are PDGA Disc Golfers.

Do we need a system that works for both?
In my opinion we don't. It would be nice, but our future doesn't depend on it.

For PDGA event players the only par that should matter is the WCP. Par for the course you are playing is WCP. It is not reliant on distance, or obstacles, or 1 or 2 throws to putt out, it is reliant on <FONT SIZE=" 2">EXACTLY</FONT> what the average score of a 1000 rated PDGA player is.

The WCP of individual holes is REAL and based on exact numbers and is therefore the most effective indicator of the difficulty of a hole. This effectively answers the question of what par is for individual holes and the course as a whole in PDGA disc golf. If you can't free your mind of Stick and Ball Golf preconceptions, oh well. WCP is superior to ball golfs loosely formed idea of par, it just is. (Clue's example clearly illustrates this... showing that par is not any more of a logical conclusion in ball golf than our idea that all pars in disc golf are 3.)I can't see how it would be possible to seriously argue otherwise, other than if you can't fathom how Player Ratings and WCP actually work. And that is simply a matter of education.

Courses that hold PDGA events will all have WCPs by the end of this year, and many already do. Courses that do not, well, do they really need them? If so why? If they want to devise their own wierd science to decide what par is on their course, GREAT, go for it, it doesn't mean diddly to PDGA Tournament Players.

One system. One concept of Par. If you want one for your back yard course, either hold a PDGA event or use whatever system suits your fancy.

We just had a Fly-18-style tournament up here in Michigan and I've posted the results, hole averages, and hole handicaps:
http://www.etherbinge.com/results.htm

for a golf course style course like this it is fairly easy to set up the holes with realistic pro "pars". al schaak shot the best round at -7 and the average "pros" shot just over par.

for most of our current designs, however, assigning pars to holes is a bit more difficult. there are plenty of great disc golf holes that are par 3.5 or 4.5. i love hole #5 at cass-benton in northville, mi. i have not heard of anyone that has ever gotten within the 10 meter "putting range", but is definitely possible to get a two with a great/lucky second shot. is this 2 a birdie or an eagle? debatable. a pro, however, that gets a 4 will definitely feel that they have made a bogey. i consider this hole to be a solid par 3.5, but would never put a .5 on a scorecard, so i'll call it a par 3.

my point is that there is some arbitrary element to assigning pars to holes, but we should not eliminate sweet hole designs simply because they are difficult to categorize. if you design a course and assign par #'s to holes that add up to within a stroke or two of wcp then you've done a good job in regards to giving meaning to the term "par".

i've said it many times before and will continue to say it, if you want to consider every hole a par 3 simply because it is too difficult add up your scorecard otherwise then please go get some adult ed and learn how to add or buy a calculator for $3 at your local drustore: GIVE ME A BREAK!

I agree with Denny

For the record, as a member of the Ratings Committee and someone who is intimately familiar with how the Ratings system works, I am in 99.9% disagreement with both Nick and Chuck on this matter. <FONT SIZE="-2">I'm not even sure what the 0.1% is, but there's probably something.</FONT>

rodney

I agree with Rodney

All I hear is feelings, wishes and hopes but no practical justification for any other par system.

Some want it to be simple, but it's not.
Some want it like ball golf, but it cannot be.
Some want it to be the number of throws, but it doesn't work.
Some want it to be length, but in this case, it only sort of matters.
Some don't want par 2s, but we've got them.

We've got WCP that actually works, but some don't want it.

I just want faster greens ie slopped or cliffed
so that golfers have to think about their puts
and not just run at everything

"Number of throws" not only works, it is simple, and it is similar to ball golf.

Don't get me wrong - WCP is cool. It is bleeding edge kinda stuff. But it is NOT par, at least not the commonly accepted and understood definition of Par.

Par should be the # of throws to get within 100 feet or so 2. In order to determine how difficult a course is, compare Par calculated with this method with the WCP (if available).

One cool thing about this method is : Lets say we have a hole with a Par of 4, and a WCP of 3.45. Then, on DiscTV, the fake tee sign has a map of the hole, along with the following info :

1) Distance
2) Par 4
3) Difficulty = 0.86

Where the higher the difficulty, the harder it is to get a Par on the hole. Difficulty = WCP / Par. Only stats geeks really need to know about WCP, or what it means.

btl.

When our club is doing course degign we have a good method for determining par on a hole.

Figure the best possible score 2 strokes

For our latest course @ Stafford Lake this system works out very well.
Hole 1 &amp; 3 are par 4's while Hole 9 is a par 5

Hole 1 has been eagled (twice)
Hole 3 has never been Eagled (border line par 5)
Hole 5 has been Eagled once (Doubles)

This par has been in effect for 5 years now and has held up really well.

BUT, As far as the PDGA is concerned; and for tournament play.
The par is still considered 54 not 58.........

Par on a course really does not matter. Its still how many strokes you took to complete the round.

So you can say that our tourney course record is either a -6 or a -10 whatever makes you feel better. But a 48 is still a 48./msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

David wheetie French, you want 'em, go play the Ozark Mountain Course. Here's a pic of just one of many thought provoking, nad raising greens.

http://www.gatewaydiscsports.com/images/ozark/10gx.jpg

(/end pimping)

I like WPC fine. I like course ratings, player ratings, accurate signs, concrete tees, reasonable par ratings, and tail winds. And beer. Lots and lots of beer. Par, when it comes down to it, is irrelevant at the end of a contest. Whomever shot fewer times seems to have some sort of bearing on it but I can't seem to place my finger on the relationship...

This thread is interesting and needed, unlike this post.

Carry on.

I think the reason that we got to where we are today is because it allowed someone coming off the course to know how to express their score relative to par. Regardless of whether par was related to the course. Joe Schmoe shot a 57 for 18 holes and therefore it was easier to say 3 than anything else. If the TD sets up a scorecard that states a par that adds up to any other number other than (3 * no of holes) then players will express their score relative to that par number. We do it all the time when talking about 24 or 27 hole courses (ie par is not 54) so we obviously can handle doing it relative to some other number presented to us as par.
The difficulties in universal application come in when the normal score written on the card for each hole is 3 and will continue to be 3 for most of us average Open players. Figuring out how many should be par 4's or 2's or 5's can seem as arbitrary as choosing 3 as par. The inherent problem with WCP is that it takes a tournament to establish what WCP is and it only applies to that layout. How do you universally apply it to other layouts.

Is anyone tasked with defining par? Who should provide this definition since we will obviously have some people happy and some not so happy with whatever definition is decided? Should this come from the BOD, Competition Director, member vote, or someplace else? I'm asking because I honestly don't know how something like this would be decided.

I think WCP is the best solution. Anything .5 or higher gets rounded up and anything .49 or below gets rounded down- this of course leads to some par 2's.
You don't have to hold a PDGA event to figure a course's rating. You just need some rated players to play a few rounds...right?

3

12

who cares you still have to have less sgtrokes than all of the people that you play against whether it is 'over' or 'under' PAR

Reasons that we need PAR:

1) If someone misses a hole, they get a Par 4.
2) We need a definition of Par, if for no other reason than because Ball Golf has one.

There are other reasons I am sure. No doubt someone will chime in with them.

btl.

I like the champ's definition. Easy, sweet, to the point. No rounding, no par 2's. If you can reach it in one, its a par three. Reach it in two, its a par 4. For lack of a better yardstick, call the 'reach it in one' distance up to around 320 feet if no obstacles greatly impeade the flight path. Let the course designer make the call on the par designation using the simple guidelines. Also, let the local course pro modify the 'par' when needed (hole got shortened, main obstacles got broken off eliminating the dogleg, etc.), helping to maintain the legitamacy as opposed to using WCP averages from a tournament that occurred in the past.

No need for stats, WCP calculations, slide rules, having to have a minimum amount of tournament data before par can be calculated, etc. Besides, if its good enough for KC .......

Other reasons, as I detailed in the first post in the thread, is so that it means something when talking about it on TV. When the course record is 2 it looks ridiculous to a non-DGer who understands the concept of par in ball golf.

We don't need a better definition of par, we need better course design. Just because it takes two shots to reach a 500 foot long wide open hole does not make it a par 4. The notion of a tough par 3 or par 4 is virtually non-existent on most courses. Course management should not be synonymous with "which side of the basket do I want my tee shot to land?".

WCP is a step in the right direction. Applying it to individual holes usually does not work because most courses have too many easy par 3s.

Look at the percentage of courses with WCP below 54. Face it folks, for the most part we don't play Disc Golf, we play Disc Putt-Putt. DD

Brian,

"Don't get me wrong - WCP is cool. It is bleeding edge kinda stuff. But it is NOT par, at least not the commonly accepted and understood definition of Par."

What you mean to say is it is NOT par, according to "My" or "Ball Golfs" understood definition of Par.

Consider this, maybe your idea or ball golfs idea of par is not right for disc golfs idea of par. Maybe we have found a better more accurate and logical definition of par. WCP is perfectly tailored to meet the needs of Disc Golfers (particularly ones whose minds are not locked on Ball Golf preconceptions.

This is the crux of this whole discussion; Some think that we have a need for a par that is exactly like ball golfs, and some know that their is no indicator better suited for deciding par in disc golf than World Class Par.

Rodney, if a course has a WCP of 47, then how can any of the proposed by throw/distance/or coin flip voodoo concepts of course pars argue that par should be some other number or that their par is more accurate or worth considering? And how could it be logically argued that that course does not quantitatively have holes with pars of 2? How can you 99.9% disagree with that unless you consider Player Ratings and WCP as totally false indicators of the skill of tournament players and difficulty of tournament courses?

99.9 !?! That is just stupid dude. Please explain yourself.

WCP is a cool way of looking at what a pro can score on a course but it does not necessitate abandoning a system where a Par 3 can be reached in 1, a Par 4 can be reached in 2, etc. What do you think a ball golf pro would shoot on the average ball golf course with decent greens to putt on? I'd guess an average of 63-64 but no one is calling for lowering par on those courses.

The way ball golf courses are rated in difficulty is by slope - the higher the slope rating, the harder it is to go low in score. WCP is disc golf's version of slope. A card for a disc golf course should be laid as Ken Climo suggested (par 3, 4, 5 depending on the amount of throws it takes to reach) and the WCP rating can be put on there to designate the difficulty of the layout.

Yes, pros will go way under par on some courses but that is the way it is given that putting is easier in disc golf than ball golf.

Par is two strokes less than it takes me to complete each disc golf hole.

There is a lot of merit to the "par and slope"/"par and WCP" idea.

Why not use both? Use the KC method for par with the WCP as a difficulty rating.

I kinda like Mike R's method, which is very similar to KC's. Number of throws it could (normally) be done in, plus two. I added the word normally because normal good pros don't throw 500 ft aces, but could throw 400 ft aces. A downhill 500 ft hole might be a Par 3 barring obstacles and traps. Here's a possible method: get KC (or similar distance driving Pro) to throw 10 to 20 shots at the target from the tee. If one or two come close to acing it, it's a Par 3. If nothing comes close, it's a higher Par. If it's borderline, we let Chuck decide. The only problem, I can see with this method has to do with flukey fairways. Even holes that are heavily trapped with OB, like Jim's in Arizona, would be assigned par the same way, but in his case WCP might actually be higher because he found a way to make the players scared to go for it with course design.

I believe that it makes since to use WCP to determine what the PAR is on a hole during tournaments. Since we are going into a system where a players skill level is based on WCP then the course and each hole par might as well use the same system.

PAR 3= 2.50- 3.49 throws

PAR 4= 3.50- 4.49

PAR 5= 4.50- whatever(maybe some sort of standard should be set)

The par 2 and 6 should not be added because there has to be a limit somewhere, and 3-5 seem to me to be a good limit.

If a hole is easier than 2.49 then it is just an easy par 3 because it still allows for 1 teeshot and 2 putts. But also if a hole falls into this category then the PDGA might need to "suggest" to the TD of that tourney to find a way to add difficulty to that hole during tournament play the next time around.

Anyway it goes is good to me. When I play a round, no matter how hard or easy the course or certain hole is, I am out there trying to complete the course(or hole) in the least amount of strokes.

Dave Dun.. I see another problem with your method. Kenny's arm will fall off if he has to throw 10 shots at every basket that every course has! There are such things as par 2's and sure they may seem like a poor design but I guarantee that the one hole that I would consider a par 2 at my home course is the one hole that keeps the ams coming back.

Scott, in my mind calling a hole a par-2 is the same as saying it's a poorly designed, too-easy, par-3. Hopefully it'll guilt the course designer into making it tougher.

Of course there's still the problem of having many many holes rate out at say 2.6. Well every hole is a legit par-3 (though a tad on the easy side), but 18 of those makes course par 47, not 54.

I guess that is kind of where WCP acts like the BG Course Rating and par could still be the sum of the tee sign pars (54 in that case).

Lance, is that 1, 9 or 15?

chuck stated:
"We've got WCP that actually works, but some don't want it."

just because folks do not want something-- that hasn't stopped you guys yet :^p

chuck stated:
"It's true that having volunteers spend time to figure out how to increase the "sub par" PDGA membership levels in the LA/MS area would have a bigger payoff but this is certainly more fun"

those weren't the issues that i was thinking of but since you mentioned it-- as far as that area, chuck, dozens upon dozens of regional non-member competitors and a large amount of volunteers seem very content not sending 7$ / event / competitor to this dot.org-- that does NOTHING for the area while a regional dot org is doing FAR more for free-- such as: physically attending most events by sending orgreps, sends out snail-mailings to assist TD's w/ attendance, helps to obtain plastic for AM payouts @ wholesale, helps to obtain &amp; desgn regional courses, maintains a web site with their own budget, puts ALL sanctioning monies into the regional Finals-- and doesn't schnag 80 grand a year for three members from its coffers...

oh, i take that back-- this dot.org did something for the area... they sent a banner to the wrong TD in another state that we had to track down- :^p

anyway, back to par3-- i still don't see the big deal-- as long as competitors at an event are playing from the same tboxs using the same par "system"-- even the silly par3 thingy-- it all works out the same...

the guy who throws the least wins... regardless

as far as public perception about someone shooting a ridiculously low negative score-- 99.9% of the public doesn't know this sport even exists-- so it is only having a non player impact on maybe, what-- about nine people. ;^p

David said, "I just want faster greens i.e. slopped or cliffed
so that golfers have to think about their putts
and not just run at everything"

I definitely agree.

As to par 2's: I would not look to put one on a course I was designing, but if I came upon a beautiful par 2 in the woods I might use it.

One of my favorite "par 2's" is hole #13 at the Kensington Tunnel Course. It is only birdie-able (an ace) with an agressive or lucky shot. Every pro that gets a 3 is mad and it is definitely a must get 2. Would I like a course full of holes like it - absolutely not. I prefer to have holes that a pro can birdie, par, or bogey under normal circumstances.

Part of the beauty of disc golf course design vs. ball golf course design is finding fun, challenging, and visually pleasing holes with minimum changes to what nature offers, so not every hole is a perfect par 3,4, or 5. I am opposed to par 6's for several reasons that I won't bother explaining.

As to Kenny's definition of par I'd agree most of the time. There are exceptions, however. For example: Letter hole A on the Monster course at Hudson mills. At 495 ft. down a tight tunnel I consider this hole a fairly easy par 4. Scott Stokely, however just missed a 45 ft. putt for 2 there in 2000 worlds after crushing up over the 40 ft. tall trees. Just like in ball golf, there are par 4's that are drive-able.

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 11:08 am:

BG doesn't have any par 2s because none of their holes have scoring averages under 2.5. Disc Golf does.

Are we talking about just scratch golfers still? Put a couple dozen pga pros on your local course and see how they do on the par 3s. That's the second dumbest thing on here next to.....

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:27 pm:


All I hear is feelings, wishes and hopes but no practical justification for any other par system.

Some want it to be simple, but it's not.
Some want it like ball golf, but it cannot be.
Some want it to be the number of throws, but it doesn't work.
Some want it to be length, but in this case, it only sort of matters.
Some don't want par 2s, but we've got them.

Why can't it be like ball golf? Personally I disagree with everything you've ever said about the differences between the two games. My favorite argument is when someone takes a 4 on an easy 500ft hole it seems like a bogey. You don't think Tiger gets mad when he takes a 5 on just about every par 5 out there, and I'm talking about the tough ones not just your local country club 465 yarder.

The only reason number of throws/distance doesn't work as well is because there are sooo many poorly designed holes out there. I don't think we need a system that babies bad holes. If all of the courses in the world were designed like Circle R or Winthrop Gold, we wouldn't even be arguing because every possible definition would end up in the same result (that assumes of course that we call hole 11 at Winthrop a par 6).

The only par 2s I've seen are 70ft long with no obstacles, and yes there are a few of those out there. But calling a 285ft hole with a 6ft high fence gaurding it 30ft short and water behind it a par 2 because a great field of players average 2.49 strokes on it in perfect weather is STUPID! I realize this isn't the brainiest argument in the world, but at some point you have to take a step away from the computer screen and just look at a situation from a layman's point of view.

By Chuck Kennedy on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:27 pm:

We've got WCP that actually works, but some don't want it.

And Fred has directional targets that work, but a lot of people don't want those either. Besides, you could say we've got throws 2 that actually works, but that's also an opinion.

I think that by using the term par we ARE obligated to use it an a way that the general public relates to. This means something akin to the BG definition. It is normal that top pros shoot under par in big events on public courses.
The NT should be setup like PGA majors. With more difficult tee and pin configurations than are faced by Joe Public every Saturday.
If you put a foursome of the top PGA players on your local municipal course they would score in the same range that our top pros do on our municipal courses.
The problem is that normally we do normally have anything else for our tournaments.

To put it a different way. What would turn prospective player off more ? Seeing double digit negative relative par scores on TV, or going out to a course and seeing a few Par 2 holes and a per hole par that does not add up to the course par ?

No one that plays ball golf expects the par to be the correct score on a hole. Par is the safe score on a hole. A well placed drive or two, a conservative upshot/approach putt, and a final putt. Par can be beat by aggressively playing the hole successfully. Par can be lost by failing to execute aggressive or safe shots.

I would also have to disagre with the statement that BG does not ahve any holes that average less than 2.5 strokes. Just not many that are televised.

Clue said, "The only par 2s I've seen are 70ft long with no obstacles, and yes there are a few of those out there. But calling a 285ft hole with a 6ft high fence gaurding it 30ft short and water behind it a par 2 because a great field of players average 2.49 strokes on it in perfect weather is STUPID!"

There's a whole lot of grey area in between your 70ft par 2 and your 285ft par 3 (I wouldn't call any 285 ft. hole a par 2)

The course that I learned the game on has a 150 ft. hole that requires a shot to hit a moderate gap in order to have a tap in for 2. I've never aced it and rarely even go for it. I usually throw something low to land about 15 ft. short and scoot up to the pole. If 100 pros played the hole in a tournament 1 or 2 would ace it and 8-10 would get threes. The hole would average around 2.1 THE HOLE IS A PAR 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The concept of par in ball golf is defined by the average pro, not by Tiger Woods. There are only one or two tournaments per year where Tiger doesn't break par.

I believe that setting par based on rounding up or down the average of pro players on a particular hole is the way to go. The biggest question is how to define the average pro. Would we say the average of all the cashing players or the average of all the touring players or the average of all the open players.

We will never have the simple distance formulas for determining par that ball golf has. The one thing that I would like to have emerge from all this debate is some uniformity to the concept so that when people watch Disc TV one week they see the winner average something like -6 per round (18 hole rounds) and the next week something like -5 per round and at the USDGC something like -1 per round.

Ball golf does not have any holes that average less than 2.5 from the tees designed for the tour players. And they are not actually scratch golfers (0 handicap) where the calculations for par are referenced. They have negative handicaps. If they are playing the red tees on municipal courses, perhaps on very few holes they might average less than 2.5. But then those tees are designed for players where their par would be 3. We have par 2s because we play events on courses where we don't have the luxury of having scratch averages above 2.5 on every hole. Until that happens, we'll have par 2s. Holes with a par 2 rating are just one of the cool things about disc golf. A hole with a 2.4 scoring average can separate scores in a tournament as well as one with a 3.4 scoring average. Ya gotta get it.

The BG course rating system is complicated. They've created a veneer of simplicity with the blunt instrument par system of throws to the green plus 2 putts, but the actual course rating values can be quite different. This statement comes right from the USGA Handicap System, "Par is not an accurate measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course."

So the question is, "Do we want par to be an accurate measure of a disc golf course difficulty?" If the answer is 'no', then par 3 is fine as is any other simple system like length or KC or NorCal or even picking a reference number like 60 instead of 72 like BG. We then have to go through the gyrations just like BG to calculate artificial course ratings and bogey ratings to determine slope factors for every pin and tee combinations if anyone wants to really know how two courses with the same par really compare. We need to assign simple par, slopes and WCP for every course setup. Another downside is that every one of those simple systems proposed will generate scores at Supertours where the leaders are maybe 50 down by the Final 9 or 100 under at Worlds.

On the other hand, if we want par to be an accurate measure, then WCP has already taken all of the BG factors into account to determine the true scoring average of a course without needing any other conversion calculations or slope. The WCP is the true scoring average for our scratch golfers the same way the USGA Course Rating is sort of the true scoring average for ball golf's scratch players. However, BG has to go through additional evaluations to come up with a bogey rating to determine slope so non-scratch golfers know how tough a course is and what score they should be able to shoot. WCP doesn't require this because it's already embedded in the compression factor built into the calculations.

So with a single WCP number we get all the information needed. We know how tough one course is compared with another. We know what a scratch 1000 rated player should shoot on the course and individual holes. And, also any other player with a rating can estimate what they might shoot. Considering that WCP is tied to the PDGA player ratings anyway, what benefit is gained by having an alternate par system that requires additional information to be meaningful?

And, contrary to Dr. Fred and some others, a WCP can be estimated accurately without having a PDGA event at a course.

To the average hack golfer, does the actual difficulty of a BG course get noticed. They look at the generic par for a round.

We need something for the general public that they can easily understand posted at the course. What is on the score cards at PDGA events is a different matter. What is kept in the course directory as an indication of difficulty is a different matter.

If we want a system that can be readily identified with by newcomers to the sport, and something that is meaningful to the touring players, then yes we do need two seperate systems for two very distinct reasons.

The simple system used to mark the tee signs requires very little work, and should not be a problem to implement on a local level. The other more meaningful system would take the same amount of effort to maintain with or without the simple system. If tied to the course directory on line, it would be available to anyone who cared to use it to compare his/her game to the pros.

If the meaningful system is to be maintained anyway, why not use it in the situations that it is really meaningful, and allow the rest of the casual world to play a game with Tee signs that make sense to them ?

Par means "Take whatever Ken Climo gets and add one stroke."

The thread I posted on has a heading "can we please define par??!!?!?!?"What is so wrong with following the yellow brick road that has been paved for us by the means of "ball" golf. BTW, Chuck and those on his side of the fence, the WCP should actually be called WCA or world class average!!!

Ken is right. We changed the terminology earlier this year in our official ratings documents to Scratch Scoring Average SSA (same as WCA) for the course rating for a 1000 rated player that comes from tournament scores. The World Class Par WCP is really what the course pro would set, based on reviewing perhaps the average of several SSA values, as the rounded off par value for the course.

For example, the SSA values for each round at USDGC this year were: 68.8, 68.2, 69.4 and 67.6. Harold set the par for the course at 68 but the SSA values average 68.5 meaning that maybe WCP could be set at 69 with hole #11 being a par 6 instead of 5.

What would the "throws 2" method generate for Par on the USDGC course? Assuming that you add two once you are within 100 feet or so.

PAR - The expected integral score of a scratch player on a given hole, allowing two putts per green. Determined almost exclusively on the basis of length, with some modifications for topography or elevation, but not for relative difficulty. Par-3 is any hole under 250 yards for men (200 for women), par-4 between 251 and 470 yards (201-400 yards for women); and par-5 over 471 yards for men (over 401 yards for women)

definition from "The Anatomy of a Golf Course", by Tom Doak, foreword by Ben Crenshaw.

Given these parameters, how would we translate this definition to disc golf? On average, disc golf courses are 1/3 the length of a ball golf course so using this simple conversion, that would give us:
Par 3 - under 250'
Par 4 - 251' to 470'
Par 5 - over 470'

In my humble opinion, these distances need to be tweaked somewhat to something like:
Par 3 - under 350'
Par 4 - 351' to 570'
Par 5 - over 570'

What does everyone else think about these distances? What should they be?

Considering the fact that many players can throw over 350' with good accuracy there is no reason not to up the Par 3 distance to something like 475' or so. Theres nothing wrong with making par a difficult score to achieve.
Par 3 - under 475'
Par 4 - under 700'
Par 5 - under 925'

Remember that putting in disc golf is not 2 putts per hole on average.

I still think that DG holes have much greater variability in difficulty than BG at any particular distance. For argument sake, though, here's how I'd entertain your concept:

When they wrote the golf par definition you quoted 250 yards was the max distance a typical pro would drive the golf ball, thus the cut-off point between a par 3 and 4. A 470 yard hole required a drive and a 3 wood and constituted the shortest of the par 5's. Today a 500 yard par 5 is considered short and many are around 600 yards.

I would equate a disc golf drive of about 375 ft. with the 250 yards that the USGA used in the quotation. I would argue that any lie relatively unobstructed within 150 ft. of the basket be considered "on the green". I know this concept of the green will be met with disagreement. How often do we make shots from 150 ft.? How often does a pro player go for it from 150 ft.? The question that should be asked is: should a pro player be expected to get up and down from 150 ft. without any difficult obstacles?

Thus I would make the following rough distance parameters:
par 3 - under 525'
par 4 - 526' to 850'
par 5 - over 850'

But these numbers reflect relatively no hazards, wind or elevation consideration, roller consideration, etc. and would be useful only as a general guide for those unacquainted with the pro game.

One of my favorite courses is Idlewyld in Northen Kentucky. The par 5's measure 588 ft., 609 ft., 1001 ft. and 651 ft. A birdie 4 is possible on all the holes and well earned. It is possible to make an eagle 3 on the 1001 ft. hole with a 30 ft. putt, but not on the other holes. (Throw a 400 ft. first drive and then crush 600 ft. off a huge hill over a creek and thread the trees by the pin)

However we proceed I am in favor of three basic concepts:
1) Collecting data to compare the relative difficulty of different courses so that fans can look at the numbers and know that Barry's 52 on course A was good, my 46 on course B sucked and Double G's 65 on course C was incredible.
2) Posting tee signs on new courses that include a pro par. I don't care if an "am", "beginner", or "frisbee" par is listed in addition, but I believe we do a diservice to the game to only list a par on tee signs that a beginner can step right up and "par" half the holes. I can hear people crying right now, "if we make it too hard no one will want to come back and play again". - TELL THAT TO THE USGA!
3) Keep building new courses with more par 4's and 5's. I don't necessarily think par has to be 70-72 and I do think that par 27 recreational courses are one of the best tools to help grow the sport, but I love playing GOLF on courses with par 60, 62, 65, 68, etc.

The examples you guys put for distances would sound just fine if disc golf courses looked more like a ball golf course.

What about the tree factor? Or large elevation changes? Disc golf courses do not always have wide open fairways with only slight elevation changes. How would you factor in the difficulty level?

I'm going to combine Lance's &amp; Denny's answers:

a par 3 is up to about 450'
a par 4 is between 650' and 850'
a par 5 is over 1000;

holes between 450' and 650' are really tweeners, they're either really easy 4's or really difficult 3's.

Of course this is for relatively flat open holes. Those distances can be modifed if there are true doglegs, heavy woods or eleveation.

�Besides, you could say we've got throws 2 that actually works, but that's also an opinion.�

But the fact remains that it does not work. And certainly not all of the time. Whereas WCP works, and ALL OF THE TIME.

Tiger Woods is certainly a 1000 plus ball golfer. Ask him if Par 2 holes exist in Ball Golf. Ones where if he doesn�t get a 2 he essentially KNOWS that he has bogied. He knows he F�ed up because there will be other 1000 plus golfers rolling through with easy 2s on that hole.

Largely, our aversion to Par 2s arises from the vast majority of courses with WCP well below 54. If you can�t figure out a way to get your courses WCP up to 54 then you quite obviously have holes that fully deserve the perceived stigma of being called �Par 2�. Personally I don�t think that it is a stigma. If a hole has a rating of 2.34 then I would prefer to know that it is a Par 2, than to have to guess, or think of it in the same terms as a hole with a WCP of 2.89 or 3.45. There is a huge difference! Why people want to, or think that they can, fool themselves is pure lunacy.

Disc Golf has a standard, a standard that Ball Golf is just waking up to. A standard that says, here is the average par round of 1000 rated disc golfers and here is the average par per hole of these 1000 rated disc golfers. Any disc golfer playing a round at any rated course in the world can know how they compare to a 1000 rated golfer, or any disc golfer with a rating for that matter. Maybe this isn�t your understanding of par, nonetheless it is the BEST definition of par available to disc golf. And yes it is superior to ball golfs loose use of the word.

Too complicated. 1000 rated disc golfers and their associated stats required. Doesn't take into account new pin placements, multiple pin placements, and so on. Assumes 1000 rated disc golfers will play the course in a given period of time. Doesn't rapidly adjust to course changes.

WCP as a rating of course difficulty, yes. As par on an individual hole, no. Why? Because it doesn't work all of the time.

Those distances, in my opinion, seem to be a little excessive if you are using ball golf's parameters for par. (which I was)

"The expected integral score of a scratch player on a given hole, allowing two putts per green. Determined almost exclusively on the basis of length, with some modifications for topography or elevation, but not for relative difficulty."

A scratch golfer in disc golf is a mid to low level Pro player or a mid to high level Amateur player. What percentage of these players can drive a disc 400-500 feet in order to have 2 putts on a par 3? Even low level ball golfers can usually reach the green on a par 3!

One more time, what any hole's par is or isn't doesn't matter unless one is playing some from of handicap match play.

Since the PDGA currently doesn't support handicapping of any sort, what par is or isn't for any particular hole is all irrelevant. Just hole out in as few strokes as possible.

In the handicap play, if a hole (with average 2.6) is judged as a par 2, it may become one of the more difficult holes on the course (say the 3rd hardest hole). If the 2.6 hole is judged to be par 3, it's an easy hole (say 16th hardest hole).

If Bubba has a 3 handicap and Bobo has an 8 handicap, Bobo would get an extra stroke on the 5 hardest holes in handicap match play (as well as various gambling games like handicap skins).

With the hole above defined as a par 2, this means Bobo would get an extra stroke to hole out. If Bobo got the hole in 2, he'd win the hole unless Bubba aced it. On the other hand, if the hole above is considered a par 3, Bobo and Bubba would be playing straight up for a par 3. In other words, to win that hole, either Bubba or Bobo would have to get one stroke less than the other.

Why doesn't the PDGA have much interest in handicapping? While there are undoubtably many rationalizations for this position, the end effect of not developing handicapping in DG is that the better players tend to end up winning more money/prizes over lesser skilled opponents. Guess who writes the rules and develops PDGA policies -- the better players. Consciously or not, they're protecting their turf (pocketbooks) by their insistance that handicapping isn't desirable in DG...


With appropriately defined handicap system and play, the competitive field is reasonably flat over a wide range of skill levels. This means that who wins on any particular round of play is the player (regardless of skill level) who performs the best according to their historically developed skill level.

Nick, If you insist on using this WCP concept to...I don't know....rate a course, then don't insist on calling it par. You can't "redefine" par, dude- it already is what it is. What you are trying to cram down our throats (Chuck is a little more suave and subtle about it, but not much) is akin to trying to redefine MLBs slugging percentage. "No, Jeff Bagwell's slugging percentage isn't .650, it's .585 because of a 10% adjustment for the size of ENRON Field. 40% of his homers only count as triples because they would have been caught elsewhere."

Your rating system seems to work well, but it ain't par. Par dictates that a wide open, flat 530' hole is probably one of the easiest birdies on the course, but also sees a big downhill 530'er as a challenging par three. A similar distance straight uphill (think 18 at Boylan's) is probably a par 5. That was [*****] SURE an eagle 3 if you could bag it back then.

PAR is older and bigger than you, Nick- because it goes beyond disc golf and is a concept for ALL golf. Better luck revamping NHLs points system.

Well said Daniel! I think I'll say it again. PAR IS OLDER AND MUCH WISER THAN YOU ARE NICK KIGHT.

Fred: Per the USGA the par on the scorecard is irrelevant for handicapping purposes. Holes are not ranked in order of difficulty relative to par. Holes are ranked by comparing a pool of low handicap players with a pool of high handicap players and finding the holes where there is the largest gap in scores between the two groups. Many times an "easy" par 5 is the number one handicap hole because many of the low handicap players will get a 4 and many of the high handicap players will get a 6 or 7. Here's an article from the USGA website that explains:

http://www.usga.org/handicap/articles/text/101_Equalizer.html

Brian: For the par distances I suggested one doesn't have to drive 400-500 feet, but I define the green area as within 150 feet. Many disc golfers consider anything outside of 35 or 40 or 60 feet not to be a putt. I would equate those distances with 5, 8, and 15 feet in ball golf. I would consider a 150 foot putt in disc golf to be like a 50-60 foot putt in ball golf.

Thank you all for a terrific thread - gotta go to work

Brian to echo what Denny said:
First of all, putting is far easier in DG than it is in BG. Our pros expect to hit every 30' putt unless there are serious obstacles on the green. Therefore, two-putts to hole-out from the 10m circle doesn't work as the definition of the green. Expand that putting range out to 100' or more and it works much better. Any hole where the average pro (say he drives 375') can get within 100' of the pin is a par 3.

And for the record, I am a mid-level pro (rating 961) and I can easily drive 400'-425', so maybe my vision is towards the long side.

BTW Nick, when you say a hole that averages 2.34 should be a par 2 your just rounding off is this MATH or is it golf? Also you would have to ace the hole to score a birdie and have no chance at an eagle since you can't score a ZERO. Our sport is called disc GOLF not disc MATH or disc WCP, in regards to getting the general public involved, most people already understand what par is and it is not because of disc golf, it is due to the fact there is a sport called GOLF that has been around for 400 years or so. disc GOLF disc GOLF disc GOLF disc GOLF disc GOLF!!!!!

It seems like the WCP proponents are getting it backwards. In ball golf, my understanding is that they have a system that takes mainly distance into account for assigning the par on a particular hole. This is a system that is as old as the hills, and it came first. THEN we want to define what a scratch, or 1000 rated, golfer is. It is someone who shoots PAR on the course. The concept and definition of Par come first, and from that springs the concept of scratch golfer.

Aren't the WCP proponents doing it the opposite way? Defining who is a scratch golfer, and then from that determining what Par is. TOTALLY backwards.

btl.

OK, pardon me. I thought that we were talking about what would be the BEST and most ACCURATE indicator of PAR. Not what ball golf or people feel more comfortable thinking of as par.

You guys are right then, par is how many throws it takes to get to a putt or the green and then 2 or 1 throws to hole out. That's much simpler, works all of the time, and won't ruffle the feathers of the ball golfers of whom we are ugly sisters.

I think I'll say it again. PAR IS OLDER AND MUCH WISER THAN YOU ARE NICK KIGHT.

Actually it's not, particularly as it hasn't even been established yet in DISC GOLF, which happens to be the sport we play, not stick and dimple ball.

So go ahead and use any of the variety of guestimate par ideas out there for setting you course and hole pars. It will always be less accurate and useful than WCP. ALWAYS.

How is determining a hole that averages 2.34 a par 2 accurate? Par 2.34 would be most accurate in my eyes. Don't you think, Nick?

"It will always be less accurate and useful than WCP. ALWAYS."

Apples and oranges Nick. WCSA is a very _useful_ and _accurate_ tool for rating the difficulty of a hole. There is no reason that I have seen that we should use the WCSA as the Par for the hole, or as the basis on which par is calculated (ie rounding up or down).

Using the WCSA as the basis for Par is nothing more than taking useful and meaningful data and forcing it into a place where it doesn't belong.

No one is arguing that WCSA isn't useful, or isn't necessary. The only point of contention is that it not be used beyond where it naturally fits. The Scoring Average on a hole is NOT the Par for that hole.

btl.

Can't we all just get along? KC Par plus WCSA as a "slope" factor. That way you use the same par that all the world knows, plus you know whether that -5 was okay, good, or lights out.

I don't think we have to do everyhting ball golf does, but this actually makes sense and is similar. Which is when I think we should be like ball golf.

You da man btl.

BTW, Rhett that would be called par not KC par.

Bee Tee eL: The USGA didn't just pull those distances out of their rear-ends. They used distances that expert players would hit the ball. In order to define par you must certainly first define the pro or expert player and then say what they should expect to make on a hole allowing two putts.

Simple steps to determine par on any hole:
(1) Define Pro
(2) Define the Green
(3) Determine how many throws it will take for the Pro to hit the Green under "normal" circumstances.
(4) Add 2 to the total from (3)

More complicated, whimsical formula:
Assuming KC = Tiger
I'll say that I'm average Joe Public Course Pro.
I hearby volunteer to play every disc golf course in America 10 times, average and round my score on every hole to determine par for every hole in the country. Does anyone want to sponsor me?

O.K. I really do have to go to work now.

p.s. Would anyone who happens to live in the Sarasota area be interested in a 2:30 tee time on Thursday at the big course? I'm flying down for the MLO and have room for two more in the group and would love to play with some locals.

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">"If you insist on using this WCP concept to...I don't know....rate a course, then don't insist on calling it par. You can't "redefine" par, dude- it already is what it is"</FONT>

Daniel ... I think the reason this thread is so active is because we DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF PAR IN DISC GOLF! If there was generally accepted definition of par, the thread wouldn't have made it 3 posts long before someone placed a link with the definition.

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">"in regards to getting the general public involved, most people already understand what par is and it is not because of disc golf, it is due to the fact there is a sport called GOLF that has been around for 400 years or so"</FONT>

This is the problem Champ! Joe Q Public understands that par is the goal, and that goal will not be reached without a lot of hard work and practice. I have played BG about 20 times in my life and I have only parred a few holes...each one from a lucky shot (never had a BG birdie). What image does a newbie have when they can walk onto a DG course and shoot under par?

If we have a current system for defining par now, it isn't working very well. An amateur can walk onto one of our most difficult courses (Seneca for example) and shoot under the par listed on the signs. My uncle has been playing BG for 35 years and just shot par on a course for the first time this year. It was a real achievement...one he can brag about to his friends. Shouldn't we have somewhat similar goals in DG?

Danny, I would love to see a DG newbie shoot 68 on the u.s.d.g.c. layout which is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of par.

We don't have a Disc Golf Par definition. Some people want to calculate Par based on statistics, math, and the scientific method. This is something of a departure from ball golfs method.

Others want to use a simpler, throw / distance based method to determine what Par is. This, at least to the average joe, keeps the definition of Par very similar between ball golf and disc golf.

That is what this discussion is about.

btl.

How would that work on a course with a WCP of 45 Ken?

What par would your system come up for that one? 54 minimum right?

I'd be fine with a system like Ken�s or others work out based on throw, distance or weather predictions, just so long as they could be quantifiably verified and hold true at any course.

And yes Ken, I�d love to see WCP � 2.45 on tee signs rather than Par 2, 3, 4, 5. It would tell me a lot more about the hole.

And frankly, at this point I only care about what ball golfers think of our sport a little, a very little. Especially where we have been able to come up with a better more accurate and useful system for rating players and courses in less then 25 years.

Champ - the USDGC is using a par that is within a stroke of the WCP. Thanks for showing that WCP works /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

The pars listed on the tee signs at Seneca aren't anywhere close to the WCP for the course (I'm not bashing Seneca at all, just using an example).

We NEED consistancy across all the courses. It is in the sport's best interest.

We have a whole lotta par ideas floating aorund in this thread. That's why I called it "KC Par"! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Nick you keep saying WCP. It is not par it is an average hence WCA. In regards to a course that averages 45 by the top players the course design itself is to easy hence double digit under par rounds.

Don't get too high on that horse Danny. I said earlier, if all courses were designed as well as Winthrop or any John Houck design there would be no argument because throws 2 and WCP would be very similar (and are on those courses). WCP just does a better job of babying BAD disc golf holes. I really think that we need to decide whether to base these decisions off of what we hope our courses will be or all of the bad holes and courses that already exist.

Champ - the USDGC is using a par that is within a stroke of the WCP. Thanks for showing that WCP works. Once again it is an average not par. U.S.D.G.C. PAR is 68. World class average is 68.5 thanks for showing that good course design works!

Jim (and others) when you are talking about distances you have to remember where you are. I struggle to consistantly throw 350-375 in Iowa on a level surface, but down here in Arizona I'm easily 50-75 ft longer.

You go Clue, that would really bite if all the horrible course designs dictated what par is rather than how many throws it takes you to get there.

This post brought to you as NOT a member of the ratings committee:

Hmmm, what to call "what a 1000-rated player is expect to shoot"?

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Par</TD><TD>No. </TD></TR><TR><TD>WCP</TD><TD>Nope, "par" is already taken. </TD></TR><TR><TD>WCSA</TD><TD>Kind of long. </TD></TR><TR><TD>WCA</TD><TD>"World Class" is a little fuzzy. </TD></TR><TR><TD>Rating</TD><TD>Best not to insinuate it is the same as a ball golf rating. </TD></TR><TR><TD>K-factor</TD><TD>Ahhh, K is 1000, K-factor is what a 1000-rated player would shoot. But that will aggravate the nerds that know that K is really 1024. </TD></TR><TR><TD>M-rating</TD><TD>Hmmm, "M" from roman numerals, which we all all learn (for reasons unknown), and "rating" to draw parallels to the ball golf system. Unique, different, simple. I like it. But maybe a little too geeky? </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

By the way, I just did an M-rating for Mission Trails at the fly18 tournament earlier this year. Came up to 74.5 for a par 71 course.

rodney

I dont see what the tiffs about this thread are. As I see it, there is NO way do determine a difinitive PAR. It depends on too much...whats in the way, distance, elevation...You just cant say "This is the way we will do it and thats final".

Number of throws it takes to get within 100' for the 90th to 100th ranked players plus 2 strokes.

"This is the way we will do it and thats final"

Nannanaanaa, I just said it!

We can say this is the way we'll do it, but nothing is final.

We seem to be showing our blind spots here. Yes, we are essentially talking apples and oranges.

Apples - Par based on M-Rated Players.

Oranges - Par based on an undetermined set of throws plus an undetermined set of throws to hole out.

I could agree to a compromise, where a throw formula could be substantiated by what an M-Rated Golfer would shoot on average on that course.

I do not accept that any course par where an M-Rated Golfer averages under 54 still have a par of 54. To do so makes par equally meaningless to it's current every hole is par 3 convention.

If a throws per hole system, independent of mathematical considerations, could be proven to approach the accuracy of an M-Rated golfers average round then I would accept it and consider it worthy of use and support.

The fact is that we do not have a majority of our courses with pars of greater than 54 let alone 68. Practically, we won't for some time to come. In the mean time we need a par system that works for all PDGA Tournament Courses; ones where M-Rated golfers average 42 and where they average 69, and not a system that goes dumb on us when we hit below an average of 54.

Ken, so what was the par on a course where you average 42 over 20 rounds? 54 or 46? Which number is a better indicator of par? Which number has meaning to PDGA tournament disc golfers around the world (or will within the next couple of years)?

If your formula for par, or as you call it golf�s formula for par, can offer the same or greater accuracy and usefulness as par for an M-Rated Golfer then it will have my full support.

Regards,
Nick Kight

There are ball golf courses all over the world - most of them have a par of 72. Alot of these courses are easy enough that scratch golfers average under 72. They don't change the par to accomodate for this!

Par does not have to be an accurate indication of what expert players shoot. Expert players, by definition, will almost always shoot under par. That is part of being an expert!

One thing that we have to accept about disc golf is that it is an EASIER game than ball golf. It is not going to take a disc player a lifetime of effort to break par - at least not on the courses that we have now. On hi caliber courses like Winthrop Gold it might.

I think this is where you are stretching the definition of Par Nick. There are other indicators in Ball golf that help determine how a particular course compares to another, or what an M-Rated player might expect to shoot on the course.

We have to keep Par seperate from Scoring averages in order to preserve the integretiy of what Par is. If we blend the two, we no longer have Par, we just have a Score Average.

BTL - you are right that BG scratch golfers can average under 72 on a regular course, that is why they have a title of "scratch golfer". Scratch golfers by definition shoot par on the course.

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">"Par does not have to be an accurate indication of what expert players shoot." </FONT>

This is not true...the definition of ball golf's par is The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

Par is completely dependent on expert play.

None of this chat will ever make a difference because we play four rounds(usually) and add up the total. Par really doesn't matter and neither does the scoring average, but their both nice to have and should be kept separate. I.E. My total at the U.S.D.G.C. was 237 strokes, what can be more simple than that?

Par is par, and WCP is the rating!

Some courses are easy, where the WCP is lower than par. Few are harder, where the WCP is higher. A WELL DESIGNED course is close to WCP.

Ball golf scores vary from tournament to tournament. I see where the winners are -25 to
-30 at some events, and also noted where the British Open champ has finished over par. I guess the players playing the British Open would have gotten their ***** kicked by the local Pro?

Par is par.

We need a rating system to determine whether an 8 under par on a course is better/worse than a 2 under on another course. I would much rather shoot a 2 under at USDGC than a 6 under at my local course.

Instead of bickering over what "Par" should be on the poorly designed courses, why don't we focus on the poorly designed courses (the ones with the biggest difference in Par and the WCP-rating), and fix them.

PS - well designed courses should range from par 3's to par 5's. Please no Par 2's, easy par 3's - OK, but no par 2's.

Some are saying par should be x 2, where x is the number of throws it takes an expert to get to the green.

We have a 209 foot hole on our local course, you have to throw over a slight elevation change to get to it. My 7 year old son has scored 3 on it a few times. (And his physic is nothing to brag about.)

Nobody will ever convince me this is a par 3. That is why the formula of x 2 will never work.

To those making arguments that ball golf has a long standing tradition and disc golfers should follow it. The ball golf tradition is not as long as you think. It's my understanding that even today courses directors are rethinking their par ratings due to 1) technological changes enabling the players to score better, 2) highly skilled players making a mochary of par by their scores (merely through play, not verbally).

Why have an easy 209 hole?

Again, any difference between the SSA and "Par" for a hole should be a debate to change that holes design.

We all have our local courses, and we all have the holes that are automatic birdies. We should do a little tweaking of the hole to change the scoring on that hole, not a tweaking of the par to fit the scoring!

Expert scoring averages and par will never be exactly the same and that is fine (although they should be close). It would be nice to have a generally accepted definition of par so all the course pros/designers could get on the same page when listing par on the tee signs and score cards. Because we lack a definition for a "green" in DG, I think WCP/SSA/M-Factor, or whatever we want to call it works best. If something else works better for a guideline to determine par, then by all means lets use it. I just think that "number of throws" is too vague to use as a guideline.

OK, I'm done for the day ... I have to get to my kid's parent/teacher conference /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

On a 209' hole, you're starting on the green (depending on how we define the green) /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Maybe the fringe at best!

Clue, are you talking about trees when you mention that you can throw further in Arizona, or someting else? Yes, obviously my distance recomendations for par were for wide open holes, and can be changed due to doglegs, obstacles, terrain or elevation.

There's a beautiful Par-4 on the meadow course at Circle-R that is probably just slightly over 400'. Houck, if you're reading this, could you fill in the details: I think it's #9; tee on the right side of a creek, but the basket is on the left. The fairway gets tighter as you go, and it's a slight anhyzer (RHBH) to the landing zone which is still on the right side. I got the birdie-3 once, but it took two great (though not long) shots to get to the putting area.

In ball golf (here comes another 'this isn't bg' post), they have beginner courses that are referred to as pitch and putts. Usually nine holes, all par threes. Most holes about 150 yards. A pro would come through and shoot -6 to -9, average per hole much closer to 2 than 3. They don't seem to mind this. It is a beginners course, not Augusta. They also feel no need to call par on the holes as '2'.

Why do we feel that we have to have a par 2 on the 209' hole? Is there a problem with someone's kid or wife getting a par once and awhile? A problem with a newer player building up confidence on a beginner course by shooting par? BG doesn't seem to think so, and the new players love the easy starter courses.

Steady Ed came up to New Berlin, WI and put the final blessing on Valley View. Short course, average hole length about 200', a regular putter shooter's gallery. All par threes, and the locals who hadn't played before ate it up and filled the place just as Ed predicted. Its a great beginners course, and who cares what the WCP would be on it. We're not applying to hold the Worlds there, just like the PGA isn't going to be held on a pitch and putt.

Ok, I'm starting to come around to the idea that there are no par-2s, just really-poorly-designed, far-too-easy par-3s. However, it seems many people are just as opposed to calling an 800' hole a par-4. I'd love to see some objective criteria (preferably something simple like distance, elevation and obstacle density) used so that any course pro can label their hole-by-hole pars consistantly across the world. At the same time, I'd like to see WCSA used in conjuction with the objective, standardized par to determine difficulty. i.e. a Course with a par of 68 but a WCP of 56 is pretty easy. And a course with a par of 54, but WCP of 56 would be pretty tough.

Go re-read the first post in this thread. I started this topic after watching discTV where we learned that Schweberger set a new course record of 2 (long to long at Warwick). That is far more ridiculous then accepting that Kenny shot a -18 in one round at worlds this year (and that I can shoot -12 to -14 pretty regularly at my home course).

Again, the 209' hole, or easy hole, isn't necessarily poorly designed. It just may be designed for someone that has not yet reached, or will ever reach, your skill level or length of throw. For a beginner, retired couple taking up the sport for exercise, young kid starting out, average recreational female player and so on, 200 feet may be perfect. It depends on the target audience that the course was designed for.

If I was designing a course for a scout camp, I would think that having the holes average 200 to 250 feet would be good course design. And they would be designated as par 3s or better.

good no par twos that means i shot 13 down on "a" course instead of 5 over.i feel much better about throwing my putter on every hole now....

-12 to -14 regularly.....please....not when i've been there /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

When you guys figure out what par is, let me know.

Perhaps you need to find a course that better suits your abilities. If your shooting 40 to 42 regularly for 18 holes on this course, you're not being challenged. It really isn't pertinent whether you call this -14 or 5.

even though it isn't about me...that's why i don't play that course and whine about living in a city where the course blows tim....i'm only playing it for the 500 dollar ace fund /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

plus it is funny that a guy who hasn't played it for 15 months can win

Another ball golf analogy to ponder.

If I go and play our local TPC course in Tampa or Sarasota, I have the choice to tee it up from the White or the Blue Tee markers. However, the par from both tee pads is 72!

Imagine that, how can two totally different layouts be the identical par?

I got a little game, and the different pads probably cost me 6 shots a round. When submitting the score for handicap purposes, you would enter the ratings of the course played. Therefore, the rating and slope of the white and blue differ, and reconcile the diferences. WCP-rating is discs way to distinguish between the layouts played.

As far as our best players shooting -18 in a round at the worlds? I didn't see the course, but 18 birdies, or combo of birdies and eagles, would make one ask about course design, or how they assigned par. I have assumed it wasn't a par 54! I know the champs good, but...

Keith, any course that you throw your putter as a driver every hole should not be relavent to this discussion. These are for the newcomers to the game, juniors, super seniors, etc. (or for pros who want a $500 payout)

This would be disc golf's "executive course" design. Previously described as a pitch and putt, etc.

Par is relavent to courses that hold tournaments, more relavent to courses that hold bigger tournaments.

Bottom line is that good tournaments that hold major tournaments, should have great course design, that will ultimately be consistent with WCP-rating.

By Jim G on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 02:50 pm:

There's a beautiful Par-4 on the meadow course at Circle-R that is probably just slightly over 400'. Houck, if you're reading this, could you fill in the details: I think it's #9; tee on the right side of a creek, but the basket is on the left. The fairway gets tighter as you go, and it's a slight anhyzer (RHBH) to the landing zone which is still on the right side. I got the birdie-3 once, but it took two great (though not long) shots to get to the putting area.

You just happen to be talking about one of my favorite holes in the world. It's number 8, and it's a lot longer than you think. I'm 95% certain it's over 500ft. You are right about the strategy. I have always thrown roc off the tee which usually goes between 250-300, but I still have a 250-300ft approach which I usually throw a longer disc than on the drive because it requires a little more stability.

But the point you are missing is that it still comes down to a basic throws 2. Just because the throws are a little shorter doesn't change anything because there aren't longer throws available on that hole. Even if you did something ridiculous off the tee and rolled all the way down the right side, you may still have a tricky 100ft approach over the creek and through a relatively tight gap and then you're looking at a birdie putt 3 or 2putt par 4.

i know chef...believe me every sat and sunday i am reminded of the state(florida) of discgolf i left and the course i have now /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Win the $500, and come on back, Cliff Stevens this weekend - gotta few openings!

last ace in florida was at cliff.......i wish..i hope to maybe go back for memorial day national tour....if not i'll be in florida at least twice next year and for sure at xmas time 2003...maybe i'll see you then.....

say hi to johnny mccray and ken for me when you see them again.....keith

Which hole did you ace? This may be cause for a par 2, or at minimum redesign - HA.

Clue, I wasn't missing the point, I think I was making it. That particular hole is a fantastic par-4, but few other holes at that length (500, 425, whatever it really is) are. Distance alone does not dictate par, but it is certainly a major factor.

There are so many DG holes that are 250' - 350' that are incredibly easy par-3s, that when you throw the occastional 700' hole on the course, we're reluctant to call it a par-4. Why? Because (for the most part) realistic good scores for the course are still far below 54, so we fall back to calling everything a par-3 whether it's a true par-4, or a true par-2.

Both fly 18 courses have dual sets of tees that both play at the same par as the course.San Diego is a par 71 am tees play 2222 ft shorter and are still a real challenging.Sarasota is par 72 and over 3000 ft. shorter.Par means something on these courses. BIGGER IS BETTER./msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif):

Longer more open courses aren't better. Courses that have a few well defined routes to the next landing area or basket that offer an reasonable shot at par if executed properly, and a good probability of bogey if played poorly are better.

Not just holes through the forest that have no reasonable line, but holes that have a defined playable line (maybe only 6 feet wide) that forces a specific shot. If it is a right to left hyzer line and you are right handed you need a RHFH. If it is a short hole with thick trees and no line through you need to be able to go over.

This makes a good course. Holes that force course management, not just throw down there, approach and putt. Or get around that one tree and you are putting.

Longer more open courses may not be better, but longer courses with a variety of hazards like trees, water, ob bunkers and where every shot presents risk/reward situations that make you ponder your shot are great fun and are the future. GnDuke, have you played a Fly-18 course yet?

Maybe this has been touched on, but it just hit me. If the WCP on a hole is 3.49, it's a par 3. So out of every 100 putts, 1 chain out, 1 pass through, or even just a 10ft gack is going to determine par for the hole. Nice system.

Oh and sorry Jim, that was a bad choice of words. You were making that point. I just got lost daydreaming of what I have now determined to be my second favorite hole in the world. Hole 5 at Winthrop is #1 still despite me taking 19 strokes to negotiate it in 2 rounds.

Some thoughts regarding par and rating:

- Mission Hills (Fly18) has a par of 71 and a rating of 74.5 (rating is 3.5 from par). The winner shot -3, -3.

- Winthrop Gold (USDGC) has a par of 68 and a rating of about 69 (rating is 1 from par). The winner averaged -9 per round.

- The Ozark course has a par of 70 and a rating of about 68 (rating is -2 from par). The winner in a tournament a couple weeks ago shot -8, -8 on the two rounds there.

- It is quite common for PGA Tour courses to have a rating 2 or 3 or 4 points higher than par. For examples, go to www.tpc.com. (http://www.tpc.com.) And even with a rating that high relative to par, the winners still average under par.

- Given what we have to work with in disc golf, it is very difficult to make a course have a rating near or above par. Mission Hills employs length. USDGC employs artificial OB.

- It is a great course design challenge to get the rating near the par without making the course stupid (as in stupid-long, stupid-tight, stupid-gimmicky).

- It is my opinion that as disc golf continues to grow, more courses, and especially natural courses, with high rating/par ratios will become more common, especially for our premier players at our premier events.

- It is my opinion that it is in the best interest of our game to push this par and rating mentality, and seek out high rating/par ratio courses for our top events (majors and national tour).

(Disc golf and ball golf rating are obviously NOT the same thing. But I think the parallels are obvious.)

rodney

chef..number 6 292 feet at cliff......slight s thru the trees and nothing but chains....couldn't see it of course...people on next tee said it was in........during tourney in nov 2000....keith

FLY 18 has made some rule changes on golf courses to be like our brother GOLF..Discs allowed in bag max are 14 mini not included same as golf clubs.There is no relief from a bad lie if it is in the field of play if you want relief take a stroke.All bunkers and greens are ob take a stroke .These changes have been working verry well on all the courses.CHANGE IS GOOD PAR IS FAIR The experience is UNFORGETABLE.God Bless DISC GOLF>>>>>>>>/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Reese, please try to keep your spam down to one thread.

Thanks.

Fellow PDGA Members,

Ken is right, tournament play doesn't particularly care about par, par would have more significance in handicap play Dr. Fred reminds us about ad nausea. Still par could have possible uses in training and explaining. Training for disc golfers who do not have many M-Rated Disc Golfers around to compare their game to, and explain a par with some verifiable meaning to non-disc golf sponsors and spectators.

There are obvious reasons for wanting a par similar to the one ball golf uses. Mainly that it is one that is generally understood by the average person, so we don�t have to start from scratch in explaining it. People will just know. Ball golf par�s definition: �The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.�

Please consider the following:

Now we could take this statistical scratch disc golfer (M-Rated) and say, ok, let�s see how may throws it takes you to on average reach the �green� (yet to be defined), then the average to hole out (yet to be defined) and base our idea of par on this.

Or we could take this statistical scratch disc golfer (M-Rated) and say, ok, let�s see how many throws it takes you to on average hole out on this hole and base our idea of par on this.

Why base par on partial information when full and verifiable information is available? How can we hope to more closely achieve a meaningful par than by using WCP? Disc Golf�s definition of what a scratch golfer (M-Rated) is, is one that ball golf is just now starting to factor into their definition of par. We are actually ahead of the game here!


OK, the argument goes, �Well we don�t have any Scratch Golfers (M-Rated Disc Golfers) around here and we don�t hold PDGA events, so how are we supposed to generate a WCP or par for our holes and course?�

Well, why do you want one in the first place? What purpose would it serve? Would you want the par to have meaning to a person from out of town? Would your local players like to know how they stack up against players from around the World?

Well, whatever reasons you decide are reason enough to want a par; there is a way for you to get one; good one at that.

In our PDGA Disc Golf Ratings System there is what is called a �Propagator� (not an Alligator- though the way they snap up our prize money they could be mistaken for one.) These Propagators are PDGA members with Player Ratings above 900 (soon this will be 800) whose scores if averaged and the difference between their rating and an M-Rated Disc Golfer factored can give you a strong if not exact indication of WCP. The more Propagators used in this calculation the more exact the WCP. Walla! Your course now has a WCP and your local and visiting disc golfers access to all of the benefits you wanted in the first place!

The system Jim hints at sounds more complicated and far less accurate than what we already have available to us in WCP as do the other estimated par systems. All of which would still be completely reliant on what an M-Rated Disc Golfer would average anyway!

Ball golf and it�s knowledge base is a tool for us to use as we see fit and as it suits our specific needs. Ball golf is not the ends only one possible means to our own ends.

Sincerely,
Nick Kight
PDGA #4861

Jim G, It is not spam!
A friend and myself drove from Philadelphia, pa to Columbus, oh to play in one of Reese's tournies. It was by far the best dic golf my friend and I have ever played. The course was long but it did have the best risk vs. reward.

I have been playing for 2 years now and he over 12 years. His appreciation for the sport and the amount of courses he has played really came out when we played at bridgeview.
You should give it a shot, you may like it!
MikeM

Yeah Jim, quit being such a sourpuss. We could keep the thread on topic about par, but I like having people come in every thread and try to relate it to something they're selling. I hate it when EVERY post is pertinant to the thread, especially when I have the option of opening a separate thread about fly 18. Ahhhhh, but that would be a lot of trouble. I'd rather stick to one thread and view lots of subjects. Heck, that's the only reason I ever know what's going on in Texas.

Yeah Jim, cut it out.

CAN WE PLEASE DEFINE "SPAM"??!!?!?!?

/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Is it on-topic to tell someone to stay on-topic?

By the way, I enjoy Reese's little excursions into the Fly-18 par stories.

2 things you can EASILY do to make PAR better and imporve the sport overall 1) take all or at least the outside chains off the baskets 2) elimitate runup on shots other than tee.

* Imagine that, how can two totally different layouts [blue and white] be the identical par? *

Scratch golfers might normally score the same on either tee. However, bogey golfers (and less than scratch golfers) wouldn't.

This is why BG courses (tee sets) have a course rating AND slope. The slope is more relevant for most players, not course rating. It reflects the difficulty of the course for bogey DGers (and scratch DGers who make errant throws).

He didn't talk about par, he talked about disc limits and OB.

Michael, I've played two of Reese's courses, and I love them. But that doesn't mean that I want to read about how he's going to save the world with Fly-18 tee pads, or that we should give up on the thousands of existing DG courses and only play at the two courses that exist on ball golf courses in every single thread on this message board.

spam Pronunciation Key (spm)
n.

Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

tr.v. spammed, spam�ming, spams

1. To send unsolicited e-mail to.
2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.

Jim G, that's what the whole Internet knows as spam. Here in Disc Golf, though, we like to measure the number of posts, calculate their relative worth, compare that to the most frequent posters, assign a 2-decimal precision number to each post, then call it spam.

rodney

Wouldn't that be World Class Spam?

I apologize; I thought his descriptions in his last post about ....
("There is no relief from a bad lie if it is in the field of play if you want relief take a stroke. All bunkers and greens are ob take a stroke")
were descriptions on how he determines par do to difficulty on some of the holes on his course set up.
I apparently misunderstood him. (Seriously)
MikeM

What a nut house...

DOES THIS MEAN I AM SPAM........ SPAM I AM...... I have only been on line for 20 days in 41 YEARS.I have a lot of time to make up.I didnt even know I was spamming till 8 day ago...I just learned the smiley face from RHETT and use it often.Fly 18 wants be an extension to disc golf.I love the parks, I love the carts ,,Thanks Lance Im hungry for a SPAM SANDWITCH on tost.The most popular meat in Hawaii..maps is spam backwards/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Speaking of "throws 2", did you know:

At the USDGC, if you could manage the "throws" part, and just get to the "green" in the right number of "throws" (some people might call this "in regulation"), you could have 2-putted every single hole, and still been 3 strokes into the cash.

For the 16 rounds I watched in person<SUP>1</SUP>, the players made it to the green<SUP>2</SUP> in regulation 52.4% of the time.

For the times they made it to the green in regulation, they made birdie or better 43.4% of the time. They made worse than par only 3.4% of the time.

For the times they didn't make it to the green in regulation, they saved par (or better<SUP>3</SUP>) 46.9% of the time, which means they made bogey or worse 53.1% of the time.

In short:
<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>Green In Regulation</TD><TD>Birdie or Better</TD><TD>Par</TD><TD>Worse </TD></TR><TR><TD>Yes (52.4%)</TD><TD>43.4%</TD><TD>53.2%</TD><TD>3.4% </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Green In Regulation</TD><TD></TD><TD>Par or Better</TD><TD>Worse </TD></TR><TR><TD>No (47.6%)</TD><TD></TD><TD>46.9%</TD><TD>53.1% </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

The average score for these 16 rounds was 72.2, or about 4 over par.

rodney

<SUP>1</SUP> The 16 rounds I watched were Clue's groups the first two days and Special K's groups the second two days.

<SUP>2</SUP> I determined the player "made the green" if they used a putting stroke, including jump putting, even if laying up.

<SUP>3</SUP> In one case, a player did not make the green in regulation, but threw in a non-putt, thus making birdie without making the green in regulation.

Simple par (throws 2) - This goes on the tee sign.

WCP - Goes on the tee sign smaller and underneath simple par if at all. Maybe it goes on the score card and you'd definitely want to know what WCP for the course is.

Slope - This one is imperative as well.

The foundation for our sport are people who throw under 300'. If you use WCP for standard par, these people will never birdie. Let them think a 200' hole is a par three. If you know better, then more power to you. Keep them coming back should be the ultimate concern. I don't care if the WCP for the hole is 2.2 it is still a par 3. WCP par for the course as a whole is much more useful of a tool for the informed of our sport to see how they did relative to scratch par. Rounding a WCP 2.4 for a hole to a par 2 does not make any sense in relation to what everyone's ultimate concern is. A good deal of alienation from what is most important is necessary to think that WCP rounding up or down hole by hole can set the standard par for any given hole.

This all came to me last night when talking with my girlfriend, who plays pro women, and she said she'd never birdie using the WCP system. In fact, at Minnesota World's she never had a birdie after 8 rounds of golf because of all the holes labled as par 2. How encouraging to her do you think that was? Do we want women in the sport? Then forget about rounding down and calling holes par 2.

We've currently got 75 MPO scracth golfers. They know what par is for them. Don't think that such a minority segment of the disc golf population should dictate what par is to everyone. WCP is awesome I love it and thanks for making it come about. The Champ sure did speak the truth about what par is.

From reading this thread it appears that if we all voted on the issue that this is roughly the way it would go. So yes, our top golfers could be over 100 under at worlds. LIVE WITH IT!

I'd go into a crusade about how we can make putting more difficult so that throws 2 mathematically makes more sense before adjusting the concept of par. IMO, the emphasis should be on vertical flight when holing out rather than horizontal. Drop that baby in the chainless, poleless ultra deep rimmed basket. Now we are golfing! You want to make our sport look more credible? IMO, this is the most important issue that we could address in our sport. We don't want to address it becuase we want it easy! How else do you explain the popularity of chains? Ball golfers might as well have made a cup the size of a basketball hoop to make it as easy as we have chosen to make it for ourselves.

I've posted before that we had a Supertour this year decided on a knife out the back of the chains. Random spitouts and knife throughs make the sport look oh so credible don't they?

Hmmmmmm? Not bad.

You ever heard of snow balls in hades though?

Par is something for hackers to shoot at.
WCA is something for serious player to shoot at.
Par should be marked on the Tee signs.
WCA should be available to those want it.
Courses designers who intend the course be used for tournament play should try to bring these numbers closer together, if the course is designed for recreational it doesn't really matter.

Brian, the extra info on tee signs would be great. No reason that on rated courses during Tournaments of Consequence (TM) that that couldn't be done, (albeit probably with the ever-underrated volunteer factor).

As for losing credibility for knife-throughs or other flukes, I'm not so sure. All sports look silly to the uninitiated. Baseball's a bunch of guys in knickerbockers scratching themselves standing around and spitting most of the time and basketball's ridiculous dashes from one end of the court to the next is kinda funny.

The venerable ball golf has had it's lip outs complete with 180 degree denials on otherwise great looking putts, no doubt more than once for a major win (or loss!)

The proportion of a golf ball to the tin cup is roughly equal to the disc/basket ratio isn't it?

Again, I've no real point, just a wastin' thread space.

I agree with gnduke!

I'd like to know more about the slope factor. Is it calculated using the standard deviation of the scores shot by scratch golfers from WCP? The greater the variance, the higher the slope, the more difficult the hole is?

I'd like to see all those numbers on a score card. The only thing needed on the tee sign is simple par.

If I get a two on a hole of WCP 2.2 it was one/fifth a birdie. Two a hole of WCP 2.8 then almost a whole birdie. Take a four on a hole of WCP 3.4 then it was just over half a bogie. In my mind I weigh out the score relative to the WCP for the hole. Holes you can't even get half a birdie on unless you ace can be boring. When communicating with others about how I did everything is in terms of simple par.

WCP for my home course is between 44-50 depending on the set up. Anytime I shoot less than 54 I state how many under par I shot eventhough it's usually over what WCP for the setup is. Then in my mind I'll figure my score in relation to WCP and try to figure my rating for the round.

And oh yeah, 'cause it's my home course I subtract 50 points from my round's estimated rating to see how I really shot.

My estimated WCP rating for my round is more useful information to me then putting it in terms of simple par. If someone asks what I shot and I say in the 940's again they don't know what I'm talking about. I never put it in those terms for just that reason. If, however, I say I shot a 48 the golfer immediately/instinctually/automatically/unconsciously translates it into a -6. Why? Because that's how we define par.

But if you play a course like Warwick long-to-long, where the course record is 56, do you still call that course par-54? I don't think the locals do, but discTV apparently does.

I think it's safe to say that we DO need a meaningful definition of Par for DG. The question is what will work at all courses and be consistant across the board?

WCP is the answer in my opinion. Round them if you must, just make sure the total for the course is within a stroke of the course WCP. (Where WCP is available. Where not, roll a die, or get a player with a rating over 799 (Propogator) to play ten rounds or so and determine one.)

Nick says:
>The question is what will work at all
>courses and be consistant across the board?

The question that must be answered before that is: Who will be making the definition?

Now that the PDGA and discTV and SportsLoop have allegedly entered into an agreement, and this agreement hopes to shape many things about our game, I think it's imperative that the PDGA adopts a definition, and forces that definition on the other parties in the agreement.

Having said that, I want to be a part of whoever is tasked with making the definition.

And if a definition is made without the public and/or membership knowing about it beforehand, well, it will be ugly.

rodney

Me too. More ugly than Rodney...

* I'd like to know more about the slope factor. Is it calculated using the standard deviation of the scores shot by scratch golfers from WCP? *

There is no slope in DG. In BG, it's related to the scores of bogey golfers, plus a bunch of other stuff.


For more refer to the USGA and the slope site (http://www.popeofslope.com)

Dr. Fred you know not what you speak as usual regarding our ratings system. The slope is already embedded in the WCP/SSA formulas so we don't have the cumbersome calculations required in BG.

Thanks Chuck,

That's what I said November 12!

Here's a "Par" thread.

What is a reasonable distance when a par 3 becomes a par 4, and a par 4 becomes a par 5 on a open hole?

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg

THANKS!

What is par?

Rap spelled backwards. :confused: :confused:

My definition of par

An easier way to keep score, as long as it is the same for everyone, par doesnt matter.

Whether you call a 60 a +6 or a -3 and a 61 a +7 or a -2, 60 still beats 61

Here's the first look at yet another method for determining par. But first a little background may be in order. There are currently 2 competing philosophies for determining the standards for par. Each one has different lengths for par. There are more complexities than I have time to go in to but the basics are as follows:

1) "Ball Golf" Par (BGP) which uses the same philosophy as Ball golf. There must be a possibility of an eagle. e.g.- You must be able to reach a par 3 in one throw then you add 2 putts to get par.

2) World Class Par (WCP) based on SSA. The SSA or SHS can be converted to a length for each par. Par is up to an SSA of 0.4999 greater than the par number, so a par 3 is for holes with an SSA of 2.50 to 3.4999. This is based on the estimated or actual scoring average for a scratch (1000 rated) player (SSA) and lengths vary depending on foliage (and other factors).

Now for a new standard... 3) Hybrid Par (HyP)! This is so named because it is hybrid between the BGP and WCP philosophies. It is an attempt to take the best of both approaches and minimize the disadvantages of both.

I haven't finished writing a more thorough explanation, so this is all bare bones right now. At the core it attempts to take into account the 1.67 ATG, so for example, the maximum length of a par 3 is 1 drive plus an approach of .33. In the near future I'll finish wiriting this all up, but for now here's the length table:

Hybrid Par (HyP) Max length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = max drive for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>480 (360 x 1.33)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>410 (310 x 1.33)</td><td>685 (410 + 275)</td><td>960 (685 + 275)</td><td>1235 (960 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>360 (270 x 1.33)</td><td>585 (360 + 225)</td><td>810 (585 + 225)</td><td>1035 (810 +225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>305 (230 x 1.33)</td><td>490 (305 +185)</td><td>675 (490 + 185)</td><td>860 (675 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

In actuality, these numbers end up being very close to the numbers in the WCP length table, but they were constructed from a different set of assumptions.

More later...

Some time you'll want to check out the "What is Par?" thread. To go there now click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=).

In the near future I'll post a more thorough explanation of Hybrid Par (HyP) there....

Lowe, your chart formatting got screwed up when you posted it. I believe it should look like the following:


Hybrid Par (HyP) Max length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = max drive for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>215</td><td>480 (360 x 1.33)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>185</td><td>410 (310 x 1.33)</td><td>685 (410 + 275)</td><td>960 (685 + 275)</td><td>1235 (960 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>160</td><td>360 (270 x 1.33)</td><td>585 (360 + 225)</td><td>810 (585 + 225)</td><td>1035 (810 +225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>135</td><td>305 (230 x 1.33)</td><td>490 (305 +185)</td><td>675 (490 + 185)</td><td>860 (675 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Lowe, your chart formatting got screwed up when you posted it. I believe it should look like the following...




Thanks for the correction Jeff.

Now I'm just waiting for the hawks and falcons to gather and shred this idea to pieces.

Here, here on the Par 3 issue! That is the one thing that totally befuddles any new player. "Par" means something and to have a Par of 3 on every cotton pickin hole on every cotton pickin final 9 of our only nation wide program just makes me scream!

It does our sport a dis-service in the public eye.



In my opinion, this par issue still has not been resolved. There are still tons of people who adhere to "everything is par 3". (Granted, it is easier to keep score that way, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to a consistent standard for par.)

I (once again) propose that "Close Range (CR) Par" makes the most sense.

Methods of Determining Par

Disc golf needs a universal standard to determine par. Par is one of the most fundamental elements of disc golf, but because of differing assumptions course pros and designers remain divided over how to determine par. There are three competing philosophies for setting par. Two are more established and one is a new proposal. These philosophies can best be described and differentiated by how they determine the maximum length for a par 3 hole. The three methods are: Traditional Golf (TG) Par, Score Average (SA) Par, and Close Range (CR) Par.
(Note: All of the definitions below assume average foliage density [foliage factor 5]).
1. Traditional Golf (TG) Par uses the same approach as ball golf, so on a par 3 a player should be able to reach the basket with a good drive. An eagle is possible with a superb shot. There are no par 2s.
2. Score Average Par is based on Scoring Average (for a particular playing level), so a par 3 is calculated from the length of hole that a scratch player would average from 2.50 up to 3.49. At the maximum length and average foliage a par 3 probably requires two shots for a scratch player to get to the basket. At the maximum hole length of 520 ft. this makes an eagle almost impossible and it is rare for a typical scratch player to make a birdie. There are par 2s for holes with an SSA of 2.49 and below.
3. Close Range Par: On a par 3 a scratch player should be able to drive to �close range� and then take two shots to hole out. In ball golf terms this is like reaching the front edge of the green. The length of �close range� is 0.33 times the average drive length for a scratch player at each player level. For a Gold level hole the maximum �close range� length is 120 ft. for a total hole length of 480 ft. At this length an eagle is almost impossible, even for a scratch player, and birdies will be rare. There are par 2s, but they are only �close range� or shorter (120 ft. for Gold Level).

Comparing the maximum length for par 3s: TG Par is shortest (360 ft.), CR Par is longer (480 ft.), and SA Par is longest (520 ft.). This affects the minimum score possible in relation to par. For a max length hole TG Par can at best score an eagle, while CR Par and SA Par will only rarely be birdied.
These definitions are used to set the maximum length standards for par on existing holes. Because of gray zones and good hole design the maximum length would not even be a desirable length for course designers to use for future courses. However, these standards can mainly be used to determine par for the many courses already in existence.
Also keep in mind that the term �length� refers to �effective length�. Effective length is the actual length adjusted for elevation changes, forced lay-ups (from doglegs and water carries). For simplicity the lengths used in this discussion can be thought of in terms of holes with no elevation changes. Also assume holes of average foliage density (foliage factor 5).
I believe that Close Range Par does the best job of addressing the unique aspects of disc golf and it offers the best alternative to overcome the weaknesses of the other two methods.

I. Traditional Golf Par (TG Par):
TG Par is based on the philosophy and definitions of traditional golf . The key criterion is that the length of a par 3 is such that 75% of scratch players can reach the target for the possibility of an eagle and then they have 2 shots to complete the hole. Eagles are possible, even though rare, and birdies are more common. Any hole longer than the max length bumps par up to the next level. A Par 4 is reachable with 2 good shots and a par 5 is reachable with 3 good throws or with two mammoth shots.
There are very few par 2s because by definition a player is allowed �two close range throws to hole-out�. The only conceivable par 2 hole would be one within this �close range�. Even though �close range� has not been clearly defined almost no holes will ever be designed that way.
� Proponents: John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, Rodney Gardner

Advantages of TG Par:
� It appears to follow the PDGA definition pretty closely. The PDGA definition is as follows: �Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out.� (However, the term �close range� needs to be quantified.)
� There is a possibility of an eagle on even the longest holes
� It corresponds to the precedent of golf. On all golf holes a typical scratch player with average length has the potential for an eagle and a even higher possibility of making a birdie.
� For holes of maximum length if birdies are rare then you�ve lost 1/3 of the potential scores relative to par. Without birdies there will be only pars or bogies. The best you could hope for is to stay even with your position relative to par, you couldn�t improve it. A higher possibility of birdies provides for better score spreads because players have a chance to go under par on a hole. Better score spreads make better holes.
� The psychological factor. The rare, but occasional eagle is thrilling! Also, players are more encouraged by a greater possibility for making birdies. If they can�t even make a birdie then they can only maintain their position relative to par or lose a stroke to par.
� There are no par 2s because of the definition of par.

Disadvantages of TG Par:
� Average scores should be much lower than par because of the 1.67 ATG factor. The average number of �close range� shots in DG is a constant at 30 per 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Scores can be up to 6 throws lower than par depending on the hole difficulties. In addition, since there are no par 2s the course par will be even higher so the gap between par and scoring average will be even larger.
� It does not take into account the unique differences between disc golf and golf. This especially relates to the differences in putting and the differences in the ATG factor.

II. Score Average (SA) Par
Par is determined by the Scoring Average (SA) in the range of x.50 to y.49 for each hole (where x and y represent two values such as 3 and 4). For example, a par 3 is in the range of SA 2.50 to 3.49. Holes with an SA from x.3 to x.49 can be significantly longer than a scratch player could ever reach for an eagle. Thus at the upper end of the scale, a long par 3 could be reached only with 2 excellent shots. On a 3.49 SA hole a par 3 would require 2 excellent shots to reach the basket, and many scratch players would card 4s. At this maximum length eagles would be nearly impossible and even birdies would be rare. For par 4s at the upper end of the scale a scratch player can reach it in 3 good shots. For par 5s at the upper end of the scale a scratch player can reach it in 4 shots.
� Proponents: Chuck Kennedy and many other course designers in the DGCD.

Advantages of SA Par:
� The scores will be the closest to par.
� Par 2s are more easily identified, so that they can be improved.

Disadvantages of SA Par:
� Par 2s will be abundant since very many courses have SSAs well below 54
� Since par is tied to SA you have all of the variability problems associated with SSA. (See below for more on the difficulties of using actual SSA to determine par.)
� A corollary problem with SSA is that specialized tools are needed to determine it. The average course pro and even many designers don�t have any tools such as the Hole Forecaster to determine SSA. If a course has not had a PDGA tournament then there is no actual SSA available for that course.
� Hole by hole score average data are not publicly available anywhere and this information is needed to determine par for each hole.
� On a maximum length hole a birdie is very rare. Since scores will mostly be only a par or bogey there is very little chance of gaining ground relative to par. The best a player can do is to not bogey.

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:
Using actual SSA numbers encounters various problems. However, using estimated SSA from tools such as the Hole Forecaster (only available to designers who are members of the DGCD) or charts such as the �Estimated hole scoring averages for each player level based on length� can overcome most of these difficulties. Since these tools only give estimates there is a margin of error, but this is within tolerable limits of expected variation. Using estimated score averages the holes that give the most concern are those on the boundary between pars such as 3/4 or 4/5.
Using actual SSA is problematic for the following reasons:
1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.
2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?
3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.
4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.
4.1 The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still have to know the SSA for every hole in every layout and then very tediously compare your particular round hole by hole. At Calvert there are almost 9 complete layouts! In the case of Seneca the standard layouts (e.g. Red-A) are only played in tournaments, and every other layout has a mixture of basket positions. So no casual round you ever play at Seneca will ever match the SSA that it recorded. You could only compare your score to SSA if you played a tournament round and many people don�t play PDGA tournaments. The only conceivable way to compare a casual round to a tournament SSA would be to get access to the hole SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.
5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?
6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult. You also need to factor in the season of the year. In warmer climates courses with heavy vegetation play harder in the summer than in the winter. In colder places such as Minnesota and Wisconsin the courses play harder in the winter because of cold, snow, and ice.

III. Close Range Par (CR Par)
The main principle is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.
This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.
The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).
Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.
Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.
� Proponents: Lowe Bibby, Pat Brenner, Steve Dodge

Advantages of CR Par:
� It adheres to the PDGA definition of par with two �close range� throws (even though �close range� is defined differently than current usage) and it follows the precedent of golf.
� It explicitly takes into account the 1.67 ATG factor and adds a factor of 0.33 to account for 2 close range shots.
� It is based on a standard of errorless play by an expert player.
� Since the standard is built on a fixed number, effective length, there is more consistency than using actual scoring averages that change. Also the standards are more accessible to every player than Scoring Averages are. This method can be also used on courses that do not even have an SSA established.
� Actual expert scores will be closer to par than with the Ball Golf Par method.

Disadvantages of CR Par
� Since par 2s are only holes that are 120 ft or shorter some holes with an SSA of 2.5 will probably not be labeled as par 2 as they would be with the SA Par method. Thus par alone is not as useful to show par 2 holes that need to be fixed. (SSA shows this, however, so this issue can still be addressed by scoring averages, not by par.)
� With holes at the maximum length eagles are extremely rare except by the very longest throwers. Birdies are possible but rare. (Very few holes are maximum length, though.)
� For maximum length holes, since birdies are less common, scores will mostly be only par or bogey, so there is little chance of gaining ground relative to par. On these holes the best a player can do is to par and not bogey. (Again, very few holes are maximum length, though.)
� Actual expert score averages will not be quite as close to par as they would be with the SA Par method, although the numbers for both methods are quite similar

the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out

this is not only the simplest but also the most consistant with other forms of golf. CR Par integrates extemely nicely with the DGCD guidelines also. after using it nothing else makes near as much sense.