Rodney didn't want to turn the Ratings thread into a discussion of par, so lets do that here.

He said "For simplicity, any hole a low-cashing pro can reach in one shot most of the time is a par 3. In two shots, a par 4. In three shots, a par 5."

Personally, I think that's way too simple a definition. First of all, it makes par-2s impossible, and either our courses have a lot of par-2 holes, or a lot of "poorly designed, too easy par 3s". Second, It makes those wide open holes that are just out of driving range, incredibly easy par-4s, in fact an open 450' par-4 would be easier to birdie then a open 250' par 3.

While I'm not thrilled about the concept of par-2s, I'm perfectly aware that average scores by expert players on most courses will be far less then 54.

One simple way to define par would be to run a tournament, and look at average scores, of say all the cashing pros. Any hole that averages between 2.5 and 3.4 is a par-3, and 3.5-4.4 would be a par-4. Anything less then 2.5 is a par 2. There are also problems with this. On my home course, in the easiest configuration, I'm guessing every single hole would be a par-2 by this method, however, a reasonable course par would be around 41-43 not a 38. It's likely that even the best players will miss 3-5 holes, but they'll all be different holes, and each hole individually would still average 2.2-2.4 (The course record is 38, and has been shot once, by Jeff Homburg).

Of course our problem with par stems from the ball golf definition which is # of strokes to reach the green plus two to putt out. Since putting is so much easier in disc golf then it is in ball golf, we shouldn't allow two putts when trying to determine par. Even two-shot holes like my 450' wide open example, are realistically par-3s for a pro that throws 350'-400'.

Jim, if I stick to my definition, your 450-foot wide-open hole is a horribly designed par-4. And I would agree with that. In fact, I believe it would fit into what Chuck calls the "grey area" or the "unfair" realm, which should be avoided by course designers.

(I don't want to turn your par thread into a course design thread, but I really think there is something to say for this "unfair" concept. There's a new course going in here in Des Moines this summer, and I try to tell the designer that a 390 foot uphill hole in the open is stupid, but he either doesn't get it or he doesn't agree.)

I think your per-hole method is quite close to the end result of Chuck's WCP method. For my Moody's analysis in the other thread, I'd bet the pars I settled on for each hole would come out fairly close to what the holes average when good people play them. In other words, the 4 that I made par 2's would be the 4 lowest averages (whether below 2.5 or not).

rodney

I probably shouldn't have unleashed the Par 2 discussion yet. I'm writing an article on how to set the hole by hole pars on your course using WCP which will bring all of the pieces together. I'll try to float some segments on here in the next few days for interested parties to chew on.

No need for Par 1s at Tourist Park. I would guess the WCP is around 39-40 having played it. That still means no hole would have to be below Par 2. The WCP concept wasn't intended to deal with courses that would have WCP values below 41.4 which is 2.3 per hole. A WCP of 41.4 is the lowest limit we allow in the calculations.

Hopefully, there are few events if any played on these courses in sanctioned PDGA competitions. Horizons Park in Winston-Salem, NC has a WCP at 41.4 with no hole over 265'. Even players rated under 1000 can shoot a 36 (which happened when I played an event there).

I think that par should be taken into consideration when designing a course, so it's not a problem to discus those aspects of design here.

Yes, there is a "gray" area between a par-3 and a par-4, but is it really "unfair"? And does it need to be avoided?

Assuming, a relatively open fairway, how long does a hole need to be to be a legit par-4? Twice as long as a par-3?

Chuck, I remember from talking to you at the Majestic last year, that you'd intentionally designed some of the final-9 holes to be between a par-3 and a par-4 (or between a 4 and a 5). Do you think that was a good or bad idea?

Here we go again. I hate to sat this but it's true. Most of the courses that I play are long. Most of the newer players seem to learn to throw long in a hurry. There are some players that will never throw long. I like short sentences.

In a perfect world, we would have disc golf centers. They would consist of a goofy-golf setup for children. A juniors course. A novice course. An amateur course and a Pro course.

The courses would be designed with the same par. My point is (I know how you guys like to ask what my point is) we are not living in the age of getting what is best in disc golf. I know it irritates you when I say that. Again, I think it is important to remember the limitations that exist. I know you know the limitations. But in your genius I think you are limited.

There are par 2's. There are par 4's. All the holes are good for someone. I stepped up to a hole for the first time a few years ago. I was cussing the idiotic design of the hole. It would take a miracle to get to the basket, and the basket was only 125' away. I threw the disc. It hit one tree. It hit another tree. It went past the basket. It hit another tree and flew backwards into the basket. I decided it was a wonderfully designed hole.

What I'm saying is, if the courses could be designed without the countless limitations we are all faced with this discussion would have more validity. Until then, I think you should be more careful in saying someone in the process of designing a course may be stupid because he doesn't agree with you. I know, maybe he just doesn't agree with you. Nice out.

My last one was for Rodney. This one's for Clue. The least amount of strokes it could possibly take to hole out, has nothing to do with par.

Never has. Never will. Forget your ace argument.

Par is what is EXPECTED. (Par for the course)

For all of us geniuses: Different levels of talent would have different pars. Telling 8 year old boys and girls that a hole that I consider a par 3 is a par 3 for them is.... you fill in the blank.

How many holes have you played where you expected to get a 2. I thought so. Gazillion. Those would be the holes that are par two, Clue. Except if you're a child. In that case, depending on your AGE, your SKILL LEVEL, and how much milk you drink , it may be a par 3 or 4.

I didn't design the final 9 holes to be in between a par 3/4 or 4/5. What I said was, I wanted holes that would have a chance to spread the scores, which they did. There was a score swing on every hole and not due to any OB. The holes were tough holes intended to be a specific par with the possibility to birdie with good throws and bogey if you're not careful.

The worst hole you can have is one where everyone gets the same score, especially in a final 9. That's typically what happens if you design holes that fall in the gray zone for a specific division. This is essentially a distance where most players in a division can't reach off the tee, but the second shot is so short/easy you almost have to boot your putt to get a bogey.

I remember playing Cameron Park in the Waco Charity two years ago when every Grandmaster (11 I believe) shot a 3 on maybe 6 holes in a row on the back 9. No chance to move on the pack. Just make sure not to blow it. Those holes were gray zone for GMs but challenging for Open because most were birdieable for them with good throws and could swing the scores.

It would make sense that if you use mathimatical averages, you would never have a hole that averages 2. If you do, then the hole is way too easy for disc golf.

How could a hole average 2? In ball golf do any holes average 2, even using the top players.

Example,(considering you always round up) 10 top players play a hole: Scores: 2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2. The average is 2.1 The par should be 3, not 2. Is it a bizarre concept that a 2 is a birdie?

A par 2 for me would be a hole that is between 25 and 40 feet, where you are essentially putting from the tee. Where yo are teeing from the green so to speak.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but golf philosophy dictates that you always be allowed a drive, a shot for onto the green and a shot for holing out.

But we should be careful to distinguish between Chuck's WCR of a course and what we put on the actual tee signs. I don't think that pars are set in ball golf by the top ten players to have played the hole, do they? With Tiger around, how many par 5s would become par 3s?

Sorry Nick. That was the goofiest post I have ever read. I can't stop laughing.

If I can stop laughing I'll give you a little lesson in mathematics. If you are rounding up in 10's you would round to the nearest 10. (A 45 would be a 50 instead of a 40) If you are rounding up in 1's, using 1 decimal place (tenths) a 2.5 would be a three. A 2.4 would be a two. A 2.489999999999999999999999999 would be a 2.

If a 2 was shot 1,000,000 times on a hole and someone came along and got a 50 on the hole, what should par be? .........TWO

Let's describe a PAR par 3 in ball golf, shall we. That would be a hole on which a player is expected to drive the hole close enough for a putt. OK.....Let's take a disc golf hole where a player is expected to drive close enough for a putt. Difference......This little teeny ball hit with a club has to go into this little teeny hole as opposed to this big disc going into this big basket.

If there are par 3's in ball golf than there is absolutely no doubt on the face of the earth that there are par 2's existing in disc golf. Especially when it comes to ratings. Rodney, Clue and NIck. Who else?

Don't get mad guys. I'm just trying to help you move on to giving Chuck better input.

With current course designs, it's not such a bad thing to not be able to birdie some holes unless you ace. Why do you think there are such outrageous under par rounds shot in tournaments every weekend? Could it be because there are alot of par twos?......Yes. I knew you would agree.

Now I know how Chris Voigt threw over 700'. For every 2'1" he threw it was rounded up to 3'. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Randy,

You're right.

rodney

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

Is it to clarify the difficulty of a hole/course?

Is it to compare courses? Holes?

'54 is par' vs '54 is over par'?

This thread is about questions about par.

Yeah, I wasn't to sure myself about the logic or math of it. What I meant is that if the average is at all above 2, it should be rounded up to 3.

For example, how many 2.45s do you have on your score card Randy? I know sometimes you wish you could write that in, we all do. But it's a sport of round numbers.

In my thinking, which you are welcome to think is whacky, to have a par 2, you would have to have a hole where 5 out of 10 people would ace. I believe that a similar standard would be used in ball golf. If no one sees the logic in this, I'll be more than happy to let it drop.

I have no problem with a hole being designated a par 2. It doesn't really effect scores. A 54 is still a 54, and a 48 a 48.

Par is irrelevant. Your final score however is relevant. Give me the hole footage, and a direction to throw and I'll take my chances.

Re:...rounding up in 1's, using 1 decimal place (tenths) a 2.5 would be a three. A 2.4 would be a two. A 2.489999999999999999999999999 would be a 2............

Rounding to the closest integer, anything ABOVE 2.444444etc. Would be rounded up to "3". Anything 2.444444etc. and below is rounded down to"2".

Average isn't a good indication of what a hole's "personal par" should be. Par isn't what's an average score, but a MEDIAN score.

For instance, in MLB, the league average salary is $2mil, but the median is 1mil. At 1mil, the same # of players make more than 1mil, and also the same # of players making less than $1mil.

A 2.44 average on a hole probably constitutes MAYBE one ace, a whole slew of two's, some threes, and odd bogey, and a rare boge . The median is two, as more than half the shots are birds.
a 2.45 (rounded up to "3") means only one "six" instead of a double-boge once in a hundred rounds. The hole is still a "bird's nest," even though technically it scores a par.

I'm only going to take on one aspect here and that is the premise that putting is easier in DG. I would agree that if you compare equal distances than maybe it probably is from about 25' and in, but if you compare on some sort of sliding scale than I would disagree. First of all to clear the air, yes I am a horrible putter. On the other hand, I am an excellent ball golf putter for someone who only plays about once a year (last round of 18, I only had 26 putts). In ball golf you clearly have 2 aspects, speed and angle. In disc golf there are 3 elements, speed, angle, and height. Wind obviously effects DG putts more than BG putts. So when determining par, please do not make it a given that everyone should make a putt from 30 feet and in.

and don't make it a given that a short hyzer, followed by a missed 30' putt, followed by a drop in is a par 3.

3. jm

Good point John. Maybe instead of calling easy 3's par 2's we should call easy 4's and 5's par 3. Darn...we already do that.

OK. Par is below 54 on most courses. Not because any hole is par 2 but because...................

Good point but you're going to have to bow to your mentor on this one.

Here's an easy way to justify par 2 holes. In ball golf, the par for 18 holes is about 72 which is a combination of par 3, par 4 and par 5 holes. In disc golf, we also have typically 18 holes with a nominal course par of 54 which is 1 stroke/throw per hole less than ball golf. Thus, it follows that our holes would be a mix of pars one less than ball golf as in par 2, par 3 and par 4. And, we can even have par 5s with longer and/or more challenging holes. I'm looking forward to playing a 1400' true par 6 hole at the Tax Tourney in Birmingham this weekend that's apparently not just crushes in an open field like many long holes.

Par in BG is usually set at 4 on a hole that has a scoring average by scratch (world class) golfers from 3.50-4.49. This means there will be a mix of par 4s on a course that are easy (3.5-3.8), average (3.8-4.1) and tough (4.1-4.4). Although technically 4.4 should be par 4 (and is sometimes), many times it's necessary to make these a par 5 so there can be four par 5s mixed with four par 3s to make a par 72 course. You'll find that most par 5s should technically be considered easy 5s since it's unusual to find many holes with a scoring average for world class players as high as 5.0 and rarely over it. What happens is that announcers will call a hole a tough 5 if happens to have the highest scoring average of the par 5s on the course even if it's average is still under 5.0.

My point is that if ball golf has no problem with the high end of their par scale being easy 5s, why shouldn't tough 2s be OK for the bottom of our scale? Obviously, we won't ever have holes with a scoring average under 2.0. More than likely, 2.2 is about as low as realistic even on our easiest holes. So, I have no problem having several holes that would technically be tough par 2s. However, just like ball golf, players will probably get into the mode of calling some holes easy, average or tough par 2s even though their scoring averages all range from 2.2-2.6.

There's no way around having par 2s on our current courses without continuing the inaccurate inflated par 54 system. If we continue to move toward using the Player Rating/WCP technology, the WCP is intertwined with the equivalent of a 1000 rated player. We can poke our heads in the sand, avoid individual pars on holes and just stay with the overall WCP values for courses. In other words, when the WCP is less than 54 (which is currently most courses), we recognize that there are par 2s out there but just avoid identifying them. Or, we can move forward to identify these tough 2s so the hole pars are integrated with the overall World Class Par for a course.

In the long run, we could stomp out the need for par 2s. Just make holes longer/tougher so we emulate the ball golf system. Or, make putting tougher with a more challenging target (here you go Dr. Fred, silver platter ;-) I'm not a fan of directional targets but I have no problem if our current target area was made smaller vertically, horizontally or both.

A small bit of reenforcement. What do we think the ratio is when comparing aces with ball golf. There is quite a difference.

Ron Russell has to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 aces.

Chuck,

Give me a break with this 3.5843957943 to 4.4309574830975 means that par should be some sort of average. Do you know how many times that I have seen a tournament like the masters show stats on a particular par 4 average 4.7 shots by the top players in the game? I guess we should raise that hole to a par 5 even though it may only be 410 yards. Oh, how about all the par 5s that 80% of the players birdie or even eagle, guess those should be par 4s since they are 140 yards longer?

You know Randy, I agree with you now since you didn't address any argument or give me any reason as to why par should be your best result on a hole next to an ace just because it is so easy for you to always deuce every shot under 300 feet. Oh wait, as you stated maybe only hyzer shots. I guess anhyzers will still be par 3s. I'm just curious, I saw you shot pretty well at Bart, but I don't remember you being 18 under or better on that par 2 course. Talk about an entire course of must get deuces. I guess everyone just shot about 15 over with the winner at about 12 over each round.

Even though I don't like Chuck's WCP and avg score reasons for establishing par, at least they are reasons. Please offer something other than I should deuce that hole every time so it should be a par 2.

Thanks for answering my question Chuck. (about calculating par for BG) I have no problem with using the WCP as the par for the course. The only difficulty (not that the rest is really easy though) would be to calculate par for individual holes.

When I go out to play a course I don't care if I shot under the '54 par'. What's more meaningful is how my final score stacks up against other players. Before the WCP I looked at individuals who I considered very good Pro's and compared my score to theirs. If I really got curious I would find out what they got on a specific hole but you pretty much can tell what's a par 2-3-4 etc.

Hey Clue. I nailed down 2 fives on the easiest hole at Bart. Triple bogies baby!

Hopefully, Chuck will not be using my results on calculating par. Again, maybe your experience is different than mine. I have been seeing scores way below 54 for years. I think my reasoning is clear enough. I understand yours. With good course design, pars would be adjusted as Chuck explained so well above. It's not that every expected 2 needs to be a par 2. It's just obvious, (and I have already said why) that with current designs there are courses that are sitting below 54 par.

Ok maby I should have read the previos posts a little closer. But what is the big deal Play everything as a three or a four,five whatever floats your boat. All par does is give you a guide for scoring. If the hole is easy or hard who cares play it as a three. For instance I am from Ann Arbor where we have the Monster hole 1038 feet we all play as a par three. So when you get a three which has only happened once WOW!! when you get your 4 your like cool I got a 4. Everyone knows how hard the hole is but no one says man that should be a par 5. Its simple every hole is a three live with it.

This little par discussion originated in the course rating thread. We have been living with the proverbial 3. It's fine for keeping score.

If someone wants to rate courses, then our 3 system isn't going to cut it. I can't believe I'm going to say this. The par for all disc golf courses is not the same.

Excuse us while we argue about par 2's. We'll get to the 4's and 5's later. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

It seems to me that WCP is just a bragging right so people can say their course has a harder rating than other courses. Why is stacking up one course to another so important? The variables are numerous changes in disc quality, regularity of wind, foliage, # of months snow is on the ground, t-pads, elevation changes, ect how could any objective scale be accurate. In BG the courses are so meticoulus about grass type, height of ruff, Grain. No body in DG is that specific so therefore why bother. Players know which courses a hard and which are easy by playing a round there. Also what about lefties, sidearmers, tomahawk throwers? how would these be considered in WCP?

Brooke, that's exactly the point. Par, to everyone in the world except some disc golfers, means "average" (we can argue about whether that's mean, median or mode), or a reasonable goal to shoot. The monster hole is in no way, a par-3. If you're excited about scoring a 4, and not upset about scoring a 5 on that hole, then it's probably a par-5.

Yes, I want to be able to compare holes and compare courses by comparing "par".

Nick said, among other things, "What I meant is that if the average is at all above 2, it should be rounded up to 3.".

Nick, you are correct that since we don't record a score of 2.45 on our card, that the rules of math & statistics dictate that we round off to a whole number, however, you are wrong about how to round. If it's 2.5 or above you round up, if it's 2.4999999999999 or less, you round down. For those not afraid of math, visit this page to learn more about significant digits and rounding: http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/~rhlogan/sig_fig.html

meat, you made a couple of mistakes. I'm sure you meant 2.4999999, not 2.44444444.
Yeah, now I'm being anal again, but in another example, you said "The median is two, as more than half the shots are birds."
If you are arguing that par for this hole is a two, half the shots are pars, not birds.

You also said "Par isn't what's an average score, but a MEDIAN score."
I'm not sure I agree. It'd be an interesting challenge to design such a hole, but let's say a hole gets the following scores: 2,2,2,2,2,4,4,4. If we use the mean (or average), we get 2.75, which rounds up to 3. If we use the median we get 2.

I agree with what Chuck said earlier (in another thread?), and hopefully I'm not misquoting him or misunderstanding him again.

1st, determine course par, then look at the average for each hole to force the hole-by-hole par to fit course par. The Monster course would be a good example. Let's say we determine course par to be 53 for the 18 hole layout. We'd need one hole to be a par-2 for this to work, so we take the hole with the lowest average, even if that average is 2.5 or higher, and call it the par-2. However, we also must admit that the Monster hole is a par-5, so now we need two more par-2s to balance. Does it matter that we have 3 very difficult par-2s? Not really; it's not a perfect system, but it makes much more sense then calling everything a par-3 regardless of actual difficulty.

Another example would be my home course, Tucson, in the easiest configuration (the "A" layout). I'm guessing that every hole will average somewhere between 2.2 and 2.45 for pro players. If we rounded down, every hole would be a par 2, and the course par would be 36. Well since the course record is 36, it doesn't make any more sense to say par is 36 then it does to say par is 54. Say we determine par to be 40, that means we should go through and label the 4 highest scoring holes par 3s, and everything else a par 2. We'll have 4 easy par 3s, and 14 challenging par 2s.

Brooke, it is inevitable that the WCP and players ratings are tied together. Hence, the reason for discussing par.

I recommend reading the WCP thread. The WCP has little to do with difficulty. I find short courses in the woods to be very difficult. It's not that I will need more strokes to finish as opposed to a long course. It is attributed to other players being able to shoot less strokes than me in the woods.

If we want to rate players or put them in divisions, then an across the board system must be in place. Once we try to put that system in place we are going to have to realize the huge difference we have in courses. Once we start coming up with par, we will see par 2's in the formula. Someone didn't like par 2's in the formula. So here we are.

My 2:02 post is referring to Brooke's 12:21 post. To address Brooke's post 1:09 post:

It seems to me that WCP is just a bragging right so people can say their course has a harder rating than other courses. Why is stacking up one course to another so important?
I think it's a lot more then just bragging rights. It's information that can be used in comparing players that normally play different courses (handicapping), or in just giving a travelling player a reasonable goal when playing a new couse. Have you ever asked "what's a good score on this course?" With a consistant method for determining par, we no longer need to guess.

The variables are numerous changes in disc quality, regularity of wind, foliage, # of months snow is on the ground, t-pads, elevation changes, ect how could any objective scale be accurate.
Good points about wind, foliage and snow, but isn't some standard, even if imperfect better then none, or at least better then "everything is a par-3"? As far as discs, courses are continuously re-evaluated as tournaments are played. I'm not sure how elevation is a variable as it's not likely to change over time at any one course. Same with tee pads (except when they're first installed on a 'natural' course).

Players know which courses a hard and which are easy by playing a round there.
No, individual players can't figure it out until they play a few dozen rounds. One round is statistically insignificant. And even then, "hard" and "easy" are pretty meaningless. A WCP value that ranges from 42 to 64 is a lot more info then "pretty hard" or "really easy".

Also what about lefties, sidearmers, tomahawk throwers? how would these be considered in WCP?
Since WCP is a measurement of what the best players should shoot, i'd guess that it does a pretty good job. You don't get to be a Climo, or Stokely by throwing only RHBH.

I'm new to disc golf (only played a handful of times and I love it) but I've played ball golf quite a number of times (all through high school and college) What Par means to me is of course the "expected score" on a hole. It's hard to compare the two because, with ball golf you have three to four sets of tees. Womens, Men and Professional or Red, White, Blue (Some courses have an additional Gold) So this adds to the length and hole design/layout thus adjusting the difficulty for each group.
The following would be a list of considerations when assigning a "PAR value" to a hole.
1) The holes difficulty
a) Distance
b) Hazards
c) OB (Out of Bounds)
d) Normal Wind conditions
e) Hole Layout
2) The "average" Players ability
a) Average players can drive X number of feet
b) Average players can make putts from X feet

I've played some 900ft holes that I would expect to be considered par 5's because I can't throw more then 300ft... but someone who can throw 600ft might consider it a par 3. I've seen 200ft holes that I would consider par 5's because they have so many trees in the way I've renamed a few of my discs "The LumberJack" and "The Hen" (one that enjoys roosting more than flying)

I wouldn't design a hole that was 400ft straight away and give it a par 3 then design a 400ft hole that made a 90 degree turn 150ft out and had the hole completely block by trees from the tee plus had water crossing the fairway a par 3.

So considerations should be made when assigning "Par values" but the bottom line is your end score counts. If I threw a 900 and you threw a 901... I win... even if we were both 800 throws over what a pro would have thrown.

My 2 cents,
Stephen

The more I think about this the enormity of the issue becomes apparent. I see the necessity to rank players and courses but consider the pro who only has easy courses in his/her area. What do they do? Do they have a lower rating based on the easy courses in their area? Why does calling everything a par 3 not work? just look at the tournament results and you can tell how dificult the course is based on the 54 par. Lots of players would have to be much more informed than they are today for the system to work. A quarterly updated list would be necessary. More work for the already overworked PDGA. Lastly DG today is � regional where the players know their courses. This system would only help the small amout of touring pros. Hey it would be great to have all this information at you finger tips but the practicality has not been realized.

Stephen Green, I'm glad you love disc golf. I'm also glad you posted. We need more normal brains involved in this sport. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Or just get rid of the abnormal brains. (hint, hint)

Other than not liking Par 2s, no one has offered a counter proposal to move beyond our existing pseudo-Par 54 mind set with every hole at least a par 3. If the WCP for a course is under 54 as most are, then par 2s are there. The PR/WCP system is gathering steam as an accepted numerical evaluation tool for the PDGA. So, expect to see more about WCPs each year. They will soon be added to the course directory.

The WCP for a course is valid on its own merits and in comparison to other courses. It has shown to be consistent from year to year. For example, the Knob Hill Long-B layout near Pittsburgh had WCPs of 56.3, 56.4 and 56.6 for their 1998, 1999, 2000 events. Some players probably entered all 3 years. Several I'm sure had different ratings each of those years and yet the WCP held steady. So, WCP is not just bragging rights. It helps determine player ratings, helps players determine what they "should" shoot or how well they shot compared to a consistent worldwide reference. I also think it will eventually be used as one minimum criteria for A-tier sanctioning. I also think players will seek to play courses with higher WCPs given a choice, especially since it means a higher likelihood the course will have more par 4s and 5s.

The WCP will help course pros establish appropriate individual hole pars although that isn't necessarily the benefit. The payoff will be better holes. For example, designers will hopefully try to have a better balance of tough 2s, easy 3s, average 3s, tough 3s, easy 4s, average 4s, etc. It's not that some experienced designers don't think about this already. However, now they will have better tools and a supportive system by which to analyze and improve their hole designs and overall course mix. There's also no reason to expect handicap values won't eventually be assigned by hole like BG for those players who wish to play using handicaps.

Regarding BG pars, I don't doubt that some par 4s occasionally have 4.7 averages on TV. I already said that most par 5s can have scoring averages below 5.0 and down to even 4.3 sometimes. In fact, I suspect that the Par-3 16th at Augusta had a scoring average over 3.5 in its brutal traditional Sunday pin placement. And that's the clue, Clue. If you study the USGA methods for establishing hole par, each hole is designed with 4 primary pin placements. These are ranked from 1-4, toughest to easiest on each hole. As in hole 16, there can be up to a full stroke swing in scoring average among the four pin placements on undulating, tricky greens. On weekend TV is when you see high scoring averages for the tough pin placements and apparently inconsistent par assignments for those holes. However, the average scoring for all 4 pin placements will more accurately reflect the assigned par.

As a side note, the pin placement mix on a BG course for day-to-day play will usually be a balanced mix of 1, 2, 3 & 4 difficulties. In a tournament, all four placements are played with a bias toward the tougher placements on the weekend and on the back nine for TV coverage.

In Ball Golf, par is often expressed as # of strokes to reach the green plus two to putt out. The PDGA rulebook mirrors that definition with "...Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out."

It's apparent to me that the average pro doesn't usually need two putts once he's in the 10 meter circle, and in fact the PDGA definition doesn't say putts, it says "close range throws". For argument's sake, I'll say that 150' would be two shot range for the average pro player, thus a hole where you can get to an open lie within 150' of the basket should be a par-3. Thus that 450'-500' open hole is a DG par-3 for average pros, and par 4s start above that (obviously that doesn't take OB, mandos, doglegs or other obstacles into account)

I would hope that if the rating systems survive, par for individual holes on major courses will be calculated from scores shot in tournaments. It is a huge undertaking but once data is in the Db it should pretty easy to extract whatever is needed.

I hope the Db has a good table design! http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

No plans to do individual hole scores in the database. This will be the responsibility of the course pros to calculate averages per hole from league or event scorecards. The article I'm writing will show how to set the hole pars from this data since the hole score distributions will come from players with a wide range of ratings at an event, not a bunch of 1000 rated players.

Even better. The ratings are affixed to the players, the players affix par to the holes.

Will the adding up of par for the individual holes come out to a higher total than that of WCP for the course? I know I should wait for you to finish your article.

i don't like the idea of par 2 holes, although i can see the arguement for par 2 holes, but not all "birdie" holes are always "birdied" for whatever reasons. in charlotte, we do have true par 4 and par 5 holes at our courses (thanks stan, harold), along with long par 3 and short par 3 holes. i define par as 1 or more "good" drives to reach the basket, plus 1 putt to "birdie" and 1 putt if you miss the birdie for par. for example, winthrop gold course, hole 8, 1053ft., par 5. water on the entire leftside and ob road on the rightside (a good drive is 275-325 totally CONTROLLED drive) after 2 real "good" drives, your at the short pin placement(664ft) still with a mininium 350ft drive across water just to get a putt at the basket. definate par 5 hole! hornets nest, hole 2, 432ft., par 3. this hole is long and straight with tree line of leftside throwing across an OPEN field. it can be deuced, but most only reach the green box, approx. 375ft. from the tee. hornets nest, hole 16, par 4. your first drive is approx. 225ft. down a 15-20ft wide, tree lined straight fairway to a clearing, 90 degree left turn uphill, second shot, approx. 100ft up a 15ft. max width tree lined fairway to the basket. then you putt, hopefully for a "birdie". even though there is only 6 feet total difference in length of these holes, the drives required to reach each basket demands totally different shots to aquire a "birdie" putt. that is why the pars are different for these holes. as the sport grows, holes will get longer/harder and the course "par" will go up also.

The WCP system has it benefits and weaknesses. It does provide a rough means of comparing scores by exceptional players at different courses.

However, the WCP rating says little to nothing about a course's difficulty or how a fully course may test a player skills. WCP is only a measure of how many throws it takes your typical big arm pro player to complete a course.

WCP favors courses that put on PDGA events attracting sufficient numbers of highly rated pros to rate the course. It thumbs the PDGA nose at lots of fine community courses from ever getting a course rating.

WCP also has significant limits when it comes to determining what courses are suitable for 'championship' courses as it is only performance based, not objectively based on the diversity of challenges a course might have to test player skills.

For example compare course distance to WCP ratios, 7200ft/60 WCP = 120, 6000/55 = 109, and 4000/50 = 80. The course that is foot for foot the most challenging and possibly the best full test of player skills is probably the 4000 ft course, even though it has the lowest WCP. Yet, according to Chuck, the course of choice for major DG events would be the 7200 ft course, which is in fact foot for foot the easiest course of the three. Clearly there needs to be a different objectively based standard for determining course challenge other than WCP or even length/WCP.

In ball golf, the difficulty of a course is actually measured by the course slope, which is determined by an independent group objectively collecting the various challenges on a course, tee by tee, hole by hole, green by green attribute by attribute. Courses with higher slopes play much more difficult than courses with lower slopes, regardless of what the course par (or course rating) is, regardless of what the length of a course is (within limits). The course slope (not course par rating) is also one of the more important tools used by PGA competition committees for determining what courses are suitable for high level events.

The only DG system I'm aware of that is similar to slope is the Course Analysis Rating (CAR) that I've developed and used for about twenty years to judge course difficulties (irregardless of course par). The CAR system also is a valid tool for designers to balance and adjust the various challenges of a course to get the highest possible CAR for a course. The CAR also rates course challenges from the tee to the target. This goes a bit beyond the average contemporary course design which tends to stop the challenging players somewhere around 30 feet of a pole hole style target. Which is fine as a statement of where the majority of contemporary course design lies.

Basically, the PDGA WCP system is a good effort with some utility. However, it's centralization and focus on using higher end pro players at PDGA events is it's biggest weakness. Course ratings should be determined at the local level by a common perforance based standard need not require PDGA pros at all.

In fact, a valid argument can be made that 1000 rated players should be excluded from any course rating system except perhaps at tees specifically designed to challenge 1000 rated players. It makes very limited sense to use exceptional players to determine a course par for the regular tees used by the thousands of average players at courses around the nation. Using the performance of relatively common "better than average player" collected locally over a series of local events (PDGA events or not) would work fine for determining course par purposes and these folks are much more widely and evenly distributed in the DG world.

Also, with a locally based system, hole by hole ratings would be part of the result. This is important for development of various handicap events, which enable forms of handicap competition over the confusing divisional PDGA systems.

What the WCP should be recognized as is a work in progress. There is plenty more room and time for improvement and modification.

I'm not sure the total of hole pars HAS to come out higher than the WCP. But, I would probably recommend that even if the WCP is something like 50.1. Might as well work out a total of par 52.

Harold and Stan have been involved in some message board exchanges among the 45 members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group regarding par 2. Most of us including myself have some sense of uneasiness about par 2s so we're not taking this lightly. Anyone with a BG backgound has an initial kneejerk when par 2 is first presented.

However, once you analyze the situation, the reality is there are bona fide par 2s out there with the current state of our hole designs. Perhaps you won't hear many of the DGCD members speaking out about it because it's taking a while to get used to.

The par-3 tradition is either an endearing quirk of our game or a dinasaur. I say the latter. The 1038 ft. "monster" hole at Hudson Mills is not a par-3. It is a par-5 and a challenging one at that. No one has ever made a 3 there. (It happened once in best shot doubles) Scott Stokely drove past the basket in 2 and if he would have made a 3 it would have been an Eagle, not a par. And yes many disc golf courses do have par 2 holes. It takes a bit of imagination, but I can clearly see that a 150 ft. shot without serious hazards is "on the green". Under normal conditions, a pro player should not take more than 2 shots on that hole. That is what measures par: a pro player under normal conditions. Although I have no problem with par 54 courses, they already have been joined by par 70 courses. I played some of my best golf at Idlewyld in Kentucky and shot 75 (I was told that 66 is the course record). I'm also looking forward to playing Dave McCormack's par 70 design in the Ozarks of Missouri. If you insist on believing that every hole is a par-3 that's fine. I won't hold it against you - hey I still believe that my crashed dot-com stocks are going to rise from their ashes.
p.s. The toughest hole on the PGA tour is #18 at the Doral Blue Monster. It's a 435 yd. par 4 with water in play off the tee and into the green with a 4.65 stroke average.

This isn't too important a point, but I think that setting the course par from the WCP can lead to some problems when reconciling the course par to the individual hole pars.

WCP for a course and adding up the par for 18 holes can produce two course pars that are very different. If for instance the course has many more "hard" holes then "easy" holes you'll get a high WCP, but the course par (by adding up the par for the 18 holes) might be much lower. For instance, if the course has difficult Par 3s can produce a scoring average on these holes of 3.1 to 3.4 will bump up the WCP by a stroke or two. Now you can probably assume that there will be holes that will be easier and it will all average out in the end. But that might not always be the case. I would hate to see holes have artificially set pars that are not based on their difficulty but based on the difficulty of the course and trying to reconcile the WCP.

That said, I think that the WCP and PR is a step in the right direction for DG, let's give it a chance to succeed.

Jerry S.

Why does the course par have to reflect the WCP rating? Why don't we just set up par like we have been, but then add the WCP rating in a way that doesn't necessarily have to be on every tee sign.

As an open player that travels to a handful of tournaments every year, I really don't care all that much about the WCP rating. My point is that if I don't care that much, I don't think most of the rec players will even have a clue what it is. So I don't think that when figuring up par for a course you need to use the rating at all. Just have it as additional info about the course in the directory.

Par and the WCP ratings need to be mutually exclusive entities.

Let's be honest about par. I think in DG we've deluded ourselves to believe it's our right to birdie a lot of holes. Let's face the fact, on many courses there are holes we expect to birdie. If we truly expect to birdie a hole then the chances are that hole is a Par 2.

Par is determined by looking at what a very good golfer would expect to score under normal circumstances. Now one caveat, and I find it ironic, in BG the use the definition scratch golfer instead of very good golfer, but that doesn't apply since we don't know what par is yet, we cannot say what scratch is. The spirit of par in BG and I think we should use it for DG is what does a good golfer expect to shoot on a given hole.

You know the drill, when you stand on the tee and say to yourself, I'm going to park this drive and have a drop in birdie. Chances are that hole is a Par 2. Now I know some people don't like the idea of par 2s, but let's face it, if it's walks like a duck, talks like a duck ...well you get the idea.

Let's be honest with ourselves, the pars in this game are just all screwed up and I think it'd be fun to know just what par was, and not only that but the satisfaction of reaching shooting par would be reward in itself. I've shot many many rounds of DG below par (heck, I expect red numbers every time and I'm just an Adv. Master) but of all the hundreds of BG rounds I've ever shot I've only broken 80 once ( 8 over par). When I shoot under par in DG it's no big deal, should I ever shoot under par in BG...well it won't happen while I'm alive, but I'll know I'm in golfer heaven when it happens.

Counting birdies in my sleep...

Jerry S

When Tiger stands on the tee of a par 5, he expects to 3 the thing. If he gets a 4 its like a bogey to him, but yet for some reason its still a par 5. HMMMMMMMMM, par 2s are stupid.

Using Par 5s in ball golf is not a good example because BG designers aren't happy with the current state of affairs. At one time, par 5s were legit. The current crop of players and equipment are making too many par 5s too easy. Many courses are redesigning to "tigerize" their par 5s so they have more challenge.

Perhaps the introduction of par 2 in DG will do the same thing so our existing true par 2s get redesigned to be tougher. On the other hand, that would probably mean aces would become as infrequent as ball golf. Frankly, I like the chance to get an occasional ace and would like to see par 2s continue into the future as a unique aspect of our sport.

"Par and the WCP ratings need to be mutually exclusive entities."

Not true, at least for long tees. Just like the par for holes in ball golf add up to typically par 72, I believe our sport will be well served if our hole pars add up to the WCP which is our equivalent to BG's par 72 reference. Our 1000 rated player is equivalent to a BG pro who shoots 72 (0 handicap), not Tiger and top PGA money winners who have negative handicaps. Likewise, we now have 60 players with ratings over 1000 (negative handicaps) topped by Climo (our Tiger) at 1040.

I'm not sure Yo La Tengo's concern about rounding will be a problem. The integer Par total assigned for two courses that have the exact same WCP could be different by one throw. It just means the course with the lower integer number will have a few tougher holes on it relative to par than the other one.

Dr. Fred brings up a good point about par from shorter tees. Many times the players rated over 900 whose scores are used to determine WCP do not play the short configurations on the course. Even if they do, we don't accept a WCP less than about 41. I think an alternate method for par assignment will be needed for the short tees. I would be for a method that uses something more than the hypothetical WCP and less than the inflated figures we currently recommend in the PDGA course guidelines. No suggestions at the moment.

Dr. Fred is also shows a worthwhile calculation to divide course length by WCP to compare challenge levels. I would flip the calculation and mulitply by 10000 to get a Challenge Index (CI) that gets bigger the tougher the challenge. This CI should be used in tandem with the course length for comparisons. I would consider a 6000 ft course a better challenge than a 4000 footer if they both had the same CI. It's a tougher call in the Dr's example comparing a 4000 ft course having a high CI with a 6000 footer having a lower CI. Since throwing distance/power should be part of a pro player's skill set, I'm not sure a 4000 ft course would test this aspect sufficiently even with a high CI. It's a matter of balance to test all aspects of a player's game as well as possible.

Sorry if this doesn't fit in here but I wrote this little blurp for another board and I thought the topics were close enough to post it here. I have not had a chance to read this whole thread as much as I'd like to (time) but here's a couple of thoughts on the 'Gray Area':

Hey gang. A late chime in here. The open hole in the upper 300/lower 400 foot range for the
decent pro is considered 'the gray area' (or as I call them HES holes - Hard 2, Easy 3, Stupid 4).

Some course designers claim this is not a good hole design. And I agree that a course
with the majoity of the holes in this design would be boring. However, one of the
main charctersitics that I look for in a well desgned course is the varying of difficulty level.

That is, I really like to see courses that have the par 3 easy 2, par 3 challanging 2,
par 3 gray area, par 4 easy 3. par 4 challanging 3, par 4 gray area....par 5....

There is no doubt that this gray area hole I speak of gives the big arm even more
of an advantage (and that is part of why some course designers really don't like them)
but I feel they *should* have an adavantage (I am not a BIG arm). And as I stated,
variety of skill levels add soooo much to the fun factor of a course (along with elevation,
water and view as the main charctertics of 'the fun factor').

-Scott

Just a slight clarification Scott. I think what Rodney, Chuck and I were calling the "gray area" would more likely be classified as a NIES, Nearly Impossible 2, Easy 3, Stupid 4. i.e. A normal mortal can not reach it from the tee.

IMO, the HES should be the standard par-3; a good drive followed by a good putt should be rewarded with a birdie), and the challenging par-3 should involve some kind of hazards and risk/reward situation where a two is very possible, but a small screwup makes a 4 very likely as well.

I guess the question is at what distance does the HES become the NIES? That's different for every golfer, and is probably somewhere between 350' and 450' for average pros.

Chuck,

If you have played tourist, then you know that there might only be one hole that is as challenging as the easiest hole at Moody's ranch. So how in the world can you call a flat, wide-open 125' shot par 2 and call a 300' shot over a pond to a pin on a small ridge a par 2 as well. "That's all I've got to say about that."-Forest

I'm not sure that hole at Moody's would be a Par 2. But, in my example regarding hole 16 at Augusta where the scoring average on the same hole can vary by a full stroke based on pin placement, sometimes there is a wide range of difficulty for holes assigned the same reference par. Nothing unusual or disturbing about that in BG.

The change has been done! Nick is now on the cool list and clue is the oscar mayer wiener!!!

What is Par?...............Give me a break!

About Tiger. Tiger and peeps of Tigers ability don't set the Par for BG. Tiger is NOT a scratch golfer, he's way better then that. So your example isn't valid for that reason as well as the reasons that Chuck Kennedy mentioned. Also a 4 is not a bogey (on a par 5) to Tiger it's probably what he considers par.

As far as bigger arms having more of a an advantage I agree to a point. IF the course is designed well it should allow the mutants a chance to demonstrate their length on several holes. But you need to remember this is golf a target game and not the discus throw where you can spray it.

I've never seen this hole at Moody's but a 300' hole over a pond onto a ridge could be a Par 3, just depends on the steepness of the ridge and how close the water is to the basket.

Remember just because some holes might become Par 2s doesn't mean that there cannot be easy Par 3s.

This discussion reminds me so much of an arguement I had with friends when we all first started playing DG. When we first started playing we used the hole pars that were on the course. So most holes were Par 4 and I think about 5 of them were Par 5s, despite the fact that all the holes, but one, were reachable on a decent drive. The typical hole was 250' with a few (the par 5s) that were 350' long.

The arguement started when a few of us started playing with other disc golfers and found out that everyone played every hole as a par 3. When we took that back to the group and said that's how we'd play from now on some peeps were so upset that they stopped playing with us. If they couldn't have their birdies and under par scores they wern't going to play! So we played it how they wanted until eventually they gave in when they realized that was how everyone was keeping score. Reality was not going to interfere with their perception of their DG skills. I laugh as I write this, it sure was a stupid arguement.

Jerry S.

Chuck,

"But, in my example regarding hole 16 at Augusta where the scoring average on the same hole can vary by a full stroke based on pin placement,"

I assume you're saying it would be a mistake to change the par on that hole, even though moving the pin would cause a big change in stroke average. I think we would all agree.

But if we move a basket on a dg hole, causing the stroke average to go from 2.8 to 2.2, you want to call it a par 2, n'est-ce pas? Am I missing something?

"sometimes there is a wide range of difficulty for holes assigned the same reference par."

Exactly. So what's wrong with par 3's having a wide range? I do agree that if the stroke average is 2.2, the hole probably needs to be toughened up.

It seems counterintuitive to me to choose par for a hole in order to sync up with World Class Par. Shouldn't a hole's par be based on an evlauation of that hole by itself?

It also seems counterintuitive to set par so that a birdie is almost impossible.

I kind of like Rodney's idea of getting a feel for a course by comparing par to World Class Par. I know this stuff gets sticky -- it really points out some of the differences between our game and the traditional version.

The par on hole 16 at Augusta is set at 3 because the scoring average of all four official pin placements falls close to three even though the scoring average of the toughest one is probably greater than 3.5.

Our alternate pins on many holes are a full throw different so I would suggest they should probably have different pars.

I stand by the logic on my 10:46am post today. Zero handicap ball golfers average par 72 and their hole pars add up to 72. Our zero handicap disc golfers rated 1000 shoot an average of WCP. Thus, it follows our hole pars should add up to WCP. It's simple, consistent and can work all over the world.

The only place an alternative par method is required is the very short course as noted before. I agree with Dr. Fred that a way needs to be found to set pars on course configurations not played by enough players over a 900 rating.

I love this thread. As one who's played 20 years of BG and almost 3 years of DG the list of reasons that I like this game better keeps on growing. This thread has made it even more apparent to me just how much more fun it is to have a greater variety of holes. We can have a 450 ft. hazardless hole that falls under the NIES category or a 338 ft. hole that's a legit par-4 where a birdie 3 is relished. (I didn't believe it from the tee, but I played it at Idlewyld) There can be easy 150 ft. par 2's and tough 150 ft. par 3's. Opinions seem to be strong on this issue and I for one would just like to say hoorah for disc golf course designers with the guts to make different holes. I even love those WTF holes that I hate so much. Bottom line for me: In less than 3 years of discing I've had as much fun and played with ten times more great people than in 20 years of BG. Long live variety in DG.

Mr. Houck is confusing the issue because Mr. Houck would make changes in design.

The argument is not on design. It is about the rediculous under 54 rounds that are commonly shot on some of the courses.

No, no, no, Mr. Houck. You can't redesign the hole. For the sake of this argument you have to leave it where it's at. http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Chuck, I thought that you felt strongly that the Player Ratings System not be labelled a "Handicap" System. That that is a misuse of it. Yet here you use it to support your theory of WCP being the correct par for a course and a hole.

I'm slightly puzzled here. Is there some reason, other than our overriding sense of superiority to ball golf, that we don't just straight up steal their handicapping system? Has it been researched, and determined that it just won't work for disc golf? Con it be any more difficult to implement than the PRS? Or as Dr.Fred theorizes would it work to undermine the centralized control of the PDGA if anyone could figure out their handicap on a daily basis?

The only place a handicap matches the Player Rating is at the 1000 rating which is a zero handicap. Beyond that our our DG PR/WCP system diverges from the BG system for a variety of reasons. The prime reason is that BG forces the par to essentially be 72 and uses the slope rating to differentiate among course difficulties. The PR/WCP system embeds a certain portion of the difficulty in the WCP which varies widely primarily because the range of DG course lengths and challenges ranges much wider than BG. There are other technical reasons covered in a document comparing the BG and DG systems I can email anyone on request.

I'm off the Board until Tuesday so I can actually play that par 6, 1400' hole at the Tax Tourney in Birmingham. Hopefully, they have several Par 2s to make up for it....

The reason Hole 16 at Augusta is a Par 3 is because it is reachable from the tee. Giving 2 putts on the Green gives you a 3. It has nothing to do with scoring average....

What Justin said. Scoring average does not determine Par. Never has, in either type of golf. Nor does what Tiger or Climo shoots. I think we all know ball golf's definition (strokes to green 2 putts) and should all know DG's definition. The BG def is clearly defined. The DG def just needs to be more clear. "Two close range shots"? Someone suggested 150'. That sounds about right. If that's how far away the hole is, tough. It's an easy Par 3. The gains to be made in other areas certainly outweigh that design oversight (tech surpassed design). On some Par 4's, some people will make it to "close range" in 2, others in 1. Both can 1, 2, or 3 putt from there. Maybe the 2-driver has a drop-in 3. Maybe the 1-driver has a risky Eagle chance and a tough Birdie if missed. Maybe not. It's called course management and risk vs. reward. It's called Golf. Clearly define the Par formula, make it official, apply it, and stick to it. It's actually pretty easy. Measure the footage, including proposed (not necessarily mandoed) dog-legs and the like. Assign Par. It'll be a big step in legitimizing our awesome sport. There will always be easy and hard holes/tees/positions for any Par. Just the nature of golf, no matter the type.

Oh, and no Par 2's. Honestly. Do you really want them?

Bill, I'd rather have par-2s then have people thinking they shot 15 under par in 18 holes.

And one problem with my suggestion of 150' for "close range" is whose drive do we use? Stokely once was putting on the Monster hole in two drives, so is it a par-4? Ron Russell rolled to within 25' on a 600' hole at the Bob West this year, is it a par-3?

Finally got around to reading most of this thread.

What is "par for the course"? For me personally, par is what I can reasonably hope to shoot for a good round, a round good enough that I actually want to tell everybody what I shot. A score I can equal or beat only 15-25% of the time.

In my mind, par is quite a lofty, but attainable goal, under decent circumstances (I'm healthy and warmed up, skills seem OK, weather OK, my head's into the game, etc.)

That's really the only par I think about, when I think about score at all.

Now you can extrapolate this for ratings. What would be par for the course for a 1000-rated player? 900? 800? etc. Then you can go to a new course for the first time, look up the par for your rating/handicap, and know what to shoot for; what score would it take to make you want to brag about it. When you say to someone "I broke par," you should be getting high-fives from your friends, and a good-sized check at a pro tourney.

You can also calculate par hole-by-hole, but I don't see a need to spend a lot of time to be perfectly accurate about it. Let the local club slap together pars for each hole so that it adds up to the course par for each rating level.

And I have no problems with a par-7 or a par-2 (or a par-1 for that matter).

That's about it. My main point is that par to me is not a ho-hum average score; par should be a pretty darn good score. -- kurt from Seattle

I think the suggestion of calling Par drives plus
a short approach and a put are just about right.
DG just isn't quite like BG with a two putt green.
We have a two shot Approach and Putt zone. Drives
to reach the A&P zone should be defined as par.
The A&P zone should be 40 meters I think. Makes
more sense than any other definition I have seen
for DG.

As for which drive to use, you need pro par,
advanced par, and rec or am par. Figure out
about what an average drive for each of these
is and you have it.

Distance alone doesn't cut it. Doglegs, elevation, OB, and other hazards, can easily turn a 350' hole into a true par-4.

Also, if we're going to use Pro, Am, Novice, and Womens distances for drives, why not the same for the approach? The two shot zone for a pro might be 200', but for a novice 100'.

The Disc Golf Course Designers group has guidelines for different approach distances for different divisions. Email me if you would like a copy. It will soon be posted for downloading on this PDGA site.

When I designed a little 9 hole course in Virginia, My original plan was to make every tee to pin combination a par 3.
With 3 tees(Red, White, & Blue) and 4 pin placements(Pink, Orange, Green, & Blue) on every hole the course ranges from 1470' to 3632'.
It soon became apparent that some of the holes were not amatuer Par 3's.
On some of these holes a pro is happy to get a 3.
I developed a system where I added 2 strokes to the best score on a specific tee to pin location.

If a tee-pin has been aced ( 2) it is a par 3
If the best shot ever is a 2 ( 2) it is a par 4
If the best shot is a 3 ( 2) it is a par 5

This system allows players to get an eagle on a hole. There are currently 2 tee to pin combinations which have been double eagled, in other
words, I am probably going to change the par on these holes soon.

I display the pars and distances for every hole on the back of the teesign in a color coded spreadsheet layout.
The colored 1" stickon numbers seem to be the most UV Resistant.
I eventually plan to post this spreadsheet on the front of the sign when I can get someone to print the Info in UV resistant color Ink.

Here is an example of hole 4

Pin>>>> Pink Orange Green Blue
TEE
Red Par 3 3 3 4
Feet 153 219 215 265

White Par 3 3 3 4
Feet 186 252 248 298

Blue Par 4 4 4 5
Feet 273 337 335 385


I have tracked 62 tournament scores for the blue tee to blue pin combination on this hole.
The overall average score is 4.62
The average score for Open pro(17 scores) is 4.17
In tournaments every hole is a par 3... right..?
Only 4 players have managed to shoot a 3 on this hole.

Try applying the best shot 2 method to your favorite course and see what you come up with.

Let's see how this stirs up the conversation.

Tim Beron

The best part of your process is that you at least have a consistent system for your regional players to understand. And, it is similar to ball golf. However, in your hole 4 example, if that were a ball golf hole, it would likely be assigned a par of 4 rather than 5. In the new World Class Par system, it would also be assigned as a par 4.

In the new WCP system, you take the scoring average on a hole by players with a rating of at least 900. Then, calculate their average player rating. Take this number divided by 1000. Then, multiply it by the scoring average on the hole to get the hypothetical scoring average of a 1000 rated player. The WC par would be the round number closest to that adjusted hole average.

I would guess your 4.17 would come down to just about 4.0 with the player rating adjustment. I applaud your efforts to take the time to analyze the data for your course. It's this kind of volunteer effort that will be valuable as we move toward a more nationally recognized process.

Howdy Timber

Every hole in the original layout at Calvert has been aced except for hole 7 (for all I know it has been hit as well). Following your rule, par is 55. I am guessing that WCP at Calvert in that layout is about 41 (I shot a 38 out there two weeks ago). I think the WCP method is the best way of objectively evaluating course par, even though it leads to par 2 ratings for many holes at the older courses.

By the way, what happened to that gnarly blue tee on 6? I had the kids out there on Friday and saw that it had been taken out of commission. DD

Chuck, Dave and others,
You are right, my system is not applicable to pro level players. It is close, But No Cigar!

I guess it is most applicable to the par for each tee/pin combination on a hole which
(Displayed on the tee sign)
is a benchmark for amateur players.

Many new Players consider the posted par to be Gospel.
(Several locals get quite upset when I change the par on a tee/pin combination.)
Eventually they play a tournament and find out every hole is a par 3.

That was a surprise to me when I played in my first tournament!

Some Holes I played as an amatuer were labled as par 4's(Guesses Perhaps). They were always easy!
I found out later that trees which had made a hole very tough had fallen and no one had thought about changing the par on the sign.

Some par 4 holes I played were very tough,
New trees were planted or old trees filled out, erosion occurred, etc...
Since the signs pars were established,
Thereby making the hole more difficult.


Perhaps (active) course pros or Park Authorities
can utilize this best shot( 2) system to post or alter (Tee/Pin)Pars on their tee signs for their amatuer/novice players.

Dave,
Out of curiousity, which two holes did you get a 3 on?

After most tourneys here in Lincoln, several players will play a round of best shot doubles for a couple of bucks. In the definition I read, par is interpreted as the perfect series of shots. Seems to me that par could most easily be established by the best score from the play of best shot doubles on a good weather day.

Most of the holes would be a par 2, some a 3, and even our monster 566 footer is a par 3. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to make a 30 foot putt on a perfect shot.

Also seems like a lot of the par ratings on courses are a "feel good" par. They allow the novice to quickly feel as if they can compete.

As is the case with most courses, we do not have a local pro that plays often on the national scene. I would consider that type of player to be a major, and not eligable for setting par.

There are a lot of ways to establish par. I think we would do good to keep it simple.

Andrew

Par is generally irrelevant in DG, and in BG with scratch stroke and match play. Just get down in as few throws as possible.

Par does comes into play during BG handicapped match play AND requires a hole by hole handicap rating for that set of tees (as is typical of all BG courses of any repute).

In handicap BG play, if your club say you have a 10 handicap with an opponent with a 3 handicap, you are allowed one extra stroke on the seven hardest holes.

Where par comes into play is in how hard or easy a hole is. A DG hole that has an average score of 2.6 might be a very easy par 3 hole (perhaps easiest hole), or a very difficult par 2 hole (perhaps most difficult hole).

In other words, in handicap match play with the player handicaps noted above, a 2.6 average hole that is set as a par 2 by the CM (and perhaps the 3rd most difficult hole on the course) would require your opponent to hole out in par 2 while you'd get 3 for a tie, or 2 to win the hole. If the same hole were par 3, it might be the 15th hardest hole, and you'd be playing even with your buddy for par 3.

These nuances of BG golf don't matter in PDGA events or most DG play. PDGA events are miles in the opposite direction from offering handicap match play -- they are typically scratch stroke events.

Many of the better players scoff at the notion of the PDGA offering handicap play formats where the better players might have to play on an even playfield with players who'd get several strokes of 'freebies' to equalize the competition.

Also, the PDGA course ratings system is a work in progress (or a mess, depending upon whether or not your course ever holds a PDGA event). Hole by hole ratings are way out on the fringe of DG reality, with peer reviewed club/player handicap ratings perhaps even further past the horizon as far as contemporary PDGA competition and vision goes.

Aka, its a work in progress with results to be expected about the same time that politicians stop accepting campaign donations.

Quit ******** and go start your own organization to save this sport, Fred! DO SOMETHING if it is as sad and pathetic as you convey. Wow.

Three,or 3 is parr no matter what.

54 is par for a 18-hole course mainly so that dgolfer can easily and quickly track their score.
Most of the courses here in Austin were originally designed with some holes as pars 4 and 5's due to length or difficulty. Over time as the t-box signs were stolen and vandalized, ie Circle C / Searight, all holes just became accepted as par 3's. So now, without signs, the new dgolf player just accepts that everything is a three because he/she has no reference otherwise.

Par...this a real gray area in our sport.......
I really like the WCP course rating system. With this system we can compare scores with a "world class" average score,or "par", from major events. Even though multiple pin placements and tee pads come into play, its a rough estimate of what the best players are shootin. THANKS ALOT to Pete Cashen and the KCFDC for putting on great tourney the 23rd down under @ Rosedale in KC.

Chris

Dictionary.com defines par as follows:

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

As I have stated before, imnsho, par is what it is. For those people who look at a 1,000' hole as a true par three, I would say that they don't know what the concept of par is and they probably don't care. I too look at all my holes during a round on a course without posted par/distance as 3's just for the ease of figuring my scores in my head, but I would never be foolish enough to believe that something like old #4 at the Rock is actually a par 3. That seems pretty ridiculous to me. And, just as importantly, it seems pretty silly to people who come into our sport without the benefit of old school thinking and try to make sense of it all based on their possible knowledge of that other game called golf.

I never will understand why some players are so adamant and sensitive about the whole "everything is par 3," argument. But, then again, there's probably alot that I don't understand, what with my overwhelming inexperience and all. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

ams.

Sorry, Chile, I forgot to read the paragraph in the handbook that clearly states, "Only people who play this sport for money are entitled to a valid opinion."

I'll try to behave until I can play well enough to offer one. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

What is a tree?

Its one of those noisy things that are always falling when no one's around to hear it.

What is an eagle?

Its when a tree that would normally take 4 seconds to fall, falls in 2.

If no one's around it's a birdie because the current acceptable par is the average of the average of what it takes for all trees to fall...

Didn't you read my first post? Only expert lumberjacks should be expected to fell a 4-second tree in two.

And, par is what it is, regardless of whether or not someone's there to hear it.

Martyr, don't argue with me. Par is:
The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

Par is what it is at the time I'm keeping score. I consider it necessary to have high pars.

I consider it necessary to have low par for the other players on my card. So far, I find this enables me to catch up when I'm keeping score.

I'm all for that, so long as you're not playing me. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

As for me arguing w/ you, why not? Its just the nonsensical ramblings of two ADV masters. No one will pay any attention. Only PRO masters are allowed to engage in compelling arguments.

Par can be best described as.....irrelevant.

Par can be best described as.....irrelevant...to pnkgtr.

When you play a tourney is the final score based on par or based on the quantity of throws? Par is only a guide for expectations. I would rather know what the handicap is for a given hole than actual par.

Those of you that don't know what course handicapping is....learn to play golf.

In Disc Golf, there are three PAR types that have been defined:

1) The conventional "Par 3 per hole" which is useful primarily for scorekeeping purposes.

2) The Recreational Par system originated by the DGA which has been used for the short tees on many courses. Holes with an effective length under 200' are Par 3; from 200'-265' are Par 4; and over 265' are Par 5.

3) The newer World Class Par (WCP) system. Par is based on what a World Class player with a 1000 rating would shoot on average at the course. The WCP per hole can be determined by recording enough scores on each hole (say minimum 30), calculating these scoring averages and adjusting them to total the overall WCP for the course. Using this technique, we were able to forecast what turned out to be the actual WCP for each course at PW2001 within a few tenths of a throw. The WCP system is useful for players to compare how they did on any course and determine their skill level.

WCPs on individual holes are primarily useful for course designers and TDs to determine which pin/tee settings might be best for each division. In the future, there may be enough data gathered by course pros to establish handicaps similar to BG.

Contrary to the hammering from Dr. Fred, it is NOT necessary to host a PDGA event to establish a course or layout WCP value. An Excel league template is available to help calculate the WCP from league players, ideally including at least 10 who have PDGA player ratings.

Or, there's a new formula that will get within 5% or so of the WCP value for most courses. WCP= 26 (0.8 x Avg hole length) for 18-hole courses. For example, a 5400' course which averages 300' per hole would typically have a WCP of 50 [26 (0.8x300)]. If it's a heavily wooded course, the actual WCP could be up to 4 throws higher than this calculation. If the course is wide open or has lots of elevation changes, the value might be up to 4 throws lower. Unfortunately, this formula would likely not be useful for courses with directional baskets.

Do you know your rating? Do you know the rating of your course?

Check it out. It's pretty cool to know what your own individual par is for a course and to know definitively if you have shot better or worse than your par.

Chuck,

There seems to be a typo in your formula.
I think what you mean is WCP=26 (.08xAvg. Hole length).
Just trying to help out a fellow Minnesotan. :-)

You are correct sir. I guess I'm getting too old to type those from memory ;-)

Chuck, I'm sorry to run this into the ground and I certainly appreciate the WCP system, but I must disagree with you that there only three par types that have been defined.

What is wrong with acknowledging course par when it has been established and posted (signs, scorecords, etc.) by a qualified course designer? For instance, three of the courses that I have the opportunity to play as much or more than any others in the area, have legitimate pars over 54 that are established and posted on tee signs (Rivery) and scorecards (Circle R #1). If a quality design element has been used in establishing par on a certain hole, with a lot of thought going into it on the part of the course designer, why the stigma attached to merely accepting it?

No disrespect intended to #001, but the DGA system you mentioned seems pretty useless, even for most rec players I know. Over 265' a par 5? I don't get that. What I do get is, for example, hole #10 at Circle R's Rolling Meadow course. Due to length and design, this is a three-shot hole (3 to the green and a putt). Three-shot holes are now being commonly referred to as par 5's and two-shot holes as par 4's. Just because the best pro players and the biggest arms (not always the same thing /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif ) can, on occasion, three this hole, does that make it a par 3? I don't think so. Another good example is #1 at Rivery. I have, on rare occasions, played my first two shots exactly to the right landing zone areas and carded a three on the hole. That means I played the hole just the way it was designed to allow for a birdie 3.

Maybe someone will again state that I'm just an am, and as such can't understand the need for the mathematically challenged to use "everything is a three" for score keeping purposes, but I still cannot understand why its so hard for some people to live with a legitimate posted par that is established by a qualified course designer.

And, pnkgtr, par is only a guide for expectations, as you stated. What's wrong with that? The question was what is par, not what does par mean to you.

Chuck, stop baiting me. You know I've defined a *4th* method over and over again. I'm so easy.

But at least I can take comfort in the fact that my definition is the correct one.

rodney

There's no problem with having Par 4s and 5s. I just stated that those were the par systems that have been formally defined. Whether they are still useful or not is a separate question. Unless you can define your "qualified course designer par" system so that other qualified designers would come up with the same numbers, it's not a system.

I suspect that your pars may come close to what the WCP would come up with. The WCP calculation for Winthrop Gold last year was less than 1 throw different from what qualified designer Harold assigned to total par 68. With experience, designers should be able to estimate the WCP for each hole (just like ball golf does) before the numbers are actually confirmed by competing players.

Oh, why do I do this?

Chuck wrote:
Unless you can define your "qualified course designer par" system so that other qualified designers would come up with the same numbers, it's not a system.

Well, I hate to bring up ball golf, but since that's where our game comes from, I'll go ahead and point out that "par" can be quite subjective in ball golf, just as it can be in our golf. And if you're hung up on something with subjectivity not being a "system", well, whatever. There will always be tweener holes. That's part of what makes hard par 3's, easy par 4's, etc.

Step back, rodney, it's just a game.

(Personal opinion: All 4 systems have merit, and their own time when they are most useful.)

rodney

Yeah, what he said.

BTW, I used the aforementioned equation to come up with an estimated WCP at Rivery: 52.52 - 4.48 strokes less than posted par. This indicates my only problem with WCP. While anything from -2 to -6 par 54 would be considered a good score on this course by an Open player, that doesn't mean that this is an indication of par. In this "system", some of these holes would be considered Par 2. The whole concept of par is in conflict with the thought of an Ace as a Birdie.

I'm done with this, as I'm obviously not quite bright enough to understand why this concept is so hard for people. Besides, its hurting my brain. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

It appears WCP will eventually become the default competition standard for total course par as a result of the PDGA's long term commitment to produce Player Ratings on an ongoing basis. The Player Ratings and WCP calculations are tightly intertwined. Deriving individual hole pars from the WCP value will inevitably follow even though that means some holes will be par 2. If you don't want par 2s, then you'll have to do what the USDGC gang did and make the easy holes tough enough so they are legit par 3s.

Undeniable logic.

Chuck,

You mentioned 3 different methods of par:

- All are 3
- RDGA method, based on length
- WCP

Right now, what is a TD to use? Rule 804.02A states that a score of par plus 4 is to entered for a player who misses the beginning of a round for all holes missed.

I don't know what Rodney's 4th method is, but I would say, for now, the par to use should go in this order:

- Par as noted by the TD
- Par as listed on the scorecard
- Par as noted on the signage for that hole
- 3

BTW, from the rules, 806-Glossary, "Par: As determined by the director, the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out. "

The above assumes that director has used the scorecard and signage to designate par, and if not, has otherwise determined par and disseminated it to the players.

Because of this rule, par is not irrelevant. If we do away with all rules that deal with par, then was it is is then irrelevant and a topic of discussion. Until the rule is rewritten, what ever the TD says Par is, is PAR!!

DGRZ#001

Bill, If you post immediately after me it looks like you are responding to my posts. Remember the email? Please be more careful. Thanks.

Even when he starts the email with:

"Chuck,"

and posts three hours later ?

Now DAT wuz funny. /clipart/smile.gif

Martyr actually made me think about this and maybe some of you others should too. Is the WCP an average or a theoretical number? What exactly is it based on? If there are par 2's, then you either ace, par or bogey. That hole cannot be birdied. Oh, I see, it can't be aced then. The best you can do is get a birdie. Is the WCP an average? Then as many people ace as bogey. Will this ever end?

Yes. It ends every time you birdie those par 2 holes down there. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Since the WCP definition is many posts ago, here it is again for Chris and others who tuned in late. "World Class Par is based on what a World Class player with a 1000 rating would shoot on average at the course."

Just because an Ace and Birdie on a Par 2 hole are the same thing shouldn't be a problem. An Eagle and an Ace on a Par 3 are the same and an Ace and Double Eagle on a Par 4 are the same. Ball golfers haven't lost sleep over this issue for a few hundred years. Must be OK, eh?

Or it's mute.

Not even I can find anything worth arguing about on this thread. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

If that's not a sign of the Apocalypse, I don't know what is.

Pestulance.

Pestulance - that's funny.

"Don't mess with the missionary ma-a-an." Abba.

Sorry Chuck, I was just adding a little fuel to the fire. My intentions are still to throw the best shot on each hole. Nick, you are so jealous of me that you probably never sleep.

Hey <STRIKE>moron</STRIKE> Randy, don't you mean "pestilence"?!/clipart/proud.gif

...or maybe petulance, I'm not sure.

The last time I looked was over a year ago...WHERE can I find the course ratings?

Pestilence. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

The most recent set of course ratings is available by clicking on the PDGA Tour link then the player rating docs. Then scroll to the bottom of page for the New Course Rating link. Unfortunately, the file doesn't include courses that had ratings from an earlier calculation.

Theo is working with Roger on an update to the ratings with enhanced online access features. It should include more historical data. Ideally, the WCP values will be linked into the Course Directory at some point.

I sleep just fine, though I am jealous of your good looks and flick shot.

I always thought "Missionary Man" was Annie Lenox of Eurythmics..............

Found Them./clipart/happy.gif

You can stop now, you made me blush.

Thank you John. (I can't do it. It's just not right.)

Chuck,

More and more I think that the PDGA needs some standardized definition of par. The recent reporting of Worlds scores is an example. Because of the dominant perception that par = 54 the PDGA reported all Worlds scores for each course relative to 54 (with the total score too of course). Obviously not every hole was a par 3. It would have been much better to know the score relative to true par. If this had been the case then more Adv men would've shot under par , for example.

The issue of par affects anyone who plays on a course with holes over 500 ft (much less 800 footers). It's ludicrous to call a 500 ft hole a par 3.

A reality of disc golf is that you measure your performance relative to par. Par also allows you to compare courses. The par 68 of Winthrop Gold (USDGC) and Renaissance GOld's par 70 tells me a lot about the course, and vastly changes my expectations and in turn my performance. I'd be elated to shoot an even par 70 at Renny Gold, but discouraged if I thought my 70 was 16 over par.

Personally I keep a comprehensive data base of all the 120+ courses that I've played and knowing the par is an essential part of comparing courses. I use my own definition of par that I cobbled together from all of these discussions (using lots of your input, by the way).

This may have been answered elsewhere, but my question is: who in the PDGA has authority to answer this issue authoritatively? Will it ever be addressed definitively by the PDGA? Could you suggest who the people to contact would be?

While I agree that there needs to be a better definition of Par, I also don't like the addition of Par 2 to the process. Without Par 2 holes, the system becomes meaningless for the majority of courses currently in the ground.

In addition, with any downhill slope, a 500' wide open hole can easily end up with a par of 3 if past scoring history is used to determine par for that hole.

I know that as a 911 rated player, if I didn't get a 3 on a 500' open hole, I would feel that had I misplayed the hole.

The question becomes more one of what player rating is par aimed at. Is par what is normal for a 1000 rated player, or a 950 rated player, or do we base it on something other than scoring history ?

1000 or 950 or 900, I really don't care so long as it is a "known" standard. Seeing accurate number, distance, map and par on a tee sign is schweet. Think how cool it would be if every major course had them!

We're slowly 'circling the wagons' on the par issue. Perhaps you haven't seen the latest Course Design posting which has come closer to defining par.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

I also posted a chart we use in the Course Design group in the Different Layouts thread which forecasts the probable scoring average on holes for different lengths and foliage density by different player skill levels.

Regarding Worlds, we did actually do something different than par 54 this year. All player Over/Under values were based on the SSA of the courses, not 54. However, we dodged the par 2 issue by just using the total SSA for the course and not specifying individual pars on the holes. There was a plan to identify selected holes as par 4s and 5s in the event players were late. However, the Worlds team never got around to that so the few players who were late (if any?) all got 7s.

Chuck,

Thanks for the link to the pdf. I look forward to studying it.


...I also posted a chart we use in the Course Design group in the Different Layouts thread which forecasts the probable scoring average on holes for different lengths and foliage density by different player skill levels....



Can you point me to this thread? I haven't seen it.


...Regarding Worlds, we did actually do something different than par 54 this year. All player Over/Under values were based on the SSA of the courses, not 54.



Where was this? I followed each day's scores, and the amount over or under par was in relation to 54. Also, even as you look at the final results it it in relation to par 54.

Different Layouts thread:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=213098&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=10&vc=1

They disabled the 'Show Ratings' option since it wasn't correct so the current online results show the Over/Under relative to 54. However, during the Worlds, the Over/Under was related to predetermined SSA values for each course. I thought it was getting posted online that way. But I know for sure the color coded round updates posted at the tournament hotel on Nez's scoring spreadsheets had the Over/Under in relation to SSA.

I do know that while we were in Iowa, the comparison to par was based on numbers other than 54 per round.

It has either changed now, or there was a mighty big coincidence that 9 courses added together averaged out to 54 apeice.

Chuck,

Thanks for the quick reply.

Lowe

I'll just chime in real quick and say, if we achieve more mainstream (read ESPN type coverage), Par 2s would have people laughing at how silly they think "frisbee golf" is. Ball Golf has given us a wonderful model to follow. Yes, disc golf has often had to take what we were given and design holes that are certainly easy to birdie, but that doesn't make them par 2s. It makes them a) poorly designed, or b) making the best of a park that gave us X amount of space to fit 18 holes in. Incidentally, I play stick golf, too. We had a (ball) golf course in NC that came out with an ad that they had a par 7 golf hole. The pro there tells me that people have not responded well to the concept, and many laugh at the hole. (He even told me he has heard the windmill and clown's mouth cracks).Yeah, we can all see the NXT comercials on TV and chuckle, but people tend to resist changing a system if it works well (and I don't blame them). Golf is a multi-million dollar industry in the US, and noone can argue with success. WCP is fine for determining player rating, but that is as far as it should go.
Par 3s, 4s, and 5s will keep us alive and viable as the "sport of the future". Par 2s, 6s and 7s make us look like knuckleheads trying to belittle the institution of the greatest game in the world.
Par in ball golf also helps a golfer with his/her strategy on a given hole. We have only come close to this on a few great courses that have had serious time, thinking, and most of the time, funding to make the dream into reality.
Just my two cents. :cool:

Par 5s are now as much of a joke in BG as some feel par 2s are in DG. Amazing what lengths people will go to to pervert the reality of scoring data to hang on to a traditional but outdated method to set the par on a hole.

A joke is one thing...and I'm not sure anyone but you thinks that par 5s in ball golf are a joke (sure there are poorly designed ones that pros consider "easy", but I've never heard them gripe about an eagle or a birdie).
Trying to fix something that isn't broken is entirely different. I don't justify everyone just falling into the mix because it's "always been done that way", but we've got a long way to go to see disc golf achieve what we know it's capable of, and throwing in par 2s and par 7s can only be a step backwards, in my opinion. Yeah, it would be great if everyone were as "forward thinking" and stat-based as you, but most are not...especially the ones we would pitch for major sponsorship of a Pro Tour.
In addition, if it doesn't affect the strategy I use to play a hole, par is at the very least a gauge of you vs. the course. I'd rather feel good about a 65 at Winthrop Gold as being a -3 or -4 than being a +11 because someone has deemed half the holes as par 2s. :cool:
We are "disc" and they (me too sometimes) are "ball" or "stick"...but we are ALL "GOLF".
my two cents...guess that makes four cents now... :cool:

Some par 5s are only inflated for top rated ball golfers as some par 3s are inflated for top rated disc golfers. For "regular" DGers, there are few holes that have scoring averages that merit par 2, as most par 5 holes for regular BGers are also legit. Harold strives to keep the scoring averages above 2.5 for the reachable holes on Winthrop Gold and a few are just barely there. But, not every course designer has the flexibility to design holes that stay above 2.5 scoring average for world class players.

We basically finessed the issue at Worlds where some courses had SSAs less than 54 but didn't worry about setting individual pars on the holes. With this approach, we can have virtual par 2s but not actual par 2s to keep most happy, except those who want to have pars set on each hole.

I like the ratings system and appreciate where you're coming from. I guess my jibe is that birdie should not EVER be taken out of the equation (and a 1 will ALWAYS be an ace,or hole in "ONE"), even if it means Barry shoots 18 under (36) at Winston-Salem's Horizon's Park (NCs original pole hole course). He may not have fun doing it, and may not come back to play it, but imagine that new disc golfer who takes his stingray and apx out and finally shoots 3 under par!! He's hooked for life (that's what happened to me)!
If it doesn't affect strategy (which ideally it should, but often can't), then it comes down to being "golf" or some new derivitive, or it comes down to deciding who can shoot "par"...the top 1% or maybe 33% of us. That's an ego thing I guess, but I'm only human (misanthropy implied). I don't know about you, but I was mildly disgusted at the setup of the US Open course on the PGA tour this year. Even a course setup by the "protectors of the game" made top pros look like scrubs, and if that's what we want in disc golf, then I guess only Kenny and Barry will shoot under par. I guess shootouts can make a course look bad, and perhaps even make par less sacred, but there is a medium there somewhere. Man, we've got along way to go... and like my bro says, "golf isn't a destination, it's journey". :cool:
p.s.- as far as the inflated pars... what's wrong with showing how good these guys really are, if even on a scorecard. Tiger hasn't made par 5s obsolete, and I still sit on the edge of my seat when a pro is putting for an eagle on a par 5. Not so for a pro putting for a double bogey...
I'm not saying pros should be 100 under par after 72 holes, but certainly not 10 over. C'mon.... these guys are good!!!!!!! Same for disc golf! :cool:

When we set up the course in Byron Michigan for the Cali State Championships, we will have holes designated as par 3, 4 and 5. The average length hole there is just over 700 feet and is designated as a par 4. In best shot doubles last year the best pro score was a -10 or a 62. Based on how I have consistantly played the course, I think 1000 rated pros would probably shoot around -2 on the course.

The par controversy rages on. We played a course that had a par of 63 last weekend. Most (but not all) of the par-4s were pretty easy, and it was disapointing to not be putting for 3. One of the par-3s was very easy, and not getting a two was losing a stroke to the field. Preliminary SSA comes out around 56.

Rounds with ratings (http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4506&year=2004&includeRatings=1#Open) (Saturday's rounds were par-63, Sundays were par-54).

Lots of interesting discussion on whether or not the par-4s were true par 4's. One player even shot a 53. -10 or -1?

Horizon Park is fun. Its possible that the pros could shoot under 18 under par. Most of those holes if not ALL are easy deuces and alot are ACE runs.

If pars were based on 900 golf, holes with SSAs of below 2.5 would be rare, showing up on courses with SSAs of below around 46 here and there.

What ever we need to do to get a meaningful standard for Disc Golf Par, we need to do and move on. It would just be a good thing to have. As many point out, it wouldn't make a fat lot of difference for top PDGA Events or Players; but we are building this sport for more than just this group of 500 players or so, right?

Who cares what par is. If you are a avid Disc golfer. You should know that a 900 Ft hole with 3 landing areas isnt going to be a 3 whether the score card says it is or not. At the end of the day no matter what par is for the course you still shot what you shot. Whether you say its a 10 over or a ten under if you shot a 54 you shot a 54. There could be no pars what so ever or there could be par 1s 2s 3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 20s 30s 40s 50s, Its doesnt matter because at the end of a round everyone adds up there score and thats what it is.

That's exactly my feeling on Par's - relatively meaningless and arbitrary given the broadrange of the skills of people that enter the argument.

The only legitimate reason I can see for having par is for televised events. That way, you can see how your guy is doing against a competitor one or several holes away. Since we play in 4-somes, that problem is cut in half. Won't even breathe a word about DG's TV audience.

Par does matter, but really just for the course, not individual holes. For pool play at Worlds, the only way to compare players in the same division who are in different pools like the Am & Pro Open & Masters is to know what the par/course rating is of the courses they've played so far. This is a very small reason to worry about par and it's now being handled for our over/under scoring system at Worlds. In a broader sense, the overall par/course rating/SSA allows courses to be compared so players can use this as one element to consider what courses/tees they might want to play when traveling.

As far as individual holes, par really isn't necessary. Designers need to know what to do to design holes of the proper length to challenge the skill level of player a particular tee set is being designed for. Those charts are available (see Different Layouts thread under Rules topic) but that's 'under the hood' geek stuff and not needed for day-to-day play. So, if a hole is well designed and has a 2.4 scoring average for scratch players, why worry whether it's really a par 2? The only technical reason for hole pars is for late penalties. No one seems to worry about that too much with all holes being par 3 at the past Worlds. We had par 2s at the 2001 and 2002 Pro Worlds (and Par 4s & 5s) but I don't think par 2s have been specified at any other Majors.

Let's stop the static and just GET IT DONE ALREADY!

What is stopping us? (Other than a dang hurd of cats...)

the other reason we need pars for holes is so we can assess reasonable and fair strokes as late fees for competitors arriving to their round late.

Who cares what par is. If you are a avid Disc golfer. You should know that a 900 Ft hole with 3 landing areas isnt going to be a 3 whether the score card says it is or not. At the end of the day no matter what par is for the course you still shot what you shot. Whether you say its a 10 over or a ten under if you shot a 54 you shot a 54. There could be no pars what so ever or there could be par 1s 2s 3s 4s 5s 6s 7s 20s 30s 40s 50s, Its doesnt matter because at the end of a round everyone adds up there score and thats what it is.



Hear hear. The intial goal of teeing off is to get the disc in the basket in as few throws as possible. My home course (and only course I've ever played on, Misawa Japan) is par 3 through all 18 holes. Sure it's quite possible some of them would truly be 2's or 4's but who cares? What's good for one player is good for another. When I first started playing I looked at the 4-5 400ft+ holes on the course and thought 'you have to be #@#!&@ kidding me, par 3?!'. But slowly my double-boges turned into boges, then to pars and now the occasional bird. If someone birds a par 3 almost every time, good for them. To those who can't, better luck next tee-off. I don't see the intense discussion unless it is obviously ridiculous, e.g. a par 4 300' wide-open downhill tee. Like stated above, a 54 is a 54. Fussing about 'grey' areas is purely aesthetic.

There are real reasons to have correct pars defined.

All of those reasons have to do with comparisons.

Comparing your scores to others with differing holes remaining.

Comparing the scores on one course with scores from another course.

I would also add that setting par on a hole "correctly", whatever that entails, should help in the design of a course. If a designer wants a par 4 hole, designing it that way and then having someone else claim it's a par 3 throws the intent of the design into question (and smacks of a poorly designed hole).

Par has meaning, and its psychological aspect shouldn't be undervalued, either. People universally will know what a good or bad score on the hole is after they know its par.

Also, correct par assignments establish what "perfect" round play is: scoring 18 under, or a birdie on every hole on the course.

Having meaningful pars, that translate from course to course and skill level to skill level, is likely to increase in value as more and more courses start to have SSAs well above 54.

Courses with SSAs lower than 54, generally speaking, are duece or die courses with very few if any "Golf" like holes, where the player is expected to hit a landing area in order to have even a chance of getting to the next landing area in order to have any chance of landing on the green (and not just in terms of distance either).

Golf has "Par". Disc Golf is a form of Golf. We need a meaningful "Par". Gedder Done.

Maybe we just accept the fact that some courses are can only be given pars at the rec level, and post only rec pars at those courses. Other courses will get both rec level and pro level pars.

Maybe we just accept the fact that some courses are can only be given pars at the rec level, and post only rec pars at those courses. Other courses will get both rec level and pro level pars.



That is not a bad idea. Use 850 or 900 as the standard for Rec Courses, and 950 or 1000 for World Class Courses. I would favor the 950 standard because that seems to cover a far greater demographic of PDGA Members.

By using 900 as the Par Standard for Rec Courses, only courses with SSAs below 44-47 would have any possibility of getting a dreaded Par 2 SSA for any given holes.

We could just go with the tee designations supplied by the PDGA Course Design Committee, and have set standards for each one. If none of the tees on a course meet the GOLD designation then you don't mistakenly call them GOLD, you call them what they are RED, WHITE or BLUE. And the pars could be set likewise; GOLD at 1000, BLUE at 950, WHITE at 900, and RED at 850 and the hole by hole pars set according to that skill level. After all, those tees and pins were designed (or should have been designed) for those seperate and distinct skill levels, right?

I'm a little puzzled as to why the PDGA and seemingly Chuck are opposed to nailing this sucka down. It's as if confusion is preferred to clarity. But perhaps there are things at work for which I am unaware (DGU, PDGA PRs, etc.).

The key is to have a "Par" standard that has a meaningful and understandable foundation. One that will mean the same thing to someone in Australia as it means to someone in Detroit.

There's nothing lurking in the background on this par issue. The Gold, Blue, White and Red tee guidelines just got posted online a month or so ago and I doubt many players even know they exist yet. Even designers are just getting comfortable with using the new tools to help them set tees and pins for specific skill levels. And only a few of them are using the tools or plan to at the moment. My thought was to put forth a proposal for par guidelines at the next Summit in February but even that might be too soon.

I would be in favor of such a system.

I think there should be a minimum SSA requirement before white, blue, or gold pars can be marked on the tees.

Gedder Done Chuck. Why do tomorrow what you can do today?

If it is implemented then folks will fall into compliance and understanding at their own pace, if it is just a nice idea floating aimlessly out their then folks will:

A) Never even know a standard exists.
B) Disregard it as just a good idea whose time has not yet come.

We can't wait for everyone to understand and feel comfortable with this anymore than we can hope for Craig to understand how Player Ratings "really" work. :D

We just have to Gedder Done.

Having meaningful pars, that translate from course to course and skill level to skill level, is likely to increase in value as more and more courses start to have SSAs well above 54.

Courses with SSAs lower than 54, generally speaking, are duece or die courses with very few if any "Golf" like holes, where the player is expected to hit a landing area in order to have even a chance of getting to the next landing area in order to have any chance of landing on the green (and not just in terms of distance either).

Golf has "Par". Disc Golf is a form of Golf. We need a meaningful "Par". Gedder Done.



I know Nick said "generally speaking" so I'd like to expand on that. In my experience (over 140 courses played) courses with SSAs of 50 or above can still have several par four or par five golf holes, with multiple landing areas and two-shot golf holes. These holes are usually balanced by a number of par three holes, many of which can be world class par 2 holes, to yield a course SSA of 51-54. A good example of this is the FDR State Park Course in NY and the Little Lehigh Parkway temporary course for next year's 2005 Pro Worlds in Allentown. Both these courses feature at least five pro par four holes and a lot of tough threes. SSA for these courses is right around 51-52, and although there are a number of deucable holes at these courses, NO ONE would call these "deuce-or-die courses."

So basically, I'm suggesting Nick amend his statement to "SSAs lower than 50."

Generally speaking, I think he is trying to avoid the dreaded par 2 hole. If the SSA is below 54, there are going to be par 2 holes by necessity if there is a gold (pr 1000) layout.

The SSA moves closer to 49 for the blue (pr 950), 44 for white (pr 900) and 39 red (pr 850).

The courses should be rated at the level that par reaches at least 54. I know the general SSA's listed above are not accurate for player rating and SSA, but a course that a 900 rated player should shoot below 54 would rated as Red. A course where a 950 rated player should shoot below 54 would be white. Courses where a 1000 rated player should shoot below 54 would be blue, and above that would be gold.

I think the majority of current courses would fall into the White category with some below, and a few above.

Although unlikely, a course could have an SSA almost 9 throws less than what the appropriate par might be for that skill level on the course if say all of the 18 holes had scoring averages of X.51. It's more common for the SSA to be less than the appropriate par because it seems easier to design holes with scoring averages from X.51 to X.99 than from X.01 to X.49. Without getting into the design reasons for this, my point is that the overall course SSA won't necessarily tell you what the overall appropriate par should be for a specific skill level.

Well, you're a lot of help. :cool:

Any general guidelines ? Do you think we can even have courses that do not have white or blue tees ?

I think there can be several par standards with the appropriate ones used where needed. Designers who specifically design for a set of tees for a particular color/skill level should calculate the Par for that level and label the signs appropriately as Gold Par, Blue Par, White Par or Red Par. That's what we'll be doing for Highbridge. That par indicates what a player of that skill level should be able to shoot on that course, i.e. a 900 rated player should be able to average whatever the White Par is indicated on a course. That way, players know when they should move back to the next tee set if the course has a Blue or Gold set, too.

On courses where the design hasn't necessarily been done consistently for a Gold or Blue skill level, I would suggest calculating the 'Pro Par' (and call it that) based around the 970 skill level player. There's a good chance the long tees at many older courses have a mix with some suitable for Gold and others suitable for Blue level. For short tees that haven't been specifically designed for Red or White, set the 'Rec Par' based on an 870 player and call it that. There, I 'Just Do'd it'

Without getting into the design reasons for this



Why not get into the design issues; some proprietary secret or something?

I think I could take a pretty accurate stab at it, but why when you could hit it on the head the first time out. It has to do with Appropriate Challenge right?

You could have a hole that averages 4.5 for 850 RED tees is a par 5 for them, but say requires a nearly impossible shot of them. Something like a 425 foot throw over water or something. Is that right? SSAs are not completely inappropriate to use, only if there is no connect to appropriate skill level challenges.


Although unlikely, a course could have an SSA almost 9 throws less than what the appropriate par might be for that skill level on the course if say all of the 18 holes had scoring averages of X.51. It's more common for the SSA to be less than the appropriate par because it seems easier to design holes with scoring averages from X.51 to X.99 than from X.01 to X.49. Without getting into the design reasons for this, my point is that the overall course SSA won't necessarily tell you what the overall appropriate par should be for a specific skill level.

Why not get into the design issues; some proprietary secret or something?




Different thread off topic, not that it seems to stop others from thread drift. :D

Why not get into the design issues; some proprietary secret or something?




Different thread off topic, not that it seems to stop others from thread drift. :D



How could something that could clarify this specific topic be off topic?

How course design effects appropriate hole by hole pars. Innappropriate use of tee colors can lead to imappropriate challenges for different skill levels and affect the par of the hole. Well how exactly? It's not on topic. Oh. OK. End of Topic.

Now if I started talking about the 2 meter penalty or True Amateur Class that would be off topic. Oh well, I guess you got us by the short ones Chuck...

For starters, I would surmise there are more holes in the world with scoring averages (SSAs) between 2.5-2.99 for 1000 rated players than any other half-throw range. Lack of hole length on older courses is the basic reason, but advancements in disc technology continues to be the driving force pulling additional holes into this range. It also shifts many holes on older courses into the dreaded par 2 range with scoring averages under 2.5. This abundance of holes from 2.5-2.99 creates many more courses where the total SSA will be less than the total par if the SSA on each hole is rounded off to the nearest round par number, typically 3.

And that (IMO) is precisely the reason that the vast majority of players call everything a par-3 even when there are holes that are clearly ligit "true par-4s" (whatever that means).

If there are only one or two "true par-4s" on a course, and there are 12 or 13 easy, easy, easy par-3s, course-par is realistically 54 or below. The simplistic approach is just call everything a par-3 whether scoring average is 2.3 or 3.9.

Until we have more courses where "true par" is in the mid 60s or higher, the "everything is a par-3" attitude will persist.

That is my point exactly. All those courses with SSAs below 54 can't be marked with 1000 rated scoring averages and not have par 2 holes. They can be marked with white or red scoring averages and not have the dreaded par 2 holes.

If you see a course that has a par rating of Red 54, you should know that the white average will be about 5 strokes less, and blue about 5 strokes off of that.

Courses with Blue ratings above 54 may even have a few gold tees and a gold rating near 54.

It could work, just that most courses won't have a Blue rating posted.

All those courses with SSAs below 54 can't be marked with 1000 rated scoring averages and not have par 2 holes.



But they can and that's my point. A course can have 18 holes with SSAs from 2.5-2.99 with say a total SSA of 49. But every hole would legitimately be a Par 3, so the course par could legitimately be set at Par 54 for Gold level players. If there were more holes with scoring averages between 3.0-3.49 or 4.0-4.49 (avoiding 2.3-2.49 to avoid par 2s), it would be more common to have the total SSAs for courses be very close to the rounded off pars, unlike today.

While I agree with you, I disagree.

Yes, courses could be designed where the course SSA and par would be the same.
No, most of the current installed base will fit into that mold.

We need a system that will apply to both courses designed for championship play, and those that have been in the ground for more than 10 years. Even those that were put in the ground with the intention o being a rec course from the start.

Without a couple of known starting points that will avoid par 2 holes, we will not be able to get clubs/players to start applying a common standard to their courses.

All those courses with SSAs below 54 can't be marked with 1000 rated scoring averages and not have par 2 holes.



But they can and that's my point. A course can have 18 holes with SSAs from 2.5-2.99 with say a total SSA of 49. But every hole would legitimately be a Par 3, so the course par could legitimately be set at Par 54 for Gold level players. If there were more holes with scoring averages between 3.0-3.49 or 4.0-4.49 (avoiding 2.3-2.49 to avoid par 2s), it would be more common to have the total SSAs for courses be very close to the rounded off pars, unlike today.



Chuck, I've reread your post 3 times and it just doesn't make sense to me. If a course has a GOLD SSA of 47, how can you say that a 1000 rated player shooting 54 is shooting "Par"!?!

OK, I get it that we round up, and end up with mostly 3s, but some holes just DO NOT AVERAGE 2.5 or higher for 1000 rated golfers. They just don't. And if there are no holes on that course with averages above 3.5 this CK Par you are proposing (seemingly for the soul purpose of avoiding "the dreaded" par 2s) simply will not be anywhere near meaningful or, more importantly, accurate.

Whereas, if you do what Gary and I are proposing and set pars according to major PDGA Player Ratings Ranges, as well as main PDGA PDGA Tee Designations (i.e. 1000-GOLD, 950-BLUE, 900-WHITE, 850-RED) then you will maintain 100% accuracy and a posted par that has meaning for anyone understanding PDGA Ratings.

Here is a simple picture of what I, and I think Gary are talking about:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color 18 Holes</td><td>PR Scratch Standard (PRSS)</td><td>Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf</td><td>Par Based on PRSS</td><td>Strokes Below 1000 Based SSA Allowed</td><td>Standards in Review - Courses below these standards fall to the next Tee Color Designation.
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>Gold Layout is based on 1000 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 54 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Gold Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>950</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>Blue Layout is based on 950 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 49 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Blue Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>900</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>10</td><td>White Layout is based on 900 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 44 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA White Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>850</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>Red Layout is based on 850 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 39 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Red Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Green</td><td>800</td><td><34</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>Green Layout is based on 800 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds <34 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Green Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

The further above Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf a layout gets the more accurate the hole by hole pars will be, but they will still for the entire course be within 1 whole stroke of the courses SSA. A Gold Layout with an SSA of 64 will have 10 holes with pars over 3, perhaps a few with par 5. Courses right at the Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf will likely be all par 3s.

This is unless the Course Pro can bring himself to mark a hole or two with the "dreaded" par 2 designation, then a few 4s or 5s could show up; if unwilling to deal with par 2s, then they should drop down a Layout Color and it will provide the room they need to label holes with 100% accuracy:

Say a course has 2 holes that average below par 2.5, but the course still has a Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf of 54, allowed 5 extra strokes when moved to a Blue Layout designation the course can now mark those 2 holes with below 2.5 as par 3s and use the other extra strokes to more accurately mark harder holes using the 950 PR Scratch Standard (PRSS).

Course Pars would ALWAYS remain within 1 whole stroke of the courses' PR Scratch Standard (PRSS). ALWAYS.

And ALWAYS ain't half bad... ;)

You can either have the total course par (as a round number) set close to the Scoring Average for a particular skill level or you can set individual pars on the holes rounded up or down from the scoring average on each hole for that skill level.

If you do the latter, then the total par for the course might end up as much as 8 shots different from the total of the scoring averages, usually higher. That's just the way it will work. Assume we're talking about Gold level players and the hole scoring averages actually range from 2.5-2.99 on a course, which isn't too far off for many courses. Every one of those holes would be Par 3 not Par 2 since none had an average below 2.5. The total SSA is say 48.7. The total Par is 54 adding the round number pars for each hole.

Let's say you work backwards from the SSA of 48.7 and decide the Gold Par will be rounded to 49. Then, when you try to set the individual pars on the holes, you know 5 of them "have" to be Par 2s. You take the holes with the lowest five scoring averages, even though we know all holes are over 2.5, and force them to be Par 2s jsut to make the total course par match the SSA.

You can choose one way or the other but my point is both have confusion problems. And, even though I exaggerated the problem somewhat with this example, it will happen on many courses because there are many more holes with scoring averages between 2.5-2.99 and 3.5-3.99 than there are between 2.3-2.49 and 3.0-3.49. If these hole types were more balanced on either side of whole number pars on a course, like they are in BG, then the total SSA could actually be within the 1 throw of the whole number par on most courses.

We're obviously not communicating here Chuck.

Either you can not or do not want to accept the idea that no Gold Layout can have an SSA of below 54. I'm not going to guess at why and I can not get a clear idea as to why from your posts.

Under my proposal all course pars will be within 1 whole stroke of PRSS. Hole by hole pars will likely be very close to their actual PRSS as well.

A player with a PDGA PR of 1000 will shoot a 1000 Round Rating on a course with an SSA of 54 and the same Gold Par of 54. Makes sense. Scratch Golf equals Par Score.

A 1000 Rated and 950 Rated golfer shoot a 1000 and 950 Round Rating on a course with an SSA of 49 and a par of Blue Par 54. Makes sense on all levels. Scratch Golf in this case is set to 950 to remove any need of any Par 2 holes.

This works on all of the skill/tee levels and works actually better the further from these set minimums you get.

I'd ask that you re-examine the proposal and describe specific weaknesses or problems you find.

Tee Color Designations will have as "specific" a meaning around the World as PDGA Player Ratings do currently, and hole by hole and course Pars will have a connected accuracy unheard of (unavailable) previously.

2 points.

If the PRSA (player rated scoring average) is below 56, the course must drop to the next lower rating level.

Make the holes harder. (move the round up point from x.50 to x.70) i.e. 2.70 - 3.69 = par 3

Would that help in the numbers game ?

2 points.

If the PRSA (player rated scoring average) is below 56, the course must drop to the next lower rating level.

Make the holes harder. (move the round up point from x.50 to x.70) i.e. 2.70 - 3.69 = par 3

Would that help in the numbers game ?



I'm open to all sorts of ideas about this. The key is to set standards that avoid par 2s and promote accurate pars so that we can finally have a Disc Golf Par worth talking about.

Anytime a Disc Golf Par diverged significantly from Scratch Score Average or PRSA it's validity would be greatly called into question.

Now how all of this could result in better course design is a matter for course designers to figure out, I am mainly concerned with getting a stable and meaningful understanding of "Par" in organized disc golf.

Doing the math is one thing. Hole design is another. Just because the math works out so that Blue Par is 54 on a course with an SSA of 49 doesn't mean the holes are suitable for Blue level players. In theory, designers design holes for a particular skill level with landing areas at appropriate distances for water carries, doglegs, etc. It makes no sense in order for this course to have a par of at least 54 or just round numbers, it must be a Blue or White course. That's making the math work out but it's not necessarily connected to the physical reality of the intended course design.

Still, Chuck, shouldn't the SSA, particularly the PRSA(set for each skill level) be a pretty good indicator of whether a player shoots par? Isn't Scratch Score the premise of all PDGA Player Ratings? Shouldn't there be some useful and value added way to provide pars based on SSA and Design Concepts? How?

The PRSA (which is SSA for Gold) is exactly what the expected overall score should be on the course for that skill level. Unfortunately, that overall number rarely breaks down neatly to nice round numbers on a per hole basis. The only technical solution is using fractional pars for holes like 2.7 or 3.2 which most would find unacceptable. As soon as you do any rounding, it's a matter whether to round off based on overall course numbers which makes some of the hole pars incorrectly rounded. Or, round the hole pars properly and get inflated overall course pars (usually).

ok, why are we so concerned with setting Par to be what a 1000 rates player will shoot? Aren't there only like 30 or so players in the world with 1000 ratings? That would be like ball golf setting par on each hole for what Tiger, Phil, Vejay, and Els will shoot.

Instead, could we not take the average of all players in the "professional" ranks ratings and base par on this? That way the top guys will still shoot under par.

Ball golf is full of holes that are easier than their par. All you have to do is watch one of those tournaments where the winners are scoring -28 or so to realize this. SSA and par DON"T have to match up...in fact SSA should probably be a little lower than par (if you're just factoring in the pro players)

Par for each hole should be a realistic number that a competant golfer can shoot, but not necessilary on every hole. Many ball golfers consider shooting +18 to be pretty darn decent...only like 10% of the BG population shoots better than bogey golf.

For pars to get lower or courses to get harder the whole mentality of the game will have to change. Us lower rated players must start to think in terms of +10 being a good round, where we currently think -2 is a bad one.

Why can't we just put out some guidelines and then let the course designer decide what par should be for that hole? Par and SSA might not line up perfectly, but that is what will set apart the rec courses from the gold courses.

I say sacrifice hole by hole accuracy for course accuracy, because all I know is that shooting a 54 on a course with an SSA of 47 is not shooting "Par".

Holes will be rounded to as closely as possible in light of the courses SSA and Tee Color Designation. Mostly you will end up with a hole that averages 2.7 being 3 or perhaps even an occasional 2.3 being 3, but so long as a 1000 rated golfer shooting par on a course with an SSA of 54.4 shoots a 54 or 55 I am comfortable with the .6 or .4 differential over 18 holes.

Consider the alternatives: Have Disc Golf Pars where Scratch Golfers shoot a par that is 7 strokes above the layouts SSA. Doesn't make sense on any level...

Where we've set the scratch level in disc golf is equivalent to where the scratch level is set in ball golf. Ball golf calculates handicaps down to negative 3.5 for players like Tiger. For disc golf, a negative 3.5 handicap is like a 1035 rated player and our top three or four players are near that.

One thing related to our par problems is that putting is easier than ball golf. Our shots 'around the green' (ATG) factor is 1.7 shots per hole compared with 2.3 in BG. So, if we design a 2-shot hole, the scoring average would be expected to run about 3.7 and a one shot hole, 2.7. In BG, they also get more variance in their ATG number than we do for similarly skilled players regardless of the hole lengths. Thus, hole length and foliage are much more important in DG to get reasonable score variance on a hole because our ATG value has less variance. Make putting more difficult and it will help this par and balance problem.

I say sacrifice hole by hole accuracy for course accuracy, because all I know is that shooting a 54 on a course with an SSA of 47 is not shooting "Par".



I agree.

There is the whole theoretical level of discussion that is happening here, but there is also a very real pragmatic level that needs to be part of this:
1) If the PDGA comes out with very specific guidelines, who is going to pay for all the tee signage and new maps at courses?
2) How long will it take to get it implemented?
3) Do most course pros/directors even care about this issue?
4) how do you handle the complexities of multiple pin placements?

IMO, this is all related to generating player ratings stats. If course SSA's are established and published for the top 50% of courses (or maybe all that host PDGA tournaments), I think the mission will be accomplished.

All of this can be computed by the digit heads at no cost or sweat to the majority of people who really don't give a rip. I have done this for the 18-hole courses in Charlotte (example (http://www.charlottedgc.com/kilborne.htm)).

I say sacrifice hole by hole accuracy for course accuracy, because all I know is that shooting a 54 on a course with an SSA of 47 is not shooting "Par".



I agree.

There is the whole theoretical level of discussion that is happening here, but there is also a very real pragmatic level that needs to be part of this:
1) If the PDGA comes out with very specific guidelines, who is going to pay for all the tee signage and new maps at courses?
The same folks that paid for it the first time, but the only imperative to getting the new more accurate pars posted is their own desire (or lack there of) to have accurate pars posted at their course.
2) How long will it take to get it implemented?
Who knows? How long has it taken disc golf to get to this point? If we had known how much work and money was involved would we have chosen not to get started? (Hail No!)
3) Do most course pros/directors even care about this issue?
Can this be attributed to the value that accurate pars would provide to old and new players, or to the attitudes that prevail due to a lack of any meaningful par EVER in disc golf?
4) how do you handle the complexities of multiple pin placements?
Courses must designate sets of tees. Partial sets will stand as partial sets (if) until a complete set is create. Pin placements would could be for all the same tee or just for one depending on the holes par.

IMO, this is all related to generating player ratings stats. If course SSA's are established and published for the top 50% of courses (or maybe all that host PDGA tournaments), I think the mission will be accomplished.

Actually it has nothing to do with generating player ratings stats, though that would be one possible benefit; what it mainly has to do with IMO, is providing one more layer of value added service from the PDGA and our many organizers out there to disc golfers in general and our PDGA Membership specifically.

All of this can be computed by the digit heads at no cost or sweat to the majority of people who really don't give a rip. I have done this for the 18-hole courses in Charlotte (example (http://www.charlottedgc.com/kilborne.htm)).



I too can do this for any course interested and am working with the PDGA Ratings Committee to possibly create a tool that can be used here to generate Tee Color Skill Based Hole by Hole Pars for any course pro who takes the time to share some hole by hole results. This is not likely to involve very difficult calculations or programming to get set up.

What we need is some leadership to say: Just Do It!

I say sacrifice hole by hole accuracy for course accuracy, because all I know is that shooting a 54 on a course with an SSA of 47 is not shooting "Par".



That's exactly what we did for Worlds this year. We loaded the known and estimated SSA values for the courses into Nez Excel scoring template to use as the par values for the running Over/Under par calculation for each player. That way those in different pools could see how they were doing compared to other pools prior to the shuffle. It worked fine for posting results at HQ but the PDGA online system wasn't yet set to handle that so people watching couldn't see it this year. (I think Theo and Jason might have tweaked it so it can handle that now.)

We didn't worry about setting individual pars on the holes so they added up to those SSAs. However it should have been done so that late penalties would be handled properly. Even then, we suggested that just the par 4s and 5s be identified if penalties were given, not identify any par 2s. It would be assumed that any holes not identified as 4s or 5s would be 3s, even though this would mean if anyone added up the hole pars, it would not equal the SSA values being used for Over/Under.

Make putting more difficult and it will help this par and balance problem.


Yeah, make people putt with their feet!
J/K

I know I'll get a lot of flack for saying this, but if the SSA of a course is 47 and the par is 54, what is the big deal? Whoever shoots the lowest score wins.
I can see how it would help for people traveling to new courses, but one round will give them even more info. I just don't think that matching the SSA to par is that important. It still doesn't change the fact that whoever shoots the lowest score wins.

Par is not a tool for tournament golf. The lowest score wins.

Par is a tool for comparing scores across different courses and for beginners to guage their progress.

It is also useful for rolling starts where you want to compare your -3 to the leaders -4 when he is several holes behind you.

Par is not a tool for tournament golf. The lowest score wins.

Par is a tool for comparing scores across different courses and for beginners to guage their progress.

It is also useful for rolling starts where you want to compare your -3 to the leaders -4 when he is several holes behind you.



Exactly. Par values for holes is what allowed TV broadcasting to use over/under scoring for ball golf and is what allowed ball golf to become a major televised sport. If we hope to get disc golf tournaments televised then we need a hole by hole par system so that the viewers and comentators can compare the scores of people on different holes, etc.

That is of course assuming we hope to start getting as much air time on ESPN as the spelling bee does.

...Even designers are just getting comfortable with using the new tools to help them set tees and pins for specific skill levels. And only a few of them are using the tools or plan to at the moment. My thought was to put forth a proposal for par guidelines at the next Summit in February but even that might be too soon.



Chuck,
What is the process for getting a universal standard on Par? We definitely need it. Who in thte PDGA needs to approve it and how will it be implemented so that it is accepted by all?

There is no formal process for establishing par. I'm head of the Course Committee so I would want to circulate it among the Committee members for approving any proposal. That would then be brought before the Board should they wish to review it. As I posted earlier, we're already making progress with the recently posted document defining design guidelines for different player skill levels. I think it's premature to move forward with a proposal building from these guidelines until they are more widely known, used by designers and better understood by players.

There will be tradeoffs involved in whatever approach is pursued. I'd rather have designers and players become more familiar with the issue before pushing forward with a proposal. For now, we're defaulting toward using more accurate total course pars (SSA) for major events. Designers are defaulting toward setting individual hole pars and not tying it to actual scratch scoring averages for the course. And therein will lie the challenge down the road bringing these two diverging processes together.

My $.02

Par is what par is. Its not 54 "just because," and those who hold to that "everything's a par 3" are mucking up the works.

Quickest way for me to think you're full of ****? Tell me that a 500' hole is a par 3. I'll laugh in your face. Repeatedly.

This has been an issue for me since I came to this game, but I grew tired of arguing about it after my first couple of years in the game and on this message board.

Further, with nothing but the utmost respect and apologies to the Great Chuck Kennedy, while SSA's are a useful tool, they are not nor should they be an indicator of course par.

Who decides what course par is? I do. Houck does. Course designers do. If I design a 450' hole that I deem is a par 4, its a par 4. Par is and should be subjective, per the course designer. That's what gives courses their character. It makes for heated and interesting debates and unique course idiosyncracies.

Look at ball golf. Each championship caliber course has its share of holes that are cussed and discussed ad nauseum. If you play a hole on a course I designed that I say is a par 4, that's what it is, SSA be damned. How you and the majority of players play it, may be a very different thing indeed.

And, to further bait this hook ( ;) ), par 2 is a ridiculous and impossible concept. Period.

Actually, that may have been more than $.02, but its worth what you paid for it. :D

You presume I disagree with Mark, but I don't. Others want a tidy solution to this issue but I don't see one. Designers will assign what they deem to be reasonable pars to individual holes and the sum of those numbers will almost always be inflated relative to the scoring average of scratch players for the whole course. The only way to get the whole course rating to come close to the whole course par is to not assign individual pars to the holes because, in most cases, par 2s will be required.

Part of this problem is that most designers SHOULD BE designing their permanent long tees on public courses for Blue level 950 players. If public funding is being used, it's misuse of funding to design the longest permanent tees for Gold level players who are 1% of PDGA members and about 1 in 10,000 of all players. So, what's good is that very few holes would be par 2s if the par were set based on Blue level scores. However, when that course is played for big events, there's a desire to establish the par on the holes based on SSA or Gold level players. Then, several holes mathematically become par 2s based on that shifted standard.

There are larger market areas like Charlotte where having at least one public course with Gold level tees isn't unreasonable such as Renny Gold. And remember that the regular Winthrop is not really a Gold level layout. But Harold bends over backwards to make sure that all of the reachable holes for Winthrop Gold have scoring averages of 2.5 or higher, and a few are very close to that. If any slip below the magic mark, you can expect to see slightly higher fences, more hay bales, tighter rope position or shifted tee pads the next year to get that average high enough to avoid any chance of a Gold par 2.

I think it's premature to move forward with a proposal building from these guidelines until they are more widely known, used by designers and better understood by players.



By that logic Chuck, PDGA Player Ratings were premature. Sometimes you need to jump in, or progress will likely never be achieved.

A: We have a goal: Create a PDGA Definition of Par.
B: We have a proposal: Developed by discussion and building of consensus.
C: We get approval: Present the proposal to the PDGA Board of Directors (they approve or offer thoughts to be considered).
D: Implementation: We start the process (one by one course if we have to) of providing courses with Pars based on our proposal or have a spreadsheet by which they can calculate their own.
E: Reanalysis: Annually review the definition and implementation to improve it.

Not moving on this only increases the ongoing ignorance about possible benefits for organized disc golf in FINALLY providing and answer to this question.


The only way to get the whole course rating to come close to the whole course par is to not assign individual pars to the holes because, in most cases, par 2s will be required.



Actually Chuck, it is possible and I have provided a method by which Par 2 never be posted on a disc golf course tee sign. Please review and provide comment as to why it specifically will not work in your opinion.

Here it is:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color</td><td>18 Holes PR Scratch Standard (PRSS)</td><td>Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf</td><td> Par Based on PRSS</td><td>Strokes Below 1000 Based SSA Allowed</td><td>Standards in Review - Courses below these standards fall to the next Tee Color Designation.
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>Gold Layout is based on 1000 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 54 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Gold Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>950</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>Blue Layout is based on 950 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 49 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Blue Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>900</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>10</td><td>White Layout is based on 900 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 44 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA White Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>850</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>Red Layout is based on 850 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 39 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Red Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td> Green</td><td>800</td><td><34</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>Green Layout is based on 800 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds <34 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Green Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

As you can see, on an 18 hole course, even if every hole was a SSA Par 2 based on 1000 rated players, by designating the tees "Green", you could make every one of them par 3 and even have 2 par 4s.

Most importantly, is that when a player sees that a certain layout is "Green" or "Gold", they know, no matter where the course is around the World, exactly what par means and what kind of a course to expect. Both very mush VALUE-ADDED services the PDGA CAN and SHOULD provide.

How do you account for different pin positions and still keep par meaningful in this model?

If you reread my post #234156, I answered your proposal already. it also doesn't address existing course properly and doesn't deal with Dave's remark above. Just by moving pins, a course could be forced to go from Blue to White par standard from the same set of tees.

Members of the Disc Golf Course Designer (DGCD) group already have guidelines for setting par on new courses. Most of these documents have been posted on this PDGA site for others to use. If they are still learning how to work with it, why would you expect an edict from the PDGA to make things move any faster?

That's wonderful (CK's reply) if you are coming from a design point of view.

What can we do for the courses that are already in the ground ?

And so, we come once again, to where most discussions end here on the mess bored, NOWHERE. Sometimes I really do think we are a pitiful bunch...

Perhaps we just, as a group, have an innate disposition towards deeper consideration of what �we can�t do� than what �we can do�.

Options for Obstacles:
A. Go around them.
B. Go through them.
C. Destroy them.
D. Sit and wait for them to go away.

How do you deal with them?

A counter proposal to Nick's:

I propose that we use hole-by-hole SSA using decimal numbers (to the nearest 1/10) instead of integer numbers. Additionally we can post par which would be the SSA rounded to the nearest whole number and we accept the fact that the totals don't have to match. We can even call SSA 2.1's par-3s if we want.*

<table border="1"><tr><td>Hole:</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>total
</td></tr><tr><td>SSA:</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.6</td><td>25.9
</td></tr><tr><td>Par:</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>27
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

This accomplishes several things:
1. It allows the vast majority of today's courses to still be Par 54
2. It provides a real number to provide comparison between courses and holes on the same course.
2a. It nearly** builds in hole-by-hole handicapping as reported on a typical BG scorecard for those that wish to use it.
3. It allows for pin position movement.
3a. It's really the only way to truly figure out course par for multiple configurations on courses that have that ability, as there are an impossibly large number of combinations even on a course with only 3 positions per hole.

The drawback: It will take a lot of data collection to get true per-hole (per position) SSA. However this data collection is relatively straightforward as long as the players are smart enough to fill out scorecards correctly.

* SSAs below 2.5 can be rounded up to par-3 to appease the anti-par-2 crowd. I have no problem with this, as listing the SSA on the tee sign and/or score card will verify what we already know: that hole is poorly-designed, and too easy for the targeted skill set, and taking a 3, while not technically a bogey is losing a stroke to the field.

**I said "nearly", because it only works if all holes are the same par. If one hole is a par-4, it's not clear if a 3.7 par-4 is harder or easier than a 2.7 par-3.

Chuck, didn't Minnesota worlds do exactly what I proposed above? Didn't the tee signs list decimal SSA as well as integer par?

Were there any drawbacks or repurcusions that I didn't outline in my proposal (other than the dreaded par-2 holes)?

ok, there is one more thing that we need to think of and be aware of in this discussion. That thing is what do we want par to be for a championship 18 hole disc golf course? Ball golf courses strive to be par 72. This usually includes 4 par 3's 4 par 5's and 10 par 4's. I've seen championship level courses as los as par 70 but no lower. Lower than that is typically considered an "Executive" course.

To set up a system to assign individual hole pars we also need a goal for courses to strive for as far as what the level of par should be. 54 seems way to low to me...I would like to see us shoot for the 65+ range myself.

If we set up a system where par is based on each hole then the gold, blue, white system won't matter. Someone can see a course par of 54 and know that it is an easy course. They can see a course par of 68 and know that it is a championship level course. They can know that a par of 59-62 would be like an "executive" course.

You make it sound like nothing has happened or is happening. Just because it's not happening at the speed you want doesn't mean we're not moving forward:

1) Guidelines posted on PDGA.com at- http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf These are "PDGA approved" as much as anything can be. It's up to local designers and TDs to use these for new designs and update existing designs.

2) The 65 members of DGCD course designers group have more extensive tools to help set par on new courses and adjust them on their older courses.

3) These processes are being used to set pars on the high profile NDGC and Highbridge courses that will provide real world examples.

4) PDGA provides SSA values for many courses via tournament results. It's up to local people to use this information to either specify a total course par and/or individual hole pars.

5) As far as knowing whether the par on a course has been set following PDGA guidelines, I'm not sure we have an absolute way to tell. However, if I specify a course has a Blue Par of 55 or Gold Par of 56, it would sound like it's been done under the new format. Unfortunately, not all courses have tee sets marked with the PDGA tee color guidelines.

6) The disc golf media: PDGA Radio, DGWN and Disc Golf mag have not been beating down the door to cover this issue but we would be glad to discuss.

My $.02


Quickest way for me to think you're full of ****? Tell me that a 500' hole is a par 3. I'll laugh in your face. Repeatedly.





OK Mark, I used to think this way also, but now I've started to look at it a little differently. 500' straight away and wide open I am starting to think should be a par 3. a 350' drive puts you to 150' . Even people like me who suck think we should be able to get home in 2 shots from 150'. Now, throw a dogleg in there, or make it a tunnel, or toss in some water and now things might change. a wide open 500' disc golf hole to me is about the same as a 250yd par 3 in ball golf which are pretty common. It's an extremely difficult hole, but does it make it more than a par 3? I think it comes down to the course designers discression, but the designer needs to think about what the 975+ rated players will do on it, not us 850 rated guys.

Do I like par 2? Heck no, I think it's ludacris. Do I feel like a horrible player if I don't get a 2 on #2 at Burnet? You bet your booty I do! Does that make it a par 2? No way.

It's just like I feel like a boob if I don't make a 4 on #6 at the Burnet ball golf course (which is a 490yd par 5 you you guys that don't know the course) Many times the listed par will not statistically match with the scoring average. Heck, look at PGA tournaments and you will see this happen regularly. The difference is there are many more holes in BG where par is a very good score, compared to disc golf where many times we consider par a disappointment.

Chuck, didn't Minnesota worlds do exactly what I proposed above? Didn't the tee signs list decimal SSA as well as integer par?



Yes. The scorecards had both SSA values and pars per hole including par 2s (and also lengths in feet and meters).

I'm perfectly fine with SSAs also being listed in addition to whole number pars on scorecards and/or tee signs. The total SSA for the course is truly the only way to compare scoring from one par 54 course with another. A course with properly rounded hole pars that add up to 54 could theoretically have an SSA ranging from 45> to <63.

If you reread my post #234156, I answered your proposal already. it also doesn't address existing course properly and doesn't deal with Dave's remark above. Just by moving pins, a course could be forced to go from Blue to White par standard from the same set of tees.



Here (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_self_config.xls) is an example of how I attempted to implement a solution to this issue at Renny (excel spreadsheet). This was done before baskets were put into (almost) all pin positions. The pin positions correspond to the online maps.

One can set the course up oneself however one likes on this spreadsheet and it automatically calculates par and length (and generates scorecards based on that).

I could easily (albeit only after a lot of number crunching) replace or supplement par numbers with SSA numbers. FWIW, Renny Gold Course Par=70, SSA~69 and Original Course Par=57 and SSA~59.

If the spreadsheet was selectable to produce numbers (per hole) by par or by SSA, it would be the perfect tool for TD's and digit heads. I think that if all tournament courses had this kind of resource, the problem would be solved.

The best part is that all of this costs no real $$ spent on signage, etc. and no confusion would exist in the general public who don't give a rip about this stuff. It would be available in the form of scorecards at tournaments and would be available online to those who care.

$0.02

3 cheers for Chuck Kennedy!! He puts in countless hours of behind the scenes time to make issues like this come to fruition! His views are consistently backed up well researched facts and sound data. I also appreciate all of the time that he spends providing insight on this Discussion Board.

Besides he's also the keeper of some really cool charts, and I love a cool chart!

For those who still doubt that not every hole is a par 3 and not every course is par 54 check out the score card for AM Nationals at the Tobaggan course in MI.

(Click here to see the Toboggan Score card for AM Nationals (http://www.amnationals.com/Course/ScoreCard.htm)

EVERY HOLE IS NOT PAR 3!! CASE CLOSED!!! (Sorry for shouting :cool:)

And please don't come back again with, "All that matters is what your total was." That's such a small piece of the disc golf experience that it's not worth mentioning anymore.

I checked the AM Nationals site and all scores are reported in relation to Par as 54 and they sure seemed high.

Kudos to the PDGA Sneeky Pete ( in Burlington NC) site for reporting scores in relation to the true par, not the "dreaded 54".

Click here to go to the PDGA Sneeky Pete results page. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4030#Open)

Lowe...

On Cedarock, we played 20 holes(par 60). On Wellspring, we played 18 holes(par 54), so they did play everything as par 3.

Well the score card there shows every hole as par 3. So when you going to renew your PDGA membership?

Lowe...

On Cedarock, we played 20 holes(par 60). On Wellspring, we played 18 holes(par 54), so they did play everything as par 3.



Oh well...I guess we're still in the Dark Ages after all. My one ray of light was snuffed.

Lowe...

On Cedarock, we played 20 holes(par 60). On Wellspring, we played 18 holes(par 54), so they did play everything as par 3.



So who can explain to me why the following holes are par 3:
Cedarock hole 3 - 560 ft.
Cedarock hole 19 - 600 ft.
Cedarock hole 20 - 633 ft.
Wellspring hole 17 - from the long tees - it's a "far piece" down there.
How many 3s did even the top pros have on these holes?

(Yeah, yeah I know it was a tournament and all that matters is who had the lowest score.)

For those who still doubt that not every hole is a par 3 and not every course is par 54 check out the score card for AM Nationals at the Tobaggan course in MI.

(Click here to see the Toboggan Score card for AM Nationals (http://www.amnationals.com/Course/ScoreCard.htm)

EVERY HOLE IS NOT PAR 3!! CASE CLOSED!!! (Sorry for shouting :cool:)

And please don't come back again with, "All that matters is what your total was." That's such a small piece of the disc golf experience that it's not worth mentioning anymore.

I checked the AM Nationals site and all scores are reported in relation to Par as 54 and they sure seemed high.



Par was left as 54 because I had offered a bounty for the first under par round based on 54 on the previous years. It has been collected. Now we can move on. Case re-opened. :D And technically that was LAST year's card.

I don't think I'll ever understand the obsession with this topic.

In a stroke based sport where you have no handicap par is essentially a convience that makes it easier to add up the score after you are done.

Sure for players new to a course having a par on the tee sign gives them an idea of the difficulty of a hole but other than that it really serves no real purpose. A 50 still beats a 54 weither it's a par 54 or a par 60.

To borrow from ball golf yet again, they have course ratings, very scientificially done (having gone out and computed slope with my grandad who was a ranger all through his retirement), so par takes on slightly more significance but it's still overplayed. Two golfers talking over beers about their latest weekend conquests still have to know what the par of the course is in order to compare their scores anyway.

"I shot a 4 under at Apricot Hills"
"oh, I've never played that course... par 72?"
"nah, it's a 71"

The convention in ball golf is par 72, but it varies from course to course, the convention is par 54 (the math is easier), again it varies. Renny Gold in Charlotte... I'll buy a beer for anyone that has shot a 54 on that course, but does having those holes be par 3 or par 5 change anything? Nope, just makes the math easier.

Now if we have course ratings and handicaping then par becomes more important, but there has to be a criteria for determining par. and distance alone doesn't cut it.

To use Lowe's cedarrock example (having just finished playing it)
I 3'ed each of the holes he refers to at least once this weekend and I am by no means a professional. Does 500 feet mean it should be a par 4? Throwing down a mountainside (tobaggan anyone?) where you loft an aviar off the tee and watch it glide for 10 minutes and fly 200' past the hole? Nope, par 3. What about 230' up a 40degree incline? Par 3? That one is debatable.

I guess my point is, if you need par to make you feel better about what you got on a hole, then by all means consider something a par 4 or 5 or 6. If you need it for valid handicaping and rating a course, great lets come up with a measurable way to determine it. Personally if I make a 5 on a 1000 foot hole, it doesn't feel like a double, and that 70' I canned for a 4 is sure going to feel like a birdie. It's also probably going to pick up a stroke on the field for me. Maybe I can't put my scorecard up on the fridge at home and marvel at my under par round, but that trophy doesn't say anything about par on it.

--Stick

Stick,

Good to see you on this Bored.


...If you need it for valid handicaping and rating a course, great lets come up with a measurable way to determine it.



I hate to say it, but you countered your own argument and gave some reasons why it's important to have consistent par. Handicaps are one of them. (It would be cool to see the adjusted results of the Great 8 if everyone had a handicap. ) Discgolf United is working on a handicap system. I'd also like to see a family handicap based league in the Triangle.


...Personally if I make a 5 on a 1000 foot hole, it doesn't feel like a double, and that 70' I canned for a 4 is sure going to feel like a birdie...



Point 2. Exactly! You instinctively know that par 3 is insane for some holes. You know its a par 5, so why not call it a par 5?

In the rest of this thread enough reasons for the necessity of par have been given that I take it as an indisputable fact. Let me restate one that you also mentioned. Par is essential for comparing the difficulty of courses. This comes into play when you play a new course. It affects your mental outlook. If Renny Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. There can be tougher par 54 courses.

The only time that par is somewhat irrelevant is during tournaments when only total score determines the winner. There is still value to knowing par even in tourneys as has been stated.

Chuck, this makes me think, has anyone compiled a list of all the benefits of par and why we need universal standards? It would be helpful to point people to such a list instead of continually rehashing it.

Lowe, over the last few years I've developed a permanent soft spot on my skull, from bashing it into this brick wall repeatedly. However, carry on the fight, you're doing a great job. :)

again I say the biggest reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15. Over/under scoring is for the gallery and potential TV audience.

Again, this doesn't matter if we don't want to be recognized by ESPN for being a sport and continue in the image Maxim painted of us being pot smoking hippies.

Post deleted by ShadeMonger

Here's a historical document you can download from this site on the development of the par concept in ball golf, including half pars.

http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/ParHistory.pdf

If you haven't checked them out yet, there are several documents available for download under the Information link which provides background on how the ratings are calculated and how they are similar and different from ball golf.

From reading the document above, it's apparent the first decision that must be made before par can be determined whether BG or DG is what skill level does a scratch player have? Par is built from that fundamental definition. Once that is known, it then follows that the scores of these layers can be used to set par. All other player skill levels can then be referenced either to scratch players or to par, or more precisely, the scratch score rating of each hole.

We have a definition of a scratch player as a 1000 rated player and all other player, hole and course ratings are derived from that. In my view, the key problem that is causing foot dragging on getting a formal definition of par is the tradeoffs that have to be made. Putting is easier than BG which prevents the simplified BG definition here "par is the number of shots to the green plus two."

But here is the intractable tradeoff stopping us cold: Our current definition of a scratch player means that even most of our championship courses must have par 2s. I know this is unacceptable psychologically with many people so we sweep it under the carpet and call them 3s. Ball golf would have had and probably did have holes in the first few centuries that were so short that they would have been par 2s if par had been invented prior to 1900. But course design had already been far enough along when par was invented that very few existing courses if any had holes short enough for par 2s.

Unfortunately, we have an installed base of disc golf courses that can't easily be lengthened all of a sudden to eliminate holes in the par 2 range. Aha you say! How about we change our definition of a scratch player to somewhere around 950? That would almost eliminate holes with lengths in the par 2 range. It could actually work. But here is the other tradeoff. Players like Barry would regularly be hooting scores from 6 to 13 under the legitimate par under this structure with winning scores for NTs being at least -30 and lower. For Worlds, the winner would be around -70.

Now, I think many of us could tolerate this better than par 2s. However, I'm not sure either tradeoff looks good for the long term. If our best players can shoot that much below par, it makes the game look too easy, as much as par 2s might make it look like miniature golf.

Another alternative is changing the target so putting is more difficult and more on a par (pun intended) with ball golf. It would be expensive unless something could be done to retrofit current baskets. But less land would be required to develop courses with more ball golf type pars over 65. So, the lower land cost for more challenging courses could be worth it overall.

Another alternative is changing the target so putting is more difficult and more on a par (pun intended) with ball golf. It would be expensive unless something could be done to retrofit current baskets. But less land would be required to develop courses with more ball golf type pars over 65. So, the lower land cost for more challenging courses could be worth it overall.



Eliminate the chains. That's a cheap solution.

Eliminate the chains. That's a cheap solution.



Even removing the outer set might be enough. However, I wonder if it would just widen the skill gap between higher and lower rated players and not significantly increase the scores of scratch players.

I could see making putting a bit more difficult in DG... I am skeptical about retrofitting baskets, but we're on a long road, so perhaps as we evolve, the "sweet spot" or even the basket/chain area could be reevaluated. But I don't think that's neccesary.
I think what has caused this entire discussion is the poor state of what we have historically had to deal with in getting courses in the ground. As we evolve, and perhaps even one day gain mainstream coverage and sponsorship, it seems that course design could bring both the "to par" scoring and the rating system into a flow with what golf should be. So, Barry shot 243 at last years USDGC...let's see...par 68 course...times 4 rounds...equals 272....minus 243...that's 29 under par. Add in a little tweak here, a big tree there, a pond or two here, a few seriously steep greens, and we would tweak that right down to where we'd need to be to: a) stop any major sponsor from thinking we play an easy game and, b) still allow a few 900+ rated players a chance at shooting that magical round of a couple under par! I see what we are discussing here as "dumbing down" to what we have to deal with now, not looking for the real solution, which is to accept what we have, but turn our energies to putting courses in that make this discussion irrelevant. It's a long row to hoe, but it's better than chasing our tails like this thread is making us. Harold Duvall is the first one making the right step, and while I've never played Houck's courses, I'll bet they're on the right track as well.
two more cents from me.... :cool:

I know some presume that if we only could have courses more like ball golf, which usually means with a par at least 65 or higher, that it would not only solve the par problem but improve the game. Raise your hands if you think a Par 68 course like Winthrop is like ball golf. Nope, it's not that easy because it depends on what you want to compare. Equivalent number of shots per round is the primary way they are similar. However, the shot balance is quite different.

If you agree that ball golf has a good balance between tee/fairway (T/F) shots and "shots around the green" (ATG) then their ratio is about 30 T/F shots to 42 ATG shots in a par 72 round. If we had a disc golf course like Winthrop designed for Par 72, our balance would be reversed with 42 T/F shots and 30 ATG shots. This is directly due to putting being easier as I mentioned in an earlier post.

If we designed a course with shot ratio similar to BG, it would be par 51 with 21 T/F shots and 30 ATG shots. Note the ATG number is a constant for our sport based on our putting difficulty (or lack of). So, the only way to get the shot ratio to match BG is to shorten the course. In this example, the course with par 51 would be very similar to what we have in many places with a length about 6100 feet and average amount of foliage.

So, strangely enough, our current shot balance is about the same as BG. If you lengthen our courses to raise par, all you're doing is more heavily weighting driving and moving the shot ratio farther away from ball golf. Again, we come back to making putting more difficult as the only way to increase the total par on the course and still maintain shot ratios similar to ball golf. Another option is to increase the hole count to 24. In our example course, adding 6 holes brings up the ATG to 40 and the T/F count to 28. That would be a Par 68 for 24 holes to maintain ratios like ball golf.

That shift in shot ratios wouldn't bother me one little bit. I'd still watch it on TV. It might even be better to see a few more fairway (up) shots than putts. Like you said, it depends on what you want want to compare. The USDGC compares well with the look/feel of any PGA event on TV (and I watch alot...should I admit that?). So I'm stickin' by my guns...add a few nice trees, a little "D", a couple ponds, and some "fast"er greens, and I think we'd be getting somewhere.
I don't imagine Winthrop University will up and let us start digging and planting and moving stuff, but I'll bet there's tons o' land out there just waiting to be used by a great course designer. And we wouldn't have to retrofit pins all over the World either.

Another alternative is changing the target so putting is more difficult and more on a par (pun intended) with ball golf. It would be expensive unless something could be done to retrofit current baskets. But less land would be required to develop courses with more ball golf type pars over 65. So, the lower land cost for more challenging courses could be worth it overall.



Eliminate the chains. That's a cheap solution.



Or we could convince ball golf to change and use an 18" wide cup so that they can be more like us.

I'm very serious about this point - just maybe not in the way that it appears though.

From reading the document above, it's apparent the first decision that must be made before par can be determined whether BG or DG is what skill level does a scratch player have? Par is built from that fundamental definition. Once that is known, it then follows that the scores of these layers can be used to set par. All other player skill levels can then be referenced either to scratch players or to par, or more precisely, the scratch score rating of each hole.



100% in agreement. In PDGA Player Ratings (PRs) �scratch play� is a round played at 1000 PDGA PR, hence Scratch Score Average (SSA) is the average scores of scratch players (players with 1000 PDGA PR).

Why are we having such trouble nailing down par even without changing the nature of disc golf putting:

Challenge 1: The allure of a ball golfesque �shots to the green, plus 2 strokes� is strong, perhaps too strong. The problem with that logic is that in Ball Golf (BG) balls do not change direction by more than (in some shots) 150 degrees and they certainly do not �S�, nor do they curl on the ground 360 degrees in one shot like in Disc Golf (DG) discs. Additionally the terrain and obstacles are far more diverse in DG than in BG; so such simplistic formula, though possibly convenient, are not likely to provide statistically logical, valid or consistently meaningful numbers.

Besides PDGA PRs, as Chuck has detailed, provide far more accurate, verifiable and consistent numbers than any simplistic Shots Plus Strokes (SPS) formula could ever hope to attain, particularly in a sport with a projectile with as unique and diverse a trajectory and flight pattern as a flying or rolling disc.

Can we as a group overcome the tendency towards �easier but significantly� less accurate formulas of determining Course Par (CP)?

Challenge 2: SSA is not a whole number, nor is the SSAs for each hole (naturally). Rounding Hole by Hole SSAs (HHS) to whole numbers to provide Hole by Hole Pars (HHP) almost without exception creates a CP that is significantly different from the SSA. Having the CP significantly different from the SSA (naturally) is illogical and inaccurate to the Prime Standard (PS) of 1000 PDGA PR golf. So how do we get the HHS into HHP and still have a CP that is at least within 1 stroke of the SSA?

Challenge 3: Peoples aversion to the concept of �Par 2� (P2). In order to get the HHP to create a statistically valid total CP that is logically related to the HHS and SSA on courses where a few holes average lower than a 2.5 HHS (which keeps everything naturally and logically in line with our PS) P2s are simply unavoidable. P2s are not a conceptual creation; they are the reality not only of the HHS but also of the HHP, SSA and CP. Without this any course with an SSA of below 54 is STATISTICALLY UNIFORM, which is neither logical or natural. Nor is it particularly useful in determining the relational CP of one course to another since all courses with SSAs below 54 are the same, which everyone �knows� is not true logically or statistically.
Do we need to undermine any uniform logical standard for HHP and CP because many existing courses have holes with HHSs less than 2.5 and SSAs less than 54?

So how do we eliminate P2s, yet retain the accuracy of SSA and a logical cross course reference number properly called �Par�?

Challenge 4: Does a hole that manages to create a HHS of 3.4, with excellent Risk/Reward ratio and has every other design element at a high level deserve to have the same official par as one that has an HHS of 2.1?

Challenge 5: Do all courses with holes of HHS less than 2.5 need to be redesigned?

Challenge 6: Do all courses used for PDGA Majors, NTs and Super Tours need to have a minimum SSA standard to avoid P2s?

Challenge 7: Do we need (or want) to change the nature of �putting� or �play on the greens� in DG to make it more statistically and strategically in line with BG? This is an �EXCELLENT� question, but removing BG from the equation and looking strictly at the phenomenon �specific� to DG as it currently exists, it need not present a challenge to our creation of a logically, statistically and logistically uniform HHP and CP for DG.

My proposal for DG HHP and CP is based on PDGA PR Prime Standard. SSA does not change yet P2s are completely and statistically eliminate from the dialog of DG par. PDGA PR Scratch Golfers can be expected to destroy all but the toughest courses (courses that qualify as Gold), yet instead of P2s entering the conversation on Blue through Red layouts, the conversation will be about extremely easy Par 3s with SSAs of 2.1 and so on. But most importantly CP will be absolutely and statistically accurate even between courses and even between holes on different courses. (A hole with a Red Par 5 will still have an SSA of 3.2 based on 1000 PDGA PR golf.)

Here it is:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Tee Color</td><td>18 Holes PR Scratch Standard (PRSS)</td><td>Min SSA Based on 1000 Golf</td><td> Par Based on PRSS</td><td>Strokes Below 1000 Based SSA Allowed</td><td>Standards in Review - Courses below these standards fall to the next Tee Color Designation.
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>1000</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>0</td><td>Gold Layout is based on 1000 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 54 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Gold Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>950</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>Blue Layout is based on 950 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 49 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Blue Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>900</td><td>44</td><td>54</td><td>10</td><td>White Layout is based on 900 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 44 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA White Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>850</td><td>39</td><td>54</td><td>15</td><td>Red Layout is based on 850 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds 39 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Red Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td> Green</td><td>800</td><td><34</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>Green Layout is based on 800 rated golf and will have an SSA that meets or exceeds <34 for 18 holes. Holes with SSAs of below 2.5 are allowed so long as the layouts total PDGA Green Par is within one whole stroke of the PDGA SSA. Holes must be marked with a minimum par of 3.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

This, or some derivative of this, is our best hope of creating a Universally Accepted Par for DG. It is in line with our PDGA Course Design Tee Color, Player Ratings and Competitive Structure Standards.

I've already discussed problems with this proposal in my posts 234156 and 235107 in this thread. Close to half of our current course long tee sets would likely have to be reclassified with White or Red par under this plan. That doesn't mean the hole lengths/designs on those courses are suitable for that level of player if they were originally designed for Gold or Blue level players. Just changing some pin positions on a course would mean some layouts would have Blue Par and others would have White Par from the same set of tees. Nick's proposal makes the math work but takes designing holes specifically for different player skill levels out of the equation. In essence, no designing based on player skill would be needed except for the longest courses (6500'+). Just go out and mark some tees and some pins, we'll calculate the SSA and voila! that determines the par and what skill level these holes are theoretically designed for. Seems backwards doesn't it?

Which system would address the majority of courses that are in the ground today without having to re-design them.

We are talking about different things. It is OK for a red course to have white and blue hole designs. They would be par 4 or 5 holes, but would not prevent the course from being rated.

I also do not believe that courses can be designed for players based on ratings ranges. There is a dramatic range of driving distances around this range. In this range are those players that can not drive very far, but have a great short and putting game, and those that can drive very far, but have an inconsistent short and putting game. Personally I like a course where everything open is 380'-400+ , and 325-350 tight. Where water crossings require a decision between a 250' lay-up or a 325' (or more if open) shot to clear the water.

When I read your design recommendations, I found that I would never see those holes if I played courses designed for my ability.

Chuck,

If you do not consider design intention for a certain skill level or appropriateness of challenge, then the par designations based solely on SSA (heaven forbid we base par on "Scratch Golf") then my proposal functions nearly perfectly.

If you would like to apply "design for specific skill level standards" to the proposal then please do so and stop saying that it won't work but I can't tell you specifically why.

It absolutely can work, and if you want design issues to be included in the process then provide a little detail for us; but regardless of design considerations, using SSAs and the major skill level breaks to designate different parameters for sets of Tee Pad Color Designations, to avoid Par 2s and provide a Uniform Par System is clearly the best option available and is fully functional without any further gymnastics.

I also do not believe that courses can be designed for players based on ratings ranges.



What you like versus what types of holes actually test your skill level don't have to be the same (see Better Courses thread on why TX players underperform :)). No one is making you play a specific set of tees except at events so play the ones you like.

Houck, myself and others on the Course Design group didn't just make up those standards. It was based on actual research and experience. Here are the results from my driving distance measurements at 2002 Pro & Am Worlds: http://www.circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm In addition, a group of GM Pros averaging the same rating as Open Pros were compared on a hole by hole basis at 2001 Pro Worlds, as were groups of Masters vs Open Pros. No statistical differences were found.

We can all find examples of players who fall out of the driving averages for a ratings range. In the Am ranks, several are just passing through to a higher rating range so that's to be expected. As you point out, some may putt particularly poorly for their rating but make up for it by longer driving. However, that doesn't mean the bulk of players in a ratings range don't have similar driving skills.

The purpose of standards is to provide certain expectations for what you will likely see on a course or set of tees designed on that basis. It also allows players to know what they might have to do to play courses designed on that basis. If they can't throw 275 into a headwind, they might not be able to cross the water and play from a Gold tee designed that way. If they can only consistently throw 300, they aren't going to fare well on courses with several holes in the 650-700 and 320-360 ranges against Gold players who can be expected to throw 350+ off the tee.

Do we have any ratings based information ?

Just curious.

So you are saying that ALL holes on a Gold Course must be designed and qualify as Gold Holes and so on down the line before we can develop and implement a Standardized Disc Golf Par?

Chuck, you will be waiting a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, long time then.

Some holes will be Gold, some Blue, some even White or Red, but what matters is that the "Par" for each hole have meaningful and logical relation to DG Scratch Play, and that the Layout meet at least minimum standards of Par for each level. My plan accomplishes this.

So you are saying that ALL holes on a Gold Course must be designed and qualify as Gold Holes and so on down the line before we can develop and implement a Standardized Disc Golf Par?



That's what design should be isn't it? You design holes from a particular set of tees for a specific skill level of player? Yes, there's some overlap since distance ranges overlap. A particular hole, especially shorter ones might be suitable for Red, White, Blue and Gold Players. But once you get over 300', a particular hole might only be appropriate for Gold level, Or maybe White and Gold. Or maybe Blue and Gold. Or maybe Blue and White.

Your plan is all math and is disconnected from designing for player skills. That's not to say future courses couldn't try to make sure the holes are long enough for a particular skill level to meet a minimum of par 54 for that level. However, probably half of existing courses are cut out of that option. I have a new course planned on rugged terrain that will run about 5500'. The longs are designed for Blue but I think even Blue Par will be below 54 (SSA 47-48). That's the amount of property available. Are we going to say we can't design courses for Blue or Gold level unless the length is above a certain amount strictly because of math?

Well we need a par that will work with existing courses and the perfect ones of the future. Mine will. And furthermore there is nothing restricting future updates that include more stringent design considerations.

The key is to have one that is based on DGs Scratch Golf, this is.

Do we have any ratings based information ?




The driving distances are close to ratings based because the lengths were measured later in the competition when players had sorted into skill order. That's why we specify different design guidelines in the chart for some divisions based on whether it's for a Major or just Daily play because the rating ranges in those cases are different.

If you agree that ball golf has a good balance between tee/fairway (T/F) shots and "shots around the green" (ATG)...
If we designed a course with shot ratio similar to BG...



But Chuck I think this is based on a faulty premise. DG doesn't have to correspond to BG in every single aspect. Comparable number of shots is sufficient. Even averaging just 54 shots for DG is fine. Very, very, very few people care about the shot balance. That really doesn't matter. There's no problem with being different in this way.

the key problem that is causing foot dragging on getting a formal definition of par is the tradeoffs that have to be made. Putting is easier than BG which prevents the simplified BG definition here "par is the number of shots to the green plus two."



1) Why can't we just accept that DG is different? So what if putting takes us less shots? Why can't a par 3 be defined as 1 drive + 1 approach (or mid-range shot) + 1 putt (any shot within 10m)?


But here is the intractable tradeoff stopping us cold: Our current definition of a scratch player means that even most of our championship courses must have par 2s. I know this is unacceptable psychologically with many people so we sweep it under the carpet and call them 3s.



2) I fail to see the big deal here? Yeah, I've heard the arguments, but they seem so weak. We've got courses here in the triangle of NC with some par 2 holes and I live with it. (Avalon Peaks hole 7 for example; 140 ft. unobstructed shot). I don't think it seems like mini golf. In fact, every time it is played it is a visual reminder to future designers to avoid that mistake. So what if we have par 2s? But I doubt we'll ever get consensus on this.

If you agree that ball golf has a good balance between tee/fairway (T/F) shots and "shots around the green" (ATG) then their ratio is about 30 T/F shots to 42 ATG shots in a par 72 round. ...
If we designed a course with shot ratio similar to BG, it would be par 51 with 21 T/F shots and 30 ATG shots.



But Chuck I think this is based on a faulty premise. DG doesn't have to correspond to BG in every single aspect. Comparable number of shots is sufficient. Even averaging just 54 shots for DG is fine. Very, very, very few people care about the shot balance. That really doesn't matter. There's no problem with being different in this way.



I agree with you Lowe. Though intriguing, having putting as statistically difficult in DG as it is in BG should not be a priority for DG Course Designers anymore than having "S" shot holes should be a priority for BG Course Designers.

Certain aspects of each sport are rightly different.

On the other hand there are lessons that we can learn from BG that will make DG better and it would be stupid not to at least look at them and consider them carefully. This is true particularly concerning multiple shot holes. Again this highlights a major divide between BG and DG in that BG can design multiple shot holes almost purely on the basis of �distance� while DG can have a 400 foot hole that absolutely requires 3 shots just to get to the green and take your first putt!

The main difference is in the dynamics of how a ball �hurls� through the air or �rolls� along the ground verses how a disc �flies� through the air or �cuts� along the ground. The dynamics are VERY different.

But I do not believe that this should STOP us from providing a valid and useful definition of par for DG just because we have not worked out all of the design concepts. After all they are conceptual while par is something that can be statistically, and yes mathematically determined for a �Scratch Disc Golfer� (1000 PDGA Player Rating); it�s called SSA and it is relationally relevant for all other skill levels (950 PDGA Player Rating Players, 900, 850, 800 and even 750 and below players) and also across all courses.

There simply, IMO, is no compelling reason not to develop an accurate and universal definition of Par for Disc Golf based on this, and this alone.

This is the current published PDGA Guideline for Par. http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

Course designers have the underlying details to set it for each hole. Is this not sufficient? Who will enforce it? I don't expect it to be written up like rule or become a rule.

"Courses will typically have pars marked on tee signs ranging from 3 to 5. For sanctioned events, it�s necessary to indicate pars on the scorecard for all holes to provide for the proper penalty if a player is late. For tournament play, holes from the Gold or Blue tees up to 550 feet will be mostly par 3 based on their difficulty. Some holes under 300 feet can have tournament pars marked as 2 on the scorecard if the TD/course pro desires based on the course or hole's scoring average for Gold level players. Holes with effective lengths over 500 feet are candidates for par 4s and holes over 800 feet are candidates for par 5s. Some challenging holes in heavy woods could have a par higher than 3 or 4 even if they aren�t as long as the reference lengths stated above. Not every length is good for all divisions. There are certain lengths that are better than others depending on the skill level intended to play the hole. For example, holes where most players in a division/skill level would likely shoot the same score probably should be lengthened, shortened or toughened to provide a better challenge to spread their scores."

One other thought on rating courses as Red, White, or Blue.

Just because a hole on a white course is poorly designed for the white level player does not prevent the course from being labeled as white. Not every course will have good scoring spreads on all of the holes. Go ahead and have a poor par 4 hole on a white course (where almost every player cards a 4), but let the course be rated where the majority of the holes put it.

One other thought on rating courses as Red, White, or Blue.

Just because a hole on a white course is poorly designed for the white level player does not prevent the course from being labeled as white. Not every course will have good scoring spreads on all of the holes. Go ahead and have a poor par 4 hole on a white course (where almost every player cards a 4), but let the course be rated where the majority of the holes put it.



I agree.

This is the current published PDGA Guideline for Par. http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

Course designers have the underlying details to set it for each hole. Is this not sufficient? Who will enforce it? I don't expect it to be written up like rule or become a rule.

"Courses will typically have pars marked on tee signs ranging from 3 to 5. For sanctioned events, it�s necessary to indicate pars on the scorecard for all holes to provide for the proper penalty if a player is late. For tournament play, holes from the Gold or Blue tees up to 550 feet will be mostly par 3 based on their difficulty. Some holes under 300 feet can have tournament pars marked as 2 on the scorecard if the TD/course pro desires based on the course or hole's scoring average for Gold level players. Holes with effective lengths over 500 feet are candidates for par 4s and holes over 800 feet are candidates for par 5s. Some challenging holes in heavy woods could have a par higher than 3 or 4 even if they aren�t as long as the reference lengths stated above. Not every length is good for all divisions. There are certain lengths that are better than others depending on the skill level intended to play the hole. For example, holes where most players in a division/skill level would likely shoot the same score probably should be lengthened, shortened or toughened to provide a better challenge to spread their scores."



Ah, yes, now I see.

No, Chuck, it obviously is not enough or this discussion would not be occurring. Most of the standards in this document could be adapted to fit within my proposal, however they would not increase the accuracy or worth of it in providing a uniform and useful par around the world.

So long as we have no standard (which we do: SSA) then par is a meaningless and ambiguous (and ignored) element in disc golf.

Look, we don�t need to educate every Tom, Dick and Harry about the finer nuances of course design before we can institute and educate folks about a par that has REAL meaning and usefulness.

If you have a player rating, whether PDGA or locally generated, so long as we have courses with pars based on being within 1 stroke of SSA and hole pars based on Hole by Hole SSAs (HHS) that total within 1 stroke of the courses� SSA, then the course and hole by hole pars will have specific and useful meaning for you. Whether they fit some design philosophy or not matters nothing to players. Designers may want to understand the finer points about �appropriate challenge for different skill levels� and �creating a better ratio of fairway to putt strokes� or �how to create a hole with better score deviations�, but this has nothing to do with providing a Par with understandable meaning and use to players around the world.

And there simply is no compelling reason to sit on our thumbs waiting for players and course designers to educate themselves about the minutia of course design before we provide such a standard of par.

Nick and Gary,

Would you please clarify something for me in regards to Nick's chart with Player Rating Scratch Standard (PRSS)? How does it actually get implemented in reality?

Let's take an example for a course with SSA of 39 which makes it a Red course. (It might help to think of a real life easy course. Maybe Calvert in short tees to short pins. What would you guess that SSA for.)It has a PRSS Par of 54. Does that mean that the score card with hole by hole pars totals to 54?

If so, how is that any different from the current system? I think I'm missing something.

For this Red 39 PRSS course a 1000 PR player would on average shoot 39, or -15. Does he come to this course and just think, "OK, real par is 39 and that's how I'll compare my score to a standard." ?

Also doesn't this introduce unmanageable complexity? Wouldn't you have to know the SSA for every course? THe REd course range is 39-43. Wouldn't you need to know that a course is actually an SSA 40 or 41, etc? Actually courses have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts , so how do you even get a standared SSA? Also, what about other player ratings than the standards you gave. For Red the range is 850-899. To use this system don't you need to know the exact SSA and your own player rating? e.g.- an 870 PR playing an SSA 40 course should expect to shoot what for par? It seems like lots of calculations.

I really ask because I rate courses I play, and I'm starting to think in terms of courses (or tee layouts) as Gold, Blue, White, Red. I recently played Burke Lake in Burke VA and I'm currently working up my course evaluation. I played the regular, short tees. On the internet score card they list this as red tees. I shot a 48. I have no player rating because I don't play tournaments. I just can't figure out how to apply your chart to my round on this course. I like the idea of calling it a red course, but that's based on thinking that a 1000 PR player could easily shoot a 39-43. Knowing it's red affects my expectations but I can't see a way to translate to practical numbers.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. (Chuck's too.)

And so, we come once again, to where most discussions end here on the mess bored, NOWHERE. Sometimes I really do think we are a pitiful bunch...



Nick, here's a painful reality - most of us really are a pitiful bunch. We don't actually accomplish much. I don't really influence anything; I just think about it and write my ideas here. You actually do much more than I do, or prob. lots of people on here.

Lets face it, unless these ideas influence people with real power, influence, and authority to make something happen nothing will happen. Chuck is probably the person here with the most influence. (So Nick you better be nice to him!) Unless course influential course designers like Houck and Harold Duvall or the PDGA BOD read this thread we really aren't doing much. The only possible influence I can see that we have is on courses we have input on, or in influencing Chuck's decisions. (For me personally, both of those are very minimal.)

I disagree.

I know I am not alone. There are many of us out here going through the course design process and need as much information and direction from the people who have experience and knowledge about course layout and who also have enough experience and knowledge to have some foresight into the future of disc golf courses. I for one think that new course design may be the single most important issue to the future of disc golf's success, because if the courses that we play don't change (hopefully for the better) than is there really any progress being made. Isn't the disc golf course the backbone of the sport.

Just as a point of reference, there are no official SSAs under 41.4. Once a course gets easier than that, the scores from players with widely ranging skills get so compressed that each throw can be worth 30 rating points.

I think designers are becoming more savvy with regard to designing new courses such that Par 2s are avoided for the player skill level holes are designed for. However, there are problems in real world application of Nick's proposal. I don't see course pros changing pars on existing tee signs unless the course is getting upgraded. But more importantly, if a set of tees was designed for expert players and are marked Blue, I don't see the course pro changing either the tee colors or listing the pars on a White or even Red standard, just to make the math work out. This is especially a problem when there is already another set of shorter tees marked either White or Red. It might not be such a problem if only a few existing courses had SSAs below 54. However, I believe the average SSA for events in 2003 was around 50, so massive readjustment is required for our exisiting courses.

Another issue is the loss of meaningful par information on individual holes to make the course par work out to a minimum of 54. From what I understand in Nick's proposal, a layout with multiple pins, where the SSA ranges from 46 to 52, would be called a White Par layout when the pins were set shorter with SSAs under 49, and be called a Blue Par layout when the pins combination exceeds SSA 49. What color are the tees (light blue)? The designer intended the course for Blue level players based on hole lengths, distances to doglegs and carries over water. I'll show an actual example from a new design for Blue level players a little later.

And so, we come once again, to where most discussions end here on the mess bored, NOWHERE. Sometimes I really do think we are a pitiful bunch...



Nick, here's a painful reality - most of us really are a pitiful bunch. We don't actually accomplish much. I don't really influence anything; I just think about it and write my ideas here. You actually do much more than I do, or prob. lots of people on here.

Lets face it, unless these ideas influence people with real power, influence, and authority to make something happen nothing will happen. Chuck is probably the person here with the most influence. (So Nick you better be nice to him!) Unless course influential course designers like Houck and Harold Duvall or the PDGA BOD read this thread we really aren't doing much. The only possible influence I can see that we have is on courses we have input on, or in influencing Chuck's decisions. (For me personally, both of those are very minimal.)



Just a thought, my experience is that the BOD and course designers do read these threads. No they don't often comment (when would they have the time?). The reality is that this is our main, if not only, connection to them. I would not be surprised to find that many of these topics and issues get discussed in their meetings. Remember a couple of things. First, what is on their plate is huge. Their ability to address and deal with every problem is limited (I know that at least for Nick I'm preaching to the quire). Just because there is no action taken on a specific issue doesn't mean they haven't thought about it. They may have given it a lower priority or they may simply have decided they disagree and are not going to act on it. In the last two years since I started posting I have seen huge changes in the PDGA and what they do. I'm betting that over the time that you and Nick have been posting there have been even more changes. The idea that nothing happens comes from not getting every issue addressed immediately. I think this is a reflection of America in general. We are the immediacy culture. We want it now. Every other culture seems to understand that things take time.

In summary, I disagree with the conclusion that we are nowhere. A significant discussion with many ideas has occurred in this thread. All of that information is now available to the BOD and the PDGA staff. Don't just write off what you've done here. Remember also the times that you've made suggestions that have resulted in real immediate change. Keep your issues fresh and if you think that it is important enough, run for the BOD on a platform surrounding that issue. As for myself, I read the ideas that come out of guys like Nick and Chuck and am flat out amazed. If nothing else, you guys are educating the body of the PDGA and that should be worth something.

Here are stats from a new course where holes are designed for Blue level (950 avg) players. The estimated SSA and Blue Scoring Average (BSA) are shown along with the Blue Par designers would assign and the Blue Pars Nick would propose we use. Note that in the top table on holes 8, 10 and 12, Nick�s plan would force the pars to be shifted downward so the total Blue Par matched the BSA of 55, even though the scoring average on those holes was closer to 4 than 3. Likewise, the pars on holes 6 and 16 would be forced down by Nick's approach on the long pin setup.

Then, an additional problem occurs when you mix the pins. If you follow the convention where in Nick�s plan, you lower the par on the holes with scoring averages at least closest to the forced lower par number, then when the pins are mixed as in the bottom table, all of a sudden hole 8 should get adjusted back from par 3 to par 4, and hole 14 adjusted down to par 3. So, a hole might be par 3 or 4 depending on which pin combinations are in play.

Notice how using the Blue player standard for par on this layout eliminates Par 2 holes. None of the estimated scoring averages for Blue players falls below 2.5 even though several holes have SSAs for Gold players below 2.5. Of course, this set of tees is not designed for Gold players. But that�s the advantage of using par standards for the players a tee set is designed for versus establishing all pars based on SSA for Gold players.

If you�re wondering how the SSA and BSA estimates were determined, it�s from a hole forecaster template I developed for the 70 members of our Disc Golf Course Designers (DGCD) group. It takes elevation, foliage and hazards into account to help designers create holes that are challenging for a specific player skill level.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Blue Tees - Short Pins</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Hole</td><td>Length</td><td>SSA</td><td>BSA</td><td>Blue Par</td><td>Nick Par
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>219 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>310 </td><td>2.6 </td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>279 </td><td>2.9 </td><td>3.1</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>245 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>344 </td><td>2.9 </td><td>3.3</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>274 </td><td>2.5 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>240 </td><td>2.7 </td><td>3.0</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>475 </td><td>3.6 </td><td>4.0</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>216 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>484 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>236 </td><td>2.6 </td><td>2.9</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>431 </td><td>3.2 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>247 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>248 </td><td>2.5 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>180 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>520 </td><td>3.7 </td><td>4.1</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>241 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>380 </td><td>3.1 </td><td>3.4</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>5569 </td><td>49.7 </td><td>55.0</td><td>58</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Tees - Long Pins</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>219 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>431 </td><td>3.0 </td><td>3.4</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>324 </td><td>3.0 </td><td>3.2</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>415 </td><td>3.0 </td><td>3.4</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>416 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>410 </td><td>3.2 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>240 </td><td>2.7 </td><td>3.0</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>659 </td><td>4.4 </td><td>4.8</td><td>5</td><td>5
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>256 </td><td>2.5 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>484 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>236 </td><td>2.6 </td><td>2.9</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>536 </td><td>3.7 </td><td>4.1</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>433 </td><td>3.1 </td><td>3.5</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>443 </td><td>3.4 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>265 </td><td>2.7 </td><td>3.0</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>685 </td><td>4.2 </td><td>4.6</td><td>5</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>471 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>450 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7373 </td><td>57.1 </td><td>63.2</td><td>65</td><td>63
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Tees - Mixed Pins</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>219 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>310 </td><td>2.6 </td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>279 </td><td>2.9 </td><td>3.1</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>245 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>416 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>410 </td><td>3.2 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>240 </td><td>2.7 </td><td>3.0</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>475 </td><td>3.6 </td><td>4.0</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>216 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>484 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>236 </td><td>2.6 </td><td>2.9</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>431 </td><td>3.2 </td><td>3.6</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>247 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>443 </td><td>3.4 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>180 </td><td>2.3 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>685 </td><td>4.2 </td><td>4.6</td><td>5</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>241 </td><td>2.4 </td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>450 </td><td>3.3 </td><td>3.7</td><td>4</td><td>4
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6207 </td><td>52.4 </td><td>58.0</td><td>63</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>